The later Iron Age and early Roman periods in the ‘Land of the Iceni’ are rarely considered without reference to the Boudican rebellion. The period of the client kingdom through to the years post-revolt shape, directly or inadvertently, the way in which the archaeology of northern East Anglia in this period is interpreted. Hoarding patterns, material culture types and settlement are often considered through the lens of Boudica and her rebellion, with the notion of an Icenian identity, or identity as ‘other’ being circumscribed. In this book, derived from her PhD thesis, Natasha Harlow looks for an approach to the archaeology of northern East Anglia that seeks to test the relationship between archaeology and history and move beyond the constrictions of Boudica. Covering the period 100 b.c.e. to 200 c.e., Harlow poses a number of questions: is there a set of material culture that can be identified as Icenian? Were personal belongings used to show resistance to Roman influence? Is there any real evidence for post-rebellion famine, depopulation and reallocation of land? The ultimate aim is to examine how far the historical discourse of ‘the Iceni’ stands up to archaeological scrutiny.

It has long been recognised that the settlement record in northern East Anglia is not as visible or as well understood as in other parts of the country, particularly south-eastern and central southern Britain. Both LIDAR and the national mapping programme provide potential ways of enriching our understanding of how the land was organised, but until a marrying of artefactual and cropmark data comes together, Harlow, like others before her, focuses her study on portable metal artefacts. Impressively, from brooches, jewellery and items of personal grooming, to horse equipment, votives and writing, she looks at patterns in the distribution of 14,000 objects. The later Iron Age/early Romano-British artefact record for northern East Anglia is rich, benefitting from over forty years of collecting metal-detected data in Norfolk, and coming up to twenty-five years of data collection by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Drawing ‘big-data’ together, and in this case, reviewing and analysing patterns in distribution of types, is no mean feat. Having data at our disposal is essential, but finding ways to use it meaningfully is not always easy; Harlow, however, is successful in her approach. Of particular interest is her work on brooches, which make up 78 per cent of her database – over 10,000 objects. With a sweep through three hundred years, temporal patterns emerge alongside geographic. These in turn enable Harlow to explore her broader research theme, noting, for example, that the ‘large proportion of imported and early one-piece brooches (including Colchesters) show the openness to outside influences in the pre-conquest period and refutes the idea that the Iceni were slow to change’ (p. 98). This piece of research is notable for these kinds of insights and asides throughout, in what is a rich and object-dense piece of work.

Where does it take us? Folding the patterns she observes together, Harlow is able to suggest that there is no set of material culture that can easily be ascribed to a homogenous group called the Iceni; instead her research strengthens the growing body of evidence for intra-regional patterning. She demonstrates that Iron Age modes of expression continued under Roman rule, and perhaps most significantly, suggests that the view from the artefact record at least points to a lack of evidence for regional impoverishment and depopulation following the Boudican rebellion.

Overall, this is an ambitious and fascinating view of later Iron Age and early Roman northern East Anglia from the artefact record. Each dataset could and should be a springboard for further research. While the book is broad in its undertaking, it remains focused and informative in its approach, making it a welcome addition to the study of the period in the region. In her final comment, Harlow says that through studying portable artefacts she hopes to have ‘liberated discussions of the Iceni from the constraints of cultural conservatism and the discourse of the Boudican revolt’. On the first point, this work is successful. The longitudinal nature of the study removes a tendency to silo data and therefore discussion into ‘Iron Age’ and ‘Roman’, allowing for a more fluid interpretation of change. On the second point, I wonder if it is possible or even desirable to remove the discourse of the Boudican revolt from the period and region under study. Archaeology and history rub up against each other and bring different narratives to the table, and it is the interplay between the two in this region that make for such a rich and exciting period. Belonging and Belongings is an excellent piece of work that deserves a place on the shelf of anyone studying later Iron Age and Roman Britain.