N. 34 - Ottobre 2010
(LXV)
Orkney: The 6th province of Britannia?
New evidences from Mine Howe*
di Antonio Montesanti
In a
late
document
(Laterculus
II),
Polemius
Silvius
listed
all
the
Roman
provinces,
including
within
the
Diocese
of Britannia:
(Britannia)
Prima,
(Britannia) Secunda,
Maxima,
Flavia,
Valentiniana,
and
the
name
of
the
6th
hypothetical
province
called Orcades
(Orkneys).
Although
the
name
of
latter
in
Polemius’
list
has
been
considered
as
an
interpolation
added
subsequently
following
Eutropius,
7,
13 (Mommsen),
new
Roman
archaeological
finds
from
Mine
Howe,
Mainland,
Orkney,
might
represent
the
evident
clue
for
a
different
interpretation
of
the
late
Roman
source.
The
archaeological
site
of
Mine
Howe
Mine
Howe
(HY
5105
0603,
OR
63)
is a
glacial-looking
hillocks
(c.95m
in
diameter)
lying
within
the
parish
of
Tankerness
on
Mainland,
Orkney.
Excavation
campaigns
undertaken
between
2000
and
2004
revealed
a
unique
middle-late
Iron
Age
‘ritual’
complex
based
on
three
different
main
features:
one
underground
structure,
the
massive
ditch
surrounding
the
mound
and
a
sub-circular
structure
identified
as
workshop.
The
underground
laddered
structure
was
built
into
the
core
of
the
sub-circular
glacial
with
fine
drystone
masonry.
The
body
of
the
construction
is
formed
by
two
flights
of
stairs
at
the
base
of
those
a
well-shaped
main
chamber
is
located
and
roofed
by a
corbelled
stone
roof
capped
().
A
very
substantial
ditch
surrounding
the
mound
interrupted
by a
single
entrance
to
the
W
was
also
investigated
).
The
excavation
results
have
led
to
the
belief
that
consider
some
material
was
thrown
up
on
the
mound
in
order
to
enhance
its
size
and
appearance.
A
series
of
activities
were
carried
out
as
the
ditch
infilling,
revetting,
truncating
and
remodelling
mostly
by
the
entranceway,
revealing
a
sequence
of
natural
infilling
and
human
remodelling
probably
to
build
two
main
classes
of
elements
for
sacred
and
structural
use
(Gater
1999;
Harrison
2005:
4-8;
2002:5,15;
Card
&
Downes
2003a:11,13,16;
2003b:101-2;
Card
et
al.
2000a:2-5;
2005:4,52-61;
2006:6,32-39;
Card,
Downes
&
Gibson
2000:65-6;
Card
et
al.
2003:5-6,
60;
Guttman
2001).
The
main
focus
of
excavations,
however,
as
well
as
of
the
Roman
finds,
has
been
concentrated
on
the
sub-circular
structure
just
outhwith
the
ditch
entranceway,
considered
an
Iron
Age
workshop
enclosure
with
a
strong
smith
activity.
The
circular
building
consisted
of
well-coursed
freestanding
drystone
walls,
presenting
recesses
used
as a
fuel
store
and
as
fine
clay
deposit
and
contained
a
central
flagstone
hearth
with
an
upright
stone
backstop.
All
the
features
within
investigated
reflect
the
broad
range
of
smithing
techniques.
A
small
clay-lined
furnace,
with
a
flue
leading
into
the
base
used
for
heating
and
melting
copper
alloy
set
in
the
surrounding
floor,
a
series
of
anvils
were
around
the
hearth
and
an
area
of
dense
hammerscale
(Card
et
al
2003:8-38;
Card
&
Downes
2002:87-8).
Roman
materials:
typology,
dating
and
comparisons
All
context
from
the
ditch
and
the
workshop
contained
large
amounts
of
artefacts,
but
few
of
them
are
specifically
Romano-British
(MacSwean
2001):
on
10433
small
finds,
collected
in 5
excavation
campaigns,
just
220
of
them
have
been
considered
Romano-British
artefacts,
which
represent
2.1%
ca.
of
the
total.
Of
those
220
objects,
68
may
be
considered
as
Roman
or
Romano-British,
46
may
be
deemed
as
an
interaction
between
Natives
and
Romans,
while
59
might
be
considered
purely
Native.
The
remaining
47
artefacts,
which
it
was
not
possible
assess,
have
been
considered
as
‘dubious’.
However,
the
study
on
the
deposition
has
been
carried
out
on
all
the
220
finds
and
based
on
digital
images.
They
have
been
subdivided,
in
the
first
instance,
principally
into
five
typologies:
BONE
(66=30%),
GLASS
(49=22%),
METAL
(87=40%),
TERRA-COTTA
(11=5%),
and
OTHER
materials
different
by
those
above
(7=3%).
The
evident
Romano-British
materials
of
Mine
Howe
have
been
analysed
through
comparisons
to
understand
their
depositional
function,
use
and
chronology.
These
finds
seems
to
present
two
common
features:
they
have
very
small
dimensions,
with
an
average
measure
of
about
2
cm,
rarely
achieving
the
wide
of
5-6
cm
and
all
of
them
were
intentionally
broken,
enlightening
a
non-random
deposition
practice.
Glass
Two
fragments
belong
to
two
different
pillar-moulded
or
ribbed
bowls.
The
one
presents
a
deep
blue
colour
with
white/yellow
shades
and
another
yellow/brown
(Price
&
Cool
1995:15;
Grossmann
2002:9;
Harden
1987:19;
Price
&
Cottam
1998:44-45)
.
They
are
common
and
widespread
throughout
the
Roman
Empire
and
occur
during
the
late
Republic
or
Early
Augustan
period.
With
a
further
chronological
extension
in
their
use
as
‘export
good’
in
the
Flavian
period.
By
early
2nd
century,
the
bowls
had
clearly
gone
out
of
production
and
were
not
in
common
use
with
some
exception
(Isings
1957:18;
Grose
1977:22,
fig.
6.2;
Czurda
1979:26-34;
Scatozza
Hoericht
1986:27;
Grose
1989:244-7;
249).
They
have
also
been
found
at
sites
far
beyond
the
boundaries
and/or
in
peripheral
areas
of
the
Roman
Empire
in
Denmark,
Norway,
Yemen,
India
and
Afghanistan
(Berger
1960:18,
form
29,
Taf.
18.35;
Price
&
Cool
1995:15-19,
304;
20,
fig.
2.2).
A
blue
fragment
as
part
of a
decoration
belonging
to
‘snake-thread’
class
(Schlagenfeden)
seems
to
be
one
of
the
most
interesting
finds.
Many
of
the
snake-thread
examples
related
to
spouted
jugs
from
graves,
often
found
in
the
Rhineland,
Gaul,
Britain,
had
a
basically
a
West-Empire
range
with
a
chronology
of
AD
170-300
(Fremersdorf
1959,
Tafn.
9-33
&
35-65;
Price
&
Cool
1995:42-3;
Allen
1998:43;
Grossmann
2002:20).
By
comparisons,
a
waving
dating
might
be
between
2nd
and
3rd
century
and
some
more
appropriate
comparison
might
lead
it
toward
the
middle
of 3rd
century
(Price
&
Cool
1995:
61-62;
218).
Pottery
The
six
pottery
fragments
found
in
the
workshop
have
the
same
typology:
they
are
part
of
the
Oxfordshire
red/brown-slipped
wares
and
part
of
two
vessels
(Wallace
2005;
Young
1977;
Bird
and
Young
1981).
The
extensive
production
of
this
ware
typology
commences
by
c.
AD
240
and
expands
and
intensifies
until
the
end
of
4th
century
(Bird
and
Young
1981;
Tyers
1999:175-8;
de
la
Bedoyere:35,
fig.
24,
j).
The
distribution
of
the
ware
is
centred
on
Central
England,
from
the
Severn
Valley
to
the
Thames
Estuary
and
in
about
two
centuries
and
was
dominant
in
the
S.
In
North
Britain,
this
pottery
relates
to
the
occurrence
on
sites
like
Dumbarton
Rock,
Keil
Point,
Dun
Mor
Vaul,
Tiree,
Crosskirk
Bay,
Keiss
Harbour,
Edinburgh
Craddle,
Trapian
Law
and
Bamburgh
Castle
(Wallace
2005:2).
Their
chronological
classification
is
dated
AD
c.
270-400+
and
the
fragments
are
the
most
late
fragments
of
Roman
ware
ever
discovered
at
those
latitudes
(Tyers
1999:175-8;
de
la
Bedoyere:35;
Swan
1988:31;
72,
fig.
XII,
203).
Metalwork
At
least,
four
Roman
fibulae
have
brought
to
the
light
during
the
excavation
campaigns.
The
most
important,
stylistically
and
chronologically
speaking,
is a
flat
oval
enamelled
or
‘plate’
brooch
with
a
central
recess,
with
a
glass
paste
intaglio
embedded
in
it.
Known
as
‘Celtic
head’,
this
type
had
a
distribution
widespread
in
central-southern
Britain
with
some
specimen
coming
from
North
England
(Richborough
IV.48;
Hattat
1985:fig.
73,
636-7,
pls.
755-6;
Hull
1967:No.
196;
Hull
&
Hawkes
1987:252,
pl.
776,
4465,
no.
260).
Similar
fibulae
have
been
dated
to
AD
mid
2nd
running
possibly
into
the
3rd
century.
Three
typologically
similar
fibulae
might
belong
to
the
‘headstud’
or
‘trumpet’,
‘enamelled’
and
‘dolphin’.
The
first
derives
from
a
Flavian
prototype
(Collingwood
and
Richmond
1969:296)
a
specimen
broadly
used
in
the
NW
regions
of
the
Empire
(Snape
1993:14-15):
Nether
Denton
(cat
no
239);
Augst
(Riha
1979,
47.1391);
Nijmegen
(van
Buchem
1941,
pl
XIV.7,8);
Neuss
(Lehner
1904,
taf.
XXIV.73);
Rheinland
(Exner
1939,
af
6.1-4).
Headstud
shows
greater
variation
than
the
type,
and
to
have
outlasting
the
other
patterns,
running
until
the
end
of
the
2nd
century
(Painter
and
Sax
1970:173).
The
second
presents
small
casting
holes
probably
missing
enamel
or
studs.
For
its
bow
shape,
it
appears
to
be
very
similar
to
the
‘Severn’
type
(Snape
1993:34-5,10.3,
group
2).
On
the
Continent,
a
similar
brooch
is
one
of
the
few
enamelled
objects
in
the
large
collection
from
Vindonissa
preserved
at
Königsfelden,
near
Brugg.
In
Germany,
where
enamel
begins
to
appear
in
the
Flavian
period,
a
similar
simplicity
of
treatment
may
be
observed
in a
pair
of
brooches
found
at
Xanten
with
a
coin
of
Titus
(Curle
1911:321).
In
Britain,
similar
fibulae
come
from
Vindolanda
(cat
no
175)
and
Chester
(cat
no
A238),
as
well
as
Brough-under
Stainmore,
Ravenglass,
Wilderspool,
Traprain
Law,
and
in
the
pebbles
area
(Snape
1987:309-12).
This
brooches
might
be
part
of
the
small
northern
group,
chronologically
set
into
the
later
1st
to
mid-2nd
century.
The
third
type
has
a
more
difficult
identification
by
oxidation,
perhaps
similar
to
some
‘AVCISSA’
or
‘dolphin’
type,
even
though
it
is
not
possible
to
assess
for
the
lack
of
the
‘tail’.
Its
similarity
is
just
in
the
knob
section
which
has
the
same
lozenge
section
(Bayley
&
Butcher
2004:63,
74.
RV,
No.42;
Hattat
1985:nn.
367-373),
which
have
been
found
mostly
in
Dorset
(Hattat
1985:81
fig.
34)
or
‘Polden
Hill’
type
(Hattat
1985:82-86).
As
deposition,
one
of
the
Newstead
specimens
came
from
the
ditch
of
the
early
fort,
and
may
therefore
be
regarded
as
belonging
to
the
end
of
the
1st
century
(Curle
1911:321-322,
Fig.
8).
Weaponry
(?)
Five
rings,
which
might
belong
to
micro-chains,
similar
to
those
found
at
Gurness
broch
(Hedges
1987:180)
and
could
be
part
of
chainmail
armour
or
cuirass.
Other
unidentified
rings
(?8)
have
been
found
of
small
dimensions
and
some
of
them
present
drilled
and
riveted
holes.
One
broken
bronze
plates
(2
pieces),
the
only
one
which
seems
to
have
some
comprehensible
oblong,
flat
shape
ending
with
a
spike
with
one
or
two
holes
on
the
breakage
line,
hardly
might
be
considered
a
blade
and
its
shape
is
reminiscent
of a
feather
(lat.
Pluma).
Linked
with
the
presence
of
rings,
this
element
might
be
part
of a
peculiar
Roman
chainmail
armour
(lorica)
or
‘feather
armour’
(plumata)
(Just.,
Ep.
Trog.,
XLI.2.10),
giving
the
aspect
of
bird’s
plumage
(Wijnhoven
2009).
It
would
have
been
developed
in
the
Roman
army
in
the
first
half
of
the
AD
1st
century
and
similar
ones
have
been
found
at
Newstead,
Ouddhorp,
Augsburg
and
Besançon
(Feugère
2002:41,84;
Franzoni
1987:53;
Russell
Robinson
1975).
Medical
Instruments
(?)
'War
is
the
only
proper
school
for
a
surgeon'
(Hippocrates)
A
well
preserved
tweezers
(vulsella)
missing
the
both
ending
parts,
should
have
been
worked
with
the
basic
idea
of
gripping,
tugging
or
removing
something
really
small.
Some
from
Caerwent
show
a
large,
chequered
design,
while
the
arms
of
one
found
at
Cwmbrwyn
(Carmarthenshire)
are
grooved
along
its
margins.
Furthermore,
they
present
a
tool
which
allows
to
not
consider
them
as
cosmetic
or
epilate
ones:
as
the
example
from
Segontium
Roman
camp
(Caernarfon,
Gwynedd),
they
were
provided
with
a
sliding-catch
designed
for
permanent
fixture
of
the
jaws
for
cutting
when
applied
to a
tissue,
flesh
or
hair
(Thomas
1963:496-7).
Also
a
spatula
probe
is
recognisable
as,
although
not
so
evident
because
of
its
bent
shape.
It
presents
a
feature,
consisting
of
the
sides
of
the
handle,
which
have
been
bent
to
make
it
stronger
to
the
stresses,
while
an
iron
‘knife’
might
be
re-considered
as
surgical
instrument,
perhaps
a
scalpel.
More
fragments
might
be
recognised
as
medical
or
surgery
tools
is
already
recognised
as a
nail
and
might
be a
surgical
one.
Three
perfectly
polished
bone
fragments
of
spatulas
tools
(s.
Hedges
1987,
88;
110-111),
which
may
be
hypothesised
as
Romano-British,
might
have
been
assumed,
together
with
the
metal
instruments,
by
function
as
part
of a
medical
kit.
Different
copper
alloys
were
used
for
instruments,
medicament-boxes
(Scrib.
Larg.,
Comp.,
27)
and
chiefly
for
spatula-probes
(Marcel.
Emp.
XIV,
44;
Paul.
Aegin.
VI,
77).
The
dating
of
Roman
instruments
is
extremely
difficult
because
their
standard
typology
seems
to
remain
unaltered
over
the
centuries.
Collections
of
similar
medical
instruments
from
Pompeii,
from
the
‘Surger’s
House’
at
Rimini
(Jackson
2002)
and
from
the
‘camp
doctor’
at
Bingen
upon
Rhine
on
the
frontier
(Keunzl
1982)
provide
some
criteria
of
comparisons
with
a
chronology
between
AD
79
and
end
of
3rd
century.
In
Britain
surgical
instruments
have
been
found
at
Richborough,
by
the
site
of a
Roman
camp
as
well
as
the
most
important
comparison
with
the
‘druid’s
tomb’
of
Stanway,
Colchester,
Essex,
which
presents
various
connections
with
Mine
Howe.
The
grave
has
been
dated
to
AD
40-60,
when
the
Romans
were
founding
the
settlement
of
Colchester
(Roth
2009:ill.
177;
Crummy
et
al.
2007;
Jackson
1997;
Healy
1978:246-251).
The
Underground
structure:
function
and
role
as
sacred
space
Mine
Howe
has
arisen
the
possibility
that
such
wells,
springs
and
underground
chambers
had
a
different
theoretical
construct.
Some
magical
or
religious
aspect
of
these
peculiar
underground
structures
has
been
centred
on
their
potentially
sacred
character:
they
would
have
been
a
centre
for
cult
activities
based
on
ritual
shaft
and
the
sacredness
of
water,
as
well
known
throughout
(Harrison
2005:6;
Callander
&
Grant
1934,
454;
Card
&
Downes
2003a:17;
Harrison
2005:5).
After
all,
those
structures
involved
an
extraordinary
degree
of
elaboration
to
be
just
a
water
supply,
as
at
Cam
Euny,
where
a
great
circular
chamber
should
have
a
less
utilitarian
function
than
most
subsidiary
chambers,
forming
a
curious
‘basement’
to a
hut
above
it
(Thomas
1972:77-78).
Nevertheless,
the
closest
parallel
is
represented
by
the
later
Iron
Age
site
at
Burghead,
Morayshire.
This
well-structure
lies
within
the
perimeter
of
one
promontory
fort
and
consists
of a
flight
of
stone
steps
leading
down
to a
cistern
fed
by
springs
and
its
aim
has
been
considered
as a
clear
proof
of
ceremonial
significance,
linked
with
water
spirituality.
In
Scotland,
Dun
Mor
Vaul,
Tiree,
presents
Roman
finds
of
the
Antonine
period
and
the
natural
underground
site
of
Pasture
Cave,
which
seems
to
have
had
similar
function
of
Mine
Howe
for
the
Native
depositional
practices
and
for
the
objects
found
into
it (Toppingf
1987:81-2;
MacKie
1997).
Such
activities
are
known
in
the
Celtic-Germanic
world
from
both
classical
and
later
literature
as
well
as
from
the
archaeological
record;
they
could
have
multiple
functions
including
being
utilised
as
oracles
(Ritchie
1995,
113-4;
Ross
1967).
The
importance
of
water,
wells
and
springs,
has
a
long-standing
tradition
and
religious
practices
are
widespread:
the
scene
of a
ritual
immersion
on
Gundestrup
cauldron
(Denmark),
the
classical
accounts
of
Celtic
religion,
the
relief
figure,
showing
a
man
holding
a
spear
and
a
serpent,
appears
on
an
entrance
jamb
at
Boleigh
Fogou
in
the
Land’s
End
peninsula
(Thomas
1972:77)
and
the
later
Adomnàn’s
text
on
S.
Columba’s
Life
(Adomnàn,
I,
35;
II,
11;
Harrison
2005:6;
Card
&
Downes
2003a:17).
Metalworking
in
Natives
and
Romans’
relationships
At
the
outset
of
the
invasion,
Rome
had
been
interested
in
British
minerals
and
their
exploration
followed
everywhere
rapidly
upon
the
advance
of
the
armies
(Tac.
Agr.
12).
The
presence
of
the
Romano-British
world
on
Orkney
might
be
considered
now
as
the
strongest
evidence
in a
non-occupied
area
as
well
as
some
striking
comparison.
In
Hampshire,
for
instance,
between
the
1st
centuries
BC
and
AD,
we
notice
at
some
changes
such
as
the
introduction
of
the
potter’s
wheel,
cremation
burial
and
the
use
of
shrines/temples
and
coinage.
The
Chichester
complex
became
the
centre
of a
important
Roman
client
kingdom
after
the
conquest
in
AD
43
(Hill
1995:9;
Cunliffe
1993).
Again,
in
Derbyshire,
the
Matlock
mines
were
an
industrial
settlement
(Gowland
1901:381-4;
Cox
1905:227-232;
Richmond
1958:42-43).
At
Poole's
Cavern,
metalworking
is
part
of a
much
wider
set
of
casting
activities
on
Romano-British
sites.
At
Bolsover,
the
construction
of
extensions
to
the
local
authority
headquarters
identifies
a
Romano-British
‘oval’
enclosure,
within
which
a
defined
area
appeared
to
be
dedicated
to
various
industrial
activities
including
iron
smithing
(Sumpter
1992;
Jones
&
Thompson
1965;
Myers
2000:6).
At
Bardown,
Wadhurst
(near
Pevensey)
a
series
of
five
furnaces
were
built
on
an
industrial
scale
and
were
linked
with
the
process
of
iron
working
(Cleere
1970:1-23).
In
Scotland,
three
different
types
of
relationships
carried
out
by
the
Romans
in a
doubtful
and
still
debated
4th
century
province
of
Valentia
(Mann
1961;
Foord
1925).
The
hill-forts
of
Newstead
and
Bonchester,
Roxburghshire
and
Traprain
Law,
East
Lothian,
in
the
Votadini’s
territory
under
the
Roman
authority.
Newstead
is
thought
to
have
been
a
Roman
military
camp
evolved
into
a
militarised
city,
Traprain
Law,
seems
to
have
been
a
Native
settlement,
which
is
considered
to
have
had
the
most
abundant
Roman
material
than
any
other.
Bonchester,
where
the
Native
occupation
ceased
during
the
Roman
occupation,
confirmed
by
the
absolute
lack
of
objects,
starting
again
in
the
5th
century
(Piggott
1950:114).
At
Traprain
Law,
formerly
defined
as
the
‘capital
of a
client
kingdom’,
the
Native
pottery
is
mixed
with
the
Roman.
The
hill-fort
was
been
inhabited
continually
during
the
Roman
invasion
and
exhibits
items
from
Flavian
times
at
least
until
the
end
of
the
4th
century
with
a
relevant
peak
during
the
Antonine
period.
Traprain
Law
appears
to
be a
Native,
semi-
or
independent
site
with
some
outline
of
cultural
processing
Romanisation,
which
was
interrupted
after
the
Roman
withdrawal.
Particularly,
the
pottery
indicates
that
the
Romano-British
goods
were
more
accessible
to
Native
communities
in
the
periods
of
actual
occupation,
given
to
us
the
evidence
and
the
degree
of
their
Romanisation
(Macinnes
1989:112;
Richmond
1958:76-79;
Hogg
1951).
Connections
A
strong
metalworking
evidence
has
been
encountered
at
Midhowe
(Callander
&
Grant
1934),
Gurness
(Hedges
1987)
and
Howe
(Ballin
Smith
1994),
related
in
the
first
two
with
the
presence
of
underground
structures
(Harrison
2005:9-10;
Card
&
Downes
2003a:16).
In
comparison
with
other
Romano-Celtic
(British)
settlement
develops
around
a
sacred
places
unusually
rich
in
votive
evidences:
at
Buxton,
the
fulcrum
is
represented
by a
natural
hot
and
cold
springs
cult,
during
the
AD
3rd
and
4th
centuries
(Myers
2000:4;
Hart
1981:94);
at
Thirst
House
Cave
high
qualitative
brooches
and
earrings
have
been
deposited
within
the
cave
between
the
late
AD
1st
and
mid-2nd
century
(Branigan
and
Bayley
1989:49;
Myers
2000:5).
In
both
instances,
there
is a
significant
representation
of
Roman
metalwork
including
brooches,
chatelaine,
nail,
tweezers
and
ear
scoops
(Hart
1981:105).
However,
Mine
Howe
shares,
with
the
rest
of
Orkney
brochs,
typology,
quality
and
quantity
of
some
common
Romano-British
artefact
with
the
difference
that
those
from
Mine
Howe
seem
to
belong
to
one
status
and
function
at
an
upper
level.
The
main
differences
between
them
consist
in
the
fact
that
the
brochs’
finds
conclude
their
chronological
horizon
at
the
first
two
centuries
AD
and
are
limited
to
decorative
elements
(MacGregor
1976:177-8).
The
objects
found
at
Mine
Howe
have
some
similarity
with
the
ones
brought
to
light
at
Traprain
Law
(Cree
1923)
and
Fairy
Knowe
(Robertson
1970:200;
Burley
1956:219-221).
Conclusions
Roman
materials
of
Mine
Howe
are
limited
for
quantity
and
dimensions,
even
though
not
in
quality.
The
most
representative
phases
by
artefacts
are
those
which
represent
an
unusual
peak
and
might
belong
to
the
phase
following
the
Agricolan
invasion.
Some
glass
fragments,
fibulae
might
be
linked
with
the
amphora
shards
from
the
Broch
of
Gurness
(Hedges
1987),
related
to a
hypothetical
Claudian
invasion
(Fitzpatrick
1989),
even
if
Haltern
70
amphorae
are
well
known
in
Britain
just
after
the
Flavian/Agricolean
Period
(Tyers
1999:97).
The
hypothesis
is
obviously
based
on
the
solid
fact
that
the
centre
of
resistance
lay
in
the
extreme
North
(Tac.
Agr.
10)
and
the
Orkney
were
seen
as
completing
the
conquest
of
the
whole
of
Britain
(Tac.
Hist.
1,2;
Richmond
1958:52).
Mine
Howe’s
Roman
finds
seem
to
bear
a
chronological
identification
from
the
Flavian
until
the
Hadrian
period.
Then,
and
after
a
symptomatic
lack/absence
of
further
evidence
the
relationships
seem
to
start
over
from
the
Severan
reorganization.
By
contrast
with
Traprain
Law,
the
lack
of a
massive
presence
of
Roman
pottery
confirms
the
absence
of
Roman
settlers
as
first
indicator
of
any
Roman
activity.
However,
it
would
be
plausible
that
Orkney
might
have
been
one
of
those
areas
that
suggest
direct
administration
by
Imperial
procurators.
These
archaeological
hints
might
be
connected
with
an
‘unexpected’
Roman
presence
in
4th
century
in
the
symbolic
site
of
Mine
Howe
and
linked
with
the
elusive
notice
of
the
intangible
sixth
province
of
Britannia,
Orcades,
pointed
out
on
the
Theodosius’
campaigns
(Nomina
Omnium
Provinciarum
of
Polemius
Silvius,
Laterculus
II;
Eutropius,
7,
13,
2-3;
Hind
1975:101;
Steven
1976:
211-224;
Birley
2005:399,n.2).
These
re-discovered
objects
would
represent
not
just
the
strong
link
and
the
issue
of
negotiated
relationships
or
the
‘meaning’
of
individual
deposits
towards
an
understanding
of
their
effect
between
people
and
material
forms
(artefacts
and
material
actions).
The
occurrence
both
of
high
status
and
magical-healing
and
warlike
artefacts
is
also
taken
as a
direct
indicator
of
characteristic
activities
at
or
around
Mine
Howe,
enlightening
the
symbolic
and
ritual
significance
of
the
site
also
involved
in
the
process
of
metal
artefacts
production
(Sharples
1998:205;
Card
&
Downes
2003a:17).
The
Romans
might
have
chosen
Mine
Howe,
one
of
Orkney’s
key
point,
for
the
evident
sacred
role
of
the
ditched
underground
structure
and
the
related
workshop.
The
outpouring
of
Romano-British
materials
is
argued
to
be
the
direct
response
of
the
social
thread
posed
by
Rome
to
create
and
reinforce
their
own
identity
in
the
face
of
external
threats.
In
this
sense,
Native
key
points
or
places
would
have
been
played
an
important
role
in
craft
production
or
trading
exchange:
the
existence
and
the
particular
location
at
Mine
Howe
of a
smithy/workshop
would
enhance
the
status
of
the
site
(Hodder
1982:1986-7;
Jones
1997:113-5,
123-4;
Hunter
2006:105;
Hill
1995:9).
Special
objects
would
have
become
delegated
identities
and
agents
as
points
around
which
human
action
is
constrained
and
structured
(Boast
1997:188;
Pollard
2001:317;
331)
as a
form
of
ritual
ideology
transmitted
through
a
‘silent’
symbolism
and
the
establishment
of
new
forms
of
authority
(Barrett
1989:313;
McOmish
1996:75).
Bibliography:
Allen
D.
(1998)
Roman
Glass
In
Britain,
Shire
Books,
Princes
Risborough
Ballin
Smith,
B.
(ed.)
(1994)
Howe:
Four
Millennia
of
Orkney
Prehistory
Excavations,
1978-1982.
Edinburgh:
Society
of
Antiquaries
of
Scotland
Barrett,
J.
(1991)
Bronze
Age
pottery
and
the
problems
of
classification.
In
J.
Barrett,
R.
Bradley
& M.
Hall
(eds.),
Papers
on
the
Prehistoric
Archaeology
of
Cranborne
chase.
Oxford,
Oxbow
Books,
Oxbow
Monographs
11,
201-230
Bayley,
J. &
Butcher,
S.
(2004)
Roman
Brooches
in
Britain:
A
Technological
and
Typological
Study
based
on
the
Richborough
Collection.
London:
The
Society
of
Antiquaries
of
London
Berger,
L.
(1960)
Römische
Gläser
aus
Vindonissa,
Basel
Bird,
J.
and
Young,
C.
J.
(1981)
‘Migrant
potters
-
the
Oxford
connection'
in
Roman
Pottery
research
in
Britain
and
North-West
Europe.
Papers
presented
to
Graham
Webster,
ed.
A.
C.
Anderson
and
A.
S.
Anderson,
British
archaeological
reports.
International
series,
123,
BAR,
Oxford,
295-312.
Boast,
R.
(1997)
A
small
company
of
actors:
a
critique
of
style,
Journal
of
Material
Culture,
2(2),
173–98
Branigan,
K. &
Bayley,
J.
(1989)
‘The
Romano-British
metalwork
from
Poole's
Cavern,
Buxton’,
Derbyshire
Archaeological
Journal,
109,
34-50.
Burley,
E.
(1956)
‘A
Catalogue
and
Survey
of
the
Metal-Work
from
Traprain
Law’,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scot,
89
(1955-6),
118-226
Callander,
G.
and
W.
Grant.
(1934)
‘A
Long
Stalled
Chambered
Cairn
or
Mausoleum
(Rousay
Type)
Near
Midhowe,
Rousay,
Orkney’,
Proc.
of
the
Society
of
Ant.
Scot.,
320-351.
Card,
N. &
Downes,
J.
(2002)
‘Mine
Howe
Environs,
Orkney
(St
Andrews
and
Deerness
parish),
Iron
Age
ritual
and
metalworking
complex;
?broch’,
Discovery
Excav
Scot,
vol.3
Card,
N. &
Downes,
J.
(2003a)
‘Mine
Howe
–
the
significance
of
space
and
place
in
the
Iron
Age’
in
Downes,
J. &
Ritchie,
A. (eds)
Sea
Change:
Orkney
and
Northern
Europe
in
the
later
Iron
Age
AD
300-800,
Orkney
Heritage
Society
&
The
Pinkfoot
Press.,
11-19
Card,
N.
and
Downes,
J.
(2003b)
'Mine
Howe
environs
(St
Andrews
&
Deerness
parish),
iron
age
ritual
and
metalworking
complex',
Discovery
Excav
Scot,
vol.4,
101-2
Card,
N.
Downes,
J. &
Gibson,
J.
(2000)
‘Minehowe,
Orkney
(St
Andrews
&
Deerness
parish),
later-prehistoric
acvtivity’,
Discovery
Excav
Scot,
vol.1
Fig
23,
65-6
Fig.23
Card,
N.,
Downes,
J. &
Sharman,
P
(2000)
Excavations
2000,
Mine
Howe,
Tankerness,
Orkney,
unpublished
data
structure
report.
Card,
N.,
Downes,
J.,
Murray,
D. &
Sharman,
P.
(2003)
Mine
Howe
&
Round
Howe,
Tankerness,
Orkney:
Excavation
2002,
unpublished
data
structure
report
Card,
N.,
Downes,
J.,
Murray,
D. &
Sharman,
P.
(2005)
Mine
Howe,
Tankerness,
Orkney:
Excavations
2004,
unpublished
data
structure
report
Card,
N.,
Downes,
J. &
Ovenden,
S.
(2005)
'Mine
Howe
Environs,
Orkney
(St
Andrews
&
Deerness
parish),
excavation;
geophysical
survey',
Discovery
Excav
Scot,
vol.6,
98-99
Card,
N.,
Downes,
J.,
Carruthers,
M.,
Robertson,
J.,
&
Sharman,
P.
(2006)
Mine
Howe
&
Long
Howe,
Orkney:
Excavations
2005,
unpublished
data
structure
report
Cleere,
H.
(1970)
The
Romano-British
Industrial
Site
at
Bardown,
Wadhurst,
Sussex
Archaeological
Society.
Occasional
Paper
No.
I
Collingwood,
R.G. &
Richmond,
I.
(1969)
The
archaeology
of
Roman
Britain.
London:
Methuen
Cox.
C.J.
in
Page,
W.
(Ed.)
(1905)
The
Victoria
History
of
the
Counties
of
England.
Vol.
I.,
VCH
Derbyshire
I
London,
Archibald
Constable
and
Co.
Ltd.
Cree,
J.E.
(1923)
‘An
account
of
excavations
at
Traprain
Law,
summer
of
1922’,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scot,
57
(1922-3),
180-226
Crummy
P.,
Benfield,
S.
Crummy,
N.
Rigby
V.
and
Shimmin,
D.
(2007)
‘Stanway:
an
Elite
Burial
Site
at
Camulodunum’,
Society
for
the
Promotion
of
Roman
Studies
2007)No.
24,
December
Cunliffe,
B.
(1993)
Wessex
to
AD
1000.
London:Longman
Curle,
J.,
1911,
A
Roman
Frontier
Post
and
its
People:
The
Fort
of
Newstead
in
the
Parish
of
Melrose.
Glasgow:
James
Maclehose
and
Sons
Czurda
R.,
Die
romischen
Glaser
vom
Magdalensberg,
Klagenfurt
1979
de
La
Bedoyere
G.
(2000)
Pottery
in
Roman
Britain,
Shire
Publications.
Princes
Risborough:
Shire
Exner
K. (1939)
‘Die
provinzialromischen
Emailfibeln
der
Rheinlande’
Diss.
Bonn
under
R.
Delbrueck,
29.
Bericht
der
romisch-germanischen
Kommission,
31-121
Feugère,
M.
(2002)
The
Arms
of
the
Romans
(transl.
D.G.
Smith).
London:Tempus
Fitzpatrick,
A.P.
(1989)
‘The
submission
of
the
Orkney
islands
to
Claudius:
new
evidence?’,
Scottish
Archaeological
Review
8
(1989),
123-129
Foord,
E.
(1925)
The
Last
Age
of
Roman
Britain.
London:Harrap
Franzoni,
C.
(1987)
Habitus
atque
habitudo
militis.
Monumenti
funerari
di
militari
nella
Cisalpina
romana,
Studia
archeologica.
Roma:
L'Erma
di
Bretschneider
Fremersdorf,
F.
(1959)
Römische
Gläser
mit
Fadenauflage
in
Köln
Schlangenfadengläser
und
Verwandtes
(Die
Denkmäler
des
römischen
Köln,
V),
Köln
Gater,
J.
(1999)
Mine
Howe,
Orkney,
Geophysical
Report,
(GSB
Report
1999/131),
Bradford
Gowland,
W.
(1901)
‘The
Early
Metallurgy
of
Silver
and
Lead’,
Archaeologia,
LVII,
2,
377-392
Grose,
D.F.
(1977)
‘Early
Blown
Glass’,
Journal
of
Glass
Studies,
19,
9-29
Grose,
D.F.
(1989)
Early
Ancient
Glass;
the
Toledo
Museum
of
Art.
New
York:
Hudson
Hills
Press
Grossmann,
R.A.
(2002)
Ancient
Glass:
A
Guide
to
the
Yale
Collection,
Yale
University
Art
Gallery,
Guttmann,
E.B.A.
(2001)
Minehowe:
The
Geoarchaeological
Analysis.
University
of
Stirling,
Dept.
of
Environmental
Science:
commissioned
by
the
Orkney
Archaeological
Trust
Harden,
D.B.
(1987)
Glass
of
the
Caesars.
Olivetti,
Milan,
Italy
Harrison,
S.
(ed.)
(2005)
Mine
Howe:
fieldwork
and
excavation
2000-2005,
The
Friends
of
the
Orkney
Archaeological
Trust,
Occasional
Publication
1
Kirkwall
Hart,
C.R.
(1981)
The
North
Derbyshire
Archaeological
Survey.
Leeds:Wigley
&
Sons
Hattat,
R.
(1985)
Iron
Age
and
Roman
Brooches.
A
second
selection
from
the
author's
collection,
Oxford
Healy,
J.F.
(1978)
Mining
and
Metallurgy
in
the
Greek
and
Roman
World.
London:
Thames
and
Hudson
Hedges
J.W.
(1987)
Bu,
Gurness
and
the
Brochs
of
Orkney,
part
2:
Gurness,
British
Archaeological
Report,
Brit
Ser,
164,
Oxford
Hill,
J.D.
(1995)
Ritual
and
Rubbish
in
the
Iron
Age
of
Wessex.
Oxford:
BAR
British
Series
242.
Hind,
J.G.F.
(1975)
‘The
British
'Provinces'
of
Valentia
and
Orcades
(Tacitean
Echoes
in
Ammianus
Marcellinus
and
Claudian)’,
Historia:
Zeitschrift
für
Alte
Geschichte,
Vol.
24,
No.
1
(1st
Qtr.),
pp.
101-111
Hodder,
I.
(1982)
Symbols
in
Action.
Cambridge:Cambridge
University
Press
Hogg,
A.H.A.
(1951)
'The
Votadini',
in
W.F.
Grimes
(ed.),
Aspects
of
Archaeology
in
Britain
and
Beyond.
London,
200-20
Hull
M.R.
(1967)
'The
Nor'nour
Brooches'
in
D.Dudley,
'Excavations
on
Nor'nour
in
the
Isles
of
Scilly',
Archaeological
Journal,
124,
1-64.
Hunter
F.
(2006)
‘New
light
on
Iron
Age
massive
armlets’,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scot,
136
(2006),
135-160
Isings,
C.
(1957)
Roman
Glass:
from
dated
finds.
Archaeologica
Traiectina.
Groningen:
J.B.
Wolters
Jackson
R.
(1997)
‘An
ancient
British
medical
kit
from
Stanway,
Essex’,
The
Lancet,
Volume
350,
Issue
9089,
15
November
1997,
Pages
1471-1473
Jackson,
R.A
(2002)
‘Roman
Doctor’s
House
in
Rimini’,
British
Museum
Magazine,
44,
20-23
Jones,
G.D.B.
&
Thompson,
F.
H.
(1965)
'Brough-on-Noe
(Navio)',
Derbyshire
Archaeological
Journal,
85,
125-6
Jones,
S.
(1997)
The
Archaeology
of
Ethnicity.
London:Rutledge
Keunzl
E.
(1982)
‘Medizinische
Instrumente
aus
Sepulcralfunden
der
roemischen
Kaiserzeit’.
Bonner
Jahrbuecher
der
Rheinischen
Landesmuseums,
Band
182.
Lehner,
H.
(1904)
‘Die
Einzelfunde
von
Novaesium’,
Bonner
Jahrbücher
111/112,
243-418.
Wijnhoven,
M.
(2009)
‘Lorica
Hamata
Squamataque:
A
Study
of
Roman
Hybrid
Feathered
Armour’,
Journal
of
the
Mail
Research
Society,
Vol.2,
No.1,
3-29
MacGregor,
M.
(1976)
Early
Celtic
art
in
North
Britain.
Leicester:
Leicester
University
Press
Macinnes
L. (1989)
Baubles,
bangles
and
beads:
trade
and
exchange
in
Roman
Scotland,
in
Barrett,
J.C.,
Fitzpatric
A.P.
&
Macinnes
K.L.
(eds.)
1989.
Barbarians
and
Romons
in
north-west
Europe
from
the
later
Republic
to
late
Antiquity.
Oxford:
British
Archaeological
Reports.
International
series
5471,
108-16.
Mackie,
E.W.
(1997)
‘Dun
Mor
Vaul
revisited:
Fact
and
theory
in
the
reappraisal
of
the
Scottish
Atlantic
Iron
Age’,
in
Ritchie,
G.
(ed.)
The
archaeology
of
Argyll.
Edinburgh,
Edinburgh
University
Press,141-181.
MacSween,
A.
(2003)
‘The
pottery
from
Mine
Howe,
Orkney:
Aspects
of
Contextual
Interpretation’
in
Gibson,
A.
(ed)
Prehistoric
Pottery:
People,
pattern
and
purpose.
Oxford.
(=
BAR
Int
Ser
1156),
127-134.
Mann
J.C.
(1961)
‘The
Administration
of
Roman
Britain’,
Antiquity
XXXV,
140,
December
1961,
316-320
McOmish,
D.
(1996)
‘East
Chisenbury:
ritual
and
rubbish
at
the
British
Bronze
Age-Iron
Age
transition’,
Antiquity,
70,
n.
267,
68-76
Moore,
H.L.
(1986)
Space,
Text
and
Gender.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press
Myers
A.
(2000)
An
Archaeological
Resource
Assessment
of
Roman
Derbyshire.
Matlock:Derbyshire
County
Council
of
Science
Painter,
K.
and
Sax,
M.
(1970)
‘The
British
Museum
collection
of
Roman
head-stud
brooches’,
British
Museum
Quarterly
34
(1970),
153-174
Piggott
C.M.
(1950)
The
excavations
at
Bonchester
Hill,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scot,
LXXXIV
(1949-50),
113-36
Pollard,
J.
(2001)
‘The
aesthetics
of
depositional
Practice’,
World
Archaeology,
33(2),
2001,
315–333
Price
J. &
Cool
H.E.M.
(1995)
‘Roman
glass
vessels
from
excavations
in
Colchester,
1971-85’.
Colchester
Archaeological
Report
No.
8.
Colchester:
Colchester
Archaeological
Trust.
268
pp
Price
J. &
Cottam
S.
(1998)
Romano-British
Glass
Vessels:
a
handbook.
Practical
Handbook
in
Archaeology
No.
14.
York:
Council
for
British
Archaeology
Richmond,
I.A.
(1958)
Roman
and
Native
in
North
Britain.
Nelson:
Edinburgh
and
London
Riha
E.
(1979)
Die
römischen
Fibeln
aus
Augst
und
Kaiseraugst.
Forschung
in
Augst
3.
Augst
Ritchie,
A
(1995)
Prehistoric
Orkney,
London
Robertson,
A.S.
(1970)
‘Roman
finds
from
non-Roman
sites
in
Scotland’,
Britannia,
1,
198-226
Ross,
A. ‘Notice
of
St
Clement's
Church
at
Rowdill,
Harris’,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scot,
XIX
(1885),
118-39
Roth,
J.P.
(2009)
Roman
Warfare.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press
Russell
Robinson
H.
(1975)
The
Armour
of
Imperial
Rome.
New
York:
Charles
Scribner's
Sons,
Scatozza
Horicht
L.A.
(1986),
I
vetri
romani
di
Ercolano,
Roma
Sharples,
N.
(1991)
Maiden
Castle.
London,
Batsford/English
Heritage.
Snape,
M.E.
(1993)
Roman
Brooches
from
North
Britain,
BAR,
British
Series
235,
Oxford
Steven,
C.E.
(1976)
More
problems
with
the
Notitita
Dignitatum,
in
R.
Goodburn
and
P.
Bartholomew,
(eds.)
Aspects
of
the
Notitia
Dignitatum,
BAR
Int.
Ser.,
vol.
15,
Oxford,
pp.
211-224)
Sumpter,
T.
(1992)
Sherwood
Lodge,
Bolsover:
Excavations
at
the
Social
services
Building.
Unpublished
report.
Creswell
Heritage
Trust.
Swan,
V.
(1988),
Pottery
in
Roman
Britain.
London:
Shire
Thomas,
A.C.
(1963)
‘The
Interpretation
of
the
Pictish
Symbols’,
Archaeol
J,
120
(1963),
31-97
Thomas,
C.
(1972)
‘Souterrains
in
the
sea
province:
a
note’,
in
Alcock
L.
(ed.)
The
Iron
Age
in
the
Irish
Sea
Province,
C.B.A.
Research
Report
9,
London,
Council
for
British
Archaeology
Toppingf,
P.G.
(1987)
‘Typology
and
chronology
in
the
later
prehistoric
pottery
assemblages
of
the
Western
Isles’,
Proc
Soc
Antiq
Scot,
117,
67-84
Tyers
P.
(1999)
Roman
Pottery
in
Britain.
London:
First
published
by
B.
T.
Batsford
Ltd,
reprinted
by
Routledge
in
August
1999
van
Buchem,
H.J.H.
(1941)
De
fibulae
van
Nijmegen
I,
inleiding
en
kataloog.
Nijmegen,
Wallace
C.,
(2005)
Roman
pottery
from
Mine
Howe,
Tankerness,
Orkney.
An
interim
report.
Edinburgh,
unpublished,
by
OC
Young,
C.J.
(1977)
The
Roman
pottery
industry
of
the
Oxford
region,
British
archaeological
reports,
43,
Oxford
*Acknowledgements:
This
paper
represents
just
a
brief
extract
of
the
dissertation
of
the
MA n
Practice
Archaeology
taken
by
the
Orkney
College
(UHI
Millennium
Institute).
Here,
I
would
express
all
my
gratitude
to
all
those
people
who
made
possible
the
amazing
‘Orkney
Experience’
dream’,
and
whole
‘extraordinary’
Department
of
Archaeology
of
the
Orkney
College.
Special
thanks
to
Jane
Dawson,
Ingrid
Mainland,
Martin
Carruthers
and
Nick
Card
to
have
hallowed
the
access
to
the
digital
materials,
for
their
time,
explanations
and
suggestions.
