Colchester Archaeological Report 2: The Roman small finds

CATEGORY 4: HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS AND FURNITURE
The paucity of items of furniture that have survived
from the Roman period in Britain makes the allocation
of objects to this category difficult. Also, a conflict
inevitably occurs between the identification of
fragments of furniture as opposed to fragments of
buildings. To avoid confusion, all hinges, keys and
locks have been placed in Category 11, fasteners and
fittings, except in cases where they clearly belong to
items of furniture, such as the fittings from the Butt
Road boxes and small ring-keys. However, some
pieces described as being from furniture could
perhaps more correctly belong to other groups within
this category, such as iron handles, which may derive
not from chests or cupboards but from buckets or
kettles. Decisions as to the contents of this category
are therefore unfortunately subjective to a
considerable extent.
SPOONS
Only metal spoons were recovered. The absence of
round-bowled bone spoons from the sites excavated
1971-79 must be purely fortuitous since bone spoons
have been recovered from sites excavated since
1979. The bowls of metal spoons come in three
shapes, round, pear-shaped and mandolin-shaped.
All spoons are of copper alloy unless otherwise
stated.
Type 1 (Fig 73; 2008-2011). Spoons with a round
bowl. This type dates from the second half of the 1st
and the 2nd century (Wilson 1968, 101; and see
Crummy forthcoming on a workshop in Winchester,
Hampshire producing round-bowled bone spoons).
Martial describes these spoons as used to eat eggs,
with the pointed handle serving to extract shellfish or
snails from their shells (Epigrams 16, 121).
2008 Fig 73 SF BKC 4742(C), T472. Period 2 or 3? The bowl is
damaged and the tip of the handle is missing. Length
75.5 mm, diameter of bowl 22.5mm. Copper-alloy with
white metal plating. The junction of bowl and handle is
marked on the underside by two opposed triangles. The one
on the bowl is in relief, that on the handle sunken.
Type 2 (Fig 73; 2012-2015). Spoons with pearshaped
bowls. This type appears to have been in
production by the first half of the2nd century (Waugh
and Goodburn 1972, 124).
2012 Fig 73 SF LWC 528(C), B199. Uncertain. Probably Roman.
The handle is missing. Length of bowl 41.0mm, maximum
diameter 22.5 mm.
2014 Fig 73 SF BKC 5038(C), V91 L11. Dump. Late Period 5.
Silver. Complete. The bowl is dented. Length 134.5 mm,
maximum diameter of bowl 23.5mm. The handle is offset
from the bowl.
Type 3 (Fig 73; 2016-2019). Spoons with a
mandolin-shaped bowl. This type is often made in
two pieces, with bowl and handle connected by a
69
tenon (Wilson 1968, 101). None of our examples
appears to be of this construction. The type was
probably produced throughout most of the Roman
period.
2016 Fig 73 SF BKC 2160(C), G49 L11. Timber-lined drain. Period
5c. A very corroded example. In fragments. Length
143.0 mm, maximum diameter of bowl 28.0 mm. The handle
is offset from the bowl.
2018 Fig 73 SF BKC 5471(C), V867. Modern. The handle is
missing. Length 47.0mm, maximum diameter 29.5mm.
Copper-alloy with white-metal plating.
2019 Fig 73 SF BKC 5496(C), V924 L16. Cultivated soil. Late
Period 5, possibly earlier. The handle is missing. Length
36.5mm, maximum diameter 19.0mm.
Folding spoon (Fig 73; 2020)
2020 Fig 73 SF MID 17(C), A80 L4. Topsoil. 4th century or later.
The handle of a folding spoon in the shape of a crested
dolphin. This handle can be dated to the late 3rd or 4th
century by comparison with Robertson 1970, fig 9, 4.
OBJECTS USED IN THE PREPARATION
OR SERVING OF FOOD
Shale trays (Fig 74; 2021-2023). Fragments of
three rectangular trays have been found. Both
rectangular and circular trays are known (Biddle
1967, 248-50; Lawson 1976, 263-5) and are usually
dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century (Biddle 1967,
248). The Colchester examples fit happily into this
date range. Rectangular trays appear to have been
made in two sizes, 12 by 10 in (305 by 255 mm) and
20 x 16 in (508 by 406 mm). It has not been possible to
estimate the sizes of the trays from which our
examples derive. There is some likelihood of these
trays being used as trenchers on which the food was
cut (ibid, 249).
2021 Fig 74 SF BKC 1384(C), E345 L69. Oyster layer. Period 3b or
4. Edge fragment of a rectangular tray. The undersurface
has broken off and the exact original thickness is uncertain.
Maximum length 75.0mm, present thickness 7.0mm. The
edge is vertical with a broad bevel towards the upper
surface. There is a border design of three parallel groups of
three grooves.
2022 Fig 74 SF BKC 5961, K663 F129. A ?gully, discounted as a
feature. Period 5. Fragment of a rectangular tray, probably
from near the edge. The piece is very distorted and the
undersurface has broken off. Maximum length 60.0mm.
The upper face is decorated with a design of two parallel sets
of three grooves, the area between the two is filled with an
incised herring-bone pattern. Depending from the
innermost groove are contiguous semicircles of four
concentric grooves round a central dot. The two dots on this
fragment cut the innermost groove and indicate that the
semicircles were produced by a compass-like incising tool
set on the groove as a base line.
2023 Fig 74 SF BUC 585(C), C113 F50. Ditch. Period 1. Edge
fragments of a rectangular tray, severely laminated.
Maximum length 67.5mm, probable original thickness
10.0 mm, tapering slightly towards the edge. Decorated with
a border similar to that on the rectangular tray(s) from
Silchester, Hampshire (Lawson 1976, fig 11), with two
parallel sets of three grooves enclosing a line of overlapping