Durham E-Theses Marton, north Lincolnshire: a Romano-British settlement in its context Worrell, Sally Ann How to cite: Worrell, Sally Ann (1997) Marton, north Lincolnshire: a Romano-British settlement in its context, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4983/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Marton, North Lincolnshire: A Romano-British Settlement in its Context Sally Ann Worrell Thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts The copy nght of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the written consent of the author and information derived from it should be acknowledged. University of Durham Department of Archaeology 1997 1 2 MAY 1998 STATEMENT OF COPYRIGHT The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without her prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged \ ABSTRACT Marton, North Lincolnshire: A Romano-British Settlement in its Context Sally Ann Worrell Thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts University of Durham Department of Archaeology 1997 This thesis seeks to reconstruct and interpret the form and extent of the Romano- British settlement at Marton, North Lincolnshire. The site at Marton has previously been the subject of no formal programme of archaeological research. However it offers a rich potential for applying non-intrusive archaeological survey, and this study is based on the results obtained from a combination of different survey techniques. Although the site has received very little formal archaeological attention in the past, uncontrolled metal-detection has been intensive over recent years. The unrecorded leaching of material, coupled with the diverse range of artefacts known to have been retrieved in detection has been one of the principal catalysts behind the adoption of this survey. The data was collected both from previous aerial photographic surveys and metal detectorists with whom a working relationship had been established, and in geophysical survey and field walking undertaken by the author. Survey methodology and the results of the different components of the survey are presented in chapters 2 to 6. Initial interpretations of the features identified from the aerial photographic and geophysical survey are proposed and the main chronological and spatial trends in the distribution of pottery, coins and other small finds are summarised. Chapter 7 compares the results obtained from the different classes of evidence and refines the interpretations offered for the development of the site through time and space. Specific issues considered are the origins of the settlement, its internal organisation and extent and its relationship with nearby Littleborough. The final chapter compares Marton with other sites in the region and sites of a similar type in Roman Britain. A series of hypotheses are then proposed concerning the nature of the site and its function and evolution in its local landscape. Table of Contents Acknowledgements List of figures and tables Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Chapter 2 Air photographic and geophysical survey 9 Chapter 3 Field-walking and metal-detection methodology 34 Chapter 4 The Roman pottery and glass 48 Chapter 5 The Roman coins 82 Chapter 6 The Roman small finds 117 Chapter 7 Integration and interpretation 155 Chapter 8 Conclusion: Marton in its regional context 179 Appendix 1 205 Appendix 2 Pottery database 206 Appendix 3 Roman coin catalogue 236 Bibliography 246 Acknowledgements I would firstly like to thank those people that have assisted in the initial collection of this material. The metal-detection has been undertaken by 'Andy' Andrews and John Cheseldine. Their co-operation and interest in the project has been of paramount importance. Thanks also to Andy for assisting in part of the geophysical survey. The field-walkers in the 1995 season were Jay Berry, Jules Hutson and Carol-Anne King who also helped to wash the pottery in record time. Hugh, Vicky, Helen, Lisa, Nicky and Maria are remembered for their pot-washing skills with the 1993 material. David Millington, Dad and Penny assisted with parts of the geophysical survey (when they really didn't want to!). The brooches (Chapter 6, nos. 1-26) and the bracelet (no. 29) were drawn by Oliver Jessop and Hugh Willmott drew nos. 57-62 of Chapter 6 and the frontispiece was also photographed by him The photographs of the coins and the small finds are the work of Trevor Woods. Additional thanks are due to Yvonne Beadnell and Phil Clogg for technical assistance. All other illustrations are the work of the author. Numerous people have assisted in the identification of miscellaneous finds including John Casey, Simon James, Jenny Price, Jeremy Taylor and Steve Willis. Richard Brickstock helped identify many of the Roman coins. Jeremy Taylor commented upon an earlier version of Chapter 4. My supervisor, Martin Millett has commented on an earlier draft of this thesis and is thanked for his support and advice. John Pearce has provided much help and support throughout and has commented on subsequent drafts. The continued support of my family, financial and otherwise is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, compensation from Mr. R. Beighton's careless driving provided the initial funds to undertake this project. Figures Fig. 1.1 Location map showing Marton and other sites in North 3 Lincolnshire Fig. 1.2 Marton; location map of survey area indicating the fields 4 surveyed Fig. 1.3 Map of soils in survey area 5 Fig. 2.1 Map of survey area showing the distribution of cropmarks 14 Fig. 2.2 Map of survey area showing annotated plan of geophysical 15 survey Fig. 2.3 Aerial photograph of cropmarks of Roman fort in Field A 16 Marton; looking east. Fig. 2.4 Clip plot of magnetometer survey of Roman fort, Area 1, Field 17 A Fig. 2.5 Relief plot of magnetometer survey of Roman fort, Area 1, 17 Field A Fig. 2.6 Clip plot of magnetometer survey of rectilinear enclosures; 19 Area 2, Field A Fig. 2.7 Aerial photograph of enclosures at Littleborough; looking 20 north Fig. 2.8 Clip plot of magnetometer survey of ditched droveway; Area 21 3, Field A Fig. 2.9 Relief plot of magnetometer survey of ditched droveway; Area 21 3, Field A Fig. 2.10 Aerial photograph of cropmarks primarily in Field C, Marton; 22 looking south-east Fig. 2.11 Aerial photograph of cropmarks in Field C, Marton; looking 23 east Fig. 2.12 CUp plot of magnetometer survey of Area 4, Field C 24 Fig. 2.13 CUp plot of magnetometer survey of Area 5 and 6, Fields C 26 andD Fig. 2.14 ReUef plot of magnetometer survey of Area 5 and 6, Fields C 26 andD Fig. 2.15 Aerial photograph of survey area; looking west. Cropmarks 27 are visible in Fields D and F. Littleborough can be seen on the eastern bank of the river Trent Fig. 2.16 CUp plot of magnetometer survey of Area 7, Field H 30 Fig. 2.17 ReUef plot of magnetometer survey of Area 7, Field H 30 Fig. 2.18 Map of cropmarks in Field I 31 Fig. 3.1 Plan of field-walking of Field C in 1993 37 Fig. 3.2 Plan of field-walking of Field C in 1995 39 Fig. 4.1 1993 assemblage: proportions of fabric groups 52 Fig. 4.2 1995 assemblage: proportions of fabric groups 52 Fig. 4.3 Stamp of CapilUami of Lezoux 53 Fig. 4.4 Pottery kilns sites of the North East Midlands and South 57 Yorkshire Fig. 4.5 1993 survey: Proportions of Roman fabrics from 100% 64 collection units Fig. 4.6 Position of field boundaries in relation to distribution plots 66 Fig. 4.7 Distribution plot; average sherd number per 20m square 66 Fig. 4.8 Distribution plot; coarseware sherd numbers 67 Fig. 4.9 Distribution plot; coarseware sherd weight (g) 67 Fig. 4.10 Distribution plot; finewares sherd numbers 68 Fig. 4.11 Distribution plot; fineware sherd weight (g) 68 Fig. 4.12 Distribution plot; average sherd size of coarsewares 69 Fig. 4.13 Distribution plot; average sherd size of finewares 69 Fig. 4.14 Distribution plot; amphora sherd numbers 70 Fig. 4.15 Distribution plot; mortaria sherd numbers 70 Fig. 4.16 Distribution plot; samian ware sherd numbers 70 Fig. 4.17 Distribution plot; slag fragments 70 Fig. 4.18 Distribution plot; post-Roman pottery sherd numbers 72 Fig. 4.19 Distribution plot; brick/tile fragment numbers 73 Fig. 4.20 Distribution plot; brick/tile fragment weight (g) 73 Fig. 4.21 Distribution plot; Walker A, all Roman pottery 76 Fig. 4.22 Distribution plot; Walker B, all Roman pottery 76 Fig. 4.23 Distribution plot; Walker C, all Roman pottery 76 Fig. 4.24 Distribution plot; Walker D, all Roman pottery 76 Fig. 4.25 Distribution plot; Walker A, coarsewares 78 Fig. 4.26 Distribution plot; Walker D, coarsewares 78 Fig.