Roman Birmingham 4: Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005: The western fort interior, defences and post-Roman activity 9781407309309, 9781407322285

Table of contents :
0-1.pdf
Pages from 9781407309309.t
Pages from 9781407309309.t-2
Pages from 9781407309309.t-3
Pages from 9781407309309.t-4
Pages from 9781407309309.t-5
Pages from 9781407309309.t-6
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Figures
Tables
Plates
Chapter 1: Summary and Introduction
Chapter 2: Results
Chapter 3: Finds
Chapter 4: Charred Remains and Pollen
Chapter 5: Metalworking Evidence
Chapter 6: Discussion and Synthesis
Chapter 7: Acknowledgements and References

Citation preview

BAR 552 2012

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 12

Roman Birmingham 4 Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 The western fort interior, defences and post-Roman activity

JONES

Alex Jones

ROMAN BIRMINGHAM 4

B A R

BAR British Series 552 2012

Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 12

Roman Birmingham 4 Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 The western fort interior, defences and post-Roman activity

Alex Jones with contributions from Erica Macey-Bracken, Hilary Cool, James Greig, Rob Ixer, Rosalind McKenna, Anthony Swiss, Jane Timby, Roger White, Felicity Wild and David Williams Illustrations by Nigel Dodds and Jemma Elliott

BAR British Series 552 2012

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 552 Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 12 Roman Birmingham 4: Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 © Birmingham Archaeology and the Publisher 2012 The authors' 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 9781407309309 paperback ISBN 9781407322285 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309309 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 2012. 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 CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION Summary..................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 2 The sequence of Roman military activity at Metchley...............................................................2 December 2004–May 2005 fieldwork........................................................................................ 3 Aims...........................................................................................................................................9 Methodology...............................................................................................................................9 Arrangement of report.............................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 2: RESULTS Phasing (Figs 1.3–1.4)........................................................................................................................... 11 Arrangement of results...........................................................................................................................11 Phase 1, first fort (Fig.2 .1).....................................................................................................................11 Summary of first military activity and first fort (Phase 1A–1E)features (Fig. 2.2)................. 11 Description and interpretation of Phase 1A features (Figs 2.3–2.4)........................................ 11 Description of Phase 1B defences (Frontispiece, Figs2.3–2.5)................................................17 Interpretation of Phase 1B defences (Figs 2.3–2.5).................................................................18 Description of Phase 1D buildings (Figs 2.2 and 2.6–2.7)......................................................19 Description of Phase 1E buildings (Figs 2.2 and 2.6–2.7).......................................................19 Dating evidence from Phase 1E...............................................................................................23 Interpretation of Phase1D and Phase 1E buildings (Figs 2.2 and 2.6–2.8)..............................25 Description of Phase 1D/Phase 1E intervallum (Figs 2.3 and 2.9–2.10).................................27 .Praetentura (Figs 2.3 and 2.9–2.10) .............................................................................27 .Central Range (Figs 2.3 and 2.10) ...............................................................................27 Dating evidence from Phase 1D/1E intervallum......................................................................31 Interpretation of Phase 1D/1E intervallum features................................................................. 31 Description of Phase 1D/1E–Phase 2B southern intervallum................................................................31 Phase 2B (Fig. 2.1)................................................................................................................................31 Summary of Phase 2B features (Fig. 2.11)...............................................................................31 Description of Phase 2B entrance arrangements (Figs 2.12–2.14)..........................................31 Interpretation of Phase 2B entrance arrangements (Figs 2.12–2.14)... ...................................34 Description of Phase 2B internal features (Figs 2.11 and 2.15–2.18)......................................36 .Western intervallum (Figs 2.11 and 2.15–2.16) ............................................................36 .Phase 2B buildings (Figs 2.11 and 2.17–2.18) .............................................................40 Dating evidence from Phase 2B internal features ...................................................................42 Interpretation of Phase 2B internal features (Figs 2.11 and 2.15–2.18)...................................42 .Western intervallum (Figs 2.15–2.16) ..........................................................................43 .Phase 2B buildings (Figs 2.17–2.18) ............................................................................43 Description, dating evidence and interpretation of Phase 2B backfilling of Phase 1B defences (Figs 2.3 and 2.4.S.3)................................................................................44 Phase 3 (Fig. 2.1)...................................................................................................................................44 Summary of Phase 3A features (Fig. 2.19)..............................................................................44 Description, dating evidence and interpretation of Phase 3A defences (Figs 2.19–2.23)........46 Description of Phase 3A internal features (Figs 2.19, 2.22 and 2.24)......................................51 Dating evidence from Phase 3A internal features....................................................................53 Interpretation of Phase 3A internal features (Figs 2.19, 2.22 and 2.24)...................................53 Phase 3B–4B (Fig. 2.1)...........................................................................................................................55 Summary of Phase 3B–4B features (Fig. 2.25)........................................................................55 Description of Phase 3B–4B entrance arrangements and rampart (Figs 2.19 and 2.25–2.27).........................................................................................................55 Interpretation of Phase 3B–4B entrance arrangements (Figs 2.19 and 2.25–2.27)..................58 Description of Phase 3B–4B external features (Figs 2.25 and 2.28–2.29)..............................58 .Industrial activity ..........................................................................................................58 .Livestock enclosures .....................................................................................................60 .Timber-framed building ................................................................................................61

i

. Later activity .................................................................................................................62 Interpretation of Phase 3B–4B external features (Figs 2.25 and 2.28–2.29)...........................62 Phase 4A (Fig. 2.1)................................................................................................................................63 Summary of Phase 4A features (Fig. 2.19)..............................................................................63 Description, dating evidence and interpretation of Phase 4A defences (Figs 2.19–2.21)........63 Phase 4C (Fig. 2.1)................................................................................................................................64 Summary of Phase 4C features (Fig. 2.30)..............................................................................64 Description and interpretation of Phase 4C features within former fort entrance (Figs 2.30–2.31).......................................................................................................................64 Description and interpretation of Phase 4C external features (Fig. 2.28 and 2.31).................68 Phase 5 (Fig. 2.32).................................................................................................................................68 Description and interpretation of Phase 5 features..... ..............................................................68 CHAPTER 3: FINDS Small finds............................................................................................................................................ 70 Copper alloy objects Roger White............................................................................................70 . Catalogue (only No. 2 is illustrated) .............................................................................70 Iron objects Erica Macey-Bracken..... ......................................................................................70 .Catalogue ......................................................................................................................71 Glass objects Erica Macey-Bracken, with comments by Hilary Cool......................................71 .Catalogue ......................................................................................................................71 Stone objects Rob Ixer..............................................................................................................71 .Catalogue ......................................................................................................................71 .Petrography ...................................................................................................................71 .Results .........................................................................................................................71 Romano-British pottery Jane Timby with contributions by Felicity Wild and David Williams..............71 Introduction and methodology.... .............................................................................................71 Description of fabrics and associated forms............................................................................75 Samian ware Felicity Wild ............................................................................................75 .Other imported fine and coarse wares ..........................................................................78 .Regional imports ...........................................................................................................79 Local or unsourced wares...............................................................................................79 Discussion by phase .............................................................................................................81 Phase 1.............................................................................................................................81 Phase 2B..........................................................................................................................83 Phase 3A..........................................................................................................................84 Phase 3B–4B......................................................................................................84 Phase 4A/4C....................................................................................................................85 Phase 5.............................................................................................................................86 Summary... ..............................................................................................................................86 Catalogue of illustrated sherds... .............................................................................................88 CHAPTER 4: CHARRED PLANT REMAINS AND POLLEN Charred plant remains James Greig .....................................................................................................89 Summary . ...............................................................................................................................89 Objectives................................................................................................................................89 Samples...................................................................................................................................89 Laboratory work......................................................................................................................89 Results.. . ..................................................................................................................................89 Further sampling of Phase 4A/Phase 4C deposits for charred plant remains and charcoal Rosalind McKenna.................................................................................................................................89 Introduction..............................................................................................................................89 Methodology.............................................................................................................................91 Results. . .. ..................................................................................................................................92 .Plant remains (Tables 4.2–4.3) .....................................................................................92 .Charcoal ........................................................................................................................92 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................93 Pollen James Greig.................................................................................................................................93 ii

Summary...................................................................................................................................93 Samples.....................................................................................................................................93 Laboratory work.......................................................................................................................93 Results... ..................................................................................................................................94 Correlation with other excavations at Metchley.......................................................................94 Scientific dating Alex Jones...................................................................................................................95 CHAPTER 5: METAL WORKING EVIDENCE Metal working debris Anthony Swiss.....................................................................................................96 Introduction.............................................................................................................................96 Metalworking assemblage........................................................................................................96 Magnetic residues.....................................................................................................................97 Discussion................................................................................................................................97 Conclusion...... ...........................................................................................................................98 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS Introduction ................................................................................................................ 100 Chronology and sequence (Fig. 1.4).....................................................................................................100 Pre-Romanactivity?..................................................................................................................100 Construction camp (Phase 1A)...............................................................................................100 Phase 1 fort (Phase 1B, Phase 1D, Phase 1E,Phase 1D/1E)..................................................100 Military stores depot (Phase 2B)............................................................................................101 Phase 3A fort.... ......................................................................................................................101 Phase 3B–4B (Fig. 2.25)........................................................................................................102 Phase 4A .................................................................................................................................102 Phase 4C... .............................................................................................................................102 Phase 5...................................................................................................................................102 Layout..................................................................................................................................................103 Surveying.... ...........................................................................................................................103 The central range at Metchley (Fig. 6.1)... ............................................................................103 Phase 1 ........................................................................................................................103 .Phase 2B .....................................................................................................................103 .Phase 3A .....................................................................................................................105 .Phase 3B–4B ...............................................................................................................105 .Phase 4A .....................................................................................................................105 .Phase 4C and Phase 5 .................................................................................................105 Comparative evidence (Fig. 6.1)... ........................................................................................105 Units of measurement..... ........................................................................................................106 .Fort planning ...............................................................................................................106 .Individual buildings ....................................................................................................106 .Comparative layouts and measurements ....................................................................107 Economy .............................................................................................................................................107 Pottery..... ................................................................................................................................107 .Pottery by phase ..........................................................................................................107 .Overall composition ....................................................................................................108 Metalworking.... .....................................................................................................................108 Military supply of livestock.... ...............................................................................................109 Environment .......................................................................................................................................109 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................110 CHAPTER 7: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND REFERENCES Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................111 References............................................................................................................................................112

iii

FIGURES Reconstruction of Phase 1B porta principalis dextra (granary inside fort is conjectural). Inset: ‘Alex the dog’, solid bronze animal with a long body and a snout from Metchley (Webster 2001, fig. 23.2) Frontispiece Reconstruction of Phase 1B porta principalis dextra Cover

CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Metchley and the Roman road network in the West Midlands (scale as shown) Location of Metchley Roman fort (scale 1:4,000), scheduled areas are shaded Metchley Roman fort, simplified outline of phasing (scale 1:2,500) Simplified sequence of site phasing (scale 1:4,000) Detailed plan of central range and praetentura, showing Area M18, and adjoining areas investigated (scale 1:1,000) Area M18, simplified model of archaeological survival (scale 1:400)

CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8a 2.8b

2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24

Phase 1–Phase 4C features, simplified plan (scale 1:400) Phase 1A–1E features, simplified plan (scale 1:400) Phase 1B western defences and Phase 1D/1E intervallum, plan (scale 1:200) Phase 1A and Phase 1B western defences, sections (S.1–S.10, scale 1:40) Phase 1B porta principalis dextra, Structure 18.2, simplified reconstruction and ground plan (scale for plan as shown). For clarity, later disturbances are not shown on plan Phase 1D/1E central range, Structures 18.12–18.15, plan (scale 1:125) Phase 1D/1E central range, Structures 18.12–18.15, sections (S.11–S.21, scale 1:20) Phase 1E, Structure 18.15, simplified plan, showing via principalis and via quintana (scale as shown) Simplified plans of excavated praetoriae at Elginhaugh (after Hanson 2007), The Lunt (after Hobley 1973), Loughor (after Marvell and Owen-John 1997), Pen Llystyn (after Hogg 1968) and Llanfor: geophysics only (after Burnham and Davies 2010) (scale as shown) Phase 1D/1E, western intervallum, detailed plan (scale 1:50) Phase 1D/1E, western intervallum, sections (S.22–S.34, scales 1:100, and 1:40) Phase 2B, simplified plan (scale 1:400) Phase 2B, plan of Structure 18.4 (scale 1:100) and sections (S.35–S.43, scale 1:40) Phase 2B, Structure 18.4, schematic plan; showing Phase 1E Structure 18.2 in grey tone (scale 1:125) Phase 2B, simplified plan showing external ‘funnel’ (Area M9) and Phase 2B Structure 18.4 in western entrance arrangement in M18 (scale 1:500), and reconstruction, view east Phase 2B intervallum pit C166 group, plan (scale 1:100) and sections (S.44–S.46, scale 1:40) Phase 2B southern intervallum pit group plan (scale 1:100) and sections (S. 47, scale 1:40; S.48, scale 1:20) Phase 2B buildings, Structures 18.9–18.11, Phase 1 Structure 18.15 in dark grey tone (scale 1:150) Phase 2B buildings, sections (S.49–S.59, scale 1:40) Phase 3A outline plan also showing Phase 4A ditch re-cut P111 and C172 (scale 1:250) Phase 3A defences, sections (S.60–S.65, scale 1:40) Phase 3A defences, sections (S.66–S.67, scale 1:40; S.68–S.69, scale 1:20) Phase 3A Structure 18.16, plan (scale 1:100) and sections (S.70–S.75, scale 1:20); Structure 18.8 sections (S.76–S.81, scale 1:20) Phase 3A porta decumana (after Webster 1954, scale 1:125) Phase 3A, Structure 18.8, plan (scale 1:100) and simplified plans of excavated granaries from The Lunt (after Hobley 1975), Richborough (after Cunliffe 1968), Usk (after Manning 1981), Llanfor (after Burnham and Davies 2010), Elginhaugh

iv

(after Hanson 2007), Pen Llystyn (after Hogg 1968) and Castleshaw (after Redhead et al 1989) (scale as shown) 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.32

Phase 3B–4B, plan of external features (scale 1:200) Phase 3B–4B, Structures 18.5–18.6, and western defences, plan (scale (1:125) Phase 3B–4B, Structures 18.5–18.6, and western defences, sections (S.82–S.93, scale 1:40) Phase 3B–4B, external activity, plan (scale 1:125) Phase 3B–4B, external activity, sections (S.94–S.106, scale 1:40) Phase 4C entrance blocking, plan (scale 1:100) Phase 4C entrance blocking, sections (S.107–S.119, scales 1:20 and 1:40) Phase 5 entrance, possible livestock ‘funnel’, plan (scale 1:125)

CHAPTER 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Key (scale 1:1) Romano-British pottery (Nos 1–18, scale 1:4) Romano-British pottery (Nos 19–26, scale 1:4) Romano-British pottery, pie-chart showing breakdown of forms by estimated vessel equivalence (EVE) Romano-British pottery, five pie-charts to show main ware groups by phase (expressed as % count)

CHAPTER 6 6.1

Simplified central range layouts for Phase 1 and Phase 2B (Areas M3–M4, M18 and M20) (scale 1:125) TABLES

CHAPTER 1 1.1

Metchley Roman fort, summary of phasing for Area M18

CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Details of Phase 1B porta principalis dextra gatehouse, Structure 18.2 Phase 1D/1E features, metalworking debris Phase 2B features, metalworking debris Phase 3B–4B defences and internal features, dating evidence Phase 3B–4B external features, dating evidence Phase 4C features, dating evidence Phase 4C features, metalworking debris

CHAPTER 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Romano-British pottery, quantified summary Samian, forms, where recognisable (by phase) Romano-British pottery, quantified summary of material from praetentura, Phases 1 to 3B–4B Romano-British pottery, quantified summary of selected phase groups from the central range Romano-British pottery, quantified summary of material from Phases 4A–5 Romano-British pottery, forms by phase (expressed as EVE)

3.7

Romano-British pottery, main ware groups by phase (by count and weight)

CHAPTER 4 4.1

Charred plant remains, samples assessed v

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Charred plant remains, additional samples from Phase 4A/4C Charred plant remains, additional samples, components Charred plant remains, additional samples, complete list of charcoal taxa Pollen and spores in taxonomic order (Kent 1992) Scientific dating

CHAPTER 5 5.1 5.2 5.3

Metalworking debris, larger fragments (by phase) Metalworking debris, hearth bottoms (phase order) Metallic residues, material classed as magnetic residue (phase order) PLATES

CHAPTER 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Vincent House, view south (taken in 2004) Vincent House, view east, showing change in level between blocks (taken 2004) 2004–2005 excavation, hand-excavation in progress, view southeast 2004–2005 excavation, beam-slots revealed after hand-cleaning 2004–2005 excavation, sampling beam-slots by hand-excavation

CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23

Phase 1B ditch P116 excavated segments, view north Phase 1B ditch P116 detail, view north Phase 1E Structure 18.15, western wall C108 to left, internal wall C118 to left of centre, view north Phase 1E Structure 18.15, southeastern excavated angle of building in foreground, view north Phase 1E Structure 18.15, beam-slot C122/2439, view east Phase 1D/1E, well 1101, detail Phase 1D/1E, oven 1033 under excavation Phase 1D/1E, oven 1033, partly excavated, view northeast Phase 1D/1E, intervallum ovens 2003 (foreground), 2068 (background), view south Phase 1D/1E, intervallum oven 2068 excavated in quadrants, detail, view east Phase 2B large pit 2208/C166 before excavation, view southeast Phase 2B large pit 2208/C166, southeastern quadrant under excavation, showing exposed cobbles, view east Phase 2B large pit 2208/C166, southwestern quadrant under excavation, showing pits 2272 and 2219, view east Phase 2B large pit 2208/C166, southwestern quadrant fully excavated, view northeast Phase 2B, pit 2131/ 2143/ 2144, view northeast Phase 3A/Phase 4A, rampart, southern perimeter section, view southeast Phase 3A, ditch C171/Phase 4A ditch re-cut C172 (see Fig. 2.21.S.66), view north Phase 3A, ditch C171/Phase 4A ditch re-cut C172 (see Fig. 2.21.S.68), view north Phase 3A, Structure 18.8, four parallel granary beam-slots, view west Phase 3A, Structure 18.8, beam-slot C123/2521, view east Phase 3A, Structure 18.8, beam-slot C120/ 2489, view east Phase 3B–4B Enclosure 2 palisade trench P139 and Structure 18.3 beam-slot P136 (to left), view southeast Phase 3B–4B cobble surfaces 1048–1049, and 1747 under excavation, view southeast

CHAPTER 5 5.1 5.2 5.3

Above view of plano-convex hearth-bottom Side view of plano-convex hearth-bottom Detail of spheroidal hammerscale

vi

CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

identified three sub-phases in the use of the military stores depot interior – in turn comprising timber-framed buildings, small-scale industrial activity, and the layout of irregular enclosures associated with livestock herding. All were recorded in the 2004–2005 excavation. In the first sub-phase, a number of irregularly built timber-framed buildings were laid out respecting the position of the Phase 1E praetorium, which probably remained in use. The remains of the second sub-phase comprised ovens and a large pit dug in the former western intervallum. The large pit was backfilled with quantities of domestic rubbish, including a number of highly decorated samian sherds which were associated with high-status dining, probably originating from the praetorium. The third and final sub-phase of the military stores depot interior was associated with the military requisition of livestock. A ‘funnel-shaped’arrangement (Structure 18.4) was laid out in front of the Phase 1B gatehouse to facilitate the herding of livestock into the fort interior. Finally, the fort defences were partly slighted before the first Roman military abandonment of the complex.

An area excavation was undertaken in December 2004– May 2005 within the western part of the interior and defences of Metchley Roman fort, Birmingham (centred on NGR SP 045836; Area M18) in advance of proposals for a new hospital development. This was the largest single excavation of the fort interior undertaken at Metchley, comprising an area of approximately 0.4ha, equivalent to approximately 9% of the total internal area of the Phase 1 and Phase 3 fort. The fieldwork was undertaken on instruction from University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. A total of six 2m square test-pits was excavated during the evaluation phase. These revealed cut features of Roman date, in addition to recent disturbances. Previous archaeological investigation within Area M18 comprised slit-trenching during the 1930s. More recently, other areas within the central range and praetentura have been excavated, along with lengths of the western defences, and external areas.

The first military re-occupation of the Metchley site was represented by a rectangular fort, enclosing 2.6ha (Phase 3A, later Neronian–early Flavian), laid out within the interior of the first fort. Excavation also tested part of the western defences of the Phase 3A fort, including the porta principalis dextra (Structure 18.16). Only a single building, a granary (Structure 18.8) was located within the limited part of the Phase 3A fort interior excavated in 2004–2005.

The area excavated in 2004–2005 had been terraced in the inter-war years, preparatory to the construction of a series of linked single-storey blocks. This terracing resulted in variable archaeological survival across the area investigated, with better survival in the south of the area excavated which had been levelled-up for the building foundations, but limited survival in the north of the area, where preparatory groundworks had involved downcutting of the subsoil surface.

The Phase 3A entrance arrangement was replaced by two buildings (Phase 3B–4B, Structures 18.5–18.6). The latter formed part of a layout of palisade trenches recorded outside the fort defences, holding livestock. Other features recorded outside the western defences comprised hearths, ovens, and a timber-framed building, together providing the latest evidence for external activity at Metchley.

The earliest features identified in the Area M18 excavation comprised an L-shaped building, postholes and a pit, possibly associated with a Roman military construction camp (Phase 1A). The excavation sampled a length of the western defences of the first fort (Phase 1B), Claudian– Neronian in date, including the porta principalis dextra, further defined by a gatehouse (Structure 18.2) which, unusually, incorporated only a single tower (Frontispiece). The western intervallum contained evidence of industrial activity. Within the central range were the remains of a sequence of timber-framed buildings laid out in two slightly different alignments (Phases 1D and 1E). The most substantial of the Phase 1E buildings, Structure 18.15, may be interpreted as the praetorium, a building arranged around a central courtyard.

The Phase 3A ditch was re-cut (Phase 4A), probably during the late 1st/2nd century. Later, after the second Roman military abandonment of the site, a series of irregularly-shaped ditches and post-holes were cut within the abandoned porta principalis dextra of the Phase 3–4 fort (Phase 4C). These formed a ‘funnel’ to facilitate the herding of livestock into the fort interior. A later Roman civilian, or post-Roman context for this funnel may be suggested in the absence of dating evidence. During the later post-medieval period the upstanding fort earthworks were used as an animal pen.

Following the disuse of the first fort, the fort interior was converted for use as a military stores depot (Phase 2B, mid–late Neronian). Earlier excavations at Metchley

1

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 INTRODUCTION

including barrack-blocks, a granary, a store building and a workshop. The fort was contemporary with a western settlement first identified in 2001 (Jones 2011). A narrow western annexe or enclosure, defined by a palisade trench (Phase 1C) may have contained a zone of pottery production (Jones 2011, 18–20).

The sequence of Roman military activity at Metchley The Roman fort complex at Metchley (Figs 1.1–1.2) was first identified from cartographic sources and antiquarian descriptions, and more recently by extensive excavation. The fort defences, still surviving as aboveground earthworks in the 18th century were mapped and described in detail at that time (Jones 2001, 10–12). The Roman date of the earthworks was only confirmed in the 1930s when limited slit-trenches were cut in advance of a medical school development (St Joseph and Shotton 1937), including trenches dug within the area excavated in 2004–2005. The updated fort phasing is summarised in Table 1.1.

Excavations in the 1960s, and latterly in 1998–1999 and 2004 identified Neronian (Phase 2A, Figs 1.3–1.4) annexes added to the northern, eastern and southern sides of the Phase 1B fort (Jones 2005a). Later deliberate clearance of the Phase 1 fort internal buildings was followed as a single operation by the layout of a military stores depot (Phase 2B, mid–late Neronian, Jones 2001, 43–54). In turn this comprised the layout of irregular timber-framed buildings, succeeded by industrial activity, followed by livestock pens. Subsequently, after a period of abandonment, the site was re-occupied, and a smaller fort of later Neronian– early Flavian date (Phase 3A, Figs 1.3–1.4) was laid out within the interior of the first fort. This later fort may have functioned as a supply depot, in particular for grain. An associated area of external activity to the west of the fort defences contained a number of animal pens and other features (Phase 3A–4B).

The earliest Roman military occupation may have taken the form of a construction camp (Phase 1A). The earliest, Claudian–Neronian, fort (Phase 1B, Figs 1.3–1.4) was defended by double ditches and a rampart. Large-scale investigations directed by Trevor Rowley within the Phase 1B fort interior during 1967–1969 (Jones 2001; Fig. 1.3, Areas M2–M4) identified timber-framed buildings,

Lichfield

Kinvaston M6

(Toll)

W Wall

Wa tli

ng

Telford Wolverhampton

Stree

Walsall

t

Mancetter

Hinckley

Bridgnorth Nuneaton

Greensforge

Dudley Birmingham

METCHLEY Solihull

Coventry

Kidderminster Kenilworth

Bromsgrove

Baginton Leamington Spa

Roman Forts

Fo sse

Possible Roman Roads

Droitwich

Wa y

Warwick

Roman Roads Redditch

Motorways

Alcester 0

10km

Stratford upon Avon

Worcester

Figure 1.1 Metchley and the Roman road network in the West Midlands (scale as shown)

1.1

2

Summary and Introduction

S tr e a m

xe

Q. E. Hospital

N.

ne An

E. e nex An

e nex An ure W. clos En or

Str

0m

eam

e

nex

An S.

200m

Canal

Railway

13

Scheduled Area

0

University

Figure 1.2 Location of Metchley Roman fort (scale 1:4,000), scheduled areas are shaded

1.2 After the abandonment of the Phase 3A fort in the early Flavian period, continued, possibly intermittent Roman activity was recorded during the 2nd century, either smallscale military or civilian in nature. After the final military abandonment of the site a livestock ‘funnel’ was inserted into the western Phase 3–4 fort entrance, to facilitate the movement of livestock into the fort interior (Phase 4C). Use of the fort as a livestock enclosure is a possibility in the later Roman, or post-Roman periods. The surviving earthworks were used as a livestock compound during the post-medieval period (Phase 5), until piecemeal enclosure in the later 18th century. Lengths of the fort defences continue to be visible as upstanding earthworks.

Fig.2

Jones (2011) describes the archaeological background in detail. Parts of the northern and eastern fort interior and adjoining defences have been designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SM 35120.01–05; notably including part of the central range located immediately to the east of Area M18 (Fig. 1.2). December 2004–May 2005 fieldwork This fourth volume within the series of Metchley excavation reports describes the results of investigations

3

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct CHAPTER 1 TABLE Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 TABLE 1.1 METCHLEY ROMAN FORT, SUMMARY OF PHASING FOR AREA M18

Phase 1 First fort, 4 ha. Claudian–Neronian

Interior 1D Early building alignment

Defences/ external features 1A Possible construction camp; western clavicula? 1B Double-ditched fort defences, rampart, porta principalis dextra, external clavicula 1C Western annexe or enclosure

1E Later building alignment 1D/1E Features which could belong to Phase 1D or Phase 1E, or to both Possible re-arrangement of internal buildings

2A Annexes Neronian 2B Military stores depot Mid–late Neronian 3A Second fort, 2.6 ha. Later Neronian–early Flavian 3A–4B ? Flavian+

Sub-phases: timber-framed buildings, industrial activity, livestock enclosures (in that order) Granary building; other granaries in retentura and praetentura

4A Later Flavian/Trajanic–2nd century 4C Post-military abandonment, ? post-Roman 5 Post-Medieval

Western external settlement Northern, eastern and southern annexes New entrance arrangement for livestock sorting. Backfilling of Phase 1B ditches at end of Phase 2B New circuit of defences, porta principalis dextra. Re-cutting of Phase 1B defences to provide additional protection Re-definition of Phase 3A gatehouse, later arrangement associated with external palisade trenches forming livestock enclosures, industrial features and timberframed building Re-cutting of Phase 3A defences

Three-sided ditched enclosure (Area M3–M4) Re-cutting of ditches, re-use of trackway. Ditches cut along fort roads

Irregular partial blocking of Phase 3A fort entrance, cultivation soil outside Phase 3A fort Post-Roman cultivation, Area M8

Table 1.1 Metchley Roman fort, summary of phasing for Area M18

within the western part of the interior and western defences of Metchley Roman fort (Jones 2007; Birmingham SMR no. 2005, Jones 2001, Jones 2005a, Jones 2011; centred on NGR SP 045836, designated Area M18 within the sequence of Metchley investigations, Fig. 1.5). The Area M18 excavation is the largest single investigation conducted within the fort interior and defences at Metchley, comprising approximately 0.4ha, amounting to approximately 9% of the interior of the Phase 1, and Phase 3 fort. It is also one of the largest archaeological excavations undertaken within Birmingham as a whole.

the Phase 1 and Phase 3 fort, and an area external to the Phase 3A fort defences. Other adjoining investigations of the Phase 1B western defences lay to the southwest (Area M14, Jones 2011). Further to the west, areas outside the fort defences have also been examined by excavation (Fig. 1.5, Areas M9, M15–M16, Jones 2011). The first stage of archaeological appraisal comprised a desk-based assessment (Jones 1999) which also included other areas within and adjoining the fort complex. Trialtrenching was limited to the excavation of six 2m square test-pits (Duncan 2004; Fig. 1.5).

The area investigated (Figs 1.5–1.6, Plates 1.1–1.2) formerly comprised the footprint of Vincent House - three linked prefabricated blocks, with a concrete floor and external yard surfaces, and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Garage, a single-storey brick building. The southeastfacing natural slope was in places terraced to facilitate their construction, resulting in markedly differential survival of archaeological deposits (Fig. 1.6). The area excavated 1 included part of the western defences of the Phase 1 and Phase 3A fort, part of the central range and praetentura of

St Joseph and Shotton (1937) examined the western defences of the Phase 1 and Phase 3A fort in the vicinity of the porta principalis dextra by means of hand-dug slit trenches. The northern terminals of the Phase 1B and Phase 3A fort ditches were identified at this time, although their southern counterparts were not. Trenches were also cut along the line of the via principalis in the vicinity of the entrance, without identifying any associated structural

4

Summary and Introduction

Q. E. Hospital

M1A

M19B

N. Annexe M1B M M5 M3-4

M19A

Retentura Via

B2 Central Range

M15

Via

M12 M25

M16 M

M13

M20

Principalis

M18

M9

E. Annexe

Phase 3

W. Annexe

Borehole Profile M17

Quintana

M12A

M14

M7

M2

Praetentura

M6

M8

S.Annexe

Phase 2a M9

Phase 1B

Area Excavations

Phase 1C

Other Excavations

Ra

na Ca

ilw

ay

l

Phase 2A

Ditches

Phase 3

Ramparts 0

1.3 outline of phasing (scale 1:2,500) Figure 1.3 Metchley Roman fort, simplified

5

100m

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

E. Annexe

W. Annexe or Enclosure

N. Annexe

S.Annexe

Phase 1B Phase 1C

Phase 1B Phase 2A

E. Annexe

S.Annexe

Rampart Outer Edge of Outer Ditch

Phase 3

Conjectured 0

100m

Figure 1.4 Simplified sequence of site phasing (scale 1:4,000) 1.4

6

Phase 4

SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

3-4

19A

W. Annexe or Enclosure

1

3

2 5

4

M9 6

M18

M13

3

9

M14

Test-pits

S. Annexe

St Joseph and Shotton Trenches

Phase 1B

Area Excavations

Phase 1C

Other Excavations

Phase 2A

Outer Edge of Outer Ditch

Phase 3

Rampart

0

50m

FIGURE 1.5 DETAILED PLAN OF CENTRAL RANGE AND PRAETENTURA, SHOWING AREA M18, AND ADJOINING AREAS INVESTIGATED (SCALE 1:1,000) 7

10m

Central Range

1 .6

0

Modern disturbance

Low

Medium

High

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Figure 1.6 Area M18, simplified model of archaeological survival (scale 1:400)

8

Summary and Introduction

Plate 1.1south (taken in 2004) Plate 1.1 Vincent House , view

Plate 1.2east, showing change in Plate 1.2 Vincent House , view level between blocks (taken 2004)

features. This trenching was conducted immediately before the construction of Vincent House.

5) Contribute towards an understanding of the overall chronology of the complex. 6) Contribute towards an understanding of the pattern of military supply. 7) Identify and correctly map the western fort defences, including entrance structures.

Subsequent excavations within the fort interior (Jones 2003/ Jones forthcoming a, Jones 2005b/ Jones forthcoming c, Jones and Hepburn 2010/ Jones and Hepburn forthcoming) will be described in a later published report (Jones forthcoming b), together with a synthesis of post-1962 excavations (Jones forthcoming d).

Methodology Archaeological monitoring was maintained during removal of the concrete floor slabs of Vincent House and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Garage, to ensure that demolition clearance did not penetrate below-ground archaeological deposits (Fig. 1.5). The area excavated was then stripped of topsoil and overburden by a 360 degree excavator working under continuous archaeological supervision. The machined subsoil surface was handcleaned as necessary to define features, or possible features, of archaeological interest (Plates 1.3–1.4). Additional machining was undertaken with a mini-digger to remove post-medieval features and deposits, following their testing by selective hand-excavation. Other features were tested by hand-excavation only. Ditches were Plate 1.2 sampled in total approximately 25% by length. Post-

Aims The aims of the Area M18 excavation were to: 1) Provide details of the western defences of the Phase 1 and Phase 3A fort, including environmental evidence. 2) Provide an understanding of the function of industrial features within the intervallum. 3) Contribute towards an appreciation of the Phase 1 layout of internal buildings, and of subsequent changes to that layout. 4) Test the area for evidence of a possible southward continuation of the Phase 4 defences located to the Plate 1.1 north of Vincent Drive.

Plate 1.3 , hand-excavation in Plate 1.3 2004–2005 excavation progress, view southeast

Plate 1.4 , beam-slots revealed Plate 1.4 2004–2005 excavation after hand-cleaning

9

Plate 1.3Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Plate 1.4

Plate 1.5 Plate 1.5 2004–2005 excavation, sampling beam-slots by hand-excavation medieval features were tested sufficient to confirm their date, and to establish their character and extent. Discrete features (pits and postholes) were half-sectioned, except in the case of industrial features when sampling was 100%. Structural features, principally beam-slots, were sampled approximately 25% by length (Plate 1.5). Recording was by means of pre-printed pro-formas for contexts and features, plans (at 1:20) and sections (at 1:20) and monochrome and colour slide photography. Contexts and cuts were numbered in a sequence of four digit numbers, beginning with 1000 in the praetentura, and 2000 in the central range. Additionally, construct numbers were allocated in post-excavation (commencing ‘C’ in the central range, and ‘P’ in the praetentura). Structure numbers have also been allocated in the sequence beginning 18. Subject to permission from the landowner it is proposed to deposit the archive with Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery. Arrangement of report This report is arranged in seven chapters, as follows: This chapter forms the summary and introduction. Chapter 2 describes the archaeological results, by phase. Chapters 3–5 describe the finds, environmental and metalworking evidence, respectively. Chapter 6 contains an integrated discussion and synthesis of the results, and Chapter 7 comprises the acknowledgements and references.

10

CHAPTER 2: RESULTS

PHASING (FIGS 1.3–1.4)

Phase 4C, irregular ‘blocking’ of Phase 4A fort entrance (?Roman civilian/post-Roman?)

The results of the Area M18 excavation have been related to the scheme of phasing devised by earlier fieldwork (Jones 2001, Jones 2005a, Jones 2011), with some modifications to reflect the increasing complexity of the cumulative mass of excavation results from the military complex (Table 1.1). The updated phasing is as follows:

Again, the pottery dating does not allow a more precise phasing or chronology to be constructed. ARRANGEMENT OF RESULTS A summary of the main features in each phase is followed by description of the western defences and the internal features, in that order. Details of the dating evidence and metalworking debris are summarised or tabulated.

Phase 1, first military activity and first fort (Claudian– Neronian), sub-divided: Phase 1A, possible construction camp Phase 1B, first fort western defences including porta principalis dextra (west gate) Phase 1D, early building alignment Phase 1E, later building alignment Phase 1D/1E, features attributable to either Phase 1D or 1E, or to both

For simplicity it is assumed that the fort is aligned north– south, although the drawings are labelled with compass north. The Phase 1–5 features were cut into the natural subsoil, 1008, an orange-yellow silt-clay. PHASE 1, FIRST FORT (FIG. 2.1)

The two-fold sequence of activity along the Phase 1 defences (1A and 1B) has been distinguished from the two-fold division of Phase 1 internal features (1D and 1E), since no stratigraphic or other evidence exists to directly link the defences and internal features. Nor can the pottery further refine the chronology. Internal features have been ascribed to Phase 1D/1E where they cannot be related to either Phase 1D or 1E on the basis of alignment.

Summary of first military activity and first fort (Phase 1A–1E) features (Fig. 2.2) The earliest features (Phase 1A) probably comprised an L-shaped building, Structure 18.1, and associated pits and postholes, possibly associated with a construction camp. The surviving western defences of the first (Phase 1B) fort comprised double ditches, P116/C176 and P117/ C175. These ditches were interrupted by an entrance, the porta principalis dextra (west gate) further defined by a gatehouse, Structure 18.2. Parts of two timber-framed buildings, Structures 18.14 and 18.15, were recorded on the left side of the central range. The orientation of the two buildings, attributed to Phase 1D and Phase 1E respectively, differed by seven degrees. Structure 18.15 is interpreted as the praetorium. The fragmentary remains of two further buildings, Structures 18.12 and 18.13, were also recorded. A number of Phase 1D/1E industrial features were recorded in the western intervallum.

Phase 1C (western annexe or enclosure), and Phase 2A (northern, eastern and southern annexes), were not, of course, recorded within the Area M18 excavation. Phase 2B, military stores depot (mid–late Neronian), including re-arrangement of the porta principalis dextra and backfilling of western Phase 1B defences at the end of the phase Phase 3, defences and internal features belonging to second fort (later Neronian–early Flavian), subdivided: Phase 3A, second fort western defences including porta principalis dextra and internal building Phase 3B–4B, re-arrangement of entrance layout, and external features associated with Phase 3A or Phase 4A fort (or both)

Description and interpretation of Phase 1A features (Figs 2.3–2.4) Possibly the earliest feature identified was a beam-slot, L-shaped in plan, Structure 18.1. It measured 7.5m north– south, P119 (Fig. 2.4.S.1), and 2.5m east–west, P118. The beam-slots measured an average of 0.5m in width, and 0.18m in depth, and were backfilled with light orangebrown silt-clay. No traces of the northern or eastern sides of the building could be identified - these could have been open. Towards the northern terminal of P119 were two

Phase 4, re-cutting of Phase 3A fort defences and rearrangement of entrance (later Flavian/Trajanic– ?post-Roman), sub-divided: Phase 4A, re-cutting of the second (Phase 3A) fort ditches 11

R

a

m

p

a

rt pa am Rr t

rt

m

12

p

a

2.1

0

am R

Figure 2.1 Phase 1–Phase 4C features, simplified plan (scale 1:400)

pa

am

R

pR

am

R

t ar a

rt

rt pa

10m

Disturbance

Phase 5

Phase 4C

Phase 4A

Phase 3B - 4B

Phase 3A

Phase 2B

Phase 1A - 1E

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

P117

P116

R

a

m

p

a

V ia P

a

ri n

m

c

p

a

ip

rt

a li

rt

Structure 18.1

R

C176

Structure 18.2

C175

s

2.2

Figure 2.2 Phase 1A–1E features, simplified plan (scale 1:400)

0

13

Structure 18.15

10m

Structure 18.14

Structure 18.12 Structure 18.13

Disturbance

Phase 1D/1E

Phase 1E

Phase 1D

Phase 1B

Phase 1A

Results

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 C183

C184

S30

2032 2060 2123

2037 2003

S29

2316

C186

S31

S28

2068

2268

2276 C185

Conjectured Rampart

S27 2518 2520

2378

S10

S26

C176

C175

S6

1148

1150

R1

1365

2230 1754

S7

1368

S8

Structure 18.2

C183

2252

1752

1174

S9

Via

Principalis

1180 1112

1773

1266

S4

1251

P117

S5

1771

1263 1107/ 1105

1273

P116 P119

Structure 18.1

S1 0

10m

P118 1552

1637

1643

1244

1033 1471

S3

1130

1478

S2 1042

1101

Figure 2.3 Phase 1B western defences2.3 and Phase 1D/1E intervallum, plan (scale 1:200)

14

Results

S1 W P119 1047

S2

W

E

E

1041

1046

1042

S3 P116

W

E

1016

1016A

1015 1020 1022 1030

1018

0

1039

2m

Structure 18.2 W

S4

E

S5

N

S

1264

S6

W

1770 1771

E

1149 1262

1772 1774

1266

1265

1773

S7

E

1148

S

1751

1753

1364

1752 1754

1365

1368

S8

N

W

1366

1147

1150

1263

Post-pipe

1367

S9 E

W

1179 1175

S10

S

1177

1173

disturbance 2376

1178

1176

N

2377

1174 1180

1161

0

2m

2378

Figure 2.4 Phase 1A and Phase 1B western defences, sections (S.1–S.10, scale 1:40)

2.4 15

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Via Principalis

2252

1148

R1

1754

1752

1266

1180 1174

1365

1263

1150

Structure 18.2

1368

1771 C176

1773 1251

Conjectured Rampart

P116

0

10m

2.518.2, simplified reconstruction and ground plan Figure 2.5 Phase 1B porta principalis dextra, Structure (scale for plan as shown). For clarity, later disturbances are not shown on plan 16

Results fort gateway along the via principalis to the right when leaving the principia).

adjoining postholes, 1105 and 1107, and a further posthole, 1273, was cut flush with the northern terminal of P119. Also associated with Structure 18.1 was a posthole, 1244, and a pit, 1042 (Fig. 2.4.S.2) to the south of the building. A short length of a palisade trench, 1112, cut at a tangent to the main axis of the building, was also recorded.

The outermost ditches, P117/C175 were separated by an entry-gap measuring 7.5m in width. The innermost pair P116/C176 was separated by an entry-gap measuring 9m. The ditch terminals were irregular in plan, probably as a result of re-cutting. The ditches were separated by a berm measuring 2m and 2.5m in width, to the south and north of the entrance, respectively.

Phase 1A features were recorded in the south of the excavated area where archaeological preservation was high (Fig. 1.6), but not to the north, possibly because of modern downcutting. Related features were only recorded elsewhere (eg Area M14, Jones 2011, 11; Fig. 1.3) where the overlying Phase 1B rampart provided protection from later truncation. These Phase 1A features could have been associated with a construction camp. Structure 18.1 is paralleled by an L-shaped building measuring a maximum of 3m in length, interpreted as a lean-to shed (Elginhaugh, Hanson 2007, 189 and fig. 7.31). The function of Structure 18.1 is not clear, but it could perhaps have formed a temporary shelter, perhaps guarding an entrance to the construction camp, assuming this was coincident with the Phase 1B entrance. The plan of Structure 18.1 does not suggest it could have formed a timber revetment to the Phase 1B rampart.

To the south of the entrance, the innermost ditch, P116 (Fig. 2.4.S.3), measured a maximum of 5.2m in width, and 1.8m in depth. It was cut to a varied profile. Towards the terminal the ditch developed a pronounced basal cleaning-slot. To the north of the entrance the innermost ditch, C176, was less well-preserved, probably as a result of modern levelling-down, only measuring a maximum of 3.5m in width, and 1.3m in depth. No in situ trace of the rampart was recorded. Excavation provided details of the original layout and later re-arrangement of the porta principalis dextra, Structure 18.2, the only Phase 1B fort entrance to be excavated at Metchley. A gap measuring 2–2.5m wide was maintained between the western side of the gatehouse and the inner lip of the innermost ditch. This building was rectangular in plan, measuring 10.5m north–south, and 3.5m east–west. The building was defined by seven post-pits, three along its western side, and four at a separation of 3.5m along its eastern side. Details of the Structure 18.2 post-pits are tabulated (Table 2.1).

P119 contained samian of 1st-century and pre-Flavian date, and coarse wares belonging to the same date ranges. Description of the Phase 1B defences (Frontispiece, Figs 2.3–2.5) The Phase 1B western fort defences were cut along the western edge of a plateau, at excavation defined by a hedged field boundary which followed the approximate course of the outermost Phase 1B fort ditch, which therefore mostly lay outside the excavated area. The western fort defences were defined by two parallel, north–south aligned ditches, P116/C176 and P117/C175 (Plates 2.1–2.2), cut into the subsoil, interrupted by the porta principalis dextra (the

The southern side of the building was represented by a pair of post-pits, 1773 (Fig. 2.4.S.4) and 1263 (Fig. 2.4.S.5), dug at a separation of 2.8m (measured centre-to-centre), flush with the northern terminal of P116. The northern pair of post-pits, 1148 (Fig. 2.4.S.6) and 2252, were positioned 3m apart.

2.1

2.2

Plate 2.1 Phase 1B ditch P116 excavated segments,

Plate 2.2 Phase 1B ditch P116 detail, view north

view north

17

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct CHAPTER 2 TABLES TABLE 2.1 DETAILS OF PHASE 1B PORTA PRINCIPALIS DEXTRA GATEHOUSE, STRUCTURE Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 18.2 PostDiam. x pit depth Front (west side) 1148 1.50m x 0.60m 1365 1.50m x 0.60m

Backfill

Postpipe

Diam x depth

Backfill

1147, dark brown silt-clay

1150

1149, black silt-clay

1364, mottled grey-orange siltclay

1368

0.30m x 0.40m 0.20m x 0.80m

1773

0.98m x 0.72m Rear (east side) 2252 1.54m x 0.34m 1752 1.40m x 0.25m 1174 1.84m x (spina) 0.84m

1772/1774, light brown sandsilt-clay

1771

2251, dark brown silt-clay

-

1751, orange-brown silt-claysand 1173, light brown-orange sandsilt-clay

1754

1263

1262, light brown-grey sandsilt-clay

1266

1.10m x 0.74m

1180

0.32m x 0.23m

0.52m x 0.25m 0.22m x 0.92m 0.19 x 0.92m

1367, light grey/ white siltclay (turf packing), sealed by dark grey silt-clay, 1366 1770, black-grey silt-clay

1753, dark grey-brown charcoal-rich silt 1179, grey-black silt-clay; 1161, dark grey-black siltclay 1264, grey-black silt-clay

TABLE 2.2 T PHASE 1D/1E FEATURES, METALWORKING DEBRIS able 2.1 Details of Phase 1B porta principalis dextra gatehouse, Structure 18.2 Cut Fill Wt Details 1101 1100 54g Burnt clay A guardchamber, R1, was # Interpretation of Phase 1B defences (Figs 2.3–2.5) 1101 1100in the north 4g of the building Hammerscale defined2003 on its southern side by a pair of post-pits, 1365 2005 1336g Undiagnostic slag, vitrified clay (hearth bottom 75 x 60 x The separation of 2m to 2.5m between the ditches was (Fig. 2.4.S.7) and 1752 (Fig. 2.4.S.8), cut 3.2m 50;apart. 110 xR1 90 x 45mm) smaller thanburnt the figure measured approximately 3m square. No internal features 2003 2008 270g Undiagnostic slag, vitrified/ clay of 3m recorded by Johnson (1983, 55) for double-ditched systems, possibly as a result of recould be identified. 2003 2013 287g Possible hearth bottom (65 x 65 x 35mm) cutting. In comparison to the size ranges of 2.4–6.1m in 2003 2028 139g Undiagnostic slag width and 1.2m–2.7m in depth suggested by Jones (Jones Post-pit2003 1174 (Fig.2038 2.4.S.9), defined the central support 133g Vitrified clay and charcoal fragments 1975, 106) for double-ditched systems, the excavated (spina)2003 of a double-portal gate, positioned flush with the 2005 188g Burnt/ vitrified clay profiles lay closer to the smaller size ranges, probably rear wall of the gatehouse. The other gate-supports were 2003 2008 431g Burnt/ vitrified clay because of modern truncation. Excavation by Rowley formed2003 by 1752 and2029 1263, positioned at a distance of 3.5m 104g Burnt/ vitrified clay (Jones 2001, 18; Area M3; Fig. 1.3) identified the inner from 1174. 2003 2030 407g Burnt/ vitrified clay ditch as the largest of the pair, while in Area M14 the outer 2003 2031 62g Burnt clay Most post-pits were cut to vertically-sided profiles, with ditch was the larger. No surviving trace of ditch re-cuts 2003 2005 6g Hammerscale # the exception of the northern pair, 1148 and 1365, cut to were recorded in Area M14 (Jones 2011, 11–16) or Area 2003 2030 1g Hammerscale # a stepped profile. With the exception of 2252 all post-pits M18. 2060 2075 130g Undiagnostic slag, vitrified/ burnt clay contained post-pipes. The lower85g fill, 1367, ofVitrified 1368 (Fig. 2068 2067 clay 2.4.S.7)2068 may represent turf packing. 2067 Hammerscale # The rampart did not survive in situ in Area M18. The Key: # weight may include other metalworking residuestruncated base of a turf rampart was found in nearby Area To the north of the gateway the line of the rampart tail M14 (Jones 2011, 15–16), although insufficient survived was defined by a line of irregularly-spaced post-pits to provide details of its construction. The rampart probably 2230, 2378 (Fig. 2.4.S.10), and 2032, forming a rearward measured 6m in width (the distance between the west side rampart revetment. A smaller post-pit, 2520, was located of the guardchamber and the rearward revetment). There 2.5m to the north. The grey silt-clay backfills of the postwas no trace of a rearward timber revetment to the south pits may be interpreted as turf packing of the post. A small of the gatehouse where archaeological preservation was posthole, 2123, was also located within the northern part better. of the projected rampart. The porta principalis dextra was defended by a gatehouse, Post-pits 2378 and 1263 contained coarse ware pottery of Structure 18.2 (Frontispiece and Fig. 2.5), with a single 1st-century date. The Phase 1B ditches continued to be guardchamber in the north. No trace was found of a periodically cleaned-out until the end of Phase 2B (see corresponding guardchamber to the south, despite repeated below) and therefore no in situ Phase 1B deposits could be 2 hand-cleaning. This arrangement is unusual, since the identified within their backfills. portae principalis would have provided the main access and exit points from the fort. The other three contemporary gatehouses at Metchley have not been excavated.

18

Results There are no direct published parallels for Structure 18.2. Two unusual features may be highlighted. Firstly, the lack of a southern guardchamber, and secondly the apparent positioning of the gate to the rear, rather than at the front of the structure (eg Pen Llystyn, Hogg 1968, fig. 20). This gate positioning supports the interpretation of R1 as a guardchamber. It is clear that the gate type was a double portal carriageway, flanked by 1752 and 1263, with 1174 comprising the central post (spina).

A north–south aligned beam-slot, C100 (Structure 18.12) was recorded for a distance of 4m. C100 was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured 0.26m in width, and 0.12m in depth. No associated features could be identified. The western wall, C107, of Structure 18.14 was located 8m to the east of C100. Both walls followed a parallel, north–south orientation. The other outer walls of Structure 18.4 were not found within the excavated area. They may have been located outside Area M18, unless removed by modern truncation within it. C107 (Fig. 2.7.S.11) was recorded for a length of 12.2m, and was cut to a U-shaped profile, measuring 0.4m in width and 0.1m in depth. The northern terminal of a further beam-slot, C105, 2m to the west of C107 could have formed part of a discontinuous corridor or veranda along the western side of the building.

With reference to the gatehouse typology published by Manning and Scott (1988, fig. 1.1), the Metchley structure is similar to type IIa, a double portal gateway with flanking towers (cf Hobley 1988, fig. 2.18), except that there is only a single tower at Metchley. Additionally, the gate will have been located flush with the rear of the structure. The gatehouse would have been the same width as the adjoining rampart. Variations on the symmetrical plan do exist, for example at Pen Lystyn (Hogg 1968, 113–116 and fig. 22) where one tower was hollow while the adjoining tower was filled with rampart material. The possibility that some gate towers could begin at the level of the rampart walk (Manning and Scott 1988, 7) making recognition by archaeological excavation impossible, should also be considered.

Two parallel, north–south aligned internal beam-slots, C111 (Fig. 2.7.S.12) and C114, each measuring 2m in length, separated by a distance of 1.4m, were recorded within the interior of the building. C111 was cut by C109 (Fig. 2.7.S.12) belonging to Phase 1E Structure 18.15 (see below). The rounded terminal of a further north–south aligned beam-slot, C110, may also be attributed to this phase, although it did not survive for a sufficient length for its possible Phase 1D alignment to be verified. It was positioned at the mid-point between C107 and C111. C110 was also cut by a Phase 1E beam-slot, C109 (see below).

The lack of a frontal post-pit in the centre of the carriageway at Metchley implies that the rampart walkway would have been ‘bridged’ across the entranceway by the three pairs of post-pits forming the main structure, and the post-pit for the central gate support, 1174, which was both deeper and broader than the other post-pits forming the structure (Table 2.1). This suggests that it was also intended to support the walkway, and not merely act as a gate-post.

The line of Phase 1D internal dividing wall C111 may have been continued to the south by a pair of adjoining postholes, 2527 and 2531, separated by a distance of 0.7m (measured centre-to-centre). Similarly, C114 may have been continued to the south by a posthole, 2474, and an elongated pit, 2511, further to the south. No other associated features could be identified.

Post-pit 2378 along the east face of the rampart, which was larger than adjoining post-pits 2230 and 2520 could have formed the base of an ascensus to the north of the gatehouse. There was no evidence for an ascensus to the south of Structure 18.2, where archaeological preservation was better, and deeply-cut post-pits would be expected to have survived.

The Phase 1D postholes were backfilled with dark greyblack sand-silt, including fragments of charcoal and burnt clay. The only Phase 1D internal feature to contain datable pottery was C105 within Structure 18.14, which contained coarse wares dated to the 1st-century.

A local parallel of early Flavian date for the Phase 1B Structure 18.2 is provided by the Phase 3A porta principalis dextra (Structure 18.16, Fig. 2.19), which was also provided with a single guardchamber to the north, although the area to the south was admittedly heavily disturbed by later activity (see below). Occupation between the two forts was not, of course continuous.

Description of Phase 1E buildings (Figs 2.2 and 2.6–2.7) The Phase 1E features were cut into the subsoil, and into the backfilled Phase 1D or possible Phase 1D beam-slots.

Description of Phase 1D buildings (Figs 2.2 and 2.6–2.7)

Parts of two Phase 1E buildings, defined by beam-slots, Structures 18.13 and 18.15, were identified in the north of the excavated area. Despite their slightly different alignment (seven degrees difference), the Phase 1E buildings demonstrated overall continuity in arrangement with their Phase 1D predecessors. The outer walls of Phase 1E buildings Structures 18.13 and 18.15 were both cut an average of 0.7m (measured centre-to-centre) to the east of their Phase 1D predecessors, maintaining the gap

Parts of two Phase 1D timber-framed buildings, defined by beam-slots, Structures 18.12 and 18.14, were the only features that could be ascribed to Phase 1D. These buildings follow a slightly different alignment to those of Phase 1E (see below). The Phase 1D remains are fragmentary, and difficult to interpret. The Phase 1D features were cut into the subsoil, 1008.

19

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

C107 S11

2600

C110 C105

14

S

u

ct

tru

re

S14

C108

S12

S13

. 18

re tu c ru St

5 .1 18

C111

2571

C109

C113

R1

C114

C118 2399

R2

R3

S16 C116

2359 2474

S15

C119

2527 2531 2511

R4

S18

S17

C124

C122

R5

C100

e ur ct

18

ru

St

re

u ct

ru

St

C125

C101

2 .1

S21

3

R8

1 8.

1

R6

C126

R9

R7 S20

C127

2502 2581

S19 C129

2628

C130

2534

Phase 1D C140

Phase 1E Primary Build R9

Re-arrangement C135

1st Re-arrangement C136

2nd Re-arrangement

C132

Possible Courtyard 0

5m

Figure 2.6 Phase 1D/1E central range2.6 , Structures 18.12–18.15, plan (scale 1:125)

20

Results

Phase 1C

S12

S11 C107

W

C109

N

E

2549

2200

2548

2199

Structure 18.15 Phase 1D

C108

W

2266

C123 C118

2264 2265

N

2543

2448

2437

2542

2449

S

C122

2441

2440

2439

C122

S

C122

2436 2435

C119

S18

2442

S17 2438

2545 2543

S

N

S16 C119 E W

S15 C118 2544

2550

S14 C109

S

E

2667

N

2551

C111

S13

S

N

S19 C126

N

2336

2444

2328

2443

C121

2329

2381

S 2297

2499

C129

2500

W 2290

2292

N

2296

S21

E

S

S20 C126

C125

2291 2299

2298

C126

2289

0

1m

Figure 2.7 Phase 1D/1E central range, Structures 18.12–18.15, sections (S.11–S.21, scale 1:20) measuring approximately 8m in width recorded between The northern part of Structure 18.15 (Plates 2.3–2.5) was 2.7 recorded to the east of contemporary Structure 18.13 the two Phase 1D buildings. (Fig. 2.2). Parts of the western, C108 (Fig. 2.7.S.13, Beam-slot, C101 belonging to Structure 18.13 was Plate 2.3), northern, C109 (Fig. 2.7.S.12 and S.14), and recorded for a length of 4.6m. The remaining sides of eastern walls, C130/C135, of the building (Plate 2.4) were the building lay outside the excavated area, or the area of recorded, together with details of its internal layout. The good archaeological survival. C101 was cut to a U-shaped northwestern corner of the building did not form an exact profile, and measured 0.2m in width, and 0.1m in depth. right-angle. The excavated part of the building measured No associated features were recorded. 17m (east–west) by a minimum of 18m (north–south). The southern wall lay outside the area of good archaeological 21

2.1

2.1

2.2

2.2

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

2.3 Plate 2.3 Phase 1E Structure 2.3 18.15, western wall 2.4 C108 to left, internal wall C118 to left of centre,

2.4 Plate 2.4 Phase 1E Structure 18.15, southeastern

excavated angle of building in foreground, view north

view north

west), and at least 10m in length (north–south). Its eastern walls, C113 and C118 (Fig. 2.7.S.15) were offset by a distance of 1.2m (measured centre-to-centre). An entrygap measuring 1m in width was retained between the rounded northern terminal of C113 and the northern side of the building. The southern terminal of C113 was cut by a posthole, 2399. An oval pit, 2571, was the only other feature identified within this room.

2.5 Plate 2.5 Phase 1E Structure 18.15, beam-slot C122/2439, view east

2.5

Room R2 lay to the east of R1, and to the west of C119 (Fig. 2.7.S.16–S.17). It was also L-shaped in plan, and measured between 0.5m and 1.3m in width, and was recorded for a length of 6m. It probably functioned as a corridor. A possible entry-gap measuring 0.5m in width was retained between the southern end of C113, and the northern end of C119. Immediately to the east of Room R2 were three further rooms, R3–R5, each probably measuring approximately 4.4m east–west; defined on their eastern side by a beamslot, C124. R3 and R4 measured 4m and 3.2m respectively, north–south. Entry-gaps were retained in the northwestern and southwestern angles of R3. Gaps were retained between the northern and western walls, and between the southern and eastern walls of R4, an arrangement usually adopted for stability, to ensure that the beam-slot ends do not break down. The only internal feature within R4 was 2359, a posthole located in its northwestern corner. C122 (Fig. 2.7.S.18, Plate 2.5) cut C119 (Fig. 2.7.S.17), but did not extend beyond it, which may suggest that C122 was a later addition, R4 and R5 being created by sub-division of an originally undivided space.

survival and had been scoured-out entirely. The northern wall, C109, was cut into backfilled Phase 1D beam-slots C110–C111. The western wall, C108, and northern wall, C109, were recorded for a length of 6.5m and 8m, respectively. These beam-slots were cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.4m in width, and 0.1m in depth. They were backfilled with mottled grey/ grey-brown, sand-silt. A posthole, 2600, was cut at the extreme northwestern corner of the building. The eastern side of the building was represented by two beam-slots, C130 and C135, which were offset by the width of C130. A possible entry-gap measuring 2.5m in width was recorded between the two. Only the tapered beam-slot terminal on the northern side of the entrance was recorded; the southern terminal had presumably been removed by modern truncation.

To the east of Rooms R3–R5 was Room R6, defined on its eastern side by C129 (Fig. 2.7.S.19), C136 and C140. This room measured 6.5m in width (east–west), and was recorded for a length of 10m. The easternmost room of the primary build, R7, measured 1.7m in width (east– west), and probably functioned as a corridor, adjoining the eastern side of the building. It was recorded for a length of 12m.

The interior of the excavated part of the building was originally divided into seven rooms (R1–R7), arranged in five rows across the width of the building, described from west to east. Room R1, in the extreme west of the building was L-shaped in plan. It measured between 4.2m and 3m in width (east– 22

Results The internal Structure 18.15 beam-slots were cut to mainly U-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 0.32m in width, and 0.3m in depth, and were backfilled with grey silt-sand, or brown clay-silt.

The second stage in the re-arrangement of the eastern part of the building involved the insertion of a north–south wall, C125 (Fig. 2.7.S.21), 0.7m to the east of C124, which may have gone out of use. C125 was cut into the western terminal of C126, which belonged to the first episode of re-arrangement. Assuming that C124 went out of use at this time, the effect of the second re-arrangement was to slightly reduce the width of R8–R9 from 3.7m to 3m. Alternatively, this second re-arrangement could have been intended to provide a narrow corridor (between C124 and C125), assuming the former was retained after rearrangement.

Evidence of a two-stage internal re-arrangement in the extreme east of the building, probably during Phase 1E, was recorded within the area originally occupied by rooms R6–R7. During both re-arrangements the alignment established by the primary build continued to be respected. The first stage of this re-arrangement was represented by the insertion of a north–south aligned wall, C127, at a distance of 0.6m to the west of C129, which may have gone out of use. The southern terminal of C127 was cut by a posthole, 2628, presumably framing the northern side of an entry-gap whose other side had been scoured-out by later disturbances. C127 was contemporary with an east– west aligned beam-slot, C126 (Fig. 2.7.S.20–21), which was extended 1.5m to the east of C127, partly blocking R7, a corridor in the original arrangement. The eastern terminal of C126 was cut by a posthole, 2502. Further to the west, C126 terminated 0.6m to the east of C124, possibly defining a narrow entry-gap.

Another possible re-arrangement may be represented by C132, which may have provided part of a veranda along the eastern side of the building. No traces of internal floor surfaces were recorded within the interior of this building. Dating evidence from Phase 1E Five contexts associated with Structure 18.15 contained datable pottery. External wall C109 contained possible pre-Flavian samian, and pre-Flavian coarse ware. Internal walls C113, C118, C119 and C125 contained 1st-century coarse wares.

The insertion of contemporary walls C126 and C127 created two rooms, R8–R9, in the east of the building, each measuring 3.7m in width (east–west) in the area originally undivided (R6). The other sides of these rooms could not be defined. C126 was cut by three stakeholes, 2327, 2329 and 2502 (not illustrated).

V

Metchley

ia Q u in ta n a

nd

u po

m

?

Co

V ia P ri n c ip a

0

li

20m

s

Figure 2.8a Phase 1E, Structure 18.15, simplified plan, showing via principalis and via quintana (scale as shown) 2.8a

23

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Elginhaugh

The Lunt

Loughor

0

Pen Llystyn

20m

Llanfor

Figure 2.8b Simplified plans of excavated praetoriae at Elginhaugh (after Hanson 2007), The Lunt (after Hobley 1973), Loughor (after Marvell and Owen-John 1997), Pen Llystyn (after Hogg 1968) and Llanfor: geophysics only (after Burnham and Davies 2010) (scale as shown) 2.8b

24

Results Interpretation of Phase 1D and Phase 1E buildings (Figs 2.2 and 2.6–2.8a/b)

another building, often a granary (Johnson 1983, 139). In Britain, the praetorium was generally located to the left of the principia (as at Metchley), while the reverse was true in Germany (Marvell and Owen-John 1997, 182). There are some examples where two praetoria, or possible praetoria, have been identified, the second frequently sited in the praetentura (Johnson 1983, 139). Such an arrangement occurs at sites where mixed garrisons of legionaries and auxiliaries were stationed (Johnson 1983, 139).

The function of Phase 1D Structure 18.12, and Phase 1E Structure 18.13 clearly cannot be interpreted from a single north–south aligned wall. Notably, Structures 18.12 and 18.13 were similar in positioning, if not in alignment. Similarly, the western walls of Phase 1D Structure 18.14 and the western wall of Phase 1E Structure 18.15 adjoin each other. The Phase 1D and Phase 1E beam-slots are cut on an alignment differing by seven degrees, which suggests an intervening replanning of the fort buildings, although the two individual building locations in Phase 1D were retained in Phase 1E. Another difference was provided by the possible provision of a veranda, C105, on the western side of Structure 18.14, while the possible Structure 18.15 veranda, C132, was positioned on the eastern side of the building.

This interpretation of the Metchley building cannot be proved beyond doubt because only part of the structure was excavated. More generally, because praetoriae functioned as private dwellings, they were more varied in layout than other building types within the fort interior (Fig. 8b; Johnson 1983, 133; Hanson 2007, 48; Burnham and Davies 2010, 77). Marvell and Owen-John (1997, 179) doubt the value of comparison between different praetoriae, arguing that they are not a ‘self-contained’ building type, with each example being ‘custom built’ to the needs of the individual commander. Furthermore, the praetorium plan would not have been based on a standard/ Mediterranean’ town-house plan (Wallace-Hadrill 1988), but rather would have been specific to the regional style of the province in Italy from which the commanding officer would have derived (Marvell and Owen-John 1997, 179; Birley 1988, 161).

Little can be said about the internal arrangement of Phase 1D Structure 18.14 because only part of its western wall, and limited traces of its internal arrangement were identified. The location of this building within the central range and the similarity in the positioning of its western wall, C107, with succeeding Structure 18.15 could suggest that this building may also be interpreted as a praetorium (see below), although care should be taken in retro-projecting building functions based on such limited evidence.

A praetorium would have included a dining room, bedrooms, a kitchen and a private latrine, as well as service quarters, stables and a bath house (Burnham and Davies 2010, 77). According to Johnson (1983, 177) the praetorium provided accommodation for the commanding officer and his family, and the building may have also housed his personal staff/ their living quarters and servants, as well as guest rooms for official visitors (Johnson 1983, 132). Marvell and Owen-John (1997, 177) have questioned the use of praetoriae for anything other than the domestic residence of the commanding officer.

The significance of Structures 18.12 and 18.14 is the evidence they provide for two structural phases articulated by a slight re-alignment. Phase 1E Structure 18.15 is the most extensive building belonging to this phase identified in the central range. It was located on the left side of the central range, that is, to the west of the presumed central location of the principia. Part of the eastern wall, and the western side of a second building located in the central range was excavated in Area M20 (Jones forthcoming c), although only a small part of each building could be excavated.

In plan, this building resembled a Mediterranean townhouse laid out around a courtyard (Hanson 2007, 48; Webster 1989, 191). Most usually, the praetorium comprised four ranges of rooms arranged around a central courtyard (Fig. 2.8). The Metchley building would have fronted the via principalis, where a vestibule/ entrance hall was flanked by small rooms used for reception, or to house a porter would have been located (Johnson 1983, 134). At Elginhaugh (Hanson 2007, 45; Fig. 2.8b) the range fronting the via principalis comprised two rooms, both sub-divided. At Metchley this part of the building has been lost as a result of modern disturbance.

The excavated part of Structure 18.15 measured 17m (east–west), by 18m (north–south). Clearly, only part of the building was recorded at excavation. The extreme southern side of the building, adjoining the via principalis frontage had been scoured-out by terracing preparatory to the layout of Vincent House. The north wall of Structure 18.15 extended approximately half way between the via praetoria and the via quintana (Figs 1.3 and 2.8a). The location of Structure 18.15 on the left (western) side of the central range, to the west of the presumed location of the principia supports its interpretation as the praetorium. The praetorium was located adjoining the principia, either to the east or west of the taller principia, to receive the maximum sunlight (Johnson 1983, 139). The praetorium may have occupied the whole of one side of the central range, unless this space was shared with

Returning to the original ground-plan of the Metchley building, it is possible to suggest that R1 formed part of the western range, R3 part of the northern range, and R6, part of the eastern range of the building, with R7 functioning as a corridor adjoining the eastern external wall, C130. Following this interpretation, R4/R5 could 25

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 have represented the central courtyard of the building, which went out of use when C122 was inserted, extending the range of accommodation provided. The southern range was not recorded at excavation because of modern truncation.

maximum of 26m (north–south). The excavated part of this building is considerably smaller than some other excavated examples (Fig. 2.8b). The praetorium at Loughor measured a minimum of 38m by 28m; at Pen Llystyn the building measured 34m by 26m (with an adjoining structural unit measuring 18m by 34m). The praetorium at Elginhaugh measured 28.5 x 23.8m externally, and the same building at Llanfor measured 42m by 33m.

Assuming that Structure 18.15 (and possibly its predecessor, Structure 18.14), was laid out to serve the needs of a commanding officer, the later structural changes in the east of Structure 18.15 may be interpreted as evidence of a change in commanding officer, or a re-arrangement to suit his changing needs. This re-arrangement sub-divided R6 (into R8 and R9), and may have created a narrow corridor to the east of these rooms, and to the west of the central courtyard, perhaps designed to improve circulation within the eastern part of the building. This re-arrangement could have been necessitated by the sub-division of the former courtyard area, and its use for accommodation, represented by the insertion of C122.

Some excavated praetoriae comprised two distinct structural units, one comprising the domestic arrangement, the second a compound containing a range of sheds and outbuildings (Fig. 2.8b; Johnson 1983, 137; Pen Llystyn, Hogg 1968, 130–132 and fig. 19). One possibility to be considered is that Structure 18.13 beam-slot C101 formed the eastern wall of such a compound, although this is a purely speculative interpretation since excavation provided no evidence for a joining, east–west aligned wall. Since the excavated part of the building only occupies half of the width between the via principalis and the via quintana, another possibility is that an attached compound could have been located to the north of the northern excavated wall of the building.

It is difficult to estimate the full size of the Metchley example from the limited groundplan provided by excavation. If the building extended southwards up to the via principalis frontage, it could have measured a

S25

1552 Limit of 1153

1643

1637

S24 1471

1154

1172

1529

1478

S23

1798

1033

1796

1098 1794 1800

S22

1130 0

1101

Figure 2.9 Phase 1D/1E, western intervallum, detailed plan (scale 1:50) 26

1m

Results It is notable that a quantity of high-status, decorated samian ware was dumped in nearby pit 2208 in Phase 2B (see Wild, Chapter 3, this volume). This material was presumably derived from clearance of the praetorium during the later use of the site as a military stores depot (see below).

This layer was overlain by a layer of burnt red clay, 1353, flecked with charcoal, a further re-lining of the feature. Above were successive lenses of burnt yellow clay, 1354, sealed by a layer of burnt red and yellow clay, 1187, the remains of a further collapsed dome of the superstructure. These lenses were overlain by a layer of mixed red and yellow clay, 1200. This deposit was sealed by a layer of dark grey-brown silt-clay-sand, 1031 (not illustrated in section). A similar sequence was recorded in the southwestern quadrant.

Description of Phase 1D/Phase 1E intervallum (Figs 2.3 and 2.9–2.10) Praetentura (Figs 2.3 and 2.9–2.10)

The backfilled oven was cut by a stakehole, 1098, and an adjoining posthole, 1130. Traces of the eastern side of a further oven, 1153, was recorded to the west of 1033. Although 1153 was mostly cut away by a later feature, 1471 (see below) it appeared to be backfilled by red-brown clay, 1154, interpreted as the remains of the collapsed dome of the oven.

In the praetentura, the main industrial features comprised a well, 1101 (Plate 2.6), an oven, 1033 (Plates 2.7–2.8), and a further oven/hearth, 1471. These features apparently respected each other, although they are unlikely to have been in contemporary use. The sequence of use cannot be reconstructed, except that the earliest feature could have been the western terminal of an east–west aligned gully, 1643, cut by feature 1471.

Oval pit 1471 (Fig. 2.10.S.24) was cut through oven 1153 and gully 1643, and into the subsoil. 1471 measured 3m (north–south) by 1.5m (east–west). This pit was cut to a U-shaped profile, with near vertical sides and a slightly rounded base. It measured a maximum of 1.6m in depth. The sides and base of the feature were lined with clay, 1490 (not illustrated), burnt red in situ. The base of the feature was backfilled with red-brown clay, 1537, overlain by a layer of red-brown clay, 1531, containing a quantity of roundwood fragments. This layer was sealed by redeposited subsoil, 1477, overlain by a further layer of red-brown clay, 1476. In turn this was sealed by a further layer of redeposited subsoil, 1475, overlain by layers of red-brown sand-silt, 1474, 1528, 1527, backfilled into the surviving hollow of the feature after its abandonment. This feature is interpreted as a possible quenching tank. The burnt deposits represent re-use of the remaining hollow of the feature for an industrial purpose. A north–south aligned gully, 1172 was cut through 1471, but was only recorded within the area of 1471. It was backfilled with brown sand-silt, 1509. An adjoining gully, 1529 (Fig. 2.10.S.24), backfilled with similar material, 1154 and 1530, may have been associated.

The southernmost feature of this group was a well, 1101 (Fig. 2.10.S.22, Plate 2.6), measuring 2m square in plan, with rounded corners. As excavated, the well measured a minimum of 2.72m in depth, although its base could not be reached for reasons of safety. The sides of the well were nearly vertical, and were probably originally lined with timber, although no trace of the lining had survived in situ. Four postholes, 1794, 1796, 1798 and 1800, were recorded at its lowest excavated level. In plan, these postholes defined an approximate rectangle measuring 0.5m (north– south), and 0.7m (east–west), which is considered too small to have represented the original lining of the well. It is possible that the postholes related to a secondary reuse of the well, possibly to supply water for an industrial purpose (see below). The well was backfilled with a single homogenous deposit of brown sand-silt, 1100, flecked with charcoal, and containing pebble scatters throughout. This deposit probably represents the deliberate backfilling of the well, when it finally went out of use. The northern part of 1101 was truncated by an ill-defined cut, 1478 (Fig. 2.10.S.22), which was difficult to interpret. To the immediate north of the well was a ‘boat-shaped’ oven, 1033 (Fig. 2.10.S.23, Plates 2.7–2.8), its long axis aligned north–south. The oven measured 2.4m by 1m in plan. It was cut to a U-shape in profile, and measured a maximum of 0.4m in depth. The base of the northwestern quadrant of the feature was lined with clay, 1472, burnt red-orange in situ. Above was a dump of pale yellow sand-clay, 1416, part of the lining of the feature. This was sealed by a layer of yellow-brown sand-silt, 1473, flecked with charcoal. This was overlain by a layer of dark brown-black charcoal-rich sand-silt, 1436, the fuel from a firing episode. Above was a lens of red burnt clay, 1438, possibly representing part of the collapsed dome of the kiln structure. This was sealed by a layer of dark brownblack charcoal-rich silt, 1301, representing a second firing of the oven. Above was a layer of red-brown silt-clay, 1300/1136, part of the collapsed oven dome structure.

Gully 1643 (Fig. 2.10.S.25), adjoining 1471 is interpreted as a possible flue. It was lined with clay, and backfilled with grey-brown silt, 1644, flecked with charcoal. Two postholes, 1552 and 1637, adjoining the northwestern side of 1471 were probably associated with its use. The posthole backfills contained quantities of burnt clay and charcoal. Within the western intervallum features 1033, 1101, 1552 and 1471 contained a few charred cereal seeds. Central Range (Figs 2.3 and 2.10) To the east of the western intervallum space was a north– south aligned ditch, C183. The positioning, but not alignment of the ditch could suggest that it was cut along the western side of the via sagularis within the original

27

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Plate 2.6 Phase 1D/1E, 2.6 well 1101, detail

Plate 2.7 Phase 1D/1E,2.7 oven 1033 under excavation

Plate 2.8 Phase 1D/1E, 2.8 oven 1033, partly excavated,

Plate 2.9 Phase 1D/1E, 2.9intervallum ovens 2003 (foreground), 2068 (background), view south

view northeast

Plate 2.10 Phase 1D/1E, 2.10 intervallum oven 2068 excavated in quadrants, detail, view east

28

Results

S22

S

1479

S24

N

1154

W 1478

S25

N

E

1530 1509 1527

1172

S

1644 1529

1528

1643

1474

1100

1475 1476 1477 1101

1531

1537 1471

1796

0

2m

1130

1354

S23

(reversed)

N

1200 1187

1136

S

1353

1243 1300 1301

1473 1472

1436

1416

1473 1472 1438

1033

S26

C183

W

W

W

E

2069

2010

2070

2012 2005

2028 2004

2031

S30

2018

S31

W

E

2081

2028

2036 2029 2008 2030 2012 2031 2038

2038 2003

S

2030 2029 2004

2013

2008 2030

2257

2072

2005

2029

E

2256

N

E

C186

W

E

2071

2009

S29

S28

S27

C183

2076

2003

2037

2057 2068

W

P133 1613 1612

S33

S32 P134 1611

1355

W P133

E

1355 1613

1355

1610

1612

P139 E 1611 1614

S34 W

P131 1231 1230

E

P132 1143 1143

1507

0

1508

Figure 2.10 Phase 1D/1E, western intervallum 2.10, sections (S.22–S.34, scales 1:100, and 1:40) 29

2m

1174 (spina) 1263

0.25m 1.84m x 0.84m

sand 1173, light brown-orange sandsilt-clay

1.10m x 0.74m

1262, light brown-grey sandsilt-clay

1180 1266

0.25m 0.22m x 0.92m 0.19 x 0.92m

charcoal-rich silt 1179, grey-black silt-clay; 1161, dark grey-black siltclay 1264, grey-black silt-clay

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 TABLE 2.2 PHASE 1D/1E FEATURES, METALWORKING DEBRIS

Cut 1101 1101 2003

Fill 1100 1100 2005

Wt 54g 4g 1336g

Details Burnt clay Hammerscale # Undiagnostic slag, vitrified clay (hearth bottom 75 x 60 x 50; 110 x 90 x 45mm) 2003 2008 270g Undiagnostic slag, vitrified/ burnt clay 2003 2013 287g Possible hearth bottom (65 x 65 x 35mm) 2003 2028 139g Undiagnostic slag 2003 2038 133g Vitrified clay and charcoal fragments 2003 2005 188g Burnt/ vitrified clay 2003 2008 431g Burnt/ vitrified clay 2003 2029 104g Burnt/ vitrified clay 2003 2030 407g Burnt/ vitrified clay 2003 2031 62g Burnt clay 2003 2005 6g Hammerscale # 2003 2030 1g Hammerscale # 2060 2075 130g Undiagnostic slag, vitrified/ burnt clay 2068 2067 85g Vitrified clay 2068 2067 Hammerscale # Key: # weight may include other metalworking residues Table 2.2 Phase 1D/1E features, metalworking debris

charcoal. A single posthole, 2268, was cut into C186, and a stakehole, 2276 was cut into C185.

Phase 1D/1E fort layout. C183 (Fig. 2.10.S.26–27) was recorded for a total length of 21.5m, despite truncation in Phase 2B (see below). The southern terminal of C183 was flush with the southern terminal of outer ditch C175 and the northern side of the gatehouse, Structure 18.2. C183 was cut to a gently-sloping U-shaped profile close to its southern terminus, with a V-shaped profile elsewhere. It measured a maximum of 1.2m in width, and 0.2m in depth. Evidence of re-cutting was found in one segment (Fig. 2.10.S.27). C183 was backfilled with dark brown clay-silt, containing pockets of charcoal flecking. No trace was found of the via sagularis pebble surface within the central range, although pebble inclusions within C183 probably derived from it. There was no surviving trace of an eastern via sagularis ditch, possibly because of modern disturbance.

The eastern side of the palisade trench, C186, was cut by an oval pit, 2003 (Fig. 2.10.S.29–30, Plate 2.9), its long axis aligned north–south. It was dug to a U-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 2.16m in diameter, and 2 1.60m in depth. Its primary fill comprised rounded cobbles set within grey sand-clay, 2018/2038. Above was a layer of orange-grey sand-clay, 2012/2031, flecked with charcoal. This deposit was sealed by a layer of black charcoal stained sand-clay, 2008/2030, overlain by light grey-orange sandclay, 2005/2029. Above was the uppermost backfill of the feature, a grey sand-clay, 2004/2028, incorporating fragments of ash. The pit was cut by a single posthole, 2037 (not illustrated). In Fig. 2.10.S.30 its primary backfill comprised a layer of rounded pebbles set within a greyblack silt-clay matrix, 2013/2038, measuring 0.19m in depth. This was overlain by a shallow layer of orange sand-clay, 2012/2031. Above was a layer of charcoal, 2008/2030. This was sealed by a layer of light grey/ orange mottled sand-clay, 2005/2029, cut by a vertically-sided posthole, 2037. The backfilled posthole and layer 2029 were sealed by a layer of grey sand, 2028, with a high ash content.

A small group of industrial features was identified in the western intervallum, to the north of the entrance, and between the tail of the western rampart and ditch C183. The westernmost feature of this group of industrial features was a pit, 2060, backfilled with charcoal-flecked soil and containing a quantity of rounded pebbles, dug into the eastern edge of the rampart tail. The pit was cut by a single stakehole, 2316. The eastern edge of 2060 was cut by the western side, C184, of a three-sided palisade trench, C184, C185 and C186 (Fig. 2.10.S.28). Part of the western, C184, southern, C185, and eastern sides, C186, of this arrangement were recorded within the excavated area. Its northern side was outside the excavated area. As excavated, the palisade trenches defined an area measuring a maximum of 6m (north–south) by 2.5m (east– west; measured centre-to-centre). The palisade trench was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 0.3m in width, and 0.2m in depth. It was backfilled with

Immediately to the south was a further oval pit, 2068 (Fig. 2.10.S.31, Plates 2.9–2.10), although no relationship could be observed between the two features, which may be considered to be contemporary, because of their similarity in morphology and backfills. 2068 was oval in plan, its long axis aligned north–south. It was cut to a U-shape in profile, and measured a maximum of 1.65m in diameter, and 0.26m in depth. 2068 was backfilled with dark greyblack silt-clay, 2057, sealed by orange sand-clay, 2081.

30

Results Over the remainder of the central range, Roman features had been scoured-out by modern levelling-down for Vincent House.

It comprised a light yellow-orange silt-clay, and may represent redeposited natural subsoil. It was overlain by layer 1507, an orange-brown silt-clay, 1507 containing small pebbles. This deposit may represent a yard surface, in which case layer 1508 could represent levelling.

Table 2.2 summarises the metalworking debris recovered from Phase 1D/1E.

PHASE 2B (FIG. 2.1)

Dating evidence from Phase 1D/1E intervallum

It is assumed that the Phase 2B military stores depot interior was sub-divided by the via principalis (which remained in use) into central range and praetentura, although the internal layouts during this phase did not correspond with a garrison fort.

Within the praetentura, features 1033, 1101 and 1471 contained 1st-century coarse ware. 1033 also contained samian ware of the same date. 1101 and 1552 also contained samian ware pre-dating AD 85. Within the central range, pits 2008 and 2068 and ditch C183 contained 1st-century coarse ware.

Summary of Phase 2B features (Fig. 2.11)

Interpretation of Phase 1D/1E intervallum features

During Phase 2B a roughly rectangular temporary arrangement, Structure 18.4, was laid out to ‘funnel’ livestock through the Phase 1B gatehouse, Structure 18.2, which remained in use. The Phase 1B rampart was maintained, although the rearward timber revetment was dismantled. Phase 2B temporary buildings, Structures 18.9 and 18.10 were laid-out to the west of Phase 1E Structure 18.15, the praetorium, and Structure 18.11 was built to the south of the Phase 1E building, which at least partly remained in use. The largest feature of this phase within the former intervallum was a roughly rectangular pit, C166, which contained ironworking residues, not necessarily in situ. At the end of Phase 2B, the western Phase 1B double-ditches were backfilled, including material from the slighting of the rampart.

The features located in the central range intervallum may be interpreted as the bases of ovens, probably for breadmaking, cut into the rampart tail. The plant remains were undiagnostic, possibly because of the degree of modern truncation here. The stony oven bases would have been intended to retain heat. Further features were recorded in the praetentura intervallum. The well, 1101 was probably originally lined with timber, although no trace of that lining has survived. The adjoining features were ovens. The sequence of fills indicates multiple firings, represented by alternate layers of charcoal (the fuel) and burnt clay (collapsed dome material).

The Phase 2B features were cut through the Phase 1B features, and into the subsoil.

This excavation provided the first opportunity for detailed investigation of the central range intervallum. Previous excavations have extensively tested the retentura (Jones 2001) and praetentura intervallum areas (Jones 2001, Areas M3–M4; Jones 2005a, Areas M7–M8). Given the association suggested between adjoining barrack-blocks and adjoining intervallum ovens (eg Elginhaugh, Hanson 2007, 183ff; Pen Llystyn, Hogg 1968, figs 18 and 20; Fendoch, Richmond and McIntyre 1938–1939, 138), is it possible to suggest that the excavated ovens in the central range were associated with the use of the praetorium?

Description of Phase 2B entrance arrangements (Figs 2.12–2.14)

Layers which could belong to the first fort, or the later military stores depot have been allocated to this broad phase.

The main Phase 2B entrance feature was a roughly rectangular temporary arrangement, Structure 18.4, defined by postholes, its main axis aligned east–west, at a right-angle to the Phase 1B defences, and positioned approximately centrally within the Phase 1B entrance carriageway. The Phase 2B post-pits and postholes were cut into the surface of the Phase 1B via principalis. Structure 18.4 measured 3.5m in width (north–south) and 7.5m in length (east–west). The western side of the arrangement was roughly flush with the outer edge of the innermost Phase 1B ditch, P116 and C176. The eastern side of the building adjoined the outer edge of Phase 1B Structure 18.2, which remained in use.

A layer of small cobbles, 1355 (Fig. 2.10.S.32–33), overlying the natural subsoil, 2008, located in the southern intervallum may have formed part of a yard surface adjoining the eastern side of the via sagularis. It was cut by Phase 3B–4B beam-slots P133 and P139 (see below). Layer 1508 (Fig. 2.10.S.34) also overlay the subsoil.

The northern side of the arrangement was defined by a posthole, 1240 (Fig. 2.12.S.35) and two post-pits 1313 (Fig. 2.12.S.36), and 1341 (Fig. 2.12.S.37), positioned at an average separation of 3.5m. The latter was re-cut (1363). Post-pits 1341 and 1313 both contained post-pipes, 1342 and 1315 respectively, each positioned off centre. The

Description and interpretation of Phase 1D/1E–Phase 2B southern intervallum

31

Later Feature

Rampart

Structure 18.4

FIGURE 2.11 PHASE 2B, SIMPLIFIED PLAN (SCALE 1:400)

1000 2030

C166

0

10m

Structure 18.10

Structure 18.11

Structure 18.9

EXCAVATIONS AT METCHLEY ROMAN FORT 2004–2005

32

Results

S43

Structure 18.4 1240

1036

S35

S36 S37

1315

1313

1363 1342 1341

1337

1333

1335

1199

1178 1195 P120 1197

S40

1176

S9

1205

S41

1192

1207

P153 1164

1339

S42

1112

S38 1190

0

5m

S35

N

S39

S

S36

W

1239

S

1199

N

1163 1164

P120

1315

1313

S40 1198

S37

W

1312

1240

N

1314 E

P153

1194

S41 1193

NE

S38

1340

1362

1191

1341

1363

1192

S42

N

S

E

1204

W

S

NE

S39

SW

1189 1190

S43

E

1029

1205

1195 0

SW

1m

1036

Figure 2.12 Phase 2B, plan of Structure 18.4 (scale 1:100) and sections (S.35–S.43, scale 1:40) southern side of the arrangement was defined by two pairs of postholes, one located towards the southwestern angle of the building, 1333 and 1335, the second towards the southeastern angle of the building, 1339 and 1178 2.12 (Fig. 2.4.S.9). The latter was cut into the extreme western edge of Phase 1B post-pit 1174 which formed the centre post of the Phase 1B gate structure. A single posthole, 1337, positioned off-centre within the interior of the building, completed the arrangement. The backfills of the post-pits and postholes varied from grey silt-clay to brown-orange silt-clay.

An east–west aligned fenceline, measuring 4.6m in length, positioned 2.3m to the south of the building could have been associated. It was defined by three postholes, 1207, 1192 (Fig. 2.12.S.38) and 1190 (Fig. 2.12.S.39). Posthole 1207 was approximately flush with 1337, which suggests they may have been associated. A further posthole, 1176 (Fig. 2.4.S.9) positioned 3m to the north of 1190, could also have been part of this fenceline. 1176 was cut into the extreme eastern edge of Phase 1B post-pit 1174. These Phase 2B postholes were backfilled with grey, or greyblack silt-clay.

33

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

1240

1036

1315 1363 1313 1342

1337

1333

1385

1199

Structure 18.4

1178 1339

1195 1197

1176

1205

P153

Via

1192

1207

0

1341

Pri

1190

5m

nci

pa

lis

Rampart

Figure 2.13 Phase 2B, Structure 18.4, schematic plan; showing Phase 1E Structure 18.2 in grey tone (scale 1:125) Other Phase 2B entrance features which could not be related to Structure 18.4 comprised a shallow, irregular gully, roughly L-shaped in plan, P120 (Fig. 2.12.S.40), including a posthole, 1195 (Fig. 2.12.S.41) and an elongated pit, P153 (Fig. 2.12.S.40). 1195 cut the northeastern terminal of P120, and P153 was cut through P120, and into the extreme northern terminal of Phase 1B ditch P116. P120 may have formed part of the alignment represented by postholes 1207, 1192 and 1190. A further posthole, 1205 (Fig. 2.12.S.42), may have been associated with 1195. The westernmost Phase 2B feature within the entrance was a shallow, oval pit, 1036 (Fig. 2.12.S.43), cut through the Phase 1D/1E via principalis, and into the subsoil, 1008. This pit could not be related to any contemporary structural arrangement. It could have been dug as a quarry pit, after the entrance went out of use at the end of Phase 2B, during the first Roman abandonment of the Metchley site. No datable pottery was recovered from the Phase 2B entrance features, which are attributed to this phase based on the stratigraphic sequence, their individual morphology, overall arrangement, and parallels with the contemporary arrangement immediately outside the western gate (Jones 2011, fig. 3.7; Fig. 2.14).

Interpretation of Phase 2B entrance arrangements (Figs 2.12–2.14) The placement of the Phase 2B Structure 18.4 relative to the Phase 1B gatehouse, Structure 18.2, is important. The Phase 2B building was laid out centrally within the 2.13 carriageway leading to the Phase 1B gatehouse. Two Phase 2B postholes, 1178 and 1176 (Fig. 2.4.S.9) were cut into the extreme edges of Phase 1B post-pit 1174 (spina), which defined the central gate post. This positioning indicates that the spina of the Phase 1B porta principalis dextra continued to be maintained, although the Phase 1B guardchamber will have gone out of use. The Phase 2B temporary arrangement may have comprised no more than two, or possibly three, east–west aligned wattle fences. This structure is likely to have functioned as an integral part of the livestock ‘funnel’ located 20m to the west (Fig. 2.14; Area M9, Jones 2011). At Elginhaugh (Hanson 2007, 652) the entrance passages were narrowed by enlargement of the ramparts during the post-garrison phase of occupation, suggested to be associated with military livestock requisition. The southern fenceline, postholes 1207, 1192 and 1190 respected the southern side of the southern carriageway

34

RESULTS

Area M18

Area M9

G51

G27 G52 G30

Via Principalis

Structure 18.4

G50 G31 G45

Rampart

G53

G55 Conjectured Rampart

0

20m

FIGURE 2.14 PHASE 2B, SIMPLIFIED PLAN SHOWING EXTERNAL ‘FUNNEL’ (AREA M9) AND PHASE 2B STRUCTURE 18.4 IN WESTERN ENTRANCE ARRANGEMENT IN M18 (SCALE 1:500), AND RECONSTRUCTION, VIEW EAST

35

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 of the Phase 1B gatehouse. The remaining postholes and gullies, P120 and P153, may also have been intended for the ‘sorting’ of livestock. In particular, posthole 1273 to the south of the fenceline, and posthole 1337 within Structure 18.4 could have been associated with the fenceline. Postholes 1195 and 1205, and postholes 1207 and 1192 could have formed a narrow livestock ‘crush’, measuring 0.6m in width. Description of Phase 2B internal features (Figs 2.11 and 2.15–2.18) Description of the Phase 2B industrial features in the western intervallum is followed by description of the Phase 2B buildings (Structures 18.9–18.11).

Plate 2.11 Phase 2B 2.11 large pit 2208/C166 before excavation, view southeast

Western intervallum (Figs 2.11 and 2.15–2.16) To the north of the porta principalis dextra, the Phase 1B timber supports at the rear of the Phase 1B rampart (Fig. 2.3, 2230, 2378, 2520 and 2032) were removed during Phase 2B. The possible western Phase 1D/1E via sagularis went entirely out of use, and this area was encroached upon by Phase 2B features. The largest single Phase 2B feature was a massive roughly rectangular pit, C166 (Plates 2.11–2.14), measuring a maximum of 9m (north–south), and 5.5m (east–west). This feature was cut to the rear of2.11 the Phase 1B western rampart, and followed the north–south alignment of the Phase 1B fort. The pit base was irregular, measuring between 0.5m and 0.9m in depth. Its western side truncated Phase 1B post-pits 2378 and 2520, and its eastern edge was cut into the backfilled Phase 1D/1E western ditch, C183, of the via sagularis (Fig. 2.3). Its eastern side was irregular, as a result of re-cutting, but the other sides of the feature were fairly regular in plan. The northwestern corner of C166 was rounded, and also slightly enlarged. The northern and western edges were vertically-cut, while the remaining sides were less steeply-cut, and were also dug to a stepped profile. Within the feature a single posthole, 2195, and two stakeholes, 2278 and 2280 were cut. Three postholes, 2222, 2140 and 2142 cut outside the pit could have been 2.11 2.13 associated.

2.12 2.11 Plate 2.12 Phase 2B large pit 2208/C166, southeastern 2.13

quadrant under excavation, showing exposed cobbles, view east

Plate 2.13 Phase 2B large pit2.12 2208/C166, southwestern quadrant 2.13 2.15 2.14 under excavation, showing pits 2272 and 2219, view east

The sequence of backfills within C166 (Fig. 2.15.S.44) was complex. The earliest backfills comprised a light yellow-orange silt-clay, 2307, along the northern edge of the feature, and a similar deposit, 2202, in the base of the feature. 2307 was sealed by a grey silt-clay, 2201 and 2202, which was overlain by a deposit of brown clay-silt, 2207, flecked with charcoal. Above was a lens of charcoal, 2206 (Plate 2.11), sealed by deposits of dark brown-black charcoal-stained silt, 2212/2213. These were overlain by a layer of light brown-yellow silt-clay, 2136, sealed by a second charcoal deposit, 2168. Above was a light brown silt-clay, 2192 which will have accumulated in the remaining hollow of the feature, after its abandonment.

2.13

2.15 2.15Plate 2.14 Phase 2B large2.14 pit 2208/C166, southwestern quadrant fully excavated, view northeast

36

Results C183 2167

C181

S44

2278

C166

C182

2280

2385

2406

2384

2404

2373

2272

2387

2195

S45 2314

2219

2142

2140

2208A 2315

2367

S46

2208 2222 0

N

S44 (reversed)

2206 2213 2192

2213

2168

2207

2307

5m

2212

2201

S 2136 2206

2270 2202 2272

2271

S45

W

E

C166 2137

2310

2214

2270

2216 2244 2243

2271 2311

2224

2207

2312 2313

2202 2208

2208A

2308 2314

2272

2382 2373

N

S46 (reversed) 2348 2349

2347

2208A

2349

S 2365

2368

2366 2315

2367

0

1m

Figure 2.15 Phase 2B intervallum pit C166 group , plan (scale 1:100) and sections (S.44–S.46, scale 1:40) 2.15

37

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

S47

2109

2175

2172

2181

2179

S48 2143

2131

2144

2205

0

5m

S47

N

S 2178

2171

2172

2173

0

2174

N

S48

2157 2159

2158

2179

2176

2175

2m

2163

2144

2147

S

2164

2148

2153 2161 2145

2155

2162 2156

2146

2154 2151

2152 2149

2150 2131

2143

0

Figure 2.16 Phase 2B southern intervallum pit group plan (scale 1:100) and sections (S. 47, scale 1:40;2.16 S.48, scale 1:20)

38

1m

Results

2.13 Later activity is represented by the digging of a number of smaller, intercutting pits, cut into the C166 backfills. Three pits, 2219, 2272 and 2373, were cut towards the centre of C166. Pit 2219 was oval in plan, and measured a maximum of 0.7m in length and 0.13m in depth. It was backfilled with orange-red burnt clay, 2213 (not illustrated). Pit 2373 (Fig. 2.15.S.45) was circular in plan, measuring 1.6m in diameter, and 1m in depth. The primary backfill of this feature was a light grey-brown silt-clay-sand, 2382, sealed by a lens of light brown clay-silt, 2310. This was overlain by a layer of rounded cobbles, 2243, sealed by a deposit of charcoal, 2244. Above was a layer of dark brown sand-silt, 2216, flecked with charcoal, overlain by a deposit of mid brown sand-silt, 2214, the uppermost backfill of the pit. Pit 2272 (Fig. 2.14.S.44–S.45), was cut through pit 2373, and into backfilled pit C166. 2272 was roughly square in plan with rounded corners, measuring approximately 1.4m in diameter, and 0.8m in depth. It was backfilled with greybrown silt-clay, 2311, sealed by brown-orange silt-clay, 2271, overlain by dark grey-brown silt-clay, 2270.

2.14

2.15 Plate 2.15 Phase 2B, pit 2131/ 2143/ 2144, view northeast

A few charred cereal seeds were recovered from pit C166, probably representing no more than background debris. A further cluster of intercutting pits was located within the former central range to the north of the via principalis (Figs 2.11 and 2.16). The northernmost of this feature group comprised three adjoining re-cut pits (Fig. 2.16.S.47). Little survived of pit 2179 (Fig. 2.16.S.47). It was cut by a small posthole, 2181. The second pit in the sequence, 2175, measured a maximum of 2.3m in diameter and 0.82m in depth. It was backfilled with mottled yellow-grey siltclay, 2176, sealed by a lens of dark brown silt-clay, 2174, tipping from the eastern side of the feature. The remaining hollow of the feature was backfilled with orange silt-sandclay, 2173. The latest pit in this sequence, 2172, was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 0.96m in diameter and 0.38m in depth. It was backfilled with grey silt-clay, 2171.

Further pits were cut in the east of the abandoned large pit C166. The earliest of these features, two adjoining pits, 2208A and 2315 (Fig. 2.15.S.45–S.46), together forming a ‘figure of eight’ in plan, may have been contemporary. Pit 2208A was oval in plan, measuring a maximum of 2.65m in length, and 0.75m in depth. It was backfilled with yellowgrey sand-clay, 2349/2313, sealed by dark grey silt-sand, 2348/2312, flecked with charcoal, overlain by a deposit of charcoal, 2347. Adjoining pit 2315 (Fig. 2.15.S.46) was oval in plan, measuring a maximum of 1.7m north–south, and 0.5m in depth. It was backfilled with light brown silt-sand, 2366, sealed by dark grey-black silt-clay, 2365, flecked with charcoal. This feature was in turn cut by a small pit, 2367, which measured 0.65m in diameter and 0.32m in depth. It was backfilled with dark brown siltclay, 2368. A layer of dark grey-black charcoal-stained clay-silt, 2137, sealed pits 2208A, 2272 and 2373. This layer, and pit 2208A was cut by a second ‘figure of eightshape’ pit, 2314 (Fig. 2.15.S.45), measuring a maximum of 3.25m along its long, north–south aligned axis. It was backfilled with charcoal-stained clay-silt, 2308 and 2224.

Re-cut pits 2131, 2143 and 2144 (Fig. 2.16.S.48, Plate 2.15) were located further to the south. The earliest feature in this sequence was 2131, which measured a maximum of 2.58m in diameter and 0.98m in depth. It was cut to a slightly irregular profile, with a fairly flat base. The basal backfill was a yellow sand, 2149, which probably accumulated as a result of weathering. This was overlain by a localised deposit of grey-brown silt, 2150. Above was a lens of grey sand, 2151, overlain by a band of mottled orange sand-clay, 2152. This was sealed by lenses of grey sand, 2154 and dark grey-black sand-silt, 2156. The latest deposit along the southern edge of the pit was a yellow-orange sand-clay, 2162. On the northern side of the pit layer 2152 was sealed by orange-brown claysand, 2153 and 2155, overlain by mottled black/ orange silt-sand, 2158, and sealed by brown-yellow sand, 2157. The pit was re-cut, 2143. The re-cut was dug with a flat base and a tapering profile, measuring a maximum of 1.9m in diameter and 0.65m in depth. Its primary backfill was a grey sand-silt, 2146, sealed by a layer of orange claysand, 2145. Above was a lens of dark grey-black sand-silt, 2159/2163. This was overlain by a deposit of light orange sand, 2161, tipping into the western side of the pit. Above

The remaining Phase 2B features within the former western intervallum were located along the projected line of the via sagularis, indicating its complete abandonment. The eastern side of backfilled C166 was cut by the western terminal of an east–west aligned ditch, C182, which was recorded for a distance of 9m. Two postholes, 2406 and 2404, were located to the south of this ditch, together with an L-shaped gully, 2387/2384, cut by a circular hearth, 2385. This feature was backfilled with charcoal-stained orange sand-silt, including fragments of burnt daub. A further ditch, C183, was located to the north of C182, and following its alignment. C183 was recorded for a distance of 6.7m. This feature was probably associated with two short gullies, C181 and 2167. C183 was backfilled with grey clay-sand.

39

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 was a deep deposit of brown-grey silt-sand, 2164. The upper backfills of pit 2143 were cut by the third pit in the sequence, 2144. This pit was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 0.9m in diameter and 0.28m in depth. It was backfilled with light grey-orange sand, 2148, sealed by light grey silt-sand, 2147. Morphologically, pits 2144 and 2172 were similar. The other pits within this feature group comprised 2205 and 2109. 2205 measured 1.17m in diameter and 0.21m in depth, and 2109 measured a maximum of 2m in diameter and 0.25m in depth.

It was cut by a single stakehole, 2634. 2467 was roughly circular in plan, measuring 1.5m in diameter and 0.23m in depth. The pit was backfilled with brown-black charcoal rich silt. A short length of a northwest–southeast aligned beam-slot, C106, the only example of this alignment, could not be related to any other feature of this phase. The southern group of Phase 2B features mainly comprised east–west aligned beam-slots, which were notably irregular in plan, similar to the structures in the presumably contemporary northwestern feature group.

Phase 2B buildings (Figs 2.11 and 2.17–2.18)

The main Phase 2B structure in this group was the extreme northeastern angle of a building, Structure 18.11. This building was defined by the discontinuous beam-slots forming the eastern end of its northern side, C146 (Fig. 2.18.S.53) and C128 (Fig. 2.18.S.54), and a short length of its eastern side, C134 (Fig. 2.18.S.55). The remaining sides of Structure 18.11 lay outside the excavated area, or outside the area of good archaeological preservation. As excavated, the northern side of the building measured 13m in length, and the eastern side of the building was 2.8m in length. An entry-gap measuring 3m in width was recorded along the northern side of the building. A second entry-gap, measuring 1.5m in width, was sited at its northeastern corner. C128, forming part of the northern side of the building, adjoined the southern terminal of C127 belonging to Phase 1B Structure 18.15, as defined by a posthole, 2628 (Fig. 2.6). C134, forming the eastern side of Structure 18.11, was cut parallel to a further beam-slot, C133, which extended for a distance of 2.5m to the north of the northeastern corner of the Phase 2B building. The Structure 18.11 northern beam-slots measured an average of 0.5m in width, and 0.24m in depth, and were backfilled with orange-brown silt-clay.

Two further groups of Phase 2B features were located in the northern excavated part of the former central range, separated by the surviving remains of Phase 1E Structure 18.15 (Fig. 2.6), which may have been partly retained in this phase. The western group comprised beam-slots, and possibly associated features. A fragment of a north–south aligned beam-slot, C102 (Fig. 2.18.S.49), was identified, which probably formed part of the eastern wall of a timberframed building, Structure 18.10. The other three sides of the building lay outside the excavated area, or outside the area of good archaeological survival. C102 was recorded for a total length of 6.5m, and terminated to the south in a rounded butt-end. An adjoining posthole, 2649, may have further defined one side of an entry-gap. C102 was joined by a fragment of an east–west aligned beam-slot, C151, forming the eastern end of an internal division within the building. C102 was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.35m in width, and 0.2m in depth. Internal dividing wall C151 was less substantial, measuring 0.2m in width, and only 0.12m in depth. The beam-slot backfills comprised brown-grey sand-silt. A posthole, 2618, was located at the junction between C102 and C151.

Two adjoining beam-slots, C144 and C145 (Fig. 2.18.S.56) were recorded within the interior of the building. C145 may have been associated with an adjoining stakehole, 2646. C144 and C145 were cut on a slightly different alignment to the northern wall of the building. A hearth, 2281, was also recorded within the interior of the building. An elongated oven, 2273, measuring a maximum of 1.1m in diameter was cut in the northeastern entry-gap, and truncated the northern end of beam-slot C134 - presumably marking the abandonment of the building. The oven was backfilled with red-orange burnt clay.

A shallow, north–south aligned palisade trench, C103 (Fig. 2.18.S.50), C104 (Fig. 2.18.S.51, Structure 18.9), interrupted by an entry-gap measuring 0.5m in width, was recorded 1.5m to the east of the eastern side of Structure 18.10. The palisade trenches were identified for a total distance of 10.5m. They were slightly sinuous in plan, and measured an average of 0.4m in width, but only 0.06m in depth. C103–C104 were backfilled with grey-brown sandsilt, with orange mottling. The southern terminal of C103 was cut by a stakehole, 2604, and two postholes, 2608 and 2610, were cut towards the northern terminal of C104. Two stakeholes, 2693 and 2695, and two adjoining postholes, 2685 and 2687, to the west, positioned approximately flush with the entry-gap between C103 and C104, could have been associated.

A later episode of Phase 2B activity is represented by beam-slots and other features cut following a northeast– southwest alignment, and characterised by backfills containing large quantities of charcoal and burnt clay. Parallel, but irregularly-shaped beam-slots C141 and C142 (Fig. 2.18.S.57) were cut into the subsoil in the northern entry-gap of the presumably abandoned Phase 2B Structure 18.11. C141 and C142 each measured 1.8m in length, 0.37m in width and 0.07m in depth. The beam-slots were backfilled with black-red silt-clay, flecked with burnt clay and charcoal. Two further adjoining beam-slots, C143 (Fig. 2.18.S.58) and C150, following the same alignment

Other Phase 2B features in this northwestern group comprised two large pits, 2632 and 2467 (Fig. 2.18.S.52), and a small pit, 2612. 2467 may have been associated with three adjoining postholes, 2653, 2651 and 2649. 2632 was 1.4m in diameter and 0.46m in depth, and was backfilled with redeposited subsoil interspersed with charcoal lenses.

40

Results

2685 2693

2687

2632 2634

2695

Structure 18.10

S50

C151

2604

2653

S52

2467

C103

C102

2608

S49

2618

2651

Structure 18.9

2610

2612

S51

2649

C104 C106

Structure 18.15

C147 S53 2300

S59

C146

C144

S56 C145

2465

C143

S57

S58

C142

2646

C141

C150

S54

Structure 18.11

Phase 1E

C128 2273

C133 S55

2281

C134

C137

C131

0

5m

Figure 2.17 Phase 2B buildings, Structures 18.9–18.11, Phase 1 Structure 18.15 in dark grey tone (scale 1:150)

2.17 41

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

W

S49

E

C102

2615

S53 C146

C103

C104

W

E

2611

2603 2602

2614

S

S51

S50

W

N

S

S54

2647

W

2630

S55

E

C134

2467

N

SE

S58 C143

S

NW

S57

C144

2641

2643

2470

2642

2644

2471

2238

C142

SE

2237

N

NW

2654

0

S56

C145

2648 2629

S

2466

2610

N

C128

S52

N

E

S59 2301 2503

S

2504

2653

2m

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct

2300

Figure 2.18 Phase 2B buildings, sections (S.49–S.59, scale 1:40) TABLE 2.3 PHASE 2B FEATURES, METALWORKING DEBRIS

Construct C166 C166 C166

Cut/ Fill 2208/2135 2208/2136 2208/2136

Wt 5g 540g 508g

Details Vitrified clay Vitrified possible hearth lining 2.18 Vitrified clay and undiagnostic slag and hearth bottom (100 x70 x 30) C166 2208/2136 423g Vitrified clay, possible hearth lining C166 2208/2136 837g Vitrified clay, hearth lining C166 2208/2138 272g Burnt clay C166 2208/2138 36g Hammerscale # P132 1143/1217 4g Hammerscale # Key: # weight may include other metalworking residues TABLE 2.4 PHASE 3B–4B DEFENCES INTERNAL FEATURES, DATING EVIDENCE Table 2.3 Phase AND 2B features , metalworking debris Construct Cut Details Dating were recorded further to the northwest, the former Table 2.3 summarises the metalworking debris from Phase P110 1405 Gully to rear of rampart 1st-century coarse pottery terminating in a pit, 2465, backfilled with grey-black silt2B features. 1464 Posthole associated with 1st-century coarse pottery clay. Fragments of two further beam-slots, C147 and C137 Structure 18.5 Dating evidence from Phase 2B internal features were also recorded, to the north, and south, respectively, P107 1489 Gully to rear of rampart 1st-century coarse pottery of the building. P130 1549 E side of Structure 18.5 1st-century coarse pottery Ditch C182, and pits C166, 2109, 2131 and 2175 contained P127 1551 E side of Structure 18.5 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse ware pottery. Pit group C166 also A fragment of a single beam-slot, C131, following a P129 1784 E side of Structure 18.5 1st-century coarse pottery contained samian ware of pre-Flavian, Neronian–early different, southwest–northeast alignment may also be 1778 W side of Structure 18.5 Samian dated before AD 85 Flavian, AD 50–75, AD 50–70 and Neronian–Flavian date. attributed to this phase. A curvilinear beam-slot, 2300 1502 Pit cut at rear of rampart 1st-century coarse pottery (Fig. 2.18.S.59), possibly forming an oval shape in plan P116 1539 West side of StructureInterpretation 18.5 1st-century pottery features (Figs 2.11 of Phasecoarse 2B internal was also identified. This latter was the only Phase 2B P104 1677 Beam-slot at entranceand 2.15–2.18) 1st-century coarse pottery feature identified within the interior of any of the Phase 1716 Pit cut into rampart 1st-century coarse pottery 1D/1E buildings in the former central range. P116 1539 West side of StructureThe 18.5Phase 2B 1st-century pottery beam-slotscoarse in Area M18, as elsewhere within 1679 Post-pit, to southeast of 1st-century coarse pottery the fort interior, were easily distinguishable from those of Possibly the latest Phase 2B event in the fort interior Structure 18.5 preceding Phases 1D/1E by their individual irregularity was the deposition of a layer of charcoal-rich dark grey1750 Pit 1st-century coarse pottery in plan and profile, as well as by their irregular layout brown charcoal stained silt-clay, 1415 (not illustrated), Structure 18.3 overall. A notable distinguishing feature of the Phase 2B interpreted as a destruction deposit, preserved beneath the P133 1417, 1421, Beam-slot 1st-century coarse pottery structural remains in Area M18 is that they did not appear Phase 3A rampart, 1460 (not illustrated). 1415 was not 1612 to extend within the surviving part of the footprint of Phase recorded extensively within the fort interior, because of P134 1423, 1610 Beam-slot coarse pottery 1E Structure1st-century 18.15. later disturbances. P136 1440, 1602 Beam-slot 1st-century coarse pottery P140 1635 Beam-slot 1st-century coarse pottery 42

Results Western intervallum (Figs 2.15–2.16)

Phase 2B buildings (Figs 2.17–2.18)

The largest single Phase 2B feature in the former central range was pit P166. The siting of this feature, along with the dismantling of the Phase 1B rearward rampart post-pit supports indicates that the Phase 1B rampart was partly reduced in width in Phase 2B. The Phase 1D/1E western via sagularis will also have gone out of use during this phase.

Too little of Structure 18.10 was identified to be able to interpret its function, although its eastern side was divided (by C151) into two rooms. This side of Structure 18.10, and the adjoining palisade trench, Structure 18.9, were cut into the access way retained between Phase 1E Structures 18.12 and 18.13 to the west, and Structures 18.14 and 18.15 to the east (Fig. 2.6). As such, they represented one of several changes in overall fort layout within the Phase 2B military stores depot (Jones 2001, 42–54). Together with the evidence from Area M20 (Jones forthcoming c), the Phase 2B features in Area M18 demonstrate that the irregularly-laid out temporary structures associated with the military stores depot extended within the former central range.

Evidence for the function of Phase 2B pit C166 is enigmatic. The positioning of the feature within the western intervallum would suggest an association with breadmaking or ironworking, although the increasing body of evidence from the Phase 2B military stores depot at Metchley suggests that conformity with the standard Roman fort plan is not to be expected. There was no evidence for the burning of the sides of P166 in situ, or for the heating of the large quantities of cobbles found within the pit which might be associated with high temperature processes. In plan, the pit may originally have been close to rectangular in shape. A similarly sized pit, also with a flat base found in a Roman civilian context at Alcester (Booth and Evans 2001, 156, fig. 114, pit 124) was interpreted as an attempt to construct a cellar or semi-subterranean chamber attached to a building. Whilst there is no adjoining building recorded at Metchley, this interpretation should be considered. A parallel for a fabrica unusually located adjoining the defences in the retentura is provided by Elginhaugh (Hanson 2007, 86ff, fig. 5.8). At the Longthorpe military works depot a ‘working platform or terrace’ measuring 18.29m by 6.1m in plan and a maximum of 1.68m in depth was excavated (Dannell and Wild 1987, 54, pit 7). This feature is interpreted as an abandoned gravel quarry, later used for tipping waste from the nearby kilns, unless it was dug specifically for that purpose (ibid, 57). The Metchley feature is notably shallow, but would originally have been considerably deeper. It was located in an area where modern downcutting will have been considerable.

Phase 2B Structures 18.9 and 18.10 could not be directly related stratigraphically. As noted above, the line of stakeholes and postholes within the interior of Structure 18.10 was flush with the entry-gap along the palisade trench, Structure 18.9. Assuming this was correct, Structure 18.9 may post-date the abandonment of Structure 18.10. The less likely alternative is that the two structures were contemporary, in which case Structure 18.9 would have formed the Structure 18.10 veranda. The apparent misalignment between Structures 18.9 and 18.10 would be expected in the context of the military stores depot, where regular layouts were not maintained, and temporary buildings were cut following irregular layouts (eg Jones 2001, 42–54; Jones forthcoming c). The northeastern corner of Structure 18.11 was the other Phase 2B building identified. The only details recorded of its presumed internal layout were the two east–west aligned beam-slots, C144 and C145. Although only traced for a short distance because of recent disturbance, it is possible that they represent the inside of a northern corridor or veranda. Such an interpretation might strengthen the evidence for the association of Structure 18.11 with Structures 18.9 and 18.10 in the northwestern part of the excavated area (see above). Verandas are a common feature of barrack-blocks, but such an interpretation of Phase 2B buildings in the former central range would be no more than speculation.

Whatever the function of the Metchley pit, the finds, including ironworking residues from the feature are likely to relate to its secondary use for rubbish disposal. The small quantity of charred plant remains from the Metchley feature represent no more than a background scatter. The quantities of charcoal contained within the pit, and the metalworking debris recovered from within it (Table 2.3) could suggest an association with ironworking, although these residues were mixed with other ‘rubbish’. The metalworking debris included fragments of hearth bottom, slag, burnt clay and hammerscale, deriving from smithing. It is also possible that these metalworking debris were derived from ironworking elsewhere in the Phase 2B military stores depot (eg Jones 2001, 46–47, Area M3–M4). A group of high status samian pottery deposited within 2373 (Wild, Chapter 3, this volume) is likely to have originated from demolition of the Phase 1E praetorium, almost certainly providing a link between the clearance of this building and the final infilling of the pit.

With only one exception, 2300, a curvilinear beam-slot, the Phase 2B features are located outside the footprint of Phase 1E Structure 18.15. This arrangement could suggest that the excavated part of the footprint of the Phase 1E building survived demolition at the end of Phase 1B. The recovery of a quantity of high status samian pottery (see Wild, Chapter 3, this volume) within backfilled pit group C166 (see above) may help our understanding of the sequence of activity. This dumping suggests that clearance of the Phase 1E praetorium post-dated the disuse of Phase 2B pit C166, indicating that the use of the pit (and other preceding features within the military stores depot) was contemporary with the later use of the praetorium. A less likely alternative is that the samian found in pit C166 43

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 represented material originally disposed of elsewhere at the end of Phase 1E, later re-used for levelling-up of the pit in Phase 2B.

the ditch from its eastern side. This was overlain by a layer of light brown clay, 1016, sealed by a layer of dark brown silt, 1016A. Close to the terminal of P116 (not illustrated in section) the base of the ditch was backfilled with large cobbles set within orange-brown silt-sand, 1032. The cobbles probably derived from adjoining pit C166. Layer 1032 was overlain by orange-brown silt-sand, 1026 interspersed with lenses of charcoal. Above was a layer of dark brown silt-clay, 1021, also containing quantities of charcoal and large rounded cobbles, sealed by a layer of light yellow-orange silt-sand, 1017, interpreted as collapsed rampart material.

By contrast, the Phase 2B structures within the former retentura (Jones 2001, 42–54) were often formed by the re-excavation of the earlier Phase 1 beam-slots. This reexcavation was argued to suggest that the demolition of the Phase 1 buildings and the erection of their Phase 2B successors was part of the same operation, carried out under military control. In both areas, later Phase 2B activity was represented by features backfilled with burnt clay or charcoal. Pits and beam-slots backfilled with charcoal and burnt clay were identified cut into the area of the disused northern entrygap of Structure 18.11, and a further pit belonging to this group, 2273, cut the northern end of the eastern wall of this building. Pits 2632 and 2467 were cut into, or adjoined the eastern wall of Structure 18.10. These pits also provide the first evidence for the spread of industrial processes into the Phase 2B former central range, together with the spreads of burnt clay recorded in Trench B2 to the east (Jones 2005a, 102). In the retentura (Jones 2001, 50) irregular Phase 2B buildings were succeeded by a group of industrial features, the same sequence of Phase 2B activity as that recorded in Area M18. By contrast, the latest Phase 2B episode in the retentura, the layout of wattle fenced structures (also recorded in the former praetentura, see above), was not represented within the former central range, which may indicate a ‘zoning’ of the military stores depot interior for different uses, although this interpretation cannot be proven.

To the north of the entrance, innermost Phase 1B ditch C176 (not illustrated in section), was backfilled with redbrown sand-silt, 1054, overlain by a waterlogged layer of grey clay, 1052, containing a quantity of rounded cobbles (probably derived from adjoining pit C166). Above was a layer of light grey clay, 1037, the uppermost recorded Roman backfill of the ditch. The cobbles recorded within the backfills of both innermost ditches derived from clearance of industrial features in the adjoining intervallum area before the first military abandonment of the site. No Roman backfills were recorded within outermost ditches P117 and C175 which were only partially excavated. The quantities of cobbles recovered from the backfills of the Phase 1B ditches, and pit C166 suggest that the backfilling of the two feature groups was roughly contemporary. This suggests that this sector of the innermost Phase 1B ditch P116/C176 was not re-cut in Phase 3A. Ditch C116 contained 1st-century samian and coarse wares. It also contained samian ware dated AD 50–75, and to the Neronian–early Flavian, Neronian or Flavian and Neronian–Flavian periods.

The few features (eg C147, C143, C141–C142 and C131) aligned southwest–northeast, cut at a tangent to the fort alignment, maintained into Phase 2B suggest a later subphase of activity, characterised by irregular layout, after the fort alignment went out of use. These fragmentary remains cannot be interpreted.

Table 2.3 details the metalworking debris from Phase 2B internal features. The Phase 2B ditch backfills contained fragments of slag and hearth bottom (505g), and hammerscale (2g). The Phase 2B backfills of Phase 1B ditch P116 contained a few charred cereal seeds.

Description, dating evidence and interpretation of the Phase 2B backfilling of the Phase 1B defences (Figs 2.3 and 2.4.S.3)

PHASE 3 (FIG. 2.1) The Phase 3 Roman military re-occupation of the site is represented within Area M18 by the cutting of defensive ditches, the construction of a rampart, and a timber-framed building, Structure 18.8, within the fort interior (Phase 3A). This activity has been distinguished from the external zone of occupation, which may have continued in use during Phase 4A, and is accordingly attributed to Phase 3B–4B.

No in situ evidence survived for the Phase 1B rampart. The removal of the post-pits forming the rearward revetment of the Phase 1B rampart within the former central range will have reduced the rampart in width. The Phase 1B ditches were backfilled at the end of Phase 2B, before the site was first abandoned by the Roman military. To the south of the entrance the primary backfill of P116 (Fig. 2.4.S.3) was an orange-grey mottled siltsand, 1039. This was overlain by a deposit of grey siltsand, 1030. In turn this was sealed by a band of black/ orange silt-clay, 1022. Above was a band of yellow-brown silt-clay, 1020, interpreted as collapsed rampart material. This was overlain by a layer of dark brown silt-clay, 1015, containing a large quantity of rounded cobbles, tipped into

Summary of Phase 3A features (Fig. 2.19) A length of the western Phase 3A fort defences, including the porta principalis dextra, flanked by a gatehouse, Structure 18.16, was recorded within the excavated area. The Phase 3A ditch was partly dug away by later Phase

44

1822

45

1823

1814

1714

R1

2744

.1 6

R2

C171

C172

0

2092

S69 2094

10m

2.19 Figure 2.19 Phase 3A outline plan also showing Phase 4A ditch re-cut P111 and C172 (scale 1:250)

S62

1710

P107

e

P110

ur

1821

1816

P123

P111

P113

S64

ct 18

S89

S61

S75

S63

S tru

S60

Conjectured Rampart

S65

C173

S66

S67

S68

S

e ur ct u tr

1000 2060

.8 18

Results

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 3A and Phase 4A (see below) re-cutting. The Phase 3A ditch was also subject to localised disturbance by modern building foundations; additionally, to the north of the entrance it was heavily truncated by modern levellingdown. Part of a timber-framed granary (Structure 18.8) was the only other Phase 3A building identified. Much of the remainder of the Phase 3A fort interior was heavily scoured-out by modern downcutting, leaving no features surviving (Fig. 1.6). Description, dating evidence and interpretation of Phase 3A defences (Figs 2.19–2.23) A total length of nearly 60m of the Phase 3A western fort defences was investigated within Area M18, including the Phase 3A porta principalis dextra, previously slit-trenched by St Joseph and Shotton (1937; Fig. 1.5). Although not all of the southern ditch terminal could be located because of modern disturbance, it was probably approximately 10m wide. To the south of the entrance the western Phase 3A ditch, P123 (Fig. 2.20.S.60–S.61), was cut to a stepped profile, with a basal cleaning-slot. The full profile was not recoverable because of a Phase 4A re-cut (see below), but the Phase 3A ditch survived to a maximum depth of 0.6m and a width of 2.4m. In segment 1202 (Fig. 2.20.S.60) it was backfilled with grey-white sand, 1271; in segment 1276 (Fig. 2.20.S.61) at the terminal it was backfilled with orange-brown sand-silt, 1295.

Plate 2.16 Phase 3A/P2.16 hase 4A, rampart, southern 2.16 perimeter section, view southeast

A northwest-facing perimeter section (Fig. 2.20.S.62, Plate 2.16) provided the only details of the Phase 3A rampart, which had been entirely scoured-out preparatory to the construction of Vincent House within the excavated area. A post-pit, 1809, measuring 0.4m in depth and a maximum of 0.9m in diameter was cut into the subsoil (1008) towards the centre of the rampart. A further post-pit, 1816, was recorded cutting the natural subsoil towards the outer face of the rampart. The subsoil and backfilled post-pit 1809 were sealed by the rampart, which was recorded for a width of 5.8m. It is unlikely that this represented the full width of the rampart, since a modern disturbance, 1823 (not illustrated), was recorded truncating its eastern face, along with a Phase 4A feature (1709, see below). The inner face of the rampart comprised orange-brown sand, 1802, which overlay the natural subsoil. The earliest rampart deposit towards its outer face comprised a layer of greybrown silt-sand-clay, 1812, which measured a maximum of 0.4m in depth, and which also overlay the subsoil. 1802 was sealed by a layer of grey-brown silt-sand-clay, 1824, containing pebbles. In turn this deposit was overlain by a layer of light grey-brown silt-clay, 1712, forming the uppermost surviving Phase 3A rampart material towards the inside face of the rampart. Two postholes, 1814 and 1821, located 0.5m apart (measured centre-to-centre) were cut through rampart material 1812, post-pit 1816, and into the subsoil towards the front face of the rampart.

Plate 2.17 Phase 3A, ditch C171/Phase 4A ditch re-cut 2.17 2.17 C172 (see Fig. 2.21.S.66), view north

Plate 2.18 Phase 3A, ditch C171/Phase 4A ditch re-cut 2.18 2.18 C172 (see Fig. 2.21.S.68), view north layer of white-grey silt-clay (not illustrated). To the rear of this possible rampart material were recorded a series of charcoal-rich deposits (not illustrated). To the north of the entrance, the western Phase 3A fort ditch, C171 (Fig. 2.20.S.63–S.65, Fig. 2.21.S.66–S.68, Plates 2.17–2.18), varied in maximum depth between 1.5– 2m as a result of modern truncation. Its full profile was not recoverable because of a Phase 4A re-cut (C172, see below). Towards the entrance (Fig. 2.20.S.63–S.64) the ditch was cut to a U-shaped profile. Further to the north

Further to the north, traces of possible rampart material was recorded, but it is unlikely that this deposit was in situ. Here the possible Phase 3A rampart comprised a thin 46

E

1165

1812

1164

SW

W

1821

47

2103 C172

1814

2118

1816

1815

1820

P111

S60

1812

1710

S64

C171

2102

2116

2117

2119

2120

1267

1829

(reversed)

1813

P123

1202

1271

1261

1260

1201

(reversed)

1716

1715

0

1713

W

1714

E

2.20

W

1809

1808

2046 2045

C173

(reversed)

S62

P111

1828

1824 1802

1712

1710

1295

1277

2m

1276

P123

2042

Figure 2.20 Phase 3A defences, sections (S.60–S.65, scale 1:40)

2105

2121

1811

1810

1711

1110

E

S61

(reversed)

S65 2001

1709

1807

1819

1708

1711A

S

2039

2001

2103

C171

W

2041 2040

2043

2044

C172

S63

NE

C171

2027

2116

2134

2119

2026

C172

E

N

Results

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

S66

W

C172 2077

S67

E

(reversed)

E 2018

2087

W

2434

2079

2430

2080

2433

C172

2431

2086 2099

0

C171

2m

2432 2429

C171

S68

(reversed)

E 2049

2047

W 2050

2052

2051 2054

C172

2053

S69

NE 2055

2093 2094

2056 2057

2091

SW 2090

2092

0

C171

1m

Figure 2.21 Phase 3A defences, sections (S.66–S.67, scale 1:40; S.68–S.69, scale 1:20) the ditch was cut to a V-shaped profile, with a distinct cleaning-slot (Fig. 2.21.S.66–S.68).

most of the deposits within the Phase 3A ditch represent the weathering and collapse of the ditch sides; there was no clear evidence for rampart material, derived either from Towards the southern terminal, the primary backfill of 2.21 gradual collapse, or deliberate slighting, probably because ditch C171 (Fig. 2.20.S.63–S.64) was a grey clay, flecked of Phase 4A re-cutting (see below). with charcoal, 2116, sealed by a layer of grey-black charcoal-stained clay, 2117/2134 and 2118. This was There was no in situ evidence for the Phase 3A rampart to overlain by a layer of light grey clay, 2119. Further to the the north of the entrance, although a single post-pit, 2092 north the primary ditch backfill (Fig. 2.20.S.65) was a dark (Fig. 2.21.S.69), could have formed part of the rampart grey clay, 2040, flecked with charcoal, sealed by a brownsupports. It contained a post-pipe, 2094. Whilst the grey silt-sand, 2041. Further to the north (Fig. 2.21.S.66) perimeter section (Fig. 2.20.S.62) recorded evidence for more of the Phase 3A ditch backfills survived re-cutting. the cutting-back of the original Phase 3A turf rampart, and Here the primary backfill of the Phase 3A ditch was a redthe insertion of timber uprights for a box rampart (eg 1714, orange clay-silt, 2086, which was sealed by a deep deposit 1716 and 1811), this timber revetment was not continued of grey-orange clay-silt, 2080. This was overlain by a lens to the north of the porta principalis dextra, which of grey silt, 2079, tipped from the direction of the fort suggests that rebuilding was piecemeal. Other evidence interior. Above was a layer of light brown silt-clay, 2018. of rebuilding of the Phase 3A rampart is recorded at the Further to the north (Fig. 2.21.S.67) the primary ditch northwestern corner of the Phase 3A fort, as well as along backfill was a red-orange mottled clay-silt, 2432, sealed by its eastern side (Jones 2001, figs 19 and 18, respectively). a deposit of light grey-brown clay-silt, 2431. The primary A rectangular gatehouse, Structure 18.16 (Figs 2.19 and backfill of the northernmost excavated ditch segment (Fig. 2.22), defined by beam-slots, C161 (Fig. 2.22.S.70), 2.21.S.68) was a brown-orange sand, 2056, representing C164 (Fig. 2.22.S.71), C166 (Fig. 2.22.S.72) and C170 weathering of the ditch sides, overlain by a mottled, grey(Fig. 2.22.S.73), was recorded adjoining ditch C171. The orange clay-sand, 2055, flecked with charcoal. Overall,

48

Results

C166

C170

C168

S74

2744

S72

C165

C164

S73

2746

C169

R1

R2

S71 C163

C162

S70

Structure 18.16

C161 0

5m

Structure 18.16 S70 S

N

C161

W

S71 C164

S72

S

E

S73

S

C170

N

C166

S74

W

N

1560 1728

1726

1565 1559

1727

1721

E

C165

S75

S

1627

1725

P113

P151

1555

1600

1550

1601

N

Structure 18.8 N

S76 C112

S

S

S77 C117

2553

2356

2552

2362

S78

N

N

2484

2355

2485

2488 2487

2361

N 2521

S79 2522 2523

S

S

C117

S80

N

S81

S N

C148

S

2692 2657

2691

2690

C123

2658

2524

C149 2689

0

Figure 2.22 Phase 3A Structure 18.16, plan (scale 1:100) and sections (S.70–S.75, scale 1:20); Structure 18.8 sections (S.76–S.81, scale 1:20)

2.22

49

1m

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Ditch

Ro ad

Fe nc e

Gulley

Rampart

Drainage Ditch

0

10m

Figure 2.23 Phase 3A porta decumana (after Webster 1954, scale 1:125) southern wall of the gatehouse was approximately flush with the southern ditch terminal. A separation of 2m was retained between the western side of Structure 18.16 and the eastern side of the ditch terminal. The gatehouse 2.23 measured 7m by 4.2m internally. The full ground-plan of the building could not be identified because of later disturbance. In particular, the southern side of the building had been truncated by later Roman activity (Phase 3B–4B, see below). The Structure 18.16 beam-slots were cut to U-shaped profiles, and measured an average of 0.3m in width, and 0.12m in depth. They were backfilled with grey sand-silt. A posthole, 2744, adjoining the northwestern corner of the building could have been associated. The interior of the building was divided off centre into two rooms, R1–R2. R1 in the west of the building measured

50

3.5m in width (east–west), while R2 measured 3m in width. Separate dividing walls formed the eastern side of R1, C163 and C165 (Fig. 2.22.S.74), and the western side of R2, C162 and C168–C169. The beam-slots were cut 0.3m apart (measured centre-to-centre). Neither of these internal walls could be traced across the full width of the building, because of recent disturbance. These internal beam-slots measured between 0.2m–0.4m in width, and a maximum of 0.42m in depth. The northwestern corner of R2 contained a single posthole, 2746, the only internal feature recorded. No trace of any floor surfaces could be recorded. A north–south aligned beam-slot, P113 (Fig. 2.19, Fig. 2.22.S.75) was recorded within the entranceway, positioned just to the east of the innermost edge of ditch

Results P123. The beam-slot was recorded for a distance of 2.6m, and measured 0.4m in width, and 0.2m in depth. Most significantly, it was positioned approximately flush with the western side of the northern gatehouse, Structure 18.16 (see below). Although the area of the suggested southern gatehouse was extensively disturbed by later Roman and recent activity it is improbable that all other trace of a southern gatehouse could have been scoured-out. It is possible that P113 represents part of the marking-out of the southern gatehouse, which was, in the event, never built.

excavated, it measured a maximum of 10m (east–west), and 11m (north–south). Structure 18.8 (Plates 2.19–2.21) comprised eight parallel, east–west aligned beam-slots, C112 (Fig. 2.22.S.76), C115, C117 (Fig. 2.22.S.77–S.78), C120 (Plate 2.21), C121, C123 (Fig. 2.22.S.79, Plate 2.20), C149 (Fig. 2.22.S.80) and C148 (Fig. 2.22.S.81, from north to south). The individual beam-slots were positioned at a regular separation of 1.5m (measured centre-to-centre; equivalent to five Roman feet,

Structure 18.16 may be interpreted as the northern gatehouse, even in the absence of other surviving details of the structure. No evidence was found of a corresponding southern gatehouse (with the possible exception of P113, see above). Accordingly, like the Phase 1B porta principalis dextra, this Phase 3A entrance may have been designed from the outset to provide limited accommodation. Excavation has provided no details of the gate-structure itself, presumably because of later Roman, and modern disturbances. The western half of the Phase 3A northern gate (porta decumana, Fig. 1.3) was dug by Webster (1954; Fig. 2.23). The western half of this gatehouse comprised six postpits arranged in two rows, each comprising three postpits. This arrangement was interpreted by the excavator as representing a western guardchamber, flanking the entrance, although, of course, the full width of the arrangement could not be defined within the excavated area. It may correspond with a single-portalled 12-post type with flanking towers (as at Fendoch, Hobley 1988, fig. 2.21), although the northern gatehouse in the Metchley example seems confined to the width of the rampart. The remaining two gates of the Phase 3A fort have been destroyed by canal/ railway construction.

Plate 2.19 Phase 3A, S2.19 tructure 18.8, four parallel granary beam-slots, view west

The lack of a corresponding southern guardchamber in Area M18 suggests that the Phase 3A western entrance arrangement was somewhat unusual, albeit echoing the Phase 1B arrangement (see above) which also ‘lacked’ a southern guardchamber. The apparent similarity between the Phase 1B and Phase 3A gatehouses does not, of course, represent continuity, given the intervening military abandonment of the complex.

Plate 2.20 Phase 3A, 2.20 Structure 18.8, beam-slot C123/2521, view east

Ditch P123 contained 1st-century coarse ware pottery, and samian ware of Flavian or later date. Ditch C171 contained samian dating AD 70+, and to the pre-early Flavian period. 1814, a posthole cut into the rampart contained 1st-century coarse ware pottery. Description of Phase 3A internal features (Figs 2.19, 2.22 and 2.24) The only Phase 3A internal structure was a building (Structure 18.8), composed of parallel beam-slots, interpreted as a granary, located immediately to the east of the postulated line of the western via sagularis. As

Plate 2.21 Phase 3A, Structure 2.21 18.8, beam-slot C120/ 2489, view east

51

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Structure 18.8 C121 C148

C149

C117

C120

C115

C112

C123

S76

S81 2483

2544

S78

2587

S77

2485

2462

S80

2361

2691

2447

2639

2334

S79

2556 2337 2419

The Lunt

Richborough

0

5m

Usk

Llanfor (geophysical)

Elginhaugh

Pen Llystyn

Castleshaw

0

10m

Figure 2.24 Phase 3A, Structure 18.8, plan (scale 1:100) and simplified plans of excavated granaries from The Lunt (after Hobley 1975), Richborough (after Cunliffe 1968), Usk (after Manning 1981), Llanfor (after Burnham and Davies 2010), Elginhaugh (after Hanson 2007), 2.24Pen Llystyn (after Hogg 1968) and Castleshaw (after Redhead et al 1989) (scale as shown) 52

Results Johnson 1983, 145; eg Loughor, Marvell and Owen-John 1997, 114). The western terminals of the eight beamslots were approximately flush. This side of the building probably respected the eastern edge of the contemporary western via sagularis, not itself recorded at excavation. The eastern limit of the building, not fully exposed by excavation, was more difficult to identify; but one of the central beam-slots, C120, was clearly continued to the east of the others. It was also comparatively shallow in depth.

2010, 80); a Phase 3A building not located at Metchley. Structure 18.8 is particularly important as the only Phase 3A building identified in the central range, as no features of this late phase survived modern truncation in Area M20 (Jones 2005b, Jones forthcoming c). Of the only four Phase 3A buildings identified by excavation within the entire Phase 3A fort, three comprise granaries (Structure 20.5, Area M20 in the central range, and Structure 4.3 in the retentura, Jones 2001, fig 19, and Structure 12.5, Area M12, in the praetentura, Jones forthcoming c); the other a possible cook-house (Structure 2.4, Jones 2001, fig. 18). A Phase 1 granary has also been excavated in the retentura (Jones 2001, fig. 11, Structure 3.2).

C123 (Fig. 2.22.S.79) and C117 (Fig. 2.22.S.77) were re-cut. C117 was also cut by two postholes, 2485 (Fig. 2.22.S.78) and 2334, and a stakehole, 2361. 2485 may have been associated with an adjoining posthole, 2483. C120 was cut by two stakeholes, 2337 and 2419. C121 was cut by three stakeholes, 2587, 2462 and 2447, and a posthole, 2556. C123 and C149 were each cut by one stakehole, 2544 and 2691, respectively. C148 was cut by stakehole, 2639. The beam-slots were cut to U-shaped (or occasionally V-shaped profiles), with flat bases. They measured an average of 0.4m in width, and 0.2m in depth. The beam-slots positioned towards the centre of the building were notably shallower than those located at the northern and southern ends. The beam-slots were backfilled with brown, or yellow-brown, silt-sand, occasionally flecked with charcoal.

It is possible that the granary beam-slots could have been overall more deeply-cut than those of other building types, which may have contributed to their survival. It is also possible that other Phase 3A buildings could have been constructed on earth-fast ground beams, although this method of construction would be unexpected in a military context. It is also possible that the Phase 3A fort could have had a specialised function as a military stores depot, following the function of the Phase 2B activity at the site, but with an emphasis on grain storage. It is not clear if the northern and southern limits of the Metchley granary were identified at excavation. As excavated, Structure 18.8 was similar in size (maximum of 11m by 8m) to examples from Longthorpe (excluding the loading platform, Johnson 1983, fig. 105) and Pen Llystyn (Fig. 2.24; Hogg 1968, fig. 19). The granary beam-slots would have run across the short axis of the building (Hanson 2007, 56).

Dating evidence from Phase 3A internal features Four Structure 18.8 beam-slots contained datable pottery. C120, C121 and C149 contained coarse ware pottery of 1st-century date. C148 contained samian ware of preFlavian date. Interpretation of Phase 3A internal features (Figs 2.19, 2.22 and 2.24)

An unusual feature of the Metchley building was the apparent continuation of beam-slot C120 beyond the eastern limit of the building, suggesting the location here of a loading platform. Such features are more usually found adjoining the ends of a granary (eg Hanson 2007, fig. 4.7; Baginton, Hobley 1969, fig. 1). The southern end of the Metchley building could have extended up to the northern frontage of the via principalis, where a loading platform would be anticipated. A possible loading platform was positioned along one of the long sides of a Phase 3 granary (Structure 12.5) in the praetentura (Area M12, Jones forthcoming a).

The Structure 18.8 remains formed a granary, the parallel beam-slots supporting the raised floor of the building. The vertical timber supports for the raised floor of the building would have been jointed into the horizontal ground-beams. These vertical supports are presumably represented by the postholes and stakeholes recorded along the majority of the beam-slots. Granaries were built with raised floors to prevent rodent ingress. It was also necessary to provide good ventilation, to inhibit the growth of mould. Grain continues to give off heat and water after harvest, and requires a low temperature for optimum storage (Johnson 1983, 142). The grain is also ‘quasi liquid’ during storage, requiring strong vertical and horizontal support within the building.

Although no direct correlation can be made between the size of the Phase 3A Metchley granaries and the overall strength of the garrison, it is notable that all the granaries of this late phase are small (Fig. 2.24). The granaries in the retentura and praetentura survived only to a width of 3–4m. Structure 18.8 is the largest granary at Metchley, but measures only 10m by 11m. Johnson (1983) notes that timber-framed granaries measured an average of 20–30m in length and 6–10m in width, although smaller examples do occur. Five granaries at Usk each measured 21 by 7.5m (Manning 1981, 140–161).

Usually, granaries were located in the central range of the fort, adjoining the principia (Johnson 1983, 142), close to a gate, to simplify the loading and unloading of grain. Often granaries are located on the opposite side of the central range to the praetorium (Burnham and Davies

53

Enclosure 2

Structure 18.3

Enclosure 3

2 25

Figure 2.25 Phase 3B–4B, plan of external features (scale 1:200)

Enclosure 1

0

Structure 18.5 Structure 18.6

10m

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

54

Results PHASE 3B–4B (Fig. 2.1)

the building. 1551 measured 0.18m in depth, 0.8m in width, and 1.4m in length. It was backfilled with redeposited subsoil, 1557. 1549 was oval in plan and measured 1.4m in length, and a minimum of 0.65m in depth. It was backfilled with orange-brown sand-silts, 1556 and 1566.

Summary of Phase 3B–4B features (Fig. 2.25) Following the demolition of Phase 3A northern gatehouse, Structure 18.16, two irregular buildings were laid out within the former porta principalis dextra. The earlier of the two, Structure 18.6, was mainly defined by a rectangular arrangement of post-pits and postholes. It was succeeded by L-shaped Structure 18.5, which formed an integral part of an arrangement of palisade trenches cut along the outside of the fort ditches. These palisade trenches defined three livestock enclosures. Hearths and ovens were also recorded outside the western fort defences. The latest external activity was the layout of an irregularlyshaped building, Structure 18.3, mis-aligned with the fort defences. The Phase 3B–4B features were well-preserved towards the southern part of the site, but had been scouredout over the remainder of the excavated area.

Traces of a possible re-arrangement were recorded, although its plan could not be defined in full. The rebuild may have measured 5m (east–west) by 3m (north–south). The northern side of the rebuild was defined by five unequally spaced postholes, 2719, 2730 (Fig. 2.27.S.82), 2748, 2760 and 2717 (from west to east). 2719, 2730 and 2717 were cut into the post-pits of the primary build. The southern side of the re-arranged building may have been divided by two pairs of postholes, 1778 (Fig. 2.27.S.84) and 1780 at the southwestern corner, and 1758 and 1760 (Fig. 2.27.S.86) at the southeastern corner; the former cut the latter feature. Two intercutting postholes, 1686 and 1679 (Fig. 2.27.S.87–S.88), and an oval posthole, 2738, cut to the north, could also have been associated with the rebuild.

Description of Phase 3B–4B entrance arrangements and rampart (Figs 2.19 and 2.25–2.27)

Re-arrangement of the western entrance was also reflected in the western rampart (Fig. 2.20.S.62), to the south of the entranceway. A layer of brown silt-clay-sand, 1710 (Fig. 2.20.S.62), was deposited overlying the rampart, either at the end of Phase 3A, or during Phase 4A. This material included quantities of charcoal and may be interpreted as a destruction deposit. Also in this phase, two post-pits, 1811 and 1716, were dug into layer 1710 towards the centre of the rampart. The western edge of 1716 was cut by a second post-pit, 1811, which was cut to a W-shaped profile, measuring a maximum of 0.6m in depth, and 0.8m in diameter. Both post-pits were backfilled with dark brown organic sand-silt. An interrupted palisade trench, P107 (Fig. 2.27.S.89) and P110 was also recorded towards the rear of the projected alignment of the contemporary rampart, not itself recorded in situ. The northern terminal of north–south aligned P110 was approximately flush with the northern terminal of ditch P123.

Structure 18.6 measured approximately 5m square. It was positioned in the northern half of the entrance carriageway, which measured approximately 10m in width between the ditch terminals. Details of the northern side of the building were well-preserved, but the structural arrangement of the remainder of the building was less clear as a result of truncation by later (Phase 4C) Roman activity, and modern truncation. The northern side of the building was formed by three post-pits, 2763, 2735 (Fig. 2.27.S.82) and 2725 (Fig. 2.27.S.83; from west to east). These were cut into the southern wall of Phase 3A northern gatehouse, Structure 18.16, confirming its abandonment. The outermost pair of these post-pits was cut 4.2m apart (measured centre to centre). The westernmost post-pit, 2763, was oval in plan, measuring a maximum of 0.72m in diameter, and 0.85m in depth. It was vertically-sided, with a flat base. The central post-pit along this side of the building, 2735, was oval in plan, with vertical-sides. It measured a maximum of 1.4m in length, and 0.75m in depth. It was backfilled with redeposited subsoil, 2736, sealed by orange-grey clay, 2737. The easternmost post-pit, 2725, was oval in plan, and measured a maximum of 0.6m in diameter, and 0.32m in depth. It was cut with vertical sides, and backfilled with red-brown sand-clay-silt, 2726–2727.

During this phase the Phase 3A ditches were maintained, and presumably continued to be cleaned-out. A north– south aligned palisade trench, P103, measuring 0.3m in width, was recorded at the northern terminal of ditch P123. A further, east–west aligned palisade trench, P104, was recorded just beyond the northern ditch terminal. P104 cut P103 (Fig. 2.27.S.90), and also appeared to be slightly misaligned with the line of the western defences. The line of P104 may have continued to the east by two postholes, 1464 and 1458, cut 0.7m apart (measured centre-to-centre) which may have formed part of the same arrangement. P103 was also continued to the south (as 1164, see below).

The southern side of the building was defined by a posthole, 1790, and a shallow, heavily-truncated post-pit, 1783, forming the southeastern corner of the building. The postholes measured an average of 0.3m in diameter and 0.3m in depth. 1783 was cut into a shallow disturbance, 1750. The building was divided slightly off-centre by two post-pits, 1776 (Fig. 2.27.S.84) and 1549 (Fig. 2.27.S.85), positioned at the western and eastern ends of the building, respectively. 1776 measured 1.15m by 0.5m in plan, and was cut to a depth of 0.5m. It was backfilled with greybrown silt-clay, 1775. 1549 was cut into a backfilled gully, 1551, which may have defined part of the eastern side of

Following the disuse of Structure 18.6, an L-shaped arrangement, Structure 18.5, its main axis aligned east– west, was cut across the entranceway. The building measured a maximum of 9.7m (east–west) and a minimum of 6m (north–south). It was defined on its western and southern sides by palisade trenches, P152 (Fig. 2.27.S.91) 55

EXCAVATIONS AT METCHLEY ROMAN FORT 2004–2005

2738

C172

2763

C171

S82

2725

S83 2730

2719

2760

2735

2717

2748

Structure 18.6 1780

C163

P152

1778

S91

1551

S8 S86

1549

S85

1758

S84 1776

176 1760

1750 1786

1790

P112 S93

1783

Structure 18.5

2 S92

S87 S8

9 1686 1699

P151

1679 S75

P104

P150

P151

1458

S88

64 1464

P103

S90

P110

Rampart

Structure 18.6 re-build Conjectured Rampart

P123

P107

S89

0

FIGURE 2.26 PHASE 3B–4B, STRUCTURES 18.5–18.6, AND WESTERN DEFENCES, PLAN (SCALE (1:125)

56

5m

Results

S82

E

2737

2731 2730

2732

S83

E

W

2717

2718

1775

1775 1777 1776

2725

1778

N

S85

S86

NW

1557

1757

1551

1758

SE

SE

S87

1760

1687

1680

1686 1684

1549

S88

W 1682

1689

1683

1680

1681

1679

E 1692 1703

1690 1691

1704

NW

1685

1759

1556

1693

1694

1688

1679

W

E

S84

2727

2736

1566

W

2726

2735

S

W

S89

1326 1415

E

1460

1467

1466 1489

1491

P107

S90

S 1680 1679

P103

N

W

1678

S91

1806

E

P151

P152

P104

S92 1470 1469

1805

1677

S

0

N

S

S93 2202

N

2203

P112

2m

Figure 2.27 Phase 3B–4B, Structures 18.5–18.6, and western defences, sections (S.82–S.93, scale 1:40) and P151 (Fig. 2.22.S.75 and Fig. 2.27.S.92), respectively. 2.27backfilled post-pit 1686 belonging to abandoned entrance The remaining sides of the building may have been open, Structure 18.6 (see above). The Structure 18.5 palisade although a fragment of a north–south aligned palisade trenches were cut to U-shaped profiles, and measured an trench, P150, was recorded at the southeastern corner of average of 0.45m in width, and 0.1m in depth. A posthole, the building. The location of the building was important. 1699, and a stakehole, 1701 (not illustrated), were cut into Its western side was flush with the centreline between a beam-slot, P150, forming the southeastern angle of the Phase 3A ditch terminals P123 and C171. The northern end building. The palisade trench backfills comprised redof the western side of the building, P152, was probably cut brown sand-silt. just inside the line of the southern ditch terminal, although An east–west aligned palisade trench, P112 (Fig. the precise relationship had been lost because of a Phase 5 2.27.S.93), was recorded for a distance of 4.5m outside pit (see below). A gap, presumably for access, measuring the western wall of the arrangement. It was positioned 3m in width was retained between the southern side of the centrally along the western side of Structure 18.5, P152, building, and the northern terminal of ditch P123. but could not be related to it stratigraphically because of The southern palisade trench, P151, was cut into backfilled an intervening modern disturbance. P112 was associated Phase 3A beam-slot P113 (Fig. 2.22.S.75), and into with a north–south aligned palisade trench, C163 (Fig.

57

C166 2208/2136 423g Vitrified clay, possible hearth lining C166 2208/2136 837g Vitrified clay, hearth lining C166 2208/2138 272g Burnt clay C166 2208/2138 36g Hammerscale # P132 1143/1217 4g Hammerscale # Key: # weight may include other metalworking residues Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 TABLE 2.4 PHASE 3B–4B DEFENCES AND INTERNAL FEATURES, DATING EVIDENCE

Construct P110 -

Cut 1405 1464

P107 P130 P127 P129 P116 P104 P116 -

1489 1549 1551 1784 1778 1502 1539 1677 1716 1539 1679

1750 Structure 18.3 P133 1417, 1421, 1612 P134 1423, 1610 P136 1440, 1602 P140 1635

Details Gully to rear of rampart Posthole associated with Structure 18.5 Gully to rear of rampart E side of Structure 18.5 E side of Structure 18.5 E side of Structure 18.5 W side of Structure 18.5 Pit cut at rear of rampart West side of Structure 18.5 Beam-slot at entrance Pit cut into rampart West side of Structure 18.5 Post-pit, to southeast of Structure 18.5 Pit

Dating 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery Samian dated before AD 85 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery

Beam-slot

1st-century coarse pottery

Beam-slot Beam-slot Beam-slot

1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery

Table 2.4 Phase 3B–4B defences and internal features, dating evidence 2.20.S.65; see Fig. 2.19 for section location), recorded for a distance of 12m. A narrow gap, measuring 0.3m in width was retained between C163 and P112. C163 was cut at a slight tangent to the line of ditch C171 to the north of the entrance. The palisade trench was backfilled with dark brown silt-clay. C162 was cut flush with the alignment of palisade trench P103 recorded to the south of the entrance, and was probably part of the same arrangement.

characterised by a triangular arrangement of post-pits (Jones 2001, figs 18–19), possibly necessitated by the collapse of the earlier turf rampart in wet, unstable ground. The later Phase 3B–4B re-arrangement, Structure 18.5 is unlikely to have been defensive in function, although it was intended to ‘control’ the entranceway. Its positioning confirms that the ditches and rampart continued to be maintained. In association with external palisade trenches P103–P104, 1164 (see below), P112 and C163 it functioned as a ‘stock-control system’. As such it will have formed an integral part of the livestock enclosures (1–3, see below) located immediately outside the fort defences.

The Phase 3B–4B dating evidence is detailed in Table 2.4. Interpretation of Phase 3B–4B entrance arrangements (Figs 2.19 and 2.25–2.27) During this phase there were two successive rearrangements of the Phase 3A porta principalis dextra. In the first, undertaken clearly within a military context, the Phase 3A gatehouse, Structure 18.6, went out of use, and was replaced by a smaller, perhaps temporary building, Structure 18.5. Although full details of the arrangement were irrecoverable because of later disturbance, in part it resembles the arrangement of post-pits at the porta decumana excavated by Webster (1954; Fig. 2.23). The drainage gully located by Webster at this entrance could be re-interpreted as part of a similar arrangement to Structure 18.5, although only one side of this ‘structure’ was excavated by Webster.

Description of Phase 3B–4B external features (Figs 2.25 and 2.28–2.29) A number of features associated with industrial activity,

3 livestock pens (Enclosures 1–3) and a single timber-

framed building, Structure 18.3, were located to the west of the Phase 3A fort, and to the south of the projected continuation of the via principalis, within an area of high archaeological survival. These features probably belong to more than one sub-phase of activity. To the north of this road any external features would have been entirely scoured-out by modern levelling-down preparatory to the construction of Vincent House.

The insertion of timber supports 1716 and 1811 (Fig. 2.20.S.62) forming a box rampart could have been contemporary with Structure 18.5. Along other parts of the western, and the northern defences at Metchley, the Phase 3A turf rampart was replaced by a box rampart,

Industrial activity An external zone of industrial activity was represented by a number of pits. The westernmost of this feature group, 1185, comprised a pit with an associated oval

58

Results

1121

1747

S96 1350

1089

1063 S95

1294

P150

1094

1096

1500

1092 1077

1079

P148

1185

1065

1090

1133

P145

1132 1257

S106

1075

1167

1155 1073

1161

1216 1324

P146

1048

1110

1049

P141

1456 1144

S100

1122

1320 1322

1318

S101

S99

1385

1383

1375/ 1068

1124

S94 1166

1343

P132

P143 1608

R1

Enclosure 2

S98 S97

Structure 18.3

S104 S103

P139

P136

1164

1307

1109

1614

Enclosure 1

P138

1534

R2

1590

P131

1543 1218 1536 Enclosure 3

P134

1203

1401

1432

S105

1403

1166

P140

1151

S102 1486

1347

1381

P144

1484

R3

1182

1337

S119

P135

S60

Stone surface

Soil

0

Figure 2.28 Phase 3B–4B, external activity, plan (scale 1:125) 2.28

59

5m

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

S94

SE

NW

N

S95

1344 1343

NW

S

1064

1063

S96

SE

N

P131 1288

S98

1289

P132 1287

W

S

1376

1375

1286

S99

1349

1248

P131

1067 1378

S100

N

E

N S101

S

1382

S

1384

1383

1068

S

1247

1350

N

S97

1385

1377

P141

W

S102 1170

S103

N

E

S

S

1109

1169

P144

1441

S105 1591 1590

W

1605

1602

N

P136

P139

P139

N

1615

1603

1604

1443

P136

S

1614

1274

S104

S106

E

1439

1609

1242

P145

1608

0

2m

Figure 2.29 Phase 3B–4B, external activity, sections (S.94–S.106, scale 1:40) firing chamber to the east. The pit measured a maximum of 2m in diameter, and 0.15m in depth. The hearth and firing chamber were backfilled with dark grey silt-sand, flecked with charcoal. To the southwest was a circular pit, 2 29red 1161, measuring 1m in diameter, backfilled with burnt silt-clay-sand, with an adjoining small circular pit, 1257. A group of pits or hearths, 1122, 1124 and 1151, were located further to the south. 1122 formed the stoke-hole to 1124. This feature group was backfilled with dark brown silt-clay, flecked with charcoal. Further to the north was a roughly circular pit, 1077, measuring approximately 2m in diameter. It was backfilled with dark brown silt-clay, flecked with charcoal. Closer to the fort perimeter were three further pits, 1203, 1218 and 1343 (Fig. 2.29.S.94). All were very truncated, and backfilled with red-orange clay. Between 1203 and 1343 were two stakeholes, 1401 and 1403, which may have formed part of an associated structure such as a temporary shelter.

terminal of an east–west gully, 1155. This could not be related to other adjoining Phase 2B features, because of disturbance by a modern drain. 1155 ‘contained’ two small cuts, 1133 and 1132, aligned north–south. 1155 was backfilled with red-brown sand-silt. The function(s) of 1155, 1132 and 1133 is not known. Livestock enclosures The most coherent Phase 3B–4B remains outside the fort defences comprised three livestock enclosures (Enclosures 1–3), laid out following the fort alignment. These enclosures were defined by irregular palisade trenches and associated features. These palisade trenches were cut through Phase 1D/1E–2B surfaces 1507–1508 (Fig. 2.10.S.34), Phase 3B–4B industrial feature 1218, and into the subsoil, 1008. The southern terminal of a north–south aligned palisade trench, 1164 (Fig. 2.20.S.60) was recorded cutting the western edge of the partly backfilled Phase 3A/4A fort ditch. The palisade trench was dug to a U-shaped profile, and contained a single stakehole, 1182. The palisade trench was backfilled with grey-brown silt, 1165. This feature probably formed a southward continuation of north–south aligned palisade trench P103 (Fig. 2.26) adjoining the fort entrance. If this interpretation is correct the palisade trench would have measured a minimum of 20m in length.

To the west were three circular, or oval pits, 1063 (Fig. 2.29.S.95), 1075 and 1073. These pits measured an average of 1.5m in diameter, and a maximum of only 0.8m in depth, probably as a result of severe modern truncation. The pits were backfilled with dark brown silt-clay. A group of postholes to the southwest of this pit group, 1121, 1350 (Fig. 2.29.S.96), 1381, 1089 and 1294 may have been associated. Two of this posthole group, 1294 and 1089, contained post-pipes measuring approximately 0.2m in diameter. To the north of 1073 was the rounded eastern 60

Results A further north–south aligned palisade trench, P144, may have defined the western side of a droveway measuring 2m in width, adjoining the western side of Enclosure 1, P141. P144 (Fig. 2.29.S.102) was recorded for a length of 5m, and was cut to a U-shaped profile and measured 0.1m in depth and 0.25m in width. It was backfilled with light greybrown silt-clay. It was cut by a posthole, 1167. Postholes 1324 and 1486 were located within the droveway, and two postholes, 1484 and 1500, were recorded to the west. A line of stakeholes, 1090, 1092, 1094, 1096 roughly following the droveway alignment could have been associated. The northwestern corner of Enclosure 2 was mainly defined by a slightly curving ditch, P139 (Fig. 2.29.S.103–S.105, Plate 2.22). The northern side of this enclosure was dug east–west, parallel with the southern side of Enclosure 1, 7m to the north, with which it could have been contemporary. The excavated fragment of the northern palisade trench of this enclosure, P139, was cut to a U-shaped profile, measuring 0.7m in width and 0.3m in depth. It was backfilled with light grey-brown sandsilt (Fig. 2.29.S.103, 1443). It was partly re-cut along its length, 1614. The extreme northwestern angle of the enclosure was defined by two pits, 1608 and 1590 (Fig. 2.29.S.105); 1590 cut 1608. Both pits were probably cut into ditch P139. The pits measured an average of 1.10m in diameter, and 0.3m in depth, and were cut to a U-shaped profile. They were backfilled with grey-brown sand-silt.

Plate 2.22 Phase 3B–4B2.22 Enclosure 2 palisade trench P139 and Structure 18.3 beam-slot P136 (to left), view southeast

Enclosure 1 was rectangular in plan, measuring a maximum of 20m (north–south) by 8m (east–west), its long axis following the alignment of the adjoining fort defences. Its eastern side was formed by a continuation of palisade trenches P103 (Fig. 2.26) and 1164. Its southern palisade trench, P131 (Fig. 2.29.S.97–S.98) was cut to a U-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 0.5m in width, and 0.34m in depth. P131 was backfilled with grey-brown silt-clay. The enlarged, rounded eastern terminal of P131 respected the southern terminal of north–south aligned palisade trench 1164, defining 2.23 an entry-gap measuring 0.6m in width in the southeastern angle of the enclosure. The western palisade trench, P141 (Fig. 2.29.S.99) was recorded for a distance of 11m. It was dug to a U-shaped profile, and measured an average of 0.2m in width, and 0.1m in depth. It was backfilled with grey-brown siltclay. Traces of re-cutting were recorded along its length. No trace of the northern side of the enclosure could be recorded, because of modern truncation.

The curvilinear palisade trench, P132 (Fig. 2.29.S.98), defining the northwestern angle of Enclosure 3 could have been contemporary with adjoining Enclosure 2 to the south. The northern terminal of the Enclosure 3 palisade trench, P132, was cut through the backfilled southern palisade trench, P131, belonging to Enclosure 1, and into backfilled Phase 3B–4B pit 1218. P132 was recorded for a distance of only 7m. It measured a maximum of 0.7m in width and 0.3m in depth, and was backfilled with brown sand-silt. The rounded northeastern terminal of a further palisade trench, P138, was recorded adjoining the eastern terminal of P132. These features may together have defined an entrance measuring 0.75m in width.

A number of features were located adjoining the southwestern angle of Enclosure 1. Just inside the western side of the enclosure was a group of stakeholes, 1318, representing part of a wattle fence. P141 was cut by two postholes, 1375 and 1068. 1375 cut 1377, and 1068 cut P141. The postholes measured an average of 0.2m in diameter, and were backfilled with dark grey-brown siltclay. These postholes may have defined the southern side of an entry-gap within the western fence-line of Enclosure 1, its northern side being defined by 1318. Immediately adjoining part of the western side of Enclosure 1 was a short length of a beam-slot, or a fence-slot, 1322, adjoining a line of stakeholes, 1320, presumably forming part of a wattle fence. Both respected the position and alignment of the western side of Enclosure 1, and, more particularly, of 1318. These features were positioned flush with the angle between the western side of the enclosure and a possible stub-wall, also defined by postholes 1375 and 1068. A pit, 1383 (Fig. 2.29.S.100), and a posthole, 1385 (Fig. 2.29.S.101) were recorded outside the southwestern angle of the enclosure.

Other palisade trenches or other arrangements, dug following different alignments probably belong to a later sub-phase of activity. Palisade trenches P145 (Fig. 2.29.S.106) and P146, both cut to the west of the droveway presumably post-dated its abandonment. P145 was cut into backfilled P144. P145 was in turn cut by a pit, 1216, backfilled with dark brown clay-silt. The southern end of P145 was in turn cut by P146, recorded for a total length of 6.5m. It contained a single posthole, 1347. Timber-framed building Structure 18.3 was notably misaligned with the western fort defences, and with Enclosures 1 and 3. Only part of the ground-plan of Structure 18.3 was recorded. It followed the approximate alignment of Enclosure 2, and may also have been one of the latest features of this

61

2.22

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 The southern terminal of palisade trench P146 was cut by a pit, 1144, lined with stone, in turn cut by a posthole, 1456. East–west aligned beam-slot P150 was cut through backfilled pit 1077. In turn P150 was cut by a circular pit, 1079. Finally, pit 1065 was cut into a backfilled palisade trench, P148. Following the disuse of Structure 18.3, a surface comprising pebbles set within a matrix of clay-sand-silt, 1109, was laid out (Fig. 2.29.S.103). This sealed the remains of Enclosure 2 and Structure 18.3. 1109 may be interpreted as a temporary hardstanding. An area of irregular cobbles set within orange-brown silt-sand-clay 1109, was recorded sealing Enclosure 2 and Structure 18.3. More extensive areas of cobble surfacing, 1166, set within a matrix of mid brown sand-silt, overlying abandoned Enclosure 1, and was also recorded overlying an industrial group of features further to the north. To the west of abandoned Enclosure 1 were further areas of cobbles, 1747 (Plate 2.23), set within a matrix of dark brown silt-clay. This overlay backfilled palisade trenches P144–P146, and also a number of pits of industrial function. A further surface, 1048–1049 (Plate 2.23), comprising large rounded cobbles, adjoined the southwestern edge of surface 1747.

Plate 2.23 Phase 3B–4B2.23 cobble surfaces 1048–1049, and 1747 under excavation, view southeast phase, after a more regular layout had been abandoned. This roughly east–west aligned building was represented by three slightly misaligned, roughly east–west aligned beam-slots, P143/P140, P134 and P136, recorded for a maximum distance of 8.6m. The northern wall of the building, P143 and P140 was formed by two beam-slots, separated by a gap measuring 0.1m. To the south was a single uninterrupted internal beam-slot, P134, cut 1m to the south of the northern side of the building (measured centre to centre). These beam-slots presumably defined an east–west aligned corridor, R1, running along the excavated northern side of the building. The western end of Structure 18.3 was cut into a cobble surface, 1366 (not illustrated), which may have represented an area of hardstanding laid out in Phase 3B–4B. The remainder of the building was cut into the natural gravel, 1008. P143 and P134 cut backfilled Enclosure 3 palisade trench P132, and P136 (Plate 2.22) was cut into Enclosure 2 palisade trench P139 (Fig. 2.29.S.104). Further to the south was another east–west aligned beam-slot, P136, defining the southern side of a room, R2, measuring a minimum of 1.5m in width (north–south), the southernmost excavated wall of the building. Traces of a north–south dividing wall, P135, were also identified to the south of P134, forming part of the western side of a further room, R3, almost wholly outside the excavated area.

Table 2.5 details the dating evidence from Phase 3B–4B external features. The metalworking residues suggest the area was used for small-scale smithing during this phase, including the forging and repair of tools and weapons. Interpretation of Phase 3B–4B external features (Figs 2.25 and 2.28–2.29) The external features identified in the Area M18 excavation are significant in providing the only evidence for contemporary activity outside the Phase 3A and Phase 4A fort perimeter. The spread of activity outside the Phase 3A/4A fort will have been constrained by continued occupation of the eastern and southern annexes (Fig. 1.3). The overall sequence in this external area is difficult to reconstruct in detail. Some of the earliest features may be pits used for an industrial function (eg 1218), perhaps ironworking. Some of these features were cut by the palisade trenches defining three Enclosures (1–3). Enclosure 1, in particular is well-defined. Parts of three sides of this rectangular enclosure, laid out abutting the western Phase 3A/4A fort ditch, were recorded. A rightangled section of palisade trench, P103–P104 (Fig. 2.26) at the northern terminal of Phase 4A ditch P111 suggests that an entry-gap was retained at the northeastern angle of the enclosure. It also confirms that the Phase 3A/4A fort entrance continued in use at this time, despite the partial backfilling of the fort ditch (Fig. 2.20.S.60). The location of the excavated entry-gap at the southeastern corner of the enclosure, and the second suggested entry-gap at the northeastern corner of the enclosure suggest an association with livestock. The contemporary entrance arrangement, Structure 18.6 (Fig. 2.26) also suggests an association with livestock. Enclosures 1 and 2, which shared a

The Structure 18.3 beam-slots measured an average of 0.4m in width, and were cut to U-shaped profiles. They were backfilled with brown sand-silt, flecked with charcoal. External beam-slot P143 measured 0.3m in depth, whilst the internal beam-slots measured between 0.12–0.22m in depth, which supports the interpretation of P133 as the outer wall of the building. Three postholes, 1543, 1534 and 1536, located just to the north of the building could have been associated, together with a pit, 1432, positioned further to the north. 1543 was cut into P132, the backfilled Enclosure 3 palisade trench. Later activity A small number of features and stone surfaces probably represent the latest episode of activity outside the fort. 62

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct

TABLE 2.5 PHASE 3B–4B EXTERNAL FEATURES, DATING EVIDENCE Construct P147 P145 Enclosure 1 P141

Cut 1045 1133 1063 1065 1073 1077 1079 1121 1122 1144 1161 1167 1185 1216 1242, 1270 1294

Details Beam-slot Beam-slot Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Pit Hearth Stone-lined pit Hearth Posthole Oven Pit Fence-slot Posthole

Dating 1st-century coarse pottery Pre-Flavian samian Pre-Flavian samian 1st-century coarse pottery Samian AD 40–60 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century samian 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery

1066, 1157

W side of enclosure

P131

1068 1203 1230, 1248, 1288 1322 1375 1385

Internal post-hole Internal pit S side of enclosure

Pre/early Flavian samian, 1st-century coarse pottery Claudio–Neronian samian 1st-century coarse pottery Pre-Flavian samian. 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery Neronian-early Flavian coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery

Enclosure 3 P132

1143, 1259, 1541 P138 1282 Note: E1 = Enclosure 1

Fence-slot adjoining E1 Associated E1 Outside E1 W side of enclosure Gully associated Enclosure 3

Results

Claudio-Neronian samian. 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery

Table 2.5 Phase 3B–4B external features, dating evidence TABLE 2.6 PHASE 4C FEATURES, DATING EVIDENCE Construct as Cut Details to the west of common alignment, well as the droveway Cut across EnclosureP101 1, may have 1453, been contemporary. Theentrance Enclosure 3 palisade trench was 1827 cut into the backfilled Enclosure 1649 1 palisade trench P131, and therefore represents a later P125 1652 episode of livestocking activity. 1714 Pit cut into rampart 1681 Pit Subsequent activity is represented by palisade trenches following different 1688 alignments Pit(eg P145–P146), 1694 Pit, cuts 1688 presumably after the abandonment of this ‘planned’ P105 1298 Cut at rear of rampart arrangement. Structure 18.3, which was laid out at a 1371 Pit to rear of rampart slight tangent to the fort alignment, represents later Phase 1307 Hearth outside fort 3B–4B activity for the same reason. Its function cannot 1141 Beam-slot associated with be determined from the small part1307 that was excavated. Beam-slot- P136 belonging to this structure was into 1014/1110 Cultivation soilcut outside the backfilled Enclosure 2 ditch, Phase P139.3A/4A The Structure fort 18.3 beam-slots were irregular in plan, and also slightly misaligned with each other. Late palisade trench P150 was also misaligned with the western fort defences, and was also markedly irregular in plan.

Datingoverlying the abandoned remains of livestock surfaces, Pre-Flavian 1st-century coarse enclosures and samian. other features. These are interpreted as pottery hardstandings. 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse PHASE 4A (Fig. 2.1) pottery Pre-AD 85 samian 1st-century coarse4A pottery Summary of Phase features (Fig 2.19) 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery Phase 4A is represented by re-cutting (P111, C172) of Neronian–Early Flavian samian Phase 3A fort ditch (P123, C171) which had become Pre–Early Flavian samian almost entirely obliterated by silting. The position of the Samian: Pre-Flavian, Pre/Early Phase 3A porta principalis dextraFlavian entrance was retained 1st-century samian after re-cutting, although no formal gatehouse could be associated with this phase. Phase 4A may represent the Samian: AD 50–75, Claudian, Pre-Flavian, latest Roman military activity recorded by the 2004–2005 1st-century excavation. This phase may have been contemporary with later Phase 3B–4B external activity.

Description, dating evidence, and interpretation of Phase 4A defences (Figs 2.19–2.21)

Some features of industrial function (eg 1144) were cut into backfilled palisade trenches, including some of this group 4 Traces of the Phase 4A turf rampart, 1711, were recorded in the north-facing perimeter section (Fig. 2.20.S.62, Plate (eg P146, P150) which did not follow the predominant 2.16), the only place where the rampart survived. 1711 was fort alignment. The latest episode of external activity was recorded for a maximum width of 3.8m, and a depth of represented by the layout of extensive pebble and cobble

63

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 0.25m. The outer and innermost edges of the rampart were truncated by later disturbances, so its original width could not be determined. During Phase 4A, a post-pit, 1714 (Fig. 2.20.S.62) was cut through rampart layer 1711, backfilled Phase 3B–4B post-pit 1716, and into the Phase 3A rampart.

The re-cut backfills were particularly informative to the north of the entrance. Fig. 2.21.S.68 illustrates the waterlogging of the ditch base, 2053, after it ceased to be maintained. This deposit was overlain by alternate deposits tipped from the fort interior (2049 and 2051), representing collapsed rampart material, and clay-sands tipping into the outer face of the ditch (2050 and 2052), representing gradual weathering of the ditch sides. In some of the excavated segments the ditch was waterlogged when it was finally backfilled.

The Phase 4A porta principalis dextra measured 10m in width. The ditches to the north and south of the entrance were slightly misaligned, probably as a result of re-cutting. To the south of the entrance the Phase 4A fort ditch, P111, was cut to a mostly V-shaped profile, and measured a maximum of 2.9m in width, and 1.5m in depth. Towards the southern terminal of the entrance, the ditch was W-shaped in profile, as a result of re-cutting. The primary backfill of the southernmost excavated segment to the south of the entrance (Fig. 2.20.S.60) was brown-grey silt-sand, 1261, overlain by a charcoal-rich dark grey sand-silt, 1260, a possible destruction deposit, sealed by a grey-brown sandsilt, 1201, comprising 50% rounded cobbles. All of the fills were deposited in horizontal bands, suggesting deliberate, and rapid backfilling. Adjoining the northern terminal of P111 (Fig. 2.20.S.61) the ditch was backfilled with brown silt-sand, 1277.

The only internal feature belonging to this phase was an oven, 1709 (Fig. 2.20.S.62) cut to the rear of the Phase 4A rampart. The primary pit backfill was a grey silt-sand, 1807, sealed by a deposit of burnt red clay, 1819. This layer was overlain by a layer of grey-black silt, 1708. Above was a layer of red-orange silt-clay, 1711A, which overlay the Phase 4A rampart, 1711. Ditch C172 contained 1st-century coarse ware pottery. Oven 1709 contained pre-Flavian samian. The ditch and the same pit also contained hammerscale. PHASE 4C (Fig 2.1)

To the north of the entrance, the Phase 4A re-cut ditch, C172 (Plates 2.17–2.18) was well preserved, despite intensive modern downcutting in this area, which suggests that the re-cut was originally dug more deeply to the north of the entrance than to its south. To the north of the entrance the re-cut was dug to a U-shaped (Fig. 2.20.S.63–S.64), or stepped V-shaped profile with a pronounced basal cleaning slot, measuring a maximum of 1.9m in width and 0.9m in depth. The primary backfill of the re-cut was blue-grey silt-clay, 2026 (Fig. 2.20.S.63), 2120 (Fig. 2.20.S.64), 2043 (Fig. 2.20.S.65), 2077 (Fig. 2.21.S.66). Layer 2043 was overlain by a grey-brown clay, 2044 . Further to the north (Fig. 2.21.S.67) the primary backfill of the re-cut was a brown-red silt-sand, 2430, flecked with charcoal, interpreted as collapsed rampart material. This was overlain by grey-blue clay, 2434.

Summary of Phase 4C features (Fig. 2.30) Phase 4C activity was concentrated within the former western entrance to the Phase 3A/4A forts. The main group of these features was L-shaped in plan, forming a ‘funnel’, intended for the ‘sorting’ of livestock, and partiallyblocking the fort entrance. Phase 4C is interpreted as representing post-military activity at the complex, either in the later Roman, or post-Roman periods. Description and interpretation of Phase 4C features within former fort entrance (Figs 2.30–2.31) The main Phase 4C feature was an L-shaped arrangement within the former fort entrance. This was cut through the abandoned Phase 3B–4B Structures 18.5 and 18.6, and into the subsoil, 1008. The western edge of the northern side of this arrangement, 1652, was cut flush with the recut southern terminal of Phase 4A ditch P111, and at a separation of 1m from the terminal. The southern terminal of this arrangement, P101, was cut 1m inside the line of the northern terminal of Phase 4A ditch C172, reducing the working width of the entranceway.

A particularly complex sequence of deposits was recorded in the northernmost excavated segment (Fig. 2.21.S.68), despite severe modern truncation, which suggests that this ditch segment was originally more deeply-cut than the other segments excavated in Area M18. The basal cleaning-slot was backfilled with mottled grey/ orange clay-sand, 2053, flecked with charcoal. Above were a series of interleaved deposits tipping alternately from either side of the ditch. Deposit 2053 was sealed by a layer of mottled brown sandclay, 2052, tipping from the direction of the fort exterior. Above was a deposit of light brown-grey clay-sand, 2051, tipping into the ditch from the fort interior. This was sealed by a layer of yellow-brown sand-clay, 2050, tipped into the ditch from the fort exterior. Above was a layer of light grey-brown clay-sand, 2049, tipping into the eastern edge of the ditch. The remaining hollow of the ditch was backfilled with mid blue clay, 2047, similar to the latest deposits illustrated in segments Fig. 2.21.S.66–S.67.

The northernmost of this feature group was a broad, east–west aligned ditch, P102 (Fig. 2.31.S.107–S.109), which was slightly enlarged at its western terminal, 1652. It measured a maximum of 5m in length, 1.2m in width and 0.48m in depth. Its western terminal (Fig. 2.31.S.107) was backfilled with orange-brown sandclay, 1661, representing weathering of the ditch sides, sealed by a green-grey sand-silt, 1662, overlain by a lens of dark grey-black sand-silt, 1663. Above was a layer of mottled orange-brown sand-clay, 1664, sealed by a lens of dark grey-black sand-silt, 1665. This was overlain by

64

Results

S64

C172

1652

P102

S107 1453

S109

S108

Postpipe

S112 1792

P101

P126 P111

S113

1737

1647/ 1649

1729

1573

S110

Postpipe

S115

1744

1571

P142

S111 1681 1688

1694

S88

S118 1387

P100

1371

S114

P109 P108

1502

rt

pa

am

1370

R

S116

P105

1330

0

S117

Figure 2.30 Phase 4C entrance blocking, plan (scale 1:100)

2 30

65

5m

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

S109

W

E

S110

S

1737

1575

1730

1577

1584

1582

1579

1589

1825

1827

1826

P102

S112

E

W

1450

E

1666

W

1278

1309

1647

1310

2m

P102

1141

S

1619 1620

1652

E 1142

1307

S108

N

SW 1661

1663

1308

1279

1664 1662

S119

1646

0

1665

P101

1645

1649

S107

P142

1399

1729

1648

P101

1740

1736

1734

S113

W

1449

NE

1732

1006

1744 1743

1731 1734

N

1745

1746 1742

1400

1732

1733

1453 1588 P101

1581

1792 1738 1741

1621

S111

W

E

1622

1623 1624 1626

P102

1454 1455

P101

S114

W

E

S

S115 1574

1370

1570

S

1331 1328

1569

P126

1571

S116

N

N

1370

1330

1369

P100

S117

NW

1297

SE

W

S118

E

0

1386

1327 1296

P105

1387

31 Figure 2.31 Phase 4C entrance blocking, 2sections (S.107–S.119, scales 1:20 and 1:40)

66

1m

Results

vol 4 silt-clay, Tables1666. 10 Oct a depositRB of brown Towards the centre of The long axis of the later Phase 4C entrance arrangement the ditch (Fig. 2.31.S.108) the primary backfill was greywas formed by a slightly curvilinear ditch, P101 (Fig. yellow silt-sand, 1624, representing weathering, sealed by 2.31.S.110–S.112), measuring a total of 8.5m in length. a layer of brown-grey silt-clay, 1623, overlain by a tip of Its northern terminal was cut into adjoining pit 1453; its TABLE 2.5 PHASE EXTERNAL FEATURES, DATING EVIDENCE brown-yellow silt-sand, 1622.3B–4B This was in turn overlain southern terminal was round-ended and tapered (Fig. by a layer of light yellow silt-clay, 1621, sealed by a 2.31.S.111). It was also dug through backfilled Phase 4C Construct Cut Details Dating deposit of mottled yellow-brown clay-sand, 1620. This pit 1729, and into the subsoil. The northern terminal of P147by a deep 1045 Beam-slot coarse was overlain deposit of dark brown clay-sand, this feature 1st-century was backfilled withpottery orange-grey silt-clay, 1449 - eastern terminal 1133 Beam-slot Pre-Flavian samian 1619. The of the feature (Fig. 2.31.S.109) (Fig. 2.31.S.112). The centre of the feature was backfilled 1063 Pit 1826, sealed Pre-Flavian samian was backfilled with yellow-orange silt-clay, with grey clay-silt, 1736 (Fig. 2.31.S.110), sealed by a 1st-century pottery 1400. The southern by grey silt-clay, 1825, 1065 overlain by brownPitgrey sand-siltdark blue-grey organiccoarse clay deposit, 1073 Pit AD 40–60 clay, 1588–1589. terminal ofSamian P101 (Fig. 2.31.S.111) was backfilled with 1077 Pit coarse pottery grey-brown1st-century clay-silt, 1454. 1079 Pit may have 1st-century coarse pottery Two pits,- 1792 and 1729, further to the south Pit a maximum 1st-century pottery been contemporary with 1121 P102. 1792 measured A re-cut elongated pit, coarse 1647/1649 (Fig. 2.31.S.113), dug - diameter, and1122 coarsehave pottery of 0.6m in 0.05m in depth. ItHearth was backfilled to the west1st-century of P101 could been part of the same Stone-lined 1st-century with black-grey silt-clay,1144 stained with charcoal. It waspit cut arrangement. A further, coarse roughlypottery north–south aligned gully, - (Fig. 2.31.S.110), 1161 which measured Hearth by pit 1729 a maximum P100 (Fig. 1st-century 2.31.S.114)samian recorded for a distance of 7m, 1167 Its primaryPosthole coarse of 1m in- depth and diameter. backfill was a roughly 3m1st-century to the east of P101,pottery and a parallel gully, P109, 1185 Oven 1st-century coarse pottery layer of orange clay, 1734. This was overlain by a deposit cut further to the east could also have been associated with 12161733, sealedPit 1st-century coarse pottery of brown-orange silt-clay, by a layer of this arrangement. P145 silt, 1732.1242, Fence-slot 1st-century coarse pottery orange-brown This 1270 was overlain by a layer of The positioning of P101coarse and P102 confirms that the Phase Posthole 1st-century pottery grey silt,- 1731, flecked 1294 with charcoal, which appeared to 4A re-cut ditch was still extant, otherwise the arrangement Enclosure 1 fill a post-pipe, measuring 0.3m in width, and 0.75m in would havePre/early served no purpose. This1st-century partial blocking of P141 1732 and 1066, 1157 sealedW of enclosure Flavian samian, depth. Layers 1731 were byside a deposit of pottery the entrancecoarse may be distinguished from the total blocking grey silt-sand, 1730. 1068 Internal post-hole of the westClaudio–Neronian samian gate at Elginhaugh (Hanson 2007, fig. 7.17 - end of ditch P102 1203 was cut by aInternal pitIt was 1st-century coarse The eastern pit, 1453. and 158), which occurred afterpottery the military abandonment P131 in plan, 1230, 1248, corners, S sidemeasuring of enclosure of the site, Pre-Flavian samian. 1st-century roughly square with rounded during its presumed use for military livestock 1288 excavated backfill of 1453 coarse652–653). pottery 1.8m in diameter. The primary requisition (ibid, 1322 Fence-slot E1 1st-century coarse pottery was a mottled yellow-orange-brown sand-clay, 1584 adjoining (Fig. Further features cut to the east of P101 could have been in 1375 Associated E1 Neronian-early Flavian coarse pottery 2.31.S.109). This was overlain by a deposit of yellowcontemporary use. A group of three intercutting pits, 1681, 1385 Outside E1 silt1st-century coarse pottery brown silt-clay, 1581, and a lens of dark grey-brown 1688 and 1694 (Fig. 2.27.S.88) were cut to the east of this Enclosure 3 a layer of orange-brown sand-clay, sand, 1582. Above was arrangement. Pit 1681 was cutsamian. by pit 1688, which was in P132by a deposit1143, 1259, W side of enclosure Claudio-Neronian 1st-century 1579, sealed of orange-brown sand-clay, 1577. pottery turn cut bycoarse pit 1694. Full details of these pits could not This was overlain by a 1541 deposit of brown-grey sand-siltP138 1282 of layer 1581 Gully associated 3 1st-century coarse pottery be recovered because of modern disturbance. 1681 was clay, 1575. The morphology suggests that Enclosure Note: E1 = Enclosure 1 backfilled with brown silt-sand, 1683, sealed by brown it was the remains of a truncated post-pipe. This suggests clay-sand, 1682. 1688 was backfilled with brown sandthat both features 1729 and 1453 were post-pits, which silt, 1704, and 1689–1691. 1694 was backfilled with grey may haveTABLE been contemporary. 2.6 PHASE 4C FEATURES, DATING EVIDENCE Construct P101

P105 -

Cut 1453, 1827 1649 1652 1714 1681 1688 1694 1298 1371 1307 1141

-

1014/1110

P125

Details Cut across entrance

Pit cut into rampart Pit Pit Pit, cuts 1688 Cut at rear of rampart Pit to rear of rampart Hearth outside fort Beam-slot associated with 1307 Cultivation soil outside Phase 3A/4A fort

Dating Pre-Flavian samian. 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery Pre-AD 85 samian 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery 1st-century coarse pottery Neronian–Early Flavian samian Pre–Early Flavian samian Samian: Pre-Flavian, Pre/Early Flavian 1st-century samian Samian: AD 50–75, Claudian, Pre-Flavian, 1st-century

Table 2.6 Phase 4C features, dating evidence

67

4

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 TABLE 2.7 PHASE 4C FEATURES, METALWORKING DEBRIS

Construct/ Cut Fill Wt Details P125 1652 82g Undiagnostic slag 1307 1308 1639g 2x hearth bottom fragments (140 x 90 x 55; 90 x 70 x 50) 1307 1310 3g Hammerscale # 1827 1825 79g Burnt clay/ slag (associated with P101) P100/1369 1370 32g Hammerscale # P101/1453 1452 1g Hammerscale # P101/1453 1584 3g Hammerscale # P125/1626 1625 3g Hammerscale # 1714 1713 78g Hammerscale # Key: # weight may include other metalworking residues Table 2.7 Phase 4C features, metalworking debris sand-silt, 1692–1693, and 1703. A narrow east-west aligned gully, P126 (Fig. 2.31.S.115) and a ‘keyholeshaped’ hearth, 1571/1573, were recorded further to the north.

containing slag fragments. Above was a deposit of burnt red silt-clay, 1308, which may represent the remains of the collapsed clay dome of the feature. A posthole, 1337, was cut into the eastern edge of 1307. A very large quantity of metalworking debris, totalling nearly 1.7kg was recovered from the backfills of 1307, including slag and large fragments of hearth-bottom. The feature backfills contained Roman pottery, the latest dating to the PreFlavian and pre/early Flavian periods. This material would be considered to be residual if 1307 post-dates the final Roman military abandonment of the complex.

After its backfilling, a group of postholes was cut into the western edge of P101. The earliest of this group, 1744 (Fig. 2.31.S.110) was cut by gully P142, which was in turn cut by posthole 1737. Further to the east of the entrance, further gullies, 1370/1330 (Fig. 2.31.S.116) and P105 (Fig. 2.31.S.117), were cut on a roughly north–south alignment. Other features recorded cut to the rear of the Phase 3A and Phase 4A rampart comprised a large pit, 1502, another pit, P108, and two small pits, 1371 and 1387 (Fig. 2.31.S.118). The location of these features indicates that the rampart had been largely scoured-out by this phase.

1307 contained a large group of charred grain. This material is interpreted as rubbish which may have been used to backfill the feature after it went out of use. A cultivation soil, 1014/1110 (Fig. 2.28) was recorded to the west of the fort. It comprised light brown silt-claysand, measuring up to 0.2m in depth. It extended over the area of abandoned Phase 3B–4B Enclosure 1, and sealing Phase 3B–4B industrial features.

No other Phase 4C features could be identified within the defended area. Table 2.6 details the (residual) dating evidence from Phase 4C features, and Table 2.7 summarises the metalworking debris from this phase.

PHASE 5 (Fig. 2.32)

Description and interpretation of Phase 4C external features (Figs 2.28 and 2.31)

Of particular interest was an arrangement of nine pits or large postholes, Structure 18.7, located in the western entrance to the Phase 3A and Phase 4A fort. The western side of this arrangement was represented by four pits or postholes, 2105, 1654, 1831 and 1830, spaced unevenly along a line measuring 9m in length. The northernmost, 2105, was cut into the backfilled southern terminal of Phase 4A ditch C171. The remaining features of this group were cut into the disused Phase 3B–4B Structure 18.5–18.6, Phase 4C features C101 and C102, and into the subsoil. A gap measuring 1.5m in width may have been retained to the south of 1830, and to the north of the northern ditch terminal of P111. Feature 1831 may have formed the centre-post of a gate.

In the extreme south of the excavated area a single Phase 4C industrial feature, 1307 (Fig. 2.31.S.119), was cut through the western edge of backfilled Phase 4A ditch P123, and into the natural subsoil, 1008. It may be suggested therefore that 1307 post-dated the final military abandonment of the site, during which, following standard Roman military practice, the defences would be slighted, including at least partial backfilling of the defensive ditches. Industrial feature 1307 was rectangular in plan, measuring 1.6m by 1m in plan, and a maximum of 0.7m in depth. The feature had a flat base, and near-vertical sides. A beam-slot, 1279/1141, oval in plan, and measuring an average of 0.3m in width was cut around part of the outside of the feature, was presumably associated with its use. 1307 was backfilled with grey-brown silt-sand, 1310, containing large fragments of charcoal, sealed by a layer of light grey-brown silt-clay, 1309, flecked with charcoal and

Description and interpretation of Phase 5 features

5 68

Five further postholes or pits, 1653, 1832, 1833, 1834 and 1707 formed part of the same arrangement. These features formed an arc, aligned at a diagonal to the western side of the structure. One pit, 1834, was lined with a timber barrel. A gate could have been retained between the rearmost

Results

2105

1654

1653 1831

1832

1830

Structure 18.7

1833

1834

1707

rt

pa

m Ra

0

5m

Figure 2.32 Phase 5 entrance, possible 2 32livestock ‘funnel’, plan (scale 1:125) pair of features, 1707 and 1834. The structure could have formed a ‘funnel’ used to drive livestock into the interior of the Phase 3A and Phase 4A fort. This arrangement suggests that the fort perimeter remained visible and marked by ditches and the remains of the rampart, at the time of its construction. This structure belongs in the postRoman period. Further refinement of its chronology is, unfortunately, impossible.

boundary, mapped in the 18th century (Jones 2001, figs 4–5). The eastward continuation of this ditch was recorded in Area M20 (Jones forthcoming c). No other datable 18th or 19th century features survived mid 20th-century terracing of the area in preparation for the construction of Vincent House. A number of disturbances associated with terracing the natural, northwest facing slope were associated with the construction of Vincent House, as were numerous foundation and service trenches and the bases of pits dug to contain vertical supports within the single-storey building.

A discontinuous east–west aligned ditch (not illustrated), located to the north of the westernmost end of the via principalis probably formed a post-medieval field

69

CHAPTER 3: FINDS

All finds derive from the excavation stage of the project; no finds were recovered from test-pitting.

Catalogue (only No. 2 is illustrated) 1 A severely corroded copper alloy object comprising a slightly curving bar with a bull’s-eye decorated roundel at one end. The bar has a circular section changing abruptly to a D-section at the decorated end. This is part of a ‘spectacle’ type harness fitting, an item of cavalry horse gear. They are commonly found as they appear to break readily (Bishop 1998, 72). Length 56mm; depth 8mm. SF5, layer 1102, Phase 3B–4B.

SMALL FINDS Copper alloy objects Roger White Ten artefacts were presented for reporting. Of these, one was modern (No. 10) and the remainder were Roman, or was likely to be Roman. Where it has been possible to date the artefacts they appear to be late 1st-century in date but could have remained in use beyond that period. One object (No. 1) has definite military associations, hinting at a cavalry, or mixed, cohort of troops using the fort.

2

A copper alloy L-shaped key consisting of a square-sectioned shank with two pairs of projecting transverse mouldings. The exact detail and form of these is obscured by corrosion and general cracking of the object. The base consists of a rectangular block with three teeth cut into it. Maximum dimensions: length 54mm, width 27mm, shank 12mm square. U/S. Fig. 3.1.



This is a tumbler lock slide key. A ready parallel may be cited from Colchester from a 2nd-century context (Crummy 1983, 125–126, no. 4154).

3 A corroded domed copper alloy stud. Probably from an item of furniture or possible clothing (Crummy 1983, 85). 12mm diameter. 2727, pit 2725, Phase 3A, SF16. 4

Corroded copper alloy lump. No further identification possible. SF1. Layer 1010, Phase 5.

5 Curving copper alloy segment with a globular end. Possibly a terminal from a bracelet or torc. Length: 39mm. U/S. 6 Cast copper alloy lid from trefoil mouthed jug with hinged attachment point. A late 1st-century type of vessel (Den Boesterd 1956, 69). Length: 48mm. Layer 2085, Phase 4C, SF14. 7 The head and part of the shaft of a Trumpet brooch. Very poorly preserved but with a prominent head plate with grooved sides. Late 1st-century. Length: 30mm. Layer 1102, Phase 3B–4B, SF12. 8

Copper alloy coin of 25mm diameter. Extremely worn and corroded on the reverse side but probably a Claudian As (or a copy thereof). Layer 1711, Phase 4A, SF18.

9

Irregular copper alloy disc 23mm in diameter. Possibly a coin, but if so illegible. 1113, gully 1114, Phase 1A, SF4.

10 Copper alloy ‘cartwheel’ penny of George III. Coin is worn and corroded. Layer 1011, Phase 4C, SF2.

Iron objects Erica Macey-Bracken A total of 160 nails or fragments of nails were recovered from Area M18. The nails were widely distributed across the site. The nails were all heavily corroded, but most of them appeared to conform to Manning’s Type 1, the most common nail of the Roman period (Manning 1985, 291). Nails of this type have also been found on other parts of the fort (Area M14, Macey-Bracken 2011, 24–25). 0

1cm

A total of 125 other pieces of iron were recovered. Most of these pieces were discarded scraps, but X-radiographs of some of the larger items helped to identify them. These finds included an (intrusive) fragment of a horseshoe from a Phase 4C layer of cultivation soil (2085), two joining fragments of a tool with a narrow (10mm diameter)

Figure 3.1 Key (scale 1:1)

3.1

70

Finds circular shaft (1163, fill of 1185) and a small amorphous lump (2136, fill of 2208, group C166) which, on X-ray proved to be a fragment of a rectangular-sectioned item, possibly an iron bar.

found in Britain are made from Kentish Ragstone. This item was thin-sectioned, and the results are described below. The other worked items recovered were three fragments from a Niedermendig lava quern. Other querns in this material have been found in other areas of the fort.

Catalogue

Catalogue

1 Two joining fragments of an iron tool with circular shaft 10mm in diameter. 145mm x 56mm at widest point. 127g. 1163, fill of 1185, SF 10, Phase 3B–Phase 4B. 2

1 Three sub-rounded fragments from a Niedermendig lava quern. Largest fragment is 40mm x 28mm (55g). Two smaller fragments are 27mm x 17mm (7g) and 24mm x 16mm x 21mm (7g). Layer 2083, Phase 3B–4B.

Three joining fragments of a horseshoe. 68mm x 36mm x 4mm, 40g. 2085, Phase 4C, SF15.

2 Whetstone, covered with cut marks from working use. Made from uniform laminated/ foliated meta-mudstone/ siltstone. 76mm x 33mm x 8mm. 61g. Layer 1049, Phase 3B–4B.

3 Possible section of rectangular iron bar. 34mm x 17mm x 33mm, 30g. 2136, pit 2208, group C166, Phase 2B.

Petrography

Glass objects Erica Macey-Bracken, with comments by Hilary Cool

A single slaty whetstone was provided for petrographical examination. Initially the exposed surfaces and cut surface of the artefact and its thin section were investigated using a x20 hand lens and the Geological Society of America rock-colour chart. A standard thin section was prepared by cutting a slice and grinding it to the correct thickness. The section was investigated using transmitted light petrography in plane polarised and cross polarised light using x6.3 and x12.5 and x25 objectives with x12.5 eye pieces giving overall magnifications of x80, x155 and x310.

Of the 25 fragments of glass recovered from the site, only twelve were of Roman appearance, or came from contexts containing Roman pottery. The remainder of the assemblage consisted of fragments of post-medieval bottle and vessel glass. The most identifiable Roman glass fragments were four fragments from a collared jar in blue/ green glass from a Phase 1E beam-slot 2380 (fill 2293). The rim had been rolled to produce a double fold. These were in use during the mid to late 1st century, going out of use early in the 2nd century (Price and Cottam 1998, 137–138).

Results The whetstone comprises a uniform, laminated/ foliated meta-mudstone/ siltstone. It is an unusual lithology for a Roman whetstone as the majority, certainly in southern England, were manufactured from Kentish Ragstone, a calcareous sandstone from the Hythe Beds in Kent (Peacock 1971). The whetstone has the shape of a primary hone although the lithology does not have the usual characteristics required of a good hone, namely hard gritty phases within a softer matrix and an overall fine to medium grain size. The lithology is not local (unless taken from the drift) but is exotic with regard to the find spot. However it lacks any distinguishing features so making a geological provenance impossible.

There is also a blue/ green body fragment with abraded band (1154, feature 1153, Phase 1D/1E). This could well be from a Hofheim cup (Price and Cottam 1998, 71–73), a type primarily in use during the middle of the 1st century, going out of use during the early Flavian period. These are very common in early forts. The only other fragment certainly of Roman date is a blue/ green fragment (fill 1154, feature 1153). The remainder of the glass assemblage consisted of small undiagnostic fragments of blue, green, blue/ green and clear glass. At least three of the fragments appear to be from modern vessels (1014, 1277, 2310), although all come from contexts that have been spot-dated to the 1st century, and these fragments must therefore be intrusive.

ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY Jane Timby with contributions by Felicity Wild and David Williams Introduction and methodology

Catalogue

The excavation in Area M18 in the western part of the fort interior and defences yielded a moderately large assemblage of c 3,825 sherds of Roman pottery weighing c 52kg, with an estimated vessel (rim) equivalence (EVE) of 19.5 (including samian). Also present are 148 sherds (1,036g) of post-medieval date which are not reported on further other than for dating purposes. As with other assemblages recovered from Metchley, the sherds are very poorly preserved with an average sherd weight of 13.6g. If the amphorae sherds are removed from this, the average sherd size is just 8.9g. Surface preservation is

1 Four fragments, three joining, of a tubular rim in blue/ green glass. Joining fragments 52mm x 15mm x 8mm, non-joining fragment 40mm x 15mm x 10mm, 21g. 2293 fill of 2380, C126, Phase 1E. Not illustrated.

Stone objects Rob Ixer Only two fragments of worked stone were recovered from the Area M18 excavation. The most interesting of these was a whetstone (layer 1049, Phase 3B–4B) covered in cut marks from working use, which is unusual in that it was made from micaceous slate. Most Roman whetstones 71

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 Fabric Imports

Metchley

No %

Wt

Wt %

EVE

EVE %

S01

South Gaulish samian

147

3.8

886

1.7

241

0.0

LYO CC

C05

Lyon ware

20

0.5

6.5

0.0

0

0.0

ITA WH

Campanian coarseware

1

0.0

9

0.0

0

0.0

CAM PR1

Unslipped Pompeian redware

3

0.1

47

0.1

5

0.3

Imported flagon

1

0.0

137

0.3

0

0.0

NOG WH4

M015

North Gaulish whiteware

5

0.1

249

0.5

6

0.3

CNG OX

M05

Central Gaulish oxidised

9

0.2

566

1.1

17

0.9

BAT AM

A01

Baetican amphorae

372

9.7

21780

41.9

7

0.4

CAM AM

A00

Campanian amphorae

1

0.0

41

0.1

0

0.0

GAL AM

A02

Gallic amphorae

70

1.8

1435

2.8

0

0.0

AMP 2–4

A00

Amphorae: source unknown

1

0.0

32

0.1

0

0.0

MAL REA

N02.1

Malvernian rock tempered

67

1.8

1252

2.4

87

4.5

MAL REB

N0

Malvernian limestone temp

2

0.1

16

0.0

0

0.0

SAND

N0

Native hm sandy ware

11

0.3

191

0.4

20

1.0

GROG

F011

Native hm grog-tempered

46

1.2

1725

3.3

17

0.9

GRSA

F011

Native hm sand and grog

2

0.1

10

0.0

0

0.0

MAH WH

M

Mancetter-Hartshill

9

0.2

341

0.7

15

0.8

SVW OX 2

O02.1

Severn Valley ware

523

13.7

4035.5

7.8

323

16.6

O02.15

SVW (grog) hm storage jar

62

1.6

745

1.4

30

1.5

Organic-tempered SVW

379

9.9

4617.5

8.9

187

9.6

Reduced SVW

51

1.3

419

0.8

35

1.8

?Wroxeter mortarium

1

0.0

100

0.2

0

0.0

SVW GR SVW ORG SVW RE Local/ unknown

No

LGF SA

IMP MISC

Regional

Description

O03.1/G05 G04

WRXWH BBSY BSREDC

G06.9

BSOXID

G06

BWSY

G06.07

Black burnished sandy ware

5

0.1

18

0.0

3

0.2

Black surfaced red core sandy

42

1.1

211

0.4

43

2.2

Black surfaced oxidised

59

1.5

246

0.5

64

3.3 0.9

Black sandy ware

36

0.9

262

0.5

17

BWSYMIC

Black sandy micaceous ware

9

0.2

144

0.3

0

0.0

BWHSY

1

0.0

9

0.0

0

0.0

BWNSL

Black surfaced whiteware Fine brown slipped oxidised ware

32

0.8

107.5

0.2

0

0.0

BWNLI

Brown sandy with limestone

1

0.0

64

0.1

0

0.0

BUFF

Fine buff ware

1

0.0

2

0.0

0

0.0

Sandy buff ware

2

0.1

3

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.1

43

0.1

0

0.0

GYORLI

Misc cream ware Grey ware organic and limestone

2

0.1

80

0.2

0

0.0

GYFMIC

Fine grey micaceous

11

0.3

29

0.1

0

0.0

BUFFSY

O06.2

CREAM

GYSY

G06.5

Grey sandy ware

124

3.2

1076

2.1

53

2.7

GYSYMIC

G06.05

Grey sandy micaceous ware

28

0.7

1700

3.3

34

1.7

OX1

O06.11

Medium oxidised sandy

318

8.3

2172.3

4.2

202

10.4

OX2

O02.13?

OX3

O06

OXFMIC OXF

O06.1

5

0.1

39

0.1

7

0.4

15

0.4

109

0.2

12

0.6

Fine micaceous oxidised

38

1.0

1067

2.1

0

0.0 21.8

1166

30.5

5247

10.1

426

WSOX

O06.10

White-slipped oxidised sandy

86

2.2

412

0.8

70

3.6

WSOXF

O06.52

White-slipped fine oxidised

8

0.2

65

0.1

20

1.0

WWFRP

F00

Fine white ware red painted

1

0.0

4

0.0

0

0.0

WWF WWSY OO

O03

Fine-medium sandy oxidised Misc oxidised

F012 W011.1

Fine oxidised

Fine white ware

20

0.5

134

0.3

6

0.3

Sandy white ware

7

0.2

66

0.1

3

0.2

Unidentified crumbs

23

0.6

9

0.0

0

0.0

3825

100

51959

100

1950

100

TOTAL

Table 3.1 Romano-British pottery, quantified summary

72

Finds

10

1

2

11

3 12

4

13

5

14 6 15

16 7

17 8

18 9 0

Figure 3.2 Romano-British pottery (Nos 1–18, scale 1:4)

3.2

73

100mm

20

19

21

23

24 22

25 26

100mm

0

Figure 3.3 Romano-British pottery (Nos 19–26, scale 1:4)

33

74

Finds also exceptionally poor and surface finishes are missing in most cases. The number of featured sherds is also limited. Pottery was recovered from 132 contexts, a mixture of cut features and layers with 40 sherds recovered from disturbed subsoil horizons.

accurately the number of vessels present. It also tends to obscure distinctive features of the rim or footring which can help in refining the dating of plain forms. As a result, there is a degree of guesswork in the identification of forms and numbers of vessels and a vagueness in the dating, which should be borne in mind when considering the statistics below.

The pottery was sorted into fabric types on the basis of the type, size and frequency of the inclusions along with colour, and, if detectable, surface finish. Traded or named wares were coded to the National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (NRFRC) (Tomber and Dore 1998). Where possible sherds were tied into the fabric series established from previous work at Metchley (Green et al 2001; Hancocks 2005, Evans 2011, Evans et al 2011, Timby 2011). The relevant codes are provided in Table 3.1. Several probable local wares and some new imported fabrics did not feature in the available fabric series or one code seemed to embrace more than one ware and these are described. The poor state of preservation of the Metchley pottery creates a number of problems when sorting and many sherds can only be treated generically. The samian is reported on by Felicity Wild and a selection of the amphorae by David Williams. The assemblage was fully quantified by sherd count, weight and estimated vessel (rim) equivalence (EVE). The data was entered onto an MS Excel spreadsheet a copy of which is deposited with the site archive. Table 3.1 provides a quantified summary of the defined Roman fabrics with a concordance to other Metchley fabric codes where possible. A selection of the coarse wares (Figs 3.2–3.3) is illustrated.

The excavations produced 147 sherds weighing a total of 886g, probably from around 110 vessels, mostly in very small pieces. All are South Gaulish, from La Graufesenque. Forms, where recognisable with some degree of certainty, are listed by phase in Table 3.2. Unidentifiable scraps and unphased sherds have been omitted. The pre-Flavian forms 15/17, 24/25, Ritt. 1, Ritt. 9 and Ritt. 12 are all represented, together with Hermet 28, a probable early variant of form 36. The early cup and dish forms 24/25 and15/17 outnumber the later forms 27 and 18. The earliest pieces are quite consistent with a Claudian date, though the bulk of the material is best described merely as pre-Flavian. A few, but only a few, pieces are likely to be Flavian rather than Neronian. These include one example of form 29 (No. 2) and the single example of form 37 (No. 67), a form which rarely reached Britain before c AD 70. Based on the figures in Table 3.2, decorated ware amounts to c 27% of the total, which may be an overestimate in that decorated sherds, even in this poor condition, can be recognised and counted, when plain sherds would be dismissed as unidentifiable scraps. Based on a sherd count, the percentage of decorated ware is 24%.

Description of fabrics and associated forms

Of the types of vessel present in the assemblage as a whole, bowl forms amount to 28% (based on Table 3.2), cups to 32% and dishes (including the more plate-like forms 15/17 and 18) to 40%.

Samian ware Felicity Wild

As is well-known from previous excavations on the site, the soil conditions at Metchley are not conducive to the preservation of samian ware (Pengelly et al 2001, Willis Analysis of the material from the various phases does 2005, Willis 2011, Wild 2011a and b). They soften the little to refine the dating. The occurrence of an apparently fabric and erode the surface slip, largely removing both Flavian form 29 in the filling of the innermost ditch (Phase decoration and potters’ stamps. Erosion of the edges of 1B) may suggest no more than that the ditch took a long the sherds makes it difficult to detect joins and assess time (BY to fill, or that later material was being trampled into TABLE 3.2 SAMIAN, FORMS, WHERE RECOGNISABLE PHASE) Form 29 37 15/17 15/17R 15/17 or 18 18 18R 18 or 18/31 24/25 27 36/Hermet 28 Ritt. 1 Ritt. 9 Ritt. 12 Dish Cup Total

Phase 1 3 2 3

1

Phase 2B 6 1

Phase 3A

Phase 3B–4B 7

1

4

1 4

1 1

1 7

1 2 12

12

2 4

Phase 4A/4C 3 1 3 1? 1 3 1? 1 6 1

2 1 1

2

24

23

Table 3.2 Samian, forms, where recognisable (by phase)

75

Phase 5 1

1

1

3

Total 20 1 10 2 4 6 1 1 6 15 1 1 2 1 5 2 78

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 it. Apart from this, the material was all pre-Flavian, the Ritt. 1 (No. 12) probably Claudian.

Claudian. 2g. 1100, well 1101. 13 Three very badly abraded sherds, possibly showing decoration and from form 29. Pre-Flavian. 11g. 1553, posthole 1552.

The material from Phase 2B is of particular interest. Almost all of it came from two pits in the central range (2208 and 2373 in group C166), and consisted almost entirely of the decorated form 29 and the small size of cup form 24/25 (Polak 2000, 99), both vessels likely to be associated with high-status dining. Dannell (2006, 158) argues that the smallest-sized cups may have been associated not with drinking but with food preparation and serving, perhaps as containers for sauces. In the centre of the fort, are we perhaps looking here at the furnishings of the commandant’s table? This material could derive from clearance in Phase 2B of the Phase 1E Structure 18.15, interpreted as the praetorium (Figs 2.6–2.8, Chapter 2, this volume).

PHASE 1E 14 Form 15/17. Pre-Flavian. 2g. 2551, beam-slot 2550, C109, Structure 18.15. PHASE 2B 15 Scrap of uncertain form. 1st century. 2g. 1111, posthole 1112, Structure 18.4. 16 Scrap of uncertain form, possibly form 18. Not closely datable. 2g. 2312, ditch 2314. 17 Scrap. 1st century. 2g. 2135, pit 2208, C166. 18 Form 24/25. Rim sherd from a very small cup, rim diam. 80mm. PreFlavian. 3g. 2136, 2208, C166. 19 Form 29 base, with edge of stamp (illegible). Neronian or early Flavian. 34g. 2170, 2208, C166.

As might be expected, many of the earliest vessels came from later contexts, in Phase 3B–4B and Phase 4A/4C.

20 Form 29. Two badly abraded sherds, one of rim. Probably Neronian. 17g. 2212, 2208, C166.

Catalogue (Not illustrated)

21 Form 29 rim, burnt, probably from a different bowl. Probably Neronian. 4g. 2212, 2208, C166.

The catalogue below lists the material by phase, including the decorated ware and the only legible stamp. Figure types are quoted from Oswald 1936–1937 (O.). The stamp die and the dating of the potters mentioned in the text are based on Hartley and Dickinson 2008–. As noted above, all the pieces are South Gaulish. Weights are given at the end of each entry.

22 Form 24. Three joining sherds amounting to almost half of a small cup, rim diam. c 70mm, with stamp LICN[VS] of Licinus of La Graufesenque. Licinus used many different dies. This one looks closest to die 49e (Hartley and Dickinson 2008–), a die only recorded on form 27 at La Graufesenque. An almost identical die, but with a dot in the L, not visible here, has been recorded more widely: on form 24, in Britain at Colchester and Richborough, and in the early Neronian wreck at La Nautique (Fiches et al 1978, fig. 4.44). This piece is unlikely to be among the potter’s earliest (Tiberian) work, suggesting a date c AD 40–65. 22g. 2307, 2208, C166.

PHASE 1A

23 Form 29, slightly burnt, showing scroll decoration in both zones. The detail does not survive clearly enough for identification, but the date is likely to be c AD 50–75. 21g. 2215, pit 2373.

1 Form 15/17, slightly burnt. Pre-Flavian. 3g. 1113, beam-slot 1114, Structure 18.1.

24 Form 24/25. Rim sherd from a very small cup, rim diam. 80mm. PreFlavian. 6g. 2216, 2373.

PHASE 1B

25 Form 29. Badly abraded decoration with almost no surface left. The upper zone shows a scroll, though too little of the detail survives for identification. In the lower zone, traces may survive of the distinctive large rosette used by Bassus ii-Coelus and Meddillus (Dannell et al 2003, Meddillus taf. E5, 2362), from La Graufesenque, also showing a scroll in the upper zone). The rather spreading profile of the bowl does not suggest a very early date. Probably c AD 55–75. 19g. 2244, 2373.

2 Form 29. Sherd of lower zone, badly abraded round the edges, showing panels containing cupid (O.436) in a medallion and animal (uncertain) over a panel with wavy lines and leaf tips, a style of decoration typical of the Flavian period. A form 29 from La Graufesenque stamped by Severus shows closely similar decoration, with the cupid in medallion and leaf tip panel (Mees 1995, taf. 191, 1). c AD 75–85. 3g. 1017, segment 1027, innermost ditch P116.

26 Form 29. Five more sherds, two burnt. They are too badly abraded to know how many bowls are represented here, but the single rim sherd is not from No. 25 above. They are likely to be of similar date. 69g in all. 2244, 2373.

3 Lower part of a cup, probably form 27. Probably pre-Flavian. 15g. 1017, segment 1027, P116. 4 Abraded sherd of dish, slightly burnt. Probably pre-Flavian. 7g. 1017, segment 1027, P116.

27 Form 24/25. Rim sherd from a medium-sized cup, rim diam. 120mm. Pre-Flavian. 13g. 2244, 2373.

5 Form 15/17 or 18 base, probably pre-Flavian. 17g. 1021, segment 1027, P116. 6 Tiny scrap, possibly decorated and from form 29. Probably preFlavian. 1g. 1026, segment 1027, P116.

PHASE 3A

7

28 Form 15/17. Pre-Flavian. 4g. Layer 1712.

Form 15/17 or 18. Two sherds, one of base, probably from the same dish. Probably pre-Flavian. 25g. 1034, segment 1038, C176.

PHASE 1D/1E

29 Two joining sherds of small cup, form 24/25 or 27, with traces of illegible stamp. The upper part of the wall appears to have been trimmed off, presumably after breakage, to make a smaller cup, rim diam. 60mm, though the sherds are too abraded to be certain. PreFlavian. 22g. 2638, beam-slot 2631, C148, Structure 18.8.

9

PHASE 3B–4B

8 Scrap, probably from form 15/17 or 18. Pre-Flavian. 5g. 1054, segment 1038, P116.

Scrap of uncertain form. 1st century. 3g. 1031, oven 1033.

10 Scrap of dish form. 1st century. 5g. 1031, oven 1033. 11 Form 29 base. Pre-Flavian. 9g. 1100, well 1101.

30 Form 15/17 base, probably the rouletted variant 15/17R. Probably pre-Flavian. 31g. 1057, feature 1133.

12 Abraded rim, probably of form Ritt. 1, a pre-Flavian form. Probably

31 Scrap, slightly burnt. 1st century. 2g. 1129, hearth 1161.

76

Finds 32 Scrap of uncertain form. 1st century. 1g. Layer 1049.

63 Body sherd of cup, probably form 27. Probably Neronian. 5g. Layer 1711.

33 Scrap of uncertain form. Pre-Flavian. 1g. Layer 1058.

64 Cup scrap, probably form 27, slightly burnt. 1st century. 1g. Layer 1711.

34 Form 27. Pre-Flavian. 1g. 1069, feature 1068 associated with P141, Enclosure 1.

65 Flake, probably of dish form. Probably pre-Flavian. 2g. Layer 1711.

35 Form Ritt. 9. c AD 40–60. 13g. 1072, pit 1073. 36 Dish scrap. 1st century. 2g. Layer 1109.

PHASE 4C

37 Form 29 rim. Pre-Flavian. 5g. Layer 1127.

66 Scrap of uncertain form. 1st century. 2g. 1142, gully 1141, Phase 4C.

38 Form 27. Badly abraded rim scrap of small cup. Pre-Flavian. 0.5g. Layer 1127.

67 Form 37. Two tiny scraps, one showing an ovolo with tongue to right ending in a blob or rosette, too abraded for precise identification. Form 37 was made at La Graufesenque from c AD 65, though it does not normally appear in Britain before AD 70. There was one example from Kingsholm (Wild 1985, 62, D18), evacuated c AD 66, though from its context it might possibly have arrived later. Assuming that this is indeed form 37, as it appears to be, rather than form 30, its date is unlikely to be earlier than c AD 70–90. 3g. Layer 2085, 4C.

39 Form 29. Small sherd, unusually well preserved, showing a scroll in the upper zone, with spiral ending in a rosette and tendril ending in six buds. The motifs were common to many potters in the preand early Flavian periods. Parallels can be cited to the work of Crestio (Dannell et al 2003, Crestio taf. A3, 3136), Meddillus (ibid, Meddillus taf. B3, 4120, which shows gadroons in the lower zone, as on No. 50 below) and Iustus i (ibid, Iustus i taf. E1, 2949) as well as on bowls in the Flavian Culip IV wreck (Nieto and Puig 2001, 112, 113). This piece is likely to be pre-Flavian, c AD 50–75. 3g. Layer 1166.

68 Form 18. Pre- or early Flavian. 2g. Layer 2085. Phase 4C. 69 Form 29. Upper zone, showing abraded scroll with stirrup leaf in the upper concavity. A similar scroll was used by Bassus ii-Coelus (Dannell et al 2003, Bassus ii-Coelus taf. B1, 0153). While the piece cannot be attributed to a particular potter, a Claudio-Neronian date seems certain. c AD 50–70. 4g. Layer 1014.

40 Form 27 rim. Probably Claudian. 3g. Layer 1166. 41 Form 27 body sherd, from a different cup. Pre-Flavian. 5g. Layer 1166. 42 Form Ritt. 9. c AD 40–60. 4g. Layer 1166.

70 Form 24/25. Two base sherds, probably from the same cup, with excoriated stamp. Pre-Flavian. 17g. Layer 1014.

43 Form 15/17. Pre-Flavian. 5g. Layer 1166.

71 Form 15/17. Pre-Flavian. 15g. 1014.

44 Scrap of uncertain form. Possibly Claudian. 1g. Layer 1166.

72 Form 15/17. Abraded wall sherd in the pale fabric with brownish slip typical of the Claudian period. c AD 40–55. 6g. 1014.

45 Cup, probably form 27, possibly Claudian, as No. 40 above. 4g. 1258, palisade 1259, P132, Enclosure 3.

73 Form 18. Pre-Flavian. 6g. 1014.

46 Form 29. Badly abraded scrap with traces of decoration. Pre-Flavian. 2g. Layer 1274.

74 Form 15/17 or 18. Two crumbling sherds of base. Probably preFlavian. 25g. Layer 1059.

47 Form 24/25. Pre-Flavian. 2g. Layer 1274.

75 Form 27. Seven sherds, with joins, including base with end of excoriated stamp. Pre-Flavian. 23g. Layer 1110.

48 Form 18. Probably pre-Flavian. 2g. Layer 1274.

76 Form 15/17, slightly burnt. Pre-Flavian. 9g. Layer 1110.

49 Form 15/17, heavily burnt. Pre-Flavian. 2g. 1287, palisade 1288, P131, Enclosure 1.

77 Form Hermet 28 (Hermet 1934, pl. 3, 28). Two joining sherds of dish with flat rim decorated in barbotine, regarded by Oswald and Pryce as a possible predecessor of form 36. The form has an angular junction between wall and base, possible, though not present, here. Both the examples illustrated by Oswald and Pryce (1920, pl. liii, 1, 20), from Colchester and Leicester, are dated to the ClaudioNeronian period. 9g. Layer 1110.

50 Form 29. Fragment of lower zone showing straight gadroons, a common motif used by potters throughout the lifetime of the form. This is likely to be pre-Flavian, possibly Claudian. 7g. Layer 1415. 51 Form 27. Unusually well preserved, with high gloss typical of the Neronian period. C AD 55–70. 11g. 1415.

78 Form 27. Pre-Flavian. 8g. 1299, gully 1298, P105.

52 Form 27. Three rim fragments, probably from a different cup from No. 51. Probably Neronian. 11g. 1415.

79 Form 15/17 (R?). Two joining sherds, probably of the more spreading, rouletted variant of the form. Pre-Flavian. 23g. 1309, pit 1307.

53 Form Ritt. 12 (more likely than Curle 11). Pre-Flavian. 8g. 1415. 54 Form 15/17. Pre-Flavian. 4g. 1415.

80 Form 18R (?). Rim sherd of a large, spreading dish, almost form 18/31R. The form suggests a Flavian rather than pre-Flavian date. 20g. 1310, pit 1307.

55 Form 29. Lower zone showing straight gadroons, from a different bowl to No. 50 above. Probably c AD 50–75. 18g. Layer 1462, rear of Phase 3A rampart.

81 Base sherd, probably from form 18 rather than 15/17. Pre- or early Flavian. 1372, pit 1371.

56 Form 29. Three abraded scraps of rim and upper zone. Possibly from No. 55 above? 4g. Layer 1462, rear of rampart. 57 Form 15/17. Pre-Flavian. 10g. Layer 1462, rear of rampart.

82 Form 27. Six sherds, with joins, probably all from the same cup. PreFlavian. 30g. 1576, 1577, fills of 1453, P101.

58 Tiny scrap with traces of decoration, presumably form 29. Pre- or early Flavian. 1g. 1777, post-pit 1778, Structure 18.6.

83 Form 29 footstand. Pre- or early Flavian. 1713, pit 1714.

59 Form 18 wall scrap. Possibly from the same dish as No. 74. 2g. Layer 1058.

PHASE 5 84 Form 29. Lower part of the decoration with a zone of festoons or tendrils containing or ending in a rosette above the basal moulding. The piece is too badly abraded to suggest parallels, but is certainly pre-Flavian, c AD 50–75. 18g. Layer 1010.

PHASE 4A 60 Scrap of abraded cup of form 24/25 or 27. Pre-Flavian. 3g. 1201, ditch segment 1202, P111.

85 Form 27 rim scrap. 1st century. 1g. Layer 1010.

61 Form 18 or 18/31. Probably Flavian. 10g. 1261, 1202, P111.

86 Sherd from base of flat dish, presumably form 15/17, 18 or their rouletted variants. 1st century. 12g. Layer 1013.

62 Form 27g, with traces of stamp starting OF.I[. Pre- or early Flavian. 23g. 1708, pit 1709.

77

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 Other imported fine and coarse wares

2006). These are represented by 329 bodysherds, twelve parts of handle and four rims. The Dressel 20 form was in production for a long time, from the reign of Claudius until shortly after the middle of the 3rd century AD (Rodriguez-Almeida 1989; Berni 1998). However, there was some variation in the rim form over this period and the four Dressel 20 rims recovered from Area M18 can all be approximately dated by comparison with Martin-Kilcher’s (1987) scheme for the development of the Dressel 20 rim at the well-dated sites of Augst and Kaiseraugst:

Lyon ware (LYO CC, Tomber and Dore 1998, 59) Twenty small bodysherds were recovered in this ware, all from Phase 3B–4B. Eighteen sherds came from pit 1075 and could all be from one vessel. It is generally regarded as a pre-Flavian import in southern and central Britain. Italian coarseware (ITA CW) A single flagon strap handle was recovered from intervallum ditch C183 (2319, Phase 1D/1E). The ‘blacksand’ fabric is typically associated with the Bay of Naples region of Italy.

1211, fill of Phase 1B ditch C176, segment 1208 - dated at Augst AD 50–70 (ibid, Beilage 1, nos 43/48) Layer 1430, Phase 3B–4B - dated at Augst AD 50–70 (ibid, Beilage 1, no. 54).

Southern Italy or eastern Mediterranean flagon David Williams

Fill 2216, fill of rectangular cut 2373, Phase 2B - dated at Augst AD 50–70 (ibid, Beilage 1, nos 33/34).

An unusual thick, twisted handle in a light red fabric with conspicuous white mica flakes scattered throughout and the occasional small piece of schist was recovered. The sherd, from Phase 4C layer 1014, is probably from a large jug or flagon. An area of origin based on the petrology might be southern Italy or the eastern Mediterranean.

2466, fill of Phase 2B pit 2467 - dated at Augst AD 50–70 (ibid, Beilage 1, no. 51). Twenty-seven sherds from Phase 4C layer 1014 can definitely be regarded as non-Dressel 20. These include a small section of a very friable handle with median groove and a rim that comes from the amphora form Haltern 70. This type has an everted collar rim with oval handles which have a fairly deep vertical groove and a cylindrical body (Carreras 2003; Carerras et al 2005). Amphorae of this type from the Port Vendres II Claudian shipwreck bear inscriptions naming the contents as defrutum, a sweet liquid obtained by boiling down the must (Colls et al 1977). However, other painted inscriptions describe the contents as olives in defructum or muria, while wine may also have been carried according to the results from phytolith analyses (Carreras 2003; Carreras et al 2005). Like Dressel 20, Haltern 70 was also produced in the upper and middle Guadalquivir Valley, as well as the coastal region of Baetica, from around 80–60 BC until the Antonine period (Carreras et al 2005; Williams and Keay 2006). Due to their production in the same area, Dressel 20 and Haltern 70 share a similar gritty buff-coloured fabric and it can be difficult to distinguish non-diagnostic bodysherds from one another, although in general terms Haltern 70 bodysherds tend to be thinner-walled than Dressel 20.

Campanian ware (CAM PR1) Three sherds of a dark orange, unslipped ware with a ‘black sand’ fabric were excavated. All the sherds come from one or more lids with one piece from Phase 2B pit 2373 and two from Phase 2B ditch 2314. The fabric is typical of Campanian red ware although without the classic dark red slip. Similar unslipped lids have been documented from Kingsholm, Gloucestershire (Darling 1985, 71). Central Gaulish oxidised mortaria (CNG OX, Tomber and Dore 1998, 68–69). Eight bodysherds of this mortaria type were recovered from layers 1109 and 1415, with an additional unstratified rim (Fig. 3.3.25.) The fabric was produced in a workshop at Lyon and possibly at Vienne, both in the Rhône valley (Saison-Guichon 2001). The rim can be dated to around AD 50–85. North Gaulish white ware mortaria (NOG WH 4, Tomber and Dore 1998, 75)

Although most amphora forms tend to have a fairly broad chronological range, the date of the Dressel 20 rims and the Haltern 70 handle fall in particularly well with the projected samian dating and that of the spot-dating for the coarse ware recovered from the site (see Chapter 2, this volume). The suggested typology of the Dressel 20 rims clearly slots into a ‘pre-Flavian or Claudio–Neronian date’ for the samian (ibid), while production of Haltern 70 spans this period.

Four sherds from a much fragmented spout were recovered from layer 1212, with a further bodysherd from pit 1649. Amphorae David Williams BAETICAN

The vast majority of the amphorae sherds recovered from the Area M18 excavations belong to the commonly found globular-shaped Baetican olive-oil type Dressel 20 (Peacock and Williams 1986, class 25; Williams and Keay

As with previous amphorae assemblages from Metchley seen by the writer, notably Area M9 (Williams 2011a),

78

Finds Areas M15–M16 (Williams 2011b), Area M20 (Williams forthcoming), and Area M14 (Williams 2011c), the latter containing just a few sherds of wine amphorae from Italy and France, Dressel 20 dominates in the assemblage from Area M18. The comparatively large stock of containers for olive-oil, a staple foodstuff necessary for Mediterranean troops, would not seem out of place if the Metchley fort was at some stage operating as a military stores depot within the military supply network for Roman Britain (Chapter 2, this volume; Carreras and Funari 1998).

the total assemblage. Most of the sherds are bodysherds, including a large storage jar sherd from layer 1415. Only two jar rims are present. The earliest example of the ware came from Phase 1B ditch C176 (segment 1208) with most of the other sherds coming from Phase 3B–4B and Phase 4A/4C contexts. One minor variant (GRSA) had a much sandier fabric.

GALLIC (GALAM, Tomber and Dore 1998, 93ff)

A bodysherd from a Dressel 2–4 wine amphora, almost certainly Italian, and quite possibly from northern Campania, was recovered from Phase 5 layer 1718. A collection of nine very friable bodysherds from around the neck junction of an amphora, possibly a Dressel 2–4, was recovered from ditch P116 (segment 1018). The origin of the vessel is difficult to suggest.

A white, slightly powdery fabric with a sparse scatter of fine, round, moderately well-sorted quartz, frequently pinkish in colour and rare red-brown iron and fine sandstone. The sparse trituration grits are angular redbrown argillaceous fragments of a very fine sandstone or ironstone up to 10mm across. A single vessel, Gillam type 238 with a wide flange was recovered from ditch C172 (segment 2054). The flange has part of a broken stamp set within a frame BII… on the right hand side of the spout (Fig. 3.3.20). The second letter of which only the lower part survives could be an R and the bottom of a curved latter follows. The trituration grit is typical of that used by the Mancetter-Hartshill potters after the mid 2nd century although in more abundance than this example. The earlier industry used more mixed grits of quartz, sandstone, and red sandstone. Typologically, the vessel suggests a date c AD 70–100.

Regional imports

?Wroxeter white ware mortaria (WRX WH) (ibid, 179)

Malvernian rock-tempered ware (MAL RE A, Tomber and Dore 1998, 147)

Two joining sherds from the base of a white ware mortaria were also recovered from ditch C172 (segment 2054). The hard, creamy white, fabric has a scatter of ironstone in the paste and dense trituration grits composed of well-sorted, rounded to sub-angular quartz, not larger than 2mm. The grains are a mixture of clear and opaque.

Midlands white ware mortaria (?Mancetter-Hartshill) (MAH WH, Tomber and Dore 1998, 189)

A small group of 70 sherds of Gallic amphorae are also present, largely bodysherds apart from a handle from layer 1415. The earliest piece is from Phase 3A, with most of the examples from Phase 3B–4B. Most are probably from the flat-bottomed Gauloise 4. DRESSEL 2–4 (CAM AM (ibid, 91)

A small group of 67 sherds were recovered, 1.8% of the total assemblage. Vessels include straight-sided jars often with vertical or diagonal burnished line decoration (Fig 3.2.15 and 3.3.23) and everted rim jars (Fig. 3.2.18). The earliest occurrence of the ware is a sherd from Phase 1B ditch P116 (segment 1018).

Severn Valley wares (SVW OX2) (ibid, 148) Sherds allocated to this group formed the largest percentage of the assemblage, some 26.5% by count, and 18.9% by weight. This includes grog and organic-tempered early variants and reduced wares (SVW OX/ RE OR/ GR). The degraded nature of the material and the preponderance of soft oxidised sherds had made the discrimination of material slightly problematical. The range of forms and featured sherds are limited and mainly comprise jars, bowls and tankards. The former make up 79.2% of the group on rim EVE, and include beaded rim (Fig. 3.2.4); everted rim (Figs 3.2.11 and 3.3.19), flared (Figs 3.2.16 and 3.3.24), neckless, globular (Fig. 3.2.1) and storage jar forms. Bowls and tankards (Fig. 3.2.6 and 12) each make up a further 12.2% EVE.

Malvernian limestone-tempered ware (MAL RE B, Peacock 1968, Group B) Two bodysherds were noted of this later Iron Age ware which often persists in assemblages up to the end of the 1st century AD. The ware was frequently used to make large storage vessels. Native sandy ware (SAND) A small group of eleven sherds from two or three vessels; all handmade jars (Fig. 3.2.5) were recovered. These are probably survivals of a local pre-Roman Iron Age (native) tradition.

Local or unsourced wares

Native grog-tempered wares (GROG; GRSA)

Black burnished sandy ware (BBSY)

Handmade grog-tempered wares, again probably a survival of a pre-Roman tradition are likely to date back to the early 1st-century AD. Sherds of this ware account for 1.2% of

This fabric is represented by just five sherds, one a rim from a shallow dish or platter from layer 1110. 79

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 Black fine sandy ware with a red core (BSREDC)

Fine grey micaceous ware (GYFMIC)

This fabric comprises a small group showing some textural variability: a mixture of finer and sandier sherds, and some with more mica. They all share the distinct firing colour. Featured sherds include necked jars with expanded rims and beakers. The earliest occurrence is a devolved butt beaker rim from posthole 1798 in Phase 1D/1E well 1101. A second butt beaker came from layer 1415 (Fig. 3.2.7).

Eleven sherds were recovered by excavation, ten of which are from layer 1274, probably from a single beaker. Grey sandy ware (GYSY) This group accounts for 3.2% of the assemblage by sherd count and includes sherds containing a moderate frequency of fine quartz sand. Featured sherds include jars, a straightsided bowl (Fig. 3.2.3) and dishes.

Black surfaced oxidised ware (BSOXID)

Grey sandy micaceous ware (GYSYMIC)

A black surfaced ware with an oxidised fine-medium grade sandy fabric. Possibly related to fabric BSREDC above. Several sherds feature in Phase 1D/1E deposits. Featured sherds include necked jars.

A small group of 28 sherds were recovered, many from a single necked jar with a rolled rim from pit 1307. A base from Enclosure 3 palisade P132 (segment 1259) may have been deliberately holed.

Black sandy ware (BWSY)

Oxidised sandy ware (OX1)

This fabric comprises wheelmade and handmade, medium black sandy wares. The only featured sherds are a jar and a handmade plain-rimmed dish.

This fabric appears to be the oxidised version of the grey sandy ware with a gritty sandy texture. The only rim-sherds are from everted rim jars with simple, squared, triangular (Fig. 3.2.9) or rolled rims and a degraded mortarium. This has no surviving grits and is much abraded. In addition, there are five ribbed handles with both two-rib and four-rib examples from flagons and a flagon neck. The only other featured sherd is the stub of a small tripod foot, probably from a bowl from Phase 4C layer 1014.

Black sandy micaceous ware (BWSYMIC) This fabric is represented by nine sherds from just two contexts with an example of a dish (Fig. 3.2.13). Black surfaced white ware (BWHSY) This fabric is represented by a single but distinctive bodysherd from Phase 3B–4B layer 1274.

Fine-medium oxidised sandy ware (OX2)

Brown slipped oxidised sandy ware (BWNSL)

This fabric is a harder, dense medium-fine sandy ware. A single everted jar and bodysherds were recovered.

A fine soft, oxidised sandy ware with a brown slipped smooth or burnished finish. Apart from a fragment, all the sherds were recovered from layer 1014, and come from a butt beaker decorated with an incised herring-bone design (Fig. 3.3.21). The very soft fine fabric resembles Severn Valley ware and may be from this industry.

Miscellaneous oxidised ware (OX3) This group comprises other oxidised ware. No featured or distinctive sherds were excavated. Fine micaceous oxidised ware (OXFMIC)

Brown sandy ware with limestone (BWNLI)

A small group of 38 sherds were excavated, of which half come from a single vessel in pit 1307. No featured pieces were found.

A single lid knob in a brown sandy ware with limestone inclusions was recovered from Phase 1B ditch P116 (segment 1018).

Fine oxidised ware (OXF)

Pale wares (BUFF/ BUFFSY/ CREAM)

This moderately large group of sherds accounts for 30.5% of the total assemblage. The very soft nature of the fabric means that surface finish is usually absent. Many of the sherds appear to be from flagons and on rim eve these account for 74% of the ware. The remaining 26% mainly comprises beakers with single examples of a jar and bowl. Most of the flagons have collared (Hofheim-type) rims typical of the pre-Flavian period (Figs 3.2.17 and 3.3.22) although other types are also present (Figs 3.2.14 and 3.3.26). The beakers include one example of a butt beaker from pit 1141. Other featured sherds include a bowl (Fig.

This fabric is represented by one small fine buff sherd, two slightly sandier sherds, and two cream wares, probably all from flagons. It is uncertain whether this fabric is imported or of British manufacture. Grey ware containing organic and limestone inclusions (GYORLI) Just two bodysherds in this fabric were recovered, both from gully P107 (segment 1489).

80

Finds 3.2.8), five strap handles, mainly with four ribs and six bases with foot-rings.

of post-medieval date. The only other features from this phase with pottery was post-pipe 1266 to post-pit 1263 in the entrance, and a single small sherd of black sandy ware in post-pit 2378 with 38 very fragmented sherds of a brownish sandy ware with a thin white slip, probably a flagon.

White-slipped oxidised ware (WSOX/ WSOXF) A total 94 sherds were excavated, of which eight are in a finer fabric. The sandier version features as a tankard and everted rim jars whilst the finer variant seems to be used for flagons. Of uncertain form is a thick-walled sherd, terminating in a hollowed out projection which may be a base or lid (Fig. 3.2.2).

Two small oxidised sherds were recovered from Phase 1E Structure 18.15 beam-slot C118 (segment 2491). The northern wall of Structure 18.15, C109, produced just two sherds, a sherd of pre-Flavian samian and a black coarse ware sherd. Within the structure, a small amount of pottery came from Room 1 (beam-slots C113 and C118) amounting to eleven small sherds, in organic-tempered SVW, oxidised sandy ware and from C113 (segment 2542) a large sherd of Baetican amphora. The south wall of Room 4, C122, produced four sherds of Baetican amphora. A further sherd of Baetican amphora and one black surfaced, oxidised, coarse ware sherd came from the west wall of Room 4, beam-slot C119. The only other group of note are eight sherds of Baetican amphora in beam-slot C114 (segment 2370; with no other pottery). The only pottery associated with the modification of Structure 18.15 came from C125; a further sherd of Baetican amphora and a sherd of grogtempered SVW. This latter sherd joined one from C113, suggesting likely redeposition.

Fine white ware with ?red painted decoration (WWFRP) A single small white ware sherd from layer 1711 may have traces of red-painted decoration. White ware sandy/ fine (WWSY/ WWF) This group comprises a total of 27 sherds, of which 20 are in the finer fabric. The former includes a collared rim flagon whilst the latter includes a hemispherical bowl (Fig. 3.2.10). Discussion by phase Phase 1

Features allocated to Phase 1D/1E contexts in the western intervallum produced a more significant assemblage of 231 sherds, 1,765g. In general terms these are dominated by oxidised wares with fine oxidised sherds accounting for 29.5% and oxidised sandy sherds for 20% from the larger group of material from the praetentura. Sherds of Baetican amphorae continue to be well represented along with organic-tempered SVW. Featured sherds are again very limited. Much of the pottery, 107 sherds, came from oval oven 1033. This comprised seven sherds of Baetican amphora, two samian sherds, one Malvernian ware (MAL RE A), seven Severn Valley wares and 54 sherds of fine oxidised ware. The only featured sherds are from three jars, one with a squared everted rim.

Phase 1A features produced just one sherd of South Gaulish samian (Wild, this chapter). A slightly larger assemblage of some 150 sherds weighing 3.6kg was recovered from Phase 1B contexts and a further 236 sherds, 1.7kg from Phase 1D/1E (Tables 3.3–3.4). Two small sherds came from Phase 1D, and just 19 sherds from Phase 1E. Overall the Phase 1B group is dominated by five wares: Baetican amphora, organic-tempered Severn Valley wares, Severn Valley ware, white-slipped oxidised wares and fine oxidised ware. The overall sherd weight is high at 19.4g, but this is partly accounted for by some large amphorae sherds. If these are removed the average sherd size is still quite good at 14.7g; slightly higher than the total site average. Most of the pottery came from the innermost ditches P116/C176, with segments 1018 and 1027 alone containing some 98 sherds. On the basis of rims jars dominate this group with at least two large storage jars and an ovoid form with a sharply everted rim (Fig. 3.2.1), but there are also examples of a white-slipped oxidised flagon and a lid (knob). One sherd of an amphora, probably a Dressel 2–4, is also present. There are 14 sherds of intrusive post-medieval pottery, presumably from disturbance of the upper fills. The Roman pottery is compatible with a pre-Flavian date. The innermost ditch C176 produced just 14 sherds; two sherds of Baetican amphora and six sherds from a Severn Valley ware (SVW) storage jar from segment 1208 and six sherds of organictempered SVW from segment 1038. Two sherds of preFlavian samian also came from the latter segment.

Well 1101 produced a further 48 sherds including samian, oxidised ware, Severn Valley wares and Malvernian ware. Of particular note from posthole 1798 within the well are eight sherds from a devolved butt beaker in a black surfaced sandy ware with a red core. The only other featured coarse ware is an oxidised, sandy ware, everted rim jar. The remaining pottery from features in this area comprise just two further sherds of Baetican amphora from beam-slot P133. The high incidence of Baetican sherds from these various structural components could simply be redeposition of rubbish material, or, because this type of amphora is quite robust, sherds may have been used as part of the construction, for example anchoring or levelling beam-slots or posts. To the east of the western intervallum, the eastern via sagularis ditch C183 produced 15 sherds, amongst which are five small sherds of ?Mancetter-Hartshill mortaria,

Outermost ditch P175 (segment 1055) which was not excavated to Roman backfills, produced just ten sherds

81

0

G06

G06.07

BSOXID

BWSY

82

W011.1

WSOXF

WWSY

0

4

21

100

9.4

1.3

0.0

2.7

14.1

9.4

0.0

0.7

0.0

7.4

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

16.1

0.7

9.4

5.4

0.0

0.0

1.3

0.7

0.0

12.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.4

No %

1B

3565

184

2

0

24

95

37.5

0

13

0

128

0

4

0

0

0

64

0

0

0

16

0

0

0

11

402

21

205

1034

0

0

76

32

0

1117

0

0

0

99

Wt

1B

100

5.2

0.1

0.0

0.7

2.7

1.1

0.0

0.4

0.0

3.6

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

11.3

0.6

5.8

29.0

0.0

0.0

2.1

0.9

0.0

31.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.8

Wt %

1B

204

1

0

0

0

0

71

0

1

0

38

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

6

7

1

1

42

1

12

0

0

0

3

0

0

9

0

0

0

8

No

1D– 1E

100

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

34.8

0.0

0.5

0.0

18.6

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.5

2.9

3.4

0.5

0.5

20.6

0.5

5.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

0.0

0.0

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.9

No %

1D– 1E

1504

2

0

0

0

0

305.5

0

2

0

157

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

3

38

29

2

15

223

14

21

0

0

0

24

0

0

640

0

0

0

25

Wt

1D– 1E

100

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.3

0.0

0.1

0.0

10.4

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

2.5

1.9

0.1

1.0

14.8

0.9

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.6

0.0

0.0

42.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

Wt %

1D– 1E

23

0

0

1

0

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

2

No

2B

100

0.0

0.0

4.3

0.0

0.0

43.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

39.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.7

No %

2B

732

0

0

10

0

0

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

152

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

546

0

0

0

2

Wt

2B

100

0.0

0.0

1.4

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

74.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

Wt %

2B

60

0

0

2

0

0

2

1

1

0

7

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

17

9

0

0

0

1

0

1

13

0

0

0

2

No

3A

100

0.0

0.0

3.3

0.0

0.0

3.3

1.7

1.7

0.0

11.7

0.0

1.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

28.3

15.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.7

0.0

1.7

21.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.3

No %

3A

2411

0

0

7

0

0

4

45

8

0

92

0

9.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

164

64

125

0

0

0

7

0

14

1866

0

0

0

5

Wt

3A

100

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.2

1.9

0.3

0.0

3.8

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.8

2.7

5.2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.6

77.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

Wt %

3A

Table 3.3 Romano-British pottery, quantified summary of material from praetentura, Phases 1 to 3B–4B

Note: Assemblages from Phases 1D, 1E and 1D/1E are combined

14

O06.52

WSOX

0

14

149

O06.10

OXF

TOTAL

O03

OXFMIC

1

PMED

O06.1

OX3

0

11

2

O06

OX2

OO

O06.11

O02.13?

OX1

0

G06.05

GYSYMIC

0

GYORLI

3

0

BUFF

0

1

BWNLI

G06.5

0

BWNSL

GYSY

0

BWHSY

GYFMIC

0

BWSYMIC

1

0

0

G06.9

1

BSREDC

G04

SVW RE

24

1

14

8

0

0

2

1

0

18

0

0

0

BBSY

O02.15

SVW OX 2

O03.1/G05

O02.1

GROG

SVW ORG

F011

SAND

SVW GR

N0

N05

MAL REB

N02.1

A01

BAT AM

MAL REA

M

NOG WH

A02

M05

CNG OX

A00

C05

LYO CC

AMP 2-4

S01

LGF SA

GAL AM

No

Metchley

Fabric

8

1B

PHASE

1249

3

2

9

2

2

286

8

3

3

69

5

58

10

2

0

0

1

1

1

3

13

9

0

8

82

14

288

27

7

2

33

0

56

157

4

8

20

53

No

3B– 4B

100

0.2

0.2

0.7

0.2

0.2

22.9

0.6

0.2

0.2

5.5

0.4

4.6

0.8

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

1.0

0.7

0.0

0.6

6.6

1.1

23.1

2.2

0.6

0.2

2.6

0.0

4.5

12.6

0.3

0.6

1.6

4.2

No %

3B– 4B

17519

8

7

74

29

11

1358

48

6

20

612.5

351

116.5

28

80

0

0

0.5

9

24

52

30

29

0

83

1595

297

2009

453

148

16

594

0

1262

7593

221

144

6.5

204

Wt

3B– 4B

100

0.0

0.0

0.4

0.2

0.1

7.8

0.3

0.0

0.1

3.5

2.0

0.7

0.2

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.5

9.1

1.7

11.5

2.6

0.8

0.1

3.4

0.0

7.2

43.3

1.3

0.8

0.0

1.2

Wt %

3B– 4B

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

TABLE 3.4 ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY, QUANTIFIED SUMMARY OF SELECTED PHASE GROUPS FROM THE CENTRAL RANGE PHASE Fabric

1D/1E Metchley

1D/1E

1E

1E

2B

Finds 2B

No

No %

Wt

Wt %

No

No %

Wt

Wt %

No

No %

Wt

Wt %

LGF SA

3

7.3

10

3.8

1

5.3

2

0.4

23

5.2

190

3.6

ITA WH

1

2.4

9

3.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

CAM PR1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

0.7

47

0.9

A01

2

4.9

70

26.3

7

36.8

380

79.5

44

10.0

2865

53.6

MAL REA

N02.1

1

2.4

2

0.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.2

11

0.2

MAH WH SVW OX 2

M

5

12.2

58

21.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

O02.1

3

7.3

6

2.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

21

4.8

189

3.5 0.9

BAT AM

SVW GR

O02.15

0

0.0

0

0.0

5

26.3

66

13.8

5

1.1

46

O03.1/G05

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

5.3

3

0.6

26

5.9

186

3.5

SVW RE

G04

2

4.9

17

6.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

15

3.4

137

2.6

BSREDC

G06.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

5.3

5

1.0

12

2.7

54

1.0

BSOXID

G06

2

4.9

2

0.8

1

5.3

10

2.1

31

7.0

134

2.5

G06.07

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.2

38

0.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.5

3

0.1 4.6

SVW ORG

BWSY BUFF GYSY

G06.5

1

2.4

7

2.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

15

3.4

245

OX1

O06.11

3

7.3

36.25

13.6

3

15.8

12

2.5

72

16.3

395.5

7.4

OX2

O02.13?

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.5

19

0.4

OX3

O06

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.2

2

0.0

OXF

O03

11

26.8

30

11.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

105

23.8

528

9.9

WSOX

O06.10

2

4.9

18

6.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

39

8.8

221

4.1

WWSY

W011.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

7

1.6

17

0.3

OO

4

9.8

0.25

0.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

13

2.9

10.5

0.2

PMED

1

2.4

0.5

0.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

0.7

7.5

0.1

TOTAL

41

100

266

100

19

100

478

100

441

100

5346

100

Table 3.4 Romano-British pottery, quantified summary of selected phase groups from the central range five sherds of Baetican amphorae, Severn Valley wares, Malvernian wares and two flagon handles. Of the latter one is from an oxidised fine ware, probably local; the other is from an imported Italian white ware. Within the small group of industrial features in this area, pottery was recovered from pits 2003 and 2068; a total of 16 extremely degraded sherds. The only featured sherd is from a whiteslipped oxidised sandy, neckless jar.

154 sherds. Smaller groups were recovered from pits 2131, 2272, 2315, 2300, 2309, 2314, 2467 and 2109 and ditch C182 (segment 2024). The material from 2208 was quite fragmented, with an average sherd size of 7g. The assemblage includes eleven sherds of Baetican amphora, 62 sherds of fine oxidised ware, various reduced wares and other oxidised wares. The several fragments of samian present suggest a Neronian–early Flavian date. Featured sherds are limited to several expanded rim jars and a bowl. Oval pit 2315 dug into feature 2208 produced just three small sherds, but pit 2214 had 20 sherds including two from a Campanian lid and a large base or lid in a white-slipped oxidised ware (Fig. 3.2.2) The pottery from pit 2373 was slightly better preserved with an overall sherd size of 11g. The samian appears to suggest a date of AD 50–70. Featured sherds include another piece of Campanian ware lid, possibly the same vessel as that from 2214; a Dressel 20 amphora rim also typologically dated AD 50–70, beaker, collared rim (Hofheim-type) flagon and jars including two SVW forms: one with an ovoid body and sharply everted rim and a beaded rim example (Fig. 3.2.4).

Phase 2B Phase 2B contexts produced just 467 sherds of pottery weighing 6,164g (Tables 3.3–3.4). Most of this came from small features in the former praetentura and central range. The pottery from the former is dominated by fine oxidised wares accounting for 45.5% by sherd count, followed by amphorae at 40.9% (74.6% by weight). The central range features show a similar picture with oxidised fine and sandy wares and amphorae, with the latter accounting for 53% by weight, but only 9.9% by sherd count. No pottery was recovered from the Phase 2B entrance features.

Ditch C182 provided six sherds of pottery (from segment 2024), which includes a Malvernian everted rim jar. Large pit 2467 contained just two wares, 13 sherd of Baetican amphora and ten sherds of grey sandy ware.

In the western intervallum area, particularly large assemblages of pottery were recovered from pits in group C166; 2208 with 153 coarse ware sherds, and 2273 with

83

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

TABLE 3.5 ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY, QUANTIFIED SUMMARY OFMATERIAL FROM PHASES 4A–5 PHASE

4A

Fabric

4A

4A

4A

4C

4C

5

5

Metchley

No

No %

Wt

Wt %

No

No %

Wt

Wt %

No

No %

Wt

Wt %

No

No %

Wt

Wt %

S01

3

33.3

4

7.0

6

3.2

42

1.3

42

3.7

225

1.6

4

2.5

30

2.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.1

137

1.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

8

4.3

1104

35.4

97

8.6

4846

34.3

4

2.5

200

14.4

LGF SA IMP MISC BAT AM

A01

0

0.0

0

CAM AM

A00

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.6

41

3.0

GAL AM

A02

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

9

0.8

57

0.4

1

0.6

60

4.3

NOG WH

W13

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.1

28

0.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

MAL REA

N02.1

2

22.2

7

12.3

3

1.6

281

9.0

21

1.9

250

1.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

MAL REB

N0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.1

8

0.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

SAND

N05

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

4

0.4

43

0.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

GROG

F011

0

0.0

0

0.0

4

2.2

116

3.7

2

0.2

54

0.4

0

0.0

0

0.0

MAH WH

0

0.0

0

0.0

4

2.2

283

9.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

WRX WH

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

1.1

100

3.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

SVW OX 2

O02.1

1

11.1

31

54.4

2

1.1

17

0.5

185

16.4

1758

12.5

3

1.8

31

2.2

SVW GR

O02.15

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

18

1.6

223

1.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

O03.1/G05

0

0.0

0

0.0

89

48.1

724

23.2

85

7.5

1047

7.4

4

2.5

33

2.4

G04

0

0.0

0

0.0

6

3.2

34

1.1

5

0.4

30

0.2

1

0.6

11

0.8 0.0

SVW ORG SVW RE BBSY

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

1.1

4

0.1

2

0.2

12

0.1

0

0.0

0

BSREDC

G06.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

1.1

34

1.1

6

0.5

29

0.2

1

0.6

2

0.1

BSOXID

G06

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

0.3

15

0.1

1

0.6

2

0.1

BWSY

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.5

7

0.2

34

3.0

165

1.2

0

0.0

0

0.0

BWSYMIC

G06.07

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

8

0.7

120

0.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

BWNSL

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

31

2.7

107

0.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

CREAM

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.2

43

0.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

GYFMIC

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.1

1

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

GYSY

G06.5

0

0.0

0

0.0

7

3.8

43

1.4

32

2.8

644

4.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

GYSYMIC

G06.05

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

23

2.0

1349

9.6

0

0.0

0

0.0

OX1

O06.11

0

0.0

0

0.0

17

9.2

110

3.5

26

2.3

221

1.6

2

1.2

16

1.2

OX2

O02.13?

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

OX3

O06

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

7

0.6

73

0.5

1

0.6

15

1.1

OXFMIC

O06.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

27

2.4

969

6.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

O03

2

22.2

8

14.0

30

16.2

217

7.0

443

39.2

1569

11.1

20

12.3

135

9.7

O06.52

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.5

2

0.1

1

0.1

10

0.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

F012

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.5

4

0.1

1

0.1

9

0.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

W011.1

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

3

0.3

47

0.3

1

0.6

1

0.1

OXF WSOXF WWF WWSY OO

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

1.2

0.5

0.0

PMED

1

11.1

7

12.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

9

0.8

19.5

0.1

117

71.8

807.75

58.3

TOTAL

9

100

57

100

185

100

3122

100

1130

100

14109

100

163

100

1385

100

Table 3.5 Romano-British pottery, quantified summary of material from Phases 4A–5 Phase 3A

of pottery from beam-slots C112, C121, C148 and C149 amounting in total to just ten sherds, the only featured piece being a four-rib strap handled in fine oxidised ware from C149.

Contexts allocated to Phase 3A produced a total of 80 sherds (Table 3.3) weighing just c 2.6kg. Most sherds, 61 came from the praetentura with just 19 from the central range. A total of ten features and three layers produced pottery with 39% coming from layer 1712. This group features five Baetican amphorae and the first piece of stratified Gallic amphora. The coarse wares include a large storage jars and flared rim, wide-mouthed jar in Severn Valley ware and a rolled rim, necked jar in oxidised sandy ware. It is possible that some of the pits with mainly amphora sherds may have been dug to support a complete vessel or perhaps one modified with the top knocked off for use as a container of some type.

Phase 3B–4B A total of 18 layers and 53 features allocated to Phase 3B–4B contained pottery, a total of some 1,286 sherds, weighing c 17.8kg. (Tables 3.3 and 3.5). Of these 40% yielded five or less sherds, and a further 17% between five and ten sherds. Featured sherds are moderately rare. With the exception of three sherds from palisade trench 2106, 24 sherds from pebble surface 2083, and a single scrap from layer 2247, all the pottery came from the praetentura. Looking at the group overall there is perhaps a greater diversity of fabrics noted than hitherto with the first appearances of Lyon ware, North and Central Gaulish

The western fort ditch C171 contained just seven unfeatured sherds. Structure 18.8 produced small groups

84

Finds mortaria and an increase in the number of sherds of Gallic amphora. Baetican amphora sherds continue to dominate, accounting for 12.7% by count, and 43.2% by weight. Severn Valley wares show a slight increase collectively accounting for 31.6% followed by fine oxidised wares at 23.2%. Five features yielded only sherds of Baetican amphora: P145 (segment 1270); P110 (segment 1405); P134 (segment 1423); P136 (segment 1440) and P132 (segment 1283). These wares were also dominant in many other groups, most notably in layer 1166 with 41 sherds, and layer 1274 with 26 sherds. Gully P107 at the rear of the rampart produced 25 sherds amongst which are two sherds of Baetican ware and three sherds of South Gaulish amphorae, along with local coarse wares. The small assemblage of twelve sherds from palisade P104 at the entrance includes a Hofheim-type flagon (Fig. 3.2.17) of pre-Flavian date. The only features with more substantial assemblages are pits 1075 and 1077. Pit 1075 with 47 sherds includes 18 small fragments of Lyon ware and 22 pieces of Baetican amphora and fine oxidised ware. Pit 1077 with 50 sherds has just two sherds of amphorae, with the rest of the assemblage mainly composed of oxidised wares and Severn Valley ware.

note include a Malvernian tubby jar (Fig. 3.2.15), several pieces of samian and a small sherd of Lyon ware. Layer 1415 has a higher incidence of Gallic amphora, 42 sherds, seven sherds from a Central Gaulish mortarium, and several sherds of pre-Flavian samian. Severn Valley wares contribute 36% to the group. There are also throughout the layers several sherds of native ware, Malvernian rocktempered, sandy wares (Fig. 3.2.5) and various grogtempered wares. Layer 1212 produced just four sherds of very fragmented North Gaulish mortaria. Phase 4A/4C Phase 4A/4C produced a total 1,324 sherds, 17.3 kg (Table 3.5) (including post-medieval sherds). If the group is looked at as a whole (Table 3.6) the oxidised wares continue to dominate at 42% by count followed by Severn Valley wares at 29.8%. The high level of fine oxidised ware along with the amphorae could suggest a moderately high level of residuality of material from previous phases. Phase 4A rampart layer 1711 produced 13 sherds amongst which were four Baetican amphorae sherds, several Severn Valley wares and a single fine white ware possibly originally with red painted decoration. Phase 4A pit 1709, cut into the rampart produced 18 sherds, including one large sherd of Dressel 20 amphora and an everted rim SVW jar.

Pit 1144 contained just seven sherds of Baetican amphora with further sherds in pit 1203 along with the rim of a large charcoal-tempered Severn Valley ware jar and a collared rim flagon in white sandy ware. The posthole palisade produced two small sherds of samian.

Phase 4A ditch C171 produced one very small sherd of organic-tempered SVW. The re-cut of ditch C171, C172, produced 59 sherds. Amongst this was the stamped ?Mancetter-Hartshill mortaria (Fig. 3.3.20) probably dating to the Flavian period, Wroxeter mortaria, Severn Valley wares and five post-medieval sherds.

Several of the various layers in this phase produced sizeable assemblages, in particular 1102, 1127, 1166, 1274 and 1415, all with in excess of 60 sherds. The greatest of these are 1166 with 136 sherds, and 1415 with 320 sherds. Overall, the material from the layers is in comparatively quite good condition in that the overall average sherd Most of the rest of the Phase 4A/4C pottery was recovered weights of 15.2 and 15.6g is higher than that from many from various pits and layers, with only odd sherds from of the cut features on the site. The assemblage from 1166 TABLE 3.6 ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY, FORMS BY PHASE (EXPRESSED ASformer EVE) fort entrance pottery gullies and (EXPRESSED slots. Within the is dominated by ROMANO-BRITISH Severn Valley wares POTTERY, (53%). Wares of BY TABLE 3.6 FORMS PHASE AS EVE) Forms Forms Jars Jars Storage jars Storage jars Tubby jars Tubby jars Flagons - Hofheim type Flagons - Hofheim type Flagons - other Flagons - other Cups Cups Butt beakers Butt beakers Beakers - other Beakers - other Tankards Tankards Bowls/ dishes Bowls/ dishes Mortaria Mortaria Lids Lids TOTAL TOTAL

1B 1B 19 19 24 24 15 15 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 78

1D– 1D– 1E 1E 75 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 0 0 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 93 93

2B 2B 100 100 8 8 0 0 13 13 29 29 87 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 5 5 267 267

3A 3A 14 14 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 33

3B–4B 3B–4B 293 293 5 5 15 15 94 94 65 65 37 37 7 7 23 23 106 106 64 64 6 6 0 0 715 715

4 4 255 255 42 42 32 32 47 47 15 15 30 30 20 20 22 22 43 43 52 52 0 0 0 0 558 558

5 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6

Unphased Unphased 79 79 0 0 0 0 85 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 39 0 0 203 203

ALL ALL 838 838 89 89 62 62 239 239 129 129 157 157 40 40 45 45 160 160 144 144 45 45 5 5 1953 1953

All % All % 42.9 42.9 4.6 4.6 3.2 3.2 12.2 12.2 6.6 6.6 8.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 8.2 8.2 7.4 7.4 2.3 2.3 0.3 0.3 100 100

Note: Assemblages from Phases 1D, 1E and 1D/1E are combined Note: Assemblages from Phases 1D, 1E and 1D/1E are combined

TABLE 3.7 3.7 ROMANO-BRITISH ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY, MAIN WARE GROUPS BY PHASE PHASE (BY COUNT COUNTAND AND Table 3.6 Romano -British pottery ,WARE forms by phase (expressed as EVE) TABLE POTTERY, MAIN GROUPS BY (BY WEIGHT) WEIGHT) Group Group

Imported fine wares Imported fine wares

85 1 1 No No 18 18

No % No % 4.6 4.6

2B 2B No No 25 25

No % No % 5.4 5.4

3A 3A No No 3 3

PHASE PHASE 3B– 3B– 4B 4B No % No No % No 3.6 63 3.6 63

No % No % 5.0 5.0

4C 4C No No 51 51

No % No % 3.9 3.9

5 5 No No 4 4

No % No % 8.7 8.7

Fig. 3.4: Romano-British pottery, pie-chart showing breakdown of forms estimated vessel equivalence (EVE) Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 was recovered from pits 1453 and 1827 associated with P101, with 33 and 3 sherds respectively, a Baetican amphora sherd with two native sandy wares (fabric N05). The samian from 1453 is pre-Flavian in date. Further small groups were recovered from intercutting pits 1681, 1688 and 1694. The 19 sherds from 1681 includes two further sherds of Baetican amphora and just Severn Valley wares, including two storage jar rims, whilst the other two pits contained one and two unfeatured oxidised wares respectively. Gully P105 (segment 1298) cut at the rear of the rampart, and pit 1371 only produced sherds of preFlavian samian.

Jars Storage jars Tubby jars Flagons - Hofheim type Flagons - other Butt beakers Beakers - other Tankards Bowls/dishes mortaria lids

Slightly more pottery, a group of 130 coarse ware sherds, was recovered from Phase 4C industrial feature 1307. This appears to include a number of sherds from a single grey micaceous, sandy ware everted rim jar along with six Baetican amphora sherds, a handmade grog-tempered jar and a high incidence of Severn Valley wares. The average sherd size is high at 34g. Unfortunately there are no closely datable forms other than 1st century and the samian appears to be pre- or early Flavian. Beam-slot 1141 associated with 1307 produced 22 sherds, amongst which are a collared flagon rim and a butt beaker in fine oxidised ware both of which are likely to be pre-Flavian in date.

Figure 3.4 Romano-British pottery, pie-chart showing breakdown of forms by estimated vessel equivalence

(EVE)

ware, will be under-represented. Evidence of use of vessels is also less likely to survive under such conditions. This assemblage is the second largest group of material to be analysed from the fort, with that collectively from Areas M3–M4 in the northwest corner of the fort being the largest (Green et al 2001). The assemblage is dominated by coarse wares, most of which appear to have been made locally, or within the broad Severn Valley region and can largely be paralleled with forms and fabrics previously documented from Metchley. There are a few ‘native’ or pre-Roman wares present, for example, Malvernian ware, sandy and grog-tempered wares, but these quite typically continue to feature on other sites in the region well into the later 1st century AD or beyond.

The cultivation soils outside the Phase 3A/4A fort contained large assemblage with 506 sherds from layer 1014, 133 sherds from layer 1110, and 207 sherds from layer 1059. The material from 1014 and 1059 is particularly degraded with an average sherd weight of around 7g, whilst that from 1110 seems slightly less fragmented. The range of material suggests that much of it comes from the preFlavian military levels with, for example, high counts of Baetican amphora and pre-Flavian samian. Of particular note from 1014 is an unusual twisted large flagon handle in a distinct micaceous fabric suggesting a source from southern Italy or the East Mediterranean. The Severn Valley wares include at least three tankards, along with jars and beaker and there is the decorated brown-slipped butt beaker (Fig. 3.3.21). The oxidised wares include preFlavian collared flagon and the stud of a tripod foot from a bowl or similar. There is also a small amount of intrusive post-medieval material present.

Summary

The various areas investigated within and outside the fort have produced slightly different proportions of wares. For example, the amount of fine ware present in Area M18 as reflected in the samian levels shows broadly similar proportions to that recovered from Area M6 also within the praetentura, and Area M14 largely outside the western rampart. It is, however, less than that recovered from Areas M7–M8 largely within the eastern and southern annexes (Hancocks 2005) and Area M15–M16 largely in the area of the western external settlement (Timby 2011) but more than recorded from Area M9 (Evans et al 2011) and Areas M2–M5. Some differences are also apparent in the quantities of amphorae present. These are particularly prolific in Area M18 accounting for 11.6% of the entire assemblage by weight and a massive 45.3% by weight. This compares with 15.3% count for Areas M1–M5, but only 5.7% by weight.

The pottery recovered from Area M18 is very similar to other assemblages recovered from the fort in terms of its poor condition. The loss of surface finishes and possibly other diagnostic details makes the clear identification of fabrics difficult in many cases and thus it is quite possible that some categories of ware, for example, white-slipped

Table 3.6 (Fig. 3.4) shows the breakdown of forms by phase expressed as EVE’s (excluding amphorae). Jars dominate throughout, accounting for 50.9% overall. Within this, storage jars contribute 4.6% and tubby Malvernian jars 3.2%, both of which feature from Phase 1 onwards. Flagons are the second commonest form, making

Phase 5 A very modest assemblage of 163 sherds was recovered from Phase 5 contexts of which 117 are of post-Roman date (Table 3.5). The only Roman sherd worthy of comment is a redeposited piece of a Dressel 2–4 Italian wine amphora.

86

Mortaria

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

39

45

2.3

Lids

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

5

0.3

TOTAL

78

93

267

33

715

558

6

203

1953

100

Note: Assemblages from Phases 1D, 1E and 1D/1E are combined

TABLE 3.7 ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY, MAIN WARE GROUPS BY PHASE (BY COUNT AND WEIGHT) Group 1

2B

PHASE 3B– 4B

3A

4C

Finds

5

No

No %

No

No %

No

No %

No

No %

No

No %

No

No %

Imported fine wares

18

4.6

25

5.4

3

3.6

63

5.0

51

3.9

4

8.7

Imported coarse wares

1

0.3

3

0.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.2

0

0.0

Amphorae

36

9.2

53

11.5

16

19.3

213

16.8

114

8.7

6

13.0

Native wares

6

1.5

1

0.2

1

1.2

74

5.8

37

2.8

0

0.0

107

27.2

68

14.8

33

39.8

413

32.5

391

29.8

8

17.4

5

1.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

12

0.9

6

0.5

0

0.0

Oxidised wares

152

38.7

190

41.4

15

18.1

373

29.3

552

42.0

23

50.0

Reduced wares

34

8.7

59

12.9

6

7.2

103

8.1

150

11.4

1

2.2

39

8.5

0

0.0

4

0.3

2

0.2

0

0.0

8

1.7

5

6.0

9

0.7

5

0.4

1

2.2

Other 6 pie-charts 1.5 11showing 2.4 main 1 ware 1.2 groups 7 by 0.6 0 0.0 Fig. 3.5: Romano-British pottery, five RB Vol 4 Chapterby 3 Pottery figs 10 Oct Fig. 3.5: Romano-British pottery, five showing 100 100 main 100 groups 100 100 Total 393 pie-charts 459 83 ware 1271 1314 phase (expressed as % count) phase (expressed as % count) Vol 4byChapter 3 count Potteryand figsweight 10 Oct Table 3.7 Romano-British pottery, main wareRB groups phase (by )

3

6.5

46

100

Severn Valley wares Mortaria

RB Vol 4 Chapter White-slipped wares 3 Pottery figs 10 27 Oct 6.9 RB Vol 4 Chapter 3 Pottery figs 10 Oct White wares

0

0.0

Phase 3B–4B

Phase 1 Phase 1

Phase 3B–4B

Imported fine wares fine wares Imported coarse wares Imported coarse wares Amphorae Amphorae Native wares Native wares Severn Valley wares Severn Valley wares Mortaria Mortaria Oxidised wares Oxidised wares Reduced wares Reduced wares White-slipped wares

Imported fine wares Imported coarse wares Amphorae Imported fine wares Native wares Imported coarse wares Amphorae Severn Valley wares Native wares Mortaria Severn Valley wares Oxidised wares Mortaria Reduced wares Oxidised wareswares White-slipped Reduced wares White wares White-slipped wares Other

White-slipped White wares wares White wares Other Other

Phase 2 Phase 2

White wares Other

Phase 4

) )

Phase 4 Imported fine wares fine wares Imported coarse wares

Imported fine wares Imported wares Imported fine coarse wares Imported coarse wares Amphorae Amphorae Native wares Native Severnwares Valley wares

Imported coarse wares Amphorae Amphorae Native wares Native wares Severn Valley wares Severn Valley wares Mortaria

Severn MortariaValley wares Mortaria Oxidised wares Oxidised wares Reduced wares Reduced wares White-slipped wares White-slipped wares White wares White wares Other Other

Mortaria wares Oxidised Oxidised wares Reduced wares Reduced wares White-slipped wares White-slipped White wares wares White wares Other Other

Phase 3 Phase 3 Imported fine wares fine wares Imported coarse wares Imported coarse wares Amphorae Amphorae Native wares Native wares Severn Valley wares Severn Valley wares Mortaria Mortaria wares Oxidised Oxidised wares Reduced wares Reduced wares White-slipped wares

Figure 3.5 Romano-British pottery, five pie-charts to % count)

show main ware groups by phase (expressed as

White-slipped White wares wares White wares Other Other

87

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 up 18.9%, of which 12.3% are the collared Hofheim type. These latter types first appear from Phase 2B onwards but the overall sample is quite small from Phase 1. Beakers account for 3.9% EVE and tankards for an additional 8.2%. Bowls and dishes are particularly uncommon although the samian repertoire would have supplied quite a few examples. Mortaria are also poorly represented at 2.3% overall and lids at less than 1%. Lamps are conspicuous by their absence.

17 Collared flagon. Fabric: OXF/ O03. 1678, palisade segment 1677, P104. Phase 3B–4B. 18 Handmade everted rim jar. Fabric: MAL RE A/ N02.1. Layer 1710. Phase 4A. Fig. 3.3.19–25 19 Everted rim, thin-walled small jar/ beaker. Fabric: SVW OXOR/ O03.1. Layer 1710. Phase 4A. 20 White ware mortarium with a potter’s stamp. Fabric: ?MAH WH. 2049, ditch segment 2054, C172. Phase 4A. 21 A butt beaker in an orange, soft sandy ware with a brown burnished finish. Decorated on the body with a faint incised herring-bone design. Fabric: BWNSL. Layer 1014. Phase 4C.

Table 3.7 (Fig. 3.5) presents the main ware categories present by broad phase for Area M18. It is difficult to see any clear trends which might emphasise the likelihood that much of the material is redeposited and comes from a single phase of occupation. Oxidised wares dominate Phases 1 and 2B; show a slight overall decrease in Phases 3A and 3B–4B and then a rise again in Phases 4A/4C and 5. By contrast Severn Valley wares although prominent in Phases 1 and 2B show a marked increase in Phases 3 to 4. Amphorae show a fairly consistent presence throughout, peaking in Phases 3A to 3B–4B, whilst white-slipped wares by contrast are well-represented in Phases 1 and 2B but then all but disappear in later phases. Native wares and mortaria are present throughout but are poorly represented.

22 Collared rim flagon. Fabric: OXF/ O03. Layer 1014. Phase 4C. 23 Handmade tubby jar with a beaded rim. Fabric: MAL RE A/ N02.1. Layer 1014. Phase 4C. 24 Flared rim large jar. Fabric: SVW OX / O02.1. 1278, pit 1307. Phase 4C. 25 Central Gaulish oxidised mortaria. Fabric: CNG OX/ M05. U/S. 26 Single-handled collared rim flagon. Fabric: OXF/ O03. U/S.

Catalogue of illustrated sherds Fig. 3.2.1–18 1 Globular-bodied jar with a short everted rim. Pale grey in colour. Fabric: SVWREOR/ G05. 1022, ditch 1018, P116. Phase 1B. 2 Uncertain form – possibly a base or a conical lid. Fabric: WSOXIDSY/ O06.10. 2313, ditch 2314. Phase 2B. 3 Plain-sided dish with a slightly out-turned lip grooved on the upper surface. Fabric: GYSY/ G06.5. 2138, pit 2208, group P166. Possibly further sherds form the same vessel from 2212 in 2208. Phase 2B. 4

Beaded rim ovoid jar. Fabric: SVW OXGR/ O02.15. 2244, pit 2373. Phase 2B.

5 Ovoid, handmade jar with a simple incurving undifferentiated rim. Fabric: SAND/ N05. Layer 1058. Phase 3B–4B. 6

Tankard. Fabric: SVW OX/ O02.1/. Layer 1415. Phase 3B–4B.

7 Butt beaker decorated with impressed comb ?chevrons. Fabric: BSREDC / G06.9. Layer 1415. Phase 3B–4B. 8

Large shallow bowl. Fabric: OXF/ O0.3. Layer 1415. Phase 3B–4B.

9

Wide-mouthed jar with a triangular rim. Fabric: OX1/ O06.11. Layer 1415. Phase 3B–4B.

10 Hemispherical bowl. Fabric: WWF/ W00. Layer 1415. Phase 3B– 4B. 11 Everted rim jar with a cordoned neck. Fabric: SVW OX/ O02.1. Layer 1415. Phase 3B–4B. 12 Handled tankard. Fabric: SVW OX/ O02.1. 1044, beam-slot 1045, P147. Phase 3B–4B. 13 Plain-walled dish with a groove on the upper outer wall and a slight ridge marking the internal junction of the wall and base. Fabric: BWSYMIC/ G05.05. 1258, palisade 1259, P132, Enclosure 3. Phase 3B–4B. 14 Single handled flagon. Fabric: OXF/ O03. 1067, palisade 1066, P141, Enclosure 1. Phase 3B–4B. 15 Handmade tubby jar decorated with diagonal burnished lines. Fabric: MAL RE A/ N02.1. Layer 1166. Phase 3B–4B. 16 Flared rim jar. Fabric: SVW RE/ G04. Layer 1166. Phase 3B–4B.

88

CHAPTER 4: CHARRED PLANT REMAINS AND POLLEN

CHARRED PLANT REMAINS James Greig

backed appearance of T. spelta (spelt wheat). No chaff was found, suggesting that the grain was already prepared for consumption rather than being in storage. Only occasional charred seeds and other plant remains likely to be Roman were found, such as a Brassica (cabbage and mustard family), Rumex sp. (dock), Rosa/ Rubus (rose or bramble thorn), a tree bud, Carex (sedge) and Eleocharis (bristle scirpus), these last two wetland plants. Corylus avellana (hazel) nutshell fragments were found in several samples and could also represent food remains.

This contribution is based on the assessment report (Greig 2007a), since the material did not merit further analysis. Further samples were assessed in 2011 (McKenna, this chapter). Summary This assessment is based upon 45 of the datable deposits sampled for charred plant remains during the excavation (total of 120). Many of the samples assessed contained small amounts of charred Triticum (wheat), Hordeum (barley) as well as a few possible Avena (oats) and occasional Corylus avellana (hazel) nutshell among quantities of wood charcoal. Charred weed seeds were rather few. These could represent the remains of cleaned grain from preparation and use, with oddments finding their way into a fire and small amounts becoming charred there rather than being burnt away. Uncharred weed seeds, which were also present probably represent recent background material.

The seeds of Chenopodium (fat hen) and Atriplex (orache) were quite often found in the samples and many were uncharred. As these seeds are black it is difficult to distinguish charred from uncharred ones, and it is possible that some were charred in antiquity. Both represent fairly ubiquitous weeds. Uncharred seeds were found from a range of weeds such as Stellaria (chickweed), Sambucus nigra (elder) which is a nitrophile growing in formerly occupied places, and Montia fontana (blinks) which grows on wet ground and streamsides. Although these seeds could possibly have been preserved waterlogged or anaerobically in the clay soil on the site, it seems more likely that they are of relatively recent origin and intrusive in Roman deposits.

Objectives Plant remains were investigated to obtain further evidence for the interpretation of the site and its surroundings at the time of its occupation.

The richer samples were No. 5 from a Phase 1B ditch, No. 25 from a Phase 3B–4B palisade trench, Nos. 36, 38, 78 and 102 from Phase 4C features, No. 79 from a Phase 3B–4B pit, and Nos. 222–223 from a Phase 2B pit. Features which would seem likely places to find charred remains, such as the ovens 1033 and 1471 did not contain anything more than charcoal. However, industrial feature 1307 was one of the richest in charred grain, although the question remains whether this was to do with the function of the pit, or simply a backfill after its use. The concentration of charred grain remains therefore seems to be rather unaffected by phase or feature, and may therefore represent more the random chance of grain remains having been discarded into a fireside, charred there, and finally deposited with the ash and charcoal into a rubbish pit. Grain concentrations could, however, provide some indication of the areas of food preparation or living quarters.

Samples Samples were collected during excavation. These were floated for charred plant material, and 45 were submitted for assessment as dried material. Laboratory work The samples were sorted under a stereo microscope at x4 and the volume measured. Identifications were done at higher magnification. Results Most of the flots were charcoal, with occasional coal fragments. The results are set out in Table 4.1. Of 45 samples, 15 contained no plant remains apart from charcoal. Most of the others contained at least some plant remains, although generally in small amounts. Charred grain was present in many samples, most often Triticum sp. (wheat), but also some Hordeum vulgare (barley) and a little cf Avena (possible oat), as well as distorted grains and fragments which could only be identified to Cerealia (cereals). A few wheat grains had the hump-

FURTHER SAMPLING OF PHASE 4A/PHASE 4C DEPOSITS FOR CHARRED PLANT REMAINS AND CHARCOAL Rosalind McKenna Introduction Following re-phasing, a further eleven samples were selected for assessment in 2011 (Tables 4.2–4.4). This 89

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct CHAPTER 4 TABLES Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 TABLE 4.1 CHARRED PLANT REMAINS, SAMPLES ASSESSED

Cut/ Fill/ Construct Phase Flot ml S. No. 1 1018/1016/P116 1B 30 5 1018/1022/P116 1B 190 6 1027/1027/P116 1B 30 12 1075/1074 3B–4B 50 17

1033/1031

1D/1E

60

18 20 25

1112/1111 1133/1057 1143/1217/P132

2B 3B–4B 3B–4B

80 100 80

28 36

1101/1100 1307/1309

1D/1E 4C

50 30

38

1307/1310

4C

260

50 51 54 57

1453/1452/P101 1132/1186 1101/1100 1471/1474

4C 3B–4B 1D/1E 1D/1E

110 180 80 10

63

1552/1553

1D/1E

5

65 70 77 78

1551/1558 1626/1625 1709/1708 1714/1713

3B–4B 4C 4A 4C

20 40 10 140

79

1716/1715

3B–4B

90

100

1814/1813

3A

70

102 201 206 208 219

1827/1825/P101 2003/2008 2003/2031 2068/2067 2131/2161

4C 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 2B

140 20 80 60 15

221 222 223 224 226 228 242 243 258

2208/2188/C166 2208/2135 2208/2136 2208/2169 2003/2013 2068/2067 2054/2048/C172 2467/2466 2631/2638/C148

2B 2B 2B 2B 1D/1E 1D/1E 4A 2B 3A

40 340 90 160 130 10 15 460 110

Content (probably recent) (Rubus sp., Atriplex sp.) 7* Hordeum vulgare, 7* Cerealia (1 Atriplex sp.) 1* Triticum sp., 1* Hordeum vulgare, 3* Cerealia 2* Hordeum vulgare, 1* Cerealia, 1* Brassica sp. (5 Atriplex sp., 1 Fumaria sp., 1 Rubus sp.) 1* Corylus frg, 1* Brassica sp., 2* cf Cerealia (1 Stellaria sp., 1 Rubus s p., 1 Atriplex sp.) 2 * Triticum sp. (2 Chenopodium sp., 4 Atriplex sp.) 1 * Triticum sp. (2 Chenopodium sp., 3 Atriplex sp., 1 Stellaria sp.) 4 * Triticum sp, 2* Cerealia (6 Chenopodium sp., 1 Rubus sp., 2 cf. T rifolium sp.) 1* Cerealia (6 Atriplex sp., 1 Fallopia sp.) 18* Triticum sp., 8* Hordeum vulgare, 2* Cerealia (1 Galium sp., 1 Chenopodium sp. 33* Triticum sp., 7* Hordeum vulgare, 2* cf. Avena sp., 35* Cerealia, 1* Corylus avellana nutshell fragment 2* Triticum sp., 2* Cerealia (1 Atriplex sp.) No seeds 1* cf. Hordeum vulgare 1* Rumex sp., 1* Rosa/ Rubus thorn (1 Polygonum sp., 9 small Lamiaceae, 2 Atriplex sp.) 1* Hordeum vulgare, 3* Cerealia (5 Atriplex sp., 4 Stellaria sp., 1 Montia fontana ssp. chondrosperma) (1 Chenopodium sp.) 1* charred tree bud 1* cf Hordeum vulgare 8* Triticum sp., 3* Hordeum vulgare, 3* Cerealia (1 Chenopodiaceae) 7* Triticum sp., 1* Hordeum vulgare, 2* Avena sp., 10* Cerealia (2 Chenopodium sp.) 5* Triticum sp., 1* Hordeum vulgare, 3* Cerealia, 1* Corylus avellana nutshell fragment 16* Triticum sp., 1* Cerealia Charcoal, no seeds Charcoal, no seeds (1 Chenopodium sp., 1 Veronica sp.) 1* Hordeum vulgare (20 Atriplex sp., 2 Ranunculus sp., 2 Montia fontana, 1 Sambucus nigra) 2* cf. Cerealia 19* Triticum sp., 2* Hordeum vulgare, 23* Cerealia 20* Triticum sp., 24* Cerealia (1 Sambucus nigra) 1 Chenopodium sp., 1 cf Trifolium sp., possibly charred Tree bud (1 Chenopodiaceae) Charcoal, no seeds Charcoal, no seeds 3* Triticum sp., 1* Hordeum vulgare, 1* cf Alnus bud 2* Triticum sp., 1* Carex sp., 1* Eleocharis sp. (2 Cirsium sp., 2 Stellaria sp., 2 Atriplex sp., 1 Glechoma hederacea)

Key: Remains marked * were charred. Remains in brackets were uncharred, or not clearly charred, and may therefore be of relatively recent origin. Table 4.1 Charred plant remains, samples assessed

17

90

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct TABLE 4.2 CHARRED PLANT REMAINS, SAMPLES FROM PHASE 4A/4C Charred Plant Remains and Pollen Sample No. Context No. Feature No. Phase LATIN BINOMIAL

39 1374 1373 4C

40 1397 1396 4C

53 1397 1396 4C

Corylus avellana (shell frags) Chenopodium spp./ 3 4 Atriplex spp. Polygonum spp. 1 BRASSICACEAE 4 POACEAE 1 Avena sativa L. Hordeum spp. Secale cereale / Tritcum spelta Triticum spp. 2 5 Indeterminate cereal 8 Cereal culm node Indeterminate nutshell frags Unidentified RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Stace (2000)

56 1501 1502 4C

80 1710 4A

81 1711 4A

1

1

1

1 1 1

2

3 5 1 1

90 1782 1783 4C

COMMON NAME Hazelnut shell frags

2

Goosefoot/ Orache

1 1

Cabbage Family Grass Family Oat Barley Rye/ Spelt Wheat Indeterminate cereal Cereal culm node Indeterminate nutshell frags. Unidentified

Table 4.2 Charred plant remains, additional samples from Phase 4A/4C TABLE 4.3 CHARRED PLANT REMAINS, ADDITIONAL SAMPLES, COMPONENTS

Sample No. 35 40 46 53 56 74 80 Context No. 1374 1397 1370 1397 1501 2047 1710 Feature No. 1373 1396 1369 1396 1502 2054 Phase 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C 4A Bone frags 2 1 1 Ceramic Building 1 1 Material (CBM) Charcoal frags 4 4 4 3 4 4 Coal 4 Plant macrofossils 1 1 1 1 1 (charred) Root/ rootlet frags 2 2 1 3 Sand 3 2 3 4 2 4 Slag frags 2 1 1 1 Semi-quantitative score on a scale of 1–4: from ‘1’ – one or a few (less than an estimated six per kg of raw sediment) to ‘4’ – abundant remains (many specimens per kg, or a major component of the matrix) Table 4.3 Charred plant remains, additional samples, components group of samples were assessed in an attempt to provide further information concerning the range of activities undertaken during Phase 4A and Phase 4C, and data relating to the contemporary environment.

The heavy residue (the material which does not float) was also examined, and the remains of charcoal and plant macrofossils were assessed by the author for identification and assessment. The results presented here incorporate both material from the heavy residue and the flot. The material was examined under a low-power binocular microscope at magnifications between x12 and x40.

Methodology Following description and selection, sub-samples of raw sediment from the selected samples were processed. The samples were examined in the laboratory, where they were described using a pro-forma. The subsamples were processed using water flotation. The flot (the sum of the material from each sample that floats) was sieved 18 to 0.3mm and air dried.

A four point semi quantitative scale was used, from ‘1’ – one or a few specimens (less than an estimated six per kg of raw sediment) to ‘4’ – abundant remains (many specimens per kg or a major component of the matrix). Data were recorded on paper and subsequently using a Microsoft Access database. 91

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 The flot was then sieved into convenient fractions (4, 2, 1 and 0.3mm) for sorting and identification of charcoal fragments. Identifiable material was only present within the 4 and 2mm fractions. A random selection of ideally 100 fragments of charcoal of varying sizes was made, which were then identified. Where samples did not contain 100 identifiable fragments, all fragments were studied and recorded. This information is tabulated. Identification was made using the wood identification guides of Schweingruber (1978) and Hather (2000).

did, in some cases prove difficult due to poor preservation and/ or warping of the seeds (especially cereal grains) during charring. Two groups of plant remains were most prominent in the assemblages: those likely to represent food waste of various kinds, and those originating in weeds likely to have been brought with cereal crops. Cereals recovered from the samples were Triticum (wheat), Hordeum (barley), Triticum spelta/ Secale Cereale (spelt/ rye) and Avena (oat). These were probable identifications based on overall size and morphological characteristics. All of these grains represent the typical suite of charred grains recovered from archaeological sites, and show they were being utilised by the inhabitants of Metchley.

Taxa identified only to genus cannot be identified more closely due to a lack of defining characteristics in charcoal material. Results Plant remains (Tables 4.2–4.3)

Another, more indirect, indicator of cereals being used on site is the remains of arable weeds that were found in three of the samples. These weeds are generally only found in arable fields, and are doubtless incorporated into domestic occupation samples with crop remains. The remains of BRASSICACEAE (cabbage) and Chenopodium/ Atriplex (goosefoot/ orache), may fall in this group.

Charred plant macrofossils were present in seven of the samples and were relatively poorly preserved, being generally only present in small volumes. Hence there could be little interpretable information gained from their detailed study. Table 4.2 details the plant remains identified, and Table 4.3 summarises the other material found.

Charcoal

Root/ rootlet fragments were also present within six of the samples. This indicates recent disturbance of shallow archaeological features, as well as deeper root action from the vegetation that covered the site before the construction of Vincent House.

Charcoal fragments were present in all but one of the eleven samples, and scored a maximum of ‘4’ on the semi quantitative scale. Due to the small size of the charcoal fragments and their poor preservation, little interpretable information can be gained from the samples investigated.

The plant remains produced relatively small assemblages The preservation of charcoal fragments (Table 4.4) was RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct of identifiable remains of limited interpretative value. The relatively variable even within the samples. Some of remains were preserved by charring. Preservation of the the charcoal was firm and crisp and allowed for clean samples studied was generally good, but identification breaks to the material permitting clean surfaces where TABLE 4.4 CHARRED PLANT REMAINS, ADDITIONAL SAMPLES, COMPLETE LIST OF CHARCOAL TAXA

Sample No. Context

Latin Name Alnus/ Corylus Corylus avellana Fraxinus exelsior Quercus Salix/ Populus

39 1374

53 1397

56 1501

80 1710

81 1711

207 2043

Quantity

300+ frags

500+ frags

500+ frags

200+ frags

200+ frags

50+ frags

English Name Alder / Hazel Hazel Ash Oak Salix / Poplar Indeter minate

max size 9mm

max size 21mm

max size 12mm

max size 25mm

max size 14mm

max size7mm

56 11

62

13 69

8 37 22

13

32

38

33

37

55

45

18

Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Schweingruber (1978). Numbers are identified charcoal fragments for each sample Table 4.4 Charred plant remains, additional samples, complete list of charcoal taxa 92

Charred Plant Remains and Pollen POLLEN James Greig

identifiable characteristics were visible. However, most of the fragments were very brittle, and the material tended to crumble or break in uneven patterns making the identifying characteristics harder to distinguish and interpret. Quercus (Oak), Fraxinus excelsior (Ash) and Salix/ Populus (Salix/ Poplar) were recorded. Oak was the most frequently recorded and abundant species.

Summary The Area M18 ditch samples contain useful amounts of pollen which can be compared with other results from Area M8 at Metchley (Greig 2005; Fig. 1.3) to show something of the surroundings after abandonment of the military complex. This contribution is based on the assessment (Greig 2007b), since no further work was merited.

The total range of taxa comprises oak, ash and salix/ poplar. These taxa belong to the groups of species represented in the native British flora. Generally, there are various, largely unquantifiable, factors that affect the representation of species in charcoal samples, including bias in contemporary collection, social and economic factors, and various factors of taphonomy and conservation (Théry-Parisot 2002). On account of these considerations, the identified taxa are not considered to be proportionately representative of the availability of wood resources in the environment in a definitive sense, and are possibly reflective of particular choice of fire making fuel from these resources. Bark was also present on some of the charcoal fragments, and this indicates that the material is more likely to have been firewood, or the result of a natural fire.

Samples Three Roman ditches were sampled for pollen during excavation, by the writer. Phase 4A (Fig. 2.19) re-cut ditch C172 (2054) had a lower fill of clay and stones with little obvious organic material. The upper fill was sandier and appeared even less promising for pollen preservation. The lower 55 cm of the fill was sampled every 5cm, and the most promisinglooking level to test for pollen was noted. Phase 4A (Fig. 2.19) re-cut ditch P111 (1276) was a wide ditch with a lower fill of clay and pebbles, and an upper fill of greyish clay, again with pebbles. Two sections were sampled at an interval of 5cm, A at 40cm and B, which appeared less hopeful material, at 35cm.

Conclusion The samples are all very similar in composition, and merely vary according to the volume of remains recorded. Wheat, spelt/ rye, barley and oats were all recorded in varying quantities, showing the exploitation of all available cereal species grown during the period. The remains are typical of those found at other Romano-British sites across the region. The mixed composition within the samples of different cereal species is more likely to have originated from the charring and subsequent deposition of grain spoilt during food preparation, or waste left over at the end of a meal.

Phase 4C (Fig. 2.30) feature P101 (1399) was cut into yellowish clay with pebbles, its fill being distinguished by being greyish clay with pebbles, but with no other clear stratigraphy. A 50cm series of samples was collected at an interval of 5cm. Pollen preservation is chancy and unpredictable in such material which is poorly aerated and damp clay, which probably ranged from neutral to acid, because pollen can be present when no other organic material can be seen, certainly in the field.

The low numbers of weed seeds and the lack of cereal chaff may suggest that there was no local crop processing activity. If cereal processing was occurring at the site, it would be expected that some remains (most probably in high numbers) of cereal chaff – a by-product of the crop processing sequence as stated in Hillman (1981; 1984) - would be found. However, the rarity of chaff is a phenomenon repeatedly reported from archaeological deposits from many sites across all regions, and although this may suggest that the grain was already threshed and winnowed, if not also milled, by the time it reached the site, it may also show that any chaff was burnt up completely in the fires in which it was deposited. The former of these two theories is however the more plausible. Overall, the low numbers of grains, chaff and weed seeds in the majority of the samples indicates the accidental burning of cleaned grain and its subsequent disposal, or the use of material cut from cultivated ground as fuel.

Laboratory work The pollen samples were processed using the standard method; about 1 cm3 subsamples were dispersed in dilute NaOH and filtered through a 70µm mesh to remove coarser material, which was then scanned under a stereo microscope. The finer organic part of the sample was concentrated by swirl separation on a shallow dish. Fine material was removed by filtration on a 10µm mesh. The material was acetolysed to remove cellulose, stained with safranin and mounted on microscope slides in glycerol jelly. Counting was done with a Leitz Dialux microscope. Identification was using the writer’s own pollen reference collection. Standard reference works were used, notably Fægri and Iversen (1989) and Andrew (1984). The pollen counts have been listed in taxonomic order according to Kent (1992) in Table 4.5.

The charcoal remains show the exploitation of oak, ash and salix/ poplar being selected and used as firewood.

93

RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 TABLE 4.5 POLLEN AND SPORES IN TAXONOMIC ORDER (KENT 1992)

Sampled feature

C187 2054

P123 1276

P101 1399

Spores Trilete spores

5

1

2

Polypodium

36

9

4

Polypody fern

Pollen Pinus

-

?

-

Pine

Ulmus

-

?

-

Elm

Quercus

4

2

2

Oak

Betula

-

-

1

Birch

Alnus

38

3

24

Alder

Corylus

44

12

26

Hazel

Caryophyllaceae

1

-

1

Stitchwort family

Persicaria bistorta-tp.

-

-

1

Bistort etc.

Tilia

4

4

2

Lime

Ericales

?

1

3

Heathers

Ilex

1

-

-

Holly

Plantago lanceolata

?

-

9

Ribwort plantain

Fraxinus

-

-

1

Ash

Lactuceae

1

1

4

A group of composites

Aster-tp

-

2

-

Daisies etc.

Anthemis-tp.

1

-

-

Mayweeds etc.

Cyperaceae

1

-

?

Sedges

Poaceae

10

6

34

Grasses

-

-

1

Cereals

Unidentified pollen

34

10

5

Total identified pollen

105

31

109

3

-

-

Cerealia-tp.

Diatoms

Table 4.5 Pollen and spores in taxonomic order (Kent 1992) TABLE 4.6 SCIENTIFIC DATING

Sample identification Construct/ feature/ layer 2 sigma calibration Measured RC age Results plantain) were also This seems to Beta - 290391 P101/1453/1452 Cal(ribwort BC 50–AD 90 2000 +/- abundant. 40 BP represent the Roman equivalent of the open scrub which Beta - 290392 -/1827/1825 Cal BC 60–AD 80 1980 +/- BP All three samples had similar sediments with sand and has grown up on the wasteland to the southwest of the fort some charcoal flecks retained on the 70µm mesh, together over the last 30–40 years. The area around the Phase 4A with clay and silt. P101 had a Juncus (rush) seed, and ditch does not seem to have been kept clear of scrub, so P123 had traces of organic material. the site may not have been heavily occupied, although the presence of charcoal and a single record of cereal pollen Pollen was surprisingly abundant in C172 and P101, suggest that people were still living in the vicinity. and present in P111, although there were large numbers of pollen grains and spores which were decayed beyond Correlation with other excavations at Metchley recognition. An assessment count of about 100 grains was done on the two more productive samples, and a smaller A ditch on the southern edge of the fort (Area M8, Fig. 1.3) count on P111. provided a very well-preserved pollen sequence showing what appeared to be signs of woodland growing over The main pollen was from Alnus (alder) and Corylus the abandoned Metchley site (Greig 2005). The pollen (hazel), with smaller amounts from Quercus (oak) and preservation in the ditches in Area M18 was much less 21 Tilia (lime). Poaceae (grasses) and Plantago lanceolata good, and so these results may be only telling part of the 94

Persicaria bistorta-tp.

-

-

1

Bistort etc.

Tilia

4

4

2

Lime

Ericales

?

1

3

Heathers

Ilex

1

-

-

Holly

Plantago lanceolata

?

-

Fraxinus

-

-

9 Ribwort plantain C harred Plant Remains and Pollen 1 Ash

1 4 A group of composites largely reflect the disuse, rather than the original use of 2 ditch. Daisies etc. the Mayweeds etc. SCIENTIFIC DATING Alex Jones ? Sedges

Lactuceae 1 story, as the pollen records from more fragile types may Aster-tp - and hazel be reduced or missing. The signs of oak, alder woodlandAnthemis-tp. or scrub in the earlier part of the sequence from 1 Area M8 (Greig 2005, 77) certainly seem similar to the signs of Cyperaceae these in the Area M18 ditches. This1would fit in with the Poaceae most likely sequence of events of a10 ditch. When newly dug out, a ditch would start accumulating largely Cerealia-tp. inorganic material from the loose material exposed, until pollen it becameUnidentified grassed over. Later on, a ditch or34gully might accumulate more organic material from plants 105growing in Total identified pollen the surroundings, and in the case of an abandoned site, Diatoms could continue for a long 3 time and such accumulation

Two deposits were submitted 6 samples from34Phase 4CGrasses for C14 dating, in attempt to more closely define the 1 Cereals chronology of this phase, in particular to establish if the 10 belongs in the5later Roman, or post-Roman period. phase Table details of the results which appear to 31 4.6 provides109 correlate with the dating of residual pottery from Phase - deposits. 4C

TABLE 4.6 SCIENTIFIC DATING Sample identification Beta - 290391 Beta - 290392

Construct/ feature/ layer P101/1453/1452 -/1827/1825

2 sigma calibration Cal BC 50–AD 90 Cal BC 60–AD 80

Table 4.6 Scientific dating

21

95

Measured RC age 2000 +/- 40 BP 1980 +/- BP

CHAPTER 5: METALWORKING EVIDENCE

METALWORKING DEBRIS Anthony Swiss

Metalworking assemblage

Introduction RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct

The assemblage of debris had already been loosely categorised, with the larger material being examined at Birmingham Archaeology. The smaller debris had also been categorised into residues and magnetic residues, and both these categories were assessed in Bradford.

A total of 14.88 kilos of debris (Table 5.1) was visually assessed (Swiss 2007) to establish their composition and CHAPTER 5 TABLES morphology, and the possible processes with which they were TABLE associated. 5.1 METALWORKING DEBRIS, LARGER FRAGMENTS (BY PHASE) Cut/ Context/ Construct 1018/1015/P116 1018/1022/P116 1033/1031 1033/1071 Layer 1171 2003/2005 2003/2005 2003/2008 2003/2013 2003/2028 2003/2038 2068/2067 2060/2075 1036/1029 2208/2135 2208/2136 2208/2136 2208/2136 2208/2136 1523/1538 Layer 1102 1143/1217/P143 1270/1269/P145 1539/1554/ P152 1590/1591 1276/1277/P123 Layer 1711 Layer 1014 Layer 1059 1307/1308

Phase 1B 1B 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 1D/1E 2B 2B 2B 2B 2B 2B 3A 3B–4B 3B–4B 3B–4B 3B–4B 3B–4B 4A 4A 4C 4C 4C

1307/1310 4C 1652/1664/P125 4C Layer 2085 4C Layer 1326 5 Layer 2014 5 Layer 1010 5 Layer 1159 U/S Total Note: Weights include the bag

Weight (g) 390 115 6 29 95 293 1043 270 287 139 133 85 130 2 5 540 508 423 837 18 107 342 1379 312 18 279 9 186 387 1453 186 82 12 66 118 269 255 12041

Description Undiagnostic slag and broken hearth bottom Undiagnostic slag Undiagnostic slag Vitrified/ burnt clay Undiagnostic slag and burnt stone Undiagnostic slag some with charcoal impressions. Vitrified clay Slag concretion and vitrified clay. 2 x hearth bottoms Undiagnostic slag, vitrified/ burnt clay Vitrified clay. Possible hearth bottom Undiagnostic slag Vitrified clay and small charcoal pieces Vitrified clay, material with small charcoal impressions Fill. Vitrified/ burnt clay. Undiagnostic slag with charcoal impressions Vitrified/burnt clay Vitrified clay Vitrified clay possible hearth lining Vitrified clay and undiagnostic slag 1 x hearth bottom Vitrified clay possible hearth lining, undiagnostic slag Vitrified clay with charcoal impressions. Hearth lining Undiagnostic slag Burnt/vitrified clay with small charcoal impressions or flecks Undiagnostic slag/ concretion with charcoal impressions Slag with charcoal impressions, possible smithing slag. Vitrified clay Slag/ stone concretion Undiagnostic slag or concretion Undiagnostic slag/ concretion Undiagnostic slag Undiagnostic slag/ concretion with adhered stones Concretion of slag, vitrified clay and stones Large lump of slag/ concretion possible hearth bottom. Another possible hearth bottom and some undiagnostic slag Slag/ clay concretion with charcoal flecks Undiagnostic slag Undiagnostic slag A piece of undiagnostic slag with charcoal impressions Burnt stone, concretion and undiagnostic slag Vitrified clay. Undiagnostic slag with charcoal impressions Possible hearth bottom with charcoal impressions

Table 5.1 Metalworking debris, larger fragments (by phase) 96

Metalworking Evidence Discussion

Within the assemblage of larger debris there were eight items that were considered hearth bottoms or probable hearth bottoms. These have been tabulated (Table 5.2).

Analysis of the 14.89 kilos of residue recovered from the Area M18 excavation (Table 5.1) has indicated that RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct it is debris associated with the working of iron, and not Magnetic residues iron smelting. The larger pieces of slag are in themselves The magnetic residues are listed in Table 5.3. undiagnostic of process, but they are not the large blocky TABLE 5.2 METALWORKING DEBRIS, HEARTH BOTTOMS (PHASE ORDER)

Cut/ Context/ Phase Construct 1018/1015/P116 1B 2003/2005 1D/1E 2003/2005 1D/1E 2003/2013 1D/1E 2208/2136/P166 2B 1307/1308 4C 1307/1308 4C Layer 1159 U/S RB vol 4 Tables 10 Oct Note: Weights include the bag

Weight (g)

Dimensions (mm)

346 158 376 164 248 1040 379 255

85 x 70 x 35 75 x 60 x 50 110 x 90 x 45 65 x 65 x 35 100 x 70 x 30 140 x 90 x 55 90 x 70 x 50 70 x 60 x 40

TableRESIDUES, 5.2 Metalworking debris, hearth bottoms (phase order) TABLE 5.3 METALLIC MATERIAL CLASSED AS MAGNETIC RESIDUE (PHASE ORDER)

Cut/ Context 1027/1026/ P116 1027/1026/P116 1101/1100/ P132 2003/2005

Phase 1B 1B 1D/1E 1D/1E

Weight (g) 1 1 2 6

2003/2030 1D/1E 1 2068/2067 1D/1E Too small 1101/1100 1D/1E 2 2208/2138 2B 36 2208/2138 2B 2 2208/2138 2B 6 2208/2138 2B 1 2208/2138 2B 2 2208/2138 2B 15 2208/2138 2B 22 2208/2138 2B Too small 2208/2138 2B Too small 1143/1217/ P132 3B–4B 2 1716/1715 3B–4B 1 1143/1217/P132 3B–4B 2 1276/1277/P111 4A 1 1709/1708 4A 3 2054/2048/C172 4A 6 Layer 1059 4C 2 1307/1310 4C 3 1369/1370/P100 4C 32 /1453/1452/P101 4C 1 1453/1584/P101 4C 3 1626/1625/P125 4C 3 1714/1713 4C 1 Layer 1059 4C 2 Total 152 Key: V= very small pieces of clay or stone

Description V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale and classic spheroidal hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale A few pieces of flake hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale Residue which is essentially all flake hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale Pieces of burnt clay. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale Pieces of burnt clay. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale A few pieces of flake hammerscale A few pieces of flake hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Possibly some spheroidal hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale V. Flake and spheroidal hammerscale V. Some small flake hammerscale

Table 5.3 Metallic residues, material classed as magnetic residue (phase order) 97

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 or tap slags that would indicate iron smelting. Despite the slag not being indicative of process, material has been identified within the assemblage which is associated with the blacksmithing process ie hearth bottoms and hammerscale. Hearth bottoms (Table 5.2, Plates 5.1–5.2) are regularly found associated with metalworking debris. They are the plano-convex lumps/ concretions of slag and or oxidised metal that are thought to form in the bottom of the hearth. They are found in all sizes and do not represent a single episode of smithing, but would have built up over a period of time. Every now and then the smith would clean out or repair their hearth and the bottom would have been discarded, probably along with the burnt and/ or vitrified clay that made up the hearth lining, especially around the tuyère. Being a waste product these residues would have been dumped anywhere suitable outside of the smithy (ditch, pit etc), and thus their recovery spot is more than likely not the location of the smithy.

0

1cm

Plate 5.1

Plate 5.1 Above view of plano-convex hearth-bottom

The hammerscale from the site has been found in several contexts (Table 5.3), in both flake and spheroidal forms (Plate 5.3). Flake scale is iron oxide (magnetite) and forms on the surface of iron when it is heated sufficiently high enough in an oxidising atmosphere. When the metal is removed from the hearth and worked by hammer at the anvil, the flake scale will fly off in all directions or get incorporated into the metal by the hammer. Spheroidal scale can be formed in two ways. During early iron smelting the iron would have been produced in the solid state and formed as a bloom at or near the bottom of the furnace. This bloom would have been removed and then consolidated by hammer at the anvil. The consolidation process would see any trapped slag within the bloom driven out quite vigorously and like any liquid falling through air, the slag would form small spherical droplets and subsequently solidify. Spheroidal slag can also form when a flux is used during the fire-welding of iron. In order to successfully weld iron it would have needed to have been heated up to a bright yellow heat (circa 900oC +) and to help stop the oxidation process the smith may have used sand (silica - SiO2) as a flux. The heat and the hammer pressure during the fire-welding process would see the silica combine and fuse with any iron oxide, and be driven out of the weld as a liquid to form small spherical droplets.

0

0.5mm

Plate 5.2

Plate 5.2 Side view of plano-convex hearth-bottom

0

1mm

Plate 5.3

Hammerscale has been recovered from several different contexts and phases in Area M18, and like the heath bottoms and burnt/ vitrified hearth lining, this waste product would have occasionally been cleaned up and disposed of away from the smithy, and is probably not always found in situ.

Plate 5.3 Detail of spheroidal hammerscale Conclusion Analysis of the Area M18 residues has shown that they are almost undoubtedly associated with the blacksmithing of iron, as there are no residues that one would associate with the smelting of iron, such as blocky slag with large charcoal impressions, tap slag, iron ore etc. The blacksmithing theory is given credence by the recovery of the eight hearth bottoms and hammerscale from several

Many of the contexts had pieces of broken pottery and burnt bone found within them. This probably represents detritus from the everyday living and cooking within the fort and their association with the ironworking debris only confirms that the ironworking residues were classed as rubbish and disposed of accordingly.

98

Metalworking Evidence different contexts. The hammerscale has been recovered in both flake and spheroidal form, and although spheroidal scale could be associated with the consolidation of blooms fresh from the smelting furnace, it is considered in this case that the spheroids are the result of the blacksmith using a flux such as sand during the fire-welding of iron. The recovered semi-burnt charcoal is small and again is more in keeping with blacksmithing rather than iron smelting. It is likely that these residues are the remains of relatively small-scale smithing which would have taken place within or just outside the fort. The smith’s work may have included the forging or repair of tools, weapons, and armour or even a process as simple as the production of nails for use within the fort. Nearly 15kg of residue is not a large quantity, so it is probable that the smith’s waste was backfilled in abandoned features. The Area M18 excavation has only recovered a small quantity of what may originally have been produced.

99

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS

INTRODUCTION

Construction camp (Phase 1A)

The Area M18 investigation is the largest single excavation to take place within the military complex (Fig. 1.3). It has uncovered a complex sequence of activity, extending through the entire military sequence at Metchley, including the Phase 4C re-use of the upstanding fort earthworks after the Roman military abandonment, and into the postRoman period (Phase 5). A wide range of features and feature types were sampled, including defensive ditches and gatehouse structures, timber-framed buildings, and industrial features. Archaeological survival varied across the site (Fig. 1.6).

Stratigraphically, the earliest features, an L-shaped beamslot, Structure 18.1 (Fig. 2.3), and related features may have been associated with a temporary construction camp. Other possibly contemporary features have been recorded along the line of the later Phase 1B defences (Area M14, Jones 2011, 11), which provided protection from later disturbance. A possible clavicula, recorded to the west of the fort (Phase A, Area M9, Jones 2011, 37–42) may also have formed part of the construction camp, continuing in use during the early Phase 1B fort.

The fieldwork has provided an important contribution to our understanding of the layout of the left (western) side of the central range, and the adjoining porta principalis dextra. Of particular importance is the evidence for the re-planning of the Phase 1D and Phase 1E buildings, the dynamic sequence of activity in the Phase 2B military stores depot, Phase 3B–4B activity outside the contemporary fort, and the re-use of the fort earthworks for livestock penning in a Roman post-military or post-Roman context. CHRONOLOGY AND SEQUENCE (Fig. 1.4) The Area M18 excavation has identified a complex sequence of activity, which has been placed within the stratigraphic framework provided by other excavations at the complex. Unfortunately, the evidence for Roman postmilitary and later activity is undated. Other excavations have provided dated sequences of later Roman activity (eg Area M6, Jones 2001; Area M7–M8, Jones 2005a). Wild (Chapter 3, this volume) notes that only a single sherd of Flavian samian was recovered from Area M18; the remainder being all pre-Flavian in date. As noted by Timby (Chapter 3, this volume), the loss of the surface finishes on some of the pottery makes close identification and dating difficult. Pre-Roman activity? A number of pre-Roman pottery fabrics have been recovered from Roman military contexts, including Malvernian limestone-tempered ware, native sandy wares and handmade grog-tempered wares. These fabrics, which may have remained in use up to the end of the 1st century, do not necessarily indicate pre-Roman occupation of the site (Timby, Chapter 3, this volume). Other investigations at the complex have also identified pre-Roman fabrics (Hancocks 2005; Evans et al 2011).

Precise dating of Phase 1A occupation is not possible. It is now accepted that literary sources cannot provide a chronological basis for archaeological discoveries (Mattingley 2006, 41–42). Nor can finds help to pinpoint the exact beginning of military occupation because a mobile army would have brought to the site a quantity of pottery items already in use (Jones 2011, 98). Bearing this caveat in mind, the earliest samian pottery from the site was dated AD 40–65 (form 24), AD 40–60 (Ritt. 9), and to the Claudian period. The construction camp may be dated to the Claudian period (see Willis 2011, 68 for dating of the Phase A clavicula in Area M9). Phase 1 fort (Phase 1B, Phase 1D, Phase 1E, Phase 1D/1E) The Phase 1B fort was defended by double ditches and a rampart, partly sealing Phase 1A Structure 18.1 (Fig. 2.3). The Phase 1B porta principalis dextra was further defined by a gatehouse, Structure 18.2 (Fig. 2.5). The earliest features within the western intervallum comprised a group of ovens to the north of the via principalis, with further ovens and a well, to the south (Fig. 2.3). Despite limited survival, it was clear that the earliest buildings (Phase 1D) in the central range were laid out following a common alignment (Structures 18.12 and 18.14, Fig. 2.6). Beam-slots C110 and C111, and postholes 2511 and 2474 belonging to Structure 18.14 were cut by Phase 1E Structure 18.15. This later, and more extensive building was laid out on an alignment at seven degrees of separation from that of the Phase 1D buildings, indicating re-planning which nevertheless retained continuity in individual building locations. Structure 18.15 may be interpreted as the praetorium. The eastern range of the building was later re-arranged in two stages. Earlier excavations at Metchley (eg Jones 2001, Structure 3.1, fig. 11, Area M3) have also provided evidence for rebuilding within the retentura.

100

Discussion and Synthesis The Phase 1B to Phase 1E pottery from Area M18 was pre-Flavian in date. Pottery from Phase 2B contexts in the same area was Neronian–early Flavian in date, providing a terminus ante quem for the Phase 1 activity.

and the building going out of use at around the same time. This implies the continued functioning of at least part of the praetorium during the first two sub-phases of the military stores depot.

Military stores depot (Phase 2B)

An alternative interpretation of this dumping is that it represents midden material cleared from the building at the end of Phase 1E and deposited elsewhere at the end of that phase, which was later used to backfill pits 2208 and 2273, although this is the less likely alternative. Pit 2208 post-dates the Phase 1 fort layout, since it was dug partly into the Phase 1B rampart supports.

Within the retentura, the Phase 2B military stores depot was represented by four sub-phases of activity. The first comprised timber-framed buildings (eg Area M3, Jones 2001, fig. 17, Structure 3.5), the second industrial features, the third sub-phase livestock compounds and associated features, and the fourth and final sub-phase comprised the backfilling of the fort ditches before the first military abandonment of the site. Extrapolating this sequence to include Area M18 would suggest that Structures 18.11 and 18.9 (Fig. 2.17) formed part of the first sub-phase, and the scattered industrial features (including oven 2272) were part of the second (Figs 2.15–2.17). The third sub-phase could have included the livestock ‘funnel’ (Structure 18.4, Figs 2.13–2.14), as well as the livestock complex located outside the western fort defences (Jones 2011, 49–55; Fig. 2.14). Earlier excavations at the complex have suggested a nexus between the dismantling of the Phase 1 timber-framed buildings and the construction of the irregular buildings associated with the first sub-phase of the Phase 2B military stores depot (Jones 2001, 117); with both activities undertaken as a single operation, under military control. A different picture is emerging in Area M18. Here there appears to be no spatial ‘overlap’ apparent between the Phase 1E and Phase 2B buildings. Rather, Phase 2B structures 18.9 and 18.11 (Fig. 2.17) appear to have respected at least part of Phase 1E Structure 18.15. This building, the praetorium (or part thereof) may have remained in use during at least the earlier part of the Phase 2B sequence. Given the different (and smaller) needs for garrisoning the military stores depot compared with the Phase 1 garrison fort, the possible reduction in size of the praetorium is not surprising. A nexus may be suggested between the demolition and clearance of Structure 18.15 and the backfilling of pits 2208 and 2273 in the former western intervallum. These pits contained a number of decorated, high status samian fragments, which Wild (Chapter 3, this volume) suggests may derive from the commanding officer’s table. This material is dated in the range Neronian–early Flavian. This dumping suggests that after pit group C166 went out of use it was re-used to contain rubbish from the clearance of the abandoned Phase 1E praetorium (Structure 18.15). This backfilling could have been in preparation for the use of the fort interior for livestock keeping, the third sub-phase in the use of the military stores depot interior. The significance of this discovery is that it suggests that the praetorium (albeit reduced in size) could have been in contemporary use with pits 2208 and 2273, with the pits

One of the latest suites of Phase 2B activity in Area M18 is represented by beam-slots cut at a tangent to the main fort alignment, representing a complete abandonment of the regular fort layout (eg C143, C150, Fig. 2.17), as well as the disuse of Phase 2B Structure 18.11. The third sub-phase of Phase 2B activity is marked by the insertion of a livestock ‘funnel’ (Structure 18.4, Fig. 2.12) in front of the Phase 1B porta principalis dextra, which was retained. Structure 18.4 postholes 1176 and 1178 respected the Phase 1B post-pipe 1180 of post-pit 1174 (Fig. 2.3, Fig. 2.4.S.9). This livestock ‘funnel’ formed an integral part of complex of livestock enclosures laid out to the west of the fort (Fig. 2.14, Jones 2011, 49–55). This complex also incorporated a second livestock ‘funnel’, located between 30–45m to the west of Structure 18.4 (Fig. 2.14). The military stores depot is dated in earlier excavations to the Neronian period. The fourth and final sub-phase in the history of the military stores depot was the partial levelling of the Phase 1B fort defences, before the complex was first abandoned by the military. Phase 3A fort For clarity, the primary fort defences and internal building (Phase 3A) have been distinguished from the re-building of the gatehouse and external activity (Phase 3B–4B, particularly since the latter may have continued during the use of the Phase 4A fort. The Phase 3A fort marks the first Roman military reoccupation of the site. The evidence from Area M18, and from earlier excavations of the Phase 3A defences (Area M3, Jones 2001, fig. 19) suggests that the first build of the Phase 3A rampart was in turf, later selectively reinforced with timber supports, as a result of localised collapse in the waterlogged ground. Traces of a timber revetment were recorded within Area M18 to the south of the entrance (Fig. 2.19, Fig. 2.20.S.62), but not to its north. The only recognised building within the Phase 3A fort interior was a granary (Structure 18.8, Figs 2.19 and 2.24), cut into the backfilled beam-slots of Phase 2B and Phase 1D or Phase 1E structures.

101

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 Earlier excavations in the retentura (Areas M3–M4, Jones 2001) suggested that the Phase 3A re-occupation of the site may be dated to the later Neronian–early Flavian period. Pengelly et al (2001, 101) noted that the samian sequence from these excavations ended around AD 70, or soon after, while Green and Evans (2001, 105) noted that a high proportion of the coarse ware pottery may be dated in the pre-Flavian period. Similarly, the pottery from Phase 3A deposits in Area M12 in the right praetentura was dated in the range mid–late Neronian to early Flavian (Evans forthcoming). The pottery dating from the Area M18 excavation, which produced very few pottery sherds of Flavian date, are consistent with this dating. Phase 3B–4B (Fig. 2.25) This phase is represented in the former porta principalis dextra by the demolition of Phase 3A gatehouse, Structure 18.16, and its replacement by a roughly rectangular building, Structure 18.6 (Fig. 2.26), defined by postholes, located in the northern carriageway of the entrance. This structure was later re-built, reducing its size, perhaps to facilitate the movement of traffic along the via principalis. Outside the fort (Fig. 2.28), possibly the earliest activity in this phase was industrial in nature, comprising hearths, ovens and pits. Some of these industrial features were cut by palisade trenches, which formed the next discrete suite of activity. A total of three enclosures, defined by palisade trenches, were recorded. The northernmost (Enclosure 1) was rectangular in plan, its eastern side was formed by a palisade trench cut along the line of the outer lip of the partly backfilled Phase 3A/4A fort ditch to the south of the fort entrance. A further palisade trench, C163, was cut along the outer lip of partly backfilled Phase 3A/4A fort ditch to the north of the entrance. C163 was associated with an L-shaped building, Structure 18.5 located in the northern half of the fort entrance, which replaced Structure 18.6 and its rebuild. Structure 18.5 formed an integral part of the layout of livestock enclosures outside the fort entrance. Within this arrangement Structure 18.5 formed a ‘control’ point. The absence of contemporary activity within the fort interior could suggest that it was also used for livestock, although this cannot be proven. The latest activity during this phase outside the fort was represented by a partly-excavated, irregularly-shaped building, Structure 18.3, which, notably, was misaligned with the fort orientation. Other fence-slots, also cut on new alignments suggest re-planning of this external area. A small number of industrial features were cut into the disused palisade trenches. Phase 3B–4B contexts contained mainly residual pottery, although Timby (Chapter 3, this volume) notes the occurrence of a number of new fabrics in this phase. The ditched livestock complex to the west of the fort was in use from the mid–late Neronian period and into the early Flavian period (Area M9, Jones 2011, 49–55).

It is therefore possible that the latest use of this western livestock complex was contemporary with the Phase 3A fort, although the external enclosures will have been disused along with the remainder of the Phase 2B military stores depot, prior to the Phase 3A re-occupation of the site. Phase 4A The main Phase 4A event was the re-cutting of the Phase 3A fort ditches (Fig. 2.19), after they had become mostly obliterated by infilling, but there is insufficient evidence to suggest an intervening abandonment of the complex. Unfortunately, there is no primary dating evidence from the re-cut ditch in Area M18. Flavian–Trajanic rusticated jars were recovered from the southern defences of the Phase 3A fort (Area M6, Jones 2001, table 11), although the re-cut was not clearly defined during this excavation. No internal features could be associated with this recutting in Area M18, which represents the latest Roman military occupation of the complex. The almost total lack of Flavian or later finds from Phase 4A (or later) contexts in Area M18 is puzzling. The latest Roman activity at the complex within the eastern and southern annexes produced Lezoux samian dating through the 2nd century (Jones 2005a, 82, table 7). This later Roman activity was concentrated in the south of the complex, in close proximity to a suggested road junction (Jones 2005a, 84), which could explain the paucity of later finds from Area M18. It would not explain the total absence of later Roman pottery, since the porta principalis dextra continued to be maintained in Phase 4A and would have formed an important thoroughfare through the fort. All Roman activity at the complex had ceased by AD 200 (Jones 2005a, 87). Phase 4C This phase represents post-military occupation at the site, but in the absence of dating evidence it is not clear if this phase belongs in the later Roman, or post-Roman period. The environmental data is not helpful in assigning a chronological context to the Phase 4C features. It is possible that this phase belongs in an aceramic, or largely aceramic context – such as livestock herding in the postRoman period (see below). Despite the lack of dating evidence, the stratigraphic sequence is clear. The Phase 4C features (Fig. 2.30) truncated Phase 3A, and Phase 3B–4B entrance arrangements, and were cut by a Phase 5 arrangement, Structure 18.7 (see below). Phase 5 The most significant feature of this phase is an arrangement of nine pits or large postholes, Structure 18.7 (Fig. 2.32) within the western entrance to the Phase 3A fort. This structure could have formed a ‘funnel’ used to

102

Discussion and Synthesis ‘sort’ livestock entering the fort interior. The function of this structure, and its placement at a former fort entrance implies that the bounds of the fort continued to be marked by partially-open ditches and the upstanding remains of the rampart when it was in use. A Saxon or medieval context for this discovery could be suggested by the recovery of environmental evidence for nearby cultivation and activity from the upper backfills of a re-cut of Phase 1B southern fort ditch (Greig 2005, 78). The fort ditches were identified by antiquarians into the 18th century (eg Jones 2001, fig. 4A). It is also possible that this structure is contemporary with the use of the site and its surrounds as a hunting park. LAYOUT Metchley fort was divided into three ranges of buildings, comprising retentura, central range and praetentura, the latter two being divided by the via principalis, (the main east–west route through the fort) and the former two by the via quintana, following the arrangement first recorded at Obsertimm (Johnson 1983, 238, and fig. 180). Surveying It is assumed that up to the 2nd century most military building was largely the prerogative of legionaries (Hanson 2009, 33). Having located the fort site, surveyors laid out its two principal axes, the cardo maximus (via principalis) and the cardo decumanus (via praetoria and via decumana) (Johnson 1983, 42; Webster 1989, 168). A surveying instrument (groma) was used to establish the right-angles. The setting-out point of the entire fort was located at its centre. Marking out the positions of the fort gates was followed by location of the individual building footprints. Within Area M18, the walls forming the western and northern sides of Structure 18.15 (C108 and C109) were clearly misaligned. This could have been caused by a surveying error. Correction of a surveying error could account for the two slightly differing building alignments recorded in Area M18 (Phase 1D and Phase 1E), and also in Area M20 (Jones forthcoming c). Since several beam-slots followed the Phase 1D alignment in Area M18 it may be presumed that the foundation trenches were laid out, although it is not, of course, possible to determine from such fragmentary remains if the earlier buildings were occupied. It is notable that these two alignments are confined to the central range, which would have been the point of origin of all surveying undertaken at the site. Given the similarity in positioning of the buildings constructed following the Phase 1D and Phase 1E alignments in Area M18 (Fig. 2.6), it is tempting to see the later alignment as a correction of the former, although this cannot be proven. It is unlikely to represent a re-planning of the fort interior.

The central range at Metchley (Fig. 6.1) Phase 1 The most extensive building excavated within the central range at Metchley was the praetorium (Structure 18.15, Fig. 2.6). The northern part of the building, originally including seven rooms, was excavated. It comprised ranges of rooms arranged around a central courtyard, Room R4/R5, which was later sub-divided. A later re-building involved the subdivision of space in the east of the structure, the insertion of a new corridor, and the widening of an existing corridor. This re-arrangement may be interpreted as providing ‘custom built’ accommodation suitable for the particular needs of a new commanding officer (Marvell and OwenJohn 1997, 179). Two other excavations (Fig. 1.3, Area B2 and Area M20) have also tested the central range. Three irregularly-spaced north–south aligned Phase 1 beam-slots (F704, F706– F707, Jones 2005a, 96 and fig. 34) were recorded in Trench B2. Their location close to the centre of the central range could suggest they formed part of the internal layout of the principia, although the small size of this intervention makes further speculation not worthwhile. Area M20 (Jones forthcoming c) investigated part of the northern via principalis frontage. The earliest features here comprised five post pits, attributed to Phase 1D. They were succeeded by two timber-framed buildings (Phase 1E: Structure 20.1 and 20.3a/b, Jones forthcoming c, fig. 3.4). Structure 20.1 was represented by its eastern wall only. The layout of the other building, Structure 20.3a/b was irregular, and difficult to interpret. The excavated part of this building formed a suite of rooms immediately adjoining the via principalis frontage, although the front wall of the building was not recorded within the excavated area. An alternative interpretation of the two buildings is that they formed part of a single structure, in which case the intervening space could have formed an internal courtyard. Other excavated Phase 1 features in Area M18 comprised ovens, located in the western intervallum. The frequent positioning of such ovens adjoining barrack-block ends (eg Elginhaugh, Hanson 2007, 193; Fendoch, Richmond and McIntyre 1938–1939, facing p. 114) suggests an association. The proximity of the Metchley ovens to the praetorium may suggest that they were associated, although this cannot be proven. Phase 2B The cumulative evidence from all investigations at Metchley suggests that it is difficult to discern a zoned layout of the military stores depot. The dynamic sequence of sub-phases of activity in this phase, beginning with timber-framed buildings, followed by industrial activity, and concluding with evidence of livestock keeping, followed by backfilling of the fort ditches, is, however, clear. One difference between the Phase 2B layout in Area M18, and the other excavated evidence for this phase

103

104

M15

Phase 2B

M15

Phase 1

M18

M3-4

6.1

Via

B2

Quintana

Retentura

M12

M12

Principalis

B2

Principalis

Central Range

Via

Via

Quintana

Central Range

Via

Retentura

0

M20

M20

Suggested outline of Principia

Figure 6.1 Simplified central range layouts for Phase 1 and Phase 2B (Areas M3–M4, M18 and M20) (scale 1:125)

M9

M9

M18

M3-4

50m

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005

Discussion and Synthesis lies in the suggested partial retention of the praetorium (Structure 18.15) while elsewhere the Phase 1 buildings were levelled in preparation for the military stores depot.

granaries were founded on deeper foundation trenches than other contemporary building types, which had therefore not survived.

The cutting of pit 2208 and two possibly associated gullies C182–C183 across the presumed line of the via sagularis is perhaps the most distinct departure from a ‘normal’ fort plan in Area M18, although the via principalis was largely kept clear, with the sole exception of pit 2205 (Fig. 2.16). The insertion of a livestock ‘funnel’ (Structure 18.4, Fig. 2.12); into the Phase 1B porta principalis dextra indicates that the primary purpose of this entrance was to control the ingress of livestock from the ditched livestock compounds located to the west of the fort (Jones 2011, 49–55). Other excavated livestock enclosures were also located within the former retentura (Jones 2001, fig. 17).

Phase 3B–4B

The newly-laid out Phase 2B timber-framed buildings appeared to have been clustered near to the praetorium, which may suggest that space was at a premium. The Phase 2B structures in Area M20, also within the former central range also ‘clustered’ adjoining their Phase 1 predecessors. It is likely that the western intervallum continued to be used for industrial activity, although the function of pit 2208 must remain enigmatic – assuming, of course, that it had an industrial function. There is evidence for extensive industrial activity, represented for example by hearth 2273 (Fig. 2.17), when the temporary buildings constructed in the first sub-phase of Phase 2B went out of use, mirroring the spread of industrial features to the west of the western intervallum in the left side of the retentura (Jones 2001, fig. 17). Trench B2 (Jones 2005a, 102 and fig. 34), located towards the centre of the central range contained a charcoal-rich Phase 2B destruction deposit which was cut by six ovens, each backfilled with burnt clay stained with charcoal, providing evidence for more extensive industrial activity within the former central range of the fort. Phase 3A A rectangular fort, measuring 2.6ha in extent, was built during the Phase 3A military re-occupation of the site. Although only defended by a single ditch, the Phase 3A porta principalis dextra appears to mirror the arrangement of its Phase 1B predecessor in that only a single gatehouse, located to the north of the via praetoria, is provided. Only a single building is located within the Phase 3A fort interior, a granary (Structure 18.8), sited on the left side of the central range. This suggests that the contemporary praetorium could have been located on the right (eastern) side of the principia, which is unusual. It is unlikely that the granary and the praetorium shared this side of the fort since the granary was located away from the defences where such buildings would usually be located, to simplify the delivery and collection of grain. Three of the four excavated Phase 3A fort buildings comprised granaries. This could suggest that the fort had a specialist function associated with grain storage, unless the Phase 3A

Following the abandonment of the Phase 3A gatehouse, Structure 18.16, the first Phase 3B–4B building within the entranceway, Structure 18.6 (Fig. 2.26) was located to control access to the fort along the northern half of the via praetoria, echoing the Phase 3A arrangement (Structure 18.16, Fig. 2.19). It is difficult to find military parallels for Structure 18.5 (Fig. 2.26), the later Phase 3B–4B arrangement in the entranceway, which formed an integral part of the layout of palisaded livestock enclosures, to the north and south of the fort entrance (Fig. 2.19). Three enclosures were located to the south of the projected line of the via praetoria, but only a single palisade trench was located to the north of the entrance, because of modern truncation (Fig. 2.28). A narrow entry-gap was retained in the southeastern corner of Enclosure 1, and a further entrygap is suspected at the northeastern corner of the same enclosure. These entry-gaps, and the gap retained between Structure 18.5, palisade trench P104 and postholes 1458 and 1464 would have facilitated, or controlled the movement of livestock. A droveway was located to the west of Enclosure 1. Other palisade trenches, and the timber-framed building, cut following different alignments, belong to a later subphase of external activity, which also included some limited evidence for a resumption of industrial activity. Phase 4A Phase 4A is limited to evidence for re-cutting of the Phase 3A fort ditches. The Phase 4A ditch backfills suggest the rampart was partly pushed into the ditch at the end of this phase, marking the end of Roman military occupation at the complex. Phase 4C and Phase 5 The main feature of both these phases was a livestock ‘funnel’ intended to control the entry of livestock into the fort interior (Phase 4C, Fig. 2.30; Phase 5, Structure 18.7). Unfortunately, neither of these arrangements is dated. The layout of both arrangements suggest that the ditches and rampart continued to be visible. Comparative evidence (Fig. 6.1) Since the excavated evidence for the layout of the central range at Metchley is fragmentary, comparative evidence must be sought. Few auxiliary forts have been excavated sufficiently to provide a complete ground-plan of their central range, although recent high quality geophysical survey of a number of Welsh fort interiors has been particularly informative (Burnham and Davies 2010). With the sole exception of The Lunt (Hobley 1969, 1973 and

105

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 1975), which has an eccentric internal layout, there are no forts within the west midlands which have been excavated sufficiently to provide full details of their central range layout, although part of the central range of the Flavian fort at Wall (Round 1983), has been investigated. Comparative evidence further afield must therefore be examined. The Flavian fort at Elginhaugh provides the most recently published example of a complete central range layout (Hanson 2007, 33–63). Here the central principia was flanked by granaries to the right, and the praetorium to the left, a layout considered to be typical (Johnson 1983, 139; Marvell and Owen-John 1997, 182). At Pen Llystyn (Hogg 1968, fig. 19), the praetorium was also located to the left of the principia, with two granaries occupying part of the right side of the central range. Similarly, in the Flavian phase at Strageath (Frere and Wilkes 1989, figs 17, 28, 66), at Caersws II (Burnham and Davies 2010, fig. 7.54), Castell Collen (Burnham and Davies 2010, fig. 7.61) and Caerhun (Baillie Reynolds 1929), the praetorium was also located on the left side of the central range. At The Lunt a praetorium (or officer’s house) was located on the left side of the central range (Hobley 1973, 25; 1975, 8). Conversely, at Gelligaer (Ward 1903, facing p.114) the praetorium was located on the right side of the principia, and a granary to the left. Similarly, at Fendoch (Richmond and McIntyre 1938–1939), and Pen-Llwyn (geophysical survey, Burnham and Davies 2010, fig. 7.94) the praetorium was located on the right side of the principia. Other buildings, not comprising principia, praetoria, or granaries, have also been located within the central range of auxiliary forts (Johnson 1983, 192), although their interpretation can often be difficult. At Pen Llystyn the central range also contained a rectangular building comprising eleven rooms, interpreted as a hospital (Hogg 1968, fig. 19), an interpretation which has been questioned (Burnham and Davies 2010, 271), together with two possible barrack-blocks. A further possible hospital and three possible store buildings were located at Fendoch (Richmond and McIntyre 1938–1939, fig. 2), including two buildings divided longitudinally. At Gelligaer (Ward 1903, facing p.114; Burnham and Davies 2010, 245–248), the central range contained rectangular buildings subdivided along their width. At Corbridge, Pen Llystyn and Housesteads long rectangular buildings have been located which are similar in plan to barrack-blocks. The presence of hearths suggests these buildings provided accommodation, but their function, residential or administrative, is not known (Johnson 1983, 192). Further barracks have been suggested at Strageath (Frere and Wilkes 1989, figs 17 and 28, 47) comprising ten paired contubernia, and a store or stable block, similar to the accommodation block found at Corbridge (Gillam 1977). A sub-divided building located to the left of the principia at The Lunt was interpreted as an ablution block (Hobley 1973, 25). Other complications to the interpretation of the central range auxiliary fort plan occur. At The Lunt (Hobley 1973, 25ff; 1975, 11–12), a larger praetorium or prefect’s house

has been identified in the right praetentura, which may have housed the officer commanding cavalry practice. At Llanfor, geophysical survey (Burnham and Davies 2010, fig. 7.82 and 257), identified the principia, praetorium and a further complex courtyard building within the central range. At Leucarum (Marvell and Owen-John 1997, 218) the praetorium and granaries were located in the praetentura, in order to avoid steeply-sloping ground, and take advantage of commanding views of the estuary in the case of the former building. Units of measurement Fort planning Walthew has proposed that forts and the individual buildings within them were laid out in modules of 12 pes Monetalis (1 p.M. = 0.296m; 12 p.M. = 3.55m) following the requirements of a military manual (Walthew 2005, 277). He cites The Lunt and Pen Llystyn as examples (Walthew 2005, 281). Other writers have identified units of five and ten p.M. (eg Pen Llystyn, Hogg 1968, 119). Richardson (2000, 2002) has suggested that camps and forts alike were laid out following the Hygenian model, using fractions of the actus (=120 p.M.). Walthew’s scheme of measurement may be applicable to Metchley. Internally, the Phase 1B fort measured approximately 710 p.M. square (very approximately 60 x 12 p.M.). The praetentura measured approximately 355 p.M. north–south (approximately 30 x 12 p.M., from the northern edge of the via principalis to the rear of the southern rampart). The central range measured 168 p.M. in depth (14 units of 12 p.M.), and the retentura measured 135 p.M. in depth (approximately eleven units of 12 p.M.) in width, or 142 p.M. (or approximately 12 units of 12 p.M. each) if the width of the via quintana is included. The Phase 3A fort measured approximately 557 p.M. by 513 p.M. internally (in units of 12 p.M., approximately 46 by 43 p.M.). Individual buildings Walthew (2005, 281) proposes that all the buildings in the central range at Pen Llystyn (and also elsewhere in the fort interior) show evidence of planning using a 12 p.M. module. Some modules of 12 p.M. can be identified within Phase 1E Structure 18.5 (Fig. 2.6) at Metchley. R1 measured 12 p.M. in width, as did R3 and R4 (north– south; measured from the centreline of the internal walls). Rooms R2, R6 and R7 within the original build measured 6, 15 and 6 p.M. respectively in width. Within the rebuild, R8 and the enlarged eastern corridor, R7, measured 12 and 9 p.M. respectively in width. It appears that the excavated part of this building was not totally laid out in units of 12 p.M. As Marvell and Owen-John (1997, 179) explain, each praetorium will have been ‘custom built’ to the needs of the individual commander. Moreover, the building plan will have been based on a standard Mediterranean town house plan, which would probably not have employed

106

Discussion and Synthesis units of 12 p.M., although, admittedly, other praetoriae are laid out wholly using these measurements. Re-assessment of the excavated barrack-blocks in the retentura at Metchley suggests that only a limited number of building dimensions could have been laid out using multiples of 12 p.M. The width of Structure 4.1 was approximately six times 12 p.M., and some of the contubernia were laid out in 12 p.M. units, while others were not (Jones 2001, fig. 11). There is little evidence that the adjoining barrack-block, Structure 3.1 (ibid) was laid out in units of 12 p.M. Comparative layouts and measurements Walthew’s (2005, 292) study also suggests that the size of the fort and the principia were related. From the Claudian period, he suggests that the size of the principia would have represented a multiple of the size of the fort. Comparison of the size of principia at Strageath, Gellygaer, The Lunt, Caerhun, Pen Llystyn and Fendoch (despite slightly different schemes of measurement by excavators at each site) suggests that in each case the principia measured approximately one fifth of the internal size of the respective fort (Walthew 2005, 296). Moreover, at Strageath (Frere and Wilkes 1989) and The Lunt (Hobley 1969, 1973 and 1975), the shape of the principia reflects that of the fort itself. At Metchley, the principia has not been located by excavation, although a small trench (B2, Fig. 1.3) could have located part of the interior arrangement of this building. Applying the one-fifth proportion suggested by Walthew (2005, 296), the Metchley principia should measure 42m in width, and be square in plan. This suggested size would be equivalent to approximately 142 p.M., or approximately a total of 12 units, each of 12 p.M. Assuming that the Metchley principia was located centrally within the fort, a building plot measuring 84m in width would be available on either side of the principia, including adjoining alleyways. Assuming that C108 (Fig. 2.6) formed the western wall of the praetorium, a further building plot measuring 38m wide (east–west) would have been available to the left (west) of the excavated praetorium at Metchley (Fig. 6.1). The evidence from Area M3 suggests that at least one granary (Jones 2001, fig. 11, Structure 3.2) occupied the western third of the central range. An alternative interpretation of Structures 18.13 and 18.15 is that they represented a praetorium which comprised two structural units, one containing the domestic arrangement (Structure 18.15), the second (Structure 18.13), a range of sheds and outbuildings. ECONOMY Pottery Analysis of pottery from other large interventions at Metchley has helped to articulate broader changes in function (eg Evans et al 2011, 71–73) in addition to

providing an appreciation of trends in pottery supply and use. A different picture emerges from the study of the Area M18 pottery assemblage. It is largely characterised by homogeneity in date and composition – despite marked changes in the character of occupation – possibly because of a high level of residuality. Similarly, the pottery from Areas M1–M4 (Green and Evans 2001, 105) demonstrated few clear differences in composition by phase. Greig (Chapter 4, this volume) notes that the charred plant remains from within Area M18 in each phase are largely homogenous. Pottery by phase The Phase 1B pottery is dominated by Baetican amphora, organic-tempered Severn Valley ware, Severn Valley ware, white-slipped oxidised ware and fine oxidised ware. Jars dominate the group on the basis of rim counts, although other forms, including flagons, are recorded. The overall average sherd weight of pottery from all Phase 1 contexts is good at 19.4g, or 14.7g if amphorae are excluded. Phase 1D/1E features in the western intervallum oxidised wares, along with Baetican amphorae and organic-tempered Severn Valley ware. The Phase 2B pottery from the former praetentura is dominated by fine oxidised wares (45.5% by sherd count), followed by amphorae (40.9%). Pottery from the central range follows a similar pattern. Only a small quantity of pottery derived from Phase 3A contexts. The pottery from Phase 3B–4B suggests a greater variety of sources than recorded from earlier phases, the new fabrics including Lyon ware, North and Central Gaulish mortaria. The most numerous fabrics (by count) were Severn Valley wares (31.6%), followed by fine oxidised wares (23.2%) and Baetican amphorae (12.7%). The overall sherd weight from layers 1166 (136 sherds) and 1415 (320 sherds) at 15.2 and 15.6g respectively is higher than the average of pottery from all phases. This comparatively high average sherd weight suggests that these layers are unlikely to have been occupation surfaces, in which case greater fragmentation would be anticipated as a result of trampling. The pottery from 1166 was dominated by Severn Valley wares. In this phase the predominant use of this external area was for livestock. A total of 1,298 sherds were recovered from Phase 4A/4C contexts. This group is dominated by fine oxidised wares (42% by count), followed by Severn Valley wares (29.8%). Timby (Chapter 3, this volume) suggests that the high level of fine oxidised ware within the assemblage indicates a moderately high level of residuality. The Phase 4C cultivation soils contained a total of 506 sherds. The pottery from layers 1014 and 1059 is notably abraded, with an average sherd weight of 7g. The range of this material, particularly the high numbers of Baetican amphora and pre-Flavian samian suggests that much originates from pre-Flavian military deposits.

107

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 Overall composition The Area M18 excavation produced pottery with an average sherd weight of 8.9g, if amphorae are excluded. Overall, the pottery is dominated by coarse wares, most of either local, or regional (Severn Valley), origin, similar to pottery from other investigations at the site. The native or pre-Roman pottery is typical of wares which continued in use in the 1st century. The Area M18 excavation produced similar quantities of samian pottery to Areas M6 and Area M14, but less than the quantity found in the southern and eastern annexes (Areas M7–M8) and in Area M15– M16 to the west of the fort, but more than the quantity recorded in another excavation to the west of the fort (Area M9) and also within part of the fort interior (Areas M1– M5). Amphorae were particularly prolific in Area M18, comprising 11.6% of the assemblage by number (and 45.3% by weight), in comparison with 15.3% by count and 5.7% by weight from Areas M1–M5 (see Timby, Chapter 3, this volume). Analysis of forms by phase (Table 3.5, Fig. 3.4), indicates that jars dominate (50.9% overall), followed by flagons (18.9%). Bowls and dishes, lids (less than 1%) and mortaria (2.3%) are poorly represented. No lamps are recorded. Analysis of the main ware categories by phase (Table 3.6, Fig. 3.5) fails to identify any clear trends which may indicate overall a significant level of residuality (Timby, Chapter 3, this volume), although it is suspected. Oxidised wares dominate in Phases 1–2B, before decreasing in Phases 3A and 3B–4B, and increasing in later phases. Severn Valley wares, although significant in Phases 1 and 2B, increase in Phases 3A/3B–4B. The quantity of amphorae is fairly consistent, peaking after Phase 2B. In contrast, white-slipped wares are numerous in Phases 1 and 2B, but almost disappear in later phases. Whilst native wares and mortaria are recorded throughout the sequence, they are only recorded in small numbers. In contrast to the Area M18 pottery, the assemblage from the western settlement (Area M9: Evans et al 2011) closely mirrored changes in site function. Here the Phase A pottery comprised foreign imports and some regional wares, but few locally produced wares, a pattern typical of an invading army (Hurst 1985). The Phase A wares emphasised storage, as would be anticipated in an area which was not yet settled. In Phase B (external settlement) there is a greater emphasis on local supply, and a reduction in imported wares, and this assemblage also included mortaria probably produced by specialist military potters. The establishment of the Phase C livestock complex is represented by the predominance of more functional forms, an emphasis on storage vessels, a decline in locally produced wares and an increase in the number of imports and regional wares. These reflect the trading function of the site for livestock (Jones 2011, 49–55 and 104–105; similar to the function of Phase 3B–4B in Area M18, although not reflected in the pottery supply). The Area M7–M8 excavations in the southeast of the complex,

including the eastern and southern annexes, and evidence for continued occupation into the 2nd century underlined differences between pottery from each phase (Hancocks 2005, 66), perhaps amplified here by the extended period of occupation recorded in these excavations. Metalworking The metalworking residues from the excavation are of particular importance as the only significant quantity of metalworking material (total of 14.89kg) from the military complex. Swiss (Chapter 5, this volume) identifies the material as associated with blacksmithing, represented by hammerscale (Table 5.1) and hearth bottoms (Table 5.2). There was no evidence for iron smelting in the form of blocky or tap slags. None of the metalworking residues necessarily indicates in situ activity. Hearth bottoms result from several episodes of iron smithing. They were found in Phase 1B ditch P116, Phase 1D/1E intervallum pit 2003 (x3), Phase 2B pit 2208, and Phase 4C pit 1307, which contained the largest excavated example. It is likely that the hearth bottoms were deposited away from the smithy. Similarly, the hammerscale was probably not deposited in situ. The mixing of pottery and burnt bone fragments within the deposits containing ironworking residues further confirms that the ironworking debris was mixed with everyday rubbish. Hammerscale was recovered from contexts belonging to all Roman phases. The largest quantity of hammerscale was recovered from Phase 2B pit 2208; smaller quantities were found in several Phase 1D/1E features in the western intervallum, possibly representing the general use of this area of the fort for industrial activities. A total of 47g of hammerscale (amounting to approximately one third of all hammercale found in the excavation) was recovered from Phase 4C contexts, notably from entrance feature P100. It is possible that this material could have derived from ironworking in the adjoining western intervallum of the Phase 3A/4A fort, although the possibility that smallscale ironworking was being undertaken on the site in a Roman post-military, or post-Roman context should also be considered. The majority of the hammerscale (84g, 55.2% of the total) derived from Phase 2B contexts. It is not clear if this material underlines the importance of ironworking in this zone of the military stores depot in this phase, or if it merely represents the clearance of earlier ironworking deposits, used for example, for the creation of hardstandings. The metalworking residues in pit 2208 were mixed with high status samian ware which derived from the Phase 2B clearance of the praetorium. Evidence of ironworking (not including smelting) has been found in other parts of the Phase 2B military stores depot (former retentura, Jones 2001, 46–47), and also possibly in the southern intervallum of the Phase 3A/4A fort (Jones 2001, 68–70). A Phase 1 fabrica, has been excavated in the praetentura at Metchley (Structure 2.1, Jones 2001, fig. 14).

108

Discussion and Synthesis At Elginhaugh finds and residues associated with metalworking were also located on the opposite side of the fort to the fabrica (Hanson 2007, 194), a situation also paralleled at Metchley, although Hanson (ibid, 194) notes that small-scale metalworking would have taken place at different locations within the fort interior, leaving little trace other than residues, since the activity may not always have been associated with a building. Military supply of livestock Metchley was an important site for the military requisition of livestock. With a total of four discrete sub-phases of livestock keeping recorded, this recurring activity may be considered to be central to the economy of the site in the Roman (and post-Roman) periods. The importance of this activity in the third sub-phase of the operation of the military stores depot is underlined by the insertion of the livestock ‘funnel’ (Structure 18.4), into one of the two portae praetoriae. This excavated ‘funnel’ formed an integral part of the arrangement of ditched livestock enclosures to the west of the fort (Jones 2011, 49–55, Fig. 2.14). Other, contemporary livestock enclosures have also been excavated within the fort interior (Jones 2001, fig. 17). Significantly, the 2004–2005 excavations also provided evidence for a second episode of livestock keeping (Phase 3B–4B). This comprised three enclosures located to the west of the fort, defined by palisade trenches associated with an arrangement of further palisade trenches in the former porta principalis dextra of the Phase 3A fort (Structure 18.5), intended to facilitate the management/ sorting of livestock. Finally, the upstanding fort defences were utilised as a livestock enclosure after the Roman military withdrawal from the site (Phase 4C), and again in a post-Roman context (Phase 5). The evidence and economic basis for the use of Metchley as a centre for the military requisition of livestock has been considered in detail elsewhere (Jones 2011, 104–105), and only a summary will be presented here. The earliest episodes of livestock husbandry (Phase 2B and Phase 3B–4B) are unlikely to represent the civilian takeover of an abandoned military site, although this explanation may provide a context for the Phase 4C arrangement. It is likely that local sources of livestock were exploited to supply auxiliary forts, according to Hanson (2007, 672) to limit the problems associated with long-distance supply chains. While Grant (2004, 372) has argued that the native economy may not have been able to produce such a surplus, Sauer (2002, 347) has observed that such local army requisition would not have placed too great a strain on local resources. Requisition may have been based on available supply, not demand (Thomas 2008, 46), although legionary supply would have been more selective, and drawn from a long distance. In the mid–later 1st century (Phases 2B and 3B–4B), Metchley would have provided local forts with locally-sourced livestock. The

triggers for the abandonment and later resumption of this activity are obscure. The original location, and the re-location of this activity at Metchley may not have been accidental. Esmonde Cleary (2011, 131) has suggested that the west midlands formed a ‘resource procurement zone’ to feed, clothe, and equip the troops. It did not, of course, form a single coherent territory. The region was divided into three civitas groups, the Cornovii to the northwest of Metchley, the Corieltauvi to the northeast, and the Dobunni to the southeast. The boundaries between the three groups, although difficult to establish with precision, may have been located at, or near Metchley (Millett 1990, fig. 17). For the later Roman period, the present author has suggested that the livestock complex at Longdales Road, King’s Norton, Birmingham (Jones et al 2008) was established at, or close to, a tribal boundary in order to facilitate trade, specifically the exchange of livestock within a civilian context. A similar function may be suggested for the first two episodes of livestock keeping at Metchley – operating under military control. The location of Metchley – originally intended to control contact between the three civitas groups – will have optimised the trading opportunities with all three adjoining civitas groups. In particular, the Cornovii maintained the economic dominance of pastoralism during the Roman period (Esmonde Cleary 2011, 131), and their tribal area could have been particularly important for the military requisition of livestock. At Elginhaugh (Hanson 2007, 653) the fort was utilised as a collection centre by the Roman army, after the formal military withdrawal from the site. Phase 4C livestocking may have been undertaken by a Roman civilian group, or in a post-Roman context. ENVIRONMENT Overall, Greig (Chapter 4, this volume), observes that the range of charred plant remains is similar across a range of feature types, and across several phases, which suggests that the charred grains were deposited as rubbish in partlyopen features, in which case the plant remains probably do not represent in situ activity. A similar interpretation of the pottery has been suggested by Timby (Chapter 3, this volume). Many samples contained charred grain, including barley, possible oats, and other, unidentified, cereals. The absence of chaff suggests that the grain may have been prepared for consumption. Other charred seeds included cabbage/ mustard and rose/ bramble/ thorn. Hazel nutshell fragments represent food waste. Wetland plants included sedge and bristly scirpus. In addition there were weed seeds, including plants typically growing in wet ground or adjoining streams, which may be of Roman, or more probably of more recent origin.

109

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 Phase 4A later military and Phase 4C post-military samples were subjected to particularly intensive sampling in an attempt to understand the landscape context for these phases (McKenna, Chapter 4, this volume). Unfortunately, these feature groups produced plant remains of only limited interpretable value. The cereals recovered from these feature groups included wheat, barley, spelt/ rye and oats. Other charred remains represent arable weeds. Oak was the most abundant species, with ash and poplar also recorded. McKenna (Chapter 4, this volume), also notes the absence of chaff – suggesting that there was no crop processing being undertaken nearby. It is not clear if the plant remains analysed derived from in situ Phase 4A/Phase 4C activity, or, alternatively, if it was re-worked plant material derived from earlier Roman military activity. Pollen was abundant in Phase 4A ditch re-cut C172 and in Phase 4C feature P101. The pollen record was dominated by alder and hazel, with smaller quantities of oak and lime. Grasses and ribwort plantain were also abundant. The pollen indicates that the area adjoining features P101 and C172 was not kept clear, and developed open scrub. The recovery of charcoal and a single grain of cereal pollen indicates some occupation nearby. The results of pollen sampling may be compared with the better preserved pollen sequence from Area M8 (Greig 2005). The evidence from Area M18 mirrors the pollen record from the earlier part of the sequence from Area M8, where a mixed oak, alder and hazel woodland or scrub was recorded. CONCLUSION The results of the 2004–2005 excavation have made an important contribution to our understanding of the internal layouts of the military complex at Metchley, and to our broader understanding of the Roman military occupation of the west midlands in the 1st century AD. In particular, it has contributed towards an appreciation of the specialist functions undertaken at the complex. It has also permitted further refinement of the sequence, if not dating, of the military activity, as well as providing a tantalising glimpse of the Roman post-military, or post-Roman use of the complex.

may represent no more than the correction of a surveying error, although many buildings within the complex show signs of adaptation during use. The suggested structural evidence for the continued use of part of the praetorium during at least the first two subphases in the use of the military stores depot is supported by the deposition of a quantity of a high value decorated samian in the backfilling of pits in the large pit complex. This sequence contradicts the evidence from elsewhere in the military stores depot interior which suggests that the Phase 1D and Phase 1E buildings were entirely levelled in preparation for the layout of the Phase 2B structures. Excavation provided further details of the latest suite of Phase 2B activity – concerned with livestock keeping -, specifically the ‘funnel’ inserted into the porta principalis dextra which formed part of the livestock complex previously reported to the west of the fort (Jones 2011). Significantly, the excavation provided evidence for a later phase of Roman military livestock requisition (Phase 3B– 4B), which represents the first evidence for the use of areas outside the fort during occupation of the Phase 3A/Phase 4A fort. Two further episodes of exploitation of the fort site for livestock were also recorded (Phase 4C, Phase 5) underlining the importance of the site for Roman military requisition and later (unfortunately undated) livestock husbandry. The almost total lack of pottery of Flavian date and the absence of post-Flavian pottery from Phase 4A and later contexts, despite extensive hand-excavation, is puzzling. It is possible that this area may have been peripheral to a main focus of activity in the south of the complex, adjoining the suggested road junction. Finally, Phases 4C and 5 may represent post-Roman activity, within an aceramic context.

The Phase 1B porta principalis dextra is the only gate of the Phase 1 fort to have been excavated in detail; two gates have been lost to the canal or railway, and the porta decumana lies within a scheduled ancient monument (Fig. 1.2) and is not available for excavation. Interestingly, the Phase 1B porta principalis dextra (like its Phase 3A successor) was of double-portal arrangement, incorporating only a single gatehouse (Frontispiece) despite being located along the main thoroughfare through the fort (via principalis). Its discovery is a useful addition to our understanding of the planning of Roman military gatehouses. Excavation also provided some details of the layout of the praetorium. This building formed part of the second structural layout (Phase 1E) in the Phase 1 fort, providing evidence for re-planning – not recorded in the retentura or praetentura at Metchley. This re-planning 110

CHAPTER 7: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND REFERENCES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The fieldwork was sponsored by the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, and we are particularly grateful to Alf Towers of the Trust for his assistance. The fieldwork was monitored by Dr Mike Hodder for Birmingham City Council. The field team comprised Bob Burrows (Supervisor), Kristina Krawiec (Assistant Supervisor), Victoria Wilkinson, Mark Charles, Kate Bryson, Cath Ambrey, Becky Wiegel, Nathan Chinchinhin, Keith Hinton, Gillian Denham, Ellie Ramsey, Jessica Bryan, Alex Stevenson, Mark Kincey, Phil Mann, and Chris Pole. The illustrations were prepared by Nigel Dodds and Jemma Elliott. The fieldwork and the first part of the post-excavation stage of the project was managed by Alex Jones at Birmingham Archaeology. The final draft of the report was completed by Alex Jones, who proof-corrected the volume for publication with assistance from Dr Malcolm Hislop. Drs Michael Hodder and Roger White read and commented on an earlier draft of this report.

111

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 REFERENCES Andrew, R, 1984 A Practical Pollen Guide to the British Flora, Quaternary Research Association, Technical Guide 1, Cambridge Ballie Reynolds, P K, 1929 Excavations on the Roman site of Caerhun, Archaeologia Cambrensis 84, 61–99 Berni, P, 1998 Las Ánforas de Aceite de la Bética y su Presencia en la Cataluña Romana, Barcelona: Publicacions Universitat de Barcelona Bidwell, P, Miket, R, and Ford, B, (eds) 1988 Portae Cum Terribus, Studies of Roman Fort Gates, BAR Brit Ser 206, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Birley, E, 1988 The Roman Army Papers 1929–1986, Amsterdam: J. C. Gieden Bishop, M C, 1998 Military Equipment, in H E M Cool and C Philo (eds) Roman Castleford. Excavations 1974–85. Volume 1: The Small Finds, 61–81 Boesterd, den, M H P, 1956 The Bronze Vessels in the Rijksmuseum G M Kam at Nijmegen, Description of the collections in the Rijksmuseum G M Kam at Nijmegen, Departement Van Onderwijs, Kunsten en Wetenschappen, The Hague Booth, P, and Evans, J, 2001 Roman Alcester. Northern Extramural Area: 1969–1988 excavations, Roman Alcester Series, Volume 3, CBA Res Rep 127, London: Council for British Archaeology Burnham, B C, and Davies, J L, 2010 Roman Frontiers in Wales and the Marches, Cardiff: RCAHMW Carreras, C, 2003 Haltern 70: a review, J Roman Pottery Stud 10, 85–91 Carreras, C, Agulera, A, Berni, P, Garrote, E, Marimon, P, Morais, R, Moros, J, Nieto, X, Puig, A, Remesal, J, Rovira, R, Vivar, G, Aquilue, X, Buxeda, J, Castanyer, P, Gonzalez, J, Gonzalez, M, Martinez, V, Matamala, J C, Santos, M, Tremoleda, J, Juan-Tresserras, J, and Vila, L, 2005 Culip VIII i Les Amfores, Haltern 70, Monografíes del CASC 5, Girona Carreras, C, and Funari, P P A, 1998 Britannia y el Mediterràneo: estudios sobre el abastecimiento de aceite betico y africano en Britannia, Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona Colls, D, Étienne, R, Lequément, R, Liou, B, and Mayet, F, 1977 L’Épave Port-Vendres II et le commerce de la Bétique à l’époque de Claude, Archaeonautica 1, Paris Crummy, N, 1983 The Roman Small Finds from Excavations in Colchester 1971–9, Colchester Archaeological Trust Report 2 Cunliffe, B, 1968 Fifth Report on the excavations at the Roman fort of Richborough, Kent, Soc Antiq Res Rep 23 Dannell, G B, 2006, Samian cups and their uses, in J R A Wilson (ed.), Romanitas: essays on Roman archaeology in honour of Sheppard Frere on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, Oxford: Oxbow, 147–176 Dannell, G B, Dickinson, B M, Hartley, B R, Mees, A W, Polak, M, Vernhet, A, Webster, P V, 2003 Gestempelte Südgallische Reliefsigillata (Drag. 29) aus den Werkstätten von La Graufesenque, Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz

Dannell, G B, and Wild, J P, 1987 Longthorpe II, Britannia Monogr Ser 8 Darling, M J, 1977 Pottery from early military sites in Western Britain, in J Dore and K Greene, Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond: papers presented to John Gillam, BAR Supplementary Series 30, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 57–100 Darling, M J, 1985 Roman pottery, in Hurst 1985, 55–93 Duncan, M, 2004 Vincent House: an archaeological evaluation 2004, BA report 1197 Esmonde Cleary, A S, 2011 The Romano-British period: an assessment, in S Watt (ed.) 2011 The Archaeology of the West Midlands, A Framework for Research, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 127–147 Evans, C J, 2011 Romano-British pottery (Area M14), in Jones 2011, 26–32 Evans, C J, Hancocks, A, Tomlin, R, Willis, S, and Williams, D, 2011 Romano-British coarse pottery, in Jones, A E, 2011, 59–76 Fægri, K, and Iversen, J, 1989 Textbook of Pollen Analysis (4th edn), by K Fægri, P E Kaland and K Krzywinski, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Fiches, J-L, Guy, M, and Poncin, L, 1978 Un Lot de Vases Sigilés des Premières Années du Règne de Néron Sand l’un des Ports de Narbonne, Archaeonautica 2, 185– 219 Frere, S S, and Wilkes, J, 1989 Strageath: excavations within the Roman fort 1973–1986, Britannia Monogr Ser 9 Gillam, J P, 1977 The Roman forts at Corbridge, Archaeologia Aeliana 5, 47–74 Grant, A, 2004 Domestic animals and their uses, in M Todd (ed.) A Companion to Roman Britain, Oxford: Blackwell, 371–392 Green, S, Dickinson, B, Evans, J, Hancocks, A, Hartley, B, Hartley, K, Pengelly, H and Williams, D, 2001 Pottery (Areas 2–6) in A E Jones 2001, 90–106 Green, S, and Evans, C J, 2001 Pottery discussion, in Green et al, 105–106 Greig, J R A, 2005 Pollen and waterlogged seeds, in Jones 2005a, 76–81 Greig, J R A, 2007a Charred plant remains, in Jones 2007, 57–60 Greig, J R A, 2007b Pollen, in Jones 2007, 60–62 Hancocks, A, 2005 Romano-British pottery (Areas 7–8), in Jones 2005a, 47–67 Hanson, W S, 2007 Elginhaugh: a Flavian fort and its garrison, Britannia Monogr Ser 23 Hanson, W S, 2009 Building the forts and frontiers, in W S Hanson (ed.) The Army and the Frontiers of Rome: papers offered to David Breeze on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday and his retirement from Historic Scotland, J Roman Archaeol Supplementary Series, No. 74, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 33–43 Hartley, B R, and Dickinson, B M, 2008– , Names on Terra Sigillata: an index of makers’ stamps and signatures on Gallo-Roman terra sigillata (samian ware), Institute of Classical Studies, London

112

Acknowledgments and References Hather, J G, 2000 The Identification of Northern European Woods: a guide for archaeologists and conservators, London: Archetype Press Hermet, F, 1934 La Graufesenque (Condatomago), Paris Hillman, G, 1981 Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from the charred remains of crops, in R J Mercer, Farming Practice in British Prehistory, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 123–162 Hillman, G, 1984 Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products and equipment which might feature in Sumerian texts. Part 1: The glume wheats, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1, 114–152 Hobley, B, 1969 Baginton, a Neronian–Vespasianic military site, Birmingham Archaeol Soc Trans Proc 83, 67–83 Hobley, B, 1973 Excavations at ‘The Lunt’ Roman site, Baginton, Warwickshire. Second interim report, 1968– 71, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 85, 7–92 Hobley, B, 1975 The Lunt Roman Fort and Training School, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 87, 1–55 Hobley, B, 1988 Evidence for the form and appearance of turf and timber defences of Roman forts in the late first century, based on experiments at the Lunt Roman fort, in Bidwell et al 1988, 25–61 Hogg, A H A, 1968 Pen Llystyn, a Roman fort and other remains, Archaeol J 125, 101–192 Hurst, H R, 1985 Kingsholm, Gloucester Archaeological Reports 1, Gloucester: Gloucester Archaeological Publications Johnson, A, 1983 Roman Forts, London: Batsford Jones, A E, 1999 University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust archaeological assessment 1999: Metchley Roman forts, BUFAU report 617.04 Jones, A E, 2001 Roman Birmingham 1. Metchley Roman Forts: excavations 1963–4, 1967–9 and 1997, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 105 Jones, A E, 2003 Metchley Roman fort, Area M12: postexcavation assessment 2003, BA Report 101 Jones, A E, 2005a Roman Birmingham 2. Metchley Roman Forts: excavations 1998–9 and 2002, the Annexes and Other Investigations, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 108 Jones, A E, 2005b Metchley Roman Fort, Birmingham, Excavations May 2005 (Area 20): post-excavation assessment, BA Report 1282 Jones, A E, 2007 Metchley Roman Fort, Birmingham, (Area M18) Archaeological Excavations 2004–5: postexcavation assessment 2007, BA Report 1265 Jones, A E, 2011 Roman Birmingham 3. Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 1999–2001 and 2004–2005, Western Settlement, the Livestock Complex and the Western Defences, BAR Brit Ser 534, Oxford: BAR Publishing Jones, A E, forthcoming a Area M12/12a, in Jones forthcoming b

Jones, A E, forthcoming b Roman Birmingham 5. Excavations in the Praetentura and Central Range 2003, 2005 and 2010 and Synthesis and Overview of Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort from 1963 to 2010, BAR Brit Ser, Oxford: BAR Publishing Jones, A E, forthcoming c Area M20 Excavation, in Jones forthcoming b Jones, A E, forthcoming d Synthesis and overview of excavations from 1963 to 2010, in Jones forthcoming b Jones, A E, and Hepburn, S, 2010 Westgate, University of Birmingham: post-excavation assessment 2010, BA Report 2035 Jones, A E and Hepburn, S, forthcoming b Area M25 excavation, in Jones forthcoming Jones, A E, Burrows, B, Evans, C J, Hancocks, A, and Williams, J, 2008 A Romano-British Livestock Complex in Birmingham: excavations 2002–2004 and 2006– 2007 at Longdales Road, King’s Norton, Birmingham, Birmingham Archaeology Monograph Series 5, BAR Brit Ser 470, Oxford: BAR Publishing Jones, M J, 1975 Roman Fort Defences to AD 117, BAR Brit Ser 21, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Kent, D A, 1992 List of Vascular Plants of the British Isles, London: Botanical Society of the British Isles Macey-Bracken, E, 2011 Iron objects, in A E Jones 2011, 24–25 Mackreth, D F, 1996 Orton Hall Farm: a Roman and early Saxon farmstead, East Anglian Archaeology 76 Mahany, C, (ed.) 1994 Roman Alcester. Volume 1: Southern Extra-mural Area, 1964–66 Excavations. Part 1: Stratigraphy and Structures, CBA Res Rep 96, London: Council for British Archaeology Manley, J, and Rudkin, D, 2005 Facing the palace: excavations in front of Fishbourne Roman palace (Sussex, Uk) 1995–99, Sussex Archaeol Collect 141 (with digital supplement at http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/ catalogue/resources.html?sussexac) Manning, W H, 1981 Report on the Excavations at Usk 1965–1976. Vol 2: The Fortress Excavations 1968– 1971, Cardiff Manning, W H, 1985 Catalogue of the Romano-British Iron Tools, Fittings and Weapons in the British Museum, London: British Museum Manning, W H, and Scott, I R, 1988 Timber gateways, with a note on iron fittings, in Bidwell et al (eds), 1–24 Martin-Kilcher, S, 1987 Die Romischen Amporen aus August und Kaiseraugust, Bern Marvell, A G, and Owen-John, H S, 1997 Leucarum, Excavations at the Roman Auxiliary Fort at Loughor, West Glamorgan 1982–84 and 1987–88, Britannia Monogr Ser 12 Mattingley, H, 2006 An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire 54 BC to AD 409, Penguin History of Britain, London: Allen Lane Mees, A W, 1995 Modelsignierte Dekorationen auf Südgallischer Terra Sigillata, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in BadenWürttemberg, Band 54, Stuttgart

113

Excavations at Metchley Roman Fort 2004–2005 Millett, M, 1990 The Romanisation of Britain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Nieto, X, and Puig, A M, 2001 Excavacions Archeològiques Subaquàtiques a Cala Culip 3. Culip IV: La Terra Sigil. lata Decorada de la Graufesenque, Girona Oswald, F, 1936–1937, Index of Figure Types on Terra Sigillata, University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Supplement Oswald, F, and Pryce, T D, 1920 An Introduction to the Study of Terra Sigillata, London: Longmans, Green and Co Peacock, D P S, 1967 Romano-British pottery production in the Malvern district of Worcestershire, Trans Worcestershire Archaeol Soc, 3rd ser, 1, 15–28 Peacock, D P S, 1968 A petrological study of certain Iron Age pottery from western England, Proc Prehistoric Soc 34, 414–428 Peacock, D P S, 1971 The whetstones, in B W Cunliffe, Excavations at Fishbourne. Vol II: The Finds, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London 27, 153–155 Peacock, D P S, and Williams, D F, 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Economy: an introductory guide, Longman Archaeology Series, London: Longman Pengelly, H, Hartley, B, and Dickinson, B, 2001 Samian (Areas 1–4), in Jones 2001, 101–103 Polak, M, 2000 South Gaulish Terra Sigillata with Potters’ Stamps from Vechten, Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta, Supplement 9, Nijmegen Price, J, and Cottam, S, 1998 Romano-British Glass Vessels: a handbook, CBA Practical Handbook in Archaeology 14, York: Council for British Archaeology Price, J, and Cottam, S, 1999 Roman Glass, in C J Going and J R Hunn, Excavations at Boxfield Farm, Chells, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust Report 2, 274–279 Redhead, N, Roberts, J, Start, D, Walker, J, and McNeil, R, 1989 Castleshaw: the archaeology of a Roman fortlet, Archaeology of Greater Manchester Vol. 4, Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit Richardson, A, 2000 The numerical basis of Roman camps, Oxford J Archaeol 19 (4), 425–437 Richardson, A, 2002 Camps and forts of units and formations of the Roman army, Oxford J Archaeol 21 (1), 93–107 Richmond, I A, and McIntyre, J, 1938–1939 The Agricolan fort at Fendoch, Proc Soc Antiq Scotland 73, 110–154 Rodriguez-Almeida, E, 1989 Los Tituli Picti de las Anforas Olearias de la Betica, Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid Round, A A, 1983 Excavations at Wall (Staffordshire), 1968–1972 on the site of the Roman forts (Wall Excavation Report No. 12), Trans South Staffordshire Archaeol Hist Soc 23, 1–68 St Joseph, J K, and Shotton, F W, 1937 The Roman camps at Metchley, Birmingham, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 58, 68–83 Saison-Guichon, A, 2001 Les Mortiers de Cuisine en Céramique Commune Claire à Lyon, Actes du Congrès

de Lille-Bavay 24–27 Mai 2001, Société Française d’Étude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule, 465–478 Sauer, E, 2001 Alchester, A Claudian ‘vexillation fortress’ near the western boundary of the Catuvellauni: new light on the Roman invasion of Britain, Archaeol J 157, 1–78 Schweingruber, F H, 1978 Microscopic Wood Anatomy. Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Institute of Forestry Research Stace C, 1991 New Flora of the British Isles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Stallibrass, S, and Thomas, R, 2008 Feeding the Roman Army: the archaeology of production and supply in NW Europe, Oxford: Oxbow Books Swiss, A J, 2007 Metalworking debris, in Jones 2007, 62–69 Théry-Parisot, I, 2002, Gathering of firewood during the Palaeolithic, in S Thiébault (ed), Charcoal Analysis, Methodological Approaches, Palaeoecological Results and Wood Uses, BAR Int Ser 1063, 243–250 Thomas, R, 2008, Supply-chain networks and the Roman invasion of Britain: a case study from Alchester, Oxfordshire, in Stallibrass and Thomas, 31–51 Thomas, R, and Stallibrass, S, 2008 For starters: producing and supplying food to the army in the Roman northwest provinces, in Stallibrass and Thomas (eds), 1–17 Timby, J, with Anderson, A, Anderson, S, Braithwaite, G, Dannell, G, Darling, M, Dickinson, B, Evans, J, Faiers, J, Hartley, K, Simpson, G, Webster, G, and Williams, W, 2000 The Roman pottery, in P Ellis (ed.) 2000 The Roman Baths and Macellum at Wroxeter: excavations by Graham Webster 1955–85, English Heritage Archaeol Rep 9, 193–313 Timby, J, 2011 Roman pottery (Areas M15–M16), in Jones 2011, 76–81 Tomber, R, and Dore, J, 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection, Museum of London Archaeology Service Wallace-Hadrill, A, 1988 The Social Structure of the Roman House, Papers of the British School at Rome 51, 43–97 Walthew, C V, 2005 Modular planning in first century A.D. Romano-British auxiliary forts, Britannia 36, 271–310 Ward, J, 1903 The Roman fort of Gellygaer in the County of Glamorgan, London: Bemrose and Sons Webster, G, 1954 Further excavations at the Roman forts at Metchley, Birmingham, Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Archaeol Soc 72, 1–4 Webster, G, 1998 The Roman Imperial Army of the first and second centuries AD, revised 3rd ed, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press Webster, G, 2002 The Legionary Fortress at Wroxeter: excavations by Graham Webster, 1955–85, English Heritage Archaeol Rep 19 Wild, F, 1985, Samian Ware, in Hurst, 1985, 56–67 Wild, F, 2011a Samian, in Jones 2011, 35 Wild, F, 2011b Samian, in Jones 2011, 76 Williams, D F, 2001 Amphorae, in Jones 2001a, 103–105 Williams, D F, 2005a Amphorae, in Jones 2005a, 64–65

114

Acknowledgments and References Williams, D F, 2005b Amphorae, in Jones 2005a, 107–108 Williams, D F, 2011a Amphorae, in Jones 2011, 70 Williams, D F, 2011b Amphorae, in Jones 2011, 77–78 Williams, D F, 2011c Amphorae, in Jones 2011, 35 Williams, D F, forthcoming Amphorae (Area M20) in Jones forthcoming c Williams, D F, and Keay, S J, 2006 Roman Amphorae: a digital resource http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/archive/amphora_ ahrb_2005/index.cfm Willis, S H, 2005 The samian pottery, in Jones, 2005a, 60–64 Willis, S H, 2011 Samian pottery (Area M9), in Jones 2011, 66-70

115