Can anyone identify this object?

[Viventius]

Marcus is correct: the picture I can see is definitely a fragment of ceramic mortaria (i.e. pottery), possibly 1st-2nd century judging by the rim shape - can't say better than that, as tile is my thing! But, as typical from that area (having seen the Castleshaw pottery and tile) the fabric is affected by the soil conditions, which can make ceramic soft and somewhat erroded. Underneath, there may be a fragment of grey ware pottery.

[Medicus matt]

Agree with Marcus and the Mudwoppet, but that's a very flat face. Deliberately ground down after it was broken? Have to wonder as to the accuracy of the colour balance in the photograph...or is that unfired material really green?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Looking at the side photo Sandra posted i am also convinced it is definetely a piece of a mortaria. It is strange that the local archaeologist did not start a survey when this road was built...

M.VIB.M.

[authun]

I'm a bit disturbed that the M62 took out such a site though - was there NO watching brief from the County Archaeologist?

I don't know what the situation was back in the late 1960s. The motorway construction started around 1970. They did a quick investigation of the vicus but finding nothing later than about 140AD, it was thought it was abandoned more or less at the same time as the fort. The wood in the conduit shows this however to have been a wrong conclusion. My wife's side of the family have lived there for over 100 years and two coins have been passed down to us. One is from the time of Probus, 276-282. We don't know where these were found, if in the area at all, but it has to be a possibility.

What is potentially tragic about this site is, as you can see on the old victorian map, it was a contender for the lost royal house of Elmet, Cambodunum. It is marked 'supposed site of':

[attachment=1224]Map1854crop.jpg[/attachment]

This idea was dropped after the excavation in the 1960s.

However, it obviously remained a settlement of some sort and as the other feature on the old map, the 'circus, supposed site of' is turning up some more curious archaeology, there may be something in the story. The site is right on the roman York to Chester road so is in the right sort of place for Cambodunum.

cheers
authun

[authun]

It is strange that the local archaeologist did not start a survey when this road was built...

M.VIB.M.

Well they did, but it obviously wasn't good enough:

"... The defences [of the vicus] comprised a bank and single ditch, constructed not before c.AD120. All the abundant pottery fell within the period AD80-140, suggesting that the vicus, like the fort, had been abandoned by the early Antonine period." (Britannia, 1970)"

The vicus was simply bulldozed away. As the bridge engineer told me, 'loads of stuff appeared in the spoil'.

cheers
authun

[Vindex]

It is strange that the local archaeologist did not start a survey when this road was built...

M.VIB.M.

Well they did, but it obviously wasn't good enough:

"... The defences [of the vicus] comprised a bank and single ditch, constructed not before c.AD120. All the abundant pottery fell within the period AD80-140, suggesting that the vicus, like the fort, had been abandoned by the early Antonine period." (Britannia, 1970)"

The vicus was simply bulldozed away. As the bridge engineer told me, 'loads of stuff appeared in the spoil'.

cheers
authun

I'll probably get my head in my hands to play with but to my knowledge a vicus was not defended with a ditch in the period suggested.

Protection possibly came in much later (cf Wanborough) in the 3rd and 4th centuries so a defended enclosure AD80 - 140 which was bulldozed away really is a very sad loss


EDIT: authun - you have mail in your private message box. Or you will do if I can send it to you without your proper name (which should be on your posts, by the way!)

[Viventius]

I think the stuff could be water worn, or some such. Without handling the whole sherd, it's difficult to get a good idea via one pic. I note that the site seems very wet. At Castleshaw nearby, the stuff from there suffered from all sorts of erosion. The only items that came out really well, were some fragments of hard fired tile, but not all, by any means. Because the materials can be softened, even washing them can make a smoothed surface.

It looks like the site may not have been well surveyed as it discovered in the 1960s - there may not have been a county archaeologist in post at that time. England's county archaeologist 'system' was only just being set up then, in response to the huge amount of development taking place during the 1960s-1970s. There is a history to the story of archaeologists

[authun]

I'll probably get my head in my hands to play with but to my knowledge a vicus was not defended with a ditch in the period suggested.

Protection possibly came in much later (cf Wanborough) in the 3rd and 4th centuries so a defended enclosure AD80 - 140 which was bulldozed away really is a very sad loss

That's an interesting point.

The hasty excavation of the vicus was written up and published in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal No. 42, 74-97 by Hunter, J. K.T., Manby, T.G. and Spaul, J.E.H., in 1971. It is entitled Recent Excavations at Slack Roman Fort. I haven't yet located a copy though.

There was a lot of political pressure to build that section of the motorway quickly. They built a short stretch over the top of the Pennines and opened it long before the stretches which led to it or away from it. It literally went from nowhere to nowhere, but it was opened in time for the General Election. They certainly took their time in making it join up with anything afterwards.

Name is at the bottom btw.

cheers
authun

[authun]

At Castleshaw nearby, ...

I like they way the outlines of the buildings at Castleshaw fort has been left 'proud'

aerial photo

I've taken a few people there and they all liked it. It's very clear even at ground level. Has the vicus ever been excavated? I remember reading that there is a place in people's memories called the 'burial pits', but no one can find any map where these are supposed to be.

cheers
authun

[Vindex]

Oops so it is...sorry!

Is this the report?

http://www.yesteryearbooks.co.uk/ci_89.html

[authun]

Oops so it is...sorry!

Is this the report?

http://www.yesteryearbooks.co.uk/ci_89.html

I'm not sure. The West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service give the reference as Book 42 published in 1971, see http://www.archaeology.wyjs.org.uk/RomanWeb/Slack.htm

I saw the book in your link earlier, also No. 42 but the date is 1967. However, it also says it is the first part of No. 42 so there may be a later part of book 42.

The Yorkshire Archaeological Society do sell back copies themselves:

http://www.yas.org.uk/content/yaj.html

and 1971 is on the cusp of the change from 42 to 43, after which they are sold in complete volumes. If you are wanting a report, it's probably best to email them and check which has the vicus report in, rather than the fort report.

cheers
authun

[Viventius]

Authun, you asked about the Castleshaw Vicus - there is some information in Roman Saddleworth by Ken Booth. The publication has no date, but is obviously sometime after the mid 1990s. He also mentions the Roman cemetery, which does not seem to have located, though he speculates as to where it might be. The person to contact about the excavations is Norman Redhead, who is now the Archaeologist for the Greater Manchester area, as well as having dug at Castleshaw himself.

[authun]

Authun, you asked about the Castleshaw Vicus - there is some information in Roman Saddleworth by Ken Booth.

Yes, I have that. It's a great publication. That's where I read about the 'burial pits'. I always look for old maps when I am in a suitable booksellers. There's a good one in Littleborough but sadly, I've haven't found a map which marks it out yet.

cheers
authun

[mcbishop]

Authun, you asked about the Castleshaw Vicus - there is some information in Roman Saddleworth by Ken Booth. The publication has no date

Other than the '© Kenneth Booth 2001' on the imprint page! ;-)

The person to contact about the excavations is Norman Redhead, who is now the Archaeologist for the Greater Manchester area, as well as having dug at Castleshaw himself.

Norman is really friendly and helpful. I am coincidentally currently involved with a project looking at the future management of the site. Won't say more here but anyone can PM me if they want more info.

Mike Bishop

[jkaler48]

Someone should go metal detect the sides of the roadway!