CROSS—CHANNEL RELATIONS IN THE BRITISH LATER IRON AGE: with particular reference to the British archaeological evidence 3 Volumes Volume 3 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 6 JUN 190 APPENDICES Introduction The majority of the appendices attempt to present up to date and complete gazetteers of imported goods in later Iron Age Britain and provide the supporting material for the main text. The gazetteers are arranged by modern county boundaries (ie post 1974-75). The type of context, eg burial or settlement, is given and where it is a settlement, a simple categorisation is also given. Very few sites can confidently be called oppida and the use of the term is fraught with difficulties (Bradley 1984, 150-2; Champion 1987, 103), however, a number of sites stand out because of the comparatively large quantity of imports and perhaps more importantly because they may be suspected to have been seats of authority in the Iron Age. The evidence is most clear cut at Colchester and Silchester and more ambiguous for Braughing, Canterbury, Chichester, Leicester and the St Albans sites. The evidence from Bagendon is rather more difficult to interpret as it suffers from many of the same difficulties of interpretation and phasing as Camulodunum (cf Ch 4.2) and there are chronological problems as to how much pre-conquest occupation there was (Swan 1975, 59-61). However, it seems likely that at least some of the material was imported before AD 43, but even period IA contexts include Claudian Lyon ware (Greene 1979, 17, 42; Ch 6.2), Hengistbury Head is classified here as a Port of Trade. The evidence from most of these sites is summarised in Haselgrove 1987a. Most other sites are either clearly rural settlements or farms or - 669 - in some cases larger sites whose precise character is uncertain. Occasionally specialist sites such as the salt manufacturing 'Red Hills' of Essex have yielded imports and they have been classified simply as production sites. Where a series of sites appear to form a single complex as at Braughing, Canterbury, Colchester, Leicester and Poole Harbour or the Welwyn A and B burials, they have been assigned the same number and subdivided alphabetically. The Lexden cemetery finds use the group numbers as for the forthcoming Camulodunum II volume. Where possible quantified data is given, almost invariably and unsatisfactorily in one form only, however, but it was impossible to examine all the material retained in museums or other collections to provide a standardised data set within the scope of this study (cf Introduction). Stamps on amphorae and 'Arretine' are catalogued according to the standard works of Callender (1965) and Oxd and Comfort (1968) respectively. Pending the forthcoming publication of Timby's and Rigby's works on Gallo-Belgic stamps and the Leeds Index of Samian Stamps, comparanda to those stamps found in Iron Age Britain have not been included. For the stamps on Gallo-Belgic wares full details may be found in Timby 1982. As stated in the Introduction one major body of material is not documented here: Celtic coins. These have been fully documented by Haselgrove (1978; 1983; 1987a) and Scheers (1977a) and it would be superfluous to repeat that documentation here. However, for the sake of completeness of coverage of the material considered here those amphorae and bronze vessels not yet found in - 670 - Iron Age Britain but whose discovery is foreseeable are included in appendices. These two categories appear to be the likeliest to be found and potentially misidentified, other categories such as brooches are likely to be identified correctly if enough of the piece survives, otherwise they will be classified as unidentifiable. Finally two appendices are devoted to consideration of literary topics, 'the Belgae' and the question of whether Julius Caesar intended to invade Britain in 56 BC, as detailed treatment would be inappropriate within the main body of the text. APPENDIX 1 THE 'PROBLEM OF THE BEL IS A E ' It is necessary to discuss 'the problem of the Belgae' which, as Champion (1979, 415) has noted, has dominated explanations of the later Iron Age. A series of recent doctoral theses have regarded it as a problem still to be solved (Rodwell 1976a; Thompson 1982; Sealey 1981; Tyers 1981a; Timby 1982; Foster 1983). It will, somewhat reluctantly, be argued here that the only 'problem' is of the archaeologists' making. The essence of the 'problem' is that a settlement attested by Caesar cannot be recognised unequivocally in either the archaeological or historical records. Caesar records that 'the coastal areas [of Britain] are inhabited by invaders who crossed from Belgium for the sake of plunder and then, when the fighting was over, settled there and began to work the land; these people have almost all kept the names of the tribes from which they originated, (BG V, 12, trans Wiseman and Wiseman ). In an earlier passage Caesar records that the territory of Cassivellaunus was separated from the maritime tribes by a River called the Thames. As Champion, largely following Bushe-Fox (1926) has suggested (1979, 417), the simplest interpretation is - 672 - that Caesar's immigrants should be identified with the Belgae and the Atrebates of the Roman period much as Bushe-Fox argued. Cunliffe apparently unaware of Champion's or Bushe-Fox's arguments has recently argued a similar case (1984b, 19-20). In contrast with these economical suggestions, there is a tortuous series of arguments which have sought to place the settlements in south- eastern England as a whole (Ch 26) and it is these which have created 'the problem of Belgae'. The 'problem' lies in the assumption that the settlements were only in south-east England and in the difficulties encountered in trying to associate any archaeological material, let alone an 'archaeological culture' with this assumption (Champion 1979, 416-17; cf idem 1975; 1982). It is as well to remember that the identification of south-east England as the subject of Caesar's comments was originally prompted by archaeological finds (Evans 1890). Allen's reassessment of the date of the Gallo-Belgic coins in 1958 suggested that these were earlier than the Aylesford-type pottery previously thought to be contemporary with the coins, both dating from c 75 BC (Allen 1960). As Birchall's thesis demonstrated, most of the pottery probably dated after Caesar's comments, let alone as early as the coins. It was she who christened this 'the problem of the Belgae' (Birchall 1965). The datings of both coins and pottery were accepted by Hawkes who dispensed with the pottery as indicative of the settlements, and sought it in the earlier Gallo-Belgic coins (1968). Hawkes, following Hachmann (1962), pointed out that Caesar used Belgium in two senses. One was Gallia Belgica as a whole, the other implying a much more restricted area in western Gaul and it was from this restricted area that the settlements probably took place (Hawkes 1968, 8-9; Hachmann 1976, 119-29). Hawkes also noted that on these grounds - 673 - it was difficult to suggest that the Catuvellauni of Britain descended from the Catalauni of Gallia Belgica as they did not belong to the restricted Belgium In itself Hawkes' suggestion that the invaders might be represented by the coins is plausible but is incompatible with Caesar's comments that the settlement was south of the Thames. The real problems as perceived recently, involving complex arguments, have been created in attempting to reconcile the coins and the pottery. As these arguments are frequently so involved, successive proposals will be summarised and then discussed. The earliest proponent of reconciliation to Hawkes' argument was Avery in 1969 in a paper which remains substantially unpublished (Avery (1969]), other than in a short summary (Avery 1976, 142, n 103). Avery's arguments have, however, been published, if initially and accidentally without acknowledgement, by Harding (1974, 223-6; Antiquity 48, 1974, 292). The central point in this argument is that Cassivellaunus, who was elected war-lord of the British confederacy against Caesar in 54 BC, was a member of the Catuvellauni (although Caesar does not record the name of his tribe) and that, contrary to most previous arguments, the Catuvellauni were not descended from recent settlers out of Belgium in contrast to the settlers in the region described by Caesar. Avery's argument is based on in the suggestion that as Cassivellaunus was previously in a continual state of war with the other tribes (BG V, 11), these wars must have been against the recent settlers from Belgium According to Avery Cassivellaunus was elected as war-lord because of his knowledge of the areas south of the Thames gained during these putative wars in these areas. The principal argument for this suggestion is that the account of Cassivellaunus is placed before - 674- the description of the settlers 'out of Belgium' in Book V of De Bello Gallica, thus showing his indigenous origins in stark contrast to those of the maritime regions. Avery looked for archaeological evidence for this in Gallo-Belgic A and B coins (as did Hawkes) and in the choice of an indigenous prototype for British LA coins which were argued to be those of Cassivellaunus. Recognising that the Gallo-Belgic coins were found north of the thames, Avery suggested that those found south of the Thames arrived with invaders but those to the north arrived in the course of trade.