A HISTORY OF NORFOLK 



square, one warmed by a hypocaust, one floored with cement, the third 

 probably floored with tile, and all three walled in flint rubble and North- 

 ampton sandstone ; roof-tiles and potsherds were also found. The site is 

 only 4 feet or so above fen-level.^ 



8. Reedham, on the low hill north of the river Yare. Here, early 

 in the nineteenth century a Mr. Leighton discovered, a Httle east of ' Low 

 Street,' Roman coins, pottery, a bronze lion's head and some foundations 

 which were taken to be those of a circular Roman tower. Earthworks 

 are said also to have been visible, and Mr. Fox testifies to much Roman 

 material in the walls of the church. The coins found at Reedham at 

 various times range mostly from about a.d. 70-170, but also include 

 Gordian (a.d. 238).^ These remains have frequently been explained as 

 those of a fortress connected with the fortress at Burgh Castle, and the 

 round tower has been called a Pharos. They do not however include 

 any items indicative either of military occupation or of the fourth century, 

 the period of Burgh Castle ; and though too little has been recorded 

 to allow of a definitive explanation, it will be better to class them provision- 

 ally with other rural buildings. 



A few other sites have been credited with remains which may indi- 

 cate villas or other buildings, but so far as I can judge, the existing evidence 

 is in every case inadequate. Such as it is, it will be found in the Index 

 to this chapter under the names Bickerstone, Coltishall, Framingham, 

 Melton Magna and Narford. On the other hand I incline to suspect 

 that the remains found on the borders of the three contiguous parishes of 

 Brampton, Buxton and Oxnead may denote some undiscovered dwelling 

 or village. The same may be true of Threxton, Felmingham, Thorpe 

 and Brettenham. But with all allowances our 

 list cannot be extended far. We must admit 

 that the villa-system which characterizes most 

 of Roman-British rural life, was but scantily 

 developed in Norfolk. To put it concretely, 

 we must conclude that during Roman days the 

 district had few resident landowners or local 

 magnates or large farmers. Perhaps we may be 

 — ^^^H ■^^' tempted to conclude that the lower rural popula- 



^^Br tion of labourers and shepherds and hunters and 



iB fishermen was also sparse or at least unevenly 



^^L||^T^^^ distributed, and our evidence is on the whole 

 ^^^^jj^^3^ consistent with such a surmise. But we have 

 I^BHm^^^^ not, and perhaps we are never likely to have, 

 V ,r v,.^ T enough information about Roman Norfolk to 



Fig. 15. Key: Threxton ^ 



(see Index). attempt an estimate of the density of population, 



and we can do no more than conjecture that the 



land was thinly inhabited. Our next section may confirm us in this view. 



' Journal of the British Archieoh^cal Association, -xxyivm. no; Norfolk Archeology, \x. 366. 

 « Archi£olo^a,xxM\. 364 ; Norfolk Archeeolosj,\s. 315 ; Archaeological J oumal,Wn. 127. See further, 

 p. 305. 



298 



-.^fr. 



