. chapter three . Ironwork Ian Scott INTRODUCTION Whereas the single list of categories adopted by Crummy worked for the Colchester finds, the system is not always The ironwork assemblage catalogued and discussed in this directly applicable to other assemblages. Crummy’s groups chapter was discovered in Trenches 2, 4, 5, 7, 9–13, 15, 18, seem to have been established empirically and intuitively, and 19.1 These areas were excavated during the rescue exca- rather than determined by fixed criteria. Thus the catego- vations at Zeugma in 2000.2 ries are appropriate to the Colchester assemblages, but not necessarily to others. For example, Crummy identified as separate categories the tools and equipment of certain METHODOLOGY trades — textile manufacturing equipment, agricultural tools, metalworking tools and equipment, bone working Recording tools — while the tools of other crafts were simply lumped together under tools as a catchall category. The functional The complete ironwork assemblage was studied, quanti- categories adopted for the Zeugma ironwork differ in de- fied, and recorded, and data were entered into a database. tail from Crummy’s, but they serve the same purpose. In Some objects were x-rayed to enhance study.3 Most mate- place of a single listing, a hierarchical system of three tiers rial was recorded in full, with measurements, descriptions, (table 1) has been adopted. This allows for tools to be put findspot, and museum record in the Gaziantep Museum.4 together under one heading, but also allows the tools of dif- Objects were identified and allocated to broad functional ferent trades to be distinguished. There is no merit in try- categories to aid later analysis (table 1). Miscellaneous frag- ing to create special categories to accommodate anomalies, ments and nails were not recorded in detail; only selected since this puts the system in danger of becoming ever more measurements were made and most of this material was complex and unwieldy, and, consequently, unworkable. For simply quantified. The quantification was by fragment example, arms and armor are readily identifiable as sepa- count, except where fragments could be identified to a sin- rate categories in the classification adopted here, but hunt- gle object or part of an object, in which case the object was ing equipment is not. Should a boar spear be classified as a counted. In other instances where a number of fragments weapon or a tool? Undoubtedly a boar spear is a weapon, were recorded but did not comprise a single object, all frag- but it is also a tool of the huntsman’s trade. ments were counted. Similarly, all fragments of nails were The category of function has been used to analyze the counted. The number of nails is therefore the maximum composition of the overall ironwork assemblage and for number represented by the fragments recovered. consideration of assemblages by trench and by individual room. Certain objects obviously fall into more than one Analysis and Report category. Chains, for example, can secure doors or chests (“security/chains” or “household/furnishings”), they can The assemblage as a whole has been analyzed in terms of function with carts and wagons (“transport”), and vessels function, stratigraphic position and/or deposit type, and and lamps can be suspended from them (“household/fur- spatial distribution. nishings” or “household/vessels”). In this analysis, all chain has been assigned to the functional category of security Functional Categories (IR371–381), with the exception of two swivels attached to It is the accepted norm to order finds catalogues by func- chain, which have been classified as harness fittings (IR84– tional or typological categories; for example, Waldbaum, 85). In addition, lengths of copper alloy chain attached to in her report on the metal finds from Sardis, organized the iron keys (IR315–316) have not been classified separately catalogue by major typological classifications.5 Also in 1983, from their keys. At first, one category dealt with building Crummy’s volume on the small finds from Colchester cata- and structural fittings (“structural”) and a second with logued all finds, regardless of material, according to func- household contents, but this did not accommodate pad- tion.6 This was something of a landmark in finds studies locks and keys. The latter are not part of a structure as such, within Romano-British archaeology. Crummy established but they can be used to secure door and window shutters. a set of functional categories, which has by default become They can also lock chests, in which case classification under established as a standard to be adopted for other Romano- furnishings is apt. In the end, locks and keys were grouped British finds reports.7 A similar approach to Crummy’s has together under “security” and door and window fittings been adopted for this ironwork report and catalogue. were put in a separate category. Small leaf hinges have been . 167 . scott . 168 Functional group Function Subfunction Comments Arms Weapon includes both military and hunting weapons Arms Armor – Tools Smithing – Tools Masonry – Tools Carpentry – Tools Agricultural agricultural and horticultural tools Tools Other other crafts, e.g., leatherworking, weaving, etc. Transport – includes both harness and cart and wagon fittings Personal Dress including shoes Portable Personal Jewelry personal ornament including hairpins, finger rings, etc. Personal Toilet including pharmaceutical implements Personal Writing styli, seal boxes, etc. Personal Other including recreational, games, etc. Household Utensil vessels, knives, and other domestic utensils Household Vessel – Household Furnishing furniture, chests, etc. Religion – objects associated with religious beliefs and practices Measure – objects employed in weighing and measuring Door Door door furniture and hinges Window Window window fittings and fixtures Security Security Lock – Security Key – Security Chain chains, swivels, and other similar items Structural – staples, dogs, etc. Structure Nails – nails, other than hobnails Query Query uncertain identification Miscellaneous Binding reinforcements for furniture and chests, comprising strips and sheet fragments with nail holes Miscellaneous Bar – Miscellaneous Rod – Miscellaneous Sheet – Miscellaneous Plate – Unknown Miscellaneous Strip – Miscellaneous Wire – Miscellaneous Ring – Miscellaneous Other – Industrial – slag, cinder, etc. Unknown – fragments that cannot be identified; includes heavily corroded objects and small fragmentary pieces Table 1. Functional groups and subcategories. ironwork . 169 Trench 2 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 18 19 Total Arms 13 – – 2 2 – 2 – – 1 17 – 37 Tools 19 – – 2 15 – 2 – – – 7 1 46 Transport 4 – – – 1 – – – – – – – 6 Personal 5 – 4 1 1 1 – 1 – 1 – – 13 Household 78 – – 4 31 – 7 1 2 1 9 – 133 Door 41 – 3 – 13 – 1 – – – 5 – 63 Window 27 – – – 2 – 1 – 2 – 43 – 75 Security 84 – – 1 55 – – – 2 1 9 – 152 Structural 104 – 6 11 25 3 9 3 1 – 23 – 185 Nails 2,356 5 28 177 601 6 70 69 73 14 430 4 3,833 Query 28 – 1 1 9 – 4 2 – 1 6 – 52 Miscellaneous 432 – 4 45 154 3 9 11 63 3 145 – 869 Industrial 10 – – 9 1 – – 3 – 6 4 1 34 Unknown 149 – 3 13 47 – 6 27 12 2 101 – 360 Total 3,350 5 49 266 957 13 111 117 155 30 799 6 5,858 Table 2. Summary quantification of ironwork assemblage by trench and function. Phase number Phase description and date 1 Hellenistic construction 2 late Hellenistic construction 3 late Augustan/Tiberian construction and destruction 4 Flavian occupation 5 early to mid-third-century construction 6 mid-third-century destruction and collapse 7 fourth-century occupation 8 fifth-century construction 9 sixth- to seventh-century construction and destruction 10 eighth- to ninth-century occupation Table 3. Key to phasing. assigned to the “household” category on the grounds that and gender. The identification of function is basic to our they would have been used on furniture, especially chests understanding of the finds and their use. Allison, whose and cupboards. Drop hinges, on the other hand, were used studies of domestic assemblages from selected houses at to pivot or hang doors and shutters, so these fall into the Pompeii are based solidly on the function and use of ar- category of door and window fittings. Anomalies persist. tifacts, has also called attention to problems of the iden- For example, some fittings identified as structural, such tification and categorization finds and has questioned the as split spike loops, actually have a number of functions. validity of some of the labeling of finds.8 Allison’s strictures As linked pairs they can be used to make crude hinges are valid, but the identification of artifacts is essential if (e.g., IR407–410). They can also serve as a means of attach- meaningful analysis of finds assemblages is to be under- ment for other fittings (e.g., the split spike loops attached taken. It is important that the limitations of any identifi- to the brazier suspension rods, IR103 and IR105), and they cation are honestly noted and treated accordingly by later can form the riders for smaller drop hinges. workers. For the Zeugma ironwork, functional categories Why use functional categories? Functional categories defined and employed during the recording process were are used here not only to standardize the ordering of the refined in analysis. Individual finds were reallocated to cat- catalogue, but also as an analytical tool. In order to analyze egories as initial identifications were confirmed or revised. finds assemblages instead of simply produce an illustrated catalogue, a first consideration is the function of objects, Stratigraphic Position and Deposit Type then the gender of their likely users, and finally the over- Stratigraphy is key for dating ironwork, much of which is all composition of finds assemblages in terms of function not closely datable typologically. Stratigraphy is also poten- scott . 170 tially important for understanding the composition of from selected houses at Pompeii.14 A similar approach has the ironwork assemblages from different phases of a site.