ASSEMBLAGE

Description: An imported Roman copper-alloy bowl and two forged iron bars dating to the 1st century AD. Bowl initially discovered and reported to the FLO in situ 0.4m below the surface, in a pit. Subsequently recovered by Canterbury Archaeological Trust, along with the iron bars and some scattered Gallo-Belgic ceramics of 1st century BC-1st century AD the latter found in the fill of all features excavated on site. Project number PHW-EX-1.

Description: The bowl had been placed inverted in pit and did not lay flat, but rather at an angle of about 45°. No trace of any contents was recovered, either during excavation or during post-excavation conservation. The bowl, along with the associated forged iron bars (see below), was subjected to investigative conservation and stabilisation by Dana Goodburn-Brown, Conservator, Kent.

The bowl is finely cast and hammered and largely plain on both the exterior and interior surfaces, but has an inverted rim with triangular cross-section, with simple decoration formed by two slightly raised plain bands running around the exterior just below the rim. A shallow integral pedestal base tapers slightly outwards towards the foot. The base of the bowl itself (enclosed by the pedestal base) bears a series of plain concentric bands, with a central circular indent, possibly from finishing work. The bowl has two handles of drop-shaped form, with zoomorphic terminals depicting stylised animal heads, and a central ribbed moulding comprising a large central rib flanked by two pairs of much less pronounced ribs.

The bowl remains in good condition although both handles have become detached despite being found in place on the body of the bowl, likely due to the degradation of the solder. The bowl has numerous scratches on the surface although they are not deep making their purpose or cause uncertain without further analysis (e.g. 3d imagery).

A pair of forged iron bars were recovered from a pit cutting or abutting to that of the bowl. They had been laid towards, but not quite on, the base of the pit (with only a small amount of primary fill underlying them, see Fig. 1). They were placed in a roughly T-shaped arrangement, with iron bar 1 overlying one end of iron bar 2 and forming the ‘cross’ of the T. Iron bar 1 was oriented roughly west-east, whilst the underlying iron bar 2 was oriented north north- west to south-south-east.

The bars are very similar to each-other. Both have a sub-rectangular cross-section; they are 17- 19mm thick along their top, but narrow to 14-15mm thickness along their underside. At each end they narrow to a width of 14mm, and the end of these narrow sections are bent at 90° to form a hook. They weigh in excess of 1.5kg each (the higher catalogued weight for iron bar 2 is due to a larger quantity of soil still adhering in its un-conserved state- it is actually very marginally smaller than iron bar 1, and so presumably lighter).

Measurements:

Bowl: Diameter (rim of bowl): 335-339mm. Diameter (pedestal of bowl): 120mm. Height (overall of bowl): 133mm. Height (of pedestal base): 12mm. Length (of handles): 136mm. Width (of handles): 74mm. Thickness (of handles): 22mm. Weight (overall): 2318.4g. Weight (of bowl only): 1784g. Weight (handle 1): 263.4g. Weight (handle 2): 271g. Total weight 2852.4g.

Iron Bar 1: Length: 460mm. Width: 37mm (maximum). Thickness: 19mm (maximum). Weight (unconserved):1550g. 

Iron Bar 2: 460mm. Width: 33mm (maximum). Thickness: 17mm (maximum). Weight (unconserved): 1650g.

Discussion: The bowl is closely paralleled by two examples from Pompeii, now in Naples Museum (inventory numbers 111554 and 111555). Other close parallels include an example from grave 34 at Lösnich, on the Mosel (Moraitis 2003, 141-2, Taf 60 l-m, 65.1) and by an example in the Rijksmuseum at Nijmegen (Boesterd 1956, 52-3, Nr. 172, Pl. VIII, 172). The handles decorated with dog’s heads are typical of such bowls, although the heads from the Lösnich vessel are more finely executed and recognisable as dogs than those on the Wingham bowl. Boesterd (ibid.) dated these bowls to the first century AD and suggests that they were produced in Italy. Their presence at Pompeii clearly demonstrates that they were in circulation before 24th August AD 79.

Such vessels are likely to have represented prestige items on and beyond the Roman frontier provinces during the first century AD. The Wingham example is in good condition despite some, probably post-depositional, damage to its body, and unlike the example from Lösnich (which had only one detached handle) appears to have gone into the ground fully intact. However, it does not appear to have formed part of a burial assemblage, and the reasons for its deposition in its pit remain unclear.

The function of the bars is not certain. Their form rules them out as Iron Age currency bars or Roman trade iron (Peter Crew, pers comm) and a more functional explanation seems likely. Their hooked ends suggest they may have been intended to rest on some sort of rectilinear support, perhaps a metal or wooden frame. They in turn may have provided support for another object (such as the bowl), perhaps in a kind of firedog arrangement, although there appears to be no clear sign on the bowl of prolonged contact with these iron bars. It does seem likely though that they were functionally associated with the copper alloy bowl.

The association of a bronze vessel with a pair of iron bars is not unique. Tim Champion has recently drawn attention to a little-known late Iron Age cremation burial from Palace Street, Canterbury that featured a similar bronze bowl inverted over a cremation deposit and resting on two iron bars (Champion forthcoming; Pilbrow 1871, 161). In the same article Champion notes a number of other examples in rich cremation burials of the late Iron Age of iron bars, rods and firedogs. Although there is no evidence that the Wingham find was part of a funerary deposit, the Palace Street burial is suggestive of a functional link between bronze bowls and a pair of iron bars.

Conclusion:  It is therefore probable that the iron bars and the bowl form one assemblage. With the bowl’s likely stylistic date (1st century AD) and the association with Gallo-Belgic ceramics of conquest-period date, this group potentially dates before the Claudian Conquest of AD 43. As an assemblage of three base metal objects, the group qualifies as potential Treasure under the stipulations of the Treasure (Designation) Order 2002.