Monument record 1524 - Swythamley Roman Finds

<1> Thompson Watkin W. T., 1886, Roman Cheshire: A Description of Roman Remains in the County of Chester, p.303-305 (Book). SCH2878.

Watkin reported a scrub covered square mound partly composed of large stones. Other large stones, possibly from ‘destroyed walls’ were observed in the surrounding area. One side of the mound had been levelled and formed part of a cultivated field. An assemblage of finds has been recovered from the site ‘when heavy rain has washed away the soil’. For several years, gold artefacts found on the site, had been appropriated by the finders, who had sold them on. Once the land owner became aware of the finds a strict watch on the site lead to recovery of the following artefacts (up to March 1877): a gold chain and the fragments of two others, two gold rings, a gold fibula (brooch), fragments of a gold mask, and several gold studs or beads. In 1879 the fragment of another gold ornament was found.

<2> Thompson, F.H., 1964, A History of Cheshire. Volume Two: Roman Cheshire, p.108 (Book). SCH2862.

Watkin's square mound is an outcrop of rock of entirely natural origin. From this follows that the gold objects form a hoard of jewellery deposited at a recognizable landmark with the intention of recovery.

<3> Harris, B.E. (ed), 1987, Victoria County History - A History of the County of Chester: Volume I, Vol.1 p.214 (Book). SCH3556.

A hoard, the contents all gold, consist mainly of jewellery, including a crossbow brooch of the third century. A fragment of human mask in repousse sheet gold may have been votive and was perhaps lost from a temple. The fragmentary and damaged nature of many of the items argues against the possibility that the hoard was either personal or votive, and there is no reason to suspect a house or temple nearby.

<4> Ordnance Survey, 1870-1982, Ordnance Survey Archaeological Record Card, SJ96 NE4 No.3 (Index). SCH2487.

The owner of Swythamley Hall said that the objects were Roman and were found in a potato root near a natural mound at SJ 9640 6563. Some are in his possession, but were not available for inspection. The exact findspot could not be identified.

<5> Longley D, 1977-1978, Longley Archive, No.43 & 196 (Paper Archive). SCH2005.

Some of the objects were in the possession of J Van Haeften, London in 1978.

<6> Sainter J D, 1878, Scientific Rambles Round Macclesfield, p.38 (Book). SCH2964.

Near to Barthomley Farm there has been turned up gold rings, chains, fibulae etc. The artefacts may be associated with a small burial mound containing either a Roman or Saxon burial, which has been levelled and the artefacts had escaped, or, they may have been hid here for safety.

<7> Lancashire & Cheshire Antiquarian Society, 1883 -, Transactions of the Lancashire & Cheshire Antiquarian Society, Vol. XXIX p.88 (Journal/Periodical). SCH3293.

<8> Henig H, 1974, A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, Vol. i p.48-9 & 68 Vol. ii pl. XXXI (Monograph). SCH7425.

The early third century sees a number of ring types in use. Type V probably continued, and a number of nicolo pastes which on general grounds must be ascribed to the middle Empire are set in ring with ribbon hoops. In addition there are similar rings which have a narrow ridge running round the edge (Type VII). One was found with other jewellery at Little Wincle, Cheshire. The gold crossbow brooch and gold ring set with a gem showing Bonus Eventus are both of well recognised types and the date need be no later than AD 250. Gazetteer no. 191. Volume ii includes a photograph of the assemblage.

<9> Johns C, Thompson H & Wagstaff P, 1980, The Wincle, Cheshire, Hoard of Roman Gold Jewellery (Article in Journal). SCH7426.

The exact nature of the hoard is difficult to assess. It may be simply a personal or family collection of jewellery, buried for safekeeping, a hoard of bullion, or possibly even a votive deposit. If it is simply a private collection of jewellery, the mask presents a problem as its function is more likely to be votive. Furthermore, many of the objects are fragmentary and not wearable items as they stand. It is of course possible that the damage and loss to many of the pieces could have taken place after the original burial, if the hoard was dispersed and scattered before the time of the nineteenth-century discoveries, leaving only part of the treasure in the ground. But the presence of fragments of gold objects in the original hoard is perfectly feasible if it was, in fact, a collection of gold, i.e. bullion, rather than of jewellery as such. The third possibility, that the whole hoard is votive in nature, is less likely, though not impossible. There is no other evidence for any religious site at the spot where the Winde hoard was found, and so the possibility remains a remote one. The mask is the only factor in its favour, and as this is by no means securely identified, no great weight should be placed on its interpretation as a votive object.It is probable that these objects were all deliberately buried together, and that their concealment took
place some time in the third century A.D.