Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Working together
Report sponsored by
Multi Media Arts Ltd
4th Floor
Mauldeth House
Nell Lane
Chorlton
Manchester
M21 7RL
1.0 Introduction 4
2.0 Aims and objectives 5
3.0 Methodology 6
Archiving 7
Artefacts: Deposition and Conservation 7
5.0 Results 14
5.1 Fields Examined 14
5.2 Artefacts (Figures 5 – 12) 14
5.2.1 Prehistoric (Figure 5) 16
5.2.2 Iron Age (Figure 6) 16
5.2.3 Roman (Figure 7) 16
5.2.4 Saxon (Figure 8) 18
5.2.5 Medieval (Figure 9) 18
5.2.6 Post-medieval (Figure 10) 19
5.2.7 Brooches and Crotal Bells (Figure 11 & 12) 20
5.3 Coins (Figures 13 – 19) 29
5.3.1 The Material 29
5.3.2. Breakdown by Reece Periods 29
5.3.3. Bar Charts 30
5.3.4 Initial Comments 32
Additional studies of Coin Assemblage 40
ANALYSIS 41
THE IRON AGE COINS 41
THE ROMAN COINS 41
THE EARLY MEDIAEVAL COINS 43
THE MEDIAEVAL & POST-MEDIAEVAL COINS 43
CONCLUSION 43
11.0 Bibliography 51
11.1 Further Reading 52
11.2 ADS and SMR Records. 53
Coin and Artefact Lists 54
Durobrivae Project, Cambridgeshire 2007
1
Survey
Area
2
296000 296000
3 4
camp
11
1 10074
0074
0074
0074 09082
10074
0074 5 6 10
00739
00739
00739
00739
00739
00739
7
8
295000 295000
Intensive Detecting
9
Moderate Detecting
11
Slight Active Detecting
7 = Field number
\ 12 15
511000 512000 513000
13
14
1.0 Introduction
1. Prior to detecting, each individual was given 20-30 bags and 10 pin flags.
2. In the field, recovered artefacts are placed in a bag and the number written on a flag which is placed in
the ground. - the detectorist can then move on.
3. Using at least 6 handheld GPS units (accuracy of +/- 3m) the location and number of each pin flag is
recorded (these numbers are ‘recycled’). In the event of large scatters of ceramic material being noted these
will be recorded in situ by the teams (though given the ground cover this was not expected to be high).
4. Permanently manned tables will process artefacts and coins using the record sheets (see appendix 1) and
photographed on scaled graph paper. Large bags will be available for detectorists to write their name on,
place their collected finds in and leave for processing to be collected later. This will remove queues and
waiting times as well as ensuring staff are fully occupied throughout the day.
5. Records of participant movement on the land will be made to ensure coverage is non-biased.
6. Depending on the nature of the artefact, it can be returned to the owner, or donated to the relevant mu-
seum service.
7. Treasure finds will be dealt with as per English Treasure Trove Laws.
8. Any unexpected archaeological deposits will have immediate archaeological presence; however preserva-
tion in situ is the only option – with artefacts recovered only from the plough soil horizons. In this unlikely
event the Council Archaeology Service will be informed to allow appropriate action to be taken.
9. At the end of Friday and Monday a presentation and live TV link will inform the state of play, however,
filming will take place throughout the event.
Funding has been kindly secured from MMA television production company to ensure the report and post-
survey data analysis can be carried out – this is to cover the bare costs and expenses of volunteers only, and
no commercial profit has been included.
Comments on the report submited in November 2007 were encouraged by all parties, and all corrections
and suggestions would be included. No such comments have been received, suggesting the draft report was
acceptable.
Archiving
As this is not an archaeological survey, rather archaeological advice given to members of the public to
ensure adequate archaeological data is gathered there is no provision for archiving of records other than the
above report and data.
The finds will be fully processed on site under supervision, however further examination will take place
post-event.
First Aid for Finds by D. Watkinson and V. Neal, Rescue and United Kingdom Institute for Conservation
Archaeology Section, 3rd Edition 1997.
Guide to Conservation for Metal Detectorists by Richard Hobbs, Celia Honeycombe & Sarah Watkins, Tem-
pus Publishing Ltd 2002.
Beginner’s Guide to Metal Detecting by Julian Evan-Hart & Dave Stuckey, Greenlight Publishing 2004.
£9.95
Onsite advice will be provided for specific finds. In the unlikely event of a signidficant Treasure Trove find,
this will be placed under the control of the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).
As with all artefacts aquired outwith archaeological projects the requirement for conservation and depo-
sition lies with the finder and CHC takes no responsibility beyond the recording of details (including the
finder address) of artefacts and coins.
Artefacts may be offered to Peterborough Museum at the finders discretion, which has been actively encour-
aged.
4.1 Introduction.
The site of the Roman town of barrow at Ford Green was excavated by
Durobrivae is partly within the parish Artis 1820-8 (Artis 1828: 31) and in the
(Huntingdonshire DCC) and lies to the 1960s a Bronze Age cinerary urn was
northwest of Peterborough on the river found (1966 Bulletin of the Northants
Nene. The geologist and archaeologist Federation of Archaeological Societies
Edmund Tyrell Artis (1789-1847) was 1: 5). A possible Iron Age square
active in this area and accidentally barrow was excavated by Artis in 1828,
discovered a Roman tessellated and was found to contain a Hallstatt
pavement on Earl Fitzwilliam’s estates brooch, fibulae and a 7th-century BC
at Castor leading him to conduct a bracelet, the barrow’s precise location
series of excavations between 1821 and is unknown due to disturbance caused
1827 which are known to have been by the nearby railway line, it lies just
very methodical for the time. under 1km ENE of Water Newton.
Rivet and Smith (1979: 348) note that
From 1844 until his death in 1847 Artis neither aerial photographs nor small
dug mainly on the Duke of Bedford’s finds indicate any significant Iron Age
Sibson lands, inspired by the finds made settlement. Similarly, they remark that
during the laying of the Northampton there is no context for a pre-Roman
to Peterborough railway. A series of bridge. The area was in the territory of
plates to illustrate his discoveries was the Corieltauvi (formerly referred to as
published in 1828, The Durobrivae of the Coritani).
Antoninus but the accompanying text
never reached press due to his death, Type Grid ref. ADS Record no.
and more disappointingly his notebooks Levallois findspot TL1197 NMR_NATINV-364381
do not survive (Tomlinson 2004). Rectangular crop-mark TL100957 NMR_NATINV-364433
‘U’ ring ditch TL121973 NMR_NATINV-364471
4.2 Pre-Roman. ‘U’ ring ditch TL117964 NMR_NATINV-364472
LBA barrow TL1197 EHNMR-642239
The earliest find from the area would be BA urn findspot TL121976 NMR_NATINV-364292
the Levallois core and handaxe found at poss. IA square barrow TL11739765 NMR_NATINV-364354
Water Newton (Roe 1968: 133; Wessex Table 1.
Archaeology 1996: 66). Prehistoric archaeology.
Table3.
Durobrivae investigations.
00
00099
0999
900
00
099
99
922
22
111666688
888
00009999911
\ 0 1 2
Km
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
6216
3055
3037
8149
513
\
main areas of detecting survey Figure 5
0 1 2
Km
Durobrivae Project, Cambridgeshire 2007
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
641
\
main areas of detecting survey Figure 6
0 1 2
Km
Durobrivae Project, Cambridgeshire 2007
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
6141
88888
6054
11166666
000099999
950
6317 6318
6118
6166
8150
3034 2241 8209 6051 3530
8198 977
6052
665
8070
954 3039
1088
631
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
819
6050
741
2453
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
8148
88888
11166666
000099999
500
387
8142
7777
2130 8145
2354 2298
8002 3425
739 2291 6039
8143 8148
615
8146 432 2135
3050
8059
283
2678 2411
2711 8060 666
666 664 260 808
6091
2373
2258
619
8064 417
2374
317
618
2677
2522
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
6170
88888
11166666
000099999
2468
3466
8141
8144
179 8144 6038
130
3526
980 2129 63913529 2292
6345 2328
8001 2586 6441
124
2127
864 2558
8006
2544 2366
434 984
694 2533
526 2300
694 765 6035
2256
2382
2101
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
6054
11166666
000099999
819
6050 7777
619 6188
6052 2291
8145
2719
6054 2364
2165
619
8064
8070
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
6391
432
2678
2366
694 434
694
Reece Period Date Rally No. Rally per Mill Reece 44 No. Reece 44 per Mill
1 Pre-41 1 24.1
2 41-54 1 13.89
3 54-68 2 6.94
4 69-96 1 6.02 5 34.72
5 96-117 2 12.05 3 20.83
6 117-138 1 6.94
7 138-161 2 13.89
8 161-180 3 20.83
9 180-192 1 6.94
10 193-222 1 6.02 1 6.94
11 222-235 2 13.89
12 235-260 1 6.02 0 0
13 260-275 21 126.5 19 131.94
14 275-296 19 114.45 12 83.33
15 296-317 5 30.12 0 0
16 317-330 18 108.4 1 6.94
17 330-348 46 277.1 37 256.94
18 348-364 7 24.16 17 118.06
19 364-378 36 216.9 27 187.5
20 378-388 1 6.02 2 13.89
21 388-402 4 24.1 8 55.56
Total 166 1000 144 1000
Below:
Mark Antony Legionary Issue
AR Denarius
a) The Reece coins have a much higher proportion of coins struck prior to c.
AD 250. Indeed, the peak in Period 4 (Flavian; 69-96) shows that this site shares
characteristics with urban and rural sites across Britain. This shows that Water
Newton did have early foundations.
b) Both Reece and the Rally have a similar surge in periods 13 and 14 (260-
96), typical of sites across the country.
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
749
673
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
974
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
6063
6074
6367
6444
841
341
175
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
142
8143
2640
6048 745 709
6345
3060
3535 179
8013
8185
2369 2538
8145 523
2163
3031
744
2295
2233
0009
0 999
90
00
00 9222
0999
88888
11166666
000099999
3464
8142
2464
I nterestingly, there are relatively few could suggest that occupation and / or
late third and fourth century copies other activities that relied on the use of
within this assemblage, compared coin were not constant in this part of the
to other sites with similar totals as landscape until the late Roman period.
Britain relied heavily upon copies of
issues from the previous issue period.
Similarly, the common reverses: URBS
ROMA, CONSTANTINOPOLIS and
GLORIA EXERCITVS of the mid-
4th century though well represented
do not overwhelm as on other sites.
Furthermore, the coins on which a
mint mark usually exists, although
numerous, have been badly affected
by their state of preservation therefore
very few of the 4th century mints that
supplied Britain could be identified.
Those mints that could be identified
were: London, Trier, Arles, Lyon and
Aquilea.
CONCLUSION
(240 flags were geolocated with no subsequent reported find – or find was discarded, either due to being a
natural object, in some cases being non-reportable or other reason – see section 7)
A number of c320 active detectorists and the number of unique names gives around 65% reporting, added
to this there were further unnamed finds (based on the same ratio) and this could add a further 20% who
left no contact details. It would also be reasonable (given a number of ‘complaints’ that they found nothing
worth recording – from reputable and trusted individuals) to add a small percentage of 2-5% giving at least a
recording rate of 87%.
G iven the nature of this event and the problems with communication and the potential for mistrust this can
only be seen as a success. It should be noted that this was seen as an unusually high level of recording
and given the methodology of data collection, the sample size is excellent.
I t is often best not to dwell to long on statistics, as they are too open to interpretation, all that can be said
with any definite certainty is that nearly 600 artefacts and coins were recorded that would otherwise not
have been. There were 9 instances of treasure finds from this site, with further treasure finds from elsewhere
reported specifically at this event:
I n general the condition of artefacts and coins seemed to be consistent with other recorded rallies
(Thornborough, Panton, Wantage, Corfe etc) where a similar percentage of copper rich Roman coins were
unreadable – c30-40% through chemical corrosion (the silver and gold coins did not seem to be affected).
In part this may be down to the conversion to organic and/or the land use. Pottery was no larger than 50mm
square and abraded, many artefacts showed plough damage. However, it would only be by matching this
assemblage with a further sample some 10 years from this site and any adjacent farm that still uses chemicals
that any definite conclusions could be drawn.
I t is clear that once within the plough soil horizon, the finds are subjected to mechanical damage, and a
change in conditions. Changes in farming over only the past 50-60 years have been great, and as discussed
in “Ripping Up History: Archaeology under the Plough EH 2003” the challenge is to match differing and
often conflicting requirements.
44 Water Newton Metal Detecting Rally 2007
8.0 Reported issues and solutions
I t was clear that communication was a problem from the start, an issue that lies at the heart of the ensuing
difficulties. It is fair to say that both rally organisers and interested archaeological bodies are equal in this
criticism, with several misconceptions, assumptions and perceived antagonism springing directly from the
original communication failure. However, part of the point of this project was to highlight the protocols that
could be followed in the future.
E arly discussion with both the County Archaeologist and HER officer, English Heritage, Natural England
and the PAS would allow each a chance to comment on any potential issues that may arise, including
sensitive areas, scheduling, stewardship or other environmental issues. It is clear that knowing who to talk to
is often a complex matter, as in this case, where contact with Peterborough is not immediately apparent given
the location of the site in Cambridgeshire. The onus should then be upon the local County Archaeologist to
inform the rally organiser of other groups who may be working in the area, or projects being conducted in
the area that may be either affected by the rally OR would like to be informed of results to add to their own
research agendas. This becomes the first stage of a tick box approach.
a. Contact HER and Statutory Bodies (the correct address could indeed be provided by the HER, unless a
direct point of contact for each body could be established.
A s detailed in the final part of this section (Levels of Rally – which is only a suggestion based on observation)
the equipment required is dependant on the type of rally undertaken. However, provision for Pinflags
(available from York Survey Supplies – white flags are recommended with visibility of over a kilometre ),
prenumbered finds bags, and ballpoint pens should be made, based on providing every detectorist with 5
pinflags (to be reused) 20 bags and a pen (and a number spare). One possibility which may be carried out in
conjunction with the farmer are blue barrels or similar with a field number sprayed on that relates to the map.
Field definitely excluded from the rally may also benefit from a barrel (or similar) with a ‘No entry’ sign.
An additional item of equipment which can be supplied is the very inexpensive funnel-based tripod/diffuser,
macro stabiliser . It also goes without saying that provision should be made for comfortable and suitable table
and chairs for the FLOs and other recorders. A large map of the area also helps to provide a visual guide to
how the rally is progressing, with different coloured dots for finds, marked roughly on the map. Enough GPS
units, download cables and record sheets (White Artefact and Blue Coin sheets)
It is understood that it is impossible to decide on exactly which fields will be detected until the day before, giv-
en changing conditions such as weather, ploughing, seeding and ground conditions. Therefore, it is important
for all, including the participants to have a map of the entire area with numbered fields. This also ensures that
a morning briefing can consist of announcing the fields (by number) that will be detected on that day/morn-
ing/afternoon. As each participant receives information (either by post or on the day) they can receive both
this map and a short (A5) description of what is to be expected.
A s with all projects and events, it all depends on the type of rally, the numbers of participants, the expected
volume of recordable finds (an impossible figure akin to archaeological excavation, where we are asked
to specify the amount of archaeology that is in a given site). However based on a rally similar to this (and
confirmed by a further rally at Corfe) a suitable ratio would be (per hundred participants) one FLO with one
volunteer taking digital photographs and at least one GPS unit in the field recording pinflags. Of course this
has to be flexible, where for 300 detectorists the numbers could be two FLOs, two volunteers on photography,
two on weight/measurement and four GPS Units in the field plus two professional archaeologists (also with
GPS units) as backup and onsite advice. It is possible with enough discussion, to involve a local unit that
will have used detecting volunteers on commercial projects to provide suitable field staff for the weekend as
a reciprocal act.
d. Decide on numbers of support staff needed and ensure they are adequate to cover all requirements..
A final product is essential, to both show the validity of carrying out these large scale events in archaeological
terms and to place the recovered artefacts into some context, creating the basis for further work. Based
upon this event, and the methodology of report production, collation of data and the GIS element it is suggested
that the report is in line with similar field-survey recording, where lists of artefacts are prepared and linked
to locations, with a brief overview and discussion with suggestions for further work. A CD of images and
paper copy as a thumbnailed appendix can be attached. In keeping with similar event reporting, a shp file
showing the event boundary can easily be attached to the HER GIS system, showing where work has been
carried out. The report can then be made available through the HER and OASIS. It was suggested that this
and similar events cannot fit into research agendas, and produces data without purpose. However, it is true
to say that as development control archaeology makes up some 80-90% of all archaeological interventions
in the UK presently this can be said of much of the archaeology that takes place now. (We have to be
mindful that commercial archaeology is based on where development or construction takes place rather than
where archaeology research agendas are centred, though thankfully they can coincide by accident rather than
design.)
e. Allow for data input, overview and preparation of digital images, to prepare a standardised report, CD,
database and GIS points and polygon file. (I am happy to prepare for discussion a template and instruction
manual for all of these) This will take place after the event within a set timescale.
One important aspect is to ensure that the people most directly affected by this event, benefit from this event.
The local community, should be allowed access to view the finds, and provision made for a return visit to
explain the results. I understand that this may be difficult, but if a local detecting group who has attended the
event in conjunction with either a FLO or archaeologist can consider this, then it seems a logical conclusion.
Understanding of concerns.
It is impossible to please everyone all of the time, it is however possible to agree that all parties have concerns,
issues and difficulties. To actively seek workable solutions does not need to mean capitulation to ideas that
may be diametrically opposite to personal views. Therefore it is important for all parties to view their own
behaviour and see where lessons could be learned, and actions (no matter how innocent) could be misconstrued,
mistakes seen as deliberate or assumptions made without taking time to find out whether they are true are not.
I am more than happy to admit to failings, but use this as a positive move forward. It is too easy to point out
46 Water Newton Metal Detecting Rally 2007
specific slights or perceived transgressions, much harder, but more rewarding to highlight issues, isolate them
and unravel them to a point where all parties can agree it is the most workable resolution.
After the meeting in Cambridge on the 13th November 2007, it was heartening that no substantial problems
were highlighted in the recording methods, or the reporting and that their was talk of movement on a Rally
Code of Conduct, building on work from various bodies and strengthened by this and other cooperative
events. Facts have replaced assumptions, and that is no bad result.
Type I rally. (PAS aware of rally and can accept finds either at rally or afterwards)
A fter contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that nothing is really known about the
area. The rally takes place and interesting or important or recordable finds are recorded either at the Rally
or afterwards… It would be good for everyone to know what was found… and what it ‘means’
Type II rally (PAS aware and provision made for FLOs on site - Archaeologists invited to provide additional
help (photography and archaeological advice))
A fter contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that there is known archaeology
however as no ‘below the ploughsoil’ detecting then further information, ploughsoil artefact rescue will
be of great use, recording of interesting or important or recordable finds should take place either at the rally
or afterwards. It would be good for everyone to know what was found… and what it ‘means’, especially if
important new information or sites are found thanks to this. GPS location of finds should be considered, and
a method of managing it in conjunction with archaeologists investigated at the earliest possible – It should be
perfectly reasonable (for commercial rallies) to allow for at the least covering expenses for archaeologists as
well as proving the equipment needed to carry out a basic record.
Type III rally (PAS aware and provision made for FLOs on site Archaeologists invited to provide additional
help (photography and archaeological advice in the fieldand to oversee student volunteers in Geolocating
finds)
A fter contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that there is known archaeology and
the potential for significant archaeology - however as no ‘below the ploughsoil’ detecting then further
information, ploughsoil artefact rescue will be of great use, recording of interesting or important or recordable
finds should take place either at the rally or afterwards (though ideally it would take place at the rally. It would
be good for everyone to know what was found… and what it ‘means’, especially if important new information
or sites are found thanks to this. GPS location of finds should be considered, and a method of managing it
in conjunction with archaeologists investigated at the earliest possible – It should be perfectly reasonable
(for commercial rallies) to allow for at the least covering expenses for archaeologists as well as proving the
equipment needed to carry out a basic record.
Type IV rally (PAS aware and provision made for a number of FLOs on site Archaeologists essential to
provide additional help (photography and archaeological advice field and use of accurate GPS equipment and
to oversee student volunteers in conjunction with local groups sub metre GPS required, long term funding
commitment and no loss of finds.)
A fter contacting the County Archaeologist or HER officer, it is clear that there is not only known archaeology
and the potential for significant archaeology but it is a battle site – This is where it gets interesting…
as where other site types are subsurface and the ploughsoil contains artefacts that have been pulled up from
sealed contexts and features.. the battlesite starts at the top of the ploughsoil down… the entire ground surface
is the site. The fragility is exceptional… a broken buckle, a line of lead shot, a button, a piece of armour or a
fragment of stirrup… without exact location of each of these items, without recording of every scrap, the story
47 Water Newton Metal Detecting Rally 2007
that could be told will be lost forever… you could change history… discovering that the lines of battle are
different from previously thought… that a cavalry charge took place there, that a cannon position was here not
there, and that affected its field of fire… the possibilities to change history are enormous. Think two men in a
trench and the extensive use of metal detecting…!
H ere – it could be argued that the one type of event that would not suit a battlefield would be a rally….. and
if such an event took place on a known battlefield the amount of preparation would have to be done long
in advance… here, the locations would have to be mapped using either diff GPS or a Total Station Theodolite,
allowing sub metre accuracy, there would have to be elements of fieldwalking, a serious investigation into
archaeological input and finds identification (with a need to retain most finds to analyse further.. as it would be
difficult in most cases to properly identify slight features that could tell the difference between a brown bess
trigger guard and a continental musket type… or what type and period the lead shot came from… whether that
was a piece of iron or part of a arquebus shot..
And when people left the field it would not end there, as reports would need to be written, information collated,
artefacts examined, conservation of artefacts, historical analysis, etc etc… a major commitment… So would
it be worth considering?
I f you had the time, the money, the commitment, and were part of a larger project that also involved the local
community, then perhaps yes… properly organised, funded (you could get funding from HLF even) and
with enough specialists and archaeologists to ensure that what you found was not just saved from the ground,
but saved from obscurity
S uccess is a relative term, based on the interpretation of the final result. It is however possible to use this
term with relation to the event, based on the following criteria. A substantial amount of recorded artefacts
and coins have entered the public domain for research and study, the locations of the artefacts and coins are
also available, and this report, with accompanying photographs, GIS data and database has been lodged with
both Cambridge and Peterborough HERs. This can only be seen as a success given that the only alternative
was none of the above.
The project itself was from certain angles experimental, however, a precedent was set by work in Yorkshire
(http://www.iadb.co.uk/osbaldwick/osbaldframeset-1.htm ) at Osbaldwick - Archaeology and metal-detecting.
A model for engaging the local communityin a greenfield development, Neil Macnab, 2005, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
It is important to recognise that the benefits from the exercise were engagement with detector users, collection
of archaeological valid data and further development of future methodologies. The criticisms of the event stem
from using this site as a test case, the easy rebuttal to this is that not using this site as a test case would have
resulted in the potential loss of any information at all. During the extensive discussions on the project, there
was very little workable alternative given. With ideas such as sub surface test pitting, complete geophysics
of the area and even gridding 100 hectares into 10 metres square being either impractical and/or exorbitantly
expensive.
The problems and solutions have been detailed in section 8 above, and need no further discussion, other
than the requirement that these solutions are implemented by all parties. Communication and openness
being crucial to further working models, with Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology Service admitting
themselves that they were as much to blame for this early loss.
Detecting to must be aware that the resource they utilise for these events is not one which should be seen
as inconsequential and must require consideration for the long term effects. By simple addition of an
archaeological component it is possible for all participants to enjoy a family event and provide useful data for
further study. This situation brings a genuine win-win solution, to what is and wall flewas a divisive issue.
More cooperation from both groups will provide a sustainable and inclusive future.
In terms of the stated objectives, the following results have shown that the data did bear archaeological data that
could be interpreted and utilised. The results are open to other groups for study and the Portable Antiquities
Scheme has already initiated a study of the coin typology and distribution.
The distribution of coinage, and subsequent interpretation (including a recognition of coin density at different
period) has shown a significant expansion of late Roman date to the southeast of Durobrivae, with the potential
of a nucleated pattern around what is now Chesterton. The collection of a fragment of wall flue and the
seemingly uninterrupted continuation of artefacts and coins in the area of Chesterton would suggest that
further no intrusive and detailed study of this area would be a target worth following.
The areas of Fields 1 & 2 (see Fig. 2) had a very limited number of finds, which may suggest that rather than
the expected roadside settlement pattern, it is possible the area was used for other activities, which may even
be connected with burials (these features have been uncovered previously in the area) or woodland/agricultural
land. had a very limited number of finds, which may suggest that rather than the expected roadside settlement
pattern, it is possible the area was used for other activities, which may likely be connected with burials (
coffins have been uncovered previously) or woodland/agricultural land.
As has been previously mentioned we have another confirmation of the gradual degradation of metallic
artefacts and finds. The details of condition for each recorded find are found in the database, however in
brief, over a third of the roman coins were indecipherable. Artefacts were often very corroded or broken, it
should be considered that at this rate of loss, recorded collection is at the very least, a requirement to prevent
complete loss of the information.
It would be useful to carry out further work in this area in five years to compare the amount of decay, in both
the areas or organic farming and non organic chemical fertiliser use.
It is hoped that the information contained within this report will be of as much use as previous field walking
exercises in this area, and can spur local involvement, perhaps with support from organisations.
Special thanks Jon Welsh (historical Research and editing), Maggie Struckmeier and Corinne Mills (who also
supplied all the photographs of the work in the field) for field supervision and research, data input and support,
Simon Holmes for field supervision and coin research. Suzi Thomas and students (Lynda Jackson, Wendy Fail,
Christine Alford, Hannah Guthrie and Emilie Sibbesson) from International Centre for Cultural and Heritage
Studies, University of Newcastle, for invaluable help in GPS location. The amazing efforts of FLOs Steve
Ashby, Ros Tyrell, and Phillipa Walton for finds identification and both Roger Bland and Sam Moorehead
from the PAS, Cambridgeshire Council Archaeology Service, Sarah Poppy, Ben Robinson for SMR data and
offprints of articles and research relating to Durobrivae.
MMArts bear special mention including Luke, Gro, Kerry, and Mark Gorton who supported the production of
this report both finicially and with all the excitement of live filming, and without which this would not have
been possible.
Mr and Mrs Wright of Chesterton and the Landowners, I would like to give my special thanks, and to the
locals of Chesterton who showed so much interest as well as inviting me down for a talk on the results in the
church.
And of course Neil Oliver, a big thanks for all the support, both before, during and after!
Artis, E.T. (1828) The Durobrivae of Antoninus Identified and Illustrated, London: the author.
Casa Hatton, R. and Wall, W. (unpublished 1999) A Late Roman cemetery beside the A1 near Durobrivae
(Water Newton): Archaeological Recording, Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit
Report 165)
Casa Hatton, R. and Wall, W. (2006) ‘A late Roman cemetery at Durobrivae, Chesterton’, Proceedings of the
Cambridgeshire Antiquarian Society 95: 5-24.
Crank, N., Wotherspoon, M., Britchfield, D. and Grant, J. (unoublished 2002) Land East of Mill Lane, Water
Newton, Cambridgeshire. An Archaeological Interim Site Narrative, Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust
Report 1169.
Geophysical Surveys of Bradford (1997 unpublished) Report on Geophysical Survey. Peterborough to Lut-
ton Pipeline, Volumes 1 and 2. Report 97/24.
Grant, J. (unpublished 2002) Proposed extension of burial ground, The Rose Garden, St Michael’s Church,
Chesterton, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. An archaeological evaluation, Hertfordshire Archaeological
Trust Report 1098.
Kemp, S. (1993) English Heritage Fieldwalking Programme, Draft Report: Durobrivae, Cambridgeshire
Archaeology Reports.
MacAuley, S. (2000) ‘Romano-British Settlement Remains at Mill Reach, Water Newton: an archaeological
evaluation. Report no. 172,’ Cambridgeshire Archaeology Reports Cambridgeshire County Council Archae-
ological Field Unit.
McDonald, T. and Last, J. (1999) Minerva Business Park, Alwalton, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. Area B
Interim Excavation Report, Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust Report 0599.
McDonald, T. and Vaughan, T. (unpublished 1999) Archaeological excavation, Minerva Business Park,
Alwalton, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. Area A Interim Excavation Report, Hertfordshire Archaeological
Trust Report 0531.
Murray, J. (unpublished 1999) Minerva Business Park, Alwalton, Cambridgeshire. An Archaeological Evalu-
ation (Area B) Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust Report 0510.
Network Archaeology (unpublished 1997) Peterborough to Lutton Proposed Gas Pipeline. Archaeological
Fieldwalking, Field Reconnaissance and Geophysical Survey, Network Archaeology 106.
O’Brian, L. (unpublished 2002) Land East of Mill Lane, Water Newton, Cambridgeshire. AN Archaeological
Excavation. Archive Report, Archaeological Solutions Report 2056.
O’Brian, L. (unpublished 2003) Roman and Medieval finds at Land East of Mill Lane, Water Newton,
Huntingdonshire. Excavation. Report, Hertfordshire Archaeological Trust Report 1270.
Reynolds, T., Parsons, J., Malim, T. and Robinson, B. (2000) ‘Fieldwork in Cambridgeshire’, Proceedings of
the Cambridgeshire Antiquarian Society 89: 91-101.
Rivet, A.L.F. and Smith, C. (1979) The Place-Names of Roman Britain, London: Batsford.
Roberts, J. (unpublished 1999) Multi-period features on land at Minerva Business Park, Alwalton, Cam-
bridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit Report 155.
Roe, D.A. (1968) A gazetteer of British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites, London: Council for British
Archaeology.
Taylor, C. and Angus, C. (unpublished 1998) Peterborough to Lutton Gas Pipeline. Archaeological Trench
Evaluation, Excavation and Field Survey. Interim Statement, Network Archaeology.
Tomlinson, S. (2004) ‘Artis, Edmund Tyrell (bap. 1789, d. 1847), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford University Press.
(http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37128) accessed 22 Aug 2007.
Wall, W. (unpublished 1998) A Roman cemetery beside the A1 trunk road near Durobrivae (Water Newton)
TL12069662, Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit Report.
Wall, W. (unpublished 1999) Middle Saxon iron smelting furnaces and other sites along the Wing to Peter-
borough pipeline, Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit Report 158.
Wessex Archaeology (1996) The English Rivers Palaeolithic Project. Report no.2, 1995-1996: the Great
Ouse Drainage and the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds.
Tomlin, R.S.O. (1983) ‘Roman Leicester, a Corrigendum: For Coritani should we read Corieltauvi?’, Trans-
actions of the Leicester Archaeological and Historical Society 48.
Tomlin, R.S.O. (1983) ‘Non Coritani sed Corieltauvi’, The Antiquaries’ Journal 63.
Palaeolithic
NMR_NATINV-364381
Bronze Age
NMR_NATINV-364292 Castor, cinerary urn.
Iron Age
NMR_NATINV-364354 Castor, barrow site.
Roman
EHNMR-1115311 Sibson Hollow, Ailsworth, villa.
NMRMIC-19 Burial, well, villa.
EHNMR-1358399 Mill Reach eval.
EHNMR-1090819 Normangate Field, Ailsworth, Peterborough.
EHNMR-642253 Normangate Field, Castor, Peterborough.
EHNMR-642276 Normangate Field, Castor, Peterborough.
EHNMR-642279 Normangate Field, Castor, Peterborough.
EHNMR-642304 Durobrivae.
EHNMR-642844 Sutton Field; villa.
EHNMR-642845 Water Newton; villa.
EHNMR-642846 Water Newton; villa.
NMR_NATINV-364291 Durobrivae.
EHNMR-642847 Durobrivae extra-mural settlement; occupation, industrial.
EHNMR-642848 Billing Brook Site 2; well, burial and oven.
NMR_NATINV-364445
NMR_NATINV-364448
NMR_NATINV-364454
NMR_NATINV-364460 The Castles, Chesterton.
NMR_NATINV-364464 Chesterton, pottery site.
NMR_NATINV-364468 Chesterton, Durobrivae hoard (1974).
NMR_NATINV-364469 Water Newton Hoard.
NMR_NATINV-364470 Chesterton, two milestones.
NMR_NATINV-364488 Elton, possible building.
NMR_NATINV-364496 Chesterton, stone coffin.
NMR_NATINV-1164915 Ermine Street.
EHNMR-1301435 A1 Roadside, Water Newton, cemetery.
NMR_NATINV-1301921 Chesterton, cemetery in drainage ditch adjacent to A1.
EHNMR-642288 Kate’s Cabin Farm, Chesterton.
EHNMR-642292 Durobrivae Site 1.
EHNMR-1314413 Durobrivae fieldwalking survey.
Early Medieval
EHNMR-642843 Enclosed settlement.
NMR_NATINV-364378 Water Newton.
Medieval
EHNMR-642843 Pound.
NMR_NATINV-871177 St Remigius Church.
NMR_NATINV-364378 Water Newton.
Post-medieval
NMR_NATINV-364497 Water Newton House.
NMR_NATINV-364498 Water Newton Lodge.
NMR_NATINV-871177 St Remigius Church.
1052 finger ring material base silver? Early Roman to Late Roman Coordinate
Object description large round bezel missing stone TL
8104 pottery assemblage material ceramic Early Roman to Late Roman Coordinate
Object description Up to 50 sherd assemblage of Roman pottery, mainly coarseware TL
8108 finger ring material silver Early Roman to Late Roman Coordinate
Object description bent hoop with oval inlaid bezel TL
8121 votive miniature material cu alloy Early Roman to Late Roman Coordinate
Object description miniature axehead, flat, incised marginal dots on one side, circular perforation separated from head by TL
2 ribs
8139 finger ring material cu alloy Early Roman to Late Roman Coordinate
Object description octagonal/round bezel only TL
8141 musket ball material pb Post-medieval to Recent Coordinate
Object description TL 12362 95642