Roman Imports into Late Iron Age British societies: Towards a Critique of Existing Models

by Steven Willis

I ntroduc ti on.
The aim of this paper is to examine some areas in which our approaches to Roman imports into
Late Iron Age Britain may be developed. In the course of the paper possibilities for a more
sophisticated and nuanced understanding of this material are explored. In particular some
potential ideological dimensions to exchanged material culture are examined, especially
questions concerning its deposition and its relationship with the milieux in which it circulated.
The paper is suggestive and speculative in tone and character, fittingly so for this volume.
Whilst the examples focused upon are drawn from the LPRlA (and early conquest period) in
Britain, it may be that the arguments and cases in question are equally relevant to other
domains of exchange.
A Problem in our Conception of Roman Imports in Late Iron Age society’?
Roman imports into Britain (that is imports from the Roman continent) during the LPRlA and
early conquest period have been widely studied and our apparent knowledge base is extensive.
The episode constitutes one of the most high profile instances of exchange in the archaeology of
Britain. Traditionally evaluations of these imports (eg amphorae and their contents, fine
pottery, metalwork, etc.) in Britain have been closely bound up with Romanization studies. This
has followed from the fact that since we know that ‘Trade – or at least imports – preceded the
Flag’, imported items. the process of importing and ‘cultural exchange’ are seen as a logical
prelude to the Roman conquest and the incorporation of Britain into the Empire. This episode
of the arrival of Roman goods in the later British Iron Age is usually characterized as a period
of ‘softening-up’ and has been perceived as ‘Romanization before the conquest’ (Haselgrove
Millett 1990: Cunliffe 1991 545) The phenomenon of pre-conquest imported
material has customarily, and conveniently, provided raw material for Chapter One of the story
of the Roman conquest and of Roman Britain (Frere Salway 198L Todd 1981). Roman
imports have tended to be looked at from the perspective of what they might tell us of the
Romanization of LPRJA Britain. This process has been searched for and, not surprisingly,
identified.
This bias of perspective carries important consequences for our study of the period; not
least it engenders a distorting and restricting Two important effects can be highlighted
here. First, Roman imports into Iron Age Britain are invariably’ considered in terms of the
knowledge we have of what subsequently took. place in the course of the first century AD.
What appears to happen is that, in effect, we inadvertently ‘reason back’ from the known
outcome to rationalize the existence of Roman imports and material goods as if their presence
was instrumental in generating, or crucially facilitated, the long term process of Romanizationl
. 142 Steven Willis
What is lost is a recognition that what happened need not necessarily have occurred; alternative
outcomes were possible. This observation obliges us to evaluate the significance of this material
in terms of its specific context, its meaning/s at a moment in time. This is an obligation we
should welcome. Our view of past societies, seen as it is through the structure of an historical
perspective, is both privileged and hindered by that perspective. As archaeologists we must
make conscious efforts to minimize the distortions that this structure gives rise to.
Secondly, in contrast to the emphasis given to Roman imports as (alleged) instruments and
symbols of Romanization only limited attention has been paid to how this material might be
examined in order to study the Iron Age per se and, indeed, ideological aspects of Late British
Iron Age societies. To illustrate that this is the case it is sufficient to take but one example. It is
through this bias of perspective that the possibility of examining the incidence of imported
continental material as an index for investigating indigenous exchange relations within and
between British Iron Age societies has not been comprehensively addressed.
The treatment of imported material in Late Iron Age society
How were Roman imported goods treated? It seems that we customarily assume that such items
were treated differently to indigenous items (eg. Haselgrove 1982; CunJiife 1984). However, we
need to establish more assuredly whether this was the case or not rather than assume it. The
spectacular Welwyn series burials (Stead 1967) and the Lexden Tumulus (Foster 1986),
together with the recent finds at Folly Lane, St Albans (Niblett 1992) and Colchester-Stanway
(Crummy 1993), and, indeed, their presentation, have framed and perhaps over-determined our
perceptions. We need to bear in mind that these depositions represent only particular fields of
practice, and highly specific ones at that.
There has been a persistent tendency in reports and commentaries upon the period in
question to assume the value of imports. Hence in numerous texts these items are categorized as
exotic, as luxuries, as prestige goods (eg. Salway 1981: 57; Frere 1987: 35; Millett 1990: ]0 &
]8). Through the repeated characterization of these objects as special, as prestige items, etc.
archaeologists have brought into being a construct, a definition of past reality, that is taken
almost as axiomatic1 However, it is contestable that this was the case. A very real problem lies
in the fact that models have been formulated on the basis of these less than certain definitions
(eg. Partridge 198t Haselgrove 1982; 1987a; Cunliffe 1987: esp. 3]9-45; Millett 1990; Trow
1990). If our accounts of the past are to have a validity we must be wary to avoid imputing
unwarranted and unproven judgements of value (cf. Millett, this volume).
Archaeologists are aware that the values ascribed to objects will have determined the
manner of their disposal (cf. Fitzpatrick 1994: 68). We should explore the extent to which
imported material within the Late Iron Age cultural environment may have been ascribed
different values vis-a-vis indigenous material, and treated differently. As a matter of good
practice this question should be asked of material at all levels, from the study of the
stratigraphic context to the general synthesis. The possibility of regional and s,ocial-contextual
variations in practice should be acknowledged and our approaches designed to anticipate this.
The new picture that is emerging of the nature of depositional regimes and actions in the Iron
Age (Haselgrove 1987b; Hingley 1990; Hill 1994) suggests this to be both a sensible and
necessary procedure. Conjointly we must consider the social contexts within which
discriminating treatment of the imported and the indigenous might have occurred. Roman Imports into late Iron Age British societies 143
Structured Distribution
Find-spot distribution maps, that familiar tool of the archaeologist, have been employed widely
in exchange studies being presented and interpreted as mapping trade and exchange relations,
or as an index of these relations. The structured nature of the distributions of imports in Late
Iron Age and conquest period Britain (Fitzpatrick Willis 1993) indicates that there were
evidently complex processes taking place which strongly influenced the incidence of this
material
Awareness that generally such mapping may not necessarily provide a valid picture of
actual distributions, but that apparent distribution patterns may be a function of variable
research input by archaeologists (cf Fitzpatrick 1987), is now widespread. However, it is
crucial that it be recognized that such incidence maps may be recording not simply access to
imports, but also attitudes to exchanged items, and particular actions involving that is to
say, they are in part a function of depositional practice. This observation accrues a new cogency
from our perspective in the 1990s for we may be now more willing to accept that activity in the
Iron Age and Roman period was, at least in part, directed by ideological frameworks. We are
perhaps now able to accept that the archaeological record of this period was not the absolute
and straight-forward product of practical and material considerations, but rather also
consequent upon the range of beliefs guiding action. This understanding poses a challenge to
exchange studies for several reasons. Not least it suggests the probability that many (or most?)
deposits will have resulted from ideological practice and constitute intentional, selected,
structured depositions. Equally it is likely that in certain circumstances similar factors may
have resulted in imported material not having entered the ground.
Structured Deposition
Archaeologists have long sought to elicit structure from the artefact distributions which
they plot. In contrast they have been remarkably slow to explore the possibility of structuring in
the deposition of material in the past. The exceptions here though, of course, are the ways we
approach burials with grave goods and artefacts associated with such contexts have
long been comprehended as selected assemblages and hence are invested with a special
significance by the archaeologist. What has not been entertained is the likelihood that what
went into the ground generally (eg at other types of site and in different contexts) to provide us
with our archaeological record of imports to Late Iron Age Britain may have been consciously
selected and controlled. J D. Hill has shown that such a regime operated at settlement sites of
the early and middle Iron Age of Wessex (Hill 1994, with refs) whilst Aitchison (1988) has
argued that some coin deposits of the Roman period in Britain represent votive offerings. Hence
the possibility that similar attitudes and activities existed in the later British Iron Age must be
faced up to. What gives cause for anxiety is that exchange studies have been reluctant to
recognize this possibility, and have remained curiously enchanted by that old spectre of
archaeological reasoning, namely the assumption that a ‘death assemblage’ is an
uncomplicated index of the ‘life assemblage’ (cf Orton 1989).
If a structured regime, controlled, however, tightly or loosely, was being exercised over
deposition in the early and mid Iron Age across a substantial part of southern Britain (at least)
implications are raised for our thinking and interpretation of the incidence of exchanged and
imported items at settlement and other sites in the LPRlA and conquest period. It is particularly
pertinent that at this time social relations, affiliations and identities are likely to have been 144 Sleven Willis
under abnormal tension and material from the Continent and Empire will have appeared at its
most conspicuous whilst being perhaps politically and culturally sensitive. How was the fate of
this material decided by indigenous populations?
It is feasible to propose an alternative scenario to the traditional view that imports will
have been valued items and that they were problematic only in so far as their existence
generated competition for control (cf. Haselgrove 1982; cf. Millett 1990: 38). Their presence,
treatment and understanding within indigenous societies is likely to have been more
complicated than existing models allow. We must consider the very real possibility that they
engendered a range of organic and dynamic attitudes encompassing ambiguity and
ambivalence, a positive desire to possess and/or conscious rejection. The artefacts themselves
will have been active categories in these processes. The archaeological record should be
interrogated with these probabilities in mind.
Two provisos to this line of argument might be usefully sounded here. First, it cannot be
taken as given that the manner in which material culture was treated in the Late British Iron
Age was entirely analogous to preceding patterns. The larger volume of material that we
encounter incorporated into the archaeological record of the later Iron Age, at both settlement
sites and ritual sites (such as Harlow and Snettisham (France & Gobel 1985; Stead 1991; cf
Haselgrove 1989: 17)) suggests that attitudes to discard may have been altering generally)
Second, the probability of regional differences and of contextual diversity might be anticipated.
An additional point of relevance is the simple, though often unemphasized, reality that without
deposition exchange will be archaeologically invisible. Since it is possible to envisage a
situation in which conscious attempts were made to exclude imported items from processes
which would result in their incorporation in the ground it is germane to recall the old dictum
that ‘an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ (cf. Hingiey 1990 105).
To return to the mainstream of the argument presented here, if we accept the case for an
ideological dimension to deposition in the Late Iron Age, important implications follow. Not
least amongst these are implications relating to the oft quoted quantities of imported material.
It must be recognized that the manner in which deposits came into being may be a or the
determining factor in shaping our perception of the absolute or relative quantities of imports.
Identification or Difference: Imports as Alien?
Imports are often distinctive objects. How this distinctiveness was understood, marked and
negotiated (if indeed it was!) constitute crucial and stimulating lines for enquiry. In this section
two somewhat different possibilities relating to these questions are delineated.
First, within what appears to have been an increasingly hierarchical and structured society
(eg. Haselgrove 1989: esp. 12; Sharples 1991: esp. 87), one with increasing bounds (cf. Tester
1993), imported objects may have been less ‘value-laden’ than indigenous material. This
possibility arises from the fact that they will not have been embedded within the existing social
order or social relations; on their arrival at British sites amphorae, wine. fine pottery,
metalwork and other commodities will have been novel and distinctive. The possibilities.
therefore, for their deployment in society may have been less bounded by normative rules than
that of established indigenous objects. One connotation is that they may have carried a potential
to be highly subversive of established social relations and definitions (contra Nash not
least they came from outside the British social order. For local and regional paramounts in
Britain, and, indeed, for others too, they will have implicitly constituted an objectified token of Roman imports into late iron Age British societies 145
the boundaries of power, and the limits of their dominion, since they will have been a reminder
of the existence of a greater power, the Empire. If this line of reasoning is valid it may explain
why, within an apparently highly status conscious social order, eJites would have desired to
control the definition and circulation of this incoming material. From this perspective the
control of this incoming material was important to eJites not because it was a symbol or means
to power, nor because it was necessary per se for status maintenance. Rather its existence may
have demanded management and control by eJites because its presence was detrimental to, and
corrosive of, existing power structures.
Following a second avenue, it could prove useful to examine the question of how foreign or
alien this material was to the inhabitants of Iron Age Britain. Certainly their conceptualization
and categorization of this material – their sense of identification or difference with regard to it
– will have shaped their attitudes to its use and discard. However, our thinking in this area is
hindered by the fact that we are not accustomed ourselves to regard this material as alien or
unfamiliar. On the contrary the items that are under consideration here: amphorae (and their
contents), fine table wares, metalwork, glassware, etc. are readily familiar. We are used to their
form and appearance, we know their origins, we think we know how they were used; we study
them with regUlarity. Additionally, it is possible that they do not appear alien to us because we
have ourselves taken on a sense of identification with ‘the Roman’ (cf. HingIey 1991). As a
consequence. we are not accustomed to readily conceive of these imports in their British context
as alien items, as being from the alien; however. this, of course, is feasibly how they would
have been regarded within that context.
Examining this question from a different direction, it is equally pertinent to consider how
alien these items or their source were. Much of the imported material present on Late Iron Age
sites in Britain is of Gallic rather than RomanlMediterranean origin, being either made in Gaul
(eg. Gallo-Belgic pottery; provincial san1ian; other pottery; metalwork) or arriving in Britain
via Gaul (eg. amphorae). Britain had been receiving items from Gaul though the course of the
Iron Age (Fitzpatrick 1989). Importation, therefore was not without precedent. However, what
appears to be new during the Late Iron Age is an increased scale of importation and a greater
diversity of imports. If one follows the premise that at this time Gaul was conceived of by the
peoples of Britain (? especially southern Britain) as ethnically and/or culturally close (cf.
Millett 1990: JJ; Cunliffe 1991: 545), the arrival of these new material items via or from Gaul
may have lent them an association which rendered their consumption in Britain acceptable.
This is an important and exciting area not just for the field of exchange studies, but for any
one studying the Late Iron Age in Britain and, in turn, the process of Romanization. It raises
questions concerning cultural boundaries, identities, and cultural hybridity. If a sense of crosschannel ethnic/cultural closeness existed and was a factor in the recognition of newly arriving
material culture what might this mean for the way this (and subsequent) material was regarded
in the British context? One inference which follows from this is that we may need to be more
subtle in probing for potential evidence of identification with. or distancing from. imports.
From our current knowledge of the British Iron Age, and how societies work more generally
(eg. Giddens 1984), we might anticipate that any forthcoming picture will not be
straightforward. Rather we may surmise that it is likely to be complex, indicating that there
were perhaps shifting attitudes towards and between items and their use, differences over time
and between the social milieux of use and possibly with a regional dimension too. Practicable 146 Steven Willis
guides to assist our work here will continue to be the study of context and association and the
search for patterning and deviation from the ‘norm’.
Copying and Replication: From Imports to Romanization
A tenable possibility is that the potentially alien or culturally sensitive nature of imports
was negotiated through the production, by indigenous communities, of copies or imitations of
imported material. This may have been the case with brooches. Types precedented and/or
common on the continent appear to have arrived in Britain as imports, to be subsequently
reproduced in Britain (eg. the Aucissa-Hod Hill and Colchester types (Fitzpatrick 1989:
Chapter 13) and probably also the Langton Down and Thistle types). Other factors may, of
course, account for the spread of these types into Britain in the first century A.D. but this thesis
regarding copying might be entertained as an explanation, or part explanation.
The same phenomenon of imitation is seen in the case of some pottery forms. One example
of a ceramic type which was evidently widely copied in Britain is the butt beaker
Camulodunum 113 (Hawkes & Hull 1947: Rigby 1986: Stead & Rigby 1989: 137)
imported into Britain from Gallia Belgica in the early and middle first century A.D. On the
evidence of fabric and other characteristics this form was frequently copied in southern and
eastern Britain (eg. Partridge 1981: 67-9, nos. 47-8; Clamp 1985: 50-1, no. Trow 1988: 72-
3, nos. Friendship-Taylor & Friendship-Taylor 1989: 10, nos. 22-4). Examination of
the evidence from the east of England (Willis 1993) shows that the distribution of both
imported examples of the type and of ‘copies’ closely correlates with known indigenous
settlements. Examples of the copies in this region occur in a wide variety of fabrics suggesting
the probability of geographically diverse production. Indeed, in this region at least these copies
appear to have been locally, or comparatively locally produced. This implies that there existed a
‘culture of copying’, an impetus to the replication of the form, which, whether communicated
or not, was shared over a wide area.
Why was the Cam. form 113 copied? A traditional argument in cases like this would
perhaps propose that the manufacture of copies was a response to local demand, the number of
imports available being inadequate to satisfy requirements. Whilst attempts at explanation
along such lines might be queried in themselves, for example, by asking ‘why was this
‘demand’ created?’, different possibilities may be posited. It could be argued that these and
other imitations represent a straight forward desire on the part of the copier (and their
constituency) to display affiliation or symbolize identification with the Roman world through a
reproduction and possession of its forms. This is possible but seems simplistic; further, it
implies a degree of cultural diffidence which seems improbable. An alternative scenario,
however. can be proposed. It is conceivable that these imports were copied because it was
thought necessary to interpret or ‘re-interpret’, in a parochial and familiar manner, an alien
import. By casting the form of the import throUgll the employment of the local and accustomed
technologies the product of ‘the other’ – from outside – and its ideas, associations and what it
represented might have been rendered acceptable to indigenous populations. Such action may
thereby have legitimated the use of both the copy and the copied, and, indeed, their
consumption at different levels of meaning: as practicable object, as symbol, and so forth. The
adoption of coinage in Iron Age Britain might be considered another example of this
phenomenon. Roman imports into late iron Age British societies 147
These ideas are, clearly, speculative. However, consideration of questions like these is valid
and important with regard to our enquires of material culture (cf Tilley 1990; Miller 1991)
Moreover, if we come to accept that imitation and replication arose (even partly) out of these
imperatives or similar ones we may come close to engaging and understanding a key aspect in
the process of Romanization It was through the local imitation and replication of more
widespread metropolitan forms, practices and patterns, produced and reproduced as basically
similar but parochially different, that the Empire had an existence. In this way the replication
of material (and other) forms gave the Empire one of its central characteristics, its hybridity.
This hybridity both united and differentiated the components of this construct (cf Woolf 1992
352)
Conclusion and Advocacy
In exchange studies generally there has continued to be an imbalance between, on the one
hand, the attention paid by archaeologists to the study of the finds per se, and, on the other, the
quality of our synthetic discussions. We have employed systematic approaches and
measurement. been highly conscientious in mapping incidence, strong in typological study,
have applied a battery of scientific techniques to source our objects. and so forth. By contrast
our interpretations of the incidence of exchanged items, (often, of course, in the form of
models), have. with exceptions, been comparatively simplistic, monolithic, universalizing and
utilitarian. Our use, for instance, of core-periphery models, systems theory, concepts of
‘gateway communities’. directional trade. ‘Roman ‘drift’ in Scotland’, etc., as models and
attempts to engage the subject, have seemed to provide either partial accounts and explanations
or have not been fully developed as concepts appropriate for archaeological use.
Some of the observations and points touched upon here may suggest specific ways in which
we might develop our subject: they may also imply a style of approach which others may find
useful To summarize, we need to collect and consider our data with greater sophistication, but
also, crucially, with new ideas and theories in mind. The erstwhile tendency towards
monolithic accounts and models of exchange systems might be chaIJenged by our anticipation
of, and search for, regional and sub-regional patterns, as well as other levels of variability and
possibility. We should engage ‘the evidence’ with caution whilst at the same time permitting
adventurousness in interpretation. An approach including these criteria may enable us to
develop accounts which range more freely than the confines of the processuralist paradigm
allowed. The scope for. and nature of. interpretations of exchanged material can now, with
confidence, become less bounded and more exploratory. By raising ‘awkward questions’ for
existing models and through striving to suggest and interpret our understandings of Roman
imports into Late Iron Age Britain will become more textured, more nuanced. Thereby the
study of this material should retain its key relevance to enquiries into both the Iron Age and the
Iron Age – Roman transition. 148
Notes
1
2
3
4
Steven Willis
A tendency towards ‘backward projection’ from a ‘known’ outcome may be a
widespread conceptual practice (and problem) within archaeology (cf Hill 1989).
The attention which these items have continued to receive from archaeologists,
together with their profile and manner of presentation in archaeological accounts,
approaches a marked object fetishism (cf. Miller 1991, 112).
This increase in the quantity of material entering the archaeological record is a
development which has yet to be well explored or explained
The referee of my paper notes that similar suggestions have been advanced by N. M.
Sharples in his paper ‘Late Iron Age society and continental trade in Dorset’, in
Duval, A., Le Bihan, 1. P. & Menez, Y. (eds) Les Gaulois D’Armorique, Actes du XlIe
Colloque de I’A.FE.A.F. . Quimper. Mai 1988, Revue Archeologique de 1’Ouest,
supplement NO.3 1990. Unfortunately I have been unable to see a copy of this article
prior to the submission of the current paper (July 1994).
A clawwledgements
This paper is a much developed version of a presentation given in the ‘Uniformity or Diversity:
Processual and Post-processual approaches to the study of exchange in past societies’ session of
the 1993 TAG Conference held at Durham University; the session was organized by Chris
Loveluck and myself John Barrett kindly read the paper when it was in its original TAG form
and I thank him for his belpful and encouraging comments. I am grateful to the editors of the
1994 TRAC proceedings for inviting me to contribute this paper to their volume. Roman imports into late iron Age British societies 149
Bibliography
Aitchison, N.B. 1988. Roman wealth, native ritual: Coin hoards within and beyond Roman Britain,
World Archaeology 20: 270–84.
Clamp, H. 1985. The Late [ron Age and Romano-British pottery. In Clay, P. & Melior, 1. E., Excavations
in Bath Lane, Leicester. Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries and Records Service,
Archaeological Report No.l O.
Crummy, P. 1993. Aristocratic graves at Colchester, Current Archaeology, 11 (12): 492- 7.
Cunlitfe, B. W. 1984. Relations between Britain and Gaul in the fust century B. C. and early fust century
A.D In Macready, S. & Thompson, F. H. (eds) Cross-Channel Trade between Gaul and Bnlain
in the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Society of Antiquaries of London.
Cunlitfe, B.W. 1987. HengistbufY Head, Dorset, Vo/. I: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement, 3500
BC – AD 500. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph No. 13. Oxford
University. Oxford.
CW11iffe, B. W. 1991. Iron Age Communities in Britain. Routledge.
Fitzpatrick, AP. 1987. The structure of a distribution map: Problems of sample bias and quantitative
studies, .. Icla Rei (‘relariae Romanae Faulol’lfm XXV-.\’XVI, 1987,79-112.
Fitzpatrick, AP. 1989. Cf’oss-Channell<.ela/ions in the British taler Iron /lge: With Particular Reference
to the British rlrchae%gica/ l’;vidence. University of Durham Ph.D. Thesis (Unpublished).
Fitzpatrick, A.P. 1994. Outside in: The stnlcture of an early Iron Age hOllse at Dunston Park, Thatcham,
Berkshire. In Fitzpatrick, AP & Morris, E. L. (eds) The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent IFork. The
Trust for Wessex Archaeology Ltd. 68-72.
Foster, 1. 1986. The Lexden Tumullls. A Re-appraisal of an Iron Age Burial from Colchester, Essex. BAR
British Series No. 156. Oxford.
France, N.E. & GobeL B.M. 1985. The Romano-British Temple at Harlow, Essex. Harlow.
Frere, S.S. 1987. Britannia.’ A History of Roman Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London.
Friendship-Taylor, R.M. & Friendship-Taylor, D.E. 1989. Iron Age and Roman Piddington: An interim
report on the excavation 0/ a Lale Iron Age settlement and Romano-British Villa in
Northamptonshire. The Upper Nene Archaeological Society.
Giddens, A 1984. The Constitution o/Society. Polity Press.
Haselgrove, C.C. 1982. Wealth, prestige and power: The dynamics of political centralization in SouthEast England. In Renfrew, C. & Shennan, S. (eds) Ranking, Resource and Exchange, 79-88.
Cambridge.
Haselgrove, C.c. 1984. ‘Romanization’ before the conquest: Gaulish precedents and British
consequences. In Blagg, T.F.C. & King, AC. (eds) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain,
5- 63 BAR British Series No. 136. Oxford.
Haselgrove, c.c. 1987a. Culture process on the periphery: Belgic Gaul and Rome during the Late
Republic and early Empire. In Rowlands, M., Larsen, M. & Kristiansen, K. (eds), Centre and
Periphery in the Ancient World, 4-24. Cambridge.
Haselgrove, c.c. 1987b. Iron Age Coinage in South-East England. The Archaeological Context. BAR
British Series No. 174. Oxford.
Haselgrove, C.c. 1989. The later [ron Age in southern Britain and beyond. In Todd, M (ed.) Research on
Roman Britoin 1960-89, 1-18. Britannia Monograph Series No.l!’ London.
Hawkes, C.F.C. & Hull, M.R. 1947. Camulodunum. First Report on the Excavations at Colchester 1930-
1939. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, No. XIV
Oxford.
Hill, J.D. 1989. Re-thinking the Iron Age, Scol1ish Archaeological N.eview, 6 16-24. 150 Steven Wi {lis
Hill, J.D. 1994. Why we should not take the data from Iron Age settlements for granted: Recent studies
of intra-settlement patterning. In Fitzpatrick, A P. & Morris, E. L. (eds) The Iron Age in
Wessex: Recent Work, 4-8. The Tmst for Wessex Archaeology Ltd.
Hingley, R. 1990. Iron Age ‘Currency Bars’: The archaeological and social context, The Archaeological
Journal 147: 91-117.
Hingley, R. 1991. Past, Present and Future – TIle study of the Roman period in Britain, Scottish
Archaeological Revil!W 8: 9{}-101.
Miller, D. 1991. Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Blackwell.
Millett, M.1. 1990. The Romanization 0/ Bn/ain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge
University Press.
Nash, D. 1984. The basis of contact between Britain and Gaul in the Late pre-Roman Iron Age. In
Macready & Thompson (eds) Cross-Channel Trade between Gaul and Bn’lain in the PreRoman Iron Age, 92-107. Society of Antiquaries of London.
Niblett, R. 1992. A Catuvellaunian Chieftain’ s burial from St Albans, Antiquity 66: 917- 29.
Orton, C. 1989. An introduction to the quantification of assemblages of pottery, Journal of Roman
PottelY Studies 2: 94-7.
Pat1ridge, C. 1981 Skeie/ol1 (il’een . . 1 Ijlte /1’017 ,Ige and /(omano-I/I’itish Si/e. Britannia Monograph
Series No. 2. London.
Rigby, V 1986. Gaulish fine-ware imports. [n Stead, I. M. & Rigby, V. /Jaldock. The Excavation 0/ a
Roman and f’re-Roman Selllement, 1968-71, 223-34. Britannia Monograph Series No. 7.
London.
Salway, P 1981. Roman/irilain. The Oxford History of England. Oxford.
Sharples, N.M. 1991. Watfare in the Iron Age of Wessex, Scol1ish Archaeolof?ical Review 8: 79-89.
Stead, I.M. 1967. A La Hne ill burial at Welwyn Garden City, Archaeologia Cl: 1-62.
Stead, LM. 1991. The Snettisham treasure: Excavations in 1990, Antiquity 65: 447-65.
Stead, I.M. & Rigby, V 1989. Verl/lamium: The King Hany Lane Sile. English Heritage Archaeological
Report No. 12. English Heritage. London.
Tester, K. 1993. The Life and Times of Post-Modemity. Routledge.
Tilley, C. (ed) 1990. Reading Material Culture: Slrl/c/uralism, J-iermeneutics and Post-Stntcturalism.
Blackwell.
Todd, M. 1981. Roman Britain 55 BC – I’W -100. Fontana.
Trow, S.D. 1988. Excavations at Ditches hillfOlt, North Cerney, Gloucestershire, 1982-3, Transactions
o/Ihe Brislol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 106: 19-85.
Trow, S.D. 1990. By the northern shores of Ocean. Some observations on acculturation process at the
edge of the Roman world. In Blagg, T.F.C. & Millett, M.J. (eds) The Early Roman Empire in
Ihe Wesl. Oxbow.
Willis, S.H. 1993. Aspects 0/ Pottery Assemblages o/Ihe Lale Iron Age I Firsl Centllry A.D. in the East
and North-east o/England. University of Durham Ph.D. Thesis (UnpUblished).
Woolf, G. 1992. The unity and diversity of Romanisation, Journal of Roman Archaeology 5: 349-52.