Click here to see how to contribute
Create regional corpora of Roman pottery and publish information on key production centres
Summary:
The East Midlands was an important area for the manufacture of pottery, which in the case of Nene Valley colour-coated wares and mortaria produced in the Hartshill and Mancetter kilns of the Leicestershire-Warwickshire border were distributed nationally[1]. Several regionally important production sites have also been identified, together with a variety of pottery fabrics whose production location is less well understood[2]. Comparative studies of the chronology, production and distribution of local and regional wares are hindered by inconsistencies in terminology and variability in recording methodologies[3]. Research on these subjects would benefit from the development of a region-wide fabric and form series[4], building upon existing county schemes and the National Roman Fabric Collection[5]. The compilation of a catalogue of pottery in museum collections and publication of key groups from sites such as Stanwick and Ashton in Northamptonshire would also strengthen the infrastructure for research[6]. Syntheses of the nationally important Lower Nene Valley and Mancetter-Hartshill industries are long overdue, together with synthetic studies of the key regional industries represented by the Swanpool, Knaith, Bourne and Market Rasen kilns of Lincolnshire, Upper Nene Valley greywares, the Lower Trent valley kilns, Derbyshire wares, the problematic shell-tempered fabrics of Lincolnshire and south Nottinghamshire[7], and the mid-first century fineware industries of Northamptonshire[8]. Such work would greatly enhance knowledge of the pottery industry in the region and beyond, and by assisting the development of training programmes would address the growing skills shortage in Roman ceramic analysis[9].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1- 5.1.3; 5.1.5; 5.2.1 – 5.2.5; 5.3.4; 5.4.3; 5.6.1; 5.6.3; 5.6.6
Support the dissemination and synthesis of information on Roman finds
Summary:
Opportunities should be taken to encourage appropriate recording and typological and scientific analyses of pottery, metalwork, coinage, querns and other finds derived from fieldwalking and metal-detecting[10], including finds deposited in museums, and the wider dissemination of this information[11]. This has particular potential for enhancing our understanding of regional exchange networks and wider social issues such as eating and drinking[12] and the development of social identities. By providing greater opportunities for public engagement in the research process, this would also promote the role of the voluntary sector in the regional Research Strategy.[13][14][15] The Portable Antiquities Scheme is well placed to promote the dissemination of information and to assist in the formulation of guidelines for the recording and analysis of finds. In addition, as much of this material continues to elude county Historic Environment Records, there are opportunities for ensuring closer liaison between the public, Historic Environment Record staff and other heritage professionals. The importance of finds as an educational resource should also be emphasised, bearing in mind particularly the inclusion of the Roman period as a National Curriculum subject[16].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1-5.1.4; 5.2.1 – 5.2.5; 5.3.4; 5.4.3; 5.6.1-5.6.6; 5.8.2
Promote the systematic application of scientific dating techniques to sites of the Roman period
Summary:
The chronology of the Roman period is fairly well established, although complicated for the non-specialist by inconsistencies in dating terminology and hindered by an over-reliance upon pottery, imprecise dating of much metalwork and a continuing reluctance to embrace scientific dating methods[17]. The problem is especially acute in the Peak, where both Iron Age and Roman artefacts are scarce[18], and is compounded by the longevity of native artefact traditions[19] and the particular problems of dating 3rd and 4th century pottery[20]. Further problems, arising from a paucity of regional pottery corpora and non-publication of key assemblages, are discussed above (5A). Radiocarbon dating has particular potential for refining chronologies, especially through the application of Bayesian analysis[21], and despite calibration difficulties in the late Roman period, systematic programmes of dating should be encouraged. Resources should also be targeted upon dendrochronology, which has significant potential for dating the waterlogged wood recovered from deeply stratified urban contexts and rural sites with favourable conditions of preservation. These and other scientific techniques such as archaeomagnetic or rehydroxylation dating[22] are especially relevant for the late Roman period, which, with the cessation of Roman coin supply from around AD402, loses an important dating tool and have particular potential for elucidating the tradition of late and post-Roman inhumations lacking associated grave-goods[23].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.1.4; 5.1.5; 5.2.3; 5.3.2; 5.3.4; 5.4.1- 5.4.4; 5.5.4; 5.7.1; 5.8.1; 5.8.4; 5.8.5
Support the application of scientific analysis to human remains
Summary:
Part of the Research Frameworks Network
How Times Change: Navenby Unearthed (Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Monograph 2). Lincoln: Pre-Construct Archaeological Services, 59; reproduced by permission of Colin Palmer-Brown)Despite the excavation of a number of moderately extensive Roman cemeteries in the region[24] and of isolated burials on and around settlements, sometimes in boundary features[25], there has been little analysis of skeletal remains of this period. The application of radiocarbon and isotopic analysis[26] would enable these burials to be placed more securely in their chronological and environmental contexts, while DNA analyses of bone samples have the potential for elucidating the genetic relationships between individuals preserved in cemeteries[27]. To some extent, because of the antiquity of many excavations, such analysis may have to await the discovery of new large-scale cemeteries. Of the many burials recorded from Lincoln, for example, relatively few have survived for modern analysis[28]. It is recommended, in view of the potential research value of such remains, that adequate provision for appropriate scientific analysis be included as a standard requirement in archaeological schemes of treatment relating to sites likely to yield evidence of Roman activity.
Agenda topics addressed: 5.5.3; 5.8.1; 5.8.4; 5.8.5
Promote the integration of specialist studies of material relating to subsistence, diet and health
Summary:
Excavations have generated a substantial body of data that may be applied to studies of intra-regional and temporal variations in subsistence and diet, and hence to assessment of the impact of Roman cultural traditions upon the dietary preferences of native communities[29][30][31]. The full potential of this information may only be realised by ensuring adequate dialogue between specialists and by promoting the integration of disparate specialist data in site reports and regional syntheses. Particular emphasis should be placed upon the integration of studies examining the functional composition of pottery groups and the residues preserved on pottery[32], querns and other material associated with food production, processing and storage[33], and associated faunal and palaeobotanical remains[34]. Scientific analyses with significant potential for the reconstruction of ancient diet and health, exemplified by residue analyses of ancient pottery and stable isotope analyses of human remains[35], need to be encouraged as routine practice[36]. There is also considerable scope for enhancing the palaeoenvironmental record – notably by encouraging regular sieving for fish bones and by ensuring that bulk samples are large enough to yield sufficient floral and faunal data to permit meaningful analysis[37].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.3.2-5.3.4; 5.4.6; 5.5.1-5.5.5
Develop public and professional access to Lincoln and Leicester Urban Archaeological Databases as a basis for further work
Summary:
On-line access to the UADs for Lincoln and Leicester, together with the continuing publication of excavation backlogs for these cities, is proposed as a springboard for hinterland and community archaeology projects focused upon these major public towns[38]. At Lincoln, both the early legionary fortress and the later colonia[39] have been extensively excavated. A review and a research agenda have been produced for the initial military phase of Lincoln and the subsequent period of civil consolidation[40], and much information on the Roman heritage of the city is now available on the innovative Heritage Connect website[41]. The major public town at Leicester has seen extensive recent excavations[42], the results of which are incorporated in a UAD that is now an integral part of the Historic Environment Record. It is proposed that the information contained in these databases be made available on-line and revised regularly, ensuring that they remain up-to-date research resources. In terms of further work, it is recommended that particular emphasis be placed initially upon characterising the Late Iron Age settlements known to have existed at both locations and exploring the impact of urbanisation upon the hinterlands of these towns.
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.1.4; 5.2.1 – 5.2.5; 5.3.1-5.3.5; 5.4.3; 5.5.3; 5.6.1; 5.6.2; 5.7.1-5.7.4; 5.8.1; 5.8.3; 5.8.5
Promote further synthesis of secondary urban centres and targeted post-excavation analysis and publication
Summary:
Archaeological Geophysical Survey at Chester Farm, Irchester. Northampton: Northamptonshire Archaeology; reproduced by permission of Northamptonshire Archaeology)The secondary urban settlements of the region are comparatively poorly known, but formed an important tier of the regional settlement hierarchy that was closely integrated with the developing road network[43]. They represent a particularly prominent element of the East Midlands landscape, of interest within and beyond the region, and a detailed review is recommended to elucidate further their character and to explore comparisons with towns elsewhere in Britain. This could build upon important work undertaken for Northamptonshire[44] and could be combined with analysis and publication of key sites such as Ancaster, Lincolnshire[45], Ashton, Northamptonshire[46], Thistleton, Rutland[47] and Brough-on-Fosse, Nottinghamshire[48]. Detailed analyses of the structural remains, artefacts and environmental data from these secondary urban centres should enhance significantly our understanding of their origins, morphology and socio-economic, political and religious functions, their relationship to roads, rural settlements, villas and larger public towns, and their impact upon the rural landscape. Many of these secondary urban centres may have developed from nucleated Late Iron Age settlements, and there is significant potential for study of the origins of urbanisation and the balance between military and indigenous motors of change[49].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.1.4; 5.2.1-5.2.5; 5.3.1-5.3.5; 5.4.3; 5.5.3; 5.6.1; 5.7.1-5.7.4; 5.8.1; 5.8.3; 5.8.5
Investigate the landscape context of rural settlements
Summary:
Further synthetic studies are required to develop further our understanding of the Roman agrarian landscape, and in particular to investigate how landscapes and rural settlements had varied between the upland and lowland zones[50]. Where detail is available, as at Long Bennington[51] and Stanwick[52], there are suggestions that in some areas villas or Romanised farms had developed from Iron Age settlements with no significant reorganisation of the surrounding countryside. In other areas, by contrast, there are indications of major landscape reorganisation linked to agricultural expansion; this is exemplified by the integration of settlements and boundaries in the ‘brickwork-plan’ field systems of the Sherwood Sandstones[53][54] and the coaxial field patterns of the Trent Valley downstream of Newark[55][56], both of which systems appear to have developed principally in the Roman period. Fieldwalking, metal detecting, cropmark plotting, geophysical survey, lidar and targeted excavation all have important parts to play in mapping and interpreting these landscapes. Appropriate survey programmes, building upon and enhancing earlier investigations in areas such as the Lincolnshire Fens[57] and Peak District[58][59], should be developed alongside the dissemination of key unpublished datasets and synthetic studies aimed at contextualising current data[60]. In addition, appropriate environmental sampling strategies need to be encouraged to accumulate botanical and faunal data that will provide a secure foundation for studies of changing landscape context and site location strategies (5E).
Agenda topics addressed: 5.4.1-5.4.6; 5.5.1-5.5.4
Support research and publication of landscape syntheses
Summary:
A variety of landscapes within the region, including the major river valleys of the Nene[61], Welland[62], Witham[63] and Trent[64], have been the subject of long-term and extensive investigations in advance of quarrying and other developments and of landscape-based research targeted upon the Roman period. Additional synthetic studies of the major river valleys would be particularly welcome, and could provide useful comparisons with studies of upland areas such as the Peak[65], Lincolnshire Wolds[66] and Northamptonshire Uplands[67]. Key research themes include the use of rivers and associated artificial waterways[68] for the transport, across and beyond the region, of commodities such as lead and pottery[69], the role of rivers as foci for industrial production[70] and, more generally, the significance of riverine communication networks as drivers of landscape change[71]. Opportunities should also be taken to collate the comparatively neglected evidence for riverside installations such as mills, bridges and fords[72]. Such studies could usefully be combined with palaeochannel surveys comparable to that conducted in the Trent Valley[73], which may assist in locating Roman river courses and hence areas of potential interest for the preservation of riverside installations.
Agenda topics addressed: 5.4.1-5.4.6; 5.5.1 – 5.5.4; 5.7.2-5.7.4
Instigate regional scale characterisation study of industry
Summary:
The East Midlands preserves nationally important evidence not only for pottery production (Objective 5A) but also for ironworking, centred upon Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Rutland[74], lead mining and processing in Derbyshire[75], and salt manufacture throughout the coastal areas of Lincolnshire[76]. Other noteworthy industries include quarrying for querns[77], other stone artefacts and building materials, ceramic tile production, copper alloy smelting, and craft industries utilising wood and secondary agricultural products such as bone, antler, leather and textiles[78]. Understanding of some of these industries, notably salt and pottery production, has greatly improved in recent years, but many questions remain to be answered on the chronology, technology, infrastructure and socio-economic contexts of these and other industries[79]. A regional-scale assessment of the current evidence for Roman industrial activities is recommended as a springboard for further studies of specific industries (see also Objectives 5A and 5B).
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.2.1; 5.2.4 – 5.2.5; 5.3.1- 5.3.5; 5.4.3; 5.6.1-5.6.4; 5.7.2; 5.7.4
Strategic Objective 5A
Create regional corpora of Roman pottery and publish information on key production centres
Summary:
The East Midlands was an important area for the manufacture of pottery, which in the case of Nene Valley colour-coated wares and mortaria produced in the Hartshill and Mancetter kilns of the Leicestershire-Warwickshire border were distributed nationally[1]. Several regionally important production sites have also been identified, together with a variety of pottery fabrics whose production location is less well understood[2]. Comparative studies of the chronology, production and distribution of local and regional wares are hindered by inconsistencies in terminology and variability in recording methodologies[3]. Research on these subjects would benefit from the development of a region-wide fabric and form series[4], building upon existing county schemes and the National Roman Fabric Collection[5]. The compilation of a catalogue of pottery in museum collections and publication of key groups from sites such as Stanwick and Ashton in Northamptonshire would also strengthen the infrastructure for research[6]. Syntheses of the nationally important Lower Nene Valley and Mancetter-Hartshill industries are long overdue, together with synthetic studies of the key regional industries represented by the Swanpool, Knaith, Bourne and Market Rasen kilns of Lincolnshire, Upper Nene Valley greywares, the Lower Trent valley kilns, Derbyshire wares, the problematic shell-tempered fabrics of Lincolnshire and south Nottinghamshire[7], and the mid-first century fineware industries of Northamptonshire[8]. Such work would greatly enhance knowledge of the pottery industry in the region and beyond, and by assisting the development of training programmes would address the growing skills shortage in Roman ceramic analysis[9].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1- 5.1.3; 5.1.5; 5.2.1 – 5.2.5; 5.3.4; 5.4.3; 5.6.1; 5.6.3; 5.6.6
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 154
Other research frameworks:
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.4.1 (Understanding materials).
Willis, S H, 2004 ‘The Study Group for Roman Pottery research framework document for the study of Roman pottery in Britain 2004’. Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 11, 1-20 (especially Sections 3.5.2-3, 3.6.2 and 5.3.2-3)
References:
[1] Swan, V, 1984 The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, Supplementary Series 5). London: Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, 95-101
[2] Taylor, J 2006 ‘The Roman period’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 151-152
[3] Taylor 2006, 140-41; Darling, M 2004 ‘Guidelines for the archiving of Roman pottery’. Journal of Roman Studies 11, 67-74
[4] Willis 2004, 5-6: 3.3.2; Taylor 2006, 152
[5] Tomber, R and Dore, J 1998 The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A Handbook. London: Museum of London Archaeological Services
[6] Willis 2004, 5: 3.2; Taylor 2006, 152; see Darling, M and Precious, B 2014 A Corpus of Roman Pottery from Lincoln. Oxford: Oxbow Books
[7] Taylor 2006, 151-152; Willis 2004, 10: 4.4.1
[8] eg Woods, P and Hastings, S 1984 Rushden: The Early Finewares. Northampton: Northamptonshire County Council
[9] Willis 2004, 7-8: 3.6.2; 14: 5.3.2; Allason-Jones, L 2001 ‘Material culture and identity’ in James, S and Millett, M (eds) Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125). London: Council for British Archaeology, 24-25
Support the dissemination and synthesis of information on Roman finds
Summary:
Opportunities should be taken to encourage appropriate recording and typological and scientific analyses of pottery, metalwork, coinage, querns and other finds derived from fieldwalking and metal-detecting[10], including finds deposited in museums, and the wider dissemination of this information[11]. This has particular potential for enhancing our understanding of regional exchange networks and wider social issues such as eating and drinking[12] and the development of social identities. By providing greater opportunities for public engagement in the research process, this would also promote the role of the voluntary sector in the regional Research Strategy.[13][14][15] The Portable Antiquities Scheme is well placed to promote the dissemination of information and to assist in the formulation of guidelines for the recording and analysis of finds. In addition, as much of this material continues to elude county Historic Environment Records, there are opportunities for ensuring closer liaison between the public, Historic Environment Record staff and other heritage professionals. The importance of finds as an educational resource should also be emphasised, bearing in mind particularly the inclusion of the Roman period as a National Curriculum subject[16].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1-5.1.4; 5.2.1 – 5.2.5; 5.3.4; 5.4.3; 5.6.1-5.6.6; 5.8.2
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 139, 154, 158, 290
Other research frameworks:
Willis, S H 2004 ‘The Study Group for Roman Pottery research framework document for the study of Roman pottery in Britain 2004’. Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 11, 2: Section 1.2.1
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009, 19, 21
References:
[10] Cooper, N J 2005 ‘Promoting the study of finds in Roman Britain: Democracy, integration and dissemination. Practice and methodologies for the future’ in Hingley, R and Willis, S (eds) Roman Finds: Context and Theory. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 34-51
[11] eg Daubney, A 2010 ‘The use of gold in Late Iron Age and Roman Lincolnshire’ in Malone, S and Williams, M (eds) Rumours of Roman Finds. Recent Work in Roman Lincolnshire. Heckington: Heritage Trust for Lincolnshire, 64-74
[12] Cool, H M 2006 Eating and Drinking in Roman Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Cooper, N J 2006 ‘Cross-period research and the foundations of a research strategy’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 290
[14] BHTA (Bingham Heritage Trails Association): survey of Bingham parish, Nottinghamshire, including fieldwalking of Roman sites in the hinterland of the small town of Margidunum (http://www.binghamheritage.org.uk); Allen, P, Ashton, G and Henstock, A 2010 Bingham Back in Time: a History of Settlement in the Parish of Bingham, Nottinghamshire. Bingham: Bingham Heritage Trails Association
[15] CLASP (Community Landscape and Archaeology Project): fieldwalking survey of Roman sites in the Upper Nene Valley (http://www.claspweb.org.uk).
[16] Willis 2004, 2: 1.2.1
Promote the systematic application of scientific dating techniques to sites of the Roman period
Summary:
The chronology of the Roman period is fairly well established, although complicated for the non-specialist by inconsistencies in dating terminology and hindered by an over-reliance upon pottery, imprecise dating of much metalwork and a continuing reluctance to embrace scientific dating methods[17]. The problem is especially acute in the Peak, where both Iron Age and Roman artefacts are scarce[18], and is compounded by the longevity of native artefact traditions[19] and the particular problems of dating 3rd and 4th century pottery[20]. Further problems, arising from a paucity of regional pottery corpora and non-publication of key assemblages, are discussed above (5A). Radiocarbon dating has particular potential for refining chronologies, especially through the application of Bayesian analysis[21], and despite calibration difficulties in the late Roman period, systematic programmes of dating should be encouraged. Resources should also be targeted upon dendrochronology, which has significant potential for dating the waterlogged wood recovered from deeply stratified urban contexts and rural sites with favourable conditions of preservation. These and other scientific techniques such as archaeomagnetic or rehydroxylation dating[22] are especially relevant for the late Roman period, which, with the cessation of Roman coin supply from around AD402, loses an important dating tool and have particular potential for elucidating the tradition of late and post-Roman inhumations lacking associated grave-goods[23].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.1.4; 5.1.5; 5.2.3; 5.3.2; 5.3.4; 5.4.1- 5.4.4; 5.5.4; 5.7.1; 5.8.1; 5.8.4; 5.8.5
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 140-141, 154
Other research frameworks:
Willis, S H 2004 ‘The Study Group for Roman Pottery research framework document for the study of Roman pottery in Britain 2004’. Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 11, 13: Section 5.1
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.2.1 (Chronology)
References:
[17] Taylor, J 2006 ‘The Roman period’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 140-141, 154
[18] Bevan, B 2005 ‘Peaks Romana: The Peak District Romano-British rural upland settlement survey’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 118, 26-58; Makepeace, G A 1998 ‘Romano-British rural settlement in the Peak District’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 118, 95-138
[19] eg Friendship-Taylor, R M 1998 Late La Tène Pottery of the Nene and Welland Valleys, Northamptonshire (British Archaeological Reports British Series 280). Oxford: B.A.R
[20] Taylor 2006, 141, 154; Willis 2004, 13: 5.1
[21] eg Lawrence, S and Smith, A 2009 Between Villa and Town. Excavations of a Roman Roadside Settlement and Shrine at Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire (Oxford Archaeology Monograph 7). Oxford: Oxford Archaeology, 140-145
[22] Wilson, M A Carter, M A, Hall, C et al 2009 ‘Dating fired-clay ceramics using long-term power law rehydroxylation kinetics’. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 1-9 (http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/05/20/rspa.2009.0117)
[23] Taylor 2006, 154, 159; Esmonde-Cleary, S 2001 ‘The Roman to medieval transition’, in James, S and Millett, M (eds) Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125). London: Council for British Archaeology, 96
Support the application of scientific analysis to human remains
Summary:
How Times Change: Navenby Unearthed (Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Monograph 2). Lincoln: Pre-Construct Archaeological Services, 59; reproduced by permission of Colin Palmer-Brown)Despite the excavation of a number of moderately extensive Roman cemeteries in the region[24] and of isolated burials on and around settlements, sometimes in boundary features[25], there has been little analysis of skeletal remains of this period. The application of radiocarbon and isotopic analysis[26] would enable these burials to be placed more securely in their chronological and environmental contexts, while DNA analyses of bone samples have the potential for elucidating the genetic relationships between individuals preserved in cemeteries[27]. To some extent, because of the antiquity of many excavations, such analysis may have to await the discovery of new large-scale cemeteries. Of the many burials recorded from Lincoln, for example, relatively few have survived for modern analysis[28]. It is recommended, in view of the potential research value of such remains, that adequate provision for appropriate scientific analysis be included as a standard requirement in archaeological schemes of treatment relating to sites likely to yield evidence of Roman activity.
Agenda topics addressed: 5.5.3; 5.8.1; 5.8.4; 5.8.5
Archaeology of the East Midlands:158-159
Other research frameworks:
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.3.1 (People and environment)
References:
[24] eg Leicester: Cooper, L 1996 ‘A Roman cemetery in Newarke Street, Leicester’. Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 70, 1-90 (https://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/CoopervolumeLXXvsm.pdf); Margidunum, Nottinghamshire: Todd, M 1969 ‘Margidunum: Excavations 1966-8’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 73, 7-104
[25] Taylor, J 2006 ‘The Roman period’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 154; eg Ashton, Northamptonshire: Dix, B 1985 ‘Ashton’. Northamptonshire Archaeology 20, 148-149
[26] eg Leach, S, Eckardt, H, Chenery, C et al 2010. ‘A ‘lady’ of York: Migration, ethnicity and identity in Roman York’. Antiquity 84, 131-45; see also: http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/research/Projects/arch-HE-Diaspora.aspx.
[27] Esmonde-Cleary, S 2001 ‘The Roman to medieval transition’ in James, S and Millett, M (eds), Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125). London: Council for British Archaeology, 96
[28] Jones, M J, Stocker, D and Vince, A (eds) 2003 The City by the Pool: Assessing the Archaeology of the City of Lincoln. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 108-14.
Promote the integration of specialist studies of material relating to subsistence, diet and health
Summary:
Excavations have generated a substantial body of data that may be applied to studies of intra-regional and temporal variations in subsistence and diet, and hence to assessment of the impact of Roman cultural traditions upon the dietary preferences of native communities[29][30][31]. The full potential of this information may only be realised by ensuring adequate dialogue between specialists and by promoting the integration of disparate specialist data in site reports and regional syntheses. Particular emphasis should be placed upon the integration of studies examining the functional composition of pottery groups and the residues preserved on pottery[32], querns and other material associated with food production, processing and storage[33], and associated faunal and palaeobotanical remains[34]. Scientific analyses with significant potential for the reconstruction of ancient diet and health, exemplified by residue analyses of ancient pottery and stable isotope analyses of human remains[35], need to be encouraged as routine practice[36]. There is also considerable scope for enhancing the palaeoenvironmental record – notably by encouraging regular sieving for fish bones and by ensuring that bulk samples are large enough to yield sufficient floral and faunal data to permit meaningful analysis[37].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.3.2-5.3.4; 5.4.6; 5.5.1-5.5.5
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 277
Other research frameworks:
Dobney, K 2001 ‘A place at the table: The role of vertebrate zooarchaeology within a Roman research agenda for Britain’ in James, S and Millett, M (eds) Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125). London: Council for British Archaeology, 36-45
Van der Veen, M, Livarda, A and Hill, A 2007 ‘The archaeobotany of Roman Britain: current state and identification of research priorities’. Britannia 38, 181-210 (especially 202-207)
Willis, S H 2004 ‘The Study Group for Roman Pottery research framework document for the study of Roman pottery in Britain 2004’. Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 11, 6: Section 3.4.1-3.4.2; 15: Sections 5.5 & 5.6
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.3.1 (People and environment)
References:
[29] Dobney 2001, 36-37; Monckton, A 2006 ‘Environmental archaeology in the East Midlands’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 273-279
[30] Cool, H M 2006 Eating and Drinking in Roman Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
[31] Stallibrass, S and Thomas, R (eds) 2008 Feeding the Roman Army. Oxford: Oxbow Books
[32] Willis 2004, 15: Section 5.6; 6: Section 3.4.2
[33] Taylor, J 2006. ‘The Roman period’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 153
[34] Monckton, A 2006 ‘Environmental archaeology in the East Midlands’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 262: Table E1, 273-277; Albarella, U and Pirnie, T 2008 A Review of Animal Bone Evidence from Central England (http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/animalbone_eh_2007/)
[35] eg Richards, M P, Hedges, R E M, Molleson, T I et al 1998 ‘Stable isotope analysis reveals variations in human diet at the Poundbury Camp cemetery site’. Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 1247-1252
[36] Willis 2004, 6: Sections 3.4.1-3.4.2
[37] eg Dobney 2001, 41-42; Locker, A 2007 ‘In piscibus diversis; the bone evidence for fish consumption in Roman Britain’. Britannia 38, 141-80
Develop public and professional access to Lincoln and Leicester Urban Archaeological Databases as a basis for further work
Summary:
On-line access to the UADs for Lincoln and Leicester, together with the continuing publication of excavation backlogs for these cities, is proposed as a springboard for hinterland and community archaeology projects focused upon these major public towns[38]. At Lincoln, both the early legionary fortress and the later colonia[39] have been extensively excavated. A review and a research agenda have been produced for the initial military phase of Lincoln and the subsequent period of civil consolidation[40], and much information on the Roman heritage of the city is now available on the innovative Heritage Connect website[41]. The major public town at Leicester has seen extensive recent excavations[42], the results of which are incorporated in a UAD that is now an integral part of the Historic Environment Record. It is proposed that the information contained in these databases be made available on-line and revised regularly, ensuring that they remain up-to-date research resources. In terms of further work, it is recommended that particular emphasis be placed initially upon characterising the Late Iron Age settlements known to have existed at both locations and exploring the impact of urbanisation upon the hinterlands of these towns.
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.1.4; 5.2.1 – 5.2.5; 5.3.1-5.3.5; 5.4.3; 5.5.3; 5.6.1; 5.6.2; 5.7.1-5.7.4; 5.8.1; 5.8.3; 5.8.5
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 155-157
Other research frameworks:
Burnham, B, Collis, J, Dobinson, C, et al ‘2001 Themes for urban research’ in James, S and Millett, M (eds) 2001 Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125). London: Council for British Archaeology, 67-76
Jones, M J, Stocker, D and Vince, A, 2003 The City by the Pool: Assessing the Archaeology of the City of Lincoln. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 54-55 (The Roman military era) and 138-140 (The Colonia era)
Millett, M 2001 ‘Approaches to urban societies’ in James and Millett (eds), 60-66
EH Thematic Research Strategy for the Urban Historic Environment 2010: Priorities UR1 (Synthesis of developer-funded research into the urban historical environment) and UR2 (Urban characterisation).
References:
[38] Compare Gaffney, V and White, R 2007 ‘Wroxeter, the Cornovii and the Urban Process’. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 68
[39] Founded to house those who had completed their military service and had been granted Roman citizenship (Hurst, R (ed) 1999 ‘The Coloniae of Roman Britain’. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 36)
[40] Jones et al 2003 54-55 and 138-140
[41] http://www.heritageconnectlincoln.com.
[42] Morris, M, Buckley, R and Codd, M 2011 Visions of Ancient Leicester. Leicester: University of Leicester Archaeological Services
Promote further synthesis of secondary urban centres and targeted post-excavation analysis and publication
Summary:
Archaeological Geophysical Survey at Chester Farm, Irchester. Northampton: Northamptonshire Archaeology; reproduced by permission of Northamptonshire Archaeology)The secondary urban settlements of the region are comparatively poorly known, but formed an important tier of the regional settlement hierarchy that was closely integrated with the developing road network[43]. They represent a particularly prominent element of the East Midlands landscape, of interest within and beyond the region, and a detailed review is recommended to elucidate further their character and to explore comparisons with towns elsewhere in Britain. This could build upon important work undertaken for Northamptonshire[44] and could be combined with analysis and publication of key sites such as Ancaster, Lincolnshire[45], Ashton, Northamptonshire[46], Thistleton, Rutland[47] and Brough-on-Fosse, Nottinghamshire[48]. Detailed analyses of the structural remains, artefacts and environmental data from these secondary urban centres should enhance significantly our understanding of their origins, morphology and socio-economic, political and religious functions, their relationship to roads, rural settlements, villas and larger public towns, and their impact upon the rural landscape. Many of these secondary urban centres may have developed from nucleated Late Iron Age settlements, and there is significant potential for study of the origins of urbanisation and the balance between military and indigenous motors of change[49].
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.1.4; 5.2.1-5.2.5; 5.3.1-5.3.5; 5.4.3; 5.5.3; 5.6.1; 5.7.1-5.7.4; 5.8.1; 5.8.3; 5.8.5
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 155-157.
SHAPE 2008: Understanding place: assessing the national resource (11111.140) and regional historic environment components (11111.170); Realising the research dividend from past unpublished historic environment excavations (11113.110); Tapping the motherlode: supporting synthesis of key commercial project research (11113.410).
Other research frameworks:
Burnham, B, Collis, J, Dobinson, C, et al 2001 ‘Themes for urban research’ in James, S and Millett, M (eds) Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125). London: Council for British Archaeology, 67-76
Millett, M 1995 ‘Strategies for Roman small towns’ in Brown, A E (ed) Roman Small Towns in the East of England and Beyond (Oxbow Monograph 5). Oxford: Oxbow, 29-38
Millett, M, 2001 ‘Approaches to urban societies’ in James and Millett (eds), 60-6.
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.3.1 (People and environment).
EH Thematic Research Strategy for the Urban Historic Environment 2010: Priority UR1 (Synthesis of developer-funded research).
References:
[43] Brown, A E (ed) 1995 Roman Small Towns in the East of England and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books; Burnham, B C and Wacher, J 1990 The Small Towns of Roman Britain. London: Batsford; Taylor, J 2007 Atlas of Roman Rural Settlement in Britain (CBA Research Report 151). York:Council for British Archaeology
[44] Foard, G, Ballinger, J and Taylor, J 2002 The Northamptonshire Extensive Urban Survey. London: English Heritage and Northamptonshire County Council
[45],[46] Burnham and Wacher 1990, 235-240 and 279-81
[47] Greenfield, E 1962 ‘Thistleton’. Journal of Roman Studies 52, 173-75
[48] Jones, H 2002 ‘Brough, Glebe Farm’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 106, 147-48; Vyner, B (ed), in prep Archaeology on the A46 Fosse Way: Newark to Lincoln
[49] Taylor 2006, 149, 155-157
Investigate the landscape context of rural settlements
Summary:
Further synthetic studies are required to develop further our understanding of the Roman agrarian landscape, and in particular to investigate how landscapes and rural settlements had varied between the upland and lowland zones[50]. Where detail is available, as at Long Bennington[51] and Stanwick[52], there are suggestions that in some areas villas or Romanised farms had developed from Iron Age settlements with no significant reorganisation of the surrounding countryside. In other areas, by contrast, there are indications of major landscape reorganisation linked to agricultural expansion; this is exemplified by the integration of settlements and boundaries in the ‘brickwork-plan’ field systems of the Sherwood Sandstones[53][54] and the coaxial field patterns of the Trent Valley downstream of Newark[55][56], both of which systems appear to have developed principally in the Roman period. Fieldwalking, metal detecting, cropmark plotting, geophysical survey, lidar and targeted excavation all have important parts to play in mapping and interpreting these landscapes. Appropriate survey programmes, building upon and enhancing earlier investigations in areas such as the Lincolnshire Fens[57] and Peak District[58][59], should be developed alongside the dissemination of key unpublished datasets and synthetic studies aimed at contextualising current data[60]. In addition, appropriate environmental sampling strategies need to be encouraged to accumulate botanical and faunal data that will provide a secure foundation for studies of changing landscape context and site location strategies (5E).
Agenda topics addressed: 5.4.1-5.4.6; 5.5.1-5.5.4
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 157-158, 277
Other research frameworks:
Taylor, J 2001 Rural society in Roman Britain, in James, S and Millett, M (eds), 2001 Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125), 46-59. London: Council for British Archaeology
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.3.1 (People and environment)
References:
[50] See recent general synthesis in Taylor, J 2007 Atlas of Roman Rural settlement in Britain (CBA Research Report 151). York: Council for British Archaeology; also Bewley, R H (ed) 1988 Lincolnshire’s Archaeology from the Air (Occasional Papers in Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 11). Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology
[51] Leary, R 1994 Excavations at the Romano-British Settlement at Pasture Lodge Farm, Long Bennington, Lincolnshire, 1975-77 by H.M. Wheeler (Occasional Papers in Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 10). Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology
[52] Neal, D S 1989 ‘The Stanwick villa, Northants: an interim report on the excavations of 1984-88’. Britannia 20, 149-168
[53] Garton, D 2008 ‘The Romano-British landscape of the Sherwood Sandstone of Nottinghamshire: fieldwalking the brickwork-plan field-systems’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 112, 15-110; http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/brickworkplan_eh_2009/
[54] Riley, D N, 1980 Early Landscape from the Air: Studies of Cropmarks in South Yorkshire and North Nottinghamshire. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, Department of Prehistory and Archaeology
[55] Garton, D 2002 ‘Walking fields in South Muskham and its implications for Romano-British cropmark-landscapes in Nottinghamshire’. Transactions of the Thoroton Society 106, 17-39
[56] Whimster, R P 1989 The Emerging Past. Air Photography and the Buried Landscape London: RCHME
[57] Malone, S 2010 ‘Rumours of Roman finds: updating Roman Lincolnshire’ in Malone, S and Williams, M (eds) Rumours of Roman Finds. Recent Work in Roman Lincolnshire. Heckington: Heritage Trust for Lincolnshire, 1-14; (http://www.apsarchaeology.co.uk/services/lidar/index.php?page=Services_LIDAR_Introduction)
[58] Bevan, B 2005 ‘Peaks Romana: The Peak District Romano-British rural upland settlement survey’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 118, 26-58
[59] Makepeace, G A 1998 ‘Romano-British rural settlement in the Peak District’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 118, 95-138
[60] Taylor, J 2006 ‘The Roman period’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 137-140, 143-145, 149-150 and 157-158
Strategic Objective 5I
Support research and publication of landscape syntheses
Summary:
A variety of landscapes within the region, including the major river valleys of the Nene[61], Welland[62], Witham[63] and Trent[64], have been the subject of long-term and extensive investigations in advance of quarrying and other developments and of landscape-based research targeted upon the Roman period. Additional synthetic studies of the major river valleys would be particularly welcome, and could provide useful comparisons with studies of upland areas such as the Peak[65], Lincolnshire Wolds[66] and Northamptonshire Uplands[67]. Key research themes include the use of rivers and associated artificial waterways[68] for the transport, across and beyond the region, of commodities such as lead and pottery[69], the role of rivers as foci for industrial production[70] and, more generally, the significance of riverine communication networks as drivers of landscape change[71]. Opportunities should also be taken to collate the comparatively neglected evidence for riverside installations such as mills, bridges and fords[72]. Such studies could usefully be combined with palaeochannel surveys comparable to that conducted in the Trent Valley[73], which may assist in locating Roman river courses and hence areas of potential interest for the preservation of riverside installations.
Agenda topics addressed: 5.4.1-5.4.6; 5.5.1 – 5.5.4; 5.7.2-5.7.4
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 153, 157
Other research frameworks:
Taylor, J 2001 ‘Rural society in Roman Britain’ in James, S and Millett, M (eds) Britons and Romans: Advancing an Archaeological Agenda (CBA Research Report 125). London: Council for British Archaeology, 46-59
EH National Heritage Science Strategy Report 2 2009: Section 3.3.1 (People and environment)
References:
[61] Upex, S 2008 The Romans in the East of England: Settlement and Landscape in the Lower Nene Valley. Stroud: Tempus
[62] Pryor, F M M and French, C A I 1985 Archaeology and Environment in the Lower Welland Valley. East Anglian Archaeology 27
[63] Catney, S and Start, D (eds) 2003 Time and Tide: the Archaeology of the Witham Valley. Heckington: Witham Valley Archaeology Research Committee
[64] Knight, D, Howard, A J and Leary, R 2004 ‘The Romano-British landscape’ in Knight, D and Howard, A J Trent Valley Landscapes. Kings Lynn: Heritage Marketing and Publications, 115-51
[65] Bevan, B 2005 ‘Peaks Romana: The Peak District Romano-British rural upland settlement survey, 1998-2000’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 125, 26-58
[66] Jones, D 1998 ‘Romano-British settlements on the Lincolnshire Wolds’, in Bewley, R H (ed) Lincolnshire’s Archaeology from the Air (Occasional Papers in Lincolnshire History and Archaeology 11). Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, 69-80
[67] Mudd, A 2008 Iron Age and Roman settlement on the Northamptonshire Uplands (Northamptonshire Archaeology Monograph 1). Northampton: Northamptonshire Archaeology
[68] Taylor, J 2006 ‘The Roman period’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 157
[69] eg Wallis, H 2002 Roman Routeways across the Fens (East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 10). East Anglian Archaeology
[70] Knight, Howard and Leary 2004, 121-122: Lower Trent pottery kilns
[71],[72] Taylor 2006, 153, 157
[73] Baker, S 2006 ‘Cultural heritage management and the palaeo-environmental resource: surveying the surface-visible palaeochannel record in the Trent Valley, UK’ (http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/palaeo_eh_2006/)
Instigate regional scale characterisation study of industry
Summary:
The East Midlands preserves nationally important evidence not only for pottery production (Objective 5A) but also for ironworking, centred upon Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Rutland[74], lead mining and processing in Derbyshire[75], and salt manufacture throughout the coastal areas of Lincolnshire[76]. Other noteworthy industries include quarrying for querns[77], other stone artefacts and building materials, ceramic tile production, copper alloy smelting, and craft industries utilising wood and secondary agricultural products such as bone, antler, leather and textiles[78]. Understanding of some of these industries, notably salt and pottery production, has greatly improved in recent years, but many questions remain to be answered on the chronology, technology, infrastructure and socio-economic contexts of these and other industries[79]. A regional-scale assessment of the current evidence for Roman industrial activities is recommended as a springboard for further studies of specific industries (see also Objectives 5A and 5B).
Agenda topics addressed: 5.1.1; 5.2.1; 5.2.4 – 5.2.5; 5.3.1- 5.3.5; 5.4.3; 5.6.1-5.6.4; 5.7.2; 5.7.4
Archaeology of the East Midlands: 158
References:
[74] Schrufer-Kolb, I 1999 ‘Roman iron production in the East Midlands, England’ in Young, S M M, Pollard, A M, Budd, P et al (eds) Metals in Antiquity (British Archaeological Reports International Series 792). Oxford: B.A.R, 227-33; also Schrufer-Kolb, I 2004 Roman Iron Production in Britain: Technological and Socio-Economic Developments along the Jurassic Ridge (British Archaeological Reports British Series 380). Oxford: B.A.R
[75] Taylor, J 2006 ‘The Roman period’ in The Archaeology of the East Midlands, 152; eg Dearne, M J (ed) 1993 Navio – the Fort and Vicus at Brough-on-Noe, Derbyshire (British Archaeological Reports British Series 234). Oxford: B.A.R, 158-161
[76] Lane, T and Morris, E L 2001 A Millennium of Saltmaking: Prehistoric and Romano-British Salt Production in the Fenland. Heckington: Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire; Morris, E L 2007 ‘Making magic: Later prehistoric and early Roman salt production in the Lincolnshire fenland’ in Haselgrove, C and Moore, T (eds) The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 430-443
[77] eg Heslop, D H 2008 Patterns of Quern Production, Acquisition and Deposition: a Corpus of Beehive Querns from Northern Yorkshire and Southern Durham (Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper 5). Leeds: Yorkshire Archaeological Society; Palfreyman, A and Ebbins, S 2007 ‘A Romano-British quern-manufacturing site at Blackbrook, Derbyshire’. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal 127, 33-48
[78],[79] Taylor 2006, 152-53