Tim Lazenby

Site report for:

Vinovia Roman Fort, Binchester.

Protrain

5th December 2016

Word count: 3005

Table of contents

List of figures i

Summary ii

Acknowledgement iii

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction 1

Aims and objectives 2

Methodology 3-4

Results 5

Discussion 6-8

Conclusion 9

Bibliography 10

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of figures

Figure 1: Ordnance survey map superimposed on historical map showing relationship to other

Roman locations.

Figure 2: Geophysics showing location of trench 3 in relation to Time Team trench 2007.

Figure 3: Typical context sheet.

Figure 4: Typical section diagram.

Figure 5: Schematic of trench 3.

Figure 6: Location of burial F169 and the finds in relation to each other.

Figure 7: Location of Binchester in relation to roads and forts at the time

Figure 8: Crossbow brooch (top) from Catterick cemetery, (Eckardt et al., 2015b)Compared to

(bottom) Crossbow brooch from Binchester excavation 2016.

i

Summary

This report presents the third year of excavations at the Roman Fort at

Binchester (Vinovia). This being an archaeological research and training project set up

primarily to train Undergraduate students from University of Durham as well as answering

key research questions.

The project partners for these excavations are: Durham County Council Archaeology

Section; Durham University Archaeology Department; Architectural and Archaeological

Society of Durham and Northumberland and Archaeological Services Durham University.

This year was the third year of a continued ongoing excavation by Durham University

Archaeology Department and was centred around and area identified by geophysical

survey. It is to the east of an area known to contain mausolea originally identified by Time

Team in 2007. A substantial boundary ditch on the eastern edge was identified, which had

been recut twice and contained a burial. Further smaller ditches where identified and

related to different phases of occupation.

Twelve burials where present but bone preservation was extremely poor due to the highly

acidic soils. The burials generally observed a north-west/ south-east orientation. Common

finds where pottery, some glass and coffin nails although one burial included glass.

Palaeoenvironmental sampling was extensively undertaken the commonest finds being

Roman.

ii

Acknowledgements

Permission by Auckland Castle Trust as landowners and Sedgewick family as

farmers is gratefully acknowledged for facilitating this body of works.

iii

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project background (Location)

1.1.1 The Roman Fort of Binchester is located on what was the Roman road of Dere

Street near Bishop Auckland (NGR centre: NZ2095 3135). (Fig 1)

The fort footprint covers approximately 4.5 ha and is surrounded by a vicus on the East and

Southern flanks and to some extent on the Northern, however the West side has been lost

to a landslide in antiquity. The entire site has been estimated at 12.5ha. The excavation

was undertaken to the eastern flank just outside an enclosure known to contain mausolea

which were previously discovered by Time Team in 2007 (Fig 2)

1.2 Project Design

1.2.1 The project is driven by three main forces; empowerment and education,

academic research and conservation and management. The first empowerment and

education helps the University of Durham and Stanford University to enable academic

learning and teaching on a ‘live’ site. This ties in with academic research in this field and the

chance for further masters and PhD studies of Roman origins of the North east. The site is

also under new management via Bishop Auckland Trust and together with Durham County

council they wish to understand best how the site may be managed and developed as a

visitor attraction.

Dates

1.3 Fieldwork was started on 1st June and finished on 30th June 2016. This report was

prepared November 2016.

Personnel

1.4 Project personnel during 2016 comprised numerous members of the partnership

bodies, students and volunteers, including personnel from Durham County Council (Dr

David Mason), Durham University (Dr Mike Church, Dr Sarah Semple), Archaeological

Services Durham University (Jamie Armstrong, Janet Beveridge, Peter Carne, Jonathan Dye,

Tudor Skinner, Natalie Swann, Rebekah Watson). Drone photographs were taken by Mark

Woolston-Houshold of Archaeological Services Durham University. Finds processing was

conducted by the AASDN and students from Durham University. Artefactual management

was by Dr Carrie Armstrong (Archaeological Services). Palaeoenvironmental sampling was

supervised by Dr Carrie Armstrong. Report graphics were by Janine Watson and David

Graham. The Management Group comprised Peter Carne, Dr Mike Church, Professor

Richard Hingley, Dr David Mason, Dr Andrew Millard, Dr David Petts, Professor Charlotte

Roberts, Dr Sarah Semple, and Dr Robin Skeates. The Academic Advisory Panel Comprised

Dr Pete Wilson (Historic England), Dr Iain Ferris, Professor David Breeze (Historic Scotland),

Nick Hodgson (Tyne and Wear Museums Service) and Jacqui Huntley (Historic England). Tim

Lazenby and Hayley May Partner from University of Durham.

2

2.0 Aims and objectives

2.1 The excavation

2.1.1 The trench location was decided upon after an extensive geophysical survey

revealed features in the field to the east of mausolea and human remains identified by

Time Team in 2007. This trench was also to the east of previous excavations carried out by

University of Durham 2009-2015. The current thinking being that this area may well be an

extension of previous Roman burials and inhumations. In total an area 25m by 24 metres

was excavated initially by mechanical digger equipped with a bucket without teeth.

2.1.2 At a depth of 0.5 and 0.7m below ground level laminated deposits of yellow-

brown sand, gravel and patches of coal where encountered. The eastern edge of the trench

sloped down deeper to the eastern edge.

2.1.3 Upon initial excavation it was noted that a large ditch feature (F36) bounded the

west of this excavation and the east of the previously excavated mausolea. This feature was

further cut with several pits notably, F132, which also contained two further pit, F135 and

F133. F36 also contained a burial F169 which will be discussed at length later on in this

report.

3

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Field Methods

3.1.1 Context sheets

Field methods at Binchester consisted of a magnetometry survey carried out by

Geophysical surveys of Bradford, Geoquest Associates and Durham Archaeological services.

Ditches and features were excavated by mattock and trowel. Features were then recorded

using single context recording methods this provides and accurate record of information

found whilst excavating (Fig 3). These were carried out as per Archaeological Services field

recording procedures v.5.1 (2009).

Context sheets are used for the systematic recording of contexts and are paramount in

compiling the post excavation site report, as they provide information on the relationships

between each context, the description of the context and subsequent contextual

interrelationships. Thus providing a balance, between recording and making sure things are

not repeated. Their success as a recording tool relies on the successful completion of the

site register. If, however, no archaeology is present then a trench sheet is completed to

note only ridge and furrow and land drains. They should be crossed referenced to the

context sheets (Roskams, 2001; p 117)

Archaeological materials gathered during excavation will be stored by context and material

to facilitate further study post excavation (Carver, 2009; Drewett, 1999; Roskams, 2001).

4

3.1.2 Plans and sections

All trenches and excavations were recorded by means of plans and section

drawings on drawing film over graph paper. Figure 4 shows a typical section drawing.

3.1.3 Finds

All finds were recorded as either: ceramic building material (CBM) pot, bone, glass or small

find. Small finds were recorded in their own register. All finds were assigned to a context

which helps develop and understand the site post excavation. All finds were bagged and

assigned their own unique find number. This is important since the lucidity of the post

excavation report hinges on the correct cataloguing of finds (Drewett, 1999; p 184)

3.1.4 Environmental sampling

Animal bones will be sampled and catalogued but no pollen or seed analysis will be

undertaken.

3.1.6 Photography

Photography was carried out with a black and white still camera, digital camera.

Individual features were photographed independently or in groups.

3.1.7 Site registers

Site registers were completed daily.

3.1.8 Laboratory methods

Pot and bones were washed by volunteers in the laboratory at Durham

University. Conservation of finds carried out by Durham Archaeological Services as per

Archaeological Services field recording procedures v.5.1.

5

4.0 Results

4.1 These results will discuss the northwest section only. [Full report for rest of site

available from Durham Archaeological Services.]

4.1.1 A trench was opened up by means of a wheeled excavator with a toothless

bucket, this being under constant archaeological supervision. Trench dimensions were 25m

by 24m and was situated outside and to the east of the previous 2007 Time Team

investigations.

4.1.2 Excavations continued to a depth of 0.5 m and 0.7m upon which soil substrate

changed to sandy yellow/brown laminated deposits contained coal in places.

4.1.3 Initial observations noted that there was a large ditch running along the

length of the top of the trench [F36] (Fig 5), which appeared to be cut by further ditches

and pits [F132, F133, F135 and F347] and one grave F169.

4.1.5 Pit F133 was cut into F132.

4.1.6 Pit F135 was cut into F132.

4.1.7 Pit F347 cut into F36

4.1.8 F169 grave cut into F36

5.0 Finds

5.1 F132 revealed substantial amounts of roman pot, a Venus figurine face and

small amounts of animal bone. F347 contained large amounts of pottery. Two stones and

one small copper alloy pin. F169 Remains included a human skull and two femurs,

preservation was very poor due to the acidic soil. Finds included one nail (presumably coffin

nail) one horses’ skull (partial) face down by the left foot. One 4th century crossbow brooch

and one small pot (presumably funerary). The foot of the grave was lined with three stones,

cist like in nature and these surrounded the pot on three sides. Further horses’ teeth were

found above the crossbow brooch which was located approximately were the right breast

would have been.

6

Discussion

The archaeology of Binchester is well known, first being mention by John

Leyland in the sixteenth century (Leyland, 1770).

“Binchester now a poore villag stondith on the south side of Were,

and is but half a mile beneth Castelle Akeland. It stondith on the

brow of an hille, and there I saw, as I roode on the south side, a

litle fosse, and inditia of old buildinges. In the ploughid feeldes

hard by thys village hath and be founde Romaine coynes, and

other many tokens of antiquite.”

Excavations in the late nineteenth century by John Proud and Revd R.E.

Hooppell, were the first to reveal the extent of the Roman fort (Hooppell

1879,1880,1887,1891). The recent excavations carried out jointly by Durham University

and previously mentioned partners is the next chapter in Binchesters life as an

archaeological site and possible visitor attraction. Excavations have revealed the full

extent of the fort, geophysics have revealed the extent of the vicus and laterally the

mausolea which was excavated as discussed by Time Team. Excavations continued this year

to the east of this previous area guided by geophysical information which seemed to

indicate a large ditch feature, with other smalled ditch features and a series of pits. These

excavations began on 1st June and finished on 30th June 2016. This report was prepared

November 2016 as part of the BSc professional training (Protrain) module.

This report is concerned with the area to the northwest of the trench and in

particular the finds from F169, an inhumation discovered whilst excavating in the area of

the ditch F36. Bone preservation was poor in this grave, however it did reveal three

interesting features. Namely a partial horses head, placed face down by the left foot of the

body. The skull was likely fleshed or partially fleshed at the time of internment judging by

the stained to the soil surrounding it. A small funerary pot was also found by the right foot

of the body and this was surrounded by three stones of the size 20cm x 20cm, the pot was

intact save for a small chip on one side. It awaits investigation by Archaeological Services.

The final find was a Roman 4th century crossbow brooch in a good state of preservation. It

should be noted that it was directly below several horses’ teeth. Figure 6, shows the

relative locations of the finds. The brooch location suggests that it was just above the right

breast of the body when it was buried. As discussed the body was in very poor state of

preservation, the partial skull complete with teeth and two femurs were all that remained.

The burial was one of a further 12 on site, one other F155 contained a pot and small coin.

F163 and F275 contained glass fragments. Unusually F169 alignment differed from the

others being west/east as opposed to east/west

Brigantes and Binchester

Binchester occupies an unusual location. The road of Dere street taken from

Catterick to Lanchester has to deviate some distance (Fig7) to take in the rise of land that it

occupies leading some authors to conclude that it was built deliberately to take in and

reinforce a known Brigantes stronghold (Breeze & Dobson, 1985). The Brigantes being the

Iron Age tribe that broadly occupied the North of Britain at this time. The evidence for this

7

Iron age settlement though, has yet to be found. It is known from inscriptions that

Binchester has been home to three battalions of Roman cavalry, the cuneus Frisorum

Vinoviensium, equites catafractariorum and the ala Vettonum. The latter were attached to

the XI legion who may well have constructed Binchester (Ferris, 2011).

Cavalry units were, however, largely made up from men sequestered from

defeated tribes and conscripted into the Roman forces (equites Romani). They have been

noted at Catterick, Pearcebridge, Binchester and Lanchester all of which lie on Dere street.

The likely hood is, therefore, that burial F169 is a cavalry man and one of some standing.

The crossbow brooch may hold a clue for this theory.

Crossbow brooch

Crossbow brooches start to become popular in the 4th century and have been

associated with although not exclusively too, high status male individuals. They were made

of gold, silver and bronze (Johns, 1996). Several have been noted in the excavations at

Catterick, one at Pearcebridge and another in Tees valley area. At Catterick 15 burials in all

were excavated, with a variety of alignments and inhumation sequences. The notable factor

however, was the number of crossbow brooches being found with individuals. They

numbered 4 and seemed to indicate Roman soldiery. Given the proximity of Piercebridge

and Binchester, both known billets of Roman cavalry, this seems entirely plausible (Breeze

& Dobson, 1985). Isotopic analysis also appeared to indicate that they were not from the

locality, but probably European (Eckardt et al., 2015a). It is also suggested that brooches

together with belt buckles were typically a male adornment in late Roman age (Eger, 2003).

Isotopic analysis from Binchester is awaited and will add more information to the likelihood

of transient soldiery.

Horse head

Fascinatingly, the addition of the horse head to F169 may lend further weight to

the Roman cavalry man theory. Further sites including Hyde Street, Cirencester include

inhumations with a high degree of order and one with a horse head included, albeit with a

femur as well in this case (Pearce, 1999). Fulford (2009), also notes the high incidence of

horse (and other animal) at Porchester which may indicate some kind of ritual. Swift (2000)

however, suggests that these types of burial suggest cultural diversity. It is also noteworthy

that ‘he’ was buried outside of the mausolea area excavated by Time Team which suggest,

along with the other 12 burials, that this was a secondary cemetery. It is likely then that this

was for the ordinary people and soldiery. As Binford (1971)offers, your status and mode of

death decides how you get buried. It is therefore entirely plausible that this soldier was

buried after death in battle or accident with his own horse.

However, Norther Europe and in particular the Netherlands have instances of

horse burials and since the cuneus Frisorum Vinoviensium, were likely recruited from this

area further suggests a European connection. Here complete horse burials, partial burials

and horse heads have been excavated, although not in definite association with a human

body (Groot, 2007). It should also be noted however, that Saxon burials have been

discovered with horse and other animal burials (Hamerow, 2013; Morris & Jervis, 2013).

Since Binchester was later occupied by Saxon forces there is a possibility that this burial

may be later. 14C dating is awaited in this regard.

8

The pot

A small funerary pot was located at the right foot of the individual. It was

enclosed on three sides by stones forming a cist. This identifies with one other burial on site

F155 which also contained a pot and arrangement of stones forming a cist. The pots from

both graves now await investigation by Archaeological services (Fig 5)(Petts, 2013)

9

Conclusion

The 2016 excavations at Binchester in trench 3 have revealed the true extent of

the overall area that the fort, vicus and now mortuary areas cover. Trench 3 suggests that

there was an additional area outside of the mausolea area excavated in 2007 and that a

large ditch, F36, seems to have formed the boundary to this mausolea. Our excavations

took place to the east of this ditch and found many other linear features and 13 grave cuts.

F169 contained that remains of an individual, buried with a 4th century crossbow brooch, a

small pot and a horses’ skull and a few horses’ teeth. It is suggested with reference to other

sites in the locality that the burial may be a Roman soldier of some standing, who was

buried with along with his horse and fine crossbow brooch. At this stage however, we await

DNA, 14C and isotopic information to further clarify suggestions of social origins and date of

death. It will also be interesting to evaluate the coming 2017 excavations which are likely to

be a continuation of trench 3.

10

Bibliography

Binford, L. (1971). Mortuary practices: their study and their potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, (25), 21. http://doi.org/10.2307/25146709

Breeze, D. J., & Dobson, B. (1985). Roman Military Deployment in North England. Britannia, 16(1985), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.2307/526389

Carver, M. O. H. (2009). Archaeological Investigation. London; New York; Routledge.

Drewett, P. (1999). Field Archaeology: an Introduction. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

Eckardt, H., Müldner, G., Speed, G., Alexander Bentley, R., Brettell, R., Evans, J., … Schwarcz, H. P. (2015b). The Late Roman Field Army in Northern Britain? Mobility, Material Culture and Multi-Isotope Analysis at Scorton (N Yorks.). Britannia, 46(3), 191–223. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X1500015X

Eckardt, H., Müldner, G., Speed, G., Alexander Bentley, R., Brettell, R., Evans, J., … Schwarcz, H. P. (2015a). The Late Roman Field Army in Northern Britain? Mobility, Material Culture and Multi-Isotope Analysis at Scorton (N Yorks.). Britannia, 46(3), 191–223. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X1500015X

Eger, C. (2003). Dress Accessories of Late Antiquity in Jordan. Levant, 1(1), 163–178. http://doi.org/10.1179/007589103790601086

Ferris, I. (2011). Vinovia: The buried Roman city of Binchester in Northern England. Amberley Publishing.

Fulford, M. (2001). Links with the past: pervasive “ritual”behaviour in Roman Britain. Britannia, 32(2001), 199–218. http://doi.org/10.2307/526956

Groot, M. (2007). Animals in ritual and economy in a Roman frontier community. Excavations in Tiel-Passewaaij. Retrieved from http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/13261

Hamerow, H. (2013). “Special Deposits” in Anglo-Saxon Settlements. Journal Medieval Archaeology. http://doi.org/10.1179/174581706x124211

Johns, C. (1996). The Jewellery of Roman Britain. London: UCL Press.

Leyland, J. (1770). The Itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, Volumes 1-3.

Morris, J., & Jervis, B. (2013). What’s So Special? A Reinterpretation of Anglo-Saxon “Special Deposits.” Medieval Archaeology, 55. http://doi.org/10.1179/174581711X13103897378401

Pearce, R. J. H. (1999). Case Studies in Contextual Archaeology of Burial Practise in Roman Britain. Vol 2. University of Durham.

Petts, D. (2013). Military and Civilian: Reconfiguring the End of Roman Britain in the North. European Journal of Archaeology. http://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000030

Roskams, S. (2001). Excavation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Swift, E. (2000). Regionality in Dress Accessories in the Late Roman West. Montagnac.

11

Figures

Figure 1. Location map showing site location. Image: Digimap 2016

12

Figure 2. Geophysics showing trench 3 location in relation to Time Team trench (purple square).

Image: Durham Archaeological services.

13

Figure 3. Typical context sheet.

14

Figure 4. Section diagram. Image: Tim Lazenby

15

Figure 5. Schematic of trench 3. Image: Durham Archaeological services.

16

Figure 6. Location of burial F169 and the finds in relation to each other. Image: Durham

Archaeological services.

17

Figure 7. Location of Binchester in relation to roads and forts at the time. Image: Open source.

18

Figure 8. Crossbow brooch (top) from Catterick cemetery, (Eckardt et al., 2015b) compared to

(bottom) Crossbow brooch from Binchester excavation 2016. Image: Rosie McGuiness (2016)