Sacred Image and Regional Identity in Late-Prehistoric Norfolk

A R T, FA I T H A N D P L A C E I N E A S T A N G L IA

— From Prehistory to the Present —

Practice and Belief: Manifestations of Witchcraft, Magic and Paganism 1

Art Faith Place prelims_Layout 1 03/10/2012 15:14 Page 1

Art, Faith and Place in East Anglia: Prehistory to the Present2


A R T, FA I T H A N D P L A C EI N E A S T A N G L IA— From Prehistory to the Present —

Edited by T. A. Heslop, Elizabeth Mellings and Margit Thøfner

THE BOYDELL PRESS



© Contributors 2012

All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislationno part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system,

published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,

without the prior permission of the copyright owner

First published 2012The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

ISBN 978 1 84383 744 2

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer LtdPO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK

and of Boydell & Brewer Inc.668 Mount Hope Ave, Rochester, NY 14620-2731, USA

website: www.boydellandbrewer.com

A catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library

The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for externalor third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content

on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate

Papers used by Boydell & Brewer Ltd are natural, recyclable productsmade from wood grown in sustainable forests

Designed and Typeset by Tina Ranft, WoodbridgePrinted and bound in Great Britain by

CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

Art, Faith and Place in East Anglia: Prehistory to the Present4


Acknowledgements viiList of illustrations ix

C HA P T E R 1Sandy Heslop and Margit Thøfner: ‘Introduction: On Faith, Objects and Locality’ 1

C HA P T E R 2Elisabeth de Bièvre, ‘But where is Norfolk?’ 19

C HA P T E R 3Daphne Nash Briggs, ‘Sacred Image and Regional Identity in Late-Prehistoric Norfolk’ 30

C HA P T E R 4Adrian Marsden, ‘Piety from the Ploughsoil: Religion in Roman Norfolk through Recent Metal-Detector Finds’ 50

C HA P T E R 5Tim Pestell, ‘Paganism in Early-Anglo-Saxon East Anglia’ 66

C HA P T E R 6Matthew Champion, ‘Devotion, Pestilence and Conflict: The Medieval Wall Paintings of St Mary the Virgin, Lakenheath’ 88

C HA P T E R 7Carole Hill, ‘Here Be Dragons: The Cult of St Margaret of Antioch and Strategies for Survival’ 105

C HA P T E R 8Elizabeth Rutledge, ‘The Medieval Jews of Norwich and their Legacy’ 117

C HA P T E R 9David King, ‘Late-Medieval Glass-Painting in Norfolk: Developments in Iconography and Craft c.1250–1540’ 130

C HA P T E R 1 0John Peake, ‘Graffiti and Devotion in Three Maritime Churches’ 148

C HA P T E R 1 1Nicola Whyte, ‘Norfolk Wayside Crosses: Biographies of Landscape and Place’ 163

C HA P T E R 1 2Chris King, ‘Landscapes of Faith and Politics in Early-Modern Norwich’ 179


C O N T E N T S


C HA P T E R 1 3Francesca Vanke, ‘Practice and Belief: Manifestations of Witchcraft, Magic and Paganism in East Anglia from the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day’ 194

C HA P T E R 1 4Stefan Muthesius, ‘Provinciality and the Victorians: Church Design in Nineteenth-Century East Anglia’ 209

C HA P T E R 1 5Catherine Hesketh-Harvey, ‘Maharajah Duleep Singh, Elveden and Sikh Pilgrimage’ 223

C HA P T E R 1 6Karl Bell, ‘Supernatural Folklore and the Popular Imagination: Re-reading Objectand Locality in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Norfolk’ 240

C HA P T E R 1 7Elizabeth A. Mellings, ‘Pro Patria Mori: Christian Rallies and War Memorials of Early-Twentieth-Century Norfolk’ 253

C HA P T E R 1 8Robert J. Wallis, ‘Pagans in Place, from Stonehenge to Seahenge: “Sacred” Archaeological Monuments and Artefacts in Britain’ 273

C HA P T E R 1 9Trevor Ashwin, ‘Art, Spirit and Ancient Places in Norfolk’ 287

C HA P T E R 2 0Elizabeth A. Mellings, ‘Sacred Sites and Blessed Objects: Art and Religion in Contemporary Norfolk’ 298

Bibliography 315Index 349

Art, Faith and Place in East Anglia: Prehistory to the Presentvi


F I G U R E SC HA P T E R 1 : I N T R O D U C T I O N

Fig. 1.1. Happisburgh church and cliffs. Photograph courtesy of © Andrew Stacey 2Fig. 1.2. Bronze Age Ceremonial Dirk, c.1500–1350 BC, copper alloy, 71 x 18.1 cm.

Oxborough, Norfolk (BM: P&EE 1994 10-3 1). Reproduced by permission of © The Trustees of the British Museum 3

Fig. 1.3. Hammerbeam roof (lead-covered oak) with carved angels in chestnut wood, church of St Peter and St Paul, Swaffham, c.1470. Photograph by Sandy Heslop. 10

Fig. 1.4. Artist unknown, Bedingfeld Chalice and Paten, 1518–19 (London), silver-gilt, enamel, chalice height: 15.2 cm; paten diameter: 13.1 cm (V&A: M.76&A-1947). Reproduced by permission of the © Victoria and Albert Museum 13

Fig. 1.5. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Eaton. Photograph by Liz Mellings, 2012. 17

C HA P T E R 2Fig. 2.1. Fish-tailed, copper alloy plaque, inscribed with ‘DEO HER’ (To the God

Hercules) on reverse, found at Roman Brancaster (Branodunum) (NWHCM: 1974.323.1: A). © Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery 24

Fig. 2.2. The Mildenhall Great Dish, silver, fourth century Roman, from Mildenhall, with a central image of the deity, Oceanus (BM: P&EE 1946 10-7 1). Reproduced by permission of © The Trustees of The British Museum 25

Fig. 2.3. Juliet Wimhurst, ‘Christ, the second person, embodies the motherhood of God’ (2010), ink on scraper-board, 38 x 27 cm. Courtesy of Juliet Wimhurst 27

C HA P T E R 3Fig. 3.1. Icenian lands and tribal emblems. Coin photographs courtesy of

© Chris Rudd 31Fig. 3.2. Fison Way monument phase I: second–first century BC–c.40s AD. Coin

photographs courtesy of © Chris Rudd; line drawings by Daphne Nash Briggs (site plan after Gregory, ‘Excavations in Thetford’ and Bradley, Ritual and Domestic Life, fig. 6.9) 33

Fig. 3.3. Fison Way monument phase II: 40s–50s AD. Coin photographs courtesy of © Chris Rudd; line drawings by Daphne Nash Briggs (site plan after Gregory, ‘Excavations in Thetford’ and Bradley, Ritual and Domestic Life, fig. 6.10) 34

Fig. 3.4. Fison Way monument phase III: 50s–c.61 AD. Site plan drawings by Daphne Nash Briggs (after Gregory, ‘Excavations in Thetford’ and Bradley, Ritual and Domestic Life, 2005, fig. 6.11). Coin photographs courtesy of © Chris Rudd 38


L I S T O F I L L U S T R AT I O N S


Fig. 3.5. The Norfolk God. Coin photographs courtesy of Chris Rudd: 50.42, 50.39, 78.37, 50.31, 82.33, 53.51. Thetford Treasure drawings after Johns and Potter, Thetford Treasure. Bronze buckle: D. Nash Briggs 40

C HA P T E R 4Fig. 4.1. Defixio from Caistor St Edmund (HER: 9819, NCM: 2005.600). © Norwich

Castle Museum 52Fig. 4.2. Lamella found at Billingford (NCM: 2005.297). Tomlin, ‘A Bilingual

Roman Charm’. © Norwich Castle Museum 53Fig. 4.3. Pan head mount from Elsing (NCM: L1993.7). © Norwich Castle Museum 55Fig. 4.4. Strap fitting recently found at Bracon Ash (HER: 29308). © Norfolk

Historic Environment Service 55Fig. 4.5. Drawing of a figurine discovered at Banham (HER: 32136). © Norfolk

Historic Environment Service 57Fig. 4.6. A strange figure from Acle (HER: 50193) perhaps represents another

native Celtic deity. © Norfolk Historic Environment Service 58Fig. 4.7. A copper alloy figurine of a goat from Walsingham (HER: 2024).

© Norwich Castle Museum 59Fig. 4.8. Drawing of cockerel (or hen) from Hockwold (HER: 52672). © Norfolk

Historic Environment Service 60Fig. 4.9. A miniature silver sword from Bracon Ash (HER: 29308, NCM: 2009.250).

© Norwich Castle Museum 62Fig. 4.10. Intaglio in nicolo glass set into the fragmentary remains of a bronze ring

found at Wacton (HER: 42714). © Norfolk Historic Environment Service 63

C HA P T E R 5Fig. 5.1. The distribution of English place-names with possible pagan Anglo-Saxon

elements. Map by Tim Pestell, after Gelling, Signposts to the Past 70Fig. 5.2. Cremation urn fragment R9/10 from Caistor St Edmund, inscribed with a

ship and wolf motif (Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery). © Norwich Castle Museum 77

Fig. 5.3. The distribution of bracteate finds in East Anglia. Map by Tim Pestell 79Fig. 5.4. The distribution of objects with horn-headed figures (grey dots) and

figurines (black dots). Map by Tim Pestell 80Fig. 5.5. Examples of horn-helmeted figures from East Anglia: (a) Pendant from

Attleborough (top) and mounts from Saxlingham Nethergate (left) and Reepham (right) (Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery). © Norwich Castle Museum; (b) Helmet plate from Sutton Hoo Mound One. After Bruce-Mitford, The Sutton-Hoo Ship Burial Vol. 2); (c) Patrix die converted to a pendant fromHethel. Courtesy of Mr S. Clarkson 82

Fig. 5.6. Possible Anglo-Saxon figurines from Suffolk: (a) Carlton Colville (BM: P&E 2001, 0902.1). Reproduced by permission of © The Trustees of The British Museum; (b) Friston (PAS: SF-01ACA7). Reproduced by permission of the © Portable Antiquities Scheme; (c) Unknown, possibly Halesworth area; (d) Eyke. Courtesy of Mr B. Hammond 85

Art, Faith and Place in East Anglia: Prehistory to the Presentx


C HA P T E R 6Fig. 6.1. Tentative reconstruction of the first scheme on the north arcade, c.1220–30.

The angels sit upon high with their hands raised in stylised debate. © Matthew Champion, 2009 93

Fig. 6.2. Reconstruction of the second scheme on the central pier of the north arcade, c.1250–60. © S. Cale, 2009 95

Fig. 6.3. Suggested reconstruction of the Passion Cycle on the central pier of the north arcade, c.1350. © Matthew Champion, 2009 97

Fig. 6.4. Detail of the image of St Edmund, c.1350. © Perry Lithgow Partnership, 2009 98

Fig. 6.5. Pickering, Harrowing of Hell. © Roger Rosewell 99

C HA P T E R 7Fig. 7.1. Panel of regal St Margaret from an altar retable, 1420–30, St Michael-at-Plea,

currently stored in Norwich Cathedral vestry. Photograph courtesy of Fi Hitchcock 108

Fig. 7.2. Late-medieval pew-end carving of St Margaret in St Helen’s church, Great Hospital, Norwich, showing initials of John Hecker (commissioner), hospital master (1519–32). Photograph by Margit Thøfner 110

Fig. 7.3. Crowned St Margaret with the Holy Kin, south screen/retable by the Lady altar at St Helen’s church, Ranworth. Photograph and copyright: Paul Hurst ARPS 111

Fig. 7.4. Large wall painting of St George, north-west wall of St Gregory’s parish church, Norwich. Photograph by Carole Hill 113

C HA P T E R 8Fig. 8.1. Map of Norfolk and Suffolk, showing the position of the known Jewish

communities. Original drawing courtesy of © Phillip Judge 118Fig. 8.2. Caricature of prominent Norwich Jews from the Exchequer Roll, 1232–3.

Reproduced by permission of © The National Archives 125Fig. 8.3. The Bodleian Bowl. Reproduced by permission of the © Ashmolean

Museum, University of Oxford 126Fig. 8.4. A photograph of the interior of the Music House (Wensum Lodge) in King

Street. Photograph by Margit Thøfner 127Fig. 8.5. Late-medieval Norwich. Original drawing courtesy of © Phillip Judge 128

C HA P T E R 9Fig. 9.1. Figure playing a vielle, late thirteenth century. Parish church of All Saints,

Carleton Rode. Photograph courtesy of Gordon Plumb 132Fig. 9.2. Angel playing psaltery, c.1325–c.1335. Parish church of St Mary the

Virgin, North Elmham. Photograph courtesy of Mike Dixon 133Fig. 9.3. The sacrament of Penance, c.1450. Parish church of St Mary, North

Tuddenham. Photograph courtesy of Mike Dixon 135Fig. 9.4. St George and the Dragon, c.1420–c.1430. Parish church of St Mary,

North Tuddenham, originally from the parish church of St Peter, Wiggenhall St Peter. Photograph courtesy of Mike Dixon 136

Fig. 9.5. St Callixtus, c.1420–c.1440. Parish church of St Mary Magdalen, Wiggenhall St Mary Magdalen. Photograph courtesy of Mike Dixon 138

List of Illustrations xi


Fig. 9.6. St Remigius and the Prioress of Flixton, 1288–c.1300. Parish church of St Remigius. Photograph by David King 141

Fig. 9.7. Coronation of the Virgin, c.1340–c.1360. Parish church of St Peter, Great Walsingham. Photograph courtesy of Mike Dixon 143

Fig. 9.8. God the Father from the Coronation of the Virgin, and St Faith, c.1515–c.1525. Parish church of St Clement, Outwell. Photograph by David King 146

C HA P T E R 1 0Fig. 10. 1. Wiveton church: ship graffito on chancel arch. Photograph by John

Peake 151Fig. 10.2. Blakeney church: merchant mark at base of tower. Photograph by John

Peake 153Fig. 10.3. Blakeney church: base of pier at eastern end of the southern arcade of

piers, nearest the chancel. Photograph by John Peake 155Fig. 10.4. Blakeney church: ship graffito drawn on the flat surface of the pier and

extending onto the domed area above. Photograph by John Peake 156Fig. 10.5. Blakeney church: two faces of the pier illustrated in fig. 10.3 showing

ship symbol left and a simple ship right. Photograph by John Peake 157

C HA P T E R 1 1Fig. 11.1. Seventeenth-century estate map of Langley, depicting a cross located on

the green adjacent to the site of Langley Abbey (NRO: NRS 21407). Reproduced by permission of the © Norfolk Record Office 166

Fig. 11.2. The site of Maidens Cross, Marham, revealed in field-name evidence c.1734 (NRO: HARE 6814). Reproduced by permission of the © Norfolk Record Office 167

Fig. 11.3. ‘Fringe Crosse’, depicted on a map of Sedgeford, 1631 (NRO: LEST/OC 1). Reproduced by permission of the © Norfolk Record Office 172

Fig. 11.4. Map of Methwold Warren, c.1580, showing Wormald Cross and the ‘Two Crosses’ (NRO: MC556/2). Reproduced by permission of the © Norfolk Record Office 173

Fig. 11.5. ‘Weeting Crosses’, 1774 (NRO: C/Sca 2/318). Reproduced by permission of the © Norfolk Record Office 173

Fig. 11.6. ‘Coldham Cross’, Holkham in c.1590 (NRO: MS4535). Reproduced by permission of the © Norfolk Record Office 177

C HA P T E R 1 2Fig. 12.1. Early modern religious and civic spaces in St Andrew’s parish. Drawing

by Debbie Miles Williams (after Ordnance Survey) 182Fig. 12.2. Interior of Blackfriars Hall, Norwich, formerly the chancel of the

Dominican Friary and the Dutch Church. Photograph by Chris King 184Fig. 12.3. Silver-gilt beaker made by William Cobbold of Norwich (c.1570–95).

© Norwich Castle Museum 185Fig. 12.4. Drawing of the south side of the cathedral choir, c.1630. © Norwich

Castle Museum 187Fig. 12.5. The Old Meeting House (Independent), Colegate, Norwich, 1693.

Photograph by Margit Thøfner 191Fig. 12.6. The Quaker Meeting House, Gildencroft, Norwich (built in 1699).

Photograph courtesy of © George A. F. Plunkett 193

Art, Faith and Place in East Anglia: Prehistory to the Presentxii


C HA P T E R 1 3Fig. 13.1. Frontispiece to Matthew Hopkins, The Discovery of Witches (R. Royston,

London, 1647) (BL: Gen Ref colln, E.388.2.). Reproduced by permission of the © British Library Board 196

Fig. 13.2. Frontispiece to James Primrose, Popular Errours: or the Errours of the Peoplein Matter of Physic ([Robert Witty], London, 1651) (BM: BPI1700 website, no. bpi2282). Reproduced by permission of © The Trustees of the British Museum 199

Fig. 13.3. The anti-witchcraft amulet of Christopher Hill – From County Court Session Papers of Christopher Hill’s trial, 1654 (NRO: C/S 3, Box 41A). Reproduced by permission of © Norfolk Record Office 200

Fig. 13.4. Cow’s Horn inscribed ‘Baal’ in Theban script, nineteenth–twentieth century, provenance unknown. Courtesy of Michael Clarke, Norfolk 204

Fig. 13.5. Monica English, The Night Rider, oil on canvas, c.1963, reproduced from pamphlet advertising exhibition in St Martin’s Gallery, London, 1963 (NMAS archives). © Norwich Castle Museum 205

Fig. 13.6. Anon., The God and Goddess, watercolour on paper, 2011, Norfolk. Private Collection, Norfolk 208

C HA P T E R 1 4Fig. 14.1. Transept, St John’s Roman Catholic cathedral, Norwich. Photograph

courtesy of © Simon Knott 211Fig. 14.2. St Mary’s church, Braiseworth, Suffolk (des. Edward Buckton Lamb,

1857). Photograph courtesy of © Simon Knott 216Fig. 14.3. St Margaret’s church, Hopton on Sea, Norfolk (des. Samuel Saunders

Teulon, 1866). Photograph courtesy of © Simon Knott 217Fig. 14.4. Methodist chapel, Holt, Norfolk (des. Thomas Jekyll, 1862–3).

Photograph courtesy of Margit Thøfner 218Fig. 14.5. St Mary’s Roman Catholic church, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk (des.

Joseph John Scoles, 1848), (CC) stargazer 219Fig. 14.6. St Benet’s church, Beccles, Suffolk (des. F. E. Banham, 1889).

Photograph and copyright Eric Johnstone 220

C HA P T E R 1 5Fig. 15.1. Guler, Guru Gobind Singh on Horseback, c.1830, gouache on paper,

32.6 x 23.5 cm. Courtesy of the collection of Gursharan and Elvira Sidhu (reproduced in Strong, Sikh Art and Literature, p. 36). Original from the University of California 224

Fig. 15.2. The Maharajah with close sporting shooting companions, 1876, cabinet card photograph, 17.4 x 24.8 cm, Peter Bance colln. J. W. Clarke, Bury St Edmunds. Peter Bance © www.duleepsingh.com 229

Fig. 15.3. Elveden Hall, Suffolk, c.1877, albumen print, 22 x 28 cm. Courtesy of © Norfolk County Council 232

Fig. 15.4. The Drawing Room, Elveden, Suffolk, c.1877, albumen print, 22.3 x 27.5 cm (Peter Bance colln). Courtesy of Peter Bance© www.duleepsingh.com 233

Fig. 15.5. Pugin’s Gothic Furniture, no. 58, plate 23, vol. 10; Ackermann’s Repository of Arts (R. Ackermann, 96 Strand, [London: 1811–28]) (Glasgow Library: Sp Coll Hepburn q3). Reproduced by permission of University of Glasgow Library, Special Collections 235

List of Illustrations xiii


C HA P T E R 1 6Fig. 16.1. Hex bottle, seventeenth century, bottle: 21.2 x 11 cm; cloth heart:

5.5 x 4.5 cm (NWHCM: 1932.19: A). © Norwich Castle Museum 245Fig. 16.2. Tomb and effigy of Sir William Gerbygge, which holds a stone heart in

its hand (c.1280). Photograph courtesy of © John Salmon 248Fig. 16.3. Canon Richard Capper and Rev. Darleen Plattin take prayers around

St Walstan’s Well. Photograph courtesy of © David Goodman 249Fig. 16.4. Heart-shaped ‘witch’s symbol’, Tuesday Market Place, King’s Lynn.

Photograph courtesy of Martin Pearman, Geograph Project (CC) 250

C HA P T E R 1 7Fig. 17.1. St Michael and the Dragon Roll of Honour for the Great War, Church of

St Andrew, East Lexham, Norfolk. Photograph courtesy of © Simon Knott 257Fig. 17.2. Early-twentieth-century triptych, now in All Saints Church, East

Tuddenham, Norfolk. Photograph by Margit Thøfner 258Fig. 17.3. ‘Mons’, panel from First World War memorial window, by William

Morris & Co., 1922, Church of St Peter and St Paul, Swaffham, Norfolk. Photograph courtesy of © Simon Knott 261

Fig. 17.4. Artist unknown, Scout and Guide Altarpiece, c.1900–30 (GRSRM: 1983.126.4). © Norwich Castle Museum 264

Fig. 17.5. Tito Corbella, ‘Kultur’ and Nurse Cavell commemorating Cavell’s execution in October 1915, 1 of postcard series of 6, 1915/16 (George Metcalf archival colln, CWM: 19710240-010). Reproduced by permission of the © Canadian War Museum 266

C HA P T E R 1 8Fig. 18.1. Buster Nolan, a Druid protestor, and Bill Boismeyer, project manager of

the controversial excavations, engage in a heated confrontation at ‘Seahenge’. Photograph courtesy of © Archant media group/Eastern Daily Press 278

Fig. 18.2. Some of the ‘Seahenge’ timbers on permanent display at Lynn Museum (since April 2008). © Lynn Museum 280

Fig. 18.3. Mound 2 of the Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, the only mound restored to around its original height. Photograph by Robert Wallis 282

Fig. 18.4. The Sutton Hoo belt buckle, gold, early seventh century CE, from Mound 1. Reproduced by permission of © The Trustees of The British Museum 282

Fig. 18.5. A reproduction of a Thor’s hammer pendant. Photograph by Robert Wallis 283

C HA P T E R 1 9Fig. 19.1. Trevor Ashwin, ‘TG 221 043: Caistor St Edmund, prehistoric barrow

ditch – Shall we travel down the scars – or seek out the cracks and threads?’(digitised photograph, 5 March 1990). Photograph by © Trevor Ashwin 289

Fig. 19.2. Trevor Ashwin, ‘TG 075 432: Salthouse Heath – The cold, dry pinewoods resound’ (digital photograph, 27 November 2005). Photograph by © Trevor Ashwin 294

Fig. 19.3. Trevor Ashwin, ‘TF 8103 2533: West Rudham, Neolithic long barrow – Tonight the waves fall silent’ (digital photograph, 2 June 2007). Photograph by © Trevor Ashwin 294

Art, Faith and Place in East Anglia: Prehistory to the Presentxiv


Fig. 19.4. Trevor Ashwin, ‘TG 071 416: Salthouse, Neolithic causewayed enclosure –Things still happen here today’. Based upon photograph by Derek A. Edwards (28 June 1996, ref TG0741/ADBJ/JFQ10) © Norfolk County Council 296

C HA P T E R 2 0Fig. 20.1. Martin Mitchell, St Benet’s Abbey, 2004. Mezzotint, 12 x 18 cm, edition 15.

Courtesy of © Martin Mitchell 301Fig. 20.2. Sarah Ollerenshaw, Cross, 2008, triptych, casein on prepared canvas with

gold leaf (Wymondham Abbey residency). Photograph courtesy of © Sarah Ollerenshaw 303

Fig. 20.3. Rachael Long, Flight, 2007, recycled steel (Wymondham residency), shown in artist’s studio (artist’s colln). Photograph by Liz Mellings, 2009 304

Fig. 20.4. Rebecca Kemp, Wing, 2002, steel gate, welded sheet steel, painted. In situ (accompanied by the artist!), St Elizabeth Reformed Church, Earlham, Norwich. Photograph courtesy of © Martin Kentish 305

Fig. 20.5. Aloka, abstract painting (detail), 2009. Photograph by Liz Mellings, 2009Fig. 20.6. Nicky Loutit, Fallen Angel, c.1986, watercolour on paper, 122 x 152.4 cm.

Photograph courtesy of © Nicky Loutit 311

L I S T O F P L AT E Sbetween pages 208 and 209

Plate I. Artist unknown, ‘Risen Christ, or Man of Sorrows’ (detail), Binham rood screen panel, 1540–53, oil on panel 106.5 x 45.8 cm. Priory Church of St Mary & the Holy Cross, Binham, Norfolk. Photograph courtesy of © Simon Knott

Plate II. King’s Lynn coat of arms, painted wooden plaque, St Margaret’s church, King’sLynn. Photograph and copyright: John Salmon

Plate III. Runic-inscribed gold bracteate with a possible depiction of Tîw, from Binham,Norfolk (Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery). © Norwich Castle Museum

Plate IV. Central pier from the North Arcade, St Mary the Virgin, Lakenheath. This pieracts as the focus for most of the paint schemes within the church. © Perry LithgowPartnership, 2009

Plate V. Painted rood screen at St Andrew’s church, Wellingham. Photograph andcopyright Paul Hurst ARPS

Plate VI. Annunciation, originally from east window of Lady Chapel, c.1461–7. Parishchurch of East Harling. Photograph courtesy of Mike Dixon

Plate VII. The Sacrifice of Isaac, c.1510–c.1520. Parish church of St Andrew, Norwich.Photograph courtesy of Mike Dixon

Plate VIII. Old Mother Fyson’s Charm, eighteenth century (NWHCM: 1947.133 : S).© Norwich Castle Museum

Plate IX. Adam Bear, The Horned One/Wild Man, oil on panel, 2007, Norfolk. Courtesy ofAdam Bear, Norfolk

Plate X. St Michael and All Angels’ church, Booton, Norfolk. Photograph by MargitThøfner

List of Illustrations xv


Plate XI. George Beechey, Maharajah Duleep Singh, 1852, oil on canvas, 91.5 x 74cm(THEHM: loan 1 (MDS). © Ancient House Museum, Thetford

Plate XII. Lower left-hand panel from early-twentieth-century reredos, St Lawrencechurch. Photograph courtesy of © Sue White

Plate XIII. Lower right-hand panel from early-twentieth-century reredos, St Lawrencechurch. Photograph courtesy of © Sue White

Plate XIV. Holme I, dubbed ‘Seahenge’, Holme-next-the-Sea, Norfolk. Photograph courtesyof © Archant media group/Eastern Daily Press

Plate XV. Trevor Ashwin, ‘TG 060 277: Guestwick, site of prehistoric barrow – Realitycheck’ (13 August 2006). Photograph by © Trevor Ashwin

Plate XVI. Colin Yorke, The Outcasts, 2009, carved wood, dim. var. In-situ in farmer’s fieldbeyond St Nicholas church wall, Salthouse. Photograph by Liz Mellings, 2009

Plate XVII. Aloka, Bliss in the City, 2005, Thangka triptych, in situ, Shrine Room, NorwichBuddhist Centre. Photograph courtesy of © Lokabandhu

Art, Faith and Place in East Anglia: Prehistory to the Presentxvi


I N T R O D U C T I O N

This paper will describe some of the ways in which the pre-Roman people ofNorfolk in the first centuries BC and AD, known to history as Iceni, seem to haveused selected symbols, sacred images and one particular ceremonial monument toexpress a distinctive and enduring public identity. This had roots in their deeperprehistory but also seems to have made explicit symbolic use of the naturalconfiguration of their land. The same might safely be said of many other Europeanpeoples at this time. However, detailed investigation of clusters of disparate evidencein a specific regional context can highlight features that seem to have been uniqueto one particular people’s self-image and values. Some such aspects of Icenianceremonial life will be considered here.

Icenian territory readily divides into three main sub-regions (fig. 3.1). In thewest, all the rivers run into the Wash and the North Sea. The north-facing sub-regionhad extensive wetlands and there was an important focus of Iron-Age activity aroundSnettisham and Fring, where the Icknield Way and a precursor of Peddars Waypassed through to the coast near Hunstanton and Holme-next-the-Sea. This part ofNorfolk had a highly distinctive cultural identity in later prehistory.1 Episodically,from the Bronze Age onwards, this sub-region was also a focus for important votivedeposits, including gold torcs and related precious metalwork in the late second tofirst century BC, and coins, jewellery and silverware at the end of the Roman period.The western region was probably also the source of Norfolk’s first gold coins in themid-first century BC. The most important of these set their authors apart from alltheir contemporaries by replacing a conventional horse on the reverse with a wolfin pursuit of the moon and the sun, sometimes with images of wetland birds workedinto the upper design: an avocet, a bittern and a lapwing associate this Icenian wolfwith the Fens (fig. 3.1). Birds, especially water birds, figure insistently in the artworkof western Norfolk in the Iron Age and Roman periods.2

S A N D Y H E S L O P and M A R G I T T H Ø F N E R30

— C HA P T E R 3 —

S A C R E D I M A G E A N D R E G I O N A LI D E N T I T Y I N L AT E - P R E H I S T O R I CN O R F O L K

D A P H N E N A S H B R I G G S

1 John A. Davies, The Land of Boudica: Prehistoric and Roman Norfolk (Heritage Press, Oxford,2009), pp. 103–6; Natasha C. G. Hutcheson, Later Iron Age Norfolk: Metalwork, Landscape andSociety (BAR British series 361, Oxford, 2004), pp. 90–1. 2 Rainer Kretz, ‘On the Track of the Norfolk Wolf ’, Chris Rudd List, vol. 48 (1999), pp. 3–9; DaphneNash Briggs, ‘Reading the Images on Iron-Age Coins: 3. Some Cosmic Wolves’, Chris Rudd List,vol. 110 (March 2010), pp. 2–4.

Art Faith Place txt&index_Layout 1 03/10/2012 15:30 Page 30

Across Norfolk’s central watershed, the eastern region faced the opposite way,with rivers draining into the Great Estuary. Here, there was a strong cluster ofNeolithic funerary monuments to the north of the Bure, whilst the upper Yare Valleyand the area around Caistor St Edmund also had important ceremonial enclosures.Arminghall Henge is one of the earliest monuments of its kind in Britain and alsoone of the most dramatic: from the henge itself, in c.3200 BC, the midwinter settingsun could be watched rolling like a golden wheel down the side of a nearby hill.3 Thepredictable behaviour of the sun, moon and stars was an inexhaustible and intuitivelyaccessible source of myth and metaphor, regardless of formal religious doctrine, andstructured many aspects of custom, belief and ceremonial behaviour. This is reflectedin the layout of prehistoric public monuments, domestic dwellings and even the

Sacred Image and Regional Identity in Late-Prehistoric Norfolk 31

3 Davies, Boudica, p. 61.

Fig. 3.1. Icenian lands and tribal emblems.


design of coins.4 There was a focus of settlement and élite activity around CaistorSt Edmund in the late pre-Roman period and, with its ready access to the Thamesestuary, this was an obvious location for the Roman civitas capital, Venta Icenorum.

The central Icenian sub-region, the northern boundary of which is notaltogether clear, occupied space between the other two and straddled the IcknieldWay as it entered Icenian territory. This position probably accounts for its increasingimportance in the century immediately preceding the Roman conquest. TheIcknield Way was the most important pre-Roman land route, connecting Wessexwith East Anglia and the North Sea. Consequently, there was a lot of élite activityin the period c.AD 0–60, both in the Saham Toney to Ashill area and aroundThetford, probably connected with consolidation of the Icenian tribal federation.

This threefold territorial division is more than just a present-day attempt toimpose order on imperfectly perceived realities. It seems to have meant somethingto the Iceni themselves. Thus, long stretches of pre-Roman linear earthworks stilldelimit parts of the three internal regions outlined above. These are perhaps morethan simply relics of effortful attempts to control stock-raiding and chariot-borneconflict amongst rival clans. They could very well represent ceremonially definedand positively maintained boundaries for lands to which clan-based groups, withhistories and identities of their own, variously laid ancestral claim. Peopleseverywhere rehearse and periodically update their self-defining stories, and onevery common format in European national legends is that an original mythicalcouple or founding pair had three descendants or successors, after whom theconstituent parts of a given people were named.5

We can plausibly conjecture that the Iceni had some such unifying myth thatlent simplistic but satisfying ritual shape to an unquestionably much morecomplicated social and ethnic reality. Thus we may see an Icenian founding pairsymbolised in the back-to-back crescents that seem to have served as a tribalemblem on several of their coinages and that mirror the back-to-back, life-givingriver systems of Norfolk itself (fig. 3.1). Likewise, although sets and patterns of threeare ubiquitous in ancient European religious thought, iconography and evendecorative habits, we may see the institutional shape of the Icenian confederacyexplicitly symbolised by certain recurrent threefold patterns, especially tribrachsand triplet dots. These appear with exceptional insistence on their coinage, oftenin conjunction with other symbols that plausibly represent specific sub-regions,clans or coin-issuing authorities (fig. 3.1). Indeed, later Icenian coinages exhibit

D A P H N E N A S H B R I G G S32

4 See Francis Pryor, Britain BC: Life in Britain and Ireland before the Romans (Harper Perennial,London, 2003), p. 329; Richard Bradley, Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe (Routledge,London, 2005), pp. 175–6; Andrew P. Fitzpatrick, ‘Night and Day: The Symbolism of Astral Signson Later-Iron-Age Anthropomorphic Short Swords’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, vol. 62(1996), pp. 373–98; Daphne Nash Briggs, ‘Reading the Images on Iron-Age Coins: 1. The Sun-Boatand its Passengers’, Chris Rudd List, vol. 104 (March 2009), pp. 2–4; Daphne Nash Briggs, ‘Readingthe Images on Iron-Age Coins: 2. Horses of the Day and Night’, Chris Rudd List, vol. 106 (July 2009),pp. 2–4.5 Exemplified in the Roman founding pair, Romulus and Remus, and the three early tribes (or‘thirdings’), Ramnes, Tities and Luceres; or Germanic Tuisto (Twin) and the three tribes,Ingaevones, Herminones and Istvaeones (Tacitus, Germania, 2.2). Druids were skilled in measuringland and adjudicating territorial disputes (Caius Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 6.13.5; 6.14.6).


complex threefold symmetries in other aspects of production as well.6 By the endof the first century BC, the Iceni had formed what seems to have been a cohesivetribal federation. In this, clan-based constituent parts and regional assembliesremained essentially autonomous. Yet they achieved integration around a sharedceremonial life that was probably played out on the landscape itself, with recurrentactivities in different locations.

A S A C R A L H E A D O F S TAT E

Some of these themes are exemplified on what are probably the last Icenian silvercoins (fig. 3.3). These depict a uniquely realistic male head that is modelled onvarious recent Roman coin portraits, the latest of which may be that of Gaius


6 John Talbot, ‘The Iceni Early Face/Horse Series’, in Celtic Coinage: New Discoveries, NewDiscussion, ed. Philip de Jersey (BAR International Series 1532, Oxford, 2006), pp. 213–41. Forrelevant discussions of Icenian coinage, see also Amanda Chadburn, ‘Aspects of the Iron-AgeCoinages of Northern East Anglia with Especial Reference to Hoards’ (PhD thesis, University ofNottingham, 2006); Chris Rudd, ‘Did Cunobelin Control the Iceni?’, Chris Rudd List, vol. 102(November 2008), pp. 2–6; Daphne Nash Briggs, ‘The Language of Inscriptions on Icenian Coinage’,in The Iron Age in Northern East Anglia: New Work in the Land of the Iceni, ed. John A. Davies(BAR British Series 549, Oxford, 2011), pp. 83–102.

Fig. 3.2. Fison Way monument phase I: second–first century BC–c.40s AD.


(AD 37–41) or possibly Claudius (AD 41–54). Its reverse shows a formulaic Icenianmare with three subsidiary symbols, one of which is a tribal crescent. It may not allhave been struck at one time or even in one place, but its Latin legend makes explicitwhat its types also show: that Esico made (it) under Esuprastus (SVB ESVPRASTO/ ESICO FECIT). Both names are built on Esus (‘the Lord’), a conventional title forthe most powerful and dangerous god worshipped by Gaulish and British rulingélites. He also had other names and was routinely equated with Mercury by theRomans.7 Esuprastus is probably an honorific title that might translate as Priest ofEsus or High Priest, akin to the titles ‘Augustus’ and ‘Pontifex Maximus’ on Julio-Claudian Roman coins. In support of the inscription, Esuprastus’ portrait faces thesame sun-shield that is shown with the tribal god in an earlier Icenian silver series.His head is under, or crowned by, a device that unites three symbols: an Iceniantriplet in front, a crescent or miniature torc behind and a ring with pellet in thecentre. This suggests a badge of office.


7 On British and Gaulish religion, see James MacKillop, Dictionary of Celtic Mythology (OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, 1998); Miranda J. Green, The Gods of the Celts (Sutton Publishing, Stroud,1986); Anne Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain (Cardinal, London, 1974); Miranda J. Green, Exploring theWorld of the Druids (Thames & Hudson, London, 1997); Anne Ross, Druids (Tempus, Stroud,1999); Martin Henig, Religion in Roman Britain (Batsford, London, 1995). See Ross, Druids, p. 163,for the reluctance to record gods’ true names.

Fig. 3.3. Fison Way monument phase II: 40s–50s AD.


Taken together, these inscriptions affirm that coins issued by Esico had to beauthorised by Esuprastus, in what looks like the role of a confederate ruler-priest.They also display the virtuosic competence in Roman-style die-cutting that isreasonably expected in work undertaken for an allied ruler, who had personally spentsome time in Rome.8 We do not know exactly when the Iceni first became officialforeign friends of the Roman People, but it cannot have been later than the ADthirties. When surrounding parts of Britain became a Roman province underClaudius, in AD 43 to 47, the Iceni were left free. They probably owed this exceptionaland privileged position, on the frontier of earliest Roman Britain, to a combinationof factors. These must have included the self-sufficient prosperity, relative internalstability and political effectiveness of what was probably a ceremonially integratedregional confederacy. We know, from historical sources, that their treaty endured untilthe death of their last king, Prasutagus, in AD 60 or 61, after a long and prosperousreign.9 Further, Prasutagus could be the same individual as Esuprastus under another,secular title of office, meaning Governor and Chief Magistrate.10

A F R O N T I E R S H R I N E I N T H E T F O R D

Thetford was an important place because it commanded the entry of the IcknieldWay into Icenian territory. Close by, where this major route crosses the Rivers LittleOuse and Thet, one of Norfolk’s very few Iron Age hill forts, Thetford Castle, standsover a bend in the river, easily visible from a distance and itself affording wide viewsin all directions. In common with other large prehistoric enclosures in Norfolk, itseems never to have been permanently occupied. It was not a settled hill fort, of thesort that a Wessex traveller might have left behind. Instead, it must have served asa place in which people could gather for periodic events such as festivals and fairs,the administration of justice or conduct of the local military levy.

Just north of Thetford, the Icknield Way passed close by Gallows Hill on FisonWay, where there was a remarkable ceremonial complex in the late pre-Romanperiod (fig. 3.2). This area had seen some funerary use during the Bronze Age, whenit was still wooded. Many centuries later, a number of ancient barrows would stillhave been upstanding as landmarks on the windswept, sandy heath. We cannot tellprecisely what significance these were accorded but we may surmise that they wereconsidered sacred and perhaps connected with figures from a legendary past. Oneparticular round barrow seems to have been a focal point in the initial phase of animpressive Iron Age complex.

The archaeology of the Fison Way site is peculiarly difficult to interpret but hasbeen carefully studied and the outlines of its history are tolerably clear.11 Its sentinel


8 John Creighton, Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2000), pp. 90–2; see also David Braund, Rome and the Friendly King: The Character ofthe Client Kingship (Croom Helm, London, 1984); Martin Henig, The Heirs of King Verica: Cultureand Politics in Roman Britain (Tempus, Stroud, 2002), pp. 22–34.9 Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annals, 14.31.10 Nash Briggs, ‘Language’, legends 9–10.11 See Tony Gregory, Excavations in Thetford, 1980–1982, Fison Way, East Anglian Archaeology,vol. 53, pt 1 (Dereham, 1991); Bradley, Ritual, pp. 184–7; Davies, Boudica, pp. 130–2.


position on the Icknield Way, near the tribal boundary, must be connected with itspurpose: anyone travelling into or out of this part of Icenian territory would havehad to pass it by.12 It was certainly in use for the entire period during which theIcenian confederacy took shape and when the Iceni were striking coins. In all thistime, it was neither an ordinary farm nor a palace, although various élite activitiestook place at different times within the complex and there must have been farmingnearby. Its original central feature, possibly dating back to the second century BCor earlier, was probably of funerary significance, being a horseshoe-shaped, open-ended, ditched enclosure with one central, grave-like hollow and another, moreprobable grave to its side (fig. 3.2).13 This was aligned, at the north, with a burialmound within a large rectangular enclosure, in whose ditches pottery fragments,loom weights and brooches were found. At the south, there was a metalworkingarea in which bronze was made. Some weaving was also done there and it containeda grain storage pit and some evidence of domestic activity, presumably connectedwith the keepers of the site. There were also two peripheral clusters of pits andseemingly non-structural post-holes that could have been emplacements forceremonial paraphernalia. Later configurations of the site shed retrospective lighton the possible significance of this, including the apparently structured combinationof funerary (cult) activities, metallurgy and women’s crafts.

Around the time of the Claudian invasion in AD 43, a very large, meticulouslyplanned monument was built over the existing complex, burying its central featureat the front of a new enclosure (fig. 3.3). A pair of trenches, ten metres apart withan intermediate fence, defined an almost perfectly square precinct with an imposingtimber entrance to the east, which probably had an overhead lintel but no gate.Two-thirds of the way across the precinct stood an enormous, towered or two-storeyroundhouse with a porched entrance facing east. This resembled a standard Britishdwelling-house but shows no sign of normal domestic use, despite some apparentlydomestic debris located in a pair of enigmatic gullies, close to where the hub of theformer setup had been. Outside the precinct, to the north and west, was a newfunerary complex surrounding a mid-sized enclosure, whose ditch containedbronze and silver metallurgical debris. To the south, a large, sub-rectangularcompound featured an artificial hollow that may be evidence of a sometimes heatedshallow pond, perhaps containing two upstanding posts. Its exact purpose remainsunknown.14

Most of the timber for this elaborate monument must have come from somedistance and its construction also represents the work of many people in a veryshort time. Nothing we know about the Iceni suggests that any one person couldsimply have commandeered labour or materials on such a grand scale. Instead, theproject must represent a collective enterprise, albeit one built to very exactingspecifications and doubtless coordinated by someone in authority. It may berelevant that metallurgical debris from an enclosure ditch within the funerary zone


12 For other shrines on tribal boundaries, see Green, Druids, p. 65. For a remarkably parallel Gaulishexample, see Bernard Clémençon and Pierre M. Ganne, ‘Toutatis chez les Arvernes’, Gallia, vol. 66,no. 2 (2009), pp. 153–69. 13 Bradley, Ritual, p. 185.14 Ibid., p. 186.


included 109 fragments of standard clay moulds, in which small silver pellets hadbeen cast. Unless these represent some sort of post-eventum deposition, it is naturalto infer that someone was making coinage here around the time of the Claudianconquest. Although proof is lacking, Esico, under Esuprastus, would be the obviousknown candidate.

This must, in fact, have been a collective monument of at least sub-regionalsignificance. The funerary complex outside the precinct, with its élite metalworkingarea, is an especially striking feature of the site. It is most unusual to find burialsanywhere in Iron Age Norfolk. Here, though, a number of graves cluster in batchesand are also rather numerous for the ten or fifteen years during which this versionof the shrine was upstanding. They often seem oddly empty and could even havebeen cenotaphs. They were also grouped in several different ways, enclosed andunenclosed, reflecting diverse practices. It is tempting to see them as a symbolicgathering of the significant dead of a number of different clans, with differentfunerary conventions. Did this expensive project also reflect an upgrade in theIcenian treaty with Rome, partly funded with a diplomatic gift, some of which wasturned into Icenian coins? We do know that Claudius gave large cash grants to theforemost Britons15 and that all the Julio-Claudians would do this to encourage theirforeign friends to adopt pro-Roman attitudes and activities.

Close to the Icenian border, several early Roman forts and the major civiliansettlement at Camulodunum (Colchester) were easy to reach. At any of these placesthe Iceni could have sold timber, hides, horses, salt, grain and slaves in exchangeprimarily for silver. The Romans, meanwhile, profited by taxing the trade withoutthe expense of administering a populace who lacked centralised state institutions.This mutually convenient arrangement faltered only once in the lifetime of thisphase of the Thetford monument when, in AD 47, the provincial governor ill-advisedly included the Iceni in a province-wide requirement to hand in arms. Theensuing insurrection seems to have been focused in the western sub-region and,despite the expense and military losses sustained in a punitive invasion of alliedterritory, the Romans left the Iceni to continue self-governance.

Sometime after this, probably early in Nero’s reign (AD 54–68), the new FisonWay site was almost completely rebuilt, once again perhaps with a Roman subsidy.It was usual for fresh grants to be made when treaties were renewed after one orother party had died and been replaced, and Nero’s mentor Seneca is also said eitherto have loaned the Britons a lot of money or actually to have foisted it on them.16

This rebuilding was a massive architectural project, undertaken just when thetemple to the Deified Claudius was under construction at Camulodunum. Bothwere monuments to a sovereign people’s significant dead, and successive alterationsto the Icenian frontier shrine do look very much like orchestrated acts of self-defining, politico-religious theatre.

This time, the trench of the old inner precinct was filled in and the outer onewas extended to create the inner ditch of a vast new rectangular enclosure (fig. 3.4).The existing round building was also altered to make a western opening with a


15 Cassius Dio, Roman History, 62. 2.16 Cassius Dio, Roman History, 62.2.1. This is not an easy passage to understand but would makesense if they had been obliged to accept loans expressly to fund new civic activities.


sturdy porch under the eaves, opposite the old east entrance. On either side, newbuildings were erected to make a near-identical set of three, except that the newones probably lacked an upper storey. In front of each new building there was alsonow a compound, whose significance will be considered below. Surrounding all ofthis, a newly created outer trench enclosed a colossal 32,000 square metres ofground, burying the whole of the old south annexe and most of the funerary areaunder an extraordinary set of parallel furrows. These were planted with orderlyrows of hundreds of posts the size of telephone poles, possibly still bearing some oftheir branches. This was, in effect, a regimented array of dead or symbolicallywinter-dormant trees – oak and possibly ash – and has very reasonably beeninterpreted as an artificial sacred grove. As such, it would have been an apt venuefor a people’s guardian spirit, somewhat like Drunemetum, a ‘Tree-, True-, or Oak-grove’ and the meeting-place for the council of the Galatians, another cohesive,three-part, tribal union.17

However, there is little evidence for activity anywhere on the Thetford site tomatch its size and apparent importance. On the open heath, it would have been aconspicuous landmark; close to, it may have been a silent, eerie place but for thesound of the wind in the tree-poles. A visitor would have crossed the enclosureearthworks and ‘grove’ by a long broad avenue, lined with closely set posts. At the


17 Strabo, Geography, 12.5.1; Green, Gods, p. 21; Druids, pp. 108–9; on its contested etymology, seeXavier Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise: Une approche lingistique du vieux-celtiquecontinental (Errance, Paris, 2003), pp. 148–9.

Fig. 3.4. Fison Way monument phase III: 50s–c.61 AD.


end of this, a new timber entranceway would have given onto the great clearingwith its five circular structures in the distance. Numerous shallow features withinand between the south and central buildings look exactly like post-holes but seemnot to have been designed for anything load-bearing or structural. If this was, infact, the shrine that it appears to have been, most of these can reasonably beinterpreted as emplacements for wooden images and other large items associatedwith the cult, such as a calendar, freestanding ‘trees’ to hang offerings on, or themilitary standards of tribal sub-units.18

One remarkable feature of this new site is its insistent threefold symmetry. Thenumber three can express many meanings – indeed, a tendency to shift betweenbinary opposites and three interactive dimensions may be an innate unconsciousfunction of the human mind that comes into play when conceptualising two- andthree-dimensional space, and finds widespread expression in the creative arts andin many religious beliefs and practices. The extraordinary insistence on three19

found on the Thetford site included three round buildings in place of one and threetimes three ranks of tree-posts in the grove, at either side of the entrance.20 Theouter precinct enclosed almost exactly three times the area of its predecessor, whilstthe space enclosed between the ditches was two-thirds of the whole. The roundbuildings themselves seem to proclaim, ‘three are equal but one stands above theothers’, where ‘three’ may reflect the ceremonial structure of a confederate people‘under’ a sacral chief; the same message that the Esico/Esuprastus coinagerepresented. It may be no accident that this would resemble the current self-imageof the Romans themselves for, since 27 BC, Augustus and his successors weresupposedly no more than first among equals in a state officially governed by thesenate, the people and their elected magistrates. The Romans would naturally havesupported similar institutions in an allied British people.

T H E I C E N I A N P E O P L E ’ S G O D A N D H I S C O N S O R T

Little remains on the Fison Way site itself to identify its presiding spirit, or even toindicate whether a single deity, a pair (one downstairs, one up), three aspects orfunctions of a singleton, or even a full triad were worshipped there: a case could bemade for any of these possibilities. Here, an appeal will be made to images onIcenian coinage that suggest the character of the tribal cult and also illuminate somefeatures of the Thetford shrine. I assume that, with the exception of the portrait onthe Esuprastus coinage, figurative images depict what would then have been plainlyrecognised themes from local myth and legend, as was generally the case on coinselsewhere. We also have corroborative evidence that highly specific tribal cults did


18 All these things can be paralleled: Green, Gods, p. 21; Druids, p. 108 (wooden idols and fearsomesilence in groves); Fitzpatrick, ‘Night and Day’, pp. 385–9 (calendars); Polybius, Histories, 2.32.6for Insubrian gold standards, called ‘immovable’, kept in a temple of ‘Athena’ in Cisalpine Gaul in223 BC. A helmeted ‘Athena’ finds a parallel on Icenian coinage (fig. 3.2), probably to personifythe Icenian polity itself: See Daphne Nash Briggs, ‘Reading the Images on Iron-Age Coins: 5.Picturing Statehood’, Chris Rudd List, vol. 119 (September 2011), pp. 4–6.19 It could indeed have been a sophisticated metaphysical exercise of the sort that druids excelledin: see Green, Gods, pp. 208–16.20 Elsewhere, it had seven or eight such rows, but a ninth was squeezed in at the front.


exist elsewhere in Britain.21 Relevant Icenian images for the current discussion aremale and female heads, a boar, a wolf and a horse.

By far the most obvious attribute of the Icenian male deity is vegetation,primarily grain but also sometimes an ash leaf (fig. 3.5). There is grain around himand in his hair; he may have a wheaten crown or a barley beard. He appears inseveral different guises that probably reflect cult images or the paraphernalia ofsacred drama: he sometimes clearly wears a mask, even a skull- or death-mask thatmight link him with clan ancestors at the Thetford site.22 He may have a longmoustache and frequently has a distinctive narrow beard that variously resemblesripe barley, an inverted boar-crest and the whiskers of a horse or goat. Visual playon simultaneous meanings is commonly seen in the design of Iron Age coins.23 The


21 Green, Druids, pp. 26–7.22 Daphne Nash Briggs, ‘Reading the Images on Iron-Age Coins: 4. One Eye’, Chris Rudd List, vol.112 (July 2010), pp. 3–5.23 Brigitte Fischer, ‘L’iconographie des monnaies gauloises: Apports et perspectives’, in Coinage inthe Iron Age: Essays in Honour of Simone Scheers, eds Johan van Heesch and Inge Heeren (Spink,London, 2009), pp. 99–106; for the same virtuosity in word-play see, for example, Green, Gods,pp. 222–3, Druids, pp. 48–9. On the composition of coin types, see Creighton, Coins and Power,pp. 40–54.

Fig. 3.5. The Norfolk God.


god is also identified with a wild boar and often wears a boar-skin headdress (fig.3.5), modelled on the goatskin worn by Juno Sospita (the Saviour or Deliverer) ona Roman denarius of 64 BC.24 When a boar stands in place of either an abstracttribal emblem or a divine head, on the obverse of these coins, it is safe to infer thatall three were of equivalent significance and that the boar may therefore representthe tribal god himself. Like him, its body sprouts grain and its bristles, resemblingthe crest of the god’s boar-skin headdress, may glow with beads of light or withmeadow flowers. European guardian spirits of fields and pastures could all be savagein defence of their property. I am reminded of a cautionary notice seen at a Frenchzoo: cet animal est méchant: il se défend. Roman Mars was of this type and, in bothCeltic and Germanic culture, the image of a wild boar was powerfully protective.The Icenian corn-god was a boar or a wolf in battle and he must have been invoked,according to context, by such titles as Wolf, Boar, Barleycorn, Masked, Moustachedand Bearded.25

All these obverse images were paired with a horse on the reverse of Iceniancoins, probably representing the land itself in the guise of a mare: the Icenian horseis not a stallion. Horses are the commonest of all reverse images on Iron Age coinageand could symbolise many things. Only contextual detail identifies a given horsewith a particular cult or a specific meaning. Like the grain-god and the boar, theIcenian mare often sheds corn from her mane (fig. 3.4). She may have barleycornson her shoulder or a leaf for a tail. She was probably pictured as mated with thegrain-god on the opposite face of the coins and their seasonally celebrated unionwould have guaranteed the fertility of land, livestock and people. Hence, an ear ofcorn sometimes sprouts from or stands under her belly, or vegetal motifs issue fromher mouth.

This iconography sheds valuable light on the cult at the Thetford shrine. Nearthe western porch of the towered building there seems to have been a store of semi-cleaned barley, wild fruit and fresh hay. It is unlikely that this was simply for theuse of visitors to the site, in view of the lack of any other sign of routine domesticactivity. It could, however, represent a votive store, annually renewed, of significantfruits of the most recent harvest, lodged, in autumn, under the western eaves toawait the sun’s return in spring. Hibernation would account for the puzzlingpresence, in the charred remains of what must have been a fire in the haystack onewinter, of frogs at rather a distance from the nearest standing water and of anunusually large number of lizards. The symbolism of storing seed grain, meadowhay and fruits of the earth in the sunset end of the oldest building, itself at the westend of a clearing in a grove of permanently leafless trees, should probably also beconnected with the funerary aspects of this site, throughout its Iron Age history,and its repeated alterations and enlargements. In different ways, these can all be


24 There is an additional link here with the cult of Faunus, discussed below, via the goatskin thatwas used in the Lupercalia festivities: see James G. Frazer, Ovid: Fasti, 2nd edn (Loeb ClassicalLibrary, Harvard, Cambridge, MA and London, 1989), Appendix, pp. 385–442.25 On the boar, see Green, Gods, pp. 179–81, and Tacitus, Germania, 45. 2. The exact Norsecounterpart of this Icenian deity was Freyr, whose magical boar had radiant bristles: Rudolf Simek,Dictionary of Northern Mythology (D. S. Brewer, Cambridge, 1993), sub voce ‘Gullinborsti’.Miniature bronze moustaches are found in Norfolk: Davies, Boudica, p. 120. Boudica likened theRomans to hares and foxes trying to rule dogs and wolves: Cassius Dio, Roman History, 62.5.6.


understood as dramatised reflections of a hoped-for renewal of all things after thedead of winter and after death itself.26 Hence, the building also had a surface-builthearth, midway along the path and centrally placed within the building, whichseems not to have been used for cooking. Its alternative purpose is unknown butmust have provided warmth and light. It might even have supported a perpetualflame, although positive proof of this is lacking.

A N I C E N I A N G UA R D I A N G O D D E S S

Also relevant to the tribal cult are richly embellished images of a female deity onsome of the earliest Icenian silver coins (fig. 3.2). A double-headed serpent or eelassociates her with ancient-European cosmological myths about the sun-maiden’sperilous journey through the night, with deep waters and with realms of the dead:one of its heads has a raven’s beak.27 But she is also connected, rather explicitly, withsome powerful foreign friends of the Icenian people in the mid to late first centuryBC. Models for her images include a Belgic coin from Picardy and the helmetedhead of Dea Roma on Roman Republican denarii (fig. 3.2, top right). She may besurrounded by symbols that include tribal and sub-regional signifiers, such as apair of crescents on either side of her diadem and five-point stars. She also has apotent gaze. In this aspect, she is a possibly unwed female associate of the tribalgod. She can be likened to Athena, the helmeted warrior protectress of Athens,whose gorgon-eyed aegis would turn enemies to stone but who also, like RomanMinerva, was source and guardian of women’s work and of diverse crafts.28 Anindigenous goddess of this sort is well attested in Gaul and Britain, and her inclusionin the cult at Thetford might account for the weaving sometimes apparently doneon the site.29 This may indeed be the same deity that Boudica invoked ‘as womanto woman’ to avenge Roman crimes against herself, her daughters and her people.30

Boudica may well have been her chief priest and representative in the ceremoniallife of the Iceni.

This powerful goddess must also have had places of her own, and a ritual site


26 On life after death, see Green, Druids, p. 51. Two views are well attested: a druidic doctrine thatthe soul passed after death into another body and a belief that the dead went on ‘living’ in anotherworld.27 On the relevant solar myth, see Nash Briggs, ‘Sun-Boat’, pp. 2–4; Kristian Kristiansen and ThomasB. Larsson, The Rise of Bronze-Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 2005), pp. 305–8. The other head may be ram-headed, in which caseboth may associate her with the antlered aspect of the Esus deity: see Ross, Druids, pp. 148–9;Green, Gods, pp. 192–9.28 Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 6.17.12. 29 See Henig, Religion, pp. 22, 43, 93; Green, Gods, pp. 154–7. Weaving and poetic sacredcomposition had been intimately connected since the Bronze Age: Martin West, Indo-EuropeanPoetry and Myth (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007), pp. 36–8, as were poetic compositionand metal-smithing in the post-Roman period: Andy Orchard, Cassell’s Dictionary of Norse Mythand Legend (Cassell, London, 1997), p. 276, sub voce ‘Odin’.30 She is named Andraste in an oratorical passage by the second-century Greek historian, CassiusDio (Roman History, 62.6.2), which could be pure invention. His account is, however,circumstantially coherent and, if this is an authentic Brittonic name, its root may either signify‘other-worldly’ or ‘young woman’: Delamarre, Dictionnaire, p. 47; Paul Kavanagh, personalcommunication.


at Ashill, near Saham Toney – also in the central sub-region – may be relevant toher. In the 1870s, a square enclosure, of the forties to sixties AD, was found tocontain several wells. One of these, lined with oak, received carefully structuredofferings that started with a haunch of venison and continued with eleven sets ofwater-jars in carefully ordered patterns, each sandwiched between layers of sticksand twigs. These included hazel branches with nuts at different stages ofdevelopment. Sequential deposits had clearly been made at intervals of a few weeks,between late spring and autumn, in a single year. If Fison Way was a ‘winter’ shrine,Ashill may have been a ‘summer’ one. Hazel was variously associated with magic,sacrifice and divination in different European cultures. Drawing water was usuallywomen’s work, and several sorts of divination were generally practised by women.31

Boudica, who was of royal descent and a war leader in her own right, performeddivination on behalf of her army, in AD 61, by releasing a hare from a fold in hergarments and observing where it ran. In so doing she dramatised, amongst otherthings, her bodily identification with the fields that her ‘wolves’ had assembled todefend. A further discovery actually links the Ashill enclosure, if not that particularwell, with Icenian public life at this time. When Boudica’s forces sackedCamulodunum, they burnt down the temple of the Deified Claudius, together withthe veterans who had sheltered there. Roman sculptures that they also destroyedmust have included a life-size, equestrian bronze statue of either Claudius or Nero.Its severed head was found in the River Alde in Suffolk, on border territory, whereit might have been consigned either by Iceni or by disaffected Trinovantes, whohad joined the insurrection. A hock, also probably from the same horse, wasdiscovered in the corner of the Ashill enclosure. Other dismembered pieces,deposited elsewhere, may yet come to light.32

A N O R A C U L A R S H R I N E AT T H E T F O R D ?

For his part, the Icenian people’s guardian god almost certainly had specialisedoracular functions, repeatedly represented on coins. His mouth utters or breathesa variety of symbols, including what seem to be bindings, tendrils and a flower. Inone striking set of images, from the later first century BC, his large eye is variouslyrepresented as absent, closed or sutured shut, whilst in place of his lipless mouththere is an open eye (fig. 3.2). He is also often portrayed with an exaggerated ear(a feature he shares with Esuprastus). This suggests a god who hears and seeseverything but either lost an eye or visited the dead in sleep, or in a trance, toobtain secret knowledge.33 This, again, might help in interpreting some puzzlingfeatures of the Thetford monument. There were many ways to consult the gods.Augury from the flight of birds and divination from the behaviour of animals wereuniversal ancient practices. Any of these could have been performed at the Fison


31 See, for example, Green, Druids, pp. 73, 81, 97–105; Ross, Druids, pp. 110–11, 153; MacKillop,Dictionary, p. 332. On seeresses, see Hilda R. Ellis Davidson, Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe:Early Scandinavian and Celtic Religions (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, 1988), pp. 159–62. 32 Davies, Boudica, p. 9; Annabel K. Lawson, ‘A Fragment of Life-Size Bronze Equine Statuary fromAshill, Norfolk’, Britannia, vol. 17 (1986), pp. 333–9.33 Nash Briggs, ‘One Eye’.


Way shrine without leaving a specific trace. The same could be said of casting lots.Divination from the blood or entrails of sacrificial victims was also universallyperformed but can probably be ruled out at Fison Way. There is no evidence forthe butchery and feasting normally associated with blood sacrifice or for the votivedeposits of metalwork and coinage associated with sacrificial activities at manyother British shrines.

There is another possibility. Many specialised oracles in the ancient world wereconsulted by performing preliminary acts and then sleeping outside to receive amessage in a dream, trance or stupor.34 Such practices might help to explain thepair of open-ended, unroofed compounds that fronted the north and southbuildings, in the final version of the Thetford precinct. The south one, in particular,bears a striking formal resemblance to the central feature in the original Iron Agecomplex on the site, within the lifetime of which the ‘blind eye’ coinage was issued.Both enclosures had an odd, empty, grave-like scoop at their centres that could wellbe the remnants of sleeping hollows for divinatory trance, in which a seeker couldhave lain, perhaps enveloped in freshly flayed sheepskin,35 to await occultenlightenment. In the final-phase enclosure, the pair of non-structural post-holes,on either side of the hollow, could have been emplacements for wooden images oradditional symbolic trees. There also seems to have been a grave close by thewestern entrance. Could the Fison Way shrine always have been a place where aseeker could sleep or enter a trance, perhaps expressly amongst the dead, to consultthe tribal god? If so, this was a potentially dangerous form of élite divination thatwould never have been undertaken lightly. It would account for the lack of anyevidence for ‘popular’ use of the site, whilst some of the small finds at Fison Waysuggest that it received important visitors from the Province and beyond – if not tobe entertained, then for discreet ceremonial purposes.36 Rather strikingly, thehouse-mice in the central building’s haystack were genetically German, not British,and can only have travelled to Thetford with Continental people and theirhousehold belongings.37

D E S T R U C T I O N A N D A F T E R M AT H

Prasutagus died in AD 60 or 61. Amongst reported provocations for the ensuingrebellion – in which three cities were sacked and so many Roman civilians werekilled that Nero is said to have considered abandoning Britain – were peremptory


34 See, for example, Green, Druids, pp. 19, 30; Creighton, Coins and Power, pp. 40–54; Henig, Religion,pp. 136, 154; Catherine Johns and Timothy W. Potter, The Thetford Treasure: Roman Jewellery andSilver (British Museum Publications, London, 1983), p. 50; Orchard, Dictionary, p. 276, sub voce‘Odin’; Davidson, Myths, pp. 141, 143. 35 The only domestic animal bones found on the final-phase site were the leg and feet bones ofsheep (Gregory, Fison Way, p. 175). At a highly relevant grove in Latium, Faunus was consulted bysleeping on two fresh sheepskins (Ovid, Fasti, 4.650–72).36 Relevant finds include some Gallo-Belgic and Roman pottery, a number of non-Icenian fibulae, abronze coin of Cunobelinus and an oak leaf made of sheet bronze (Gregory, Fison Way, pp. 78, 132). 37 Jeremy B. Searle et al., ‘Of Mice and (Viking?) Men: Phylogeography of British and Irish HouseMice’, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, vol. 276, no. 1655 (22 January 2009), pp. 201–7.On the relevance of Germanic connections and parallels in many aspects of Icenian culture, seeNash Briggs, ‘Language’, passim.


Roman confiscations of Icenian land and property, an impossible demand fordiplomatic grants and loans to be repaid, and abuse of Prasutagus’ own family. If itis true that Nero’s soldiers flogged Boudica and raped the daughters of a divinelysanctioned union, they compounded insulting brutality with a sacrilege thatBoudica would have been in duty bound to avenge.38 Her suicide afterwards might,likewise, have been expected, and the Romans did apparently let the Iceni conducther funeral according to their customs.

The subsequent fate of the Thetford shrine confirms the impression that it musthave been a place of iconic politico-religious significance. Very shortly after theBoudican revolt, it was methodically and completely dismantled under Romanmilitary supervision. This indicates both the importance of obliterating the ‘grove’,and all that it may have stood for as a potential focus for political dissent, and ofdoing so respectfully.39 All the timber from the grove, fences and buildings washauled out of the ground and probably confiscated; particularly if the Romans feltthey owned it. The fate of cult paraphernalia is unknown. For three hundred years,the precinct ditches were all that was visibly left of the Fison Way shrine, and mayhave been all that was required to contain the spirit of the place.40 Most unusuallyfor a British religious monument of such previous importance, it was not rebuilt indurable Roman materials in the late first or early second century AD. Wind-blownsand drifted into the southern trenches and the site was apparently deserted, untila thin scatter of third-century coins suggests renewed activity nearby. Then, in the360s and beyond, there must have been a new shrine under present-day industrialbuildings, evidence for which includes a significant surface scattering of late-Romancoins, several hoard-deposits of very late-Roman silver siliquae, some unusualearthen mounds and post-holes from various timber out-buildings. Above all, aremarkable treasure of late-Roman gold jewellery and silver tableware, allegedlyfound by what may have been the aisle of one such building, demonstrates veryclearly that the Fison Way god had not been forgotten.

It is impossible to do justice here to the importance of the Thetford treasure asevidence for the complexity of cultural and religious life in Norfolk at the end ofthe Roman period. Once again, as in previous times of epochal transition in thelate Bronze Age and late pre-Roman Iron Age, numerous deposits of coins andprecious metalwork were being made in Icenian lands that were exceptional notonly in Britain but in Northern Europe generally. The Thetford treasure wasprobably buried around the end of the fourth century AD, and is most convincingly


38 The counter-sadism that Cassius Dio reports in the ritual mutilation of Roman women suggeststhis interpretation (Roman History, 62.7).39 An active Roman military presence is betrayed by numerous fragments of kit and an unusualconcentration of the imitative bronze coins that served as small change in the army at that time(Gregory, Fison Way, p. 190). Impressively, there is no sign that they torched or trashed themonument. The Romans were very superstitious, they had nearly been defeated and were a longway from home. A famously disastrous Roman defeat by the Cimbri at Arausio (Orange), in 105BC, was blamed on the ruthless looting of a Gaulish tribal shrine near Toulouse, in the previousyear, so Nero’s soldiers probably did take care how they treated Fison Way. For Roman objectionsto divination from human sacrifice, determined suppression of the political agency of druids andtargeted destruction of sacred groves, see, for example, Tacitus, Annals, 14. 30–31 (Anglesea in AD60/61); Ross, Druids, p. 43; Green, Druids, pp. 14–15. 40 On ditches as foci of ceremonial behaviour see, for example, Green, Druids, pp. 120–1.


understood not as temple treasure, which was by then liable to confiscation, but asthe joint property of the god and his local guild of worshippers. It must all havebeen specially commissioned and was buried very shortly after all but one of thegold rings was made.41 What is important here is the light that it sheds on the oldThetford monument because, for the first time, inscriptions on the silver spoonsname its presiding deity: Faunus in Latin, with a series of indigenous titles andepithets that connect him with the pre-Roman cult.

Four unusual gold rings and several of the inscriptions reveal that this Faunusand the old Icenian god had a very great deal in common. Thus, most of theindigenous epithets on the spoons that can be understood at all would have appliedequally well to the Iron Age god: Faunus the Noble; Faunus Bringer of Blossom orCorn; Faunus Bearer of Seed or Plenty; Faunus of the Ears; Faunus of the CuttingEdge; Faunus the Unwilting.42 Medugenus (Mead-begotten) introduces a plainlyNorthern European aspect: Roman Faunus was neither wine- nor mead-begotten,although in one Ovidian myth he was rendered drunk on wine.43 His father wasactually Picus (Woodpecker) or Martius Picus, another Latin woodland spirit,connected with Mars. One unique gold ring, in the Thetford treasure, features apair of unmistakable woodpeckers, whose speckled backs may, in this context, alsohave had indigenous magical significance.44 The Thetford treasure was obviouslycommissioned by wealthy and cultivated British-Roman citizens, and makesnumerous elegant references to mythological works by major Roman poets of the


41 Johns and Potter, Thetford Treasure, passim; Henig, Religion, pp. 222–4. It was buried not beforethe mid-380s (Johns and Potter) or later than the early fifth century (Martin Henig, personalcommunication).42 Kenneth Jackson, ‘The Inscriptions on the Silver Spoons’, in Thetford Treasure, Johns and Potter,pp. 30–2; F. Nari: the Noble; F. Blotugi: Bringer of Blossom or Corn; Deo F. Saternio: Bearer of Seedor Plenty (= proto-Celtic *sata (seed) +suffix *-ernjo- (Paul Kavanagh, personal communication).Saternio also represents triple word-play, with two subsidiary allusions to Latin Saturnius (Johnsand Potter, Thetford Treasure, p. 50; Henig, Religion, p. 223). Saturn, another Roman mythicancestor with cornfield connotations, was father of Picus and grandfather of Faunus (Virgil, Aeneid,7.47–9) and line 6 of Virgil’s fourth Eclogue expressed a widely cited, Augustan-period prophecythat Saturn’s Golden Age was returning (redeunt Saturnia regna): for especial relevance to late-RomanBritain, see Guy de la Bédoyère, ‘Carausius, Virgil and the Marks RSR and INPCDA’, in Image, Craftand the Classical World: Essays in Honour of Donald Bailey and Catherine Johns, ed. Nina Crummy(Editions Mergoil, Montagnac, 2005), pp. 187–95; F. Auseci: F. of the ears, as in ears of corn, sharphearing, and Faunus’ prick-ears; Tugi: he of the Cutting Edge, perhaps a ploughshare (Kavanagh,personal communication; Delamarre, Dictionnaire, p. 298, sub voce ‘Touga’). A ploughshare emblemmay be seen above the horse on some Icenian fractional silver coins. F. Andicrose: Faunus theUnwilting (= *an- [un-, without] + dî- [from, de-] + cro(s)se from proto-Celtic *krowos [blood,flesh] + -tos suffix [> *kroudtos > *krussos or *kroussos], ‘fleshed-out, hardened’ (Paul Kavanagh,personal communication). Another epithet, Crani, remains stubbornly opaque in Brittonic, whilstin Germanic it would quite simply have named the crane, a wetland bird of known magico-religioussignificance in Gaul and Britain (MacKillop, Dictionary, p. 97; Ross, Druids, p. 23; Green, Religion,p. 187).43 Ovid, Fasti, 3.300–4. The context was a quest for ritual expertise. An early-fourth-centuryChristian writer, Arnobius, in Adversus Nationes, Book 5.1 (ninth-century MS), glosses this asdrunk on wine or mulsum (honey-wine or mead). Medugenus does connect the Thetford Faunuswith a patently Bacchic aspect of late-Roman liturgy that was already implicit in Ovid, Fasti, Book2, lines 303–58.44 On the woodpeckers, see Henig, Religion, p. 224. On speckled cloaks and women’s magic, seeGreen, Druids, pp. 101–2. This was, in fact a woman’s ring.


Augustan golden age.45 Every item in the collection could, for instance, have beenused in a ceremonial re-enactment, naked but for the jewellery, of the rollickingstory of Faunus’ lust for Omphale and her cross-dressing with Hercules, as told byOvid.46 This might have formed a joyous prelude to a Bacchic feast, in which varioushonorands, living and divine, were toasted and libations poured for a blessed future.

F O U N D I N G S P I R I T S O F A P E O P L E

Like his Iron Age counterpart, Faunus had two sets of meanings for fourth-centuryRomans. On one hand, he was an indomitable goat- and wolf-associated fertilityspirit of woods, flocks and fields, whose cult and functions overlapped with RomanMars and Silvanus, with Greek Pan and with Bacchus/Dionysus.47 Of especialrelevance to Thetford, he was responsible for the voices heard in the woods andlonely places that frightened travellers out of their wits. He had an oracular shrineat Zolforata in Latium, which has plausibly been connected with a sulphur-filledamulet in the Thetford treasure.48 A well-known legend described the Roman kingNuma consulting Faunus for advice during a famine, by sleeping in a wholly wildgrove, on the skins of two sacrificed ewes, after performing various other ritualacts.49 Faunus’ Italian cult was celebrated in winter. The Faunalia proper was a rusticfestival, held on 9 December, but Faunus was also connected – by popular traditionand by the poets known to the people who commissioned the Thetford treasure –with a famous and boisterous Roman festival of purification, fertility and beatingof the city bounds, that was still being celebrated on 15 February into the later fifthcentury AD.50 All of this would match Icenian oral tradition concerning a tribalfertility god, with winter rites and an oracular shrine in a leafless ‘grove’, who alsoguarded the civitas boundaries.

However, Faunus was much more than just a protective nature spirit, and sowas the Iron Age Norfolk god. It is therefore of interest that the officiants of thelate-fourth-century cult seem to have honoured and combined both sides of theirdual identity, as unashamedly literate citizens of Rome by centuries-long adoption,education and culture, and as Iceni by descent and religious background, withcharacteristically Northern European scruples about the use of writing in religiousmatters but virtuosic freedom in the visual representation of sacred and multiplemeanings. They also lived in challenging times, when they must have been debatingtheir political and religious future. In themselves, Faunus and Martius Picus wereancestral spirits of the Roman people, integral to the civic identity of fourth-century


45 This has already been explored and would repay further study in its regional setting. See Henig,Religion, pp. 222–3.46 Ovid, Fasti, 2. 303–58.47 Johns and Potter, Thetford Treasure, pp. 50–511; Henig, Religion, pp. 222–3. Some of the Thetfordofficiants have Latin names that allude to this identity. 48 Johns and Potter, Thetford Treasure, p. 50.49 Ovid, Fasti, 4.649–73.50 Howard H. Scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (Thames & Hudson,London, 1981), pp. 76–8; Frazer, Ovid, Appendix, pp. 389–94. Celtic Imbolc on 1 February waslikewise a feast of purification: MacKillop, Dictionary, pp. 239–40; Green, Druids, p. 35.


pagan Romans. This may account for why, uniquely in Britain, Faunus – and notthe politically neutral and widely attested Silvanus – was equated with the people’sgod at this particular shrine. In Britain, Faunus is attested only at Fison Way,whereas Silvanus is named in more than twenty-five different places.51 At the sametime, their regional, tribal identity may account for three other unique gold ringsin the collection. One has a bezel flanked by a pair of ‘Celtic’ heads and the othersfeature pairs of composite boar-duck-dolphins (fig. 3.5).

Dolphins abound in late-Roman imagery and a pair of dolphins, upholdingsomething globular, was a popular motif in Gaul and Britain. As with pre-Romanboars, horses and the number three, it is additional detail that can sometimeslocalise a meaning, and these are not just generic crested dolphins. They arethreefold combinations of a protective sea-creature, a regionally typical water-birdwith a carefully modelled duck’s beak and the Icenian god’s boar with an emphaticbristling crest.

No-one knows where the Thetford rings were made, but strikingly similardesign combinations, of boar-dolphins supporting a human head, were specific tolate-fourth-century, home-guard military buckles, whose findspots match thedistribution of Iron Age Icenian coinage. These, at least, were almost certainly madein East Anglia and plausibly represent tribal insignia.52 One such buckle, found bythe Icknield Way, near Tring in Buckinghamshire (fig. 3.5), has very similar boar-dolphins to the Thetford ring and a ‘Celtic’ head that resembles the other relevantring, but with an additional goatee beard that points to Faunus and to the oldNorfolk god. Faunus belonged to the Roman state’s ‘old religion’ (prisca religio). Thenative ‘old gods’ of late-prehistoric and Roman Britain were commonly representedby their heads alone, sometimes credited with the power of oracular speech.53 Theheads on the Thetford ring and on the Icenian-type military buckles probablybelong to this continuum.

Could the Thetford treasure have been commissioned by the owner of the oneold ring and used for a betrothal and marriage in a local ruling clan with adistinguished, even royal, priestly pedigree? The state of all but that one ringsuggests little or no conventional use, and the first-century Ashill shaft establishesa local precedent for sequential rites within a single season. Did these East AnglianRomans covertly (before 409/10) or openly (thereafter) anticipate a new GoldenAge, when their fortunes, and that of their patron god, would be restored to fabledglory, like that of the Augustan age of Rome and Prasutagus’ federal kingdom?Toasts on some of the spoons could certainly be read in this light: Vir Bone, vivas!Restitute, vivas! (Long life to you, good man! Long life to you in your restoration!)


51 Guy de la Bédoyère, Gods with Thunderbolts: Religion in Roman Britain (Tempus, Stroud, 2007),pp. 250–1, 273–4. 52 Stuart Laycock, Britannia the Failed State: Tribal Conflicts and the End of Roman Britain (Tempus,Stroud, 2008), pp. 118–25; Andrew Appels and Stuart Laycock, Roman Buckles and Military Fittings(Greenlight Publishing, Witham, 2007), pp. 169–73.53 Anne Ross, ‘Celtic Heads and Holy Waters’, Chris Rudd List, vol. 32 (1998), pp. 2–5 and passim;Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain, pp. 96, 140–5, 162–4. In relevant Norse tradition, Mimir’s severed headwas connected with the well-spring of all knowledge and counselled Odin: Orchard, Dictionary,p. 276.


Further, as a final act in these imagined proceedings, were the ceremonial treasuresburied in a time-honoured, indigenous act of votive deposition, in a shale containerthat would never decay?

A widespread generic, Celtic title for the tutelary spirit of a people was Teutatesor Toutatis. Logically, this might have been one of the Thetford god’s original titles,though there is no positive evidence to prove it; and, after the Thetford shrine wasdismantled, a Teutates was venerated elsewhere in Roman Norfolk.54 Nonetheless,it is suggestive of the special significance of this sacred place, close to the Icenianpeople’s Iron Age frontier and the Roman civitas boundary, that the present-dayriver and the town at its ford take their names from an Anglo-Saxon word that hasexactly the same root and meaning as Brittonic Teuta or Touta: theod, the people.


54 Exemplified at Great Walsingham: Davies, Boudica, pp. 180–1; see Henig, Religion, pp. 50, 151;Clémençon and Ganne, Toutatis, and footnote 12 above.


Documents

Sacred Image and Regional Identity in Late-Prehistoric Norfolk