No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Runcton Holme: Part II. The Second Occupation: A Peasant Settlement of the Iceni
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2013
Extract
Dr. Grahame Clark has in the preceding paper recorded the discoveries at Runcton Holme attesting occupation in the ages before the introduction of iron into this country. He has explained how attention came to be drawn to the site, and has testified to the vigilance and zeal with which Mr. Ivan J. Thatcher has watched its exploitation and preserved its abundant yield of antiquities. I must first of all second his appreciation of Mr. Thatcher's energy and kindness, and acknowledge my own gratitude for his help. In October, 1932, he very generously let me examine personally at his house the whole of his very large collection from the site, as well as the site itself, and he followed this up by submitting a large series of pottery, fully representative of all the classes which we had recognized in the material, for closer study by me in the British Museum. He has since kept me in close touch with all subsequent discoveries, and his support has been indispensable in the composition, and especially in ensuring the full illustration, of this paper. The drawings are the work of Mr. F. Cottrill, whose scholarly and sympathetic work is its own best testimonial. All the pieces here figured are deposited, numbered as in these pages, in the University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Cambridge. Mr. Thatcher's kindness has also enabled a type-series to be lodged in the British Museum.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1933
References
page 233 note 1 Fox, , Arch. Camb. Reg., pp. 76, 81, 86Google Scholar; the best-known is the Newnham burial: ibid., and Ant. Journ. VI, pp. 176–7.
page 233 note 2 e.g., the Westhall, hoard, Archaeologia XXXVI, ii, pp. 454 ff.Google Scholar, B.M. Iron Age Guide, pp. 144–6; the Downham, Santon hoard, Camb. Ant. Soc. Proc. XIII, pp. 146 ff.Google Scholar
page 233 note 3 e.g., the Saham, Toney hoard, V.C.H. Norfolk, I, p. 273Google Scholar.
page 233 note 4 Antiq. Journ. XIIII (1933), pp. 399 ffGoogle Scholar, esp. 411–2, Fig. 5. I am indebted to Mr. Gray for a communication of this material prior to publication.
page 235 note 1 Evans, Coins of the Ancient Britons, chs. XV, XXVIII.
page 235 note 2 Brooke, in Antiquity, VII, (Sept., '33), pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar
page 235 note 3 Bell Gall. V, 21Google Scholar.
page 235 note 4 Haverfield, , V.C.H. Norfolk, I, pp. 284–5Google Scholar.
page 235 note 5 Hawkes, and Dunning, , “The Belgae of Gaul and Britain,” Arch. Journ. LXXXVII (1930), pp. 150–335Google Scholar: Wheeler, , “Belgic Cities of Britain,” Antiquity, VII (1933), pp. 21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 235 note 6 Arch. Camb. Reg., pp. 87–90, cf. 115 ff.
page 235 note 7 Ibid, pp. 102–4, 115 ff.
page 235 note 8 Ibid, p. 97: graves at Mitchell's Hill, Icklingham, perhaps at West Stow Heath, and at Lakenheath.
page 235 note 9 Hints of it have already been furnished by some of the potsherds from Warham, , Antiq. Journ. XIII (1933), p. 412Google Scholar.
page 235 note 10 Cf. Archaeologia, LII, ii, pl. XI, 3 (Aylesford).
page 235 note 11 Cf. Swarling Report (Soc. Ant. Research C'ttee, 1928)Google ScholarPubMed, pl. IX, 31 (Swarling).
page 236 note 1 For the original Belgic type see Arch. Journ., LXXXVII, p. 200Google Scholar, fig. 12, 16 (Alizay, Dépt. Eure, France), and for the later Romanised form, Richborough III, pl. XXXIX, no. 310 (p. 180)Google Scholar.
page 236 note 2 e.g., at Glastonbury and similar western sites.
page 236 note 3 Tacitus, , Annals, XII, 31Google Scholar, 3.
page 236 note 4 Arch. Journ., LXXXVII, pp. 314–6Google Scholar.
page 236 note 5 Tacitus, , Annals, XII, 31, 2–32, 1Google Scholar.
page 237 note 1 Tacitus, , Annals, XIV, 38Google Scholar.
page 237 note 2 Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc., XXIII. (1928), pp. 166–209Google Scholar.
page 237 note 3 Op. cit., pp. 202–3.
page 237 note 4 Ibid, XXIV (1930), pp. 93–139 (summary, 133).
page 237 note 5 Published by Prof.Atkinson, in Journ. Roman Studies, XXII, i, (1932), pp. 33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 238 note 1 Eg. May, Colchester Catalogue, pl. I, 8.
page 238 note 2 Eg. May, Silchester Pottery, pl. LXX, 153.
page 238 note 3 Koenen, Gefasskunde in den Rheinlanden, pl. XI., 2.
page 240 note 1 May, Silchester Pottery, pl. LXXI, 162.
page 240 note 2 Journ. Roman Studies, XXI, 2Google Scholar, pl. XXII, 2, right.
page 240 note 3 Restored partly after May, Silchester Pottery, pl. LXXIV, 186.
page 240 note 4 Richborough III, pl. XXXIV, 209.
page 240 note 5 May, Colchester Catalogue, pl. VI, 67-9.
page 240 note 6 May, Silchester Pottery, pl. LXXIV., 190-2.
page 240 note 7 Norfolk Arch. Soc. XXIII, pp. 205–7Google Scholar with pl. XVII.
page 241 note 1 A very similar vessel was found by Mr. Gray at Warham: Antiq. Journ. XIII (1933), pp. 408–9Google Scholar, Fig. 3, No. 5.
page 241 note 2 Wroxeter 1912, p. 70Google Scholar.
page 243 note 1 Swarling, pl. XI, 3.
page 243 note 2 Swarling, pl. IX, nos. 22-25.
page 243 note 3 May, Colchester Catalogue, pls. IV-V, nos. 32-8 and 45-55; Richborough I, pl. XXVI, 75-7.
page 243 note 4 J.R.S. XXII, 1, pp. 41–2Google Scholar, with plates IX-X.
page 243 note 5 As may be seen by comparing May, Colchester Catalogue, pl. V, 47, 52 and pl. LVII, 254.
page 243 note 6 J.R.S. XXII, I, pp. 43–4Google Scholar, with plate XI.
page 243 note 7 E.g. An example dated 100-125 at Holt: Y Cymmrodor XLI, Fig 65, 82 (pp., 153-4).
page 243 note 8 Loc. cit., Fig. 72, 209 (p. 168)—a handled specimen.
page 243 note 9 Wroxeter 1913, pp. 51–2Google Scholar, Fig. 19.
page 245 note 1 For the Caistor type see J.R.S, XXII, 1, p. 43Google Scholar and pl. XI (LI).
page 247 note 1 J.R.S. XXII. I, pp. 39, ffGoogle Scholar, with pls. VII-XI.
page 247 note 2 Swarling, pl. VI, I.
page 247 note 3 Ibid, pl. IX., 32.
page 247 note 4 e.g., Richborough I, pl. XX, 4,5.
page 247 note 5 J.R.S. XXII, I, pp. 42–3Google Scholar.
page 247 note 6 e.g. Silchester, pl. LXXIX, 12-13 (early-mid-1st century, from local kilns).
page 247 note 7 Ibid, pl. LXXVII, 7 (same date and provenance). Cf. a jar from the Caburn, Sussex, doubtless of the 1st century A.D.: Sussex Arch. Colls., LXVIII, pl. IX, 61 (pp. 31-2).
page 247 note 8 Royal Comm. Hist. Mon., Roman London, Fig. 69, No. 2.
page 250 note 1 Cunnington, A ll Cannings Cross, pl. 37, 1.
page 250 note 2 Glastonbury, II, p. 519Google Scholar, Fig. 169.
page 250 note 3 May, Colchester Catalogue, pl. LIII A (p.147).
page 251 note 1 E.g. at the Trundle: Sussex Arch. Colls., LXX, pl. XII.
page 251 note 2 Glastonbury, II, pls., LXXVIII, LXXXVII.
page 253 note 1 Antiquity VI, 146Google Scholar, Fig. 8, 46.
page 253 note 2 At present published in bulk: see Colchester Museum Report, 1929, pl. VI, 365.28; pl. VIII, 460, 28, 1931, pl. VI, 1.
page 253 note 3 e.g. Alchester, Oxon; Antiq. Journ. VII, p. 177Google Scholar, Fig. 8, 6; IX, pp. 124-5, pl. X and Fig. 7, 4-21. Another good example, of the second half of the 1st century at earliest, is Wroxeter, 1914, pl. XXVII, 72.
page 253 note 4 On this see Richborough II, pp. 97–9Google Scholar: Antiq. Journ. X, pp. 166–7Google Scholar: Arch. Journ. LXXXVII, pp. 277–9, 290Google Scholar.
page 255 note 1 For the process cf, Arch. Journ., LXXXVII, pp. 287–290Google Scholar (furrowing on bead-rim jars).
page 255 note 2 The earliest to predominate is the straight oblique rim (Collingwood type 64), the next the “neck-rim” (Collingwood type 65), finally the curved or “cavetto” rim sets in the Antonine period, and holds the field in the 3rd century and (degenerating) into the 4th (Collingwood types 72, 73).
page 255 note 3 Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc. XXVIII, pp. 196, 200–1, 205–7Google Scholar (pls. XIV, XV, XVII).
page 256 note 1 J.R.S. XVI, pl. V, 4 (the deposit is dated 220-300).
page 256 note 2 Heywood Sumner, New Forest Pottery Sites, pl. XI, 18, pp. 39-40 (Ashley Rails): pl., XXVII, 3, p. 98 (Rough Piece, Linwood).
page 256 note 3 E.g. the Margidunum examples, J.R.S. XVI, pl, V, 1, 5.
page 256 note 4 Sumner, op. cit., pl. XVII, 6, p. 65 (Sloden Enclosure).
page 257 note 1 J.R.S., XVII, 1, p. 44Google Scholar, Fig. 5.
page 258 note 1 E.g. the Margidunum (220-300) example, J.R.S. XVI, pl. V, 1, 3-5.
page 258 note 2 For a 3rd century example from Margidunum see J.R.S. XVI, pl. VI, 26: 4th century from Richborough, , Richborough IGoogle Scholar, pl. XXVIII, 1, 5-6.
page 258 note 3 e.g. Huntcliff: J.R.S. II, p. 228Google Scholar, Fig. 40 and cf. Figs 6, 7.
page 258 note 4 Richborough I, pl. XXVIII, 97-102, 109-112, cf. pl. XXIX, 121-2.
page 258 note 5 Ibid, pp. 97-102.
page 258 note 6 Ibid, p. 92 (on type 114): Richborough II, p. 104Google Scholar (on types 176-7.)
page 259 note 1 E.g. Example from Holt, Denbighshire: Grimes, , Y Cymmrodor XLI (1930), p., 182Google Scholar, with frontispiece and Fig. 78.
page 259 note 2 Proc. Soc. Antiq. XXII (1908), pp. 164 ff.Google Scholar: XXIII (1910), pp. 66 ff.
page 259 note 3 Ibid, XXX (1918), pp. 36 ff.
page 259 note 4 Antiq. Journ. XII (1932), pp. 239 ff.Google Scholar
page 259 note 5 Proc. Soc. Antiq. XXII, p. 194Google Scholar, Fig. 11.
page 259 note 6 E.g. Ibid., Fig. 15.
page 259 note 7 E.g. Ibid., Fig. 17; XXIII, p. 87, Figs. 12-13.
page 259 note 8 Ibid., XXIII, p. 69 ff,
page 260 note 1 Ibid., p. 79.
page 260 note 2 Ibid., p., 86., Fig 10.
page 260 note 3 Ibid., XXII, p., 94, Figs. 13-14.
page 260 note 4 Ibid., p. 196 ff.
page 260 note 5 Fragments of briquetage found elsewhere in the Fens include one from a roddon at Poplar Farm, March.
page 261 note 1 Proc. Cambridge Ant. Soc. XVII (1912–1913), p. 14 ff.Google Scholar; e.g. esp. Kiln 1 (photograph, Fig 5, p.19).
page 261 note 2 Proc. Soc. Antiq. XXIII, p. 69 ff.Google Scholar
page 261 note 3 Archaeologia LXXI (1921), p. 158Google Scholar, (with pp. 151 ff).
page 261 note 4 Antiq. Journ. XIII (1933), pp. 121–5Google Scholar.