Colchester Archaeological Report 2: The Roman small finds
Colchester Archaeological Report 2: The Roman small finds
Colchester Archaeological Report 2: The Roman small finds
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
two transverse grooves at the widest point.<br />
1717 Fig 46 SF BUC 603(C), C1226 G384. Grave fill. Period 2.<br />
Internal diameter oval, 54.0 by 59.0mm; circular section<br />
tapering from 5.0 to 4.0mm thick. Penannular. <strong>The</strong><br />
terminals have been decorated with a design of bead and<br />
double reels.<br />
1719 Fig 46 SF BUC 1550, H377 G537. Grave deposit. Period 2.<br />
Internal diameter 49.0mm; rectangular section, thickness<br />
2.0mm, height 5.0mm. Faceted panels alternate with<br />
horizontally-scored uprights. <strong>The</strong> armlet has a soldered lap<br />
joint.<br />
1721 Fig 46 SF BUC 1567(C), H405 G519. Grave deposit. Period 2.<br />
One of a pair with 1720. InternaI diameter 45.0mm, circular<br />
section, thickness 2.5mm. <strong>The</strong> decoration is similar to that<br />
of 1715. <strong>The</strong> ends are linked by a sheet of copper alloy<br />
moulded to match the decoration, wrapped round the<br />
armlet, and soldered into position.<br />
Multiple motifs (Fig 47; 1724-1732). <strong>The</strong>se<br />
armlets are best described by their illustrations.<br />
1724 Fig 47 SF BKC 1294(C), E360 L433. Town ditch (F138/317)<br />
fill. Post-<strong>Roman</strong>. Internal diameter oval, 31.0 by 45.0mm;<br />
rectangular section, thickness 1.5mm, height 3.0mm.<br />
Hook-and-eye clasp.<br />
1725 Fig 47 SF BUC 388/9(C), B1050 G171. Grave deposit.<br />
Period 2. Internal diameter 56.5mm; rectangular section,<br />
thickness 1.0mm, height 4.5mm. Soldered lap joint.<br />
1726 Fig 47 SF BUC 457(C), B1681. Unstratified. Distorted, in two<br />
fragments, internal diameter 60.0mm; D-shaped section,<br />
thickness 2.0mm, height 4.0mm. One terminal is tongueshaped<br />
and secured to the other by a large copper-alloy rivet.<br />
1728 Fig 47 SF BUC 457(C), B1681. Unstratified. Fragment,<br />
internal diameter 59.0mm; rectangular section, thickness<br />
1.0mm, height 4.0mm. <strong>The</strong> terminals are missing.<br />
1729 Fig 47 SF BUC 457(C), B1681. Unstratified. Fragment, with a<br />
copper-alloy rivet in the terminals.<br />
1730 Fig 47 SF BUC 605(C), C1215 G378. Grave deposit. Period 2.<br />
Internal diameter oval, 47.0 by 52.0 mm; D-shaped section,<br />
thickness 2.0mm, height 7.5 mm. Hook-and-eye clasp.<br />
1731 Fig 47 SF BUC 1548(C), H377 G537. grave deposit. Period 2.<br />
Distorted, internal diameter 46.0mm, rectangular section,<br />
thickness 1.5mm, height 5.0mm. Hook-and-eye clasp.<br />
1732 Fig 47 SF IRB 46(C), F41. Grave deposit in 3rd- to 4thcentury<br />
inhumation. In fragments, internal diameter<br />
56.0mm; rectangular section, thickness 2.0mm, height<br />
6.0mm. Hook-and-eye clasp.<br />
IRON ARMLETS<br />
Plain (Fig 48; 1733-1737). Five iron armlets were<br />
recovered from graves in the Butt Road cemeteries.<br />
Four came from east-west oriented graves and one<br />
(1737) from a grave aligned north-south. <strong>The</strong> acidity<br />
of the sandy soil on the site has destroyed all but<br />
fragments of four of these armlets. All appear to have<br />
been simple circular section rings. No clasps or joins<br />
have been identified. 1736 (G647) was found linked<br />
to a group of copper-alloy armlets (1666-71) by a<br />
copper-alloy three-strand cable armlet (1636). 1737<br />
(G679) was on its own ?on the arm of a skeleton.<br />
1737 Fig 48 SF BUC 1713, H1034 G679. grave deposit. Period 1.<br />
A corroded iron armlet of ?circular section, 6.5 mm diameter.<br />
Internal diameter 58.0mm.<br />
With copper-alloy binding (Fig 48; 1738)<br />
1738 Fig 48 SF BUC 53, A360G15. Grave deposit. Period 2. Grave<br />
15 probably contained two armlets, one of solid metal and<br />
one a loose string of beads and coins (Appendix 2; on<br />
microfiche). <strong>The</strong> only remains of the solid metal armlet are<br />
three bands, penannular in transverse section. One is of<br />
very corroded copper alloy and two of copper alloy ?plated<br />
with white metal. Each band is approximately 6.0mm long.<br />
45<br />
Inside the two ?plated bands pieces of what appears to have<br />
been a circular-section iron bangle can be seen. From the<br />
site plan, this was approximately 43.0mm in diameter<br />
measured internally. <strong>The</strong> relevant site photograph shows at<br />
least eight bands in situ, of which only three survived the<br />
lifting process. Threaded onto this armlet was an annular<br />
bead of natural translucent greenish glass (555).<br />
On the basis of this rather tenuous evidence, a circularsection<br />
iron armlet, bound at regular intervals with clasps of<br />
plated copper alloy and carrying an annular bead, has been<br />
postulated. <strong>The</strong> bands appear from the site photograph to<br />
have been at 6.0mm intervals, giving a regular pattern of<br />
6.0mm of exposed iron and 6.0mm of copper alloy. On the<br />
basis of the estimated diameter of the iron bangle, this<br />
would give eleven bands of copper alloy, ten 6.0mm lengths<br />
of exposed iron, and one unbound length of just under<br />
12.0mm. As the perforation of the annular bead is not large<br />
enough to slide over one of the surviving bands, it must have<br />
been placed between two adjacent bands. Though, at<br />
5.0mm long, it could have fitted onto a short length of<br />
exposed iron, it is likely that it was located on the 12.0mm<br />
length. <strong>The</strong> reconstruction shows only two pieces of the<br />
copper-alloy binding, one upside down to illustrate the<br />
section. No attempt has been made to show a clasp or join.<br />
FINGER-RINGS<br />
All but two of the rings are of metal. <strong>The</strong> plain Dsection<br />
copper-alloy ring, Fig 50, 1749, found on the<br />
index finger of a skeleton (G41) 20<br />
in the later Butt<br />
Road cemetery, implies that many rings not usually<br />
considered to be finger-rings may in fact be so.<br />
Designs on finger-rings are frequently similar to<br />
those on armlets. Compare the armlet Fig 38, 1561<br />
with the ring Fig 50, 1766; the armlet Fig 44, 1684<br />
with the ring Fig 50, 1773; and the armlet Fig 44,<br />
1676 with the ring Fig 50,1770. As with the armlets<br />
and beads most of the finger-rings derive from late<br />
3rd- to 4th-century contexts, with a fairly high<br />
proportion coming from graves in the Butt Road<br />
cemeteries. Early finger-rings are represented by the<br />
plain ring with a clasp based on a Celtic motif. Fig 50,<br />
1756, the coiled ring, Fig 50, 1759, and the ring with<br />
glass inset. Fig 50, 1779.<br />
SHALE AND JET FINGER-RINGS<br />
Plain (Fig 49; 1739)<br />
1739 Fig 49 SF BKC 5005, V68 L22. Dump. Late Period 5. Shale,<br />
fragment. Plain. Internal diameter 16.0mm; D-shaped<br />
section, height 3.0mm, thickness 2.5 mm.<br />
Faceted (Fig 49; 1740)<br />
1740 Fig 49 SF BKC 2357, G343 F141. Pit. Period 5c? Jet. Internal<br />
diameter oval, 13.0 by 15.0mm; D-shaped section, height<br />
5.5mm, thickness 4.5 mm. A series of leaf-shaped notches<br />
has been cut into the ring on the point of the outer curve.<br />
Damaged.<br />
COPPER-ALLOY FINGER-RINGS<br />
Plain (Fig 50; 1741-1755.)<br />
1741 Fig 50 SF LWC 1040, C411. Cultivated soil. Period 2?, 3a?,<br />
3b? Cast. Internal diameter 20.5mm; rectangular section,<br />
height 5.5 mm, thickness 1.5 mm. Possibly not a finger-ring?<br />
1742 Fig 50 SF LWC 3068(C), J860. Occupation. Period 4. Cast.<br />
Internal diameter 16.0mm; roughly D-shaped section,<br />
height 2.5 mm, thickness 1.5 mm. Possibly not a finger-ring?<br />
1743 Fig 50 SF BKC 36(C), A32 L3. Topsoil and town ditch (F16)<br />
fill. Post-<strong>Roman</strong>. Cast. Internal diameter 18.0mm; thin Dshaped<br />
section, height 4.5mm, thickness 1.0mm. Possibly<br />
not a finger-ring?