AbstractDespite being an intriguing, if obscure, series of artefacts there has been a hesitancy in academic discussion to address fully the myriad of questions raised by the design and archaeological find-spots of lead tanks from Roman Britain. This, and an uncritical acceptance that they were used by early Christians as baptismal fonts, has led to a lack of appreciation of their contribution to our knowledge of late Romano-British religion. This paper seeks to redress this via two channels. The first is a detailed and contextualised examination of the design, iconography and manufacture of these tanks. The second is an investigation into how the manner of their deposition can inform their function. It is concluded that the evidence used to associate the tanks with baptism is flawed and greater attention must be given to other facets of their design in order to gain an appreciation of their proper place in the culture and religion of Roman Britain.

Studying the various ways in which Romano-British society disposed of its dead can reveal important information about attitudes towards and the treatment of certain social groups. The particular issue addressed here is, how can we study the treatment of those who contravened acceptable norms of social behaviour? Who were these people and did their behaviour in life affect their burial after death? Certain minority rites are almost invariably put forward as evidence for the treatment of socially stigmatized persons. This chapter aims to assess the evidence for social marginality in Roman Britain through a critique of traditional academic approaches and the evidence commonly used in analysis. Certain shortcomings are identified and a new methodology is proposed that brings us closer to appreciating the role of these minority rites and their implications for understanding the social identity of the persons to whom they were applied.

No abstract

Petts (to my mind more convincingly) uses textual, epigraphic and material evidence to make the case for strong ecclesiastical and secular connections between the SouthWest and northern Gaul, arguing that the long-distance links of the SouthWest have been over-emphasised. Knight and Evans focus on Wales and the importance of the rebellion of Magnus Maximus in A.D. 383, noting the intriguing appearance of Magnus Maximus in medieval Welsh legends and genealogies in the form of Macsen Wledig, although Evans concludes (contra White) that any continuities between late Roman and medieval Wales are later constructions and that elements of romanitas in medieval Wales were reintroduced in the ninth century and later. Scotland and the North are discussed in papers by Birley and Hunter who both highlight the fluid situation of the fifth century, although Hunter argues that for northeast Scotland the key period was actually the third century. He further suggests that sites such as Traprain Law indicate that warlords were able to take advantage of the complex situation in the wider world to which they were connected. The remarkable long sequence at Vindolanda also continued into the fifth/sixth century, where an individual called Brigomaglos is attested, suggested by Birley to be a warlord based at the site (a situation possibly paralleling that at Birdoswald). This idea of fragmentation and different local responses to a changing situation comes through very strongly in many of the papers. As Collins and Breeze note in their paper on the late military situation, there were three or four separate armies in Britain who followed very different trajectories. This picture of a myriad different 'ends' and 'continuities' parallels that which has emerged for other areas of the Roman Empire in recent years and in Britain the data generated through research, the PAS and developer-funded excavation have created a much more detailed picture than was the case even a decade ago. This important volume richly illustrates the quality of the data and the possibilities that arise from a more nuanced and combined treatment of material and textual evidence within the broader context of the Empire. However, as Millett notes in his concluding remarks, the ongoing problems of chronology continue to hinder further understanding of this key period of Britain's history.

No abstract