Oppida: A Settlement Phenomenon of the later Iron Ages of Britain and Temperate Europe: An Analysis of Colchester, Titelberg, and Canterbury Volume Two The Sites: Later Iron Age Occupation at Colchester, Titelberg and Canterbury Emma Louise Jackson Classical and Archaeological Studies School of European Culture and Language Thesis Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Kent March 2017 7: Colchester The modern town of Colchester, (often referred to as Camulodunum in literature pertaining to the site’s later Iron Age, and Iron Age/Roman transitional period, occupation), has a long and vibrant history, with secure but not continuous evidence for occupation dating back to the Bronze Age (Crummy 1995b, 131-133). Flints dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods have also been recovered through excavation (Brooks and Masefield 2006, 4; Brooks et al. 2007, 1); however, these are so limited in number that it is impossible to state definitively whether occupation was actually present at these times. Despite this early evidence for human activity it was not until the later Iron Age (Hawkes and Hull 1947, 5; Hawkes 1995, 4-6; Niblett 1985; 1-3) that Colchester truly became a flourishing centre of occupation. This is particularly true of the last c.50 years of the later Iron Age, (from c.15/10 BC1), when Colchester, (Figure 7.1), became one of Britain’s most significant settlements. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the archaeology associated with this period is both extensive and exciting; with, as N. Crummy rightly notes, ‘enormous research potential’ (2013, 38). Consequently, it was an ideal case study for the present thesis (see Chapter 1.2.3.1). This chapter is ultimately designed to provide a reassessment of Colchester, (see Chapter 7.3), using the methodology outlined in Chapter 6, that will be used not only to determine whether the current interpretations of the site, (see Chapter 7.2), are sound, but to provide an answer to the thesis’ overarching question: is the term ‘oppida’ still valid today? (see Chapter 11). As an oppidum Colchester is regularly cited as representing the centralisation of power during the later Iron Age whereby its leading individuals had economic and political pull over the site’s hinterland (see Chapter 7.2). Consequently, oppida such as Colchester are said to have conformed to core-periphery and central place theory models (Haselgrove 1976, 27-28; Haselgrove 1982, 85; Cunliffe 1988, 2-9; Pitts 2010, 32). In light of this, it was decided that a consideration of Colchester and its relationship to its hinterland would also be considered as part of the current thesis, (Chapter 8). This decision was made to ensure that the best possible understanding of Colchester, and its adherence to current thinking on both its occupation and oppida in general, was obtained; a process that had the added benefit of ensuring that as many avenues as possible were explored in answering the thesis’ primary research question. 1 This dating is based on the dates attributed to the Lexden Tumulus (Foster 1986) and the terminal date of Dressel 1b amphorae (Sealey 2009). 127 Figure 7.1: Plan from later Iron Age Colchester (after: After Radford 2013b, Fig. 4.8). Before we engage in a consideration of those elements of the present chapter outlined above however, it is pertinent that we first become better acquainted with the site’s archaeological record starting with its morphology and topographical setting. 7.1: Morphology and Topographic Setting 7.1.1: Colchester’s Landscape Setting The topographical setting of Colchester, located in modern north-eastern Essex (Figure 7.2), is one that would have been ideal for sustaining Iron Age life. According to Hawkes and Hull later Iron Age Colchester was ‘a natural peninsula of habitable land, sharply demarcated by river and forest.’ (1947, 8) To be more specific, the plateau upon which ancient Colchester was sited lies c.30m OD and displays evidence of well drained loamy soils and light woodlands (ibid, 2; Hawkes 1995, 3); key landscape features of Iron Age settlements. The loamy soils would have supported arable cultivation, the primary stimulus of Iron Age economy (see Chapter 4.1); while the light woodlands would have provided timbers for construction, fuel, and coverage suitable for the pannage of pigs (Cunliffe 2003, 15). Two rivers, (the Colne and Roman), can be said to have bound later Iron Age Colchester, and these too were of considerable import to the site and its habitants at this time. The Colne naturally bounds Colchester to the north and east, while in the south-easternmost extent of the settlement it joins the Roman River to form an estuary with tidal waters which flow into the North Sea (Hawkes 1995, 3) (see Figure 7.3). This system of waterways would have provided Colchester with water for sustenance and industrial processes; but in addition to this, it would have allowed the local population to move through the landscape and interact with their neighbours for both social and economic gain. Furthermore, the union of these rivers, to form a coastal estuary, granted the site access to the near Continent by way of the English Channel, thus expanding the site’s trading possibilities. Consequently, Colchester appears to have been situated within a landscape well suited to permanent habitation. 7.1.2: Morphology and Associated Archaeological Material Colchester’s morphology comprises a complex web of features spread across the ‘c.12 sq. mile [(19 square km)]’ (Hawkes and Hull 1947, 45) tract of land the site occupied (see Figure 7.1). These features can be said to represent five sub-sites within Colchester: Sheepen, Gosbecks, The Garrison, Lexden Tumulus, and Stanway Cemetery (see Figure 7.1); and a series of dykes that bound much of the site’s expanse (see Chapter 7.1.2.6). 129 Figure 7.2: Map of modern day Essex highlighting Colchester’s location (after: Gascoyne and Radford 2013, Fig.0.1; additions author’s own). During excavation many of the features associated with these sub-sites were found to contain material of later Iron Age date. Despite the relationship between some of these finds and their original contexts being poorly recorded, the data collected during excavation proved to be of considerable value to the thesis, not only because they were used to compile current thinking on the site (see Chapter 7.2), but because the author’s interpretations of Colchester (see Chapter 7.3), and the conclusions they reached as a result of these, were also founded in this material. It is therefore pertinent that we now briefly consider the archaeological records of each of Colchester’s component parts. 130 Sheepen Figure 7.3: Map of Ancient Colchester highlighting the rivers Colne and Roman (after: Hawkes 1995, Fig. 2.1; alterations and additions author’s own). 7.1.2.1: Sheepen Sheepen, or Sheepen Hill, covered a ‘quarter of a sq. mile [(0.4 square km)]’ (ibid, 45) of Colchester’s landscape. The site sat alongside a tributary of the river Colne, and had access to the Sheepen Ford the lowest tide-free crossing on the Colne. Furthermore, the Sheepen Springs provided the site with fresh water (ibid, 45) that could have been used to sustain its population; while the site’s standing water, as a collective entity, is believed to have given the site religious significance (Willis 2007, 121-122). During the 20th Century Sheepen was subject to two major archaeological investigations, one in the 1930s (Hawkes and Hull 1947), and the other the 1970s (Niblett 1985). Although these 131 investigations overlapped spatially their archaeology will be considered herein as separate entities. 7.1.2.1.1: 1930s Morphology Work conducted during the 1930s identified six zones of occupation/activity at Sheepen (see Figure 7.4); across which a range of features were identified, including in: Zone 1: The Sheepen dyke and the site’s north-western entrance; occupation sites, located within the bounds of the Sheepen dykes; pits; and wells (Hawkes and Hull 1947, 66-67), Zone 2: Occupation sites, located outside of the Sheepen dyke; and large ditches, filled with domestic/occupation/consumption debris (ibid, 75), Zone 3: Ditches and ramparts linked to boundary markers; and Sheepen’s western entrance marked out in post-holes (ibid, 87), Zone 4: A trackway; a number of substantial pits; and a potential former hut site (ibid, 103), Zone 5: Three stretches of the Sheepen dyke, including the south-west entrance to the site; occupation sites, within the bounds of the Sheepen dyke; pits; and sleeper-beam gullies for rectilinear timber buildings (ibid, 118-119), Zone 6: Occupation sites, with associated sleeper-beam gullies for rectilinear buildings; an occupation hollow; and a series of pits (ibid, 122-124). Finally with regards to Sheepen’s 1930’s morphology it is important to note that the excavation techniques and recording methods employed at this time were not of the same standard as those used today. The site was excavated by non-specialist workers whose appreciation for the value 132 of context, and what we now term stratigraphic principles in excavation, is likely to have been limited; with, potential, structures made of wood not systematically recognized and finds not grouped by layer/deposit. Consequently, the morphology recorded and presented by Hawkes and Hull (1947) may not be completely accurate, as the features may have been over excavated, not fully recorded, or completely unrecorded. Therefore, we must err on the side of caution and apply good judgment to the identifications of those features presented within Hawkes and Hull’s report, rather than taking them at face value. The same must also be said of the artefacts recovered at Sheepen during the 1930s.