CROSS—CHANNEL RELATIONS IN THE BRITISH LATER IRON AGE: with particular reference to the British archaeological evidence 3 Volumes Volume 2 ANDREW PETER FITZPATRICK The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Durham Department of Archaeology 1989 r 6 JUN 1990 CHAPTER X ROMAN PERSONAL AND DOMESTIC ITEMS (PRINCIPALLY OF METAL) Introduction This chapter considers a small and rather miscellaneous collection or certain and possible imports. The items are all of metal with the sole exception of a marble bust and are considered in four sections: (1) Armour and Horse Trappings; (2) Domestic Furnishings; (3) Cutlery and (4) Toilet and Medical Articles. Following the assessment of Roman mirrors in Iron Age Britain there is an excursus on the possible influence of Roman art styles on British Iron Age art. Most of the certain and possible imports considered in this chapter are unique in Iron Age Britain and most come from Colchester, and from the Lexden Tumulus in particular. The significance of this concentration is considered in Chapter 21. 10.1 ARMOUR AND HORSE TRAPPINGS 10.1.1 ARMOUR The remains of what was presumably one suit of iron chain-mail were discovered in the Lexden Tumulus (Laver 1927, 247-8, P1 LIII; - 333 - Fig 3, LIV; Fig 2, LV; Foster 1986, 82-8, Fig 30, 31, 64). The mail had simple ovate hinges on it, although it should be noted that the pieces which Laver cites and illustrates as two hinges (op cit, P1 LIV; Fig 1), followed by Foster (1986, 86) are the front and back of one piece. Two silver studs were preserved attached to the mail and another three were also found (Foster 1986, 86-8, Fig 31, 60-4). The fragments of leather ?clothing, one of which had a buckle attached (ibid; 280, P1 LXI; Fig 3; Foster 1986, 139-42, Fig 40, P1 22) may, have been an undergarment for the mail. The evidence for British Iron Age mail is difficult to interpret and has been commented on with caution by both Piggott (1952, 11, 38-40, 50) and MacGregor (1962, 28) and, with slightly more enthusiasm, by Spratling (1981, 14-5 and n 21) and Stead (1985a, 50). Most of the evidence is of later Iron Age date. The pieces from Maiden Castle (Wheeler 1943, 284) cannot be shown to antedate the Roman conquest or the possible garrisoning of the site (Todd 1984) and the Carlingwark hoard is of Roman date. If, as MacGregor (1976, 89-90, no 189) and Spratling (1981, 15, n 23) have suggested, the Meyrick Helmet is to be associated with the Stanwick hoard, then the Roman unit inscription incised on the rear of the helmet would point almost certainly to a Roman date for the hoard and the mail in it. The pieces of mail from Caerleon, Chester, Colchester and Manchester cited by MacGregor (1962, 28, n 2) are all from the sites of Roman forts and are almost certainly Roman. Spratling (1981, 14-15, n 21) has drawn attention to the double bronze hooks attached to the breast or a mail suit for securing the shoulder straps from the Polden Hill hoard, Camerton and Southwark. Although they may be in 'British Style', once again none of them can be shown to antedate the Roman - 334 - conquest and they are a well known Roman type. The composition of the Polden Hill hoard, for which Brailsford (1975, 234) suggests a date 'about the middle of the first century AD' is very similar to those of the Santon, Seven Sister and Tal-y-lyn hoards all of which were deposited in the Roman period. Santon (Spratling 1975a) and Seven Sisters (Davies and Spratling 1976) both contained pieces of Roman military equipment and may be comparable to the Fremington Hagg (Webster 1971) and Doorwerth (Holland) (Holwerda 1931; Brouwer 1982) and Xanten (Jenkins 1985) finds of Roman military equipment. Although Allen (1958, 46) suggests that some British coins show mail, this interpretation is doubtful. The only finds from Britain not to have certain or probable Roman military associations are from the Middle Iron Age burial at Garton Station (I. M. Stead pers comm) and the later Iron Age ones at Baldock (Current Archaeol 86, 1983, 72), the Lexden Tumulus and possibly, the sanctuary at Hayling Island (Downey, King and Soffe 1979, 7). Of these finds Garton Station, followed by the Lexden Tumulus appear to be the earliest. Chain-mail is also comparatively rare in Europe. Writing in the first century BC Varro (De Lingua Latina V, 24, 16) called it a Celtic invention and although numerous earlier Scythian finds of armour are often cited as earlier than the first Celtic finds, they are universally (over 300 finds) of scale armour and not of mail. The earliest finds seem to be from Ciumeqti (Romania) and HJoriV Jatov (Czechoslovakia) and are probably of third century BC date. The Hiortspring find is often cited as third century but the dating evidence is slight (Waurick 1982, 112-16). The earliest western find could be the Garton Station one, perhaps followed by the Aubagnan (Landes) find from south-western France (Waurick 1979, 326), but the associated silver-gilt beaker - 335 - inscribed in Celto-Iberian script (Raddatz 1969) suggests that a date in the first century BC is possible. The Bern-Tiefenau find may be earlier first century BC (MUller 1986). The spectacular, but poorly published, burial from Bo 8 also in south-western France was associated with Campanian and Arretine fine wares suggesting that the burial was made between c 30-20 BC. The bulk of pre-Imperial finds of mail suit come from eastern Europe and six of the twenty known finds come from Romania (Waurick 1979; 1982). The latest eastern find is of first century BC date, from the Zempliri burial in Czechoslovakia (Budinsk9'-Kri6ka 1958, 63, 68). This evidence has been interpreted as pointing to the general adoption of chain-mail in the West as being later than that in eastern Europe, possibly inspired by Roman armour (cf Piggott 1952-53, 11). For example, Schaff (1974, 173) is cautious about accepting the mail on the Pergamon reliefs as necessarily Celtic rather than classical and there is plentiful figural evidence for the use of mail by Roman soldiers in the second and first centuries BC which has been assembled conveniently by Robinson (1975). Polybius writing in the second century BC records chain mail as being worn by wealthy Romans (VI, 23, 15) while numerous pieces of mail were excavated by Schulten at Numantia. However, there is no reason to doubt the ability of British smiths to produce chain-mail and the recent discovery of the Garton Station find suggests that production started in western Europe at about the same time as in eastern Europe. The gap between the Garton Station burial and the later, southern, ones may be due to the pattern of formal deposition. However, as Laver pointed out, the parallels for the chain with hinges from Lexden are to be found on Roman military sites (1927, 248, n 2), while if the - 336- leather is to be associated with the mail, the buckle is of a type often found on Roman military equipment (et MacGregor 1962, 27, no 115) although a similar style of buckle was found in the Snailwell burial which did not contain any chain mail (Lethbridge 1953). The silver gilt studs attached to the Lexden mail are not paralleled by the other British finds and this suggests that it is possible that the Lexden mail may be a Roman lorica hamata rather than an indigenous product. The only comparable piece of what may be lorica hamata beyond the Roman frontiers is the suit from the second century BC Numidian 'Royal Tomb' of Es SoumAa in Algeria (Waurick 1979). Finds of chain-mail, possibly •of Roman origin, from Free Germany may be of rather later date (Frey 1986, 77-8, Anm 131). 10.1.2 HORSE HARNESS / TRAPPINGS There are six bronze studs from the Lexden Tumulus (Laver 1928, 250, Fig 4, Fl LXI, Fig 1; Foster 1986, 65-7, Fig 23, 9-14) whose function is unknown. Laver originally suggested that they were phalerae and this is possible although they are not directly comparable to Roman examples from, for example Doorwerth (Holwerda 1931; Brouwer 1982), Fremington Hagg (Webster 1971) or Xanten (Jenkins 1985). They are unlikely to be terminals for furniture legs as Foster suggests, as the rounded knobs on the underside would be very poor attachments for wood. However, analysis of the bronze suggests that they may be of British rather than Roman manufacture but the possibility that they are imports remains open. 10.1.3 LEXDEN MEDALLION In publishing the medallion Laver suggested that the bust was cut from a denarius of Augustus and then mounted in a circular silver surround (Laver 1927, 251, Fl LXII, Fig 2). However, Foster has shown that the moulding continues beyond the edges, so the bust was cast as a medallion and not cut from a coin (Foster 1986, 90-2, P1 19-20). The bust is very similar to Augustan coins but rather than there being Just one possible date of c 17 BC, as Sealey (1985, 119-20) notes, the bust resembles coins issued in Italy c 32-29 BC and in Emerita c 25-23 BC as well as the 'uncertain Spanish mints 1-2' now dated c 20-17/16 BC (Sutherland 1984, 5-6, 25-6, 30-1, P1 1, 2a, 6, 8; 2, 37a, 75a; 3, 128; 5, 250a, especially nos 2a, 128 and 250a).