Page:VCH Norfolk 1.djvu/350

 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 little 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 f^^ list cannot be extended far. We must admit ^^ that the villa-system which characterizes most j9 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 tempted to conclude that the lower rural popula- tion of labourers and shepherds and hunters and fishermen was also sparse or at least unevenly distributed, and our evidence is on the whole consistent with such a surmise. But we have not, and perhaps we are never likely to have, enough information about Roman Norfolk to 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. Fig. 15. Key : Threxton (see Index). p. 305. ^ Archieoloffa,xx. 364 ; Norfolk Archaology,v. 315 ; Archaoloffcal Joumal,Wv. 127. See further, 298
 * "Journal of the British ArchiBoh^cal Association, xxxviii. no ; Norfolk Archceobgy, ix. 366.