Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond: Papers presented to John Gillam, July 1977 9780904531848, 9781407345796

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
FOREWORD
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF J. P. GILLAM
1. A CERAMIC PILGRIM'S PROGRESS: THE GROWTH OF ROMAN POTTERY STUDIES IN NORTHERN BRITAIN
2. TWO MAJOR POTTERIES PRODUCING MORTARIA IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.
3. FIRST-CENTURY POTTERY MANUFACTURE AT ECCLES, KENT
4. THE GALLO-BELGIC POTTERY FROM CIRENCESTER
5. COOKING POTS AT VINDONISSA
6. POTTERY FROM EARLY MILITARY SITES IN WESTERN BRITAIN
7. 'LEGIONARY' WARE IN YORK
9. THE FORT AT BEARSDEN AND THE SUPPLY OF POTTERY TO THE ROMAN ARMY
10. 'SEVERN VALLEY' WARE AND ITS PLACE IN THE ROMAN POTTERY SUPPLY AT CHESTER: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
11. SEVERN VALLEY WARE ON THE ANTONINE FRONTIER
12. BLACK-BURNISHED1WARE FROM MUMRILLS: A RE-APPRAISAL OF SOURCES BY HEAVY MINERAL ANALYSIS
13. EARLY BLACK-BURNISHED WARE AT EXETER
14. A ROMANO-BRITISH BLACK-BURNISHED WARE INDUSTRY AT OWER IN THE ISLE OF PURBECK, DORSET
15. THE SAMIAN FROM BAGENDON
16. A GROUP OF SAMIAN WASTERS FROM LES-MARTRES-DE-VEYRE
17. A GROUP OF WASTERS FROM CENTRAL GAUL
18. SOME WANDERING POTTERS
19. RELIEF-DECORATED IMITATION SAMIAN CUPS FROM WANBOROUGH, WILTSHIRE
20. AFRICAN RED SLIP WARE IN ROMAN BRITAIN
21. NORTH AFRICAN FLANGED BOWLS: A PROBLEM IN FIFTH-CENTURY CHRONOLOGY
22. OXFORD WARE AND THE ROMAN ARMY
23. LATE ROMAN AMPHORAE FROM CHALK, NEAR GRAVESEND, KENT
24. THE LOCATION OF ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY KILNS: INSTITUTIONAL TRADE AND THE MARKET
25. REFLECTIONS ON ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY STUDIES, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Citation preview

Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond Papers presented to John Gillam, July 1977 edited by

John Dore and Kevin Greene

· BAR Supplementary Series 30 1 977

British Archaeological Reports 122, Banbury Road·, Oxford OX2 7BP, England

GENERAL EDITORS A. C. C. Brodribb, M.A. Mrs. Y. M. Hands

A. R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D. R. Walker, M.A.

· B.A.R. Supplementary Series, 30, 1977: ''Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond: papers presented to John Gillam, July 1977." © The Individual Authors, 1977. The authors’ moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780904531848 paperback ISBN 9781407345796 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780904531848 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Page List of Illustrations List of Contributors Foreword Bibliography of the Publications of J. P. Gillam 1.

A Ceramic Pilgrim's Progress: The growth of Roman pottery studies in Northern Britain. -

2.

Two major potteries producing mortaria in the first century A.D.

3.

Eric Birley

K. F. Hartley

5

First-century pottery manufacture at Eccles, Kent. Alec Detsicas

4.

The Gallo-Belgic pottery from Cirencester. V. Rigby

37

Elisabeth Ettlinger

47

5.

Cooking pots at Vindonissa.

6.

Pottery from early military sites in Western Britain. M. J. Darling

7.

'Legionary' ware in York.

J. R. Perrin

8.

Legionary pottery, and the significance of Holt. Kevin Greene

9.

David J. Breeze

147

Severn Valley ware on the Antonine Frontier. Peter V. Webster

-

133

A preliminary assessment. Peter Carrington

12.

113

Severn Valley ware and its place in the Roman pottery supply at Chester:

11.

101

The fort at Bearsden and the supply of pottery to the Roman army.

10.

57

Black-burnished ware from Mumrills:

163

A re-appraisal of

sources by heavy mineral analysis.

D. F. Williams

177

13.

Early black-burnished ware at Exeter.

Paul Bidwell

189

14.

A Romano-British black-burnished ware industry at Ower

15.

in the Isle of Purbeck, Dorset.

R. A. H. Farrar

199

The samian from Bagendon.

G. B. Dannell

229

Page 16.

A group of samian wasters from Les-Martres-de-Veyre. Catherine Johns With a scientific report by M. S. Tite and Y. Maniatis

235

17.

A group of wasters from Central Gaul.

George Rogers

245

18.

Some wandering potters.

B. R. Hartley

251.

19.

Relief-decorated imitation samian cups from Wanborough, Wiltshire.

20.

African Rea Slip ware in Roman Britain.

21.

North African flanged bowls:

Vivien G. Swan

263

Joanna Bird

29

A problem in fifth-century

chronology.

J. W. Hayes

279.

22.

Oxford ware and the Roman army.

Christopher J. Young

289

23.

Late Roman amphorae from Chalk, near Gravesend, Kent. D. P. S. Peacock

24.

The location of Romano-British pottery kilns: Institutional trade and the market.

25.

295

Michael Fulford

301

Reflections on Romano-British pottery studies, past, present and future.

Graham Webster

317

LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES Page Cover drawing by Rod Vass Frontispiece

John Gillam

K. F. Hartley Fig. 2.1

Rim-types used by potters of groups Iand II

16

Fig. 2.2

Distribution of stamped mortaria of groups Iand II

17

Fig. 3.1

Butt beakers, native platters and colour-coated wares

30

Fig. 3.2

Flagons

31

Fig. 3.3

Flagons and jugs

32

Fig. 3.4

Jugs, cooking pots and bowls, lids, cheese-press,

Alec Detsicas

mortaria

33

Fig. 3.5

Mortaria

34

Fig. 3.6

Mortaria

35

Distribution of forms 16. 58, 46 and 50

45

V. Rigby Fig. 4.1

Elisabeth Ettlinger Fig. 5.1

Location map

53

Fig. 5.2

Cooking-pots from Vindonissa

54

Fig. 5.3

Cooking-pots from Vindonissa

55

Fig. 6.1

Map of sites

73

Fig. 6.2

Pottery from Usk

74

Fig. 6.3

Pottery from Usk

75

Fig. 6.4

Pottery from Usk

76

Fig. 6.5

Pottery from Usk

77

Fig. 6.6

Pottery from Wroxete r

80

Fig. 6.7

Pottery from Wroxeter

81

M. J. Darling

Fig. 6.8

Pottery from Kingsholm

85

Fig. 6.9

Pottery from Kingsholm

86

Fig. 6.10

Pottery from Gloucester

90

Fig. 6.11

Pottery from Gloucester

91

Fig. 6.12

Pottery from Exeter

94

J. R. Perrin Fig. 7.1

'Legionary' ware from York

108

Page Kevin Greene Fig. 8.1

Conical beakers

116

Fig. 8.2

Conical cups

118

Fig. 8.3

Bowls and plates

120

Bearsden 1976

134

David J. Breeze Fig. 9.1

Peter Carrington Fig. 10.1

Map of Chester and environs

156

Fig. 10.2

Severn Valley ware from Chester

157

Peter V. Webster Fig. 11 .1

Severn Valley ware from the Antonine Frontier

165

Fig. 11.2 Fig. 11 .3

Severn Valley ware from the Antonine Frontier Distribution map

167 170

Vessels analysed in table 1

185

Fig. 13.1

Black-burnished pottery from Ex et er

195

Fig. 13.2

Black-burnished pottery from Exeter

197

D. F. Williams Fig. 12.1 Paul Bidwell

R. A. H. Farrar Fig. 14.1

Location maps

201

Fig. 14.2

Pottery from Owe

210

Fig. 14.3

Pottery from Ower

211

Samian from Bagendon

230

G. B. Daimell Fig. 15.1 Catherine Johns Plate 16.1

Samian wasters from Les-Martres-de-Veyre

236

Plate 16.2

Sections of samian fabrics

237

Fig.

Drawings of samian wasters

240

Wasters from Central Gaul

246

Relief-moulded imitation samian cups

264

16.1

George Rogers Fig. 17.1 Vivien G. Swan Fig. 19.1

Page Joanna Bird Fig. 20.1

Distribution map

270

Fig. 20.2

Forms of African Red Slip Ware

271

North African flanged bowls

284

J. W. Hayes Fig. 21.1

Christopher J. Young Fig. 22.1

Distribution map

290

D. P. S. Peacock Fig. 23.1

Amphorae from Chalk

296

Fig. 24.1

Distribution map of major kiln groups

310

Fig. 24.2

Distribution map of major kiln groups

311

Michael Fulford

Graham Webster Fig. 25.1

The rivers of Britain and the main potteries

326

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

John Dore, B.A., Research Assistant, Department of Archaeology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

(Editor)

Kevin Greene, B.A., Ph.D., Staff Tutor in Archaeology, Department of Adult Education, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. P. T. Bidwell, LL.B., Assistant Field Archaeologist, Royal Albert Memorial Museum, Exeter, Devon. Joanna Bird, B.A,, Southwark and Lambeth Archaeological Excavation Committee, Montague Chambers, Montague Close, London, SEI 9DA. Eric Birley, M.B.E., F.B.A., Hexham, Northumberland. DavidJ. Breeze, B.A., Ph.D., F.S.A.Scot., Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Department of the Environment, Scotland. Peter Carrington, B.A., Ph.D., Finds Assistant, Excavations Section, Grosvenor Museum, Chester. G. B. Dannell, B.Sc.(Econ.), A.C.A., 42, Mymms Drive, Brookmans Park, Hertfordshire, AL9 7AF. M. J. Darling, M. Phil., Roman Pottery Researcner, The Sessions House,

Lincoln Archaeological Trust,

Lindum Road, Lincoln, LN2 IPB. Alec Detsicas, M.A., F.S.A., 28, Pembury Road, Tonbridge, Kent. TN9 2HX. Professor Dr. Elisabeth Ettlinger, hon. F.S.A., 8032 ZUrich, Witikonerstrasse 58, Switzerland.

(Editor)

Raymond Anthony Holt Farrar, M.A.,, F.S.A., Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England. M. G. Fulford, B.A., Ph.D., F.S.A., Lecturer in Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AA. B. R. Hartley, M.A., F.S.A., Reader in Roman Provincial Archaeology and Head of the Department of A rchaeology, University of Leeds. Katharine F. Hartley, B.A., F.S.A., Pottery Consultant, Flat A, 22 Shire Oak Road, Leeds, LSG 2DE. J. W. Hayes, M.A., Ph.D., F.S.A., Associate Curator, Greek and Roman Department, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada.

M5S 2C6.

Catherine Johns, B.A., F.S.A., Department of Prehistoric and Romano-British Antiquities, British Museum, London WCI. D. P. S. Peacock, B.Sc., Ph.D., F.S.A., Lecturer in Archaeological Science,

University of Southampton.

J. R. Perrin, M. Litt., Roman Pottery Researcher, York Archaeological Trust. Valery Rigby, B.A., Research Assistant, Cirencester Excavation Committee, 5, Gloucester Street, Cirencester, Gloucestershire. George Rogers, F.S.A., "Les Orangers", 243, Avenue Général Leclerc, Saint- Lau rent-du-Var, 06-France. VivienG. Swan, B.A., Archaeological Investigator to the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England (York), The White House, Clifton, York. Graham Webster, M.A., Ph.D., F.S.A., A.M.A., Reader in Romano-British Archaeology, Department of Extramural Studies, University of Birmingham. Peter V. Webster, B.A., M.Phil., F.S.A., Staff Tutor in Archaeology, Department of Extramural Studies, University College, Cardiff.

D. F. Williams, B.A., Ph.D., Research Fellow, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton. Christopher J. Young, M.A., Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, Department of the Environment, London.

FOREWORD

1977 brings both the sixtieth birthday of John Gillam, and the twentieth anniversary of the first publication of his 'Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in Northern Britain'.

As a result, this volume is not a conventional

Festschrift limited to John's colleagues and students: of John's work

-

pottery

-

is included.

only the central feature

Many contributors are indeed col-

leagues and long-standing friends, but others are relatively new to the field, working on subjects close to his interests. The contents of this book make an elaborate introduction superfluous. Eric Birley provides the personal context of John Gillam's work;

the bibliog-

raphy of his publications demonstrates that his contribution to Romano-British studies is not limited to pottery;

and many of the individual contributors

express their enduring respect for his careful methodology. The book was prepared in Newcastle, often under the very nose of John Gillam, who suspected nothing until it was announced at the annual meeting of the Study Group for Romano-British Pottery at Alnwick Castle in March, 1977.

Participants will remember how John

-

who had been wondering why

conversations were being whispered in corners, and dying away when he approached

-

reacted to the news with the simple sentence 'Eeh, that's quite

restored my temper', and then subsided into a stunned silence for several hours.

Itrust that the finished volume fully lives up to his expectations, and

provides interest and pleasure for many years to come to accompany that good temper.

The last substantial collection of papers devoted to Romano-British pottery came in 1973

-

the Council for British Archaeology's Research

Report No. 10, edited by Alec Detsicas.

This published the important con-

ference held in Oxford in 1972 on 'Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery'.

The scope of the present volume extends beyond Britain

and includes samian and other more exotic wares, but most of the speakers at the 1972 conference have contributed to it.

Some, like myself, had then

only just begun their research and are now in more established positions. Ibelieve that the papers contained here demonstrate the continuing vitality of pottery studies

-

most of the contributors are active members of the Study

Group for Romano-British Pottery.

It is also significant for the future of

pottery studies that six of the contributors are based in Units or the field sections of museums:

they have managed to carry out the very necessary

processes of research in the face of often overwhelming quantities of newly excavated material.

If an incidental effect of this volume is to re-emphasize

to those who finance and direct rescue units the fundamental importance of pottery both for dating sites and for economic inferences, it will serve an additional purpose.

This foreword gives an opportunity to acknowledge help from many quarters which has facilitated the completion of the volume.

British Archae-

ological Reports have shown their accustomed speed, efficiency, and guidance. The General Office of the Department of Adult Education of the University of Newcastle carried out a number of tasks, including the preparation and posting of the large amount of administrative paperwork. The greatest acknowledgement must of course go to the contributors, whose speed of writing and proof correcting rendered the confetti-like shower of editorial reminders almost unnecessary. My co-editor John Dore made sure that the whole enterprise was carried out smoothly his elaborate -

tables and check-lists which charted the progress of the papers through successive editorial deadlines finished up looking like something out of the New Archaeology. The successful completion of the whole undertaking in well under a year results largely from his efficient organisation. Kevin Greene June 1977

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE PUBLICATIONS OF J. P. GILLAM Compiled by Susan Warriner

1939 'Romano-British Derbyshire Ware', Antiq. J., 19 (1939), 429-37. 1940 'Romano-British Derbyshire Ware', J. Derbyshire Archaeoi. Natur. Hist. Soc., 14-15 (1940-41), 26-37. 1947 (with Birley, E. B.)

'The pottery from the Roman fort at Carzield (Dumfries-

shire)', Trans. Duinfriesshire Galloway Natur. Hist. Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., 24 (1945-46), 68-78. 1948 'Roman pottery from Warborough Nook', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 48 (1948), 220-1. (with Birley, E) 'Mortarium stamps from Corbridge, 1906-1938', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 26 (1948), 172-201. 'Coarse Pottery', in North, O.M. and Hildyard, E. J. W., 'Trial trenching at Burrow in Lonsdale, 1947', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 48 (1948), 35-41. 'Coarse Pottery' in Birley, E., 'The Roman fort at Moresby', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 48 (1948), 63-65. 1949 'Also, along the Line of the Wall', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 49 (1949), 38-58. 'Trial trenching at Bewcastle', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 49 (1949), 216-18. 1950 (with Richmond, I. A.)

'Excavations on the Roman site at Corbridge 1946-

1949', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 28 (1950), 152-201. (with Shaw, N.)

'Discovery of a Mithraeum at Carrawburgh', Proc. Soc.

Antiq. Newcastle upon Tyne, 4th ser., 11(1950). (with Swinbank, B.)

'Pottery from the Valium filling at Birdoswaid', Trans.

Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 50 (1950), 54-62.

1951 'Dales ware: a distinctive Romano-British Cooking-pot', Antiq. J., 31 (1951), 154-64. 'Dating fourth-century pottery in Northern Britain', Archaeol. News Letter, 3 (1951), 171-2.

4

'Recent excavations at Birdoswald', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 50 (1950), 63-69. 'Dating second-century pottery in Northern Britain', Trans. Dumfriesshire Galloway Natur. Hist. Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., 28 (1949-50), 190-8. (with Hildyard, E. J. W.)

'Renewed excavation at Low Borrow Bridge',

Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 51 (1951), 40-66. (thichmond, I.A.) 'The Temple of Mithras at Carrawburgh', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 29 (1951), 1-92. (with Wright, R. P.)

'Second Report on Roman buildings at Old Durham',

Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 29 (1951), 203-212. 1952 'Notes on pottery from Apperley Dene', in Hildyard, E. J. W., 'A Roman site on Dere Street', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 30 (1952), 237238. (with Richmond, I. A.)

'Further Exploration of the Antonine fort at Corbridge',

Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 30 (1952), 239-266. 1953 'Excavations at Low Brunton Milecastle, no. 27, in 1952', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 31(1953), 165-174. 'Calpurnius Agricola and the Northern Frontier', Trans. Archaeol. Soc. Durham Northumberland, 10 (1953), 359-375. (with Richmond, I. A.)

'Buildings of the first and second centuries north of

the granaries at Corbridge', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 31 (1953), 205-253. (with Richmond, I. A.)

'Milecastle 79 (Solway)', Trans. Cumberland West-

morlandAntiq. Archaeol. Soc., 52(1953), 17-40. (with Wright, R. P.)

'Third report on the Roman site at Old Durham',

Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 31(1953), 116-126. 'The Pottery', in Richmond, I. A. and St-Joseph, J. K. S., 'The Roman fort at Glenlochar', Trans. Dumfriesshire Galloway Natur. Hist. Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser., 30 (1953), 14-16.

1954 'The Roman fort at Bewcastle', South Shields Archaeol. Hist. Soc. Papers, 52 (1954), 9-10. (with Maclvor, I. and Birley, E.)

'The temple of Mithras at Rudchester',

Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 32 (1954), 176-219. 'Coarse Pottery', in Hildyard, E. J. W., 'Excavations at Burrow in Lonsdale, 1952-1953', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Archaeol. Antiq. Soc., 54 (1954), 93-97. 'The Pottery',in Richmond, I. A., 'Excavations on the site of the Roman fort at Lancaster, 1950', Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancashire Cheshire, 105 (1954), 13-17. 1955 'The Roman bath-house at Bewcastle', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 54 (1955), 265-267. (with Richmond, I. A.)

'Some excavations at Corbridge, 1952-54', Archaeol.

Aeliana, 4th ser., 33 (1955), 218-252. 1956 'Centurial stones from Hadrian's Wall near Gilsiand', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 55(1956), 320-322. 'Roman pottery in the north of Britain', in Swoboda, E., ed., Carnuntina: Ergebnisse tiber die Grenzprovinzen des Rtimischen Reiches

-

Vortrage beim Internationalen Kongress der Altertumsforscher, Carnuntum, 1955, Graz-Kiln, 1956, 64-77. 'Notes on the Roman Pottery from the Scotch Street Site, in Hogg, R., 'Excavations in Carlisle, 1933', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 55 (1956), 59-107. 1957 'Types of Roman coarse pottery vessels in Northern Britain', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 35 (1957), 180-251. (Reprinted separately in 1968 and 1970) 'The Coarse Pottery' in Richmond, I. A. and St.Joseph, J. K. S., 'The Roman Fort at Daiswinton, in Nithsdale', Trans Galloway Natur. Hist. and Antiq. Soc., 3rd ser.

Dumfriesshire 34 (1957), 20-21.

1958 'Roman and Native, A.D. 122-197' in Richmond, I.A., ed., Roman and Native in North Britain, London, 1958, 60-90.

'Coarse Pottery' in Daniels, C. M., 'The Roman Bath-house at Red House, Beaufront, Near Corbridge', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 37 (1959), 161-164. 'The Roman Coarse Pottery' in Jobey, G., 'Excavations at the Native Settlement at Huckhoe, Northumberland, 1955-7', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 37 (1959), 255-258. 1960 'Notes on the Pottery', in Daniels, C. M., 'Excavations at Bowness on Solway, 1955', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. 22' 60 (1960), 17-19; 'The Coarse Pottery', in Steer, K. A., 'Excavations at Mumrills Roman fort, 1958', Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotland, 94 (1960-1), 113-129. 1961 (with Daniels, C. M.)

'The Roman Mausoleum on Shorden Brae, Beaufront,

Corbridge, Northumberland', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 39 (1961), 37-61. 1963 'Coarse Pottery', in Tait, J., 'An excavation at Housesteads, 1962', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 41(1963), 42-44. 1964 'Report on the Romano-British coarse Pottery', in Hogg, R., 'Excavations at Tullie House, Carlisle, 1954-56', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Soc., 64(1964), 29-41. 1966 'The Pottery', in Harbottle, B., 'Excavations at the South Curtain Wall of the Castle, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1960-61', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 44 (1966), 101-104. 1967 'The Pottery', in Harbottle, B., 'An Excavation at the Gunner Tower, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1964', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 45 (1967), 134-5. 1968 (with Tait, J.) 'The Roman fort at Chester-le-Street', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 46 (1968), 75-96. 'Roman Coarse Pottery', in Harbottle, B., 'Excavations at the Carmelite Friary, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1965 and 1967', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 46 (1968), 202-5.

'The Coarse Pottery', in Wenham, L. P., The Romano-British Cemetery at Trentholme Drive, York, Archaeology Reports, Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, London, 1968, 56-87. 1970 (with Mann, J. C.)

'The Northern British Frontier from Antoninus Pius to

Caracalla', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 48 (1970), 1-44. 1971 'Agricola on the Isthmus', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 1 (1971), 1-3. 'Coarse pottery from Carpow', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 3 (1971), 8-10. 'The Altar of the Baetasii from Old Kilpatrick', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 3 (1971), 15-17. 'Recent Work on the Roman Forts at Corbridge', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 4 (1971), 22-27. (with Tait, J.) 'The Investigation of the Commander's House Area on Site XI, Corbridge, 1958 to 1970: the structures', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 49 (1971), 1-28. 1972 'A Deposit of Coarse Pottery dated to Seminar, 2 (1972), 38-42.

C.

A.D. 200', Roman Northern Frontier

'Conception and Afterthought on the Antonine Wall', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 5 (1972), 33-35. 'The Anatomy of the Successive Roman forts at Corbridge', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 6 (1972), 32-45. 'The Coarse Pottery', in Breeze, D. J., 'Excavations at the Roman Fort of Carrawburgh, 1967-1969', Archaeol. Aeliana, 4th ser., 50 (1972), 125-133. 1973 'The Wall Periods', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 7 (1973), 16-24. 'Sources of Pottery found on Northern Military Sites', in Detsicas, A. P., ed., Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery, Council Brit. Archaeol., Res. Rep. 10, London, 1973, 53-62. (with Harrison, R. M. and Newman, T. G.)

'Interim Report on Excavations

at the Roman Fort at Rudchester, 1972 (with a Note on Pre-Fort Ploughmarks)', Archaeol. Aeliana, 5th ser., 1(1973), 81-5. 1974 'The Frontier after Hadrian

-

a History of the Problem', Archaeol. Aeliana,

5th ser., 2 (1974), 1-15.

'Corbridge Roman Station, Northumberland', Archaeol. News Bull., Council Brit. Archaeol., Group 3, 6(1974), 4-5. 'The First Fort at Corbridge; a Reappraisal', Roman Northern Frontier Seminar, 9 (1974), 15-18. 'The Coarse Pottery', in Breeze, D. J.,

'The Roman fortlet at Barburgh

Mill, Dumfriesshire', Britannia, 5 (1974), 156-159. 1975 'Possible changes in plan in the course of the Construction of the Antonine Wall', Scot. Archaeol. Forum, 7 (1975), 51-56. (with Daniels, C. M.), 'Barrack Block XIII, Housesteads Roman Fort', Archaeol. News Bull., Council Brit. Archaeol., Group 3, 9 (1975), 3. (with Daniels, C. M. and Hanson, W. S.)

'Corbridge bypass, Beaufront, Red

House, Northumberland', Archaeol. News Bull. ‚Council Brit. Archaeol. Group 3, 9 (1975), 2-3. 'The Coarse Pottery', in Maxfield, V. A. and Reed, A., 'Excavations at Ebchester Roman fort 1972-3', Archaeol. Aeliana, 5th ser., 3 (1975), 88-101. 'The Coarse Ware', in Potter, T. W., 'Excavations at Bowne ss-on -Solway, 1973', Trans. Cumberland Westmorland Antiq. Archaeol. Soc., 75 (1975), 41-45. 1976 'The Agricolan Depot at Red House near Corbridge', Archaeol. News Bull., Council Brit. Archaeol., Group 3, 12 (1976), 12-17.

JOHN PEARSON GILLAM, M.A., F.S.A., Reader in Romano-British History and Archaeology, Dept. of Archaeology, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

1.

A CERAMIC PILGRIM'S PROGRESS:

THE GROWTH OF ROMAN POTTERY STUDIES IN NORTHERN BRITAIN Eric Birley

Dear John, It is surely appropriate that the chain-reaction should have started in Derbyshire, with John Ward

-

though it was in his Cardiff period that his

conventions of representing pottery in drawings reduced to the uniform scale of a quarter linear should have become generally accepted by most British archaeologists.

For the culmination of the process may properly be seen to

be your monograph on types of Roman coarse pottery in the north of Britain, and you are a Derbyshire man. The first reaction to Ward's conventions in the Wall region came in R. C. Bosanquet's report on the excavations at Housesteads in 1898, in Archaeologia Aeliana, 2nd series, XXV (1904): in a brief report on the pottery, pp. 293297, he devoted figures 54 and 55 to illustrating a colour-coated beaker and six other vessels, one of them evidently of the fourth century. only in the case of a samian potter's stamp,

But it was

[L]VCINVSF, found "in founda-

tion clay", that he indicated its possible dating evidence, 'probably contemporary with the camp wall". The next stage brings into the picture Frank Gerald Simpson (1882-1955), who in partnership with John Pattison Gibson (1838-1912) excavated the Roman fortlet at Haltwhistle Burn in 1907 and 1908; in the report on that excavation Simpson provided drawings of 22 items of pottery

-

one of them samian, but the

rest coarse wares; in that case, he preferred reduction to one half linear, and incidentally for most of the items he used sections only, drawn on the pantograph which he had devised specifically for the purpose (AA 3 V, 1909, pp. 264-270 and plate V).

It is noteworthy that he made acknowledgements

to John Ward and his Gellygaer

(1903), and to James Curle, whose excava-

tions at Newstead in Roxburghshire had already begun to reveal the differences between Flavian and Antonine pottery, though his great book was not to be published for another three years. In 1911 came the report by Gibson and Simpson on their excavation of the Poltross Burn milecastle (now, on R.G. Collingwood's numbering, Milecastle 48), in Cumberland and Westmorland Transactions, new series, XI:

the coarse

pottery was dealt with at pp. 446-455, with plates III-V, again to one half linear with benefit of the Simpson pantograph. The Poltross Burn report, together with Curie's Newstead and John Ward's Gellygaer, provided J.P. Bushe-Fox with his comparative material when he came to publish pottery from the excavations at Corbridge in 1911 (AA 3 VIII, 1912, figures 5-9), illustrating 116 different vessels, and aiming at indicating I

their relevance for dating different periods of occupation.

It is common

knowledge that from Corbridge Bushe-Fox went on, via Wroxeter and Richborough, to spread the light throughout England and Wales, even though in Scotland James Curie's style of showing sections was to continue to influence later publications, such as Sir George Macdonald Is report on his excavations at Mumrills on the Antonine Wall. One of Bushe-Fox's helpers at Corbridge had been Philip Newbold (18871916) who in 1911 and 1912 excavated on and near Limestone Bank, publishing the pottery from those excavations in 1913 (AA 3 IX, p. 66 f. with plate III, for Turret 29b, and fig. 6, p. 73 1., for the camp on Waiwick Fell).

That

report was seen through the press by Simpson, Newbold having resigned his lectureship at Armstrong College ana departed for East Africa; but before he left England he had undertaken, at Simpson's request, the analysis of the pottery from Simpson's excavations in the High House sector of the Stone Wail, west of Birdoswald (Wall miles 49-51) in CW 2 XIII:

the drawings were once more

made on Simpson's pantograph, but the text, pp. 339-359, and the conclusions as to the periods of occupation represented by the pottery were Newbold's own work

-

for Simpson had wished to have an independent assessment of the dating

evidence, in order to make sure that there could be no doubt as to the bearing of those excavations on the Hadrianic date of the Stone Wall, which Haverfield had been reluctant to accept on the basis of the Poltross Burn report. After the end of World Ward I, Archaeologia Aeliana published reports on pottery from Rudchester, by M. R. Hull, and from Benwell, by J. A. Petch; but the next significant stage in the sequence was due to R. G. Collingwood and to Simpson himself.

In 1927 Collingwood sent me to excavate with Simpson

in the Birdoswald sector; Simpson observed that Ishowed a special interest in Roman pottery, and in 1928 he commandeered me (that, to those of us who knew and admired Simpson, is probably the appropriate word) to excavate for the North of England Excavation Committee at Turret 7b and Milecastle 9, urging me to deal with the pottery much as he had urged Newbold to do before the war; and in 1928 and 1929 he asked me to deal also with the excavations at Birdoswald, at that stage financed partly by the Durham University Excavation Committee, by the Cumberland and Westmorland Society and by funds secured from Oxford by Collingwood.

It was Collingwood, as editor of the Society's

Transactions, who made sure that my report on the pottery was completed in time to appear in CW 2 XXX, 1930, and who urged me to make sure that readers could find their way without trouble from each drawing to the relevant description of it.

That was in part due to the fact that Collingwood himself

was far forward in producing the first attempt at a classified series of coarse pottery types, based wherever possible on datable levels, for his The Archaeology of Roman Britain. Ipass over various later pottery reports, whether by me or by Kate Hodgson in AA 4 or CW2 and turn to the situation after the end of World War II. ‚

When Ireturned to Durham in 1946, after my military service, one of my first thoughts was to try to get into touch again with one of my pre-war Durham students, John Giliam; first, because Iwondered what might have happened to him (and Ihad a note of his home address in Derbyshire), but in particular because he had written an excellent paper on Roman-British Derbyshire ware in 1939, while he was spending his first postgraduate year reading Theology. 2

After a fairly long interval, there came an answering letter, from India, where Major Gillam was still serving with the Indian Army;

some time

later, John, you and Imet for lunch in the restaurant of the Central Station in Newcastle, and after a discussion of various options you decided to return to Durham, to undertake research into Roman coarse pottery in the North of England.

That involved rather severe hardship on you, and in particular on

your wife Marie, for as a pre-war ordinand you were not eligible for a grant to support you during your postgraduate work, and it was left to Marie to support you by continuing as a teacher.

From 1947 onwards, the main efforts

of the Durham University Excavation Committee were concentrated at Corbridge, partly for the annual training courses for undergraduates, but even more for continuous supervision of work by what is now the Department of the Environment

-

at first, excavating the levels underlying what is now the car park on

the site.

A fortunate outcome of an approach which Ian Richmond and Imade

to the two divisions of the then federal University of Durham was their decision to create a new lectureship, to be based on Corbridge and with special responsibility for that supervision

-

and our recommendation that you should be

appointed to the new post was accepted without demur.

A long series of re-

ports in A.A 4 , and elsewhere, should serve to demonstrate the wisdom of the University; and your "Types of Roman Coarse Pottery" developed logically from the sequence which began with your study of Derbyshire ware, and then with your postgraduate work in Durham and your meticulous investigations and publication of so much Corbridge material. Simpson chose first Newbold and then, after many years, me to undertake an independent survey of material for the excavation of which he had been responsible.

You will recognise that it was the indoctrination which Ire-

ceived from Simpson and from Collingwood which predisposed me to seek, in my turn, someone with a fresh approach and the necessary absorbing interest to carry on the study which Ihave tried to outline in the present contribution towards the present which so many friends and colleagues and former pupils are combining to offer to you now.

Eric Birley

3

2.

TWO MAJOR POTTERIES PRODUCING MORTARIA IN THE FIRST CENTURY A.D. K. F. Hartley

John Gillam has sometimes asked me exactly what the evidence is for attributing Q. Valerius Veranius and similar potters to workshops in Kent or Gaul. Iam privileged to have this opportunity of laying the evidence before him in detail, in appreciation of the kindness, encouragement and friendship received over many years. The problem is complicated, and is unlikely to be solved finally without the discovery of the kilns. This note is essentially a statement of the different factors involved. Not every collection in the relevant parts of France and Belgium has been seen in the attempt to solve the problem but many, widely dispersed ones have been examined. 1 Stamps recorded in publications have been taken into account, though some have no drawings allowing checking of the potter (e.g. Gracilis at La Vi l le D'Uggate). Volume XIII of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum has been of great value, because of its efficient coverage of the area and its accurate readings of stamps which have since disappeared.

It is hoped that any omissions may be repaired in the future.

INTRODUCTION Two main groups of first-century potters are concerned, the most important in each group being Q. Valerius Se--, and Q. Valerius Veranius respectively. In the two groups, taken together, there are four potters with the same nomen and praenomen and there is no way of knowing how many, if any of them were related, or freedmen of the same patronus. However, one die of Q. Valerius Veranius describes him as Q. Val[erius] C[aiij f[ilius] Verani[us], thus showing that the father was a Roman citizen. The nomen Valerius was clearly not uncommon with mortarium potters in this period, since a group of definitely local potters, possibly freedmen, operating at Colchester, shared the praenomen Sextus and the nomen Valerius. The products of the two groups have similar distributions, and are made from similar clays. Despite the occasional vagaries of some of the potters concerned, each group is typified by the use of a particular form of rim. These types are so different that they could have stemmed from two totally different traditions (Fig. 2.1, nos. I & 3). Group Iis Neronian-Flavian, Group II is primarily Flavian (see Dating). In classifying these potters in groups it is not intended to imply that all in each group worked as a single unit, but only that they worked in a common tradition, in the same region and at much the same time. One practice which was common to all potters in both groups was that of stamping their mortaria once only. The only exception being a few mortaria of form Gillam 236 (Fig. 2.1, no. 2) made by

5

Q. Valerius Se--, stamped on each side of the rim in the normal way. Neither group stamped all their mortaria. DISTRIBUTION (See Fig. 2.2) GROUP I (A.D. 55-85)

Q. VALERIUS SE--: at Baginton;

on the Continent at Boulogne, and Evreux (2);

Broxtowe, Notts;

Cirencester;

Godmanchester;

Kettering;

(5);

Springhead, Kent;

Silchester;

Colchester (II);

London and probably London (9); Verulamium (3);

in Britain

Corbridge; Richborough

probably York, and one

mortarium from the sea (now in the Collection of the Trustees of the Whitstable Museum). BR.IX.SAT[: BUC[C]US:

London

Caerleon;

FRONTO:

Baginton;

PAULLUS:

London;

SUMMACUS:

Greensforge, Kinver, Staffs; Old Sleaford;

Southwark;

Lincoln, and Richborough.

and Usk.

on the Continent at Amiens, and Evreux, and in Britain at

Barochan, Scotland; Richborough.

BIIJI:

Richborough, and Springhead, Kent.

London, and Martinhoe, Devon.

ORGIL[us]:

C-F:

Fishbourne;

Carlisle;

Colchester;

probably London (2), and

Southwark. Colchester, and London.

GROUP II (A.D. 65-100+)

Q. VALERIUS VERANIUS: Boulogne;

on the Continent at Arlaines (Aisne);

Conde-sur-Iton (Parigny);

Evreux;

Tongeren, and Veizeke-Ruddershove. from Bavai, see below.)

Chichester;

Caistor-by-Norwich; Cirencester (4);

Gloucester (4); Glam;

Harwich;

Maidstone;

Stockton, Hants;

Colchester (6);

High Cross;

Q. VALERIUS SURIACUS:

and Silchester.

BORIEDO:

Exeter (2);

Chester (2);

Fishbourne:

London & probably London (8);

Loughor,

Silchester (3);

Weston-under-Penyard;

Win-

One other, of uncertain provenance,

on the Continent at Bavai;

in Britain at Caerleon (2);

Q. VALERIUS ESUNERTUS:

Castleford;

Richborough (30);

Wanborough, Wilts;

chester; Wroxeter, and York (2). probably Colchester or Scotland.

Luxembourg;

and in the rest of Britain at

Canterbury;

Old Winteringham;

Usk;

Bavai (Nord);

Rugles (Eure);

(8 stamps from two other dies are known

In Scotland at Camelon and Cardean; Caerleon (5);

Reims (2);

Alcester, Warks;

Castleford, and Ribchester.

6

Evreux, and Mettet,

Richborough (2), and York. Colchester (2);

London (2),

CACUMATTTJS: on the Continent at Boulogne; Colchester; Corbridge, and Richborough (3). CAVARIUS: Caerleon; and Wroxeter.

Cardiff Castle;

in Britain at Cirencester (2);

Gloucester;

Richborough;

Usk,

GRACILIS: on the Continent at La Vile D'Uggate, Normandy area; and in Britain at Aldborough, Yorks; Canterbury; Catterick; Chester (2); London (2), and Richborough (8). T. IU[lius] AF[er]: on the Continent at Reims; in Britain at Burrow in Lonsdale, Lanes; Ilkley, and Manchester (attrib.). C. IIJL[ius] PRI[vatus]: and York.

Cirencester (attrib.);

Corbridge;

Richborough (2),

LITUGENUS II: in Scotland at Bochcastle, and in the rest of Britain at Cirencester (2); Colchester; Doncaster; Fishbourne (2); London; Richborough (6), and Silchester (2). LOSSA:

Cirencester, and York.

MOTTIUS BOLLUS:

London, and Richborough.

ORBISSA: on the Continent at Beauvais; Boulogne, and Evreux; Britain at Canterbury; London, and Richborough. PRASSO:

Minnis Bay, Birchington, Kent;

and in

Cirencester, and London.

VASSONUS (at one time in the workshop of Cacumattus):

Richborough (2).

ALB[ : Richborough. RUF[:

Canterbury.

]ASSAR[: V---

Great Casterton, and Richborough.

: Richborough.

Name uncertain:

Probably London.

Unidentified stamps on mortaria of form Gillam 238 (Fig. 2. 1, no. 3): on the Continent at Evreux; and in Britain at Mumrills in Scotland, and Ilkley (2); Pennydarren Park, Wales; and Winterton, Lines.

Carvossa, Probus, Cornwall;

Slack, Yorks;

Two Gallo-Belgic potters: MARTIALIS (1 die only used): on the Continent at Bavai, and Veizeke-Ruddershove (2), and in Britain at Baginton, and Broxtowe, Notts.

7

VERECUNDUS I(one die only used): on the Continent at Bavai (3); Roucy, Compiegne; and Veizeke-Ruddershove ; and in Britain at Wall, Staffs. The comparative figures of stamps for each potter, from Britain and the Continent are as follows (potters are in the same order as in the list): GROUP I Britain Continent

38 1 4 2 4 4 6 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

GROUP U Britain Continent

85 5 6 2 7 6 15 3 5 16 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 7 1030010 110 000300000001

Two Gallo-Belgic potters Britain Continent

-

I die only used for each potter.

2 1 4 5

COMMENTS ON GROUP I If output may be judged by the number of stamps found, Q. Valerius Se-, (probably with a common cognomen like Severus or Secundus) was by far the most productive potter in Group I. He also made at least three distinct rimtypes (Fig. 2. 1, nos. 1, 2 & 3). Rim-type 1, is the one frequently used by all the Group Ipotters. So far as we know, Q. Valerius Se-, is the only potter in either group to use rim-type 2 (Gillam 236).

This was a distinctly

foreign form to Britain, but it was one of the two basic types used by potters working in Aoste (Is'ere) in Gallia Narbonensis, where a highly successful family of potters, G. Atisius Sabinus, G. Atisius Gratus and L. Atisius Secundus made mortaria.

They marketed their wares so widely that a few

reached Britain and Germany and there is also one recorded from Herculaneum, (for some further details of the Atisii, see Guisan, 1974, 49-51; Rougier, 1974, 147-153; Hartley, 1973, 40 & 46, fig. 3). Q. Valerius Se-, is also known very occasionally to have made a rim-type 3 (Gillam 238), which is the typical rim-form for Group II potters.

It should perhaps be added that both

rim-types 2 and 3 are ones which would require considerable skill to make well. Summacus is another interesting member of this group. The three types of stamp for which he is known in Britain, at Evreux and at Amiens read SVMACI, SVMMACF and SVMMACVS:ARO//NTVIS FILFECIT. There are, however, three stamps from a fourth die giving SVMM FE, which are on the two forms of rim used by the Atisii of Aoste. These stamps are recorded from Baden in Switzerland, Suèvres (Loir-et-Cher), and Les Bolards, Nuits-SaintGeorges (C2te d'Or), all sites which belong in the primary marketing area of potters working in the Aoste region.

If this die indeed belongs to the Summacus

who sold mortaria in Britain, he must have migrated from the Aoste region to Gallia Belgica or Britain, and it would explain perfectly the curious links which do exist with the Atisii's work. 8

Little importance can be placed on the similarity of rim-type 1 to one of those made in Aoste because this is a much less distinctive form which might easily have been made elsewhere. Mile. M. Guisan tentatively dates the Atisii to the second half of the first century. A stamp of theirs from Fishbourne is in a deposit earlier than the palace and one is recorded from Herculaneum confirming that they were active before A. D. 79 and probably before A.D. 75. Ibelieve that they were in fact Neronian-Flavian potters.

Q. Valerius Se-, could scarcely have had any other inspirers than the Atisii for his rim-type 2, and he is firmly Neronian-Flavian, as we shall see. GROUP II The rim-form which is most typical of the potters of Group II is Fig. 2. 1, no. 3, or Gillam 238, with wide flattish rim and always with an elegantly moulded spout.

The rims are sometimes virtually horizontal, sometimes more at an

angle. At its best, this form and type 2 (Gillam 236) are perhaps the most striking mortarium forms made in western Europe. These potters did, however, make some other forms which may be slightly earlier, and are for the most part, hooked rims (Fig. 2. 1, no. 4). The leading potter was Q. Valerius Veranius with a great preponderance in numbers of mortaria found. There is reasonably explicit evidence for the migration of this potter from Bavai to either another part of Gallia Belgica or to Britain. He used at least ten dies, stamps from two of which are recorded on a total of eight rims, all from Bavai, and all in a local, brown fabric. No stamp from either of these dies has ever been recorded elsewhere and no stamps from his other dies have been found in association with this fabric. 2 One mortarium of his more common type (Fig. 2.1, no. 3) is recorded from Bavai and also a similar mortarium by Q. Valerius Suriacus. Neither is in the brown fabric. Bavai is, moreover, unique among sites on the Continent in having produced over four hundred and fifty stamped mortaria and also in having a colossal quantity of unstamped mortarium fragments. Amongst all of this pottery there is only one other fragment from a mortarium of rim-type 3. Many unstamped rim-fragments from various sites in Belgium have also been examined without finding any example of Type 3 apart, of course from the stamped ones from Tongeren and Velzeke -Rudders hove. Excellent clays are available at or not far from Bavai so there cannot have been any pressing need to move on this account. A more likely reason for Veranius to depart would be the opportunity offered by developing markets elsewhere. It is worth noting that several potters in both groups have never been recorded on the Continent.

Nor is one stamp there a matter of major conse-

quence as we now know that pottery made in Britain appears occasionally at sites on the Continent (information from Dr. M. G. Fulford). Q. Valerius Veranius is really the only potter in either group who appears to have had any substantial trade on the Continent, and who, on the Bavai evidence is likely to have worked there.

9

DATING EVIDENCE It has, in fact, proved difficult to put some of the potters with only a few stamps into one or other of the two groups. 3 This is because some of the potters clearly did make both rim-type 1 and rim-type 3 though one usually predominates when numbers permit. These potters must have been aware of each other's work but it is likely that some difference in date is also reflected in the rim-types. Rim-type 1 is always Neronian to mid-Flavian where it can be dated;

rim-type 2 may perhaps be the same but type 3 is probably

always Flavian. The basic distinction of the rims remains, however, and it seems improbable that there is any typological development. GROUP I(A.D. 55-85) We are fortunate in having excellent dating evidence for the work of

Q.

Valerius Se-. Nine stamps from one of his six dies were found in a Boudiccan destruction deposit of A.D. 61, in the colonia at Colchester; these came from between twenty and thirty mortaria, virtually identical in form, all unused and part of a quantity of pottery in a storehouse at the time of the destruction. They were probably not all stamped but they are all so similar that they must be from the same workshop. A tenth stamp was found in the make-up levels for the floor of the storehouse, a level dated within the period A.D. 49-60 (Dunnett, 1966, 47, no. 19 & 48, nos. 22-25). Two of the Richborough stamps are from Pitfillings, dated A.D. 50-70, and A.D. 70-90 with earlier pieces (Bushe-Fox, 1949, 250, no. 29 & 252, no. 15b); one from Verulamium is from a deposit containing Flavian and pre-Flavian material and his mortaria in the forts at Broxtowe and Baginton fit well with a Neronian to mid-Flavian date for his activity, C. A.D. 55-85 (Hobley, 1973, 51, no. 1). The stamp at Corbridge should be one of his latest. Stamps of other potters in Group Iprovide supporting evidence, notably Fronto at Martinhoe, A.D. 55-75 (Fox & Ravethill, 1966, 34, no. 10), Orgil- at the Lunt, Baginton (Hobley, 1973, 52, no. 2), Buc[c]us at Fishbourne (Cunliffe, 1971, 173, Period I, pre-A.D. 75), and Paullus in the fort of Neronian foundation at Usk.

A stamp of Summacus has also been found at

the Flavian fort at Barochan, and two stamps of Boriedo come from Flavian foundations. GROUP II (A.D. 65-100+) Eighty-five stamps of Britain.

Q. Valerius Veranius are known from sites in

One stamp from Richborough is from Pit 125, dated c. A.D. 80-90

but including pre-Flavian material (Bushe-Fox, 1949, 252, no. 5 & 92); one from Fishbourue was found in the Period 2-3 occupation. level, dated A.D. 80+ (Cunliffe, 1971, 174, no. 8); one from Old Winteringham was found in the Neronian-early Flavian levels (Stead, 1976, 117, no. 6); and one from Phase II at Castleford should be c. A.D. 90-100. Two of his stamps have also been recorded from Agricolan sites in Scotland, at Camelon and Cardean, and two others from late first century deposits at Caerleon (Nash-Williams, 1926, 63, fig. 35, no. 112; (Fox, 1940, 43, no. 2).

10

Mortaria of Cavarius have been found in pre-Flavian deposits at Usk and Wroxeter. Two stamps of Litugenus II are published from levels dated c. A.D. 75-78 and A.D. 80+ at Fishbourne (Cunhiffe, 1971, 173, nos. 6 & 7), and there is a stamp of his from Bochastle in Scotland where it must be Agricolan. Lastly a stamp of G. lulius Pri[vatus] is recorded from a pit at Richborough filled c. A.D. 90 (Bushe-Fox, 1949, 249, no. 22). It will also be noted that several have been noted from military sites in the north like Corbridge, Slack, Ilkley, Catterick and Manchester where they must be of Flavian date. FABRICS Little has yet been said of the fabrics used by these potters. Those in Group Iprobably used only one fabric, but in Group II three slightly differing fabrics can be distinguished (excluding the fabric used by Q. Valerius Veranius at Bavai). One of the three is visually identical to that used by Group I. It is not a matter of some potters using one fabric and some another, but rather of some members of he Group, like Q. Valerius Veranius and Litugenus II, using two or three of the fabrics. This assessment of the fabrics;is obviously subjective, and they tend to overlap in range, but they are, for example, always as similar as the two fabrics produced at Colchester in the NeronianFlavian and Antonine periods. These slight variations do not, therefore, seem necessarily to demonstrate manufacture in different areas. POSSIBLE AREAS OF MANUFACTURE The range of British clays, and their constituents (Hartley & Richards, 1965, 39_43)4 leaves no doubt that the only areas where Groups Iand II could have worked in Britain are: East Anglia, Kent and the Surrey-Sussex area. In all these regions the right sort of grit could probably be found. In the Neronian and Flavian periods several, little-known potters like Severus, Criciro, the Sexti Valerii, G. Attius Marinus (early period), and many others were working at, or in the vicinity of, Colchester. Although they were contemporary with Groups Iand II, their rim-profiles are sufficiently different from both groups to make it seem doubtful if either worked immediately in the vicinity. Moreover, Colchester has six hundred or more stamped mortaria to date and if the potters in either Group Ior II had worked there they would certainly figure more prominently in the total, since Colchester was an excellent potential market and they far outstripped technically the work of the local potters. There is no evidence of large-scale mortarium industry in Norfolk, Suffolk, other parts of Essex or even in the Surrey-Sussex area under Nero and the Flavians. This leaves Kent, an area developed early, and it is there that mortaria from both groups appear in greatest number, especially at Richborough where there are approximately twenty first-century stamps from all other possible sources and sixty-six stamps of potters in these two groups. The twenty stamps are mostly by potters who invariably stamped their vessels twice, thereby giving more opportunity for them to be found; moreover, they also stamped virtually every mortarium they made whereas the potters in Groups Iand II did not. This total is so high as to leave no 11

doubt that it was to all intents and purposes the 'home' market for the workshops in question. Either the kilns were very near or the mortaria were imported to Richborough in such bulk that local potters did not develop as they had at Colchester only three of the potters represented (five of the twenty stamps) could conceivably have worked in Kent, and only one of them certainly -

did, probably near Canterbury. The total at Richborough cannot be explained in terms of stores, pottery shops, or wharves; there is no indication that those found in the excavations were not in normal use. If the kilns are on the Continent they must be in north-east France since the stamps are commonest at Evreux, Reims and Boulogne. While this is not impossible it has to be accepted that wherever they are, Richborough was in the situation of being the initial or home market just as Verulamium and London were 'home' markets for the mortarium potters working in the Brockley Hill region. The total of Group Iand II mortaria on the Continent is very small if they were made there, but it might be argued that Verecundus of Soller (Kreis DUren) in Lower Germany provided a close parallel, since most of his stamps are in Britain. This is tnie, but his trade was probably linked with the trade in samian from Rheinzabern and the attested negotiatores Britaimiciani at the mouth of the Rhine. Also there is no concentration of mortaria from Soller at any one site comparable to the glut of Group Iand II mortaria at Richborough. However, kilns have been excavated at Amay on the River Meuse (Amand, Willems & Docquier, 1962), and there is no doubt that mortaria were made and stamped on a fairly large-scale in this general area. Some of the clays appear to be suitable, but there are only two or three mortaria in the whole of Britain which can be really closely compared to the Amay products, and the rest of the mortaria which were clearly popular in the region are quite unlike those in question. It is perhaps worth noting the distribution pattern for two potters, Verecundus Iand Martialis whose mortaria do have some resemblance in form and fabric to those of Group Ibut who were certainly working in Gallia Belgica in the Neronian-Flavian period. Verecundus Iis, of course, to be distinguished from the late Antonine potter mentioned above who was working at Soller. In fact, only stamps from one die of Verecundus Iand one die of Martialis are considered here, these are the dies represented in Britain. All three of the stamps from Britain are from sites or levels which point firmly to a Neronian-Flavian date (Baginton:

Hobley, 1973, 52, no. 3;

Wall:

Gould,

1966-7, 29). It can readily be seen that as far as numbers on the Continent and in Britain are concerned the distribution pattern is reversed from that of Groups Iand II (see Distribution List). DISTRIBUTION OF GROUP IAND II MORTARIA INSIDE BRITAIN It has long been clear that the distribution of these mortaria was heaviest in areas easily accessible by sea (see Fig. 22). This is most conspicuous when contrasted with the distribution of mortaria made in the equally prominent potteries around Brockley Hill, Middx. in the Flavian period.

The potters

in Groups Iand II are heavily represented in coastal and adjacent areas, just where the mortaria from Brockley Hill etc. are fewest. In the Midlands and

12

Pennines the pattern is reversed.

This certainly implies that the potters in

question dispersed their products largely by sea, while those at Brockley Hill mainly used land transport. A mortarium of Q. Valerius Se- found in an unspecified area in the sea but significantly preserved in the Collection of the Trustees of Whitstable Museum, confirms some kind of transit by sea. It would appear that wherever the mortaria were made, dispersal was usually by sea and probably from Richborough. CONCLUSIONS There is little doubt that Q. Valerius Veranius once worked at or near Bavai but subsequently may have migrated to Britain or to a more advantageous site on the Continent; he may even have opened a second workshop in Kent. Summacus may also have migrated but from a different area. Presumably they would have sent or brought. with them some skilled workmen or slaves, though if the new workshops were in Kent they could have taken on extra workmen there since skilled potters must have been available. In the fifties of the first century, mortarium production in or for Britain must have provided wide opportunities, because native potters while able to make ordinary coarsewares had little experience of making mortaria. Some no doubt tried but there are few Neronian flanged mortaria from Britain which could stand comparison with those of Group I. The few surviving good mortaria of that date and many of the poorer ones, were fairly certainly made by military potters. Yet the army and the new towns and settlements required this essential aid to Roman cuisine in what sometimes seems to be ridiculously large quantities.

This was exactly the situation to attract potters with enter-

prise and there is now much evidence that just the same process was at work later in Roman Britain, when potters like G. Attius Marinus moved from Colchester to Radlett and later to Hartshill, Warks., or in the opening of a second workshop of Rossington Bridge, Doncaster by Sarrius, the preeminent second-century potter in the Mancetter-Hartshill potteries. Iwould like to suggest that it was these sort of considerations which led to the migration of potters in both groups. Wherever they may have placed their new workshops the market they hoped to gain was in Britain. In fact, we probably know the name of the place where Q. Valerius Veranius had his workshop, as he included in small letters between the lines in one die the words (DOG[or C]AERIA FAC[tum]. Place names are rare in mortarium stamps but this is one of the formulas used. SUMMARY

Q. Valerius Se- and Q. Valerius Veranius were the leading figures in two major potteries making mortaria in the Neronian-Flavian and Flavian periods. The distribution of stamps of all the potters concerned shows the vast majority in Britain and a small number on the Continent in France and Belgium. It is argued here that these potters probably moved from the sites of their initial workshops to take advantage of the new markets opening in Britain in the Neronian-Flavian period and still developing in the Flavian period.

The dis-

tribution of these mortaria indicates that they were made either in Kent or imported in bulk from Gaul to Richborough whence they were distributed largely by coastal traffic. 13

NOTES

1.

Thanks are due to museum curators and the owners of private collections in Britain, France and Belgium who have freely allowed access to, and use of their material, and above all to Canon H. Bievelet and M. J-L. Boucly at Bavai;

M. M. Le Pesant for access to his Collection at

Evreux and information about other stamps; at Tongeren.

and to M. M. Vanderhoeven

The following have been kind enough to provide informa-

tion about or pre-publication dating of deposits: (Usk);

P rofe 550 r S. S. Fre re (ye rulamium);

Dr. W. H. Manning

Dr. G. Webster (Wroxete r);

Frau Dkr. Dorothea Haupt (Soller); Professor Anne S. Robertson (Barochan and Cardean), and Philip Mayes (Castleford). 2.

As we are concerned only with the main body of

Q.

Valerius Veranius'

work which differs in all respects even in rim-types, these eight stamps from Bavai are neither included in the totals following the distribution list nor on the map on Fig. 2. 3.

It has proved necessary to alter the make-up of Groups Iand II slightly since they were first mentioned in print (Hartley, 1973, 47, fig. 4, Groups 3 and 2 now Groups Iand II).

4.

None of the results obtained for potters in Groups Iand II are published in Hartley & Richards, 1965 because publication was restricted to kiln groups or to potters whose place of manufacture could be deduced with reasonable certainty. Those results did, however, generally support the visual evidence but, of course, clays with similar constituents also occur on the Continent.

5.

Rim type 2 normally has a little trituration grit but this example made by Q. Vale rius Se-- had none.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amand, Willems, and Docquier, 1962:

Arnand, M., Willems, J. and

Docquier, J., 'Une Officine de Potiers Belgo-Romains 'a Amay (Li'ege)' Bull .Institut Archologique Liégeois LXXV (1962), 5-36. Bushe-Fox, 1949:

Bush-Fox, J. P., Fourth Report on the Excavations of

the Roman Fort at Richborough, Oxford, 1949. Cunliffe, 1971: 1971.

Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Fishbourne 1961-1969, Leeds,

Dunnett, 1966: Dunnett, R. B. K., 'Excavations on North Hill, Colchester', Archaeol. J., 123 (1966), 27-61.

14

Fox, 1940:

Fox, Aileen, 'The Roman Legionary Fortress at Caerleon in

Monmouthshire.

Excavations in Myrtle Cottage Orchard, 1936,

Archaeol. Cambrensis 1940, 101-152, off print 5-56. Fox & Ravenhill, 1966:

Fox, A. and Ravenhill, W. L. D., 'Early Roman

Outposts on the North Devon Coast;

Old Burrow and Martinhoe',

Proc. Devon Archaeol. Expl. Soc., 24(1966), 3-39. Gillam 236 etc.:

Gillam, J. P., Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in

Northern Britain, third edition, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1970. Gould, 1966-7:

Gould, J., 'Excavation at Wall (Staffordshire), 1964-6, on

the site of the Roman forts', Lichfield and S. Staffs. Archaeol. and Historical Trans. VIII (1966-7). Guisan, 1974:

Guisan, Marjolaine, 'Les Mortiers Estampills d'Avenches',

Bull. de l'Association Pro Aventico 22 (1974), 27-112. Hartley & Richards, 1965:

Hartley, K. F. and Richards, E. E., 'Spectro-

graphic Analysis of some Romano-British mortaria', Bulletin No. 5 of the Institute of Archaeology. Hartley, 1973:

Hartley, K. F., 'The Marketing and Distribution of Mortaria',

C.B.A. Research Report No. 10:

Current Research in Romano-British

Coarse Pottery. Hobley, 1972:

Hobley, Brian, 'Excavations at The Lunt Roman Military Site,

Baginton, Warwickshire, 1968-71', Trans. Birmingham and Wa 'is. Archaeol. Soc. 85 (1972). Nash-Williams, 1926:

Nash-Williams, V. E., 'The Roman Legionary at

Caerleon in Monmouthshire.

Report on the Excavations carried out

in 1926', Archaeol. Cambrensis December, 1929. Rougier, 1974:

Rougier, J., 'A propos des Jattes et Pelves de la Region

Lyonnaise', Revue Archéologique de l'Est et du Centre-Est XXV (1974), 147-153. Stead. 1976:

Stead, I. M., Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other

Roman sites in North Lincolnshire, London, 1976.

15

B

A

E

2

2

C

3

B

D

A

4

4

C

Fig. 2.1

Rim-Types used by Potters of Groups Iand 11.

0

IL

GROUP

GROUP

I

Fig. 2.2

11

Distribution of stamped mortaria of Groups Iand II, (Ville d'Uggate is not placed but is believed to be in Normandy).

3.

FIRST-CENTURY POTTERY MANUFACTURE AT ECCLES, KENT Alec Detsicas

INTRODUCTION Pottery manufacture at Eccles, in the parish of Aylesford, Kent, was established in 1971-73, and the present paper is offered as an interim statement in anticipation of the definitive publication of the site.

So far, it has

been possible to process and study only a small part of the enormous amount of pottery involved, and a provisional series of forms of the various classes of pottery produced at the site has been worked out, except in the case of bowls and cooking-pots which await further work.

No attempt is made here to quote

parallels, even in the case of well attested vessels, and the dating suggested below relies exclusively on internal evidence.

THE SITE The site (N.G.R. TQ 718605; O.S. 6-in. Sheet TQ 76 SW) lies on the 50-ft. contour very close to the old channel of the Medway, to the south of its east bank, in an area totally disturbed by large pits excavated for the disposal of industrial waste; a small area of the original ground surface, forming a plateau, had remained undistrubed in a small wood between these industrial pits and part of it was mechanically removed in 1971.

As a result, an exposed

section was observed to contain a thick band of pottery waste material deposited upon the clay subsoil and following .the dip slope towards the river bank; trenching in late 1972 was followed, in 1973, by the complete stripping of the undisturbed area.

This was found to be spread with a layer, about 0.30 m in

thickness, of wasters, tiles and other material beneath a light covering of topsoil. No kiln was found, except for a medieval tilery constructed in the middle of this waste material (Detsicas 1974a, 130-31), and it is presumed that such a kiln must have been situated nearby further to the south.

In this respect,

it is significant that a Romano-British tilery was excavated, in 1966, about 214 m south-west of the present site, and it must, therefore, be concluded that an industrial site, involving pottery and tile manufacture, was located northwest of Bushey Wood and lost to the modern industrial excavations.

This

manufacturing activity, begun about the middle of the first century A D. on the .

evidence of the kiln waste, must have continued until at least the fourth century A.D., about which time the tilery ceased to function; it is, however, impossible to say anything more definite about the organisation and extent of this industrial site because of its modern destruction.

19

THE POTTERY The pottery recovered from this waste layer is divided into various classes of vessels, wares,

(iv) flagons,

(i) butt beakers, (v) jugs,

(ii) native platters,

(iii) colour-coated

(vi) bowls and cooking-pots,

(vii) lids,

(viii) cheese presses and (ix) mortaria, and is described below in these separate groups. i.

Butt beakers (Fig. 3.1) 1.

Several sherds conjoining from a butt beaker, with well tooled

rouletted decoration around its girth, in a fairly thin buff-pink fabric.

It is

not certain that this pot was made at the site, nor does it show any obvious signs of distortion; it is not impossible that, if this vessel was not made at Eccles, it was imported from another factory to be used as a prototype for the production of butt beakers.

In fabric and finish, this vessel looks and feels

unlike any of the wasters found, and it is significant that all the sherds found certainly belong to this one pot. 2. Part from the girth of a butt beaker, in coarse pink fabric and much coarser rouletting than no. 1. No sherds from the rim or base of this butt beaker have so far been isolated in the mass of wasters recovered from the site, but it is undoubtedly of local manufacture as part of the roulette used in its decoration has also been found (Detsicas 1974b, fig. 8, no. 3); this fragment of roulette shows the same flaws as repeated on this butt beaker. not improbable that this vessel was modelled on no. 1, above. ii.

It is

Native Platters (Fig. 3.1) Nos. 3-10 illustrate a representative series of many sherds from several

related platters made at the site in imitation of Gallo-Belgic terra nigra and terra rubra forms. 3.

A shallow platter in sandy clay, firing pink, possibly overfired, with

three concentric circles inside its base, lacking a foot-ring and very coarse in texture. 4.

Fairly smooth grey-brown fabric, its paste virtually free of sand;

though there is some pitting on the surface of this platter, it still retains some traces of burnishing. 5.

Fairly smooth light-grey fabric, no sand, with a rudimentary foot-

ring; pitted and badly distorted.

Inside the base, two concentric circles

enclosing a rouletted ring, which contains a potter's stamp; so far this stamp has not been read, but it is complete apart from a small chip at one corner

-

it may, of course, face in the opposite direction from that shown on Fig. 3. 1. 6. Pink-buff fabric, firing to a deeper red colour in fracture, with a paste free of sand particles. 7.

Grey, smooth fabric, slightly pitted, sand-free clay.

8.

Buff-coloured sandy fabric, from a very shallow platter, with a few

traces of red coating present inside the base.

Sherds from another very simi-

lar vessel show two concentric rings within its base and more extensive remains of red colour-coating. 20

9.

Very similar in fabric and paste to no. 5, above, pitted; two concen-

tric rings enclose a smaller one containing the same potter's stamp, from the same die, but no rouletted band around it. 10.

Grey, smooth fabric, without sand, pitted.

Though only no. 5 shows obvious distortion in firing, the pitting betrays over-firing and clearly demonstrates that these platters were made at the site, some obviously by a hitherto unidentified potter.

It would also seem certain

that whereas firing and burnishing were relied upon to produce the appearance of terra nigra, coating with red slip was resorted to in imitation of terra rubra, possibly in order to mask the sandy texture of these platters. iii.

Colour-coated Wares (Fig. 3.1) Colour-coated cups and bowls, which form a substantial part of the wasters

found, were made in the same creamy fabric, with virtually sand-free clay; most of the sherds recovered are wasters, some badly distorted or overfired, lacking any colour-coating, others still retaining varying parts of their colouring. It would seem that red was the main colour used, though there are some wasters with dark brown-red, rarely dark green, colour-coating. The rims are generally everted, occasionally very slightly beaded; no true cornice rims have been isolated.

Many rim-sherds are slightly recessed for

lids, three colour-coated sherds of which have so far been identified. The colour-coated wares from the Eccles site consist of cups and bowls in plain, rough-cast or rusticated fabrics, though there are also a few rouletted sherds.

Most of these wares had been discarded after coating and

their wet condition has made it very difficult to wash the soil adhering to them without risking the loss of their colour-coating.

Nos. 11-33 illustrate a re-

presentative series of the forms concerned; however, it should eventually be possible to arrive at more complete profiles than shown in Fig. 3.1. 11-14 are rim-sherds from bowls with everted rims, all red colourcoated; nos. 12 and 13 are rough-cast with coarse sand or clay particles. 15 and 16 almost certainly belong to the same bowl, in rusticated fabric and red colour-coating.

The rustication was first applied as thin patches of

clay, smoothed with a brush, as clearly indicated by marks on some of the sherds from this bowl, and then drawn out from the body of the vessel.

Other

wasters show that these patches of clay were already colour-coated before their application to pots, which makes it clear that some at least of the colourcoats were brush-applied rather than the result of dipping. 17 and 18 are two of the so-called 'raspberry' cups.

No. 17 only has been

completely restored, but it is not certain whether it had a second handle; in fairly thin fabric with traces of red colour-coating surviving, this cup has a very slight everted rim. slightly beaded rim. cases

(.

No. 18, again red colour-coated, has a heavier,

The 'raspberry' palettes are of identical size in both

12 mm dia.), but other sherds have larger palettes

(.

17 mm dia.).

There are also fragments of rim-less 'raspberry' cups with a slight cordon below the top of the cup demarcating the zone below which the 'raspberry' palettes have been applied.

21

19, with a well formed everted rim, has exceptionally deep brown-red colour-coating, which may be nearer to the intended finished colouring of these cups and bowls rather than the lighter red colour of their vast majority. 20, badly distorted, is similar in shape to no. 12, but with a less pronounced rim; red colour-coating. Nos. 21-33 are the series of bases, from cups and bowls, some roughcast with fine or coarse sand or clay (no. 32 is rough-cast internally as well); no. 33 has no surviving colour-coating, but its fabric suggests that it may be the base for no. 19, above. iv.

Flagons (Figs. 3.2-3.3) Sherds belonging to flagons and jugs were by far the largest group in the

waste material from the kiln, naturally enough in view of the size of the vessels and the sturdiness of their necks and bases; even so, the quantity of the wasters involved suggests that this kiln may have specialised in the production of such vessels.

So far, only one small flagon (no. 64) has been com-

pletely reconstructed because it was found practically complete, apart from being broken. in size.

Bases, which are not illustrated, show little variation, except

The fabric of these pots shows little variation, too; it is usually hard and non-porous and consists of well fired, homogeneous clay, tempered with varying admixture of sand

-

occasionally, flint particles also show through

the fabric, but these are rather impurities in the clay than intended for tempering.

The colour variations are the result of firing and grade from white

and off-white to cream, buff, pink and light red; no certain evidence for the use of slip has so far been found. The forms derive, by and large, from the well known Hofheim type of flagon, though the rim-profiles show great variety from the virtually straight, everted rim of no. 34 to the more curved and hooked profiles; though it is not doubted that variations are bound to occur in manufacture, it is clear nevertheless that some at least of these variations were intentional. also several fragments

There are

from disc rim flagons, others with pinched, frilled

or screw necks. Nos.34-71 illustrate the range of variations, nos. 70 and 71 being intermediate between flagons and jugs. 34.

Flagon neck in hard, creamy, fairly sandy fabric.

This is nearest

to the Hofheim model, with a very slightly curved profile which is also very slightly undercut. 35.

The fabric of this neck is rather buff than cream, owing to over-firing indicated by much pitting of the outer surface; more curved than the previous neck.

36.

its rim-profile is much

A small neck, somewhat distorted, in creamy fabric and buff core; the rim is undercut and the inside of the lip recessed.

37.

Cream fabric, buff core, badly pitted, its handle distorted.

The rim

is slightly undercut, and this flagon looks like a smaller version of no. 33, above.

22

38.

Yellowish cream fabric, with some fine sand and pitting, its virtually vertical rim-profile much more undercut than previous necks.

39.

A slender neck in white, creamy fabric, its lip more deeply recessed than no. 36, above.

40.

Buff-coloured fabric, badly pitted, the rim-profile beginning to curve outwards, slightly undercut.

41.

Fabric as for no. 40, but with a narrower, more out-curved lip; some distortion at the upper junction of handle and neck.

42.

Light red, fairly sandy fabric, its lip projecting further away from the neck and curving to a pointed, undercut lower edge.

43.

The fabric is badly pitted, pinkish white, though this is due to firing, its fairly narrow rim-profile markedly hooked.

44.

A fairly heavy, thick flagon neck, in creamy, pink, hard fabric, with some sand, pitted; the rim-profile is less hooked, but its lower edge is rounded.

45.

A fairly slender neck, in off-white, creamy fabric; its rim-profile recalls no. 42, above, but the lip is almost rounded to a bead.

46.

White, lightly sanded fabric, with a rather heavy rim, slightly beaded at the edge.

47.

Buff fabric, heavily sanded, with much pitting, and a heavy, hooked rim-profile.

48.

A. heavy neck from a fairly large flagon, in white, fairly sandy fabric, with some pitting, beaded at the top and bottom of the rim.

49.

White, sandy fabric, rather pitted, with a buff, light grey sandwich core, and a flattened handle; slight beading at the top and bottom of the rim.

50.

Heavy, out-flared rim-profile, in white fabric and buff core.

51.

Pink, sandy fabric, beaded at the top of the rim.

52.

White fabric, buff core, with grooving of the rim-profile.

53.

Hard, yellowish cream fabric, some pitting; the rim-profile is grooved and recessed.

54.

Creamy, buff fabric, buff core, with an angular rim-profile, which is recessed and distorted.

55.

Creamy fabric, one of several flagons with a frilled rim, grooved round the neck.

56.

Pinkish cream fabric, cracked and distorted, with a rim-profile coming to a point and constricted by cordons.

57.

Off-white fabric, some pitting and distortion of the handle, with a stepped rim-profile.

58.

A heavy neck in white fabric and buff core, badly distorted at the top; the rim-profile is heavily stepped and recessed.

23

59.

Off-white fabric, buff core, pitted and badly finished at the upper junction of neck and handle, with a screw neck rim-profile.

60.

Pinkish buff fabric, buff core, heavily sanded, distorted round the neck, with a screw neck rim-profile.

61.

Light-red fabric, with heavy grooving below its pinched neck rimprofile.

62.

Off-white fabric, pinkish buff core, with a disc rim-profile, slightly pinched at the edge opposite the handle to form a rudimentary spout.

63.

64.

Cream, sandy fabric, buff core, pitted, a larger disc rim-profile, with a relatively narrow neck. Completely restored, off-white fabric, buff core, its disc rim-profile more flattened than no. 62, above, and the pinching for the spout much more pronounced.

65.

Off-white creamy fabric, buff core, its disc rim-profile distorted in making the small spout and virtually horizontal.

66.

Pink fabric and core, with a slightly angular disc rim-profile.

67.

Creamy fabric, buff core, pitted, the disc rim-profile becoming down-turned.

68.

Pinkish cream, owing to misfiring, fairly sandy and pitted, with a more elaborate and down-turned, heavily undercut disc rim-profile.

69.

Pink fabric and core, distorted at the junction of handle and neck, a similar but less elaborate disc rim-profile than no. 68, above. Nos. 70 and 71 are wide-mouthed flagons or jugs, intermediate between

the single-handled flagons and the double-handled jugs.

It is conceivable

that both these vessels, too, were double-handled, but this is not certain as they had been broken where a second handle could have been. 70.

Creamy fabric, buff core, grooving at base of neck, with a flattened rim-profile.

71.

Off-white, sandy fabric, some pitting, with a deeper, more heavily grooved neck and a distorted rim whose profile is very similar to no. 70, above.

v.

Jugs (Figs. 3.3-3.4).

These vessels are naturally heavier and larger than the flagon series, yet they present a relatively great variety of forms. 72.

Pink, sandy fabric and core, with a slightly everted rim-profile.

73.

Pink, sandy fabric and core, its rim-profile rather more everted than no. 72, above, and recessed.

74.

Creamy fabric, buff core, some pitting, its rim-profile very close to the Hofheim -type flagons, grooved round the neck.

75.

Off-white, coarse fabric due to overfiring, with a shallow out-bent rim-profile. 24

76.

Creamy fabric, buff core, pitted and distorted neck from a heavy jug, slightly down-turned rim-profile.

77.

Creamy, sandy fabric, pitted, this neck is over-fired to pink and has a well formed rim-profile, which is hooked and undercut like some of the flagon forms.

78.

White fabric, buff core, distorted, a rather heavy, angular rim-profile, grooved above the handles.

79.

Pinkish cream, sandy fabric, light-red core, pitted, flattened at the rim.

80.

Heavy neck, creamy, fairly sandy fabric, buff core, flat and curved rim-profile.

81.

Heavy neck, cracked in firing, in white fabric with some sanding and buff core, an elaborately grooved and curved rim-profile.

82.

Off-white creamy fabric, buff core, with a disc rim-profile.

vi.

Cooking-pots and Bowls (Fig. 3.4) Only two vessels of this class have so far been at all restored from the

mass of wasters.

The bodies of these pots are generally thinner than many

other forms and broken up in much smaller fragments. 83 and 84 are both badly over-fired to a brittle, dull red colour and their fabric is heavily tempered with sand; they both present elaborately formed rims. vii.

Lids (Fig. 3.4) Nos. 85-96 illustrated the series of lids which, except for no. 85, are

more or less in the same pinkish, buff fabric, with a fairly coarse texture. 85 is a curious vessel included in the lid forms, though it is not impossible that it may have been a fairly deep, wide bowl. The fabric of this pot is creamy yellow, very smooth and somewhat shiny, so far as known is unlike any fabric so far noted.

very slightly pitted and

The body of this pot is

well formed, slightly curved, with grooving above the carinated upper portion and a very high internal kick.

If this vessel was not intended as a lid, it

would suggest, but for its kick, an attempt to imitate samian Form 29, which it otherwise closely recalls. viii. 97.

Cheese-press (Fig. 3.4) Several fragments conjoining from a cheese-press, some of which had been incorporated in the structure of the medieval tilery, in yellowish white, hard, sanded fabric.

Sherds from at least one other cheese-press have been isolated, but the form of the pot is identical with no. 97, above. ix. Mortaria

(Figs. 3.4-3.6)

Mortaria were well represented in the wasters from this kiln, and nos. 98-123 illustrate the majority of them.

Mrs. K.F. Hartley was kind enough

to examine them and her comments are appended below. 25

This group of at least twenty-six mortaria (seven wall-sided and nineteen flanged) is of especial interest because it is from a single kiln and all these vessels would have been made within a few months during the lifetime of the kiln; the apparent differences in fabric may be due to differences in firing conditions. Wall-sided mortaria were in use in Germany in the Augustan period and continued to be produced in Claudian times.

The wall-sided mortaria in this

group show surprising variety, including nos. 112, 121 and 104, which are not dissimilar in section from those in use at Haltern in A.D. 16, alongside nos. 119 and 100 whose bulging beads certainly denote a late date in the history of the form.

Nevertheless, it must be said that all the wall-sided mortaria

from the Eccles kiln lack the attractive steamlined quality of most of those found in quantity at Richborough and Camulodunum.

The group shows that the

development of forms like nos. 119 and 100 did not necessarily cause the production of older favourites to cease.

Mortaria like no. 114 seem to belong

to a curious hybrid from somwwhere between the wall-sided and flanged forms. Flanged mortaria were already present, though in small quantities, in A.D. 16 at Haltern, and there is no reason why they should not have been made at Eccles alongside wall-sided forms, though this may not have been the practice in larger concerns (e.g. at Camulodunum). The use of trituration grit in mortaria was not a regular practice in Britain until 98.

Diameter c. 32 cm.

C.

A.D. 55.

A mortarium in fine, yellowish cream fabric,

with pink core tempered with fine grit; there has never been any tri turation grit, and the surface is completely unworn. 99.

A fragmentary rim from a mortarium in pale brown fabric, with drab core; the fabric is tempered with grit.

100.

From a mortarium in cream fabric, with pink-brown core.

101.

A mortarium in buff-cream fabric, with pink and cream sandwich core. It cannot be said to have true trituration grit, though about three grits are visible on the internal surface.

102.

A mortarium in fine, yellowish cream fabric tempered with some fine

grit; there are a few white and red-brown trituration grits. 103 & 105. Diameter

C.

32 cm.

About a half of each of two mortari a of similar

form in fine-textured, slightly soft, pinkish brown fabric tempered with grey, white and red-brown grit.

Neither of these vessels has

ever had any trituration grit and their inside surfaces are probably weathered rather than worn.

This type of mortarium is recorded from

Camulodunum within the period A.D. 43-65 (Hawkes and Hull 1947, fig. 53, no. 29). 104.

A mortarium in fine-textured, slightly yellowish fabric, heavily tempered with white (chalk?), red-brown and grey grit. The spout is im usually large and elaborate for a wall-sided mortarium.

106-108. Three mortari a similar in form and fabric to no. 120, below. 109.

Diameter

C.

34 cm.

Nearly half of a mortarium in drab cream fabric,

26

109.

Diameter c. 34 cm.

Nearly half of a mortarium in drab cream fabric,

with thick greyish core and a tempering of tiny grey and white grit; it has had no trituration grit and has clearly never been used. 110.

A fragment from a mortarium in fine, yellowish cream fabric.

The

interior is quite smooth apart from one red-brown grit. 111.

Diameter c. 32 cm.

A mortarium in fairly fine yellowish cream fabric,

with abundant large to medium-sized grey (flint), dark red-brown and black grits very roughly distributed.

It has not been cleanly removed

from the wheel and shows none of the cheese-wire effect so common on the bases of later mortaria. 112.

Two fragments probably from the same mortarium in pale brown fabric with pale grey core and tempered with much fine grit, making the surface abrasive.

113.

Two fragments from a mortarium in fine-textured cream fabric with slightly pinkish core.

114.

Diameter c. 30 cm.

A mortarium with elaborate spout in fine, cream

fabric with thin pink core in parts.

There is some tempering (flint,

white and red-brown) in the clay, but it has never had any trituration grit and the turning marks on the inside are completely fresh and tinworn.

This mortarium can be matched at Longthorpe, A.D. 50-65

(information kindly supplied by Dr. J. P. Wild), and at Camulodunum it is dated A.D. 49-65 (Hawkes and Hull 1947, Fig. 53, no. 21). 115.

A mortarium in yellowish cream fabric.

The concentric scoring on the

inside is very faint but completely undamaged by wear.

The rim-profile

is generally similar to a mortarium from Longthorpe, A.D. 50-65 (information kindly supplied by Professor S. S. Frere). 116.

A mortarium in yellowish cream fabric with pink core and one brown trituration grit on the fragment.

117.

A mortarium in brownish cream fabric with paler core, heavily tempered with fine red-brown, white, transparent and grey grit; the spout is almost identical to that of no. 114, above.

118.

A fragment from a mortarium in fine-textured, cream fabric with one white grit on the inside surface.

119.

A mortarium in fine cream fabric with very thin pink core, heavily tempered with grey, translucent, red-brown and white (chalk) grit.

120.

Diameter e. 30 cm.

A mortarium in fine-textured, pink fabric fired

to cream at the surface but with patches of pink showing through, especially around the spout. 121.

Diameter c. 27 cm.

A mortarium in pale brown fabric with pale grey

core and tempered with much fine grit, making the surface abrasive. 122.

Diameter c. 34 cm.

A mortarium in yellowish cream fabric fired to

pink at the upper and outer surfaces; there is fine concentric scoring on the interior combined with abundant red-brown, white and black trituration grit. 27

123.

A fragmentary rim from a mortarium with thick bead, fired to grey throughout.

It is clear that wall-sided mortaria were already out of fashion by c. A.D. 55 since only one is recorded from the large quantities of Neronian mortaria found at Usk; similarly, only one is known from the Lunt fort, established about the same time.

They are recorded in deposits dating up to

A.D. 65 at Camulodunum, but this is natural enough since mortaria were strong bowls likely to survive for a long time in use. However, the Boudiccan destruction of a store-room in the colonia contained a quantity of mortaria from the workshop of

Q. Valerius Se-- (Dunnett 1966, Fig. 8, nos. 19, 22-25;

Eccles no. 101 is somewhat similar to some of the mortaria he made).

He

was one of the earliest and most important of mortarium potters selling in Britain to have markets on a scale approaching those common in the Flavian and later periods. The Eccles flanged mortaria belong essentially in type to the period before

Q. Valerius Se--, although one must allow for some overlap in produc-

tion in practice; they belong to a curious period of local (often military) production and freedom in experiment which resulted in a vast quantity of rim-forms and fabrics, as instanced in this small kiln group.

This, together

with the simultaneous production of wall-sided mortaria, points to a date in the period A.D. 50-60 for the activity of the kiln.

It is difficult to believe

that any potter was making wall-sided mortaria after A.D. 60, and certainly it could not have happened later than A.D. 65. Among the wasters recovered were also found many complete or fragmentary, small bricks, measuring 93 x 54 x 18 mm, for which no apparent use can be suggested unless they were intended for flooring purposes, a curious potter's punch probably for the stamping of small palettes, one-half of the roulette mentioned above (Detsicas

1 974b e

fig. 8, nos. 2 and 3) and a

fragment which maybe from a separator or a tuyère. It is not unlikely that other items of kiln equipment may come to light when all this material has been thoroughly processed. DATING The whole waste deposit can be dated internally be several sherds of coarse pottery made in the kiln and found stratified at the site of the villa, and by samian ware deposited with the wasters. It is noteworthy that, apart from the above, no other coarse pottery at all was found in the mass of waste products. Many fragments of a curious bowl, in a hard, sandy, creamy fabric, with three triangular openings through the wall of the pot and a rounded hole through its base (Detsicas 1974b, fig. 8, no. 1), were recovered among the wasters at the kiln site; other sherds from many such vessels, though some differing in fabric and form owing to their manufacture, sonxe clearly wasters, were found in the filling of Ditch X at the villa site, which passes very close to the northeastern part of the earliest house (Detsicas 1973, fig. 1).

The first villa is

provisionally dated to c. A.D. 65 on the basis of the pottery stratified in deposits laid before its construction (Detsicas 1965, 88-9);

28

it follows, therefore,

that Ditch X must have been filled in some time before this earliest building, certainly by c. A.D. 65.

The samian sherds found with the wasters are all

South Gaulish and belong to Forms 18, 24 (stamped MOMI) and 29 in a Claudio -Neronian style; they can all be dated to not later than c. A.D. 65, perhaps earlier. It would, consequently, appear beyond much doubt that the pottery-making activity established by this waste deposit must have ceased by A.D. 65 at the latest, which accords very well with the external dating of the mortaria in this deposit.

How soon this industry began and how long it continued, it is im-

possible to say definitively until the whole deposit has been fully examined and studied; however, early ditches at the villa site contain in their filling pottery of Claudian date, and it is not improbable that pottery making began at the kiln site fairly soon after the Roman conquest. GENERAL The kiln at this site was used for pottery made locally with Gault clay which virtually outcrops in this area and is practically free from intrusions though, clearly, varying amounts of fine sand had been used for tempering the paste of the vessels made with this clay. The question of marketing such well made, fully Romanised vessels cannot be discussed at this juncture, but the forms of the vessels made and their fabric as well as the preponderance of the Hofheim -type flagons point to a probable army contract, if not direct military involvement in their manufacture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Iam very indebted to the friends whose assistance at the site made its excavation possible; to the landowners, Messrs. Reed Paper & Board (U.K.), Ltd., for allowing our work on their land; to Mrs. K.F. Hartley, for her kindness in dealing with the mortaria; and to Mr. and Mrs. R. Lowson, who undertook at short notice the drawing of the pottery for my illustrations. It is with great pleasure that Ialso record my debt to my friend John Guam, to whose enthusiasm and teaching Iowe my entire interest in coarse pottery.

29

7

\M — M M .a w j

'I) ‚1

W

-----

/2

‚3

‚4

/3

/6

Fig. 3.1.

Butt-beakers, Native Platters (Potter's Stamp: Colour -coated Wares

(i).

)and

Fig. 3. 2.

Flagons

(i).

Fig. 3.3.

Flagons and Jugs

(i).

Fig. 3.4.

Jugs, Cooking-pots and Bowls, Lids, Cheese-press, Mortaria

(i).

REFERENCES Detsicas 1965: Detsicas, A.P., 'Excavations at Eccles, 1964', Arch. Cant., 80 (1965), 88-9. Detsicas 1967: Detsicas, A.P., 'Excavations at Eccles, 1966', Arch. Cant., 82 (1967), 170-78. Detsicas 1972: Detsicas, A.P., 'Excavations at Eccles, 1971', Arch. Cant., 87 (1972), 108. Detsicas 1973: Detsicas, A.P., 'Excavations at Eccles, 1972', Arch. Cant., 88 (1973), 78-9. Detsicas 1974a: Detsicas, A.P., 'Excavations at Eccles, 1973', Arch. Cant., 89 (1974), 128-33. Detsicas 1974b: Detsicas, A.P., 'Finds from the Pottery Kiln(s) at Eccles, Kent', Antiq. Journ., 54 (1974), 305-6. Dunnett 1966: Dunnett, R.B.K., 'Excavations on North Hill, Colchester', Arch. Journ., 123 (1966), 27-61. Hawkes and Hull 1947: Hawkes, C. F C., and Hull, M R., Camulodununi, .

.

Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries of London XIV, Oxford, 1947.

36

4.

THE GALLO-BELGIC POTTERY FROM CIRENCESTER V. Rigby

The collection of Gallo-Belgic wares from Cirencester is fairly small. All the finds are from excavations, no chance discoveries having occurred. The collection comprises three potter's stamps and sherds from 32 different vessels, entirely in Terra Nigra (T. N.) but for one cup in Terra Rubra (T. R.). The basic classification of forms is that used in Camulodunum. THE GALLO-BELGIC WARES (G-B) a. The Stamps One stamp is a mere fragment on a platter, form 16, and is unidentifiable. The reading of the second is uncertain, but with the assistance of a stamp from the same die found at Southampton, Bitterne, it can be read as CRISSVIS, a potter unknown except for these finds (Southampton Museum).

The third,

reading BELLI, for Bellia or Bell(i)us, is on the underside of a small jar in a fine-grained dark grey ware which can be classified as T. N. because of its dark fabric, but is not one of the varieties of T. N. used for G-B cups and platters.

It is the most informative of the stamps because a number of ex-

amples have been found in Britain and the Continent, including an identical stamped jar from Gloucester, Kingsholm (Gloucester Museum). The name, in different forms, but still on the underside of the bases of small jars, occurs at Margidunum and Trier, Bavay and Aachen with the impression of an intaglio.

-

coupled

Despite the differences in spelling, they

all appear to be the work of the same potter, who was possibly centred at Bavay in the pre- and early Flavian period.

In addition there is a horse-shoe

shaped stamp on the underside of a flat-based dish or platter, in a Period I context at Fishbourne, which reads BELLVS F (EdT), and which may be the work of the same potter.

From Trier however there are T. R. platters of

form 7 stamped BIILLIO/FECIT, presumably also Bellus or Bellius, but clearly the work of a different die-maker.

Neither of the platters from Trier

is well dated, but typologically they could be Claudio -Neronian, so that the dating evidence does not preclude there being just one potter called Bellus who made both G-B platters and small stamped jars. Bellus was not the only potter making stamped jars, for a wide range of different forms and stamps have been in the cemeteries at Nijmegen and at Bavay.

In Britain they are markedly less common than G-B stamps, but

examples have been found at Richborough, Chichester, Southwark and Wroxeter.

The distribution of all stamps on jars, regardless of the names,

suggests a strong military connection, with distribution in the post-Conquest period only and use extending into the early Flavian period.

37

b.

The Forms Of the forms represented, the platter, form 16, is overwhelmingly im-

portant.

It is the most widely found of all G-B products having been identi-

fied on 46 sites in Britain (see fig. 4. 1).

The stamped examples suggest that

it was not standardised much before the Claudian period, and despite the presence of examples in Period Icontexts at Camulodunum, few if any were imported in the pre-Claudian period (Hawkes & Hull 1947: p. 220). Finds in Yorkshire, at Brough, Malton, York and Catterick, in Northumberland at Corbridge, and in Scotland at Camelon, suggest that the platters were still being imported after c. A.D. 70, and did not go out of use before c. A.D. 80 (Excavations by Mr. B. K. Davison, Mr. J. S. Wacher and Dr. V. Maxfield at York, Catterick and Camelon respectively).

However, the finds from

eastern Yorkshire could conceivably be interpreted as belonging to a Neronian phase of occupation, as a result of the trouble between the pro- and anti -Roman factions in Brigantia.

The finds from Catterick may just fall into this phase,

but those from Corbridge and Camelon must belong to Agricola Is campaigns, by which time the platters could have been isolated survivals. In such a chronology the dates for form 16 would have to be amended so uiat its major period of import preceded A.D. 70.

The discovery of more than one example

at Camelon suggests that platters of form 16 were still available in fair quantities as late as A.D. 80. The cup, form 58, appears to have been closely associated with form 16, and, in T.N. they possibly made-up a 'set'.

The number of finds is markedly

fewer, and the area of distribution is less widespread than form 16, particularly in the North, where there are examples only from York (Excavations by Mr. B.K. Davison).

The differences may indicate that form 58 went out of

production before form 16, or it may merely reflects its greater general scarcity.

The single example in T. R. is probably the earliest piece in the

collection from Cirencester since it is unlikely to date later than c. A.D. 65, for by the Neronian period, the production of T. R. was in rapid decline and did not survive into the Flavian period. Examples of the bowl, form 46, are scarce and are confined to Camulodunum, Southampton, Eastington, (Glos), Usk and Cirencester.

As it stands, the

distribution shows a bias for military sites. All are in post-Conquest contexts, while what little dating evidence there is suggests that the bowls belong to the latest period of production, after A.D. 50. The collection from Cirencester consists of a very limited range of postConquest forms, in particular, two which appear to have dominated the market in Britain after A.D. 60. Notably absent are those forms and varieties of T. R. which were common on a wide range of different sites in the ClaudioNeronian period, but which do not appear to have survived in production beyond A.D. 60/65, forms 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 14 and 56. -

DISCUSSION The distribution of all known sites where the Cirencester forms have been identified are shown on figure 1.

The main division is between sites which

have produced only examples of forms 16, 58, 46 and 50, and those producing additional forms.

Sites located beyond the line of the Fosse conform to the 38

same pattern as Cirencester. They are military, or possibly military sites, grouped in the South-West, South Wales and Yorkshire, and are all out-lying sites as far as the distribution of G-B wares is concerned, for the large collections, and therefore presumably the main markets, are concentrated to the south and east of the line of the Fosse. There are at present two notable anomalies to the basic pattern, the first being Southwark, where a Cirencestertype collection occurs at the heart of the G-B market, alongside the major entry route, the Thames. In such a location, the collection should include a wider range of forms if occupation began before A.D. 60, unless special circumstances were involved. In contrast, the second anomaly, Bagendon, an out-lying site which is approximately five miles from Cirencester, and was apparently still occupied at the time of the latter's establishment, conforms to the pattern of south-eastern sites, whether civilian or military. When the range of forms at Cirencester is compared in detail with those from Bagendon, Leicester, Old Winteringham, Southampton (Bitterne), Chichester- Fi shbourne, Exeter and Topsham, it is found to be completely different to the sites with early Claudian occupation, being like collections from sites established after c. A.D. 50 (see Table 1).

Quantities are not

recorded in Table 1, however at present, the size of the collection most closely resembles those from Exeter, Topsham and Southampton rather than those from South Wales and the North. A study of the actual contexts of the G-B wares from Cirencester is instructive, and for this it is necessary to summarise the relevant structures excavated to date. In three different locations below the Roman town, defences have been discovered and attributed to aphase of military occupation. They are in the grounds of Leaholme, 1961, and in Chester Street, 1964, the Leaholme fort; in the grounds of Watermoor Hospital, 1963, the Watermoor rampart; in the area known as The Sands, the Sands rampart (Wacher 1962: p. 3; 1965: p. 97; 1964: p. 15. Brown & McWhirr 1967: p. 191; 1969: p. 222). Roman pottery was found in the construction levels of all three ramparts. The Sands rampart appears to be later than that of the Leahome fort, but there is insufficient evidence to decide whether or not Watermoor is the earliest of the three. Whatever the sequence, all must have been preceded by an earlier phase of occupation. There is no evidence to suggest a native settlement in the period immediately preceding the Roman occupation in the areas so far excavated. All three stamps and 26 out of the 34 vessels,

(75%),

were found in contexts

associated with the Leaholme fort; seven sherds, (21%), including the '1R. cup, were found in an area of occupation to the north of the Leaholme fort, possibly its vicus (Webster 1958: material unpublished); the remaining sherd was found in the area of the Watermoor rampart, but in the lower levels of the later town defences, so that it was almost certainly introduced.

The existing G-B

wares are therefore inextricably associated with the Leaholme fort. There are no G-B wares from the surviving construction layers of the Leaholme defences.

Over one small area within the fort, three undisturbed

phases of occupation were identified (Wacher 1961: p. 5). The surfaces were kept clear of rubbish, so finds are sparse, but they include small groups of small sherds presumably representative of types in use during the military 39

occupation, although some may be derived from the fort which preceded Leaholme. A small amount of Claudian and Claudio-Neronian samian and an imported colour-coated rough-cast beaker are included, but there are no G-B wares (information about the samian from Miss B. Dickinson & Mr. B. R. Hartley). The earliest contexts for G-B wares are in layers attributed to the final phases of military occupation, but in an area disturbed by quarrying in the immediately post-military phase; here three platter sherds were found, (12%). Five sherds, (25%), were found in the fillings of features attributed to the military phases and the associated layers which seal-off the military occupation. They were associated with large groups of pottery, including much samian, most of which is pre-Flavian, although there is an admixture of Flavian sherds, not to mention two tiny sherds of Antonine date, a pattern repeated by the coarse wares and the coins. One tiny platter sherd was found in the main filling of the Inner Ditch. Its size is in marked contrast to the remainder of the group which comprises over 100 vessels, at least a quarter of which were complete when discarded, including a considerable number of unused samian, imported colour-coated and three glazed vessels. As a group the samian has been dated to c. A.D. 60-65, and since it is unused, the complete vessels have been interpreted as surplus stock from quatermasters stores abandoned when the army withdrew (Wacher 1961; p. 5). The remaining 17 sherds, (70%), associated with the Leaholme fort were found along the line of the defences. Ten sherds were in the upper layers of stretches quarried in the period immediately after the fort was abandoned; judging from the composition of the groups in which they were found, they had been disturbed from the main filling of the ditches by later building activities in the Roman period. In the lower levels of the back-filling of quarried stretches, a further four sherds were found. Make-up layers for the early street surfaces which seal the demolished rampart, produced three sherds. Only the stamped jar base was found in post-Roman disturbances. At least 70% of the T. N. from Leaholme is residual and redeposited. It is possible that at least half was not derived from the occupation of the Leaholme fort at all, but was introduced in material brought in to back-fill and level the areas concerned to allow for town developments, and the re-surfacing of streets etc. It appears that about half of the G-B wares found in Cirencester were supplied to the Leaholme fort, and this can probably be extended to include 90% of the existing colle ction . Th e range of forms suggests that it was supplied under the same contracts as that for other military sites in the SouthWest and South Wales, in which case the import did not begin before c. A.D. 50.

Supplies could have continued until at least A.D. 75, although the

Leaholme fort had probably been abandoned before this date, to be succeeded by a fort including either the Watermoor or the Sands ramprts, or both, in its circuit. If a fort was established in A.D. 45/6, in the area of Cirencester later occupied by the Roman town, no trace of it is apparent in the G-B wares, with the unlikely exception of the T.R. cup from the Dyer Court excavations (Webster 1958: unpublished). The complete absence of forms common else40

where in the pre-Flavian period, including Bagendon, requires explanation, the most obvious being that the fort occupied in the early Claudian period does not lie in the areas excavated to date, alternatively, that there was no military occupation at Cirencester before A.D. 50.

However there are other

possibilities associated with changing methods of distributing G-B wares and changing military dispostions in the region which could explain the composition of the collection. The unit which established the first fort at Cirencester may not have been supplied with G-B wares, and may even have comparable alternatives from other sources.

In such a context, the absence of G-B wares of any date from

many sites in the West Midlands, in a triangular area with Cirencester, Leicester and Chester at the apexes, may be relevant.

The most notable site

in that area from which G-B wares are absent is Wroxeter, where although examples of stamped jars have been found, have been identified.

no cups or platters

If the first unit to hold Cirencester was part of the

force which eventually occupied the West Midlands, then no G-B wares would have been available.

Given that military dispositions changed markedly in the

relevant period, the introduction of G-B wares to Cirencester could mark the arrival of a new unit which occupied Leaholme, and was supplied under different contracts to the earlier unit, which inclucd G--B wares.

At this time

the system of supply may have been based on that used by the Second Legion. Gloucester, Kingsholm, appears to have been supplied under the same contracts as Cirencester, Leaholme, for besides the G-B wares, they were receiving supplies at least of flagons and cooking pots from the same sources. The absence of early pre-Flavian G-B wares may be simply the result of the contracting policy of the earliest unit.

Forms 16 and 58, certainly, and

possibly also forms 46 and 50, were available before A.D. 50, and if contracts were limited to these forms despite the availability of others and T. R. then the collection from Cirencester as it stands would be the result, and the date for the occupation of Cirencester could be put back to before A.D. 50. When collections from sites further east, like Dorchester-on-Thames, Old Winteringham, Needham, Richborough and Chichester-Fishbourne, are examined, they appear to be the result of a different supply policy to that exhibited at Cirencester and the South-West, for a wide range of forms are included, and even some T.R.

It is possible that the differences in the G-B

wares in southern and eastern England, and the South-West, and their absence from the West Midlands, may be the result of different contracts, as well as chronology.

It can be argued that the difference marks an overall change in

purchasing policy between A.D. 50 and 60, when contracts were deliberately limited to forms 16 and 58, although prior to this, anything that was available was taken.

On sites established before the change of policy survivals and

residual material would mask the point at which it occurred.

But the collection

from Southwark may provide the evidence for its date and completeness. Military contracts appear to have directly influenced the distribution of G-B wares in Britain by extending the area well beyond any limits reached in the pre-Conquest period, particularly of note are the extensions caused by Agricola's campaigns in Scotland. stricted to T.N.

‚

At the same time the fabrics were re-

and the forms to a single cup and platter, with one or two

41

bowls, forms 58, 46 and 50 respectively.

The limitations of the contracts

may have affected output as a whole, ensuring the longer survival of those forms, but hastening the decline in the production of other forms and of T. R. There is no evidence to suggest that the use of T. N. survived longer on military than on civilian sites within the main distribution area. It is not clear if the failure to renew contracts caused the collapse in trade in T.N. or whether the trade collapsed for other reasons. The existing collection from Cirencester, and also those from the sites used for comparative purposes, may not be a representative sample of the forms and fabrics which actually arrived.

Furthermore the concentration of

finds in and around the area of the Leaholme fort may be distorted and may only indicate the intensity of archaeological activity in that area.

The absence

of early pieces is suggestive, but alone is not conclusive evidence, for they may lie somewhere under the Roman town awaiting discovery.

Only one piece

in the existing collection found its way into a post-Roman context suggesting that few chance finds will occur and only completed excavations will locate more G-B wares in Cirencester. Bearing in mind the provisos, the G-B wares alone provide no definite evidence for any occupation before A.D. 50 at Cirencester, in fact rather the reverse.

Supplies appear to have been received from the same sources,

under the same contracts and at the same time as those for forts in the SouthWest in particular, and also South Wales and the North.

Generally, methods

of obtaining supplies appear to have changed between A.D. 50 and 60, with the result that although the area of distribution was extended, the range of forms and fabrics was drastically limited.

Such an intervention must have had a

marked effect on the range of forms being imported for civilian markets.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Iwish to thank Mr. Harvey Sheldon for his assistance with the material from Southwark; Mr. P. Bidwell and his staff at Exeter; also Mr. A.D. McWhirr, Dr. I.M. Stead, Mrs. L. Viner, Mr. D.J. Viner, Mr. J.S. Wacher.

42

REFERENCES

Brown, P.D.C. &McWhirr, A. D., 1967: 47 (1967), 185-197.

'Cirencester 1966', Antiq. J.,

Brown, P. D. C., McWhirr, A.D. & Smith, D. J., 1969: 1967-8.

'Cirencester,

Eighth Interim Report', Antiq. J., 49(1969), 222-243.

Hawke s, C. F. C. & Hull, M. R., 1947:

Camulodunum, Rep. Res. Comm.

Soc. Antiq. London, 14, Oxford, 1947. Wacher, J. 5., 1962:

'Cirencester 1961.

Second Interim Report', Antiq.

J., 42 (1962), 1-14. Wacher, J. 5., 1964:

'Cirencester 1963.

Fourth Interim Report', Antiq.

J., 44 (1964), 9-18. Wacher, J. S., 1965: 'Cirencester 1964. 45 (1965), 97-110. Webster, G., 1959:

'Cirencester:

Fifth Interim Report', Antiq. J.,

Dyer Court Excavation, 1957', Trans.

Bristol Gloucestershire Archaeol. Soc., 78(1959), 44-85.

43

z

H

00

z

H

‚-4

ro

z

H UID

z

H 144

cli

z

H —4

0

‚-4

00

‚-1

z

H

z

H

E

E

fID

Cirencester

‚-4

•

bfj cl)

0

cl)

-4

41

c

0

E

Cd 0

pp

00&H

CID

0

H

'LcO

44

Fig. 4.1

The Distribution of Forms 16, 58, 46 and 50

5.

COOKING POTS AT VINDONISSA Elisabeth Ettlinger

The occupation dates of the legionary fortress at Vindonissa, Switzerland are as follows (excluding a probable small early military post on the site):A.D. 17- 45

-

Legio XIII Gemina;

where it came from remains un-

certain. A.D. 45- 70

-

Legio XXI Rapax, previously stationed at Vetera in Germania Inferior.

A.D. 70-101

-

Legio XI Claudia Pia Fidelis, previously stationed at Burnum, in Dalmatia.

The 'Schutthtlgel' (abbreviated to SH henceforth) was an immense rubbishheap deposited down the slope outside the fortress west of the porta decumana. Much of it has been removed since the beginning of the century, particularly in 1923. By then, it was stated that the eastern part of the deposit contained earlier material than the western, and also that the eastern part did not go back to the earliest occupation by Legio XIII. It seems that the garrison only began to deposit rubbish outside the wall after having used pits inside the fortress for ten or more years.

The chronological division between 'SH east'

and 'SH west' has been much discussed, but the best conclusion, based upon stratigraphic observations, would seem to be a date 'around A.D. 60' (Ettlinger 195 1 /2 ). An enormous quantity of pottery from the early excavations was deposited in huge chests in the Vindonissa-Museum. west', and 'SH uncertain':

They were labelled 'SH east',

'SH

the last is very regrettable, for it only indicates

either that at some time after 1923 the label had been lost, or that it never existed.

This implies that the numerical list at the end of this paper is not very

reliable in relation to early and late products.

In 1960 and 1962 Iwent through

all of this material and counted it approximately according to types, and as a result realised that the chapter on cooking pots in Ettlinger and Simonett 1952 (henceforth 'SH-Keramik') was incomplete and failed to bring out the existing groups sufficiently clearly. Tomasevic (1970).

This has already been partly rectified by T.

Iintend to define seven groups of differing character, omitting two others (SH-Keramik nos. 24, 40/47) as well as unica and all grey pots which might also have functioned as storage vessels. Group 1 Most of the cooking pots used by the 13th Legion, and many used by the 21st, are very simple, frequently crudely hand-made and rather small vessels in the local La Tene tradition; end of the first century.

they probably continued down until the

Their form is not at all standardised.

They share

the common feature of a faintly pronounced lip of varying shape, and in many

47

cases more or less accentuated comb-decoration from the shoulder downwards; the number of vessels with plain walls increases with time. All of the various pots of group 1 represent a degeneration of superior late La Tène vessels of the local area.

Prototypes can be seen on early Augustan sites at Zürich

(Vogt, 1948, fig. 32, 14-15; fig. 7, 6-7).

34, 8-9;

36, 16) or Dangstetten (Fingerlin, 1972,

However, it must be emphasized that at the late La Tène oppidum

of Altenburg-Rheinau (Fischer, 1966) the predominant form of cooking pot was already the distinctive standard type of the so-called Auerbergtopf of Vindelicia, Noricum, and Pannonia, which survived into the second century in the Danube region.

Does this indicate some kind of ethnic borderline somewhere within

the 35 km between Vindonissa and Altenburg? Augst and Basel can offer its own types.

To the west, the region around

Rare examples of the typical 'Raura-

cian' cooking pot found their way to Vindonissa, but the Auerbergtopf is completely absent; their very characteristic but contrasting profiles are illustrated of fig. 5. 3, 24 and 28. Our vessels of group 1 do not have striking profiles, and have countless variations, of which fig. 5.2 nos. 1-5 give only an idea.

Similar vessels have

been found on various sites in the immediately surrounding area, for example the vici Kempraten and Lenzburg (fig. 5. 1, map 2). Group 2 Within the category of hand-made or primitive wheel-thrown ware are are some remarkable vessels which are not unica but form fairly small subgroups.

Each forms a unit in which form, fabric and decoration are the same

and belong together: individual examples from these sub-groups are illustrated on fig. 5.2 nos. 6-10. They are mostly of much better quality than the pots of group 1 their clay has been better worked, they include specific tempering -

materials, and there forms are more articulated. local tradition in a wider sense. Group 3 This wheel thrown pot (usually grey:

They too are derivatives of

reddish examples are rare)

has been discussed in SH-Keramik as type 33 (here fig. 5. 2, 11-12).

It must

be added that in 1953 a kiln was found filled with these vessels in the lowest level of the legionary fortress (Fellmann, 1953-4, 10).

The 13th legion much

therefore have begun to make the form early in its occupation, but numerous finds from Vindonissa and elsewhere show that production of this form is typical of a wider region first century A.D.

-

-

which

continued, particularly in the second half of the

The distribution can be traced not only in Switzerland but

also as far north as the forts of Rottweil, Aislingen and Burgh&e.

(Planck

1975, 164; Ulbert 1959, 44). We are dealing with a standard Roman cooking vessel produced in many other regions as well see Camulodunum type 260 (Hawkes and Hull 1947, Pl. LXXXII). -

Group 4

This is type 22 in SH-Keramik, where it was suggested in a footnote

that it probably originated in north Italy because of close parallels from Albintimiliuni (Lamboglia 1950, fig. 16, 68;

64, 50;

dated there to the second half of the first century A.D.

97, 22-3;

117, 11),

Meanwhile an earlier

date at Vindonissa in the period of the 13th legion was shown by Tomasevic (1970, 68). In addition, ihave noted an example in the museum at Ravenna, and four have been published from a site near Aquileia (Aquileia Nostra, 42 (1971), 2ff, and fig. 8, 1-3, 5).

Isaw another amongst material from Massongex

in the Valais, between Martigny and Lake Geneva.

48

This fits well with the

pattern of a type extending both north and south of the Alps.

More difficult

to understand is the presence of several such vessels in the cremation cemetery at Stephansfeld-Brurnath in Alsace (Riff 1940)

-

and finally, Iwonder if

Camulodunum type 258B is an example of this type, whilst 285A and C are definitely different (Hawkes and Hull, 1947, Pl. LXXXII).

Typical is the bi-

partite division of the outside of the rim with an accentuated shoulder immediately underneath, which usually bears neat decoration of a single row of stamped or combed motifs (fig. 5. 2, 13-15). Altogether, this information indicates a widespread and very interesting group, which might have penetrated north by trade over the Great St. Bernard Pass, or could have been brought by soldiers.

They could, of course, have

been made by potters who had been accustomed to making them in northern Italy this might apply to examples like fig. 5. 2, 15. rare at Vindonissa. -

The type is naturally

Group 5 Tripod cooking pots were, Iwould guess, used in large quantities by the soldiers of the 21st legion and perhaps also the 11th, but some go back to the time of the 13th.

They are usually grey, rather thin-walled and poorly

made. Their fabric is not particularly coarse, and they show no clear signs of having been used for cooking, unlike the above groups. Many are darker on the inside surface than on the outside.

Dr. Katrin Roth draws my attention

to the fact that tripods are not necessarily derived from La Tine prototypes, as is claimed by several writers because of their occurrence at Mont Beuvray where they may be Augustan anyway. In the Vindonissa region they are not found in pre-Roman contexts. In the German provinces they are rare in the Roman period. They were most popular in the Danube area there, Bonis -

stated that

'. . .

die Dreiftisschale ist eine uritalische Form..

.

1

(1942, 52).

Although she did not cite direct prototypes, Iwould imagine that she was right, and that it is in Italy that we should look for them.

In any case, the Vindonissa

tripod vessels must have been made by legionary potteries for a specific purpose.

In Switzerland tripods of various forms also occur at Augst, Zürich

(1 example), the vicus of Kempraten (1 example) and a few other sites. 5.2, 16).

(fig.

Group 6 Fig. 5.2 nos. 17-18 are examples of handmade lids, or plates, which occur quite frequently but are astonishingly crude and poorly made.

The

potters' fingerprints are visible everywhere; under the rim of the handle (or foot, if inverted) they are used as a form of decoration. signs of burning;

The rim usually shows

they must have been used as lids on cooking pots, probably

of group 1, although there is no convincing similarity of fabric. found outside Vindonissa.

They are not

Group 7 The 'military cooking pot' of the 11th legion was not adequately described in SH-Keramik, and has often been misunderstood, as quotations of it have shown.

Fig. 5. 3 nos. 19-23 should give an impression of these vessels,

which have nothing in common with any of the groups described so far.

They

are skillfully wheel-thrown, and their fabric is brick-red, homogeneous, and contains fine sand, filler.

Stratigraphically these vessels only appear in the

period of the 11th legion.

There are pots, bowls and lids.

considerably, but have uniform character.

In 1972 Isaw similar vessels in

the museums of Aquileja and Zadar (Jugoslavia).

49

Rim forms vary

Irequested a drawing from

Dr. Luisa Bertacchi at Aquileja, and sent her a drawing of the type-specimen of SH-Keramik 30;

(here fig. 5.3 no. 26).

She sent from Aquileia fig. 5.3

no. 27, it must be added, however that this kind of decoration on the shoulder is extremely rare at Vindonissa. Some Possible Conclusions Group 1 appears to be a ware made hastily without access to well-prepared clay or proficient potters. The potters must have been local people who were required to provide pots for the use of the troops. Group 2 may have come from different local kilns where the potters maintained a tradition of quality handicraft

and sold their products to the soldiers.

Group 3 A standard type in the north-western provinces which much have been made by all three legions on the spot

but also elsewhere in the region

and particularly in first century forts in southern Germany, which should have close contacts with the legionary fortress at Vindonissa. Group 4 might have been imported from northern Italy (without being able to say why), and/or made on the spot by trained potters who originated there. Group 5 was made at Vindonissa for some particular purpose. Group 6 presumably goes with group 1 (or possibly 5?). Group 7 was made by the potters of the 11th legion, as it had been previously in Dalmatia prior to A.D. 70. The following numerical list is only valid in outline, and neglects all details, and is only intended to give some idea of the relative frequency of the larger groups. In addition to those considered above, Ihave included SHjramik type 40/47, the well-known Roman type like Camulodunum 243/4 (Hawkes and Hull 1947, Pl. LXXX) which is a pottery version of a bronze vessel. It is also well known in the Mediterranean area (Vegas 1973, fig. 5, 5), and is represented here by fig. 5.3 no. 25. Counted examples from the Schutthttgel of Vindonissa SH West and 'uncertain' Handmade, like groups 1 and 2 Lids, group 6 Tripods, group 5 Vindonissa type 40/47

412

79

84

18

282

3

60

5

Grey Roman pots, group 3

608

Red Roman pots, group 7

493 (or more)

Lids to group 7

561 (or more)

50

SH East

37

Catalogue to figs. 5.2 and 5.3 1.

Clay grey-brownish, roughly tempered, made on primitive wheel. I nv. nr. 12699, found inside the fortress 1909.

2.

Clay light brown, badly prepared and roughly tempered, hand-made, has never been used.

SH uncertain.

3.

Clay grey-brownish, roughly tempered with different materials, handmade, signs of use inside. SE east.

4.

Clay grey-brownish, badly prepared, roughly tempered, strong signs of use. SH uncertain.

5.

Clay grey-brownish, less tempered than the above, made on primitive wheel, signs of use inside and outside.

6.

Clay grey-black, tempered with rather large white grit. thin walled, wheelmade.

7.

SE west.

Clay dark grey-brown, much more homogeneous than 1-5, tempered with with small white grit and very fine mica.

8.

High fired and

SH east.

Wheelmade.

SH east.

Clay grey, very coarsely tempered with different minerals, made on primitive wheel. Outside covered with burnt material. men of same form and decoration is c1ude1y handmade.

9. 10.

Clay and ware as no. 8.

SH east.

Clay grey-brownish, homogeneous, tempered with small white grit, made on primitive wheel.

11.

SH uncertain.

11w. nr. 12037.

Clay grey, homogeneous, coarsely tempered with fine mica added. Made on the fast turning wheel, high fired.

12.

SH east.

Clay grey, sandy, scarcely tempered, containing some fine mica. Outside strong signs of use.

13.

Another speciSH east.

Made on fast turning wheel.

Clay light grey with many large flakes of mica.

SH west.

The structure appears

layered in the fracture this also applies to the two following pieces. Signs of use outside. Wheelmade. SH west. -

14.

Clay dark grey, structure like 13. and containing much fine mica. side. SH west.

Tempered with different minerals

Wheelmade.

Strong signs of use out-

15.

Very similar to 14, but without mica.

16.

Clay grey, slightly tempered, including fine white grit. of use outside. (Many examples show them inside). highly fired. SH uncertain.

17.

Handmade, rather

Clay light grey-brownish, rather homogeneous, slightly tempered, handmade.

18.

Slight signs

Signs of burning along the rim.

SH uncertain.

Like 17, SH uncertain.

19723 Clay in all cases exactly the same.

Yellowish-brick-red, completely

homogeneous and containing fine sand. Many signs of use. All SH west. 51

Made on the quick turning wheel.

24.

Profile of a 'Rauracian' cooking pot from Vindonissa.

25.

SH-Keramik type 40, small example. bottom.

26.

SH-Keramik type 30, belonging to the same group as 19-23.

27.

Pot from Aquileia, kindly communicated by L. Bertacchi.

28.

Auerbergtopf from Cambodunum, after Fischer, 1957, P1. 1, 9.

Larger examples may have a flat

This short communication deals with indigenous and 'Roman' pots used by the soldiers at Vindonissa.

The indigenous types seem to form some groups

which fill a relatively small gap between the well-known Auerbergtopf to the east and the less pre-eminent 'Rauracian' cooking pot tothe west.

A border-

line to the south has still to be detected in the western part of the Civitas Helvetiorum. The types made specially for the troops include, as we have seen, our groups 4 and 5, which do not belong to the truly indigenous element. The grey pot with rough horizontal comb-design was manufactured throughout the first century. to the fortress.

It is a widespread 'Roman' type and is not restricted

The Mediterranean SH-Keramik type 40/47 is well represented, but not abundant. With the arrival of the 11th legion a new type was introduced and manufactured on the site on a large scale for use in the fortress only.

These

different kinds of cooking pots from Vindonissa with their numerical list from the Schutthtlgel may serve as a basis for comparisons with other sites of the first century A D. .

52

Fig. 5 .1

1

. 1

1 1 1

Map 1: Places referred to in the te 1 · Vindonissa. 2: Albintimilium. 3: Ravenna. 4: Zadar. 5: Burnum. 6: Aquileia. 7: Kempten/Cambodunum. 8: Aislingen. 9: Burghfüe. 10: Rottweil/Arae Flaviae. a/ 11: Stephansfled-Brumath. 12: Mont Beuvray. 13: Veter xanten. 14: Camulodunum.

t

Map 2: Places referred to in the text. 1: Vindonissa. 2: Augusta Raurica. 3: Dangstetten. 4: Altenburg-Rheinau . 5: Lenzburg. 6: Zürich. 7: Kempraten. 8: Massongex. 9: Gr. St. Bernard. Broken line: border of modern Switzerland.

I

2

9

14 1

17JOW j

18 : 007•

Fig. 5.2:

1-5 group l.

16-17 group 5.

6-lø group 2.

18 group 6.

ll-12 group 3.

Scale 1:3.

rm rccc

13-15 group 4.

22 ------------------ -

Fig. 5.3:

19-23 group 7.

24-28 examples for comparison.

All 1:3 except 24-28 1:4.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonis, 1942: E. pest, 1942.

Bonis,

Ettlinger, 1951/2:

E.

Die kaiserzeitliche Keramik von Pannonien, Buda-

Ettlinger in: 'Die Grabung am Schutthugel 1951'

Jber. Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, Ettlinger and Simonett,

1952:

E.

(1951/52), 49.

Ettlinger- C.

Simonett,

aus dem Schutth!lgel von Vindonissa, Basel, Fellmann,

1953/4:

R.

Fellmann,

im Jahre 1953' Jber.

'Die Grabungen im Legionslager Vindonissa

Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa,

Flngerlin 1970/71: G. Fingerlin, 'Dangstetten, am Hochrhein'

‚

Ber. Röm.

Römische Keramik

(= SH-Keramik)

1952.

Germ.

(1953/54),

ein augusteisches Legionslager

Komm.

‚

51-2,

(1970-1971), 197ff.

Fischer 1966: F. Fischer, 'Das Oppidum ' -on Altenburgh.-Rheinau mania, 44 (1966), 286ff. Fischer,

1957:

U. Fischer,

Cambodunumforsehungen 1953

aus den Holzhausern, KallmUnz,

Planck, Riff,

N.

-

II,

‚

Keramik

Lamboglia, Albintimillum,

R. Hull, Camulodunum, Oxford, 1947. Bordlghera,

1950.

1975:

D.

Planck, Arae Flaviae I, Stuttgart,

1940-46:

A.

Riff,

'La Nécropole Gallo-romaine de Brumath-S+ephansfeld'

Archéol.

Hist.

Alsace,

Cah.

Tomasevic, 1970: T. Tomasevic, Vindonissa, Brugg, 1970. Ulbert, 1959: Burghöfe,

(1940-46),

171, Fig.

1975.

1.

Die Keramik der XIII.

Legion aus

G. Ulbert, Die römischen Donau-Kastelle Aislingen und Berlin, 1959,

Vegas, 1973: M. Vegas, Ceramica Comun Romana del Mediterraneo Occidental, Barcelona, 1973. Vogt,

Ger-

1957.

Hawks and Hull, 1947: C. F. Hawkes and M. Rep, Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. London, 14, Lamboglia 1950:

5ff.

1948:

E.

Vogt.

Der Lindenhof in Zürich

56

Zürich, 1948.

6.

POTTERY FROM EARLY MILITARY SITES IN WESTERN BRITAIN M. J. Darling

During everyday use of John Gillam's classic paper it is easy to overlook the obvious that his immensely important work has arisen from his study of -

pottery appearing on military sites.

It seems only fitting therefore to offer

him a short excursus on pottery from such sites, albeit south of the northern military zone and of earlier date. The principal value of pottery is to date sites and individual contexts, but it has become increasingly clear that study can reveal wider implications. The dating of pottery from early military sites in Britain is fraught with dangers and sites can frequently be dated more closely by other types of evidence. Use of the Camulodunum series (Hawkes and Hull, 1947) as an aid to dating early military sites has its drawbacks since, quite apart from the problem of rubbish survival, the pottery found there derived from a fusion of native and immigrant potters, many of the latter probably from Gaul. The pottery from early military sites may have been made by local potters, native potters moving with the army from the south-east, or by potters attached to the army who may have originated from the Rhine and Danube frontiers. All these potters were drawing on different ceramic traditions, and variations in form and style may be due more to this fact than to differences in date. The study of pottery from early military sites can provide extensive information not only about the army, but also about the native potters of different regions, their development and scale of trade. The army's impact on the native pottery industry was enormous (Webster, 1973, 2) and no study of the development of civil potteries in this country can be undertaken, much less completed, without due consideration of the military aspect. That pottery survives where other types of material supplied to forts have vanished is obvious and the supply arrangements for pottery may provide information relevant to the army's organisation for the supply of other goods. Numerous questions may be asked. Were legionary pottery supplies different from those to auxiliary forts? Was the Roman army more self-sufficient in this period? Is it possible to trace a change of garrison on a site by studying the changes in pottery supplies? How much pottery was being imported and for how long? Can this be used to measure the contemporary development of native potting? Is it possible to distinguish the boundaries of a military site by studying the distribution and types of pottery? And can sites be linked ceramically to prove their contemporaneous occupation? These are but a few of the questions to be asked of pottery from military sites.

Some are discussed briefly below, but many require extensive research

on a regional basis before answers can be formulated. There are, however, certain factors which must be considered before any conclusions can be reached 57

about the pottery from individual military sites, and these may be listed: 1.

The geographical location of the site.

2.

The size of the fort or fortress and of its garrison.

3.

The availability of native pottery of adequate quality and quantity from within the area.

4.

The phase of conquest, the attitude of local tribes, and the military function of the site.

5.

The availability of clay suitable for potting in the area.

In the latter part of the ist century, the possibility of a timber site being reconstructed in stone and resulting requirements for tiles should also be considered.

Similar complications arise on the northern frontier (Gillam, 1973).

It is, however, the early timber sites that are considered here, and the five factors listed above are crucial to understanding the pottery.

To explore the

possibilities of the study of pottery from military sites, five sites in the west have been selected, namely Wroxeter, Usk, Kingsholm, Gloucester and Exeter (map, fig. 6.1). The predominance of legionary sites arises partly from the requirement for reasonably large groups of pottery for study, but the site at Kingsholm has proved important for the auxiliary aspect.

As excavation pro-

ceeds, more work on pottery from auxiliary sites will be possible, and some of the problems, particularly in the Midland.,

‚

may be elucidated.

While im-

ported fine wares are considered for each site, research has been concentrated on the ordinary coarse wares to establish supply arrangements for the bulk of the pottery. WROXETER AND USK The two legionary sites at Wroxeter and Usk may conveniently be considered together since their pottery supply arrangements are identical.

The site at

Wroxeter is the legionary fortress of the XIVth Gemina, later garrisoned intermittently by the XXth Valeria Victrix, probably until the late eighties.

It is

not intended to argue the legionary nature of the military occupation at Wroxeter since this will be discussed in the forthcoming publication of the military site. A short resume' of evidence for the historical development of the site is, however, a prerequisite to any discussion of the pottery. The clusters of marching-camps in the vicinity of Wroxeter indicate considerable military activity.

The first trace of permanent military presence in

the area on present evidence appears to be the large fort of 20 acres (8 ha) at Leighton, discovered during aerial reconnaissance (Baker, 1972, 28, fig. 10; St. Joseph, 1973, 234).

This has not been excavated, but its size, location

and defences suggest it lies early in the sequence of military sites.

The well-

known auxiliary fort to the south of Wroxeter was trenched by Professor St. Joseph (St. Joseph, 1953a, 53; 1953b, 84), but has produced no firm evidence for its date, and while it seems likely to predate the main fortress, there can be no certainty.

The foundation of the fortress itself, from the evidence of the

pottery, samian and coins, and the probability of the military situation seems best dated to the governorship of Didius Gallus (i.e., 52-7), although it is uncertain whether it was founded early or late, as a holding garrison against the Welsh tribes after Scapula's campaigns, or as a preliminary to campaigns against Wales under Veranius.

The latest samian from the demolition deposits

58

has been dated to A.D. 85-100 (information from Mr. G. B. Dannell) and a coin of Domitian from the same deposit dated to A.D. 87. The history of the site's occupation was very complex, with the legion away on campaign with Paulinus, probably withdrawn into the Midlands during the Boudiccan rebellion and its aftermath, and the initial garrison, the XIVth, withdrawn from Britain c. A.D. 66/7 (Tacitus, Histories, i, 6; ii, 11). The XXth was probably transferred to replace the XIVth, a factor of some importance if it had formed the garrison at Usk, but the legion would have been away on campaign in Wales and the north during most of the remaining occupation of Wroxeter. The main periods of occupation, therefore, would appear to lie from c. A.D. 53/56 to 60 and from c. AD. 65 to 71. The date of intensive occupation is no less important to any consideration of the pottery than are the excavated buildings. The pottery under discussion comes from the excavations on the Baths site directed by Dr. Graham Webster from 1955 to 1970, which revealed probably two phases of barrack buildings, followed by a large building likely to be either a stores building or fabrica (Webster, 1975, fig. 17 for plan). The change of use of the area is relevant to the rate of coin losses and the disposal of rubbish, and while the coins and pottery appear to reflect the main phases of occupation noted above, further excavation of the legionary site may provide more reliable evidence. Turning to the site at Usk, the close relationship to Wroxeter is immediately obvious. Excavations since 1965 under the direction of Dr. W. H. Manning have gradually demonstrated the site to be a legionary fortress (Wilson, 1975, 223 and plan, fig. 2), likely to have been occupied by the XXth legion, from c. A.D. 55 (or later) to c. A.D. 70 on the basis of samian and coins from stratified deposits. (The later small Flavian fort at Usk is not considered here, although the finds illustrate a complete change in the supply of pottery, as would be expected from the change of garrison and later date). The two sites thus have legionary occupation starting probably in the same governorship, Usk being occupied for a comparatively short period while Wroxeter continued to be held as a legionary site longer, albeit on an intermittent basis. The possibility of the XXth moving from Usk to Wroxeter adds further interest to the study of the pottery. THE POTTERY FROM WROXE TER AND USK The importance of these two sites lies in the fact that they are the only two fortresses in Britain (with the possible exception of Inchtuthil) where the pottery was locally made, of continental type without 'native' influence, under the control of the respective legions. At Wroxeter approximately 80% of the pottery is of a homogeneous fabric and obviously of local origin. A selection of vessels is shown on figs. 6.6,6.7. Imported pre-Flavian fine wares and mortaria account for over half the pottery brought to the site from elsewhere. The potters supplying the fortress were thus producing all the forms of vessels necessary for the legion's requirements, a situation only paralleled at Usk, although it seems probable that a similar arrangement may have obtained at the legionary fortress at Inchtuthil. Over 80% of the pottery attributable to the occupation of the Neronian fortress of Usk is likewise of a single fabric. A brief survey has already been published (Green, 1973a) and Dr. Greene's

59

type series is reproduced here for ease of reference (ligs. 6.2-6.5).

The

interpretation of the pottery from Usk has had to be amended by Dr. Greene, since further excavation and re-examination of the pottery has shown that the equation of the two phases of pottery with a possible two periods of occupation is incorrect.

The Phase 2 pottery (Greene, 1973a, 33 and fig. 2) drawn from

several different sources now appears to have been comparatively insignificant, being mainly derived from pits associated with the demolition of the fortress. Since the pottery from each site is the subject of forthcoming publications, it is not intended to discuss either in depth, but to select the main points of interest and particularly those relevant to other sites.

Individual vessels from

both sites can be paralleled on a number of early military sites in Britain, but the complete assemblages can only usefully be compared with each other.

Even

at Usk, the parallels with Wroxeter cannot be claimed to be close, and notable differences arise in the types of flagons, jars, bowls and the number of coarse ware cups and beakers.

The assemblages are thus relatively distinct but the

two sites are closely linked by the manufacture of their pottery locally, probably by military potters, all the types being of continental derivation, and both sites having vessels which can be more easily paralleled in the Danubian area than on the Lower Rhine. The continental derivation of the Usk types has already been discussed by Greene (Greene, 1973a), and particularly the late La Tene background of the two jars, types 12 and 13 (Greene, 1973a, 31, map B, fig. 1, Nos. 12-14), forming the link to sites in Switzerland and the Danubian area.

The reliance

on locally produced pottery in these areas is entirely consistent with the Roman army's policy of using native pottery wherever it was adequate in quantity and quality, and the appearance of these jar types at Usk is significant in suggesting the presence of a potter

from that region.

It should, however, be noted that

while these jars are common at Usk, representing together 11. 37% of the local pottery (Greene,

1973b), the most prevalent jar is type 11, representing 48.28%

and the pottery assemblage as a whole is firmly rooted in the Rhineland.

The

two-handled bowl, type 20, is remarkable since it represents 3.16% of the local pottery, a considerable percentage when compared with the ubiquitous flangerimmed bowl, type 19, representing 5.56%.

Type 20 is rare in Britain, an

isolated example occurring in the Neronian rubbish dump at Wall (Gould, 1968, fig. 12, No. 33), and a few examples from Colchester (Hull, 1963, fig. 105, No. 331 for instance), but curiously it formed part of the Longthorpe potters' repertoire (Frere and St. Joseph, 1974, fig. 56, No. 123 and unpublished from the kilns) and was also made at the interesting early kilns at Brockley Hill (Richardson, 1948, fig. 4). A notable feature of the Wroxeter pottery is the number of small cups and beakers in coarse ware.

Occasional copies of pre-Flavian fine ware cups were

made at Usk, and imported Lyon ware vessels are reasonably well represented at Wroxeter, but the problems of transporting fine vessels so far inland to Wroxeter may explain this difference between the two sites.

Copies of fine

ware cups were also produced at Colchester (Hawkes and Hull, 1947, fig. 58, No. 12;

Hull, 1963, fig. 91, No. 23), in the kilns at Longthorpe (unpublished

from the kiln site), at Kingsholm (see below fig. 6. 8, No. 5) and probably also at Lincoln as well as Usk. The Wroxeter cups and beakers are, however, different not only in their rim forms and bases, but also in the angular profile

60

of the cups. function

-

Any resemblance to Lyon ware vessels arises from a common

the Wroxeter potters had the skill, as exemplified in the samian

imitations, to produce closer copies.

It is thus interesting that the cups and

beakers can be closely paralleled with the pottery from the Magdalensberg in Austria (Schindler-Kaudelka, 1975).

Rhineland forts had adequate supplies

of colour-coated cups and beakers and there seems to have been little attempt to make such vessels, although a few examples of cups were made at Neuss (Filtzinger, 1972, taf. 94, Nos. 7 and 12 from the kilns), and occasional beakers occur.

The fine-walled cups and beakers found at the Magdalensberg

(occupied c. 25 B. C. to A.D. 45) all appear to have been imported via the trading centre of Aquileia, most coming from Italy (Schindler-Kaudelka, 1975, 172) with only three vessels from the other fine ware production centres (one each from Spain, South Gaul and Lyon).

The Magdalensberg's geographical

position and close trading connections with Italy isolate it from the Rhineland but merchants there were obviously trading with the local tribes in Noricum. The site is interesting for the evidence it provides for the independent development of fine wares in Italy, and it is thus of significance that the Wroxeter cups and beakers can be closely paralleled in form (Schindler-Kaudelka, 1975, tals. 35 to 40 for typological survey).

That this tradition continued throughout the

ist century in Italy is illustrated by the comparatively unimportant kiln at Sutri where the main period of production was between A.D. 60 and 70 (Duncan, 1964).

The relationship of the Wroxeter vessels to these Italian forms repre-

sents an important ceramic connection and must be relevant to the potters working at Wroxeter, in much the same manner as the jars suggest for Usk. The other vessels illustrated from Wroxeter are common continental types and require little comment.

Imitation samian forms are not uncommon on the

continent (see Drack, 1945), particularly in the Danubian area where the best parallels for the carinated bowls (fig. 6.6, Nos. 16 and 17) also occur (at Aislingen:

Ulbert, 1959, taf. 6, No. 4 and 12;

8, No. 3;

taf. 11, Nos. 1, 3).

Kempten: Fischer, 1957, taf.

As with Usk, the assemblage is well para-

lleled in the Rhineland but individual vessels are paralleled further afield, suggesting a potter perhaps from Noricum.

The quantitiy of non-local pottery

apart from fine wares and mortaria at Wroxeter is very insignificant;

a few

vessels from the south-east (in addition to mortaria) including a butt beaker of typical Camulodunum-Verulamium type (Hawkes and Hull, 1947, 238, forms 112, 113), and only one 'native' vessel were found. Valley ware vessels came from demolition contexts; were coming from more than one kiln.

A small number of Severn their fabrics suggest they

Similarly the rare examples of rusti-

cated jars (and jars with other applied decoration) only occur in demolition deposits and, despite the popularity of these jars in the post-military period (Bushe-Fox, 1914, fig. 18, pl. XV:

Atkinson, 1942, fig. 42), they form a

very insignificant part of the assemblage.

This contrasts with their common

appearance on military sites in the Midlands such as Wall (Gould, 1968, fig. 12;

Round, 1969/70, fig. 6) and Baginton (Hobley, 1969 and 1972), and they

may represent a late change in pottery supplies. At Usk there is a wider variety of vessels coming from other sources, (the Phase 2 pottery, see Greene, 1973a, fig. 2) classified as 'Belgic', Severn Valley ware, Durotrigan ware, 'Native', a type of terra nigra, and 'RomanoBritish'.

These all occur as individual vessels with the local military pottery

but the 'Belgic' derived vessels are less frequent. 61

The principal connections

between Usk and other sites in the area only arise from the various Phase 2 vessels, although individual Phase 1 vessels can be paralleled at Kingsholm and Cirencester (Usk types 2, 8, 11, 13, 21, 25, 26 and at Cirencester only Usk type 9).

Not surprisingly, the closest connection is at Gloucester, where

the Severn Valley wares can be fully paralleled by vessels from the earliest deposits below the Gloucester fortress (Hurst, 1972, Period la, below, fig. 6.10), and the Usk vessels almost certainly came from the Gloucester area. The continuance at Gloucester of the same forms of Severn Valley ware and the occurrence there of 'native' ware similar to that from Usk should not obscure the fact that the pottery from the legionary occupation at Gloucester is quite distinct from that occurring at Usk.

Kingsholm could he considered

closer to Usk in having Severn Valley ware, Belgic derived forms, Durotrigan and 'native' wares in addition to vessels in a homogeneous fabric, some of the types having close parallels with Usk Phase 1 types (figs. 6.8 and 6.9). Moreover, some of the non-local mortaria from Usk are so closely similar to those from Kingsholm and Cirencester (fig. 6.9, No. 18) as to imply a common source. Nevertheless, the jars on the two sites are entirely different and the close ceramic connection between Kingsholm and Cirencester is significant. An interesting coarse ware connection is apparent between Usk and the legionary fortress at Exeter in the occurrence of Durotrigan forms at Usk. Apart from the hand-made vessels probably from the Dorset-Somerset area, a number of wheel-thrown Durotrigan type pots appear at Usk, and a similar combination occurs at Exeter where, however, the bulk of the pottery is of Durotrigan type.

Since the occupation of Exeter is broadly contemporaneous

with that at Usk, the difference in pottery supply arrangements is important. Apart from the Durotrigan vessels, the two sites are connected by vessels in the same terra nigra fabric (Greene, 1973a, fig. 2, Nos. 28 and 29, and below, fig. 6. 12, No. 24).

These occur sparsely in occupation deposits at Usk, being

more common in the pits of the demolition period.

It is possible that these

were either made in Britain, or imported from a continental source other than that supplying the normal range of terra nigra platters and cups (Rigby, 1973, 20).

The forms made in this fabric are, however, common on the Continent

and if made in Britain, were probably products of continental potters. Their occurrence in the south-west is enigmatic and whether their absence from Gloucester (and Kingsholm) implies distribution by sea remains to be examined. The Phase 2 pottery from Usk is insignificant as part of the total assemblage, but the links to other sites in the area are of interest.

The non-local pottery

from Wroxeter is too small in quantity, and other sites in the area remain to be excavated.

Work on the Wroxeter pottery has, however, produced two

interesting sidelines.

One arises from the nature of the site since the legionary

fortress underlies the civil city, and it has proved possible to trace the use of the same clay sources continuing in the civil period.

In addition, similar tech-

niques seems to suggest a certain continuity in the pottery manufacture and this aspect will require careful research on the earliest civil pottery. Another result of the pottery work has been to demonstrate how pottery can be used on a distributional basis to indicate the area of occupation at Wroxeter. When post-excavation work started on the pottery from the military deposits, the location of the fortress had not been defined. Re-examination of the pottery

62

from the excavations of Bushe-Fox (Bushe-Fox, 1913, 1914 and 1916) and Atkinson (1942) on the west side of the main north-south road between the forum and the baths brought to light a dichotomy between the pottery and that from the military levels on the Baths site. In view of the existence of an unexcavated area between the Baths and these sites on the west, it became evident that the distinction suggested the location of the western defences of the fortress. Since then traces of these defences had been found during the excavation of the macellum, directed by Dr. Webster (Wilson, 1975, 247), and this evidence together with results from air reconnaissance (Baker, 1972, 26 and fig. 8) and reappraisal of Dame Kathleen Kenyon's sections across the east defences (Kenyon, 1938, Pl. LXX), makes it possible to define the location of the fortress. Pottery could be used to obtain similar information from other sites, particularly where the defences are unknown. The unique feature of Wroxeter and Usk remains the local manufacture of their pottery by military potters. That the army was concerned in making its own pottery need occasion no surprise once the factors listed above are taken into account. Until the pottery from Inchtuthil has been fully examined, it is only possible to consider Wroxeter and Usk but the same factors would apply. Usk lay well inside the territory of the Silures, a hostile tribe whose pottery was inadequate both in quality and quantity to supply a legionary garrison. Wroxeter was situated at the north-west edge of the province, adjacent to hostile tribes in an area where pottery was almost non-existent in the pre-Roman Iron Age. Both fortresses were thus established in hostile areas and it seems improbable that civilian potters would willingly have followed the legions; the Ordovices were still militant as late as Agricola's campaign of A.D. 78 (Tacitus, Agricola, 18), and the Silures were not finally subdued until the governorship of Frontinus (ibid., 17), five years after the evacuation of the Usk fortress. Both sites had clay suitable for potting in the area. il That the pottery was made locally has not been proven scientifically; clay from Usk will fire to a fabric very close to that of the Usk pottery, and thinsections of the Wroxeter fabric by Dr. D. P. S. Peacock can only indicate that it is possible for the clay to have been of local origin. Kilns of a later date are known in the area (Houghton, 1961; 1964), and the fact that the same clay was used after the army had left Wroxeter is probably the most convincing argument for its local origin. There is, moreover, the overwhelming problem of the logistics of hauling pottery sufficient for the size of the garrison, an aspect recently commented upon by Manning in gelation to corn supplies to military sites (Manning, 1975, 114). The pottery from both sites has been shown to have been entirely continental in form and technique, with no trace of any native British pottery influence. At this period shortly after the conquest, this factor must rule out the possibility of native British potters being involved. The parallels with pottery on widely separated military sites on the Continent suggest that the potters were attached to the legions, and it is conceivable they were soldiers. The increase in the number of legionaries epigraphically attested as coming from the provinces of Noricum, Dalmatia. and Raetia in the Claudio-Neronian period (Webster, 1969, 108) may be a relevant factor in view of the parallels with those areas for the Usk jars and the Wroxeter cups and beakers. These vessels may have been the products of only one or two potters, but their occurrence in asemblages 63

otherwise paralleled in the Rhineland suggests potters from different areas. This would occur in a legion drawing recruits from a wide area, but such widely separated parallels would seem unlikely if the potters were civilian. If the legions normally had civilian potters among their craftsmen, it would be apparent at other legionary sites such as Exeter and Gloucester, and the pottery from these sites does not support such a hypothesis. In addition, if it is assumed that the legions at Wroxeter and Usk recruited civilian potters, it is necessary to explain why they should have obtained them from the continent and not from the south-east of Britain. There seems no alternative to the view that the potters at both sites were part of the legion. The fact that Roman legions made their own pottery under certain circumstances is well known, and best demonstrated by such early sites in the Rhineland as Xanten (Hagen, 1912), Haltern (Schonberger, 1969), Mainz-Weisenau (Behrens, 1915) and Neuss (Filtzinger, 1972), where the concentration of large garrisons in hostile territory with poor pottery traditions made it a practical solution, as at Wroxeter and Usk.

There is no documentary

evidence about craftsmen attached to legions until the late 2nd century, to which period the list of immunes compiled by Tarruntenus Paternus belongs (Digest, 50, 6, 7).

The absence of epigraphic evidence for legionary potters should be

viewed in the light of the relatively short life of all potteries attached to legions, and the improbability that potters ever formed a regular part of the legions. The comparatively small number of legionary potters likely ever to have existed is also relevant, and it is debateable whether minor craftsmen in a legion would have described themselves according to their craft rather than as soldiers. The potteries at Wroxeter and Usk belong to a context different from the later legionary depots, represented by Holt (Grimes, 1930) and discussed by Dr. Greene (infra).

Neither of the former were producing tiles, and such kilns

as would have been required could have been sited in an industrial compound or, at Wroxeter, on the banks of the Severn where suitable clay occurred. It seems likely that the work undertaken by legionaries in the pre-Flavian period. sometimes on an ad hoe basis, was more varied, and reorganisation under the Flavian and later emperors resulted in tasks of a non-military nature being undertaken by civilians. KINGSHOLM

-

GLOUCESTER

-

CIRENCESTER

The pottery from these three sites is of interest in the light thrown on their chronological relationship and the differing arrangements made for the supply of pottery. All the pottery considered is unpublished but full publications are forthcoming and discussion has been limited to particular aspects. Space does not permit consideration of the difficulties of interpretation of these sites, or of the problems of troop movements in the area. It seems clear, however, that Kingsholm and Cirencester (Leaholme fort) are auxiliary forts, probably for cavalry, preceding the foundation of the legionary fortress at Gloucester, A.D. 70.

C.

There are several problems relating to the pottery from the small excavation at Kingsholm by Hurst (1975), arising from shallow complex stratification and later occupation on the site. The pottery from securely stratified layers includes a range of vessels in a distinctive gritty fabric, a number of flagons in a homogeneous fabric, and a mortarium probably of local origin, together 64

with a considerable quantity of pre -Flavian fine wares, Pompeiian red ware and a carinated Gallo-Belgic beaker.

If the examination is extended to include

layers less well stratified or with some later contamination, the pottery from the military site can be extended to include a few Severn Valley ware vessels, some 'Belgic' derived pots, Durotrigan and 'native' ware and mortaria probably from Kent.

A note of caution is necessary in considering this pottery since

coins of Vespasian and Domitian were found in the area (Hurst, 1975, 278-9), and it would be difficult to distinguish pottery (of the ist century) post-dating the military site.

The demolition of the military building is well dated by coins

of Nero (including one thought to date to c. A.D. 67/8; information from Mr. M. Watkins) and the samian has a date range of c. A.D. 50-65 with surprisingly little Claudian material (information from Mrs. Felicity Wild).

The site may

be considered in relation to the Leaholme fort at Cirencester, where samian in the fort ditch provides a terminus post quem

of c. A.D. 60-65 (Wacher,

1962), and to the foundation of the Gloucester fortress, indicated by coins in Period lb deposits of A.D. 64-6 (Hurst, 1972, 39). The most important feature of the Kingsholm pottery (figs. 6.8 and 6.9) is the fact that the site shared with Cirencester the same sources for much of it s pottery.

The gritty grey fabric (occasionally oxidized) extending over a

range of vessels (fig. 6. 8, Nos. 3-6, 16; fig. 6. 9, Nos. 19-24) is identical on both sites, as is the flagon fabric (typical example is fig. 6. 8, No. 14) and the grey-cored mortarium fabric (fig. 6. 9, No. 18).

The ceramic connection

may be extended a stage further to include Usk, since the mortaria appear identical, and the unusual two-handled jugs (in the same fabric as the other flagons) in the Leaholme fort ditch equate with type 9 in Usk fabric.

The

demolition of the Kingsholm fort appears to precede, if not overlap, the construction of the Gloucester fortress, and it is, therefore, surprising to find very little ceramic connection between the two sites.

The gullies and pits of

Period la at Gloucester (Hurst, 1972) are packed full of Severn Valley ware and little else (fig. 6.10), whereas at Kingsholm, only one sherd of Severn Valley ware could be considered stratified.

Moreover none appears in the

Cirencester fort ditch, although sherds were found in a context possibly predating the fort, and the fabric occurs again in the later defences at the Sands, Cirencester (Brown and McWhirr, 1967, 192;

1969, 222).

There are clearly

difficulties about the appearance of Severn Valley ware on military sites, particularly when the pottery from Period lb at Gloucester is considered (fig. 6. 11), where it occupies a position secondary to that of a fairly gritty grey fabric. Despite the extraordinarily close connection between Cirencester and Kingsholm, divergences do occur which are of interest.

For instance, Ciren-

cester has a few sherds of the pottery from Oare (Swan, 1975) of which no examples have been found at Kingsholm, and yet occasional sherds occur at Gloucester in Period 1 and later deposits (unpublished from the Northgate site, Wilson, 1975, 273).

Similarly, if the Durotrigan vessel at Kingsholm

(fig. 6. 9, No. 26) belongs to the military site (it was found in a Saxon pit cut through the Roman layers), this contrasts with the absence of this ware in Cirencester, except in Insula IV, considered to be outside the military sites although possibly of similar or slightly later date.

There are further problems

with the 'Belgic'-derived vessels, occurring in two fabrics (fig. 6. 9, Nos. 31, 32), which much await final work on the Cirencester pottery.

65

Nevertheless,

the strength of the connection between the two sites rests on common forms such as jars and flagons, and all the evidence points to both sites being abandoned as part of the same policy that led to the foundation of the legionary fortress at Gloucester.

Such a hypothesis could be advanced on the grounds

of the probabilities of the military situation, but the pottery evidence makes it more credible. known;

Where the flagons, jars and mortaria were made is un-

that it was within a reasonable distance of both sites seems obvious

and, in view of the 'waster' cup from Kingsholm (fig. 6.8, No. 5), the source could conceivably lie close to Kingsholm. The flagons and mortaria at Kingsholm and Cirencester are of relatively common types but the fine-walled delicate jars are distinctive. It seems unlikely to be pure coincidence that the rim forms (particularly fig. 6.9, No. 19) can be closely paralleled at Neuss (Filtzinger, 1972, taf. 3, l-3).and, while the present state of research on this pottery precludes too many speculations, it is perhaps conceivable that some of the pottery may indicate a military hand. All the vessels made in the gritty fabric common to Kingsholm and Cirencester are of continental type but the only exceptional types are the jars.

A similar

situation may have occurred at Longthorpe where the presence of a continental potter working with local native potters seems virtually certain (Frere and St. Joseph, 1974 and unpublished pottery from the kilns). These sites are, however, still distinct from Wroxeter and Usk in drawing a considerable proportion of their pottery from a number of different sources.

Arrangements

for pottery supply were clearly changed at the time of the foundation of the Gloucester fortress, and any military potter who might have been involved must have moved away with his unit. The principal difficulty with the pottery from the Gloucester fortress lies in the contrast between the abundance of Severn Valley ware in the Period ía gullies pre-dating the fortress (see fig. 6.10), and its insigificance in the assemblage from the fortress occupation layers of Period lb (fig. 6.11).

This

dichotomy suggests a complete change in the supply of pottery but may be due in part to the material of Period lb representing the pottery current at the time of the demolition of the fortress, earlier occupation pottery having been disposed of in rubbish pits outside.

It is, however, clear that during the

occupation of the fortress, pottery which can only be described as RomanoBritish, displaying few if any native influences, was widely available, as is shown by the occurrence of such pottery in demolition contexts at Usk (Greene, 1973a, 33).

Very few vessels are remotely similar to those from the earlier

sites, the flagons particularly showing a considerable change in fabric and technique.

Glevum ware, as a type of Severn Valley ware, does not predomi-

nate and it is interesting that the occurrence of this ware at Cirencester shows a marked break;

it appears sparsely in early levels and then disappears

apparently until the 2nd century, by which time it was common all over the area of the Severn Valley and had reached the west end of Hadrian's Wall (Webster, 1972).

Rusticated ware (and Durotrigan ware) occurs at Gloucester and also

appears to have arrived late at Cirencester, where it has been found in Insula IV together with Durotrigan and 'Belgic' wares, probably from Post-military Occupation. There appears to be no question of military involvement in the manufacture of pottery at Gloucester and this is consistent with the availability of adequate

66

supplies of pottery from civilian sources.

Since the occupation of Gloucester

was partly contemporaneous with that of the fortress at Wroxeter, this demonstrates that the Roman army adopted different solutions to the same problem according to local factors. EXETER -WADDON HILL- HOD HILL

-

LAKE FARM, WIMBORNE

There now seems little doubt that the military occupation of Exeter was legionary (Wilson, 1972, 344;

1973, 313;

1974, 452;

1975, 276; Goodburn,

1976, 358), and it is therefore interesting to find the pottery assemblage very close in character to those appearing at Waddon Hill (Webster, 1960;

1965)

and Hod Hill (Richmond, 1968), small forts likely to have held mixed garrisons of legionaries and auxiliaries, and also to that from the site at Lake Farm, Wimborne (Wilson, 1974, 455 and earlier summaries), the nature of which remains to be elucidated.

Evidence for similar pottery also occurs at South

Cadbury (Alcock, 1972, fig. 24).

The sequence of sites is noteworthy with

the possibility of occupation beginning at Waddon Hill after the abandonment of Hod Hill (Webster, 1970, 187), and Lake Farm possibly representing a large early campaign base (Manning, 1976, 22).

The importance of the pottery from

these sites, and particularly from Exeter, lies in the clear demonstration that the Roman army was prepared to use local native pottery wherever it was adequate both in quality and quantity. The fact that Exeter was a legionary fortress made no difference to this policy. A considerable amount of pottery from the military layers at Exeter is now available for study and is well dated by samian to c. A.D. 50-65, confirmed by the absence of Neronian bronze coins.

A selection of vessels from

military layers on several sites in the city (including two vessels from the contemporary site at Topsham, Jarvis and Maxfield, 1975) appears on fig. 6.12, and this illustrates a pottery assemblage entirely different from that occurring at other legionary fortresses. Despite its close resemblance to Durotrigan vessels, not all the pottery is hand-made and the fabrics suggest a variety of sources.

A detailed account

of the fabrics by Mr. Bidwell appears in the Topsham excavation report (Jarvis and Maxfield, 1975, 235) and his fabric numbers are used here.

At least three

hand-made fabrics (fabrics 1, 31 and 40) have been distinguished, and a further two or three fabrics (fabrics 151, 190 and 371) occur among the wheel-thrown vessels, some of the latter being of Durotrigan type but others showing distinct Roman influence.

Only one of the wheel-thrown fabrics can be shown to

be locally produced (fabric 190), and this occurs on vessels of purely Romanised form, such as the ubiquitous flange-rimmed bowl (fig. 6. 12, No. 14). It is interesting to note that apart from the close similarities between the handmade vessels at Lake Farm and Exeter, the wheel-thrown vessels at Lake Farm are analogous to those from Exeter in being made in fabric finer than the handmade pottery, although the clay used may have come from the same source. Three flagon fabrics have been distinguished at Exeter (fabrics 401, 406 and 435), although variations within the fabric groupings suggest that more than three sources were involved.

Many of the rim forms suggest the imitation of

Roman types by native potters (a feature also of mortaria at Exeter), as was the case at the Cone Mullen kiln (Calkin, 1935). 67

Pottery in Poole Museum

may indicate another kiln site of equally early date in the area.

It is not im-

possible that pottery from the Cone Mullen kiln (or others in Dorset) was shipped along the coast to Exeter, and certainly the flagon No. 20 may be closely paralleled by the limited range produced there (Calkin, 1935, fig. 5, Class A). Recent excavations at Topsham (Jarvis and Maxfield, 1975) produced a quantity of ring-necked flagons, the majority in the fabric of the most common ringnecked versions at Exeter (fabric 435). and this may indicate the unloading of pottery supplies for the area at Topsham. Sp ace does not allow detailed discussion of the Exeter pottery, the publication of which is forthcoming.

However, interesting links with Usk are provided by

the Durotrigan vessels, both hand-made and wheel-thrown, and the unusual types of terra nigra.

The bowl, No. 25, is unparalleled, but No. 24 (from

Topsham) is closely paralleled by many examples at Usk (Greene, 1973a, fig. 2, No. 29).

The occurrence of this unusual terra nigra on military sites in

the south-west may suggest importation from a source other than that supplying the south-east (Rigby, 1973, 20; also report in Jarvis and Maxfield, 1975, 233), perhaps indicating specific arrangements made by the army. An unusual feature at Exeter is the occurrence of imitation Pompeilan red ware platters (alongside regular imported examples);

although only two ex-

amples have been found in Exeter (No. 23 is a small version), further vessels in the same fabric occur at Topsham which do not appear to copy any known Pompeiian red ware form, one having a carinated profile (Jarvis and Maxfield, 1975, fig. 12, Nos. 36 and 47). Analysis of the fabrics of the black-burnished wares and the flagons would elucidate the sources of these vessels, particularly as the Corfe Mullen kiln has a distinctive heavy mineral suite (information from Dr. David Williams). Until this analysis work has been done, it is a reasonable speculation that much of the pottery came from the Dorset-Somerset area.

It is, however, curious

that although tile kilns must have been in production in the legionary period to supply tiles for the bath-house, there is so little evidence for locally-made pottery (tile spreads have been noted in the northern part of the city beyond the supposed defences).

The supply of tiles, possibly from civilian sources, for

the Flavian bath-house at Chester may be analogous (Nash-Williams, 1969, 44, fn. 8).

This reinforces the view that the army involved itself in potting

only when it was unavoidable, and further, that military potters were not a regular feature of the Roman army. CONCLUSIONS This brief survey of pottery from a number of military sites is by no means exhaustive for instance, no reference has been made to the spread of 'Belgic' -

pottery styles in the wake of the army units moving through the Midlands. Neither has it been possible to comment on the military sites in eastern England, such as Longthorpe, Lincoln and Great Casterton.

Nevertheless, certain con-

clusions may be drawn about the army's arrangements for the supply of pottery, and also about the way in which this pottery can be used to answer questions other than 'what date?' The pottery supplied to a legionary fortress will only differ from that supplied to an auxiliary fort under exceptional circumstances.

68

Arrangements for

pottery supply to Wroxeter and Usk differ from those pertaining to other sites not because of their status as fortresses, but because of the inadequacy of local native pottery, coupled with the size of the garrison and the hostility of the area.

The lack of distinction between types of supply to different army

units is emphasized by the assemblages from Exeter, Waddon Hill, Hod Hill and Lake Farm. The self-sufficiency of the Roman army is amply demonstrated by the manufacture of its own pottery at Wroxeter and Usk, and the suggestion that it could be involved in potting on a partial basis arises from the pottery at Kingsholm and Cirencester.

While the Longthorpe pottery has not been dis-

cussed, it is relevant to note that the finer vessels from the site are entirely continental in form, and the possibility of similar pots occurring at Lincoln implies the attachment of potters to the legion.

On the other hand, Exeter

illustrates the army's preference not to be involved in making pottery. Apart from the shipping of supplies probably along the coast from Dorset to Exeter, it is conceivable that the army arranged for supplies of fine wares, perhaps under contract as suggested by Greene (1973a, 29), and these arrangements may have extended to the importation of the unusual terra nigra vessels. Equally these may reflect arrangements made by individual quarter-masters with reliable suppliers. Turning to the information that can be gained about native potters, it is clear that the army had immense influence, and the development of Severn Valley wares can be traced on early military sites.

Additionally, some asses-

sment of the trading limits of the Durotrigan potters and those from Oare in Wiltshire may be made (Swan, 1975).

Continuity of occupation at Wroxeter

provides a unique opportunity to assess the effect of military potters on the succeeding civilian craftsmen.

Early pottery from the sites excavated by

Bus he-Fox and Atkinson hints at an element of continuity in technique and fabric, and the pottery from early civil deposits beneath the macellum, currently being excavated (Wilson, 1975, 247; viously be crucial.

Goodburn, 1976, 329), will ob-

The legionary fortress at Exeter occupies an almost historic place in being the first large military establishment to recognise the worth of the Durotrigan potter, and the sequence of pottery from the military to the civil occupation provides much useful information about the transition to black-burnished ware (Bidwell, infra.). A certain admiration is due to the native potters of the south for their valiant efforts to imitate Roman flagons and mortaria, especially at Exeter and Corfe Mullen. That the pottery will also provide information about sites when used on a distributional basis is demonstrated by the pottery from Wroxeter, where examination of pottery from neighbouring sites in the city gave the clue to the line of the western defences of the fortress.

This method could prove useful on

urban sites where there is no opportunity for large scale excavation, and has possibilities for defining the extent of the Kingsholm fort.

A similar situation

arises at Wall in Staffordshire where evidence for early occupation on a number of small sites has led to the suggestion of a large military site (Gould, 1964, 15; fig. 3).

Dudley and Webster, 1973, 113;

Frere and St. Joseph, 1974, 7,

The differences between the individual groups of pottery from Wall

69

suggest this method could be usefully applied, although emphasis must be placed on stratified pottery due to the manurial use of rubbish. One of the most important results has been the recognition of a strong ceramic connection between the two auxiliary forts of Kingsholm and Cirencester.

There seems no reason why similar connections should not occur

between adjacent forts in other areas, and the implications for theories on military dispositions are important.

It is, however, crucial that exact parallels

exist for common pottery, such as jars, since flagons and mortaria can obviously travel widely. A change of garrison can affect the pottery supplies to a site;

this is shown

by the assemblagefrom the Flavian fort at Usk when compared with that appearing in the fortress and that used by the demolition squad.

The lack of connection

between Kingsholm and Gloucester may also be cited.

In both cases, however,

it was the changing size of the garrison which was the crucial factor, and the likelihood of recognising a change of garrison in a fort in Dorset from the pottery is slight. It is perhaps not inappropriate to close this short discussion by quoting Vegetius, writing of the legions in the late 4th century (De re militari, 2, 7): It was their main concern that they should always have in camp a supply of whatever the army might need.' In the case of pottery supplies, the versatile Roman genius is evident.

70

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iwish to thank the following for their kindness in allowing me access to their pottery and in discussing their sites or particular aspects with me:

Messrs.

W.A. Baker, P. Bidwell, P. Carrington, G.B. Dannell, N.H. Field, J. Gould, Dr. K.T. Greene, Mrs. K.F. Hartley, Mr. M. Hassall, Mrs. C.M. Heighway, Mr. H. Hurst, Miss C.M. Johns, Dr. W.H. Manning, Dr. D.P.S. Peacock, Mr. J. Rhodes, Miss V. Rigby, Mr. A.A. Round, Professor J.K. St. Joseph, Mrs. V. G. Swan, Mr. J. S. Wacher, Mr. M. Watkins, Dr. Graham Webster, Dr. and Mrs. J.P. Wild, and Dr. David Williams. Iam also grateful to the staff of the following museums for their assistance: Rowley House Museum, Shrewsbury, the Wroxeter site Museum, Devizes Museum, Dorchester Museum, Poole Museum,

Grosvenor Museum, Chester,

Gloucester City Museum, the City and County Museum, Lincoln, and the British Museum. Iam particularly grateful to Mr. Paul Bidwell, Dr. Kevin Greene and Miss Valery Rigby for discussing pottery being prepared for publication by them. Assistance received from Mr. Bidwell, Dr. Greene and Mr. Henry Hurst in the form of photocopies of drawings is also gladly acknowledged. are my own.

71

All errors

3

K.G.

1P Fig. 6.2

Type series of pottery from Usk.

1:4.

1p

20

CM.

10 2

K.G.

1 5 1

Fig. 6.3

Type series of pottery from Usk.

1:4.

2Pcm.

12

13

14

1,4

15

17

19.2 19.1

19.3

20

K.G.

9,,, Fig. 6.4

5

Type series of pottery from Usk.

10

15

1:4.

20cm.

21

22

23 26

24

-

26

0

V

0

AS,Ilaiao

-

C

__j

29.1 29.2

\IIii.UuuIpIuII.l

30

31.1

K.G.

i p

Fig. 6.5

Type series of pottery from Usk.

1:4.

i

2Pcm.

THE POTTERY FROM USK (figs. 6.2-6.5) The fabric is quite fine textured, without added temper, the visible inclusions being fine quartz sand grains. It is fired in both oxidising and reducing conditions, and is consistent throughout the assemblage. 1

Orange, fine, sparse fine sand.

2

Orange, fine.

3

Orange, fine.

4

Pale orange surface, orange fabric, fine, some sand.

5

Pale orange, fine.

6

Dark grey surface, paler fabric, fine.

7

Orange, fine.

8

Orange, fine, some sand.

9

Orange red, fine.

10

Grey surface, paler fabric, fine.

11.1

Orange, fine, some sand.

11.2

Orange, fine, some sand with burnt black patches on surface.

11.3

Grey fine, some sand.

11.4

Grey-blue surface, paler fabric, fine, some sand.

12

Grey-blue surface, paler fabric, fine, some sand.

13

Dark grey-blue surface, grey-buff fabric, fine.

14

Grey-blue fabric, fine, some sand.

14

Grey, fine.

15

Orange, fine.

16

Dark grey-blue surface, grey-buff fabric, fine.

17

Orange-buff, fine, some sand and grog.

18

Orange, fine.

19.1

Grey surfaces, paler fabric, fine.

19,2

Orange, fine.

19.3

Grey-blue surface, paler fabric, fine, some fine sand.

20

Orange fabric, darker core, fine.

21

Dark grey surface, pale-grey-blue fabric, fine.

22

Grey-green fabric, fine with sand and grey grog.

23

Pale grey, fine.

24

Orange, redder below groove, fine.

78

25

Grey surface, paler fabric, sparse fine sand roughcasting.

26

Orange, fine, some fine sand.

27

Orange, fine, some grog.

28

Orange surface, paler fabric, fine, some sand.

29.1

Orange, fine.

29.2

Grey with abraded grey black surface, fine.

30

Orange-red, brownish slip survives.

Trituration:

quartz grains. 30.1

Grey-blue, fine, sparse grog and sand.

31.2

Dark blue-grey surface, paler fabric, fine.

79

fine white

/

9

15

12 16

19

9,

14

Fig. 6.6

‚

Pottery from Wroxeter.

1p 1:4.

1p

2Pcm.

28

25(n

LJ

24

33 1 %

3

4

-7

35

41L

IN

38

r

4&

i p

44

Fig. 6.7

Pottery from Wroxeter . 1:4.

15

2Pcm.

THE POTTERY FROM WROXETER (fig. 6.6 and 6.7) The term 'Wroxeter fabric' has been used to simplify the descriptions of the locally made pottery. This is a close textured fabric, the most visible inclusions being quartz sand and small black grits with the occasional red grit.

The fabric varies in its content of quartz from a relatively fine fabric

to one with abundant small quartz grains; the hardness is likewise affected by the number of inclusions, and the reduced wares are usually much harder. 1

Light brown fabric and surface; fairly soft, fine Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces although smooth.

2

Light brown fabric and surfaces; fairly hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces. ribbed.

3

Red-brown fabric and surfaces; fairly hard, Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces.

4

Only stump of handle survives, probably three-

Wide attachment for handle, probably three-ribbed.

Light cream-brown surfaces on light brown fabric; hard, fine fabric, probably fine Wroxter fabric. type of handle.

5

Untreated surfaces.

No indication of

Red-brown surfaces and fabric with dark blue-grey core; very hard Wroxeter fabric.

Untreated surfaces, overfired and distorted.

Exterior surfaces dark grey-brown in places and interior streaked blue-grey. 6

7

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; fairly hard, fine Wroxter fabric. Untreated surfaces. Handle probably two ribbed Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; fairly hard, fine Wroxter fabric, including a large white grit, c. 5-6 mm size. Smoothed from base to girth, the trimming lines being visible at the girth.

8

Light brown fabric and surfaces; the fabric is akin to fine Wroxeter fabric, but the finish is unusual. sparse small quartz grains. vertically on the neck.

Fine, dense textured fabric with

Burnished horizontally on the body but

9

Grey fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxter fabric. smoothed or knife trimmed.

10

Dark grey fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric. burnished lines on basal zone.

11

Basal zone either

Light grey-brown fabric and grey surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric. Irregular burnished lines, particularly on basal zone.

12

Irregular

Blackened rim.

Light grey fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric.

Irregular

burnished bands around girth with wide burnished bands around base. Abundant signs of burning, particularly on rim and wall. 13

Red-brown fabric with darker red-brown surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces. Fine working-lines on exterior of rim.

14

Light grey fabric and surfaces; hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. surfaces. 82

Untreated

15

Brown-grey fabric, dark grey surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces, although smooth above carination.

16

Light grey fabric and surfaces; fairly soft fine Wroxeter fabric. Smoothed external basal zone and neat footring.

17

Light grey surfaces and fabric, the latter showing a light red-brown core in places; hardness varies from fairly soft to hard; fine Wroxeter fabric.

18

Smoothed externally below carination; neat rootring.

Dull light brown fabric and surfaces except where burnt grey both internally and externally alter breakage; hard, Wroxeter fabric.

Tooled

lines on upper wall; smoothed below carination; two grooves on flange. 19

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric.

Smoothed

basal zone; two grooves on flange. 20

Orange-brown fabric and surfaces; fairly hard fine Wroxeter fabric. Smoothed basal zone.

21

Very distorted.

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric. Decorated externally with fine curved rouletting.

22

Red-brown fabric with dull brown, discoloured, surfaces; fairly hard, Wroxeter fabric. cordons.

23

Very poor condition; neatly finished grooves and

Drawn from non-joining sherds.

Light grey fabric and surfaces; fairly hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. Delicate everted rim; wall thickness c. 1 mm; knife trimmed base.

24

Light brown fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric.

Smoothed

basal zone. 25

Light grey fabric and surfaces; fairly hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces.

26

Drab brown fabric and external surface, grey interior surface; hard, fine Wroxeter fabric.

27

Irregular burnishing on basal zone.

Light grey-brown fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric, coarser texture than usual for beakers. trimming on base.

28

Untreated surfaces; slight knife

Burning externally on girth.

Light brown-grey fabric and surfaces; hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. Exterior decorated with wide flat cordons and grooves.

Traces of

burnishing on exterior. 29

Grey fabric and surfaces, colour varying from dark blue-grey to browngrey; hard, Wroxeter fabric.

Uneven grooves on upper wall and

irregular burnished lines below girth. 30

Light grey surfaces on a light brown fabric; fairly soft, fine Wroxeter fabric. Smoothed basal zone, neat footring.

31

Light grey fabric and surfaces; fairly soft fine, Wroxeter fabric. Basal zone smoothed below lower groove; neat footring.

32

Brown-grey fabric and surfaces; hard, fine Wroxeter fabric.

Exterior

surface burnished smooth above lower groove, interior untreated.

83

33

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; fine friable soft fabric, probably under-fired fine Wroxeter fabric. Poor condition. Probably same form as No. 32 above.

34

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; hard, fine textured fabric with sparse quartz grains; probably fine Wroxeter fabric. Smoothed surfaces, particularly on interior.

35

Red-brown fabric and surfaces, light grey core in thicker sherds; fairly hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces, but smoothed lower wall and finely grooved below carination.

36

Red-brown fabric and surfaces; fairly hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces.

37

Tiny hole in base from fault in manufacture.

Red-brown fabric and surfaces, discoloured darker in places; fairly soft, fine Wroxeter fabric. Untreated surfaces; string-marked base and rim 'thumbed over' to form frilled effect.

38

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric. surfaces; rim delicately notched to form frill.

39

Light red-brown fabric, light grey surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric. Sooted internally and externally at nozzle.

40

Untreated

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces; hard, fine Wroxeter fabric. Sooted at nozzle; concentric grooves around discus. The type appears to imitate Loeschcke I (1919) rather than later types of lamp.

41

Light grey fabric and surfaces; fine, fairly soft Wroxeter fabric. Internal moulding at junction of wall and base, grooved externally around rim; some smoothing externally.

42

Surface colour varies from red-brown to dark blue-grey externally, dark blue-grey interior.

Fabric colour varies in the same manner,

half red-brown and half grey.

Hard, Wroxeter fabric; slight trace of

a moulding at the junction of wall and base; grooved externally below rim. Over-fired and distorted. Knife-trimmed basal zone. 43

Light brown fabric and surfaces; hard, Wroxeter fabric, fine but some grits up to 5 mm size; grooved externally but top groove discontinuous. Fine working-lines externally below rim; smoothed basal zone below grooves.

44

Red-brown fabric and surfaces, surfaces partially discoloured by burning; coarse textured fabric, abundant small quartz grains and some red grits up to 8 mm size. Wroxeter fabric. No trituration grits; stringmarked base. Heavily burnt after breakage.

45

Light pink-brown fabric and surfaces with grey core; hard, dense textured fabric with common small quartz grains, some up to 6 mm size, and black grits.

Almost certainly of local origin and probably a

variety of Wroxeter fabric. with clumsy base.

No trituration grits.

84

Untreated surfaces

lklwll••

Pottery from Kingsholm.

1:4.

24,)

28 29

/ 9

30

,,,n,,

Fig. 6.9

Pottery from Kingsholm.

1P 1:4.

THE POTTERY FROM KINGSHOLM (figs. 6.8 and 6.9) Vessels occurring residually in later contexts, or of doubtful stratification are denoted by asterisks. 1*

Light grey fabric, darker surfaces.

Dense, fine textured fabric with

sparse inclusions, occasional small quartz grains, black and dark brown grits.

Surfaces tooled to a smooth finish, particularly on interior.

Concentric groove on interior floor. stepped. 2

Red-brown fabric and surfaces.

Underside of footring slightly

Fairly fine texture, inclusions mainly

small quartz grains, some red grits and occasional white inclusions. Finely finished with very faint rouletting around rim, partially obliterated by horizontal scratches.

Two concentric rings on interior of base.

Smooth finish externally. 3

Grey fabric and surfaces.

Hard, fairly dense fabric, common small

quartz grains and some black grits. 4

Untreated surfaces.

Light brown fabric, dark grey surfaces. quartz grains. fabric.

5

Hard fabric, common small

Decorated with barbotine dots of the same clay as the

Blue-grey fabric, light brown surfaces, discoloured externally and streaked on interior.

Hard, over-fired fabric, with sparse small

quartz grains, small black and red grits, some white inclusions. A 'waster'. 6

Brown-grey fabric with dark grey to black surfaces. abundant small quartz grains. faced'.

7

Hard fabric,

Untreated surfaces, almost 'sand-

Red-brown fabric with brown-black surfaces.

Softish fine textured

fabric, sparse tiny quartz particles and some red grits.

Finely

burnished externally and on interior of rim. 8

Dark grey-cored fabric with light red-brown surfaces.

Hard fabric,

with variegated coloured quartz grains and some red grits.

Untreated

surfaces; slight evidence for handle attachment immediately below rim. 9

Cream fabric and surfaces. Fine fabric, virtually grit-free, occasional red specks. Untreated surfaces.

10

Cream fabric and surfaces. occasional red specks.

11

Very fine fabric, almost grit-free,

Untreated surfaces.

Dirty white fabric and surfaces. common red grits. C.

Hard, dense textured fabric, fairly

Untreated surfaces.

4 cms wide, probably three-ribbed.

Evidence for a wide handle, Smooth finish and sharply

modelled. 12

*

Light brown fabric and sufaces.

Dense fabric, but grittier than other

flagons, with small quartz grains, red and black inclusions. surfaces.

87

Untreated

13*

Light red-brown fabric and surfaces.

Fairly dense fabric, some white

(calcite) grits and coloured quartz grains. ribbed handle. 14

Untreated surfaces;

Light cream-brown surfaces on grey-cored fabric. textured fabric, with sparse calcite and black grits.

15

Light brown fabric and surfaces.

Red-brown fabric and surfaces. grains. Untreated surfaces; burning on interior.

17*

18

Untreated surfaces.

Hard fabric, with common small quartz Signs of

exterior and inside rim

Fairly fine fabric, sparse small quartz grains, calcite

and red, perhaps ironstone, inclusions. seating on rim. flagons.

Untreated surfaces.

edge of rim 'thumbed over'.

Light red-brown fabric and interior surface, coated cream.

Hard fine, dense

Fine textured fabric, sparse inclu-

sions of quartz grains, black, red and calcite grits. 16

three-

Colour washed surface.

Lid

Similar to No. 27 and also to the fabric of the common

Grey-cored fabric, light brown interior surface, lighter exterior. Fine textured fabric, sparse calcite inclusions, occasional small quartz grains and black specks. White quartz trituration grits, up to c. 4mm size, sparsely distributed.

19

Red-brown cored fabric with grey surfaces.

Hard, fairly dense textured

fabric, common small quartz grains, rounded and variegated colours. Untreated surfaces. Characteristic offset on shoulder, slight furrows externally on wall and rough surface. 20

Grey fabric and surfaces.

Hard fabric, with common small quartz grains.

Characteristic slight furrows on exterior of wall and untreated rough surfaces, almost 'sand-faced'. 21

Red-brown fabric, light brown surfaces.

Hard, fairly fine textured fab-

ric with quartz grains, both yellow and white, some red and black grits. Characteristic slight furrows in wall exterana1ly at girth, offsets on shoulder and rough, untreated surfaces, but smoothed at base. 22

Brown-grey fabric and surfaces.

Hard fabric with common small quartz

grains. Characteristic slight groove on shoulder and furrows on exterior wall at girth; untreated rough surfaces, almost 'sand-faced'. 23

Grey fabric and surfaces.

Hard fabric with abundant small quartz grains.

occasional black grit and a large quartz grament,

C.

8mm.

Character-

istic slight furrows on wall externally and rough, almost 'sand-faced' surfaces. 24

Grey fabric and surfaces, darker interior. small quartz grains. fine quartz.

25*

Hard fabric with common

Untreated surfaces, almost 'sand-faced' with

Dark grey fabric and surfaces, almost black.

Hard, coarse textured

fabric, inclusions being small quartz grains, black and red grits, the latter very like 'grog'.

Probably hand-made and wheel-finished;

signs of turning internally.

Smooth exterior.

88

slight

26*

Dark grey-black fabric and surfaces.

Dense textured fabric with abun-

dant small quartz grains of pink and white. Hand-made but probably wheel-finished. Highly burnished on shoulder and below the zone of decoration. Zone left untreated and decorated with tooled latticing in groups of two stripes, the angle of which varies. 27*

Red-brown fabric (with grey core) and interior surfaces, exterior has traces of a cream wash. Fine, dense fabric, sparse inclusions, occasional red, black and quartz grains. Stabbed decoration on upper two zones, with irregular scored lines on lower zone. 17 and to the usual flagon fabric.

28*

Orange-brown fabric, lighter surfaces.

Fine, almost grit-free fabric,

very sparse red, white and quartz grains. zontal tooled lines. 29*

Red-brown surfaces, grey-cored fabric.

Exterior has irregular horiFairly hard, fine fabric with

sparse black, possible ironstone and mica. evidence for type of handle. 3Ø*

Untreated surfaces.

decorated zone unburni-

Grey fabric and surfaces with red-sandwich line in fabric.

Hard fabric

with common small quartz grains, some red and black grits. surfaces except for some smoothing in basal area. 32*

No

Light grey-cored fabric, light brown surfaces. Hard, dense textured fabric with sparse small quartz grains, red and black grits. Exterior well burnished to a smooth finish on shoulder; shed and decorated with tooled diagonal lines.

31*

Similar fabric to No.

Dark grey fabric, darker surfaces. common small quartz grains. rim.

Untreated

Hard, gritty textured fabric with

Burnished externally and on inside of

89

41

2

1

3 6

14 12

1

13

15

O>

201

18

‚1 p

Fig. 6.10

1

Pottery from Gloucester, period Ia.

20

1:4.

cm

1\

3? 6

71

5)

91

804

H

T

1N2

101

-