Two Flavian Burials from Grange Road, Winchester

TWO FLAVIAN BURIALS FROMGRANGE ROAD, WINCHESTER

By MARTIN BIDDLE, F.S.A.

ONE evening towards the end of August 1964, Mr. G. H. Bell walked across tothe excavations north of Winchester Cathedral and told the writer that some potshad been found during the digging of a new sewer trench opposite his house inGrange Road, Winchester. The site of the discovery was visited the same eveningand the pots, which later proved to have come from Grave I, at once showed thatthe find was of Roman date. Immediate inspection revealed one pit, later numberedGrave II, in the east side of the sewer trench. The following day a talk with Mr.Butcher of King's Worthy, who had been driving the mechanical digger excavatingthe trench, revealed the full story of the discovery.

The credit for recognizing this discovery is due to Mr. Butcher who, noticingdark earth rather than chalk in the bucket of his digger and then seeing two pots,had carefully deposited the soil to one side of his dump and had then made a closerexamination. The pots were recovered and all subsequent earth from the area of thefind was dumped to one side, where we were able to search through it fully on sub-sequent days. It soon became clear that the digger had almost totally destroyed acremation burial (Grave I), part of the pit of which was later found by us still un-disturbed in the side of the sewer trench. The pit noticed by us the day before(Grave II) seemed, however, to have been only slightly cut into by the digger anda request for permission to excavate was readily granted by Mr. Harold Morgan,the builder of the new group of houses at the south end of Grange Road, to whichhouses the new sewer leads. In order not to hinder the building, excavation had tobegin in the evening after work was over; it lasted through the night, the photo-graphs being taken at 1 a.m. and the shale tray being lifted at 12 noon the followingday.

Most grateful thanks are due to Mr. Morgan for permission to excavate and forhis public-spirited attitude as a result of which the rich finds from both graves arenow deposited on permanent loan and displayed in the Winchester City Museum.The Winchester Corporation has generously defrayed the cost of preparing thedrawings for this report and, with the ready co-operation of the City MuseumsCurator, Mr. F. Cottrill, most of the necessary conservation has been undertakenin the museum laboratory, apart from the shale tray, the treatment of which wasmost kindly undertaken in the Research Laboratory of the British Museum bypermission of Dr. A. E. Werner. The actual excavation and subsequent handlingof the material were undertaken by the Winchester Excavations Committee as anemergency addition to its 1964 excavation programme. Contributions on certainspecial objects or aspects of the burials have been prepared by Professor J. M. C.Toynbee, Dr. D. B. Harden, Dr. D. R. Brothwell, and Mr. Geoffrey Dannell,whose reports appear under their names elsewhere in this paper.1

1 The excavation was carried out by the writer, lipa Fox-Robinson, who recorded and packed theMr. D. F. Mackreth, Mr. Triffit, and Miss Phil- finds. Mr. W. W. Powell took the photographs and

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 84.93.92.31, on 16 Feb 2018 at 17:52:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883

https://www.cambridge.org/core

TWO FLAVIAN BURIALS FROM WINCHESTER 225

The burials lay close to the west side of the Roman road from Winchester toSouthampton, about a mile south of the city (fig. 1), at National Grid ReferenceSU/47352730. The sewer trench ran north-south about 19 m. (63 feet) west of

+ BUR/ALS

ROMAN ROADS

1 TWO XMS.

FIG. 1. The location of the Grange Road graves (based on the Ordnance Survey by permission of the DirectorGenera/)

the road and was just over 60 cm. (2 feet) in width. Two burials were seen in thesides of the sewer trench, both cut into the chalk, Grave I lying 3-55 m. (11 ft.8 in.) north of Grave II (fig. 1, 2).

There is some evidence of other Roman activity in the area, for in 1959 earlyRoman pottery was found in a dark soil layer, the top of which was 45 cm. (1 ft.

the owners of the houses nearby provided electriclight and hot drinks throughout the night. The planand sections of the graves were drawn by Mr. D. F.Mackreth; the drawings of the objects are mostlythe work of Mr. D. S. Neal, with some by MissMargaret White, who also treated the finds in thelaboratory. The late Mr. Cedric Yardley and Miss

Sarah Jennings helped in work on the finds and Dr.Peter Watts of the Royal Devon and Exeter Hos-pital and Dr. Dawson of the Royal Hampshire CountyHospital took X-radiographs of the metal objects.To all these and others who have helped, I offer mygrateful thanks.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


226 THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

6 in.) below the surface, at the north-west corner of No. 12, Grange Road,1 andthere are less well authenticated stories of other finds. The burials were too farsouth of the town to have been part of a town cemetery (fig. 1, 1), and it is morelikely that they formed part of the small cemetery of a local settlement, perhaps afarm. That there should be more burials, perhaps forming a family cemetery,seems a likely possibility.

GRAVE I

The burial was in a pit 109 cm. (3 ft. 7 in.) wide, cut 61 cm. (2 feet) into thechalk, and sealed by 33 cm. (1 ft. 1 in.) of plough and topsoil. The grave pit had

FEET

N TTT

WINCHESTER, > GRANGE ROADSECTION > G J W E I D.F.M.

FIG. 2

been almost entirely removed by the cutting of the sewer trench and its originalshape is uncertain. Part of the filling remained untouched in section in the east sideof the trench and two vessels (nos. 4 and 11) were recovered in situ (fig. 2). Theburial was first noticed by Mr. Butcher when he saw the grey flagon (no. 1) standingin the platter (no. 3), both among the earth in the bucket of his digger. Mr. Butcherdumped this and subsequent loads of earth to one side of the main dump and re-covered the obvious pieces, noting that the flagon contained the cremation. Sub-

1 Mr. F. Cottrill provided this information from the records of the Winchester City Museums.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



sequently the earth was carefully searched and the remaining material rescued byourselves.

The original layout of the grave goods is thus lost, except for the observationsthat two at least of the cups and platters were placed in the bottom and towardsthe edge of the grave pit, and that the flagon containing the cremation stood in thelargest platter. In all there were thirteen or fourteen vessels in the grave; the flagon,a samian dish, and eleven or twelve native copies of samian cups and platters. Abronze brooch (no. 14), a shale bracelet (no. 15), five iron nails, and a group ofiron and bronze fittings, probably from a box (nos. 16 and 17), complete the re-corded contents of the grave apart from forty tiny fragments of burnt tile, perhapsgathered up in error and deposited with the cremation.

Dr. D. R. Brothwell reports that the cremation consisted of 'numerous frag-ments of well calcined human bones, ranging in size from 2 or 3 mm. up to over40 mm., with an average of about 20 mm. Various parts of the skeleton were identi-fied, including remains of the skull, humerus, femur, vertebrae, ribs, ulna/fibula,and phalanges. These gave no indication that more than one person was present, inthis case an adult. From the size and ruggedness of some of the long bone shaftfragments, the individual was probably male.'

In his examination of the cremation Dr. Brothwell noted the presence of a fewunburnt animal bones, possibly from a dog and a large ruminant. Grave I may thus,like Grave II, have included food offerings or even a pet dog buried with its master.

A thorough search of the loose earth suggested that no other major items werepresent, but small and fragile objects may have been totally destroyed or lost.

The contents of the grave (figs. 3 and 4)

1. Globular flagon with moulded base-angle and pulley-wheel rim, the lower moulding ofwhich projects beyond the upper. The base of the neck, which is itself missing, and thespringing of the handle are drawn from overlapping but non-fitting sherds. The ware is fineand rather soft, blue-grey in colour. The exterior surface is baked greyish brown and, thoughabraded, still retains in places slight traces of its original black burnished surface.

This flagon is almost identical to that from Grave II (no. 15), being only slightlynarrower in the neck. The grey fabric in the present case results from reduced firing,while the flagon from Grave II was fired under oxidizing conditions. Flagons of similarform have been found in Claudio-Neronian and Flavian deposits at Richborough {Rich-borough HI, p. 167, pi. xxxiii, nos. 197 and 199). For the development of the type seeCamulodunum, p. 244, Form 143.

2. Samian dish, Form 36. The small size and fine character seem early, and Mr. GeoffreyDannell suggests that the vessel is probably just Vespasianic in date. Three sherds (twofitting) were found in the dumped earth and, though most likely to be derived from Grave I,they might have come from other Roman activity nearby (see above, p. 225).

3-13. Eleven, perhaps twelve, local copies of samian Forms 18 (nos. 3-7), 27 (nos. 8-11),and 35/36 (nos. 12-13). The fabric common to all examples is grey in the core and bakeddull red on the surfaces, which have been smoothed and somewhat burnished. The fabriccontains many small white flecks and occasional larger flints up to 5 mm. in length. Allthe vessels are very fragmentary and with the exception of no. 3, and to a lesser extentno. 4, their surfaces have flaked severely, necessitating impregnation with polyvinyl acetate.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



9 nFIG. 3. Grange Road, Winchester, Grave I: pottery, 1-13 (J, stamps |)

Although copying samian rather than Gallo-Belgic forms, this ware is similar to the fourthvariety of Terra Rubra defined at Camulodunum, as a local, rather than true Gallo-Belgic,fabric {Camulodunum, p. 204). The comparison is strengthened by the presence on six ofthe vessels from this grave of the senseless stamps which are a predominantly late feature ofthe Gallo-Belgic industry (ibid., pp. 207, 213). The copying of samian Form 35/36, seenin nos. 12 and 13, implies at the earliest a date in the reign of Nero. Since, however, the



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



samian forms copied in the present group could all be Flavian, the persistence of Belgic tradi-tions and practices into the last quarter of the first century A.D. seems probable, an infer-ence supported by the native character of the burial rite in Grave II (see below p. 246).

3-7. Copies of Form 18. Five vessels are present and probably a sixth. Stamps do not occur inthis group.

3. Large platter with thick wall and scarcely defined rim. The junction of wall and floor issharply angled externally and grooved internally, and there is also a groove around a slightbasal kick in the centre of the floor. The foot-ring is low but carefully moulded.

4. Small platter with everted wall and scarcely defined rim. The external angle at the junctionof the wall and floor is sharp and there is a groove internally. There is a circular groovearound a tiny basal kick. The foot-ring is exiguous.

5. Small platter, similar in form to no. 4, but with more rounded floor and larger basal kick.

17A

17 B _L_ C _«a_ D _<©_ E " FFIG. 4. Grange Road, Winchester, Grave I: metal, 14, 16-17, and shale, 15 (|)

6. Small platter, similar to no. 5, but with steeper wall and more rounded angle at the junctionof wall and floor.

7. Small platter, differing from the previous examples in the outward flare of the wall and inthe presence of an internal bead at the junction of wall and floor.

8-11. Copies of Form 27. Four vessels are present, each of which is stamped with the samedie. The stamp, which is unintelligible, was impressed with a wooden die, traces of thegrain of which, crossing the 'letters', show that the same die was used on each vessel. It wasalso used on the copies of Form 35/36 (nos. 12-13).

8. Cup with undercut rim and thick walls. There is a circular groove around the stamp onthe interior of the bowl.

9. Cup similar to no. 8 but with steeper walls, and a double groove on the exterior. Only asmall portion of the stamp remains on the main body of the vessel, the rest being preservedon a non-fitting sherd apparently belonging to this cup.

10. Cup similar to nos. 9 and 8 but with strongly undercut rim and smooth, grooveless, concavecurve at the constriction.

11. Small cup, heavily made for its size. There is no circular groove around the stamp.12—13. Copies of Form 35/36 with the omission of the en barbotine decoration on the rim.

Two vessels are present, and both are stamped with the same die as that used on the copiesof Form 27 (nos. 8-11).

12. Small dish, more finely made than the copies of Form 27.13. Small dish, similar to no. 12.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



14. Bronze disc-brooch, neither tinned nor silvered. The pin, also of bronze, hinged on an ironrivet which is now rusted away. Although mostly dating to the second century or later,disc-brooches occur in first-century contexts at Camulodunum (Camulodunum, p. 326,pi. xcviii, nos. 174-9).

15. Part of a Kimmeridge shale bracelet, oval in section. A similar bracelet, rounder in section,occurred in the earliest level, A.D. 43—70, at Kingdon's Workshop, Winchester (BarryCunliffe, Winchester Excavations 1949—60 (1964), p. 92, fig. 25, no. 5).

16. Eleven fragments of iron, mostly showing traces of the wood to which they were originallyattached. Five fragments appear to be nails (e.g. no. 16 A). Three fragments are frombinding strips, originally attached by small nails (e.g. no. 16 B, where can be seen the right-angled join of a trough-section strip with the remains of a wood panel, as at the corner ofa box). One fragment (no. 16 C) is an iron plate with traces of the edges of two parallelwooden panels remaining on the inner side, 2 cm. (o-8 in.) apart and attached by small nails.Traces of bronze on this fragment could be fortuitous, but at least suggest that the ironfragments were once lying close to the bronze fittings, no. 17 below, with which they mayhave been associated.

17. Five fragments of bronze strip originally attached with iron nails, and a rectangular bronzeplate, 3-8 cm. (1-5 in.) wide, with perforations at the corners for nails and a central perfora-tion as for a keyhole. Two widths of strip are present, 1-2 cm. and I - I cm. (0*48 and 0-4in.), the wider still retaining two right-angled bends. These iron and bronze fragments, withthe exception of the large nails like no. 16 A, are probably part of the fittings of a woodenbox.

The date of Grave IThe date of the grave rests on the samian dish of Form 36 (no. 2) and on the

local copies of samian Forms 18, 27, and 35/36. Even allowing for the distortionof copying, the similarity to the samian of Grave II (below, pp. 234-7) is obvious.This comparison with Grave II is strengthened by the flagons (Grave I, no. 1;Grave II, no. 15), which, except in colour, appear to be virtually identical productsof the same kiln. In spite of the early date suggested by the Terra Rubra-likecharacter of the local copies of samian forms, a Flavian date is suggested by theexamples of Form 35/36, both original and copies, and by the dating of the flagon.

GRAVE II

Grave II was first observed by us in the east side of the sewer trench, 3-55 m.(11 ft. 8 in.) south of Grave I. As no trace of the grave appeared in the west side ofthe trench, it was assumed that only the western margin of the grave pit had beenremoved and a slight excavation into the filling of the pit confirmed this. Thetop- and plough-soil over the suspected area of the grave were then removedand the excavation of the grave pit continued until the whole burial was revealed(pi. XLII). Some of the smaller objects were recorded and necessarily removedduring excavation, but the main objects and as many as possible of the lesser itemswere left in position for the photograph. The excavation presented no other prob-lems except in the case of the shale trencher which was ultimately isolated on ablock of chalk and lifted by the insertion below it of a steel plate. It was sub-sequently transferred to a plate glass panel and wrapped in damp newspaper for



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


T H E ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL PLATE XLII

a. Looking east, sewer trench in foreground

b. Looking north

Grange Road, Winchester, Grave II

(Photographs: W. IT. Poivell)



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


X tr1

C

(Pho

togr

aph:

Mar

gare

t W

hite

)

a.

Gra

nge

Roa

d, W

inch

este

r,

Gra

ve

II.

Th

ebl

ue

glas

s ju

g,

no.

17.

Ht.

24

-4

cms.

(9

-6in

ches

)

(Pho

togr

aph:

Bri

tish

Mus

eum

)

b. R

adna

ge,

Buc

ks.

Am

ber

glas

s ju

g. H

t.

29-2

cms.

(11

- 5

inch

es)

o c •z >



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


JO G O c

(Pho

togr

aphs

: A

shm

olea

n M

useu

m)

Gra

nge

Roa

d, W

inch

este

r, G

rave

II.

Th

e br

onze

jug

, no

. 18

. H

t. i

5-2

cm

s. (

6 in

ches

)>



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



transport to the Research Laboratory of the British Museum where its conser-vation was undertaken.

The burial was in a rectangular pit (fig. 5) 109 cm. (3 ft. 7 in.) long, approxi-mately 96 cm. (3 ft. 2 in.) wide, cut 38 cm. (1 ft. 3 in.) into the chalk, and sealedby 23 cm. (9 in.) of plough and topsoil.

The layout of the grave goods is of considerable interest (fig. 5, for discussionsee p. 246). The main feature was the shale trencher (no. 1) on which a meal hadbeen set: the samian platter and cup (nos. 2 and 7) stood side by side on the tren-cher, next lay the left half of a pig's skull (Bath chap!) and the leg bones (nos. 63—64), with which was a bird bone. Also on the trencher was a tinned bronze spoon(no. 19) and two iron knives, one with a bronze, the other with a bone handle (nos.20 and 26 A). To one side of this place-setting were the drinking vessels: threesamian cups, a glass jug, and a bronze jug (nos. 8-10, 17, 18). Beneath the bronzejug lay two bronze pins and an iron tool (nos. 24, 25, 27 A). Suitably near athand lay a set of eighteen gaming counters (nos. 36-53) and a group of personalpossessions, two rings, a seal-box lid, a bell, eight melon beads, and a 'fossil' (nos.22, 30, 21, 23, 54-62). The counters and trinkets had perhaps once been in a clothor leather bag, for they lay close together, but no trace of such a container had sur-vived.

In line with the longer axis of the trencher a row of samian platters had been set,the first covered with an upturned platter, the second containing two samian cups,the third a further two cups of very small size (nos. 3-6, 11-14). At the end of thegrave and to either side of the third samian platter stood two coarse-ware vessels,a flagon and a rough-cast beaker (nos. 15,16), and by the side of the middle platterlay two iron styli (nos. 28 and 29).

The cremated remains, Dr. Brothwell reports, were much less extensive and verymuch more fragmentary than those in Grave I. 'Not all the pieces showed evidenceof calcination. It is thus possible that burnt and unburnt bodies were mixed, butthe majority of the unburnt fragments may be non-human. Skull and long bonefragments could be identified, but sex and age are in this case far more difficult todetermine. The slender nature of some of the fragments suggests immaturity (per-haps a teenager) or a fairly slender female.'

The remains of the cremation do not seem to have been in any container, forthe fragments were widely scattered in the middle of the grave pit and over partof the shale trencher. At various points around the cremation were five iron nails,all relatively large and retaining traces of wood (nos. 31—35). These are not suffi-cient to have been the remains of a box that had held the cremation, nor is there spacebetween the drinking vessels and the row of samian platters for a box of the sizeindicated by the nails and the thickness of the wood preserved on them. It is morelikely that the nails derive from the bier on which the body had lain at the time ofcremation and that they were collected up with the ashes and strewn in the graveover the funeral meal which had already been laid for the dead man.

Several of the objects thus placed in the grave were already broken at the timeof burial and one had been repaired. The handle of the glass jug (no. 17) wasbroken off and missing; there was a hole in the base of the rough-cast beaker (no.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



FEET

BMODERN TRENCH

CREMATION!

PLANCOUNTERS 36-53 • ° BEADS 54-61

SECTION A-BD.F.M.

WINCHESTER > GRANGE ROAD > GRA/E IIFIG. 5



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



16), part of the rim of which was also missing; and a hole in the side of the flagon(no. 15) had been neatly repaired by fixing the sherds in place with a kind of mortar.

The contents of the grave (figs. 6-9)1. Shale tray or trencher, 50-5 cm. (i ft. 7-9 in.) by 41 cm.(i ft.4*i in.), and approximately 1 cm.

(0-4 in.) thick (fig. 6). The edges and corners have been carefully bevelled and diagonal scoring

FIG. 6. Grange Road, Winchester, Grave II: shale trencher, i

suggests that this was done with a file. Rather more regular scoring on the vertical edgesmay be the result of sawing the panel to shape before bevelling. After splitting from theparent block, the underside of the panel was dressed to an even surface and traces of thisprocess remain in the cross-scoring covering the entire under surface. The upper surfacewas dressed to a smooth finish and decorated with an elaborate incised geometrical design.Between an inner and outer border, each of three incised lines, the outer frame consists ofa frieze of overlapping semicircles, each semicircle composed of four concentric groovesaround a central dot. In the centre of the panel there is a rectangular frame composed oftwo groups of three lines, the groups separated by a narrow reserved band. At each cornerof this rectangle, and at the mid-point of each of the long sides, there is an elaborate figurecomposed of three circles intertwined to form a short guilloche surmounted by a fourthcircle. Each of the elements of these figures consists of three concentric circles around acentral dot.

At the centre of the rectangle there are four concentric circles with a central dot. From



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



this figure hatched arms radiate to the corners of the rectangle and to the centres of thelonger sides, thus in effect linking the figures outside the rectangle to the central circles.

The panel was in a very soft condition when found and parts of the surface decorationhad already been destroyed by rootlets and by the bases of the two samian vessels (nos. 2and 7) which were standing on the panel. The drawing (fig. 6), which was prepared whilethe panel was soaking in Carbo-wax, shows rather more detail than can be seen now thatthe treatment is complete.

The layout of the grave may indicate the purpose to which this and similar panels wereput: the samian cup and platter found on the panel suggest that it was used as a tray, but thetwo pork joints were laid directly on the shale as were the two knives and the spoon. Thusit seems that the panel was used as a trencher rather than as a tray. This view is sup-ported by the presence of knife-cuts on the decorated surface.

Similar panels have been recorded from several sites in England, and especially fromDorset (distribution map, fig. 10; listed in Table I I , facing p. 250). These panels have rarelya datable context, but where any associations are recorded, they seem to belong to the latefirst and early second centuries A.D.

2—14. The thirteen samian vessels (fig. 7) have been reported on by MR. GEOFFREY DANNELL:The vessels comprise eight Form 27, four Form 18, and one Form 18R (denoting a

rouletted band over the footstand in the interior base, together with other typologicalcharacteristics). Rubbings of the stamps were forwarded to Leeds University where Mr.Brian Hartley, F.S.A., kindly compared them with the dies which have been collectedtowards a reappraisal of Oswald's work on stamps, and a number of points in the text owetheir origin to this current programme.

Two problems exist in dating groups of vessels of this type. The first deals with theindividual working periods of the officinae involved, on their own account, as it were. Theother is in the more subjective conclusion which may be drawn as to the date of the assemb-lage of the pottery. Of all the vessels present, the FRONT1NVS 18 (no. 4) shows themost pronounced foot-ring wear, but not one looks as if it was intensively used beforedeposition. This is not without interest in view of the widely differing dates which arepossible, if the evidence of the individual potters is considered. The later attested stamps allappear to belong to groups which might have commenced activity with the accession ofVespasian, and it is suggested that a date off. 70—95 would be appropriate to the group asa whole, in view of the number of Agricolan sites associated with these potters.

2. Form 18R. Dish with smoothly contoured exterior; a deep girth groove runs some halfinch below the rim bead. The vestigial remains of the interior offset at the junction of walland base are represented by a ridge. The fabric is pink/orange and the slip red/orange, dull.In dipping the vessel a complete set of right-hand finger marks was left with a consequentthinning of the slip at those points.

Stamped: COSfRFN which has been expanded as COSIVS & RVFINVS, Oswald,p. 89. No dated contexts for this die exist, but stamps of this partnership fromCamelon, Newstead, and Carlisle are presumably to be connected with Agricolan militaryactivity. An 18/31 noted from Bregenz [Oswald, ibid.) may be a large Flavian 18R or 18and is probably a survival and/or terminal product of the workshop.

3. Form 18. Vestigial internal offset and slight tendency toward a central kick. Fabric pink,slip red/brown, slightly glossy.

Stamped: OF. VITA No dated deposit is recorded as yet for this die; but of thehuge output collected from the potters of the name VITA LI S, part falls in the Flavianperiod, and is relevant to this stamp.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



Fie. 7. Grange Road, Winchester, Grave II: samian, 2-14, coarse ware, 15-16, and glass jug, 17(£, stamps I)



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



4. Form 18. Similar general shape to no. 3, but the rim is exaggerated by a deep grooveimmediately below. This time the internal offset is more pronounced, and there are signsof the external one too. Fabric pink, slip red/brown, slightly glossy.

Stamped: OFRON+NI This die does not appear to have been recorded before.Oswald, p. 127, dates the potter between the periods of Nero and Trajan, presumably onthe basis of the forms produced, e.g. 15 Mainz, 15/17 Wiesbaden, Ritt. 9 Mas d'Agenais,17 London, contrasting with a number of 18/31's and 31's. However, the bulk of thedecorated material spans the transitional period when Form 37 was replacing Form 29 inpopularity, and does not show signs of the degeneracy of the ultimate phase in South Gaul.A date off. A.D. 70-95 seems appropriate.

5. Form 18. Well shaped with vestigial internal offset. Fabric pink, slip red/brown, slightlyglossy. There is a marked difference between the thick deposit of slip on the inside of thisvessel and the outside, where the base fabric shows through.

Stamped: l/RORI This version is extremely doubtful, and it would not serve muchpurpose to consider detailed dating on such a basis.

6. Form 18. Heavily beaded rim, with a ridge in place of the internal offset. Fabric pink, slipred/brown, slightly glossy. Stamped: MEMORISM Comparable dies come from Yorkand Baldock (Baldock Cemetery Group No. 3214, misread there as MEMORIS F, to-gether with Form 18 stamped OF RVFI). Oswald dated MEMOR as early as Claudius(p. 201), but there seems little concrete evidence on which to go. If the decorated warecomes from the same potter, then a Flavian date is indicated.

7. See no. 9, below.8. Form 27. This cup is a little flattened in profile, and beyond a slight swelling in the wall,

shows no true rim. The fabric is pink, the slip red/orange, matt. There is a blind A graffitoon the basal exterior.

Stamped: OU3VRIL A number of interpretations have been offered for this die.Oswald accepted with Atkinson the reading OF SAB IN ret., while at the sametime he has entries under the potter SVRIVS, which was favoured by Hayter{Richborough III, p. 47), who, however, observed that the reading yielded 01 : SVRIL.Mr. Hartley, on the basis of collated rubbings, agrees with this, and there is no difficulty inassuming a South Gaulish SVRILLVS to be at work, but until a perfect die appearssome doubt must remain. Stamps from Petuaria, Catterick, and Camelon, together withRichborough HI, no. 174B and Richborough IF, p. 234, no. 55 F, all attest activity in thelast quarter of the first century.

9. Form 27. A well-shaped cup in pink fabric with red/orange slip, glossy. Again a set offinger marks, imposed during the dipping operation, occurs on the exterior, and while it isclear that the full width of the digits touched the surface, the marks are very narrow.Perhaps women or children were at work ?

Stamped: EQ_VRE The full reading of this die is most unsatisfactory. Because thebeginning always appears to be damaged, two possible reconstructions are given. Taken inconjunction with nos. 7 and 12 from this group, which have the same die, it must be admittedthat the balance is in favour of an incised frame, leaving the name as EQ_VRI, whichOswald noted, p. 115. However, this is only part of the story. It appears possible that thisdie began life as NEQ_VRES, but being damaged at some stage, was recut, incising the frameand destroying and deforming the initial and terminal letters. Certainly the remainingletters of the present examples agree with the full stamp as recorded from Leicester. Datedsamples come from Hofheim II (pp. 246 and 249) and Valkenburg, where two examplesare recorded, one ascribed to Period I [c. Claudian invasion) and one to Period I I I {c. A.D.48—70). A connected stamp from Richborough (vol. iii, p. 141, no. 153) was dated from



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



a pit group to A.D. 80-120, as was another from Wroxeter (1913, p. 37). Incidentally,Oswald misrecorded the Hofheim stamp as Period I, but evidence of earlier working maybe assumed from the finds at Wiesbaden and Neuss. The conflicting dates are difficult toreconcile, especially in view of the early Valkenburg stamp. Clearly we need to knowround about what date the accident overtook the name-die, and whether it is chrono-logically possible that the amended stamp can be distinguished as consistently appearing inthe later groups, whether or not the earlier version also appears there. Otherwise we have avery long-lived officina to deal with, and for the time being the matter must be sub judice.

10. Form 27. The rim is a little more developed than no. 8, but still somewhat rudimentary.The fabric is pink, slip red/brown and fairly glossy.

Stamped: OF'SABINI This die, Mr. Hartley notes, occurs so far only at Manchesterin a dated context of A.D. 79 or later. In general this potter is well attested as a producerin the last quarter of the first century.

11. Form 27. Well formed but lacking the more usual grooved foot-ring. The rim is beakedrather than full. Fabric similar to no. 10.

Stamped: OFNICIO Not recorded elsewhere, but perhaps the marks F NICIO{Oswald, p. 219). The attribution to Montans is on the basis of a broken mould stampand pending further proof must be left in suspense. If the forms recorded by Oswald arevalid guidance, and he has not confused more than one potter, then NICIVS should havecommenced activity in the Neronian period.

12. See no. 9, above.13. Form 27. Neat bead rim, an external groove around the foot-ring close to the base. Fabric

pink, slip brown/red, glossy.Stamped: OFSI Probably SILVIVS as Oswald (p. 303), but not recorded in this

precise reading, cf. OF SI (Form 24 and 27 Mainz). Generally a Flavian date is accep-table for this potter, but the occurrences of Ritt. 8, 9, and Form 24 hint at the possibilityof some pre-Vespasianic activity.

14. The shape of this vessel is very like no. 13, and while the stamp is illegible, the size of thelabel is also similar to no. 13.

15. Ovoid flagon with moulded foot-ring and pulley-wheel rim, the lower moulding of whichprojects beyond the upper. The handle is reeded. The fabric is fine and rather soft, bufF-cream in colour. The surface, now abraded, was perhaps originally carefully smoothed.

This flagon is almost identical to that from Grave I (no. 1), being only ovoid rather thanglobular, with a wider neck of rather heavier profile. The neck, unlike that of the Grave Iflagon, appears to have been added to the body, and a small internal ridge at the junction ofneck and body marks this join. The flagon has been repaired in antiquity, two sherds froma hole in the side, together with a crack in the neck, having been mended with a kind ofmortar.

For a discussion of the type see Grave I, no. 1, p. 227, above.

16. Rough-cast globular beaker with everted cornice rim and slightly moulded base angle.Fine friable buff-cream ware covered with black slip, all of which has been rough-cast withthe exception of a narrow irregular band below the rim. The whole exterior is now abraded.The beaker was found intact, apart from a hole in the base, some of the sherds from whichwere present; part of the rim was also missing. A similar vessel is present in a Flaviancontext at Clausentum (Proc. Hants. F.C. xvn, iii (1952), 259, fig. 5, no. 1; for the date ofthis group see M. A. Cotton and P. W. Gathercole, Excavations at Clausentum, South-ampton, 1951-1954 (1958), p. 91), but the present example with its maximum diameterstill relatively high is close to Camulodunum, p. 235, Form 94 A, Claudian-Neronian.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



17. The glass jug, by DR. D. B. HARDEN, F.S.A. (fig. 7, pi. xuna).One-handled jug, deep dark blue glass, good metal with few readily visible bubbles or

impurities. Height 24-4 cm. (9-6 inches). Diameter at base 11-4 cm. (4-45 inches). Lipbent outward, downward, and upward, giving a sloping 'undercut' rim; neck cylindrical, butexpanding slightly downward to a constriction at junction with body; body conical withslightly convex sides; bottom plain and slightly concave. The handle, which is missing, exceptfor a slight trace of the attachment near the rim and for all its bottom part where it joins thebody, was angular and extended from the top of the neck to the shoulder, where it expands intothree arms to grip the body, the middle arm being drawn downward for about 7-6 cm.(3 inches) and strengthened by means of a pincered rail of ten 'teeth'; on the outside of thehandle, down the middle, is a single raised rib. The body bears a ribbed design of sevenloops nipped diamond-ways with tails top and bottom.

This jug belongs to a widespread type, all the examples of which are of western proven-ance,1 the earliest belonging to the middle of the first century A.D. and the latest runningwell into the second (C. Isings, Roman Glass from Dated Finds (195 7), pp. 72 f., Form 55 a).The guiding characteristics of the shape are the folded lip, the cylindrical neck, the conicalbody, the plain concave bottom, and the angular handle. On some the rim is sloping (as on thepresent piece), on others it is horizontal; some are decorated on the body and lower part ofthe neck with vertical or sloping ribs (no other example with ribs nipped diamond-ways isknown to me) or with pre-moulded2 corrugations; most handles have the pincered tail of'teeth', though some have not; and in height the ratio of the body to the neck varies.

Jugs with similar conical bodies, but which have open or closed pushed-in base-ringsinstead of a plain concave bottom (Isings, op. cit., pp. 73 f., Form 55 b) are allied in dateand fabric, as is also a type with plain or ribbed bulbous bodies {ibid., p. 69, Form52 a, b).

The colour of all these glasses varies from the deep dark blue of this Winchester piece tolight blue, amber, yellow, dark or pale green, and rosy-pink. The thickness of the wallsvaries from about 0-25 cm. (o-i inch) or more, as on this one, to some which are very thinindeed; but the handles are always massive and firm, as are the rims, and as a consequencefragmentary handles and rims of such jugs, being less destructible than the bodies, are fre-quently found on early Roman sites.

Miss Isings {pp. cit. (1957), pp. 72 f.), in discussing the type with plain bottoms (Form55 a) to which our piece belongs, mentions briefly some of the more important datedspecimens, running from the middle of the first century (e.g. E. Ritterling, Hofheim (1913),p. 374, pi. xxxviii, type 13; C. Simonett, Tessiner Graberfelder (1941), two examples fromLocarnop to the later first and first half of the second century (Planig, Rheinhessen, Mainz.Zeitschr. xx—xxi (1925—6), 66, fig. 6; and various Belgian examples in G. Faider-Feytmans

1 I noted this type as a western phenomenon ing the gob into a ribbed or otherwise-patternedwhen cataloguing the glass from Karanis in Egypt cylindrical mould, after release from which the body(D. B. Harden, Roman Glass from Karanis (Ann of the vessel with its decoration is blown andArbor, 1936), p. 233) indicating then (and the same fashioned into its final shape. By this process theis true today) that it had, to my knowledge, no east- decoration expands laterally on bulbous bodies andem counterparts. Fragments of jugs with tall handles is often twisted into S-curves (for example) as welland constrictions at their base, but unlike this west- by twirling the vessel on the blowpipe.em group in other respects, occurred in third- and 3 The first, op. cit., p. 10;, fig. 87, no. 6, is a plainfourth-century levels at Karanis {ibid., p. 240, nos. piece from Muralto, Liverpool Unten, Grave 44; the710-11). second, ibid., p. 148, fig. 128, no. 3, and pi. 12,

2 I use 'pre-moulded' to indicate the application no. 4, has vertical ribs on the body and came fromof corrugations and other patterns to a vase by blow- Minusio, Cadra, Grave 14.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



in Etudes Namuroises dediees a F. Courtoy (1952), pp. 76 ff.). Belgian pieces from Vervoz,Commune de Clavier (tumuli I and II) , and Avennes (four in one grave) are cataloguedby M. Vanderhoeven, Verres Romains (\er—yne sikle) des Musees Curtius et du Verre aLikge (1961), pp. 70 ff., nos. 76—80, pis. xvii—xviii, and the Vervoz ones are discussed byJ. Philippe, 'Les verres des tumuli de Vervoz', in Collection Latomus, lviii (1962), 1243 ff.,pis. 233 and 236, who gives good reasons, based on associated finds, for ascribing them tothe second half of the first century. For examples from Cologne and elsewhere in theRhineland see F. Fremersdorf, Denkmaler des rom. Koln, HI, Rom. Buntglas in Koln (1958),p. 33, pi. 39, and id., IV, Das naturfarbene sogenannte blaugriine Glas in Koln (1958),pp. 23, 33, pis. 9, 48—49, and references ad locc. Fremersdorf puts them all in the firstcentury A.D.

This type reached Britain in some quantity. We might have hoped for firm examples ofit from the well-dated early levels at Colchester, but though Forms 55 a and 55 b almostcertainly existed there, the evidence for Form 55*7 is equivocal.1 We must therefore turnelsewhere. A fine amber one (pi. XLIII, b) from a grave at Radnage, Bucks., found with amarbled pillar-moulded bowl, is in the British Museum (Antiq. Journ. iii (1923), 334,pi. xxxv) as are examples from Bexhill field, Milton-next-Sittingbourne, Kent, and Barn-well, Cambs. (B.M. Guide to the Antiquities of Roman Britain (1951), p. 44, pi. xii, nos. 10-1 I)J others come from Richborough, Kent (Richborough IV, p. 158, nos. 367-8, pi. lxvii),2

and Faversham, Kent (Canterbury Museum, no. 930). One, which has pre-mouldedcorrugations on the body, travelled as far north as Turriff in north Aberdeenshire, tenmiles south of Banff. The late W. A. Thorpe, publishing it in Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot.,lxviii (1933-4), 439 ff., gave a valuable account of the group, though he was inclined tospread the examples too widely in date on subjective art-historical and typological criteria.We know now that this Turriff piece cannot be as late as the middle or late second century,as he suggests, for it is exactly comparable in shape with others here discussed which belongto the late first or early second century A.D.

Many fragments, also, occur in Britain. A neck and handle from Nicholas Lane,London, is in the London Museum (London Mus. Catalogues: no. 3, London in RomanTimes (1930), p. 122, fig. 42, A25462); another neck-fragment is inTullie House Museum,Carlisle (D. Charlesworth in Trans. Cumb. and Westm. Antiquar. and Archaeol. Soc, lix(i960), 38, fig. 7); and there are eight in Corbridge Museum (W. Bulmer in Archaeol.Aeliana, 4 ser. xxxiii (1955), 125). For other northern specimens, forming firm links in thedistribution-line between the southern British pieces and Turriff, see D. Charlesworth inArchaeol. Aeliana, 4 ser. xxxvii (1959), p. 52.

Miss Charlesworth (op. cit. (1959), p. 52) suggests A.D. 70-180 as the inclusive date forthis type. The available evidence for their date, however, seems to indicate that the majorityfall within the first century, and though manufacture continued probably into the second,I doubt if it lasted even up to the middle of that century. In terms of years, therefore, Iwould prefer to date the type A.D. 50—125, with a possible hang-over to A.D. 150, thoughthis might be one of use rather than of manufacture, as must so often have happened.

Can we fix any closer date within that period for the Winchester example? Note, first,that it is of deep dark blue glass, which is a characteristic first-century colour. Note alsothat the diameter of the body is less than the height of the body, a feature which it shareswith the olive-green jug in tumulus II at Vervoz (second half of first century); the two

1 In the Claudio-Neronian levels (IV-VI) I could the third was a neck and handle fragment only,list only three fragments of Form 55 (D. B. Harden 2 I omit ibid., no. 370 for reasons explained inapud, Camulodunum, p. 305, nos. 94-96). No. 94 note 2, p. 240, below,was of Form 55 b; no. 95 was either 55 a or 55 b;



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


24o THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

Locarno pieces, which are now dated mid-first century and mid-second half of first century,respectively;1 the Radnage jug (mid-first century, or very little later, because of its accom-panying marbled bowl) which differs from ours only in having a shorter neck and verticalribs instead of nipped ones; and the Barnwell and Faversham jugs, not dated by association.

These facts suggest that the Winchester jug and the others just mentioned can all bereasonably securely ascribed to the third quarter of the first century A.D. and that there is asomewhat later group, represented, for example, by Turriff, Bexhill field, Milton-next-Sittingbourne, and two of Fremersdorf's Cologne examples (Fremersdorf, opp. citt. (1958),iii, pi. 39 and iv, pi. 9) belonging to the first quarter of the second century. This would notprevent them being found in graves up to the middle of the second century, or even a littlelater. It is my belief that the type, if it had continued to be made after c. 125, would alsooccur in the colourless metal, which is so typical of the middle and later second century:and it does not.2

18. The bronze jug, by PROFESSOR J. M. C. TOYNBEE, F.B.A., F.S.A. (fig. 8, pi. XLIV).

The bronze jug is 15-2 cm. (6 inches) high and 35-5 cm. (14 inches) in girth round theshoulders. It has a trefoil mouth, which measures 10-2 cm. (4 inches) across from the back,where the handle was attached, to the tip of the spout. Round the base of the neck are twoincised circles 0-4 cm. (0-15 inch) apart. The shoulders project almost at a right-angle tothe neck, and below them the body tapers slightly inwards to the low base, which is 6-6 cm.(2-6 inches) in diameter and 0-6 cm. (0-25 inch) high. An incised circular line marks thepoint of junction of the body and the base and 0*4 cm. (0*15 inch) below that line there isanother incised circular line. On the underside of the base are engraved three concentriccircles, of which the outer one is formed by a single line and is 4*9 cm. (1*95 inches) indiameter, while the two inner circles are formed by double lines. The Winchester jug is ofthe same shape as those found at Stanfordbury in Bedfordshire^ and at Kornye (Kom.Kamarom) and Dunapentele (Intercisa) in Pannonia.4 It has survived in remarkably goodcondition, apart from three slight dents on the sides of the body and a tiny crack in the base.It is covered with a fine patina of rich, deep green.

The jug was spun on a lathe out of a thin, single, circular sheet of bronze, there beingclearly visible on the exterior of the base the 'centre-mark', or small depression, left by thepointed end, or 'centre', of one of the two axes, or 'mandrels', of the lathe. The vessel wasshaped while rotating with a 'burnisher', which is usually a wooden rod equipped with ahard, rounded end, probably a nodule of haematite, the heat of which prevented the bronzefrom hardening. It is likely that the body of the vessel was built up on a solid, roughlyhemispherical, wooden block, known as a 'chunk' or 'forme'. Then the shoulders and neckwere shaped with the 'burnisher', the top of the neck was pulled outwards, and finally the

1 For this dating see L. Berger, Romische G/a'ser merits at the lip and on the shoulder could belong toaus Vindonissa (i960), table opp. p. 92, which gives one of the handles of the type which concerns us here,the most recent, considered dates for the various I have therefore (see n. 2, p. 239) omitted thisgraves at Locarno. piece from my reckoning.

2 I state this firmly, despite the apparent con- 3 Museum of Archaeology and of Ethnology,trary evidence of the 'colourless' jug from pit 141 Cambridge: C. Fox, The Archaeology of the Cam-atRichborough illustrated in Richborough IV, p. 158, bridge Region (1923), pi. 26, fig. 1; J. M. C. Toyn-no. 370, pi. lxviii. Miss Charlesworth tells me that bee, Art in Roman Britain (2nd ed., 1963), p. 175,the piece is not colourless, but greenish. Besides, the no. 114, pi. 130.shape is uncertain, since the drawing is restored from 4 Hungarian National Museum, Budapest: A.fragments and the handle, as restored, is quite un- Radnoti, Die romischen Bronzegefdsse von Pannon-convincing. But whatever shape the handle was, it is ien (1938), pp. 148-9, pis. 13, no. 73; 49, nos. 2, 3.difficult to see how the extant bits of handle-attach-



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



trefoil mouth was obtained by heating the bronze slightly at this point and hammering itinto the required form: hammer marks can be detected below the rim. The incised circlesmentioned above were made with a sharp point while the jug was rotating.1

The handle, solid-cast separately in a mould, was found loose, but in position on the jug,which it fits precisely. Traces of the soldering by which it was once attached to the jugstill remain. Its patina is of a paler, greyer green than that of the jug; and this difference isprobably to be accounted for by the difference in the consistency of the bronze between thejug and the handle. The jug is likely to have contained little, if any, lead, while in thehandle a considerable admixture of lead is to be suspected. The handle's length, includingits outward curve, is 16-4 cm. (6-5 inches) from its highest point above the rim to the lowestpoint of its base-escutcheon, which clasped the body of the jug. At the top of the handle,projecting above the mouth of the jug, is a female head and bust, with arms outstretched oneither side to grip the rim. The face is young and full. The hair, which is surmounted byan upstanding, crescent-shaped diadem, is parted above the centre of the brow, covers theears, is divided behind into four segments by three deeply incised lines, and is gathered intoa small horizontal pad on the nape of the neck. Lightly hatched lines indicate the strandsof hair on the back and sides of the head and on the pad. In front the bust shows a sleeve-less tunic with a V-shaped neck and slightly diagonal folds below it. Behind, on the upperpart of the bow of the handle, is a triangular feature in relief, tapering downwards, whichmight be meant to represent a cloak. The diadem suggests that the bust may portray agoddess. The lower portion of the bow of the handle is incised with a triangle, taperingupwards and containing a very lightly engraved and stylized palmette. The base-escutcheonconsists of a round-faced female mask with a rather broad nose, thickish lips, and incisedeyebrows. The hair above the brow is arranged in ten vertical segments or rolls, whichdecrease in size from the centre to the sides and are very wig-like in appearance. Theserolls are surmounted by a crescent-shaped diadem decorated with a series of vertical ridges.On either side of the face fall perpendicularly three stiff locks or ringlets with pointed ends,the locks on the spectator's right being cross-hatched. A very shallow crack runs horizon-tally across each set of locks, just above chin-level. Some species of theatre-mask may havebeen intended.

For the female bust at the top of the handle a parallel is afforded by the handle of theStanfordbury jug: there the hair again covers the ears, but it is not surmounted by a diadem.2

As regards the escutcheon-mask, the diadem and the treatment of the hair above the browresemble those of the escutcheon-mask on the handle of the globular-shaped, trefoil-mouthedbronze jug from the Bartlow Hills (Barrow VII) ; although there the diadem terminatesin a volute on either side, only two perpendicular locks or ringlets depend on either side ofthe face, and there is a palmette below the chin.3 The three lateral locks or ringlets of theWinchester mask may be compared with those of the mask on the handle-escutcheon of abronze ewer-shaped jug from Newstead: but there the treatment of the hair above the browis wholly different.4

The leading centre for the manufacture of bronze jugs of this type, and of other bronzevessels, in late republican and early imperial times was Campania.5 These products of tbe

1 I am greatly indebted to Mr. Henry Hodges,of the Institute of Archaeology, University of Lon-don, for elucidating for me the process of the jug'smanufacture.

2 See n. 3, p. 240, above, and J. M. C. Toyn-bee, Art in Britain under the Romans (1964), pi. 3,

fig.c.

3 Lost: V.C.H. Essex, iii (1963), pi. 6 b.4 National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland,

Edinburgh: J. Curie, A Roman Frontier Post and itsPeople: the Fort of 'Newstead'(1911), p. 276, fig. 38 c,pi. 56.

5 Papers of the British School at Rome, xxvii(1959), 109-10.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



south Italian factories were exported widely into central and north-west European countries,where they were also imitated locally. In view of its fine workmanship, its method ofproduction, and the early date—within about three or four decades of the Roman conquestof this island—of the burial in which it came to light, the Winchester jug could well be ofCampanian origin and have been made during the first half of the first century A.D. ThisWinchester find supplements the evidence of that from Stanfordbury for a taste for costlyornamental bronzes from the Mediterranean lands among the romanized Belgic gentry.

- ' < D.S.N

FIG. 8. Grange Road, Winchester, Grave II: bronze jug, 18

19. Tinned bronze spoon, with plain circular bowl and round-sectioned handle. Tests showthat the spoon is certainly tinned rather than silvered. The type occurs in first-centurycontexts, e.g. Hod Hill (J. W. Brailsford, Hod Hit/, i (1962), p. 17, pi. xi, 152).

20. Bronze-handled iron knife. The blade, the iron of which has almost entirely disappeared,was set in a narrow slot running most of the length of the handle. In the rectangular spacesbetween the terminal ring and the moulding over the back of the blade, the tang wasoriginally flanked by wooden scales, held in place by the bronze flanges and kept tight bythe tang itself. Traces of wood are still clearly visible, preserved by the migration of thecorrosion products from the iron to the wood. A knife of this type with ring and scrolleddecoration was found in a first-century context at Brecon [T Cymmrodor, xxxvii (1926),117-18, fig. 59, 2); another occurred at Richborough (Richborough IF, p. 130, pi. xxxvi,no. 123) with a parallel at Hofheim which must date before A.D. 79.

21. Bronze seal-box lid, with crouching applique animal which is held in position by a rivetpassing through the lid. No traces of tinning or silvering are present. Exact parallels,



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



36-47

48-53

\J (

O €&W 54-61

FIG. 9. Grange Road, Winchester, Grave II: metal, 19-30, 32, glass, 36-53, frit, 54-61, and bandedflint, 62 (|)



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



certainly from the same workshop, were found in a pre-mid second-century context atWroxeter (J. P. Bushe-Fox, Third Report on the Excavations.. .at Wroxeter (Soc. of Antiq.Res. Rep. iv, 1916), pp. 29-30, pi. xviii, no. 26); in a late first- or early second-centurycontext also at Wroxeter (D. Atkinson, Report on Excavations at Wroxeter, IQ23-192J(1942), p. 211, pi. 51, A308); and unstratified at Richborough {Richborough III, p. 81,pi. xii, no. 36).

22. Tinned bronze ring rather D-shaped in section. The ring is too small for a grown man, butwould be suitable for a woman or young person of the age suggested by the cremated remains(p. 231, but see p. 248, below).

23. Bronze bell with polygonal canon and two incised lines on the shoulder. There is noevidence for tinning, silvering, or gilding.

24. 25. Two featureless bronze pins, 4-6 and 5-0 cm. (i-8 and 2 inches) in length. Foundwith no. 27, A, B, corroded on to the underside of the bronze jug (no. 18).

26 A. Bone-handled iron knife with terminal ring. The bone scales are fixed to the tang bymeans of four bronze rivets passing through the whole assembly. The scales are horizontallyreeded and terminate at the blade end in a hollow vertical moulding recalling the bronzehandle of no. 20.

26 B. Fragment of an iron knife blade, 3-3 cm. (1-3 inchest long, probably part of no. 26 A.27 A. Iron tool with spatulate ends; around the thickest part of the round-sectioned stem there

are three grooves in which X-radiographs show the presence of non-ferrous metal, probablycopper-alloy bindings. This is probably a two-ended modelling tool and can be comparedto an example from London (London Museum Catalogues: No. 3, London in Roman Times(1930), pi. xxxii, no. 5, A2040). It was found corroded on to the underside of the bronzejug (no. 18), next to the two pins (nos. 24 and 25) and adjacent to no. 27 B, in such a waythat the latter appeared to be the handle of the tool, no. 27 A. Radiological examinationof no. 27 B shows that this is unlikely, for the end of no. 27 B shows no signs of the spatulateend of no. 27 A ever having been inserted into it. Nevertheless no trace of another toolassociated with no. 27 B was found, and it might have been a handle added to no. 27 Awhen the latter was no longer used as a two-ended instrument.

27 B. Radiological examination shows that this object consists of an iron binding around acentral mass, now highly impregnated with corrosion products. Traces of wood inside theiron binding suggest that this binding was originally wound around a wooden core, throughwhich passed the round-sectioned tang of some object, which was held in position by theriveting of its end. Its relationship to no. 27 A is discussed above.

28. Iron stylus, 14 cm. (5-5 inches) long. One end expanded into a flattened spatulate moulding.29. Iron stylus, 14-9 cm. (5-85 inches) long. One end spatulate.30. Iron ring with plain band and expanded oval cartouche. The object is heavily corroded,

and no trace of decoration can be seen.31. Iron nail with traces of wood. {Not illustrated.)32. Iron nail with broad flat head, the point clenched over. The wood traces preserved by

the corrosion products show that the nail fastened one piece of wood about I -2 cm. (05 inch)thick to another 2-2 cm. (0-9 inch) thick.

33. Iron nail similar to no. 32 but with a rather squarer flat head. Traces of wood are present.(Not illustrated.)

34. Fragment of an iron nail with wood traces. (Not illustrated.)35. Iron nail similar to nos. 32 and 33, with traces of wood. (Not illustrated.)36—47. Twelve white glass playing counters (eleven illustrated, no. 44 lost). The diameters

range from I - I to 1-9 cm. (0^41 to 0-75 inch), but it seems that the variations are due tochance and that there was no deliberate intention of producing different sizes.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



48-51. Four black glass playing counters, the diameters ranging from 1 -6 to 2 cm. (0-67 to 0-82inch).

52—53. Two blue glass playing counters, the diameters 1-3 and i-6 cm. (0-5 and 0-67 inch). Itseems possible that the whole set of counters is present and that it thus consisted of 12 white,4 black, and 2 blue counters. The 2 blue counters were perhaps the most important pieceswith one on each side—and the presence of only two counters in this colour suggests thatthe game was for two competitors only, with nine pieces each, 1 blue, 2 black, and 6 white.The game might thus have been played on a board with nine squares to a side, but sur-viving examples seem to have eight squares {Richborough II, p. 13, pi. xiv, fig. 1, no. 2;James Curie, A Roman Frontier Post and its People; the Fort of Newstead (1911), pp. 338—9), so some more complex placing must have been used. A set of counters also containing12 white and 4 black pieces, but in addition, 1 blue, 1 green, and 4 yellow pieces, 2 whitebone discs, and 2 dice, was found at Ospringe (W. Whiting, W. Hawley, and T . May,Report on the Excavation of the Roman Cemetery at Ospringe, Kent (Soc. of Antiq. Res.Rep. viii, 1931), pi. lvi.

54—61. Eight melon beads of Egyptian faience, i.e. frit body with a greenish-blue glaze. Thecolour ranges from turquoise blue on parts of nos. 54 and 57 to emerald green on no. 55-The diameters range from 0-9 cm. (no. 61) to 2-0 cm. (no. 57) (0-38 to 075 inch), the cen-tral perforations varying from 0-5 cm. (no. 61) to 0-9 cm. (no. 55) (o-2 to 0-4 inch).

62. Banded flint. Although often thought to be fossils, such stones, which are fairly commonobjects in south-east England, are entirely inorganic in origin. They would, however,attract attention for the same kind of reason as fossils, as is indicated by the folk-name,worm stones, sometimes attached to them. Fossils seem to have been thought to havemagical powers1 and fossil sea-urchins have been noted in late Iron Age and Romano-British contexts at Studland, Dorset {Antiquity, xxxix (1965), 298). The present stone,found in a group with personal trinkets, was probably valued for the same reason.

63. Bones of right hind limb of young pig (12—16 months by modern standards), with a bird ulna,not further identifiable. {Not illustrated.)*

64. Left mandible matching left maxilla and left skull fragments, all probably from one animal,which could be the same as no. 63. {Not illustrated.)

65. Two tiny fragments of burnt clay, possibly tile, in the filling of the pit. {Not illustrated.)66. Two featureless sherds of Roman grey ware, one with a burnished groove, found high in

the filling of the grave pit. {Not illustrated and not located on the plan, fig. 5.)67. Two tiny fragments of clinker, possibly derived from the cremation. {Not illustrated.)

The date of Grave II

In the absence of coins, the dating of this grave rests on the group of thirteensamian vessels for which Mr. Dannell proposes a date of c. A.D. 70—95. The otherobjects for which a date can be suggested on comparative grounds (nos. 15, 16,17, 20, and 21) are fully consistent with a date for the deposition of the grave in theFlavian period. As some time must be allowed for the assembly of the objects andsome (slight ?) use before burial, this deposition may perhaps be placed nearer theend of the Flavian period, say A.D. 85-95, than at its beginning.

1 Kenneth Oakley, 'Folklore of Fossils', Antiquity, (Natural History), for identifying the stone,xxxix (1965), 9-16, 117-25. I am most grateful to 2 I am most grateful to Miss Jennie Coy for identi-Dr. Oakley for his help and comments and to fying the animal bones. Full details are depositedDr. R. P. S. Jefferies, also of the British Museum with the finds in the Winchester City Museum



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



The burial rite and its affinities

The layout of the objects in Grave II, with some indication of their significanceand the sequence of events at burial, has already been described (above, p. 231),with some additional information from the badly disturbed Grave I (above, p. 227).Undoubtedly the most distinctive feature of Grave II is the laying of a meal on andaround the shale trencher. A discovery at Jordan Hill, Preston, Weymouth, in1845 or 1846 provides a parallel to this arrangement.1 On a shale trencher (Table II,no. 3), found by the shoulders of a skeleton, were placed three vessels—a smallhandled cup of black ware, a black ware imitation samian Form 37 with semicirclesand pendent verticals, and a plain samian dish with potter's stamp; around the tren-cher were five small bowls of black ware; by the knees of the skeleton was a bottleof yellowish ware. The accounts of the Jordan Hill grave are not sufficiently preciseto indicate whether other features of the Grange Road burial, such as food offerings,were also present, but it remains the only other case showing the actual laying ofa meal and the use to which shale plaques were put.

The distinctive features of Grave II can be conveniently summarized as follows:flat grave cremation burial in a pit;the laying of a meal on a trencher with knives and spoon;the provision of food (and possibly drink);the inclusion of drinking equipment: cups and jugs;an imported bronze jug;an imported glass jug;many samian vessels;a relatively large total of pottery vessels;a group of trinkets, probably once in a container;writing equipment.

Here, as in the Snailwell burial,2 the emphasis is on providing a banquet for the dead.As Table I shows, many of these features are common to the rich Belgic graves ofsouth-east England. Although the excavation of most of these graves took placebefore the necessity for detailed recording was appreciated, it is clear that some ofthe features of Grave II, notably the provision of drinking equipment and the im-ported bronze jug, go back to the roots of Belgic culture in Britain, for importedbronzes were already present in Aylesford Grave Y.3 The ritual 'killing' by break-age of some of the objects in these graves may also suggest some continuity of rite.It may be present in Grave II (nos. 16 and 17, see p. 231, above), and has beensuggested at Lexden C (the tumulus),4 at Snailwell,5 and possibly at Stanfordbury

1 Best accounts by T . W. Wake Smart in C. 25-37.Warne, Ancient Dorset (1872), Appendix, p. 298 3 For the most recent discussion with full refer-(andpl.facingp.297)andp.23i; he also contributed ences to earlier accounts see Ann Birchall, 'Theto J. Hutchins, History and Antiquities ofthe County Aylesford-Swarling Culture: The Problem of theof Dorset, 3rd'ed., i (1861), p. 562, and to Pur- Belgae reconsidered', P.P.S.xxxi (1965), 241-367.beck Papers, i (1859-60), 228-9, P^ *xm- I am 4 P. G. Laver, 'The excavations of a Tumulusgrateful to Mr. R. A. H. Farrar for these references, at Lexden, Colchester', Archaeologia, lxxvi (1926),

2 T . C. Lethbridge,'Burial of an Iron Age War- 252.rior at Snailwell', Proc. Camb. A.S. xlvii (1954), 5 Lethbridge, op. cit.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


TA

BL

E

I.

Cha

ract

eris

tic

feat

ures

of

som

e ri

ch '

Bel

gic

grav

es

Wel

wyn

A,

50

/30

-10

B.C

. 'v

ault

' x

Her

ts.0

Wel

wyn

B,

50

/30

-10

B.C

. 'v

ault

' x

Her

ts.c

Mou

nt

Bur

es,

pos

t-10

B.C

. 'v

ault

' ..

..

x

Ess

ex"

Lex

den

C,

pos

t-17

B-c -

unde

r ..

..

Ess

ex8

mou

nd

Her

tfor

d H

eath

, c.

A.D

. 4

0 x

..

iK

-N

on

e-

xH

erts

."

Snai

lwel

l, c.

A.D

. 43

x ?

iK

xx

XX

X

Cam

bs.°

Stan

ford

bury

C

laud

ian

'v

ault

' ..

iK

? X

A,

Bed

s.8

Stan

ford

bury

C

lau

diu

s-N

ero

'vau

lt'

..

..

XB

, Bed

s.1

Win

ches

ter

Fla

vian

x

? ..

x

XG

.R.I

, H

ants

.'

Win

ches

ter,

F

lavi

an

X

X

2K

..

..

X

X

XG

.R.I

I,

Han

ts."

iS

A

For

th

e le

tter

s d

isti

ngu

ish

ing

som

e of

th

e gr

aves

bel

ow,

see

Bir

chal

l, op

.ci

t. in

n.

3 on

p.

246.

1 S

mit

h, o

p. c

it.

in n

. 1

on p

. 24

8.

c Ib

id.

D I

bid.

, pp.

8-9

. '

Lav

er, o

p. c

it.,

in n

. 4

on p

. 2

46

.p J

. H

olm

es a

nd W

. H

. C

. F

ren

d, '

A B

elgi

c C

hief

tain

's G

rave

on

Her

tfor

dH

eath

", E

ast

Her

ts.

Arc

h.

Soc

. T

ran

s, x

iv,

i (1

955—

7),

I-1

0.-

° L

ethb

ridg

e, o

p. c

it.

in n

. 2

on p

. 24

6

11

II8? iA

§•§-

g

s

H S

4•I

11 if

6A X iA 3A 6A 2A iF (urn

)

iF

X(p

hial

)

X •• X X

On

eve

ssel

?

•• X X X X

X X? X X X X? X X

XB

XB

?

xB

?

xB

?

X xB XB

X

XA

• • xS xS ••

" S

mit

h,

op. c

it.

in n

. 1

on p

. 24

8, p

p. 9

-12

. V

.C.H

. B

eds,

ii

(19

08

), 1

3—

'4-

1 Th

is p

aper

, pp.

226

—30

.O

pp.

citt

. in

n.

H,

abov

e.*

Th

is p

aper

, pp

. 2

30

-45

.L T

he

exca

vati

ons

at W

elw

yn (

1906

), M

oun

t B

ures

(18

49),

and

Sta

nfor

d-bu

ry (

1832

—4)

wer

e in

suff

icie

ntly

acc

urat

e to

rec

ord

su

ch d

etai

ls h

ad th

ey e

xist

ed.

M i

.e.

a to

tal

of o

ver

ten

pot

tery

ves

sels

of

all

kind

s in

th

e gr

ave.

O C 2 o HH

M-l w H W



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


248 T H E ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

B ('second vault').1 On the other hand, the careful repair of the flagon (no. 15),the missing handle of the glass jug (no. 17), and the damaged beaker (no. 16) may-all rather suggest that old and damaged articles were regarded as good enough forburial with the dead, and were disposed of in this way.2

There are certainly differences between the Grange Road burial and the othersshown in Table I: Grave II has no weapons, no fire-dogs, and no amphorae; it hasa meal laid out and it has writing equipment. In the main these are probably differ-ences of date and social status; but the similarity to the Jordan Hill burial, theinclusion of a shale trencher, and the occurrence of animal bones in the grave (apractice commoner in the Dorset region at this time than in south-east England),suggest Durotrigian influences combined here with more obvious south-easternBelgic features. Such a combination certainly results from the geographicallocation of Winchester between the main centres of the two areas. What seemsestablished is that the Grange Road burials are completely native in character,even if romanized in content, and show traces of ritual practices fundamental toBelgic culture, still in full force near the end of the first century A.D.

The occurrence of styli in this native context is thus of special interest. Styli areknown to occur in early graves, for example, at Chichester.3 Sometimes they canperhaps be regarded as no more than trinkets, their owners being unable to write.In Grave II this is unlikely to be the case: not only are two styli present, but theyare both unadorned, everyday instruments. It is possible, therefore, that this roman-ized native was literate at a date within forty years of the Conquest.

The final point concerns the sex of the person buried in Grave II. Dr. Brothwellsuggests that the cremated remains are those of an immature individual, perhapsa teenager or a fairly slender female (above, p. 231). The contents of the grave,particularly the. drinking and gaming equipment, and probably also the styli,suggest, however, that this is a man's grave.4

APPENDIXSHALE TRENCHERS

The accompanying list (Table II) gives details, where ascertainable, of twenty-one rect-angular shale plaques, including the example from Grange Road, Winchester, Grave I I . Ofthese, seventeen come from Dorset,5 close to the outcrops of Kimmeridge Shale from whichthey were made (fig. 10). From the finds in some cases associated with the plaques, it appearsthat they were in vogue in the later first and earlier second centuries A.D.

1 R. A. Smith, 'On Late-Celtic Antiquities dis- Arch. Jourtt. Ixxxviii (1931), 273.covered at Welwyn, Herts.', Archaeologia, lxiii 4 I am grateful to Dr. I. M. Stead for allowing(1912), 10-12, does not mention this, but see me to see proofs of his important paper'A La TeneF.C.H. Beds, ii (1908), p. 14. Ill Burial at Welwyn Garden City', Archaeologia,

2 I am grateful to Mr. John Collis for this obser- ci (1967), 1-62, in time to correct Table I wherevation, based on evidence from Owlesbury Grave 10. it was based on earlier accounts which his own

3 Information from Mr. A. G.Down: one stylus work has now superseded.in a grave of A.D. 70-80, another in a grave of late 5 I am most grateful to Mr. R. A. H. Farrar,first to early second century. For a fine bronze stylus F.S.A., for kindly providing me with full details ofin a grave of A.D. 130-60 at Baldock, Herts., see the shale plaques found in Dorset.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



They have been variously interpreted as writing-tablets, gaming-boards, ornamental panelsfor the veneering of walls or furniture, or trays.1 In the light of the evidence of the Jordan Hill,Weymouth, burial (no. 3) and now particularly of the Grange Road grave (no. 17), the lastsuggestion seems closest to the truth. In the latter case the placing of food offerings, two knives,and a spoon directly on the shale plaque suggests that the plaques could be used as trenchers onwhich the food was actually cut. This suggestion is supported by the knife-cuts on the decoratedsurface of most of the plaques2 and especially those from Corfe Castle, Norden, 1964 (no. 13),and Bagwood, Bere Regis (no. 10). The scorings on the former are fairly regular and comparable

Fic. 10. Distribution map of shale trenchers in southern Britain. The numbers refer to the list of sites inTable II

to the marks on a carving board, while those on the latter again suggest a working surface. Theuse of these plaques as trenchers would probably produce just such an effect, and, pending thediscovery of further examples in graves, it is suggested that they should be regarded as tray-liketrenchers for placing on tables, or if these were not used, on the knees or on the ground. Althoughshale found in archaeological contexts is usually fragile, when freshly quarried it closely resemblesslate in texture and hardness,3 and would be perfectly suitable for the purpose here suggested.

1 The existence of a bevel on the underside ofsome of these objects has been used (London inRoman Times (1930), p. 109) to support theirinterpretation as trays, since it would make themeasier to pick up. As Table II shows, bevels arealmost as frequent on the upper edges and cannottherefore be used to support this argument.

2 These cuts, which are relatively few in number,

must not be confused with the mass of scoringsfound on the underside of almost all these objects.These latter scorings appear to result from the roughtrimming of the underside of the shale, which hasnot been brought to the same smooth surface as theupper side.

3 J. B. Calkin, 'Kimmeridge Coal-Money', Proc.D.N.H.A.S. 75 (1955).+7-



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


2so THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL

The following list is concerned only with decorated rectangular trenchers and omits thecircular plaques, some certainly table tops, known from Norden (Corfe Castle),1 Bagber,2 andPortland^ in Dorset, and from Silchester,* in Hampshire. As the list shows, there are, with somevariations, two basic sizes of rectangular trencher, the smaller about 12 by i o inches, and thelarger about 20 by 16 inches.

1 Purbeck Papers, i (1859-60), 225, pi. xxv; in Portland Museum, Wakeham Street, Easton,Dorset County Museum 1884. 9. 153. Portland.

2 Proc. D.N.H.A.S. 12 (1891), 30-31. 4 Reading Museum.3 From the Verne Citadel, Portland, and now



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883


TABLE II

Shale Trenchers

Serial

I

2

3

41

Sz

6

789 3

I O 4

I I

1 2

'3

' 4

IS16

I 7 5

18*

19'

2 O

2 I 8

Find-Place

Weymouth, Jordan Hill, DorsetWeymouth, Jordan Hill, Dorset

Weymouth, Jordan Hill, Dorset

Weymouth, Preston, Jordan Hill, DorsetWeymouth, Radipole, Dorset

Weymouth, Sutton Poyntz, Dorset

Dorchester, Masonic HallDorchester area, Dorset, ? tPuncknoll, 'Walls', Dorset

Bere Regis, Bagwood, Dorset

Wareham, Dorset

Corfe Castle, Norden, Dorset, ?Corfe Castle, Norden, Dorset

Woodyates, Cranborne Chase, Dorset

Location ??, DorsetRotherly, Cranborne Chase, Wilts

Winchester, Grange Road, Hants, Grave IISilchester, Hants

London, St. Martins-le-Grand, G.P.O.

London, Poultry?, Midland BankLondon, Walbrook

Date found

Before 1879Before 1879

1845-6

Before 18851869

1935-6

1905Before 18841966

1963

Before 1933

c. 18841964

1889

?

1886-7

19641905

1913-14

Before 19291873

Size (inches)

I3-IX9-9XO-312-3x8-8x0-3

20X 16x0-4

Frag. 0-4 thickI2-I x 9-8x0-3

Frags. (2)

Frag. 0-45 thickFrag. 0-3 thickFrags. (2) 0-4 thick

Frags. (3) 0-37 thick (av.)

Frag. [orig. c. 1 i-2]x IO-I xo-35

Frag. 0-3 thickFrag. [orig. c. 21 x c. 17- 5] x 0-4

Frag. 0-54 thick

Frags. (2) 0-2 thickFrag. [orig. I37]x 13x0-4 (av.)

I9-9X 16-1x0-38Frags. (3) 0-37 thick (av.)

Frag. 0-46 thick (av.)

Frag. 0-35 thick, (av.)Frag. 0-3 thick

BevelUpper edge (U)Lower edge (L)

LU

?

LU

?

?LL?

L

L

NoneL

L

UL?

LU

U, L?

U?

u

Knife cutson

decoratedsurface

YesYes

?

NoYes

?

f

YesNo

Yes

Yes

YesYes

Yes

YesNo

YesYes

>

YesYes

Date of deposit

Late 1st cent.

Probably late R.B., butearlier material present

Late 1st—2nd cent.

T.p.q. in early 2nd cent.

3rd-4th cent.

Late 1st cent.?

Flavian

Pit F13, first half 2ndcent. Arch. 66 (1914—15), 261

Probably pre-mid 2ndcent.

Publication

Cranborne Chase, ii (1889), 175-6Cranborne Chase, ii (1889), 175-6

See n. 1, on p. 246, above

Cranborne Chase, ii (1889), 175.Probably from site described inProc. D.N.H.A.S. 73 (1951),96-97

Proc. D.N.H.A.S. 88 (1966),107-8

Proc. D.N.H.A.S. 87 (1965), 98-

Proc. D.N.H.A.S. 76 (1954), 83,mention only

Proc. D.N.H.A.S. 87 (1965),in—12

Cranborne Chase, iii (1892), 143

Cranborne Chase, ii (1888), 174.-6

Present paper, pp. 233-4? Arch. 60 (1906), 163

London in Roman Times (1930), 109

London in Roman Times (1930), 109Guildhall Mus. Cat. (2nd ed.,

1908), 114, R. XV. 273

Reproduced

Cranborne Chase, ii (1889), 175, fig. ACranborne Chase, ii (1889), 175, fig. cB.M. Guide, Roman Britain (1922),

fig. 92Purbeck Papers, i (1859—60), pi. xxiiiCranborne Chase, ii (1889), 176, fig. D

Cranborne Chase, ii (1889), 175, fig. D

Proc. D.N.H.A.S. 87 (1965), fig. 12

Cranborne Chase, iii (1892), pi. 185, 16

Cranborne Chase, ii (1888), pi. 118

Present paper, fig. 6

London in Roman Times (1930), pi. 50, 1

London in Roman Times (1930), pi. 50, 2

Present location

B.M., 1879. 7-12. 1B.M., 1879. 7~12- z

Lost

Dorset County Mus., 1885. 16. 101B.M., 1879. 8-1. 2

In private possession of Mrs. Kim-ber, 'Wyndings', Plaisters Lane,Sutton Poyntz

D.C.M., 1907. 3. 11D.C.M., 1884. 9. 152In possession of excavator

In possession of excavator

D.C.M., 1933. 17. ,

D.C.M., 1884.9. JSiRed House Museum, Christchurch,

HantsPitt Rivers Museum, Farnham,

DorsetD.C.M., 0. 194. 1Pitt Rivers Museum, Farnham,

DorsetWinchester City MuseumReading Museum, Silchester Col-

lectionLondon Museum, A16403

London Museum, 29. 94/22Guildhall Museum, 3690

1 Mr. Roger Peers kindly allowed me to examine all the trenchers in the Dorset County Museum.2 This is one of the three complete trenchers in the British Museum. Although all three are said by both Pitt Rivers

(Cranborne Chase, ii (1889), 175, fig. B) and R. A. Smith (Guide to the Antiquities of Roman Britain (1922), p. 70) to comefrom Jordan Hill, Weymouth, the provenance of this example is quite clearly given in the relevant register as Radipole. Iam grateful to Miss E. F. Chapman-Purchas, Research Assistant in the Sub-Department of Prehistory and Roman Britain,for investigating this problem.

3 I am most grateful to Mr. C. J. Bailey, the excavator, for details of this find.

4 I am most grateful to Mr. G. S. G. Toms, the excavator, for additional details of this find.5 Also from Winchester are three small fragments of decorated shale, probably from similar trenchers. Two belong to

the period A.D. 43—140 (from Kingdon's Workshop, 1956-7: Barry Cunliffe, Winchester Excavations. ig4g-6o, i (1964),p. 92, fig. 25, 3,4); the third is Flavian (from Wolvesey Palace, 1967: S.F, 1146)

6 Miss Jillian A. Thomas, Assistant Archaeologist at the Reading Museum, kindly sent details of these fragments.7 Dr. D. B. Harden, through Miss Jean Macdonald, kindly sent me additional details of nos. 19 and 20.8 I am most grateful to Mr. Ralph Merrifield for arranging for me to see this trencher.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 84.93.92.31, on 16 Feb 2018 at 17:52:58, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500013883

Documents

Two Flavian Burials from Grange Road, Winchester