132
An enclosure, often called ‘Cunobelin’s farmstead’, was situated close
to the fort at Gosbecks already mentioned (Figure 3.3). This site has seen
no excavation beyond a couple of trenches through its 2.5m-deep bound-
ary ditches. It has always been assumed to be a farmstead since other Iron
Age enclosures in the region are often trapezoidal or sub-rectangular, such
as at Stanstead. However, the compound could equally be similar to the
St Michael’s enclosure at Verulamium, more a locus for specifi c ritual and
administrative acts rather than a residence. None the less, in the vicinity of
this two other monuments were constructed, fi rst ‘the temple’, then later a
theatre. The precise structure and topographic setting of both of these is
fundamental to understanding the purpose of the complex.
The ‘temple’ comprised three features. First, there was a massive ditch,
3.4m deep, forming a square. There was no sign of any bank associated with
this in the minor trenching which has been done on the site (Hull 1954). The
ditch prevented access into the centre from any direction except for a small
entrance on the west. Secondly, a portico surrounded the boundary, provid-
ing a sheltered vantage point from which to observe whatever happened
inside the enclosure. It also enabled visibility through the enclosure, without
blocking off sight of the surrounding landscape. Reconstruction drawings
often give this feature a solid external wall, but this need not have been the
case on the basis of the evidence. Finally, within the complex a small con-
centric double-square temple was constructed, off-centre. The set-up is very
reminiscent of Folly Lane, where again the ‘temple’ was offset, since the
centre was occupied by the burial shaft. Formally the Gosbecks temple and
the Folly Lane enclosure are very similar, and I would imagine that in the
unexcavated centre of Gosbecks there lies a burial chamber. This is not a
new idea; when the mortuary complex at Fison Way, Thetford, was excav-
ated, Gregory (1991) commented upon similarities with Gosbecks. Also, after
Folly Lane was discovered various individuals wondered if Gosbecks might
not be of comparable character (e.g. Crummy 1997: 28; Forcey 1998: 93).
Dating evidence is, as always, frustratingly tenuous. The ditch was kept very
clean, but a coin of Cunobelin was found in the primary silt. However, apart
from some mortar believed to be from the construction of the portico, the
next fi ll appears to be related to the dereliction of the building in the third
century, in which case the complex lasted as a ritual focus for about as long
as Folly Lane did (Esmonde Cleary 1998b: 407). So if it was a burial, then it
is liable to have been a very high-status one.
A short distance away is the theatre, which appears to have been con-
structed some time not long after AD 100 (Dunnett 1971: 34). Originally
it had a timber cavea, but this was soon replaced with an earthen bank and
masonry retaining wall. The building functioned into the mid-third century
(Hull 1954: 267–9). Like the Verulamium theatre it broke several classical
conventions. In both phases it had an axial passage at ground level, provid-
ing a line of sight from the timber stage through to the north. Not only was
THE MEMORY OF KINGS