Becoming Roman: Excavation of a Late Iron Age to Romano-British Landscape at Monkston

Park, Milton Keynes. Museum of London Archaeology Service Archaeology Studies Series 16
by R. Bull; S. Davis; Life in the Loop: Investigation of a Prehistoric and Romano-British
Landscape at Biddenham Loop, Bedfordshire. East Anglian Archaeology Report 125 by M. Luke
Review by: PAUL BOOTH
Britannia, Vol. 41 (2010), pp. 480-482
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41725181 .
Accessed: 23/01/2015 21:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Britannia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:35:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
480 REVIEWS

wovenintoa narrative thatis parthistory andpartguide,andthatallowsthevisitor rapidunderstanding

ofwhat(s)heis looking at,itsimportance andhistorical context.Between eachpairofforts thelineofthe
Wallandthesmaller installations areas carefully described,witheverything known summarised, however
brieforobscure theoriginal sourceofinformation might be.Oneexample amongmanyis onp. 162,'Lost
in thisstretch [is]T8a (WestDenton), sought in 1928,butitslocation onlyimplied bythediscovery of
potteryand"occupation earth"...',theonlyreference towhichis a mention intheNorthumberland County
History.Chs4 and5 describe theCumbrian CoastandtheStanegate insimilar closedetail.Theextraction
oftheStanegate from theWalldescription, where itappeared inprevious editions,is a welcome innovation,
allowing ittobe discussed initsownterms, andtoproperly contextualise thesubstantial results ofrecent
workontwoofitsforts: Vindolanda andCarlisle.
Thedescriptive sections arewellillustrated, inthemainwithnewplansandmapsdrawn, withadmirable
bySandraRowntree.
clarity, Aerialphotographs andgeophysical transcriptionsareincluded forthefirst
time.Olderandmorefamiliar imagesdo appear, mostlypictures ofinscriptionsandother finds,andoneof
thesiteillustrations from theCollingwood Bruceoriginal remains - theengraving oftheWallvisiblein
thesurface oftheMilitary RoadatWalwick (210).
Finally,thebibliography is theonlycomplete bibliographyofHadrian's Wallgenerally available;an
essential
resource foranyone wishing tostudy a particularpartofthemonument.
Though muchthicker thanitspredecessors, theformat andpagesizehasbeenretained, thebinding is
robust,anditwillstillfitreadily inthepocketofan anorak, waxedjacketorrucksack. Itis meant tobe a
fieldguide,andnoother bookcancompete withitas such.
Thesecondbookis partofthe'ClassicalWorldSeries',designed to summarise aspectsofclassical
civilisation
forstudents inthelateschoolandearlyuniversity stageofeducation. Thisslimvolumeis a
simply written distillation ofB.'s encyclopaedic knowledge ofthesubject.He beginswitha discussion
of sources, fromclassicalliterature to geophysics, concluding withtheusefulcaveatthat'it wouldbe
nonsense to statethatwe fullyunderstand [thewalls]'.Succinct chapters examine theRomanarmyand
frontierpolicyandthemilitary conquest of RomanBritain up to theStanegate. Thirteen pagescover
theconstruction ofHadrian's Wallanditsfunction up to theAntonine advance,andtwelvepagesgive
thesameinformation on theAntonine Wall.Twofurther chapters consider thepost-Antonine of
history
Hadrian's Wallup to theend,andlifeon thefrontier. Thebookutilisesthemostup-to-date evidence
andinterpretation, including therecent geophysical evidence andtheobstacles ontheberm.Itconcludes
witha selection ofsitesto visit,themes forfurther study,anda wellchosenlistoffurther reading. The
arewellchosen,iffamiliar
illustrations from severalofB.'s otherworks. Aboveall,thisintroduction to
thesubjectmanages tobe comprehensive andis written ina simpleprosestylethatreflects theauthor's
undimmed enthusiasm forhistheme. It hasthepotential to inspirea newgeneration withan interestin
RomanFrontier Studies.

Heritage
English TONYWILMOTT
Tony.Wilmott@english-heritage.org.uk doi:10.1017/S0068
113X1
0000255

BecomingRoman:Excavation
ofa LateIronAgetoRomano-British Landscape Park,Milton
at Monkston
ByR. BullandS. Davis.Museum
Keynes. ofLondon ArchaeologyService Archaeology Series16.
Studies
2006.Pp.xii+ 73,figs55,tables16.Price:7.95.isbn978 1 901992670.
MoLAS,London,
of a Prehistoric
Lifein theLoop: Investigation and Romano-BritishLandscapeat BiddenhamLoop,
ByM. Luke.EastAnglian
Bedfordshire. Archaeology Report125.AlbionArchaeology, 2008.Pp.
Bedford,
xxiv+ 320,pis60,figs132,tables88.Price:25.00.isbn9780 95565461 9.
Thesetwovolumes offer
contrasting
approachestothereportingoflateIronAgeandRoman ruralsettlement
atsiteslessthan20 kmapart.Thedifferences startwithonesofscale,theMiltonKeynessitecomprising
justover2 ha ofexcavation inthreefairly
closelyadjacentareas,whileatBiddenham Looptheexcavated
areascovered18hawhich, incombinationwiththeevidence from aerialphotographs, survey,
geophysical
fieldwalking andextensive evaluation
trenching, thereference
fullyjustify in thevolume
to landscape
is a multi-period
title.Thislatter thelateIronAgeandRomancomponents
report, inthe
beingdiscussed
synthesisonpp.45-68anddescribed (withtheir
attendant onpp. 195-287.
finds)

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:35:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEWS 481

Theevidence ofthenon-intrusive workis usedtocomplement thatfrom theexcavations tobuildupa

pictureofa developing pattern ofsmallfarmsteads within theareadefined bytheeponymous loopofthe
riverGreatOuse.Therewereas manyas sevendiscrete farmsteads inthefullRomanperiod(243,butonly
sixonp. 68),from 350-800mapart, although onlytwowereexamined byexcavation. Allbutoneofthem
werethought tosucceedroughly comparable unitsoflateIronAgetoearlyRomandate,butthelatter were
typicallywithin singleenclosures ofirregular form; themiddle Romansitesweredistinguished from them
incomprising 'groups ofenclosures oftenattached toa trackway' (243).Suchevidence as there is suggests
thatactivityinthefourth century wasona veryreduced scale,andwhileitis notcertain thatthisapplies
totheunexcavated as wellas theexcavated farmsteads, itseemsverylikely. Thefarmsteads appeartohave
beenconsistently ofrelatively lowstatus; structural evidence wasscarceand,where present, mainly related
toroundhouses. Smallquantities oftilearelikelytohavebeenrecycled from elsewhere foruse inovens
andcomparable structures (a pointmademoreclearly forMonkston, p. 55).
TheworkatMonkston Parkalsofollowed evaluation ofa larger area,butherethere is lesssensethat
thewiderpicture wasreallyconsidered. Theuseof'Landscape' and'Becoming Roman'inthereport title
seemsmorelikea nodtocurrent trendsthana realindication ofcontent. Incontrast toBiddenham, roughly
rectangularenclosures formed partof thislandscape fromthelateIronAge andweremorewidespread
intheearlyRomanperiod, heredatedc. A.D.50-150,although someelements ofthesefield-systems are
barelycomprehensible (e.g. 32-3). Well-defined trackways, running approximately parallelto theriver
Ouzel,appearas an important characteristicof themiddleRomanperiod,as at Biddenham. Againthe
evidence forbuildings is elusive.Agricultural features includeditched enclosures interpreted as beingfor
stock,andtwo'corndriers', ofwhichonlyoneis illustrated. A metalled surface within thesameenclosure
as thesestructures is described as a threshing-floor without further justification - forwhiletheassociated
findsincluded quernfragments 'from thethreshing floorarea'theyalso included scrapandcorroded iron
'possiblyrelated tothefunction ofthesurface' (45).A nearby cobbled surface wasprobably associated with
metalworking. Suchevidence waseffectively absent atBiddenham, instead 'industry'there wasrepresented
bytwosmallpottery kilnsoffirst-century date.
The overalloccupation sequencemayhavelastedlongerat Monkston thanat Biddenham, perhaps
continuing to theend of thefourth century. Despitesuchdifferences, thereare significant pointsof
between
similarity thetwositesbeyond thosealready mentioned. Inbothcases,smallcremation cemeteries
wereanelement ofthelateIronAge-early Romanlandscape. Thepresentation oftheMonkston cemetery
evidence,some18 burials, is markedly superior tothatoftheother aspectsofthesite;thegroups arewell-
catalogued andillustrated andthedrawings ofgravesandgravegoodsarecombined, whereas theyare,
lesshelpfully, separated in theBiddenham volume.Striking individual findsincludea singleexample of
a circulariron?knife bladefrom bothBiddenham andMonkston. Perhaps unsurprisingly, giventhescale
oftheworkthere, smalldiscrete burialgroups, including occasional earlyRomaninhumations, werealso
encountered atBiddenham, as wellas a morecompact cemetery ofsome16gravesassociated withoneof
thefarmsteads. Another common featurewasthepresence ofa 'shrine', intheform ofa smallsquare-ish
structurewithnoother obviousinterpretation. AtBiddenham thiswasan isolated post-built structure with
a surrounding gullyassigned tothelateIronAgeto earlyRomanphase.TheMonkston structure, witha
poorly preserved stonesillwall,was closelyadjacent to otherfeatures ofthemiddleRomanperiodbut
hadassociated deposits indicating useup totheendoftheRomanperiod.Itsinterpretation as a shrine is
appropriatelytentative.
Theseare bothhighlysynthesised reports, butin Becoming Romantheprocessis extreme. The
presentation of thedatais muchmoresummary thanforBiddenham, itselfhardlyan indulgent text.
Becoming Romanhasno feature sections andinterventions in excavated features arenotlocatedon the
plans;feature dimensions arenotgivennorarefillsevenmentioned, letalonedescribed. A characteristic of
bothreports is thatsuccessive phaseplansarepresented withnoreference toearlier andlaterphases, while
therearenooverallfeature plans.TheBiddenham plansdo,however, havegridco-ordinates, whereas this
information is conspicuously absentfrom all theMonkston drawings. Findsreporting is alsocompressed;
'smallfinds'aretreated selectively inbothvolumes, andillustration ofpottery, withtheexception ofthe
grave-relatedmaterial in bothcases,consists solelyof28 piecesin theBiddenham report, including the
materialfromthetwopottery kilns.The specialist appendices on building material andpottery in the
Monkston report do notevengivethequantities ofthematerial inquestion. Thepottery report usesthree
pages,mostly listing fabrics andvesselforms withconcordances (butwithout quantification), andthen
ends,withdreadful irony, immediately afterlisting thequantification methods used.Thismayrepresent an

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:35:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
482 REVIEWS

editorial
howlerrather thantheintention butifso itis onlyone,albeitthemostobvious,
ofthespecialist,
ofmanyinadequacies. In sum,boththesevolumescontribute
toourunderstanding oftheruralsettlement
ofa regionwhichis increasingly
well-served but,withthenotable
bypublication exception ofthereporting
oftheMonkston cemetery, theBiddenham volume
presentsa moreinformativeandconsidered viewofthe
whichitsauthors
landscape havesetouttostudy.

Oxford PAULBOOTH
p.booth@oxfordarch.co.uk doi:10.1017/S0068
113X1
0000267

Londinium andBeyond. EssaysonRoman London anditsHinterland forHarvey Sheldon. EditedbyJ.Clark,

J.Cotton, J.Hall,R. Sherris andH. Swain.CBA Research Report156.CouncilforBritish Archaeology,
York,2008.Pp.xxxii+ 294,illus.Price:35.00.isbn978 1 902771724.
A festschrift
canbe a curate's eggofa volume; often witha fewgoodpapers, paddedoutwiththelessgood
andfrequently lacking coherence. Itis therefore a pleasuretocongratulate theeditors attheoutset fornot
producing sucha book.This,bycontrast, is an interestingandwell-structured volumethatdeserves tobe
ontheshelves ofanyone interestedinRomanBritain.
Itscoherence is muchhelpedbythepapersaddressing someofthetopicshighlighted in theLondon
Frameworks documents. ForthosewhoworkoutsideEnglisharchaeology itwillbe helpful to notethat
Frameworks arean English Heritage-funded seriesofregional projectswhichhaveeffectively conducted
anauditofthestateofcurrent archaeological knowledge. Theyoutline whatweknow, whatwewouldlike
toknow, andhowtogetthere. Herethepapersaregrouped intofoursections: Development - Chronology
andCartography; Landscape, Environment andHinterland; ThisWorldandBeyond:MindandSpirit; and
LivingintheMaterial World. Eachsection hasitsownintroduction writtenbyoneoftheeditors settingout
howthepapersfitintothevarious Frameworks themes.
Thefirst sectionhas essayson Stukeley's mapsof London(Clark),thechanging nature of howthe
discoveries havebeenillustrated (Sloane),changing street
plans(Rowsome), population numbers (Swain
andWilliams), thenature ofLondon(Reece),Londoninthefifth andsixthcenturies (Cowie),andthere-
fortification
ofLondonandthenature ofSaxonSouthwark (TonyBrown).Fulford alsoconducts a wide-
ranging review ofwhathappens topublicbuildings inthesouth-east thatbrings outaninteresting west/east
split.
In thesecondsection Sidellreviews theenvironmental evidence from exoticimports todropping river
levelsandtheirimplications forLondonas a port.Tyersbrings us up to dateon thetree-ring evidence,
almosta tenfold increase onwhatwasknown in 1983,whileCowanandHinton present theevidence for
gardens. There are also five papersconcentrating on thehinterland: the Colchester road (Gary Brown),
Enfield(Dearne),Shadwell (Bird),Westminster (Thomas), andGrim'sDyke(Bowlt).
Thethird sectionstarts witha usefuldrawing together of evidenceforeducation in RomanLondon
andmorewidelyin Britain by Hassall.A pairof papersreviewreligious sites(Merrifield andHall on
theWalbrook; Hayneson mystery religions).Birdlooksat thecultof Hercules, whileGrewtakesthe
dedication to MarsCamulus, reviewing whothisgodwas andshowing theregionality ofdedications to
godslinkedwithMars.Finallytherearetwore-appraisals ofpublished gravesfromSouthwark. Cotton
re-unitesthevarious goodsofanimportant first-centuryburialandBateman revisits thefemale gladiator's
bustum toexplore whatimagesofgladiators meant totheRomanviewer.
Thefourth sectionopenswithan extremely important methodological paperbyPlouviezdeveloping a
of
way comparing brooch assemblages which brings outthe they
regionality demonstrate. Her solution is
a veryelegant useofbarcharts, nota phrase I everthought I wouldfindmyself writing.Monteil discusses
samianinkwells andusesthemto castdoubtson anyearlymilitary presence in Southwark. Raynor and
SeeleyupdatetheSouthwark potterytypeseries.Therearealso paperson healthcare (Jackson), bathing
(Wardle), smalltoiletimplements (Crummy withPohl),intaglios (Henig),andtheincidence of luxury
first-centurycolourlessglass(Shepherd). Theseall includeveryusefulgazetteers ofmaterial, muchofit
unpublished.
Thereis muchto engagewithcritically inthevolume, though spaceprecludes doingfulljusticeto it
here.Ofparticular interesttothisreviewer wastheuseofmaterial culturetoexplore majorquestions about
London.Some,suchas theearlymilitary activity in Southwark, haveoften beendebated, butCrummy's

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:35:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions