The Roman Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region 9781841710846, 9781407320953

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
OXFORDSHIRE POTTERY REVISITED
OXFORDSHIRE POTTERY INDUSTRY: BIBLIOGRAPHY SINCE 1976
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2. THE KILN SITES -- (1) DISTRIBUTION AND SETTING
CHAPTER 3. THE KILN SITES -- (2) STRUCTURES AND ORGANISATION
CHAPTER 4. THE CLASSIFICATION OF OXFORD WARES
CHAPTER 5. THE WHITE WARES -- (1) MORTARIA
CHAPTER 6. THE WHITE WARES -- (2) PARCHMENT WARES
CHAPTER 7. THE WHITE WARES -- (3) FINE AND COARSE WHITE WARES
CHAPTER 8. THE WHITE WARES -- (4) BURNT AND GRITTED WHITE WARES
CHAPTER 9. THE OXIDISED WARES -- (1) WHITE COLOUR-COATED WARES
CHAPTER 10. THE OXIDISED WARES -- (2) RED AND BROWN COLOUR-COATED WARES
CHAPTER 11. THE OXIDISED WARES -- (3) FINE AND COARSE OXIDISED WARES
CHAPTER 12. THE REDUCED WARES
CHAPTER 13. THE HISTORY OF THE POTTERY INDUSTRY OF THE OXFORD REGION
APPENDIX 1. GAZETTEER OF KILN SITES
NOTE TO APPENDICES 2-10
APPENDIX 2. CATALOGUE OF MORTARIA
APPENDIX 3. CATALOGUE OF PARCHMENT WARE
APPENDIX 4. CATALOGUE OF FINE AND COARSE WHITE WARES
APPENDIX 5. CATALOGUE OF BURNT WHITE WARES AND GRITTED WHITE WARES
APPENDIX 6. CATALOGUE OF WHITE COLOUR-COATED WARES
APPENDIX 7. CATALOGUE OF RED AND BROWN COLOUR-COATED WARES
APPENDIX 8. CATALOGUE OF POTTERS' STAMPS USED ON COLOUR-COATED WARES
APPENDIX 9. CATALOGUE OF FINE AND COARSE OXIDISED WARES
APPENDIX 10. CATALOGUE OF REDUCED WARES
APPENDIX 11. GAZETTEER OF SITES ON WHICH OXFORD WARES HAVE BEEN FOUND
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

BAR 43 2000 YOUNG

The Roman Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region

THE ROMAN POTTERY INDUSTRY OF THE OXFORD REGION

Christopher J. Young

BAR British Series 43 B A R

2000

The Roman Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region

Christopher J. Young

BAR British Series 43 2000

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 43 The Roman Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region © C J Young and the Publisher 2000 First published by British Archaeological Reports in 1977 Reprinted by Archaeopress in 2000 with a new introduction and updated bibliography The author's 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 9781841710846 paperback ISBN 9781407320953 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841710846 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2000. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

· OXFORDSHIRE POTTERY REVISITED

The republication of The Roman Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region (referred to hereafter as Oxfordshire Pottery) after so many years gives the opportunity to review the conclusions reached then and progress on the subject over the last quarter of a century. The main text is unaltered. I am grateful to Paul Booth for producing a bibliography of the most significant publications on the Oxford industry over that period (see following section). I thank him too for reading and commenting on this new introduction. Responsibility for the opinions expressed and any errors is obviously entirely mine. BAR 43 was essentially the published text of my D.Phil thesis. Work on this was carried out between 1969 and 1977. Excavations at the Churchill Hospital, which added much to understanding of the industry, were carried out over three summer seasons between 1971 and 1973. Thereafter, I carried out some work on pottery until the mid-1980s but then turned to other things. The result is that this introduction is essentially a return to something once familiar but long forgotten. This has advantages in providing a clear perspective but disadvantages in some lack of familiarity with recent work in the area. ltis salutary to look back at what was known and understood of the Oxford industry in 1969. A number of kiln sites had been dug over the previous century, mainly to the east of Oxford. The only major work had been that of Thomas May on the pottery excavated at Sandford half a century before he wrote (May 1922) and the last published excavation was Atkinson's work at Between Towns Road. Cowley (Atkinson 1941). Since the Second War there had been a number of salvage or other small-scale excavations on kiln sites east of Oxford, around Hanborough and Cassington, and on Boars Hill. None had been fully published. As a result, there were substantial amounts of pottery in the Ashmolean Museum, but very little from scientific excavation or securely stratified contexts. This pottery had been recognised within the region as being out of the ordinary because of the high quantities of mortaria and red colour-coated wares. There was some awareness that some of it might have travelled quite long distances (eg Bushe-Fox 1926, 89-90), but generally Oxford ware tended to be identified as products of the much better known New Forest Industry. The last attempt to survey the industry as a whole had been published in 1939 (Harden;Taylor and Sutherland, 1939). This position was not uncommon in the study of Romano-British pottery in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The principal use of pottery was still seen as dating evidence. While students were aware of the possibilities of using pottery distributions to study trade and the economy of Roman Britain, there was little reliable material on which to base such studies as few industries had been studied or characterised and even fewer had been published. The need to carry out such studies was recognised as was the opportunity to work on a much more systematic basis with the very large quantities of pottery emerging from good quality excavations which were the consequence of some University research projects and the burgeoning growth of rescue archaeology. One response to this need was the foundation of the Study Group for Romano-British Coarse Pottery in 1971 which from small beginnings has helped to develop the study of Romano-

British pottery over the last thirty years. One of the first fruits of its labours was the Council for British Archaeology 1972 Oxford Conference (Detsicas 1973) which in its time was a landmark in the growth of the subject. It was also possible to fund a number of the basic studies needed to provide the foundation for the future such as Fulford's work on the New Forest (Fulford 1975). The Oxfordshire project was one of these studies, funded by a State Studentship from the then Department of Education and Science, while the Churchill excavations were funded partly by the Churchill Hospital itself and partly by the Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings of the Department of Environment. As always, the work depended on the support and assistance of many people whose help was acknowledged in the original BAR. It is pleasing though to have the opportunity to thank again Sheppard Frere who supervised the thesis, Barrie Cunliffe and John Peter Wild who examined it, David Brown who provided unstinting support in the Ashmolean throughout the work and Tom Hassall who made the Churchill Hospital work possible. My debts to numerous other pottery workers, excavators and museum curators are obvious and are gratefully acknowledged. The objectives of the study were: • • • •

to classify the wares, typology and chronology of the industry; to examine the conditions of production; to establish the distribution of Oxfordshire wares; and to place the industry in its local and national context

These objectives were tackled first by study of the material from the known kiln sites to work out what was produced at each site and, if possible, what different combinations of wares were produced at each site. This was linked to study of the kiln site evidence for any information on how the wares were produced. Fortunately it was also possible to carry out limited excavations at St Luke's Road, Cowley, and major excavations at the Churchill Hospital. This work produced much new evidence and the first insights into the organisation of production. The other avenue of approach was to study pottery from excavations and in museum collections over wide areas outside the Oxford region. The purpose of this was firstly to establish the distribution of Oxford products. A second, and equally important purpose was to identify examples of Oxford wares in dated contexts and so provide a chronology for the industry and its wares. The study established the existence of three levels of production in the region. Firstly, there were ephemeral sites, mainly early, producing for very local markets. At the second level, there were more substantial sites, again producing coarse wares for local markets. The sites on Boars Hill, south-west of Oxford, are good examples of the latter. These modes of production are common all over south-eastern Britain and produced wares which developed essentially from their Iron Age predecessors. The production sites were made more visible than in the Iron Age by the use of new kiln technology and later by the sheer scale of production. The third level of production was of a totally different order. East of the Thames and Cherwell, there were numerous kiln sites producing a range of quite specialised wares from

the early second century, with some tantalising glimpses of possible first-century fine-ware production also (for example from waste material dumped down an early Roman well at Dorchester Abbey (see Oxfordshire Pottery Appendix 1, Dorchester Abbey Well)). The area used for these works was well situated with regard to raw materials and to communications, and activity intensified from around ADl00. During the second century, the main products were coarse wares, mortaria and some flagons. The mortaria at least had a distribution extending into the Severn Valley as well as eastward down the Thames. In the mid-third century, the range of products increased with the introduction of colour-coated wares and parchment wares. The extent and intensity of the distribution of these wares, and of the mortaria was much greater than in the second and early third centuries, with a spread across most of southern Britain It was clear that from about AD250 the Oxford industry was one of the major pottery producers of Roman Britain, on a par with other major industries such as the New Forest, the N ene Valley or Mancetter/Hartshill. Like those industries, Oxfordshire production came to an end about AD400. The opportunity to excavate c5,000 square metres of the Churchill production site shed unparalleled light on how these wares were produced (see Oxfordshire Pottery, Chapter 2 and Appendix 1). There at least, the focus of activity appeared to be a workshop building with ancillary features and up to four kilns. Four such clusters were found, two dated to the late third century and two dated to the fourth, presenting a picture of nuclei of small scale producers within an industrial landscape. Over the intervening quarter century there have been a number of changes in our perception of the industry. Within the major production area, a number of additional actual or probable production sites have been identified. At the northern end, new sites have been identified by field-walking around Noke (Cheetham 1995, 422). These, if established by further investigation as kiln sites, push the area of production north of the Beckley ridge and down toward the edge of Otmoor. Within the main area of known production, further kilns have been dug at the Churchill, and St Luke's Road, Cowley (Green 1983), while it is now clear that a major production centre lay in the Blackbird Leys area (Henig and Booth 2000, 166). In the apparent gap between the East Oxford group of production sites and those to the north of Dorchester, the Oxford Archaeological Unit have discovered a major site at Lower Farm, Nuneham Courtenay (Booth et al 1993). Over 40 kilns are grouped in enclosures either side of a ditched trackway. The net effect of these discoveries is to emphasise the scale and magnitude of the Oxford industry and to suggest that the gaps in the distribution of production sites shown in the major production area (see Oxfordshire Pottery, Fig 2) are more apparent than real. There have also been some developments in our understanding of what was produced in the early period of the industry. The early fine-ware industry glimpsed in the Dorchester Abbey Well deposit has become less shadowy with some evidence of production there or in Abingdon (Henig and Booth 2000, 163, Timby, Booth and Allen 1997). There is more evidence on experimentation in fine wares in the second century with the discovery of glazed wares at Lower Farm (Booth et al 1993). These join such phenomena as the mould fragment discovered at Littlemore many years ago (Young 1971). It has been suggested, convincingly,

that the origin of mortarium production in the region was the result of immigration of potters from the Verulamium area, thought this has yet to be substantiated by the identification through maker's stamps of one potter working in both centres (Henig and Booth 2000, 164) We are also now aware that over late Roman Britain as a whole, the pattern of production was more complex than appeared the case in 1977. A number of minor (or minor aspects of major) industries producing colour-coated wares in the Oxford tradition have been identified (Bird and Young 1981). At Hartshill, there is one Oxford-style kiln with Oxford products which stands out starkly in contrast to the mortaria and other products of the major industry there. At Harston near Cambridge, there is again one Oxford-type kiln producing Oxford wares. Pevensey ware, the production centre for which is not known, also looks like the work of an Oxford migrant potter. All these appear to be examples of Oxford potters who had moved away and were trying to set up closer to potential markets by producing mainstream Oxfordshire products. A second development was that potters around the edges of the Oxfordshire production area seem to have specialised in wares which were not main-stream Oxford products. An example of this is the minor industry at Wycomb, Andoversford, in the Cotswolds, which was producing reddish-brown beakers and flagons (see Young 1981, 43-4). Essentially these complemented the Oxford range rather than competing directly with it, and similar brown-slip colour:..coatedwares have been found all the way from Cirencester to Warwickshire. Lastly, knowledge of the distribution of Oxford wares has been refined by major regional studies of areas such as Kent (Pollard 1988), or of major quantified deposits such as Chelmsford (Going 1987). The latter showed, for example, that Oxford wares were not reaching Chelmsford in any quantities before AD 360. The main conclusions reached in 1977 stand up well to the passage of time and subsequent discoveries. The significance of the Oxford industry, the range of major products and the extent of their distribution remain unchallenged. The pattern has been refined in one or two areas and we now know more about the density of production sites and earlier experimentation in fine wares. One feature that is emerging is the location of the production sites within ditched enclosures which, in the case of the Churchill, appear to be those of an earlier field system. This merely emphasises the fact that the industry was part of a settled and utilised landscape (cf Young 1986, Salway 2000, Henig and Booth 2000) Re-read after so many years, Oxfordshire Pottery comes over as a very 'factual' book. Its principal purpose, indeed, was to establish the basic corpus, dating and distribution of the industry. This it achieved though with very little quantification which could have added depth to our understanding. These basic 'facts' still stand. Oxfordshire Pottery is much less effective in developing an understanding for the nature and organisation of the society of which it was a part. This is also an aspect of Roman Britain which has been much studied in the intervening years. Major areas for investigation include why the industry developed in the upper Thames valley, how the wares were distributed, and in what social and economic circumstances, how did the potteries fit into the settlement and society of the region and who took the profits from them.

There has been considerable debate over the extent to which the economy of Roman Britain eventually evolved into a true market economy or remained embedded. Certainly in the case of the Oxfordshire industry, recent commentators (eg Millett 1990, 166 - 168, Henig and Booth 2000, 170) have pointed out that the main potteries are located probably on Catevellaunian territory close to the presumed cantonal boundaries between them, the Dobunni and the Atrebates, along the Cherwell and the Thames. How this influenced the trading patterns is a point that can be debated. It has been argued by some that even in the late Roman period, trade was still to some extent socially controlled by local tribal structures. Against this is the fact that we know that by the same period, land could be owned by one person in many different provinces, which implied a weakening of such controls. There is also the issue of internal, Roman-imposed customs duties on provincial boundaries, to say nothing of mechanical influences (such as availability of navigable waterways) on trade. No single factor explains the distribution pattern of Oxford wares and it is probably necessary to look to a combination of them to understand how the industry might have worked. Similar problems affect our understanding of how the industry was integrated into local society. Its location next to the presumed cantonal boundary may be significant in social terms. It may just reflect the pattern of communications or the location of accessible raw materials. Certainly, the potters must have crossed the presumed boundary to obtain the grit used in the mortaria which outcrops south of the Thames. Similarly, if the potteries generated wealth and required investment in distribution networks, the obvious signs of wealth are in the great villas west of the Cherwell in presumed Dobunnic territory, and not close to the industry at all which lies on the supposed Catevallaunian east bank. Villa sites such as those at Islip and Beckley lie closer to the industry but are too little known at present. There is also the enigmatic site at Headingtom Wick (Jewitt 1851 and see below). Given the nature of the Roman world as a whole, it is likely that the industry was dominated by great landowners, but it is not possible at present to see how this was achieved. At present, therefore, it is difficult to test the various hypotheses on the organisation of the industry and its relationship to local society. To do more will require more evidence. It would be helpful to have more detailed information on the distribution of Oxford wares across Britain and how this relates to the distribution of other major wares. This would need in its turn to be related to the sort of settlement analysis referred to above. It would be helpful also to publish the various unpublished kiln excavations, particularly the

Churchill, to see whether the organisation of production there was the same as for the rest of the industry. Early publication of the various investigations of what was clearly a very major site at Blackbird Leys is highly desirable. This model could also be tested by future investigation of production. A very important part of such future work should be environmental analysis to learn more about how the landscape of the industry worked and, in particular, the nature of fuel sources and consumption. Lastly, it would be helpful to look at sites in the vicinity of the industry which are not production sites to see what light they shed on its nature. Of particular interest would be the site at Headington Wick, last investigated in the 1850's (Jewitt 1851). This site is close to the main concentration of the industry, has produced apparent wasters and appears to have major stone buildings. It could shed much light on how the industry worked.

All these however are avenues for the future. At present the opinions and questions in the concluding paragraph of Oxfordshire Pottery remain as valid, and almost as unanswered, now as they did in 1977.

Bibliography

R JC Atkinson 1941 'A Romano-British Potters' Field at Cowley, Oxon', Oxoniensia, 6, 921 J Bird, and C J Young 1981 'Migrant Potters - the Oxford connection" in AC and AS Anderson (eds) Roman pottery research in Britain and beyond, Brit Archaeol. Rep. (Int. Ser.) 123, Oxford, 295 - 312 Booth et al 1993. P Booth, A Boyle, GD Keevil, 'A Romano-British kiln site at Lower Farm, Nuneham Courtenay, and other sites on the Didcot to Oxford and Wooton to Abingdon watermains, Oxfordshire', Oxoniensia 58, 87 - 217 JP Bushe-Fox 1926, First Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (London) CJ Cheetham 1995, 'Some Roman and Pre-Roman Settlements and Roads by the Confluence of the Cherwell and the Ray near Otmoor', Oxoniensia 60, 419 - 26 A P Detsicas 1973 (ed) Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery (London) M GFulford 1975 New Forest Roman Pottery (Brit Archaeol Rep 17) C J Going 1987, The Mansio and other sites in the south-eastern sector of Caesaromagus: The Roman Pottery (CBA Res Rep 62) S Green 1983, 'The Roman pottery manufacturing site at Between Towns Road, Cowley, Oxford', Oxoniensia 48, 1 - 12 D B Harden, M V Taylor and C H Sutherland 1939, 'Romano-British Remains' County History of Oxon 1, 267 - 345

Victoria

M Henig and P Booth (with T Allen) 2000, Roman Oxfordshire (Stroud) L Jewitt 1851, 'On Roman Remains recently discovered at Headington, near Oxford' J Brit. Archaeol. Ass 6, 52 - 67 T May 1922, 'On the Pottery from the Waste Heap of the Roman Potters' Kilns discovered at Sandford, near Littlemore, Oxon, in 1879' Archaeologia 72,225 - 242 M Millett 1990, The Romanization of Britain (Cambridge)

R J Pollard 1998, The Roman Pottery of Kent P Salway 2000, 'Roman Oxfordshire', Oxoniensia 94, 1-22 J.R.Timby, P.Booth and T.G.Allen 1997, A new Early Romanfineware industry in the Upper Thames Valley (Oxford Archaeological Unit unpublished report) C J Young 1971, 'A pottery mould fragment from Littlemore, Oxon', Britannia 2, 23 8 - 240 C J Young 1981, 'The Late Roman Fine Wares' in B Rawes 'The Romano-British Site at Wycomb, Andoversford', Trans Bristol and Glaue Archaeol Soc 98, 11-55 CJ Young 1986, 'The Upper Thames Valley in the Roman Period' in G Briggs, J Cook and T Rowley (eds) The Archaeology of the Oxford Region (Oxford) 58-63

Christopher Young Oxford August 2000

OXFORDSHIRE POTTERY INDUSTRY: BIBLIOGRAPHY SINCE 1976

This has been divided into three main sections. The first lists general sources and standard publications on production. The second contains unpublished 'client type' reports on specific component sites of the industry - it should be noted that reports of this type which contain only negative evidence have been omitted from this list. The third section lists selected excavation and finds reports with material which is particularly relevant to the understanding of the Oxfordshire industry. These are sites at which Oxford products occur in significant quantities or which contain particularly useful quantified data; no attempt has been made here to note the mere incidence of Oxford products to achieve a level of coverage consistent with that found in the Appendices of Young 1977.

Production sites

Bird, J, and Young, C, 1981, Migrant potters - the Oxford connection, in A C and A S Anderson (eds) Roman pottery research in Britain and north-west Europe, Brit Archaeol Rep (International Series) 123, 295-312 Booth, P, Boyle, A, and Keevill, GD, 1994, A Romano-British kiln site at Lower Farm, Nuneham Courtenay, and other sites on the Didcot to Oxford and Wooton to Abingdon water mains, Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia 58 (for 1993), 87-217 Cheetham, CJ, 1996, Some Roman and pre-Roman settlements and roads by the confluence of the Cherwell and the Ray near Otmoor, Oxoniensia 60 (for 1995), 419-426 Green, S, 1984, The Roman pottery manufacturing site at Between Towns Road, Cowley, Oxford, Oxoniensia 48 (for 1983), 1-12 Henig, M, and Booth, P, 2000, Roman Oxfordshire, Stroud Swan, V G, 1984, The pottery kilns of Roman Britain, Royal Commission on Historical Monuments Supplementary Series 5, London

Unpublished 'client type' reports relating to production sites etc Blackbird Leys

Allen, T G, 1994, Windale School, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, Archaeological Evaluation, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report Cropper, C, and Roberts, M, 1996, Peripheral Road and Housing Area C2, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, NGR SP555020, Archaeological Excavations 1995-96: Post-excavation assessment and publication synopsis, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report, October 1996

Ford, S, 1999, The excavation of Roman deposits on the line of the Fry's Hill Gas Trench, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, Thaines Valley Archaeological Services Client Report, September 1999 Kiberd, P, 1996, Archive Report and Summary Report on Archaeological Excavation, Archaeological Zones E and D, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, Tempvs Reparatvm Client Report, November 1996 OAU, 1995a, Windale First School and Nursery, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, Planning Application No 94/456/DF Archaeological Watching Brief, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report, May 1995 OAU, 1995b, Peripheral Road and Housing Area C2, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, NGR SP555020, Archaeological Evaluation Report, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report, August 1995 OAU, 1995c, Blackbird Leys Peripheral Road, Oxford, NGR SP 555020, Archaeological Watching Brief, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report, October 1995 OAU, 1996b, Blackbird Leys 'Zone C', Oxford, NGR SP 554022, Archaeological Salvage Excavation Report, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report, August 1996 Richmond, A, 1995a, Archaeological Evaluation (Stage 2) Site D and Site D extension, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, Tempvs Reparatvm Client Report, November 1995 Richmond, A, 1995b, Archaeological Evaluation (Stage 3) Recreation Ground, Blackbird Leys, Oxford, Tempvs Reparatvm Client Report, November 1995 RPS Clouston, 1996, Oxford United Football Club Stadium Evaluation Report, Unpublished Client Report Headington: Bayswater Brook area

OAU, 1993a, A40 Headington Bypass Archaeological Assessment, Volume 2: the Technical Report, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report OAU, 1993b, A40 Headington Bypass Archaeological Assessment, Volume 2: the Appendices, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report Pine, J, 2000, The excavation of part of a 3rd century Roman settlement and later Roman road at Stowford Road, Barton, Oxford, Thaines Valley Archaeological Services Client Report Lower Farm, Nuneham Courtenay

OAU, 1996a, Lower Farm, Nuneham Courtenay, Oxfordshire SP 539005, Report on the Evaluation of a Romano-British Kiln Site, Oxford Archaeological Unit Client Report (English Heritage), March 1996

Pottery reports, mostly Oxfordshire and (some) adjacent counties, of significance for the products of the industry

Booth, P, 1994, Mortaria, in S Cracknell and C Mahany (eds) Roman Alcester: Southern extramural area 1964-1966 excavations, Part 2, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 97, 132143 Booth, P, 1995, Roman pottery, in A Boyle, A Dodd, D Miles and A Mudd, Two Oxfordshire Anglo-Saxon cemeteries: Berinsfield and Didcot, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph No. 8, Oxford Archaeol Unit, 16-26 Booth, P, 1997a, Pottery and other ceramic finds, in C Mould, An archaeological excavation at Oxford Road, Bicester, Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia 61 (for 1996) 75-89 Booth, P, 1997b, The pottery, in P Booth, Ast hall, Oxfordshire, excavations in a Roman 'small town: 1992, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph No 9, Oxford Archaeol Unit, 105134 Bradley, R, 1979, Rescue excavation in Dorchester-on-Thames 1972, Oxoniensia 43 (for 1978), 17-39. Brodribb, AC C, Hands, AR, and Walker, DR, 1978, Excavations at Shakenoak Farm, near Wilcote, Oxfordshire, Part V- Sites Kand E, Oxford Brown, L, and Leggatt, E, 1984, The Roman pottery, in S Rahtz and T Rowley, Middleton Stoney, excavation and survey in a North Oxfordshire parish 1970-1982, Oxford, 76-90 Cooper, N J, 1998, The supply of pottery to Roman Cirencester, in N Holbrook (ed), Cirencester: the Roman town defences, public buildings and shops, Cirencester Excavations V, Cirencester, 324-350 Dungworth, D, 1993, A re-examination of the distribution of Oxfordshire and New Forest wares, Britannia 24, 255-257 Evans, J, 1996, Roman pottery, in S Cracknell (ed), Roman Alcester vol 2: Defences and defended area; Gateway Supermarket and Gas House Lane, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 106, London, 58-97 Green, S, 1986, An Oxfordshire face-neck flagon from Beedon, Berks, Oxoniensia 50 (for 1985), 279-280 Green, S, and Booth, P, 1993, The Roman pottery, in T G Allen, TC Darvill, LS Green and M U Jones, Excavations at Roughground Farm, Lechlade, Gloucestershire: a prehistoric and Roman landscape, 113-142, Oxford Green, S, and Young, C, 1985, The Roman pottery, in B Cunliffe and P Davenport, The temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath; 1 (1) the site Oxford Univ Comm Archaeol Monog 7, Oxford, 143-60

Hands, A R, 1993, The Romano-British roadside settlement at Wilcote, Oxfordshire 1 Excavations 1990-92, Brit Archaeol Rep (Brit Ser) 232, Oxford Hands, A R, 1998, The Romano-British roadside settlement at Wilcote, Oxfordshire I1 Excavations 1993-96, Brit Archaeol Rep. (Brit Ser) 265, Oxford Hughes, J, 1985, The pottery, in M Foreman and S Rahtz, Excavations at Faccenda Chicken Farm, near Alchester, 1983, Oxoniensia 49 (for 1984), 31-34 Keely, J, 1986, The coarse pottery, in A Mc Whirr, Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester Excavations III, Cirencester, 158-189 Leach, P, 1993, The pottery, in A Woodward and P Leach, The Uley shrines, excavation of a ritual complex on West Hill, Uley, Gloucestershire: 1977-9, English Heritage Archaeol Rep 17, 219-249 Lee, F, Lindquist, G, and Evans J, 1994, Romano-British coarse pottery, in S Cracknell and C Mahany (eds) Roman Alcester: Southern extramural area 1964-1966 excavations, Part 2, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 97, 3-92 May, J, 1978, Romano-British and Saxon Sites near Dorchester-on-Thames, Oxoniensia 42 (for 1977), 42- 79

Oxfordshire,

Miles, D, Hofdahl, D, and Moore, J, 1986, The pottery, in D Miles (ed), Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, Abingon, Oxon: an investigation of late Neolithic, Iron Age, RomanoBritish and Saxon settlements, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 50, microfiche 7 Raven, S, 1990, The Romano-British pottery, in T G Allen, An Iron Age and Romano-British enclosed settlement at Watkins Farm, Northmoor, Oxon, Thames Valley Landscapes, The Windrush Valley, Vol 1, Oxford Univ Committee for Archaeol, Oxford, 46-51 Rowley, T, and Brown, L, 1982, Excavations at Beech House Hotel, Dorchester-on-Thames 1972, Oxoniensia 46 (for 1981), 1-55 Sanders, J, 1979, The Roman pottery, in G Lambrick and M Robinson, Iron Age and Roman riverside settlements at Farmoor, Oxfordshire, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 32, 46-54 Saunders, J E, 1981, The Romano-British pottery, in J Hinchliffe and R Thomas, Archaeological investigations at Appleford, Oxoniensia 45, 69-81 Symonds, RP, and Tomber, RS, 1994, Late Roman London: an assessment of the ceramic evidence from the City of London, Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 42 (for 1991), 59-99 Timby, J, 1996, Pottery, in G Hey, Iron Age and Roman settlement at Old Shifford farm, Standlake, Oxoniensia 60 (for 1995), 124-136

Timby, J, 1997, The pottery, in N Holbrook and A Thomas, The Roman and early AngloSaxon settlement at Wantage, Oxfordshire, Excavations at Mill Street, 1993-4, Oxoniensia 61 (for 1996), 131-147 Timby, J, 1998, Kingscote Site 2, in JR Timby, Excavations at Kingscote and Wycomb, Gloucestershire: A Roman Estate Centre and Small Town in the Gloucestershire Cotswolds with Notes on Related Settlements, Cirencester, 239-267 Timby, J, 1999, Later prehistoric and Roman pottery, in A Mudd, R J Williams and A Lupton, Excavations alongside Roman Ermin Street, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire: The archaeology of the A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester Road Scheme, Vol 2: Medieval and post-medieval activity, finds and environmental evidence, Oxford Archaeol Unit, 320-365 Timby, J, Booth, P, and Allen, T G, 1997 A new Early Romanfineware industry in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxford Archaeol Unit unpublished report Turner, J, 1991, 399-400

Romano-British moulded heads from Shotover, Oxoniensia 54 (for 1989),

Wilson, MG, 1985, The pottery, in S S Frere, Excavations at Dorchester on Thames, 1963, Archaeol J 141 (for 1984), 155-172 Young, CJ, 1978, Romano-British [pottery], in M Gray, Northfield Farm, Long Wittenham, Oxoniensia 42 (for 1977), 19-23 Young, C (J), 1980, The late Roman finewares, in B Rawes, The Romano-British site at Wycombe, Andoversford; excavations 1969-70, Trans Bristol and Gloucester Archaeol Soc 98, 41-46 Young, C J, 1982, Late Iron Age and Roman pottery, in H J Case, Cassington, 1950-52: Late Neolithic pits and the Big Enclosure, in Settlement patterns in the Oxford region: excavations at the Abingdon causewayed enclosure and other sites (H J Case and A W R Whittle eds), Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 44, London, 139-147

Paul Booth Oxford Archaeological Unit August 2000

CONTENTS Page List of Tables Illustrations A clmowledgements

CHAPTER 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

1 Introduction 3 The Kiln Sites - (1) Distribution and Setting 15 The Kiln Sites - (2) Structures and Organisatin 51 The Classification of Oxford Wares 56 The White Wares - (1) Mortaria 80 The White Wares - (2) Parchment Ware 93 The White Wares - (3) Fine and Coarse White Wares 113 The White Wares - (4) Burnt and Gritted White Wares 117 The Oxidised Wares - (1) White Colour-Coated Wares The Oxidised Wares - (2) Red and BrovmColour-Coated Wares123 The Oxidised Wares - (3) Fine and Coarse Oxidised Wares 185 202 The Reduced Wares 231 The History of the Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region

APPENDIX

1

Gazetteer

Note to Appendices 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11

Catalogue Catalogue Catalogue Catalogue Catalogue Catalogue Catalogue Catalogue Catalogue Gazetteer found

Bibliography

of Kiln Sites

242

2-10

257

of of of of of of of of of of

258 271 276 281 282 286 337 340 345

Mortaria Parchment Wares Fine and Coarse White Wares Burnt White Wares and Gritted White Wares White Colour-Coated Wares Red and Brown Colour-Coated Wares Potters' Stamps used on Colour-Coated Wares Fine and Coarse Oxidised Wares Reduced Wares Sites on which Oxfordshire Wares have been

357 374

LIST OF TABLES Page

Table 1

Dimensions

of Type 5a Kilns

35

2

Dimensions

of Type 5b Kilns

38

3

Dimensions

of Type 5c Kilns

40

4

Location, Date Range and Products Oxfordshire Kiln Types

of 42

5

Dated Contexts and Phases of Oxford Kiln Sites

55

6

Relative Sequence of Oxfordshire

Mortaria

58

7

Dates of Oxfordshire

White-ware

Mortaria

8

Dates of Oxfordshire

Parchment-ware

9

Dates of Oxfordshire Types

Fine and Coarse White-ware

Dates of Oxfordshire Types

Burnt and Gritted White-ware

11

Dates of Oxfordshire

White Colour-Coated

12

Dates of Oxfordshire Types

Red and Brown Colour-Coated

13

Dates of Oxfordshire

Fine and Coarse Oxidised Types

14

Dates of Oxfordshire

Reduced-ware

10

Types

62

Types

92 111-2 116

Types

122 182-4

Types

200-1 229-30

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure

1

Map of Roman Britain, showing late fine-ware potteries, communications and town and other major settlements thought to have been important markets for the Oxford potters

2

Roman Settlement

3

The Oxford region, showing kiln sites, and sources of raw material

4

Ancillary structures kiln sites

5

Pottery

6

Workshop buiidings, Phase 4a

7

Workshop building, Complex C, Churchill plan of Phase 2 complex, Churchill

8

Oxfordshire

kilns,

types 1-4, 6

33

9

Oxfordshire

kilns,

types 5a-b

36

10

Oxfordshire

kilns,

types 5c-d

39

11

Complexes

A and B, Churchill,

Phase 4a

47

12

Complexes

C and D, Churchill,

Phase 4b

48

13

Makers'

14

Distribution of white-ware (Types Mi-6)

mortaria,

c. 100-180

63

15

Distribution of white-ware (Types Mi0-16)

mortaria,

c. 180-240

65

15

Distribution of white-ware (Types Mi 7-21)

mortaria,

~. 240-300

66

17

Distribution

of white-ware

mortaria,

~. 300-400

67

18

\Vhite-ware

mortaria,

Types Mi-4

69

19

White-ware

mortaria,

Types M5-9

71

20

White-ware

mortaria,

Types M10-16

73

21

White-ware

mortaria,

Types Mi 7-18

74

22

White-ware

mortaria,

Types M19-21

75

driers

stamps

in the Upper Thames

Complexes

and graffito

4

communications

11

tools from Oxfordshire

17

kiln sites

21

and potters'

from Oxfordshire

valley

opp. p .1

A and B, Churchill,

Phase 4b;

from white-ware

mortaria

25 27

59

Figure

Page

23

White-ware

mortaria,

Type M22

77

24

White-ware

mortaria,

Type M23

78

25

Distribution

of parchment

26

Parchment

27

ware

83

ware,

Types P1-23

85

Parchment

ware,

Types P24-5

88

28

Parchment

ware,

Types P26-40

89

29

Distribution

30

Fine and coarse

31

of fine and coarse

white ware

98

white wares,

Types W1-20

101

Fine and coarse

white wares,

Types W21-33

103

32

Fine and coarse

white wares,

Types W36-55

104

33

Fine and coarse

white wares,

Types W56-75

109

34

Distribution

35

Burnt white ware, Types GW1-6

36

Distribution

of white colour-coated

ware,

37

Distribution

of white colour-coated

mortaria

38

White colour-coated

39

Stamp-types

40

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types Ci-11

wares,

135

41

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C12-18

wares,

136

42

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C20-37

wares,

137

43

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C40-6

wares,

138

44

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C47-50

wares,

139

45

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C50-1

wares,

140

46

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C54-64

wares,

141

47

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C68-74

wares,

142

48

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C75-80

wares,

143

of burnt white ware

114

Types BW1-2, Gritted

wares,

white ware

115

except mortaria

118 119

Types WC1-7

121

used on red and brown colour-coated

wares

130

Figure

Page

49

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C81-5

wares,

144

50

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C93-4

wares,

145

51

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C97-100

mortaria,

146

52

Distribution of red and brown colour-coated Types C101-117 and body .sherds

wares,

147

53

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C1-11

149

54

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C12-19

151

55

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C20-30

153

56

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C31-9

155

57

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C40-4

157

58

Red and brown colour-coated

wares,

59

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C 50-4

161

60

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C 55-67

163

61

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C68-74

165

62

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C75-78 .8

167

63

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C78, 9-80

168

64

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C81-84. 9

169

65

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C84.10-90

171

66

Red and brown colour-coated

ware,

Types C91-6,

172

67

Red and brown colour.:..coated mortaria,

68

Makers' stamps used on red and brown colour-coated nos. 1-39

wares,

178

69

Makers' stamps used on red and brown colour-coated nos. 40-69

wares,

180

70

Distribution

of fine and coarse

Types C45-9

159

101-119

Types C97-100

175

oxidised wares

190

71

Fine and coarse

oxidised wares,

Types 01-24

192

72

Fine and coarse

oxidised wares,

Types 025-41

197

73

Fine and coarse

oxidised wares,

Types 042-59

198

74

Reduced wares,

Types Ri-14

210

75

Reduced wares,

Types R15-16

211

76

Reduced wares,

Types R1 7-20

213

77

Reduced wares,

Types R21-3

214

Figure

Page

78

Reduced wares,

Types R24-8

215

79

Reduced wares,

Types R29-37

218

80

Reduced wares,

Types R38-9

219

81

Reduced wares,

Types R40-8

221

82

Reduced wares,

Types R49-59

223

83

Reduced wares,

Types R60-74

225

84

Reduced wares,

Types R75-81

227

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As always a work such as this could only have been completed with the assistance of many people and institutions, to all of whom it is my pleasant duty to acknowledge my debts and offer my thanks • This work was started while I held a State Studentship of the Department of Education and Science and continued while I was employed by the Ashmolean Museum. Without the forbearance of my present employers, the Department of the Environment, it would_ never have been completed. Work at the Churchill Hospital could not have been carried out without the support of T. Hassan and the Department of the Environment. Numerous people and institutions have given me information or allowed access to material. There are too many to list here. Their names will be found in the appropriate places in Appendix 11. To all of these I here record my thanks. I owe a special debt to the following directors of excavation or field workers who have allowed me to draw and publish (and in some cases provided drawings) material found by them prior to their own publications: P. Anderson (Baldon), L. Barfield (Droitwich, Bays Meadow), P. Barker (Wroxeter), M. Biddle (Winchester Research Unit), ;R. Bradley (Dorchester, Old Castle), J. Bradshaw (Kentish material), R. A. Chambers (Hardwick), G. Clarke (Lankhills Cemetery, Winchester), A • Down (Chichester), Professor S. Frere (Dorchester), C. Green (Littlechester; Poundbury), Miss H. Healey (Hecltington Fen), Ms. C. Heighway (Gloucester), J. Hinchliffe (Appleford), A . Johnson (Shadwell), G. Lambrick (Farmoor), P. Leach (!!chester) , R. Leech (Wearne), W. Manning (Usk), A. McWhirr (Cirencester), D. Miles (Abingdon, BartonCourtFarm), Dr. J. N. L. Myres (Kennington), M. Parrington (Abingdon), C • Pym (Open Brasenose; Shotover), P. Rahtz (Chew Valley Lake), B. Rawes (Wycombe, Glos.), W. Rodwell (Wickford), T. Rowley (Middleton Stoney; Dorchester, Beeches House), I. Stead (St. Albans, King Harry Lane), G. Webster (Cirencester), S. West (Icklingham), I. Whitfield (Baldon), P. Woods (Wood Burcote). I must also record my thanks to the authorities of the following museums who have allowed me to illustrate material in their care: Buckinghamshire County Museum, Aylesbury; Roman Baths Museum, Bath; Bristol Museum; British Museum; University Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Cambridge; National Museum of Wales, Cardiff; Chedworth Villa Museum; Cheltenham Museum; Grosvenor Museum, Chester; Corinium Museum, Cirencester; Colchester and Essex Museum; Department of the Environment (Richborough, Ospringe); Gloucester Museum; Guildford Museum; Hereford Museum; Leicester Museum; Museum of London; Ludlow Museum; Newport Museum (Gwent); Northampton Museum; Norwich Museum; Oxford City and County Museum; Reading Borough

Museum; University upon-Avon Museum;

of Reading, Department of History Museum; StratfordSomerset County Museum, Taunton; Weybridge Museum.

Above all I owe much to the staff of the Department of Antiquities of the Ashmolean Museum, who provided access to material and working space over many years. I must also publicly thank the many colleagues in the field of pottery studies who have provided information, particularly Mrs. J. Bird, M. Fulford, K. Greene, Mrs. K. F. Hartley, Miss V. Rigby and Mrs. V. Swan. It is my pleasure to thank Miss F. Berisford and my wife for much general assistance. Drawings of pots from the Churchill are based on originals by Miss R. Askew. Professor B. W. Cunliffe and Dr. J. P. Wild have both read the work in its entirety and offered many helpful comments. Lastly, but far from least, I owe much to the continuous encouragement and assistance of Professor S. S. Frere and Mr. P. D. C . Brown during the preparation of this study.

For Patern, Tamesebugus, Vossullus and all others whose work has made this study possible

O HHHHHI

Fig. 1

kms

100

0

b-3

miles F--3

50 e-d

Roman Britain showing late fine-ware potteries, communications and towns and other major settlements thought to have been important markets for the Oxford potters. C M MH NF NV 0 P

= Crambeck; = Mancetter; = Much Hadham; = New Forest; = Nene Valley; = Oxford; = Pevensey.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The existence of a Romano-British pottery industry in the Oxford region was first established by the discovery of waste and debris at the villa site at Headington Wick in 1850 (Jewitt 1851). Earlier finds of possible kiln sites had been made at Fencot-on-Otmoor (Hussey 1841, 33-4) and on Shotover (Jewitt 1851, 60) but these cannot now be substantiated. Later in the nineteenth century a number of other sites were discovered along the line of the Roman road from Alchester to Dorchester, in the area now covered by the eastern suburbs of Oxford. The most noteable of these were the kilns at Sandford which were dug by Rolleston in 1879 (1884, 937-8), the pottery from the site being published over 40 years later by Thomas May (1922). Since then a number of sites have been discovered on or near the line of the road, mainly in the course of destruction by development or mineral extraction. Scientific excavations were carried out at Allen's Pit (Dorchester) and Rose Hill (Oxford) in 1935 (Harden 1936), and at Cowley in 1940 (Atkinson 1941). Since the end of the last war a large number of sites have been observed and recorded, if only briefly, in the course of their destruction. New areas of industrial activity have been recognised to the north-west of Oxford at Hanborough and Cassington and to the south at Boar's Hill. Nearly all this work of excavation and discovery was carried out in response to the threat of imminent destruction, and there has been little attempt to produce a coherent study of the industry apart from the brief survey in the Victoria County History (Harden, Taylor, Sutherland 1939). Over 30 kiln sites are now known and it is clear that an extensive pottery industry existed in the Oxford region from the first to the fourth centuries, which produced a very wide range of wares, including some of a considerable fineness and sophistication. Until recently, however, the industry has received little attention from students of Roman Britain as a whole, despite occasional references to its probable importance (e.g. Bushe-Fox 1926, 89-92). This dearth of interest can probably be attributed largely to the lack of any synthetic work on the industry, such as that produced for the New Forest potteries by Heywood Sumner (1927). In order to remedy the situation and to fill what is a serious gap in knowledge this study attempts a balanced survey of the Roman pottery industry of the Oxford region. Such a work should have a number of objectives. The first necessities are a detailed classification of the wares, a study of the typology and chronology of the industry, and an examination of the conditions of production, insofar as they can be established from the material remains of the kiln sites. A further vital need is to establish the market area of the different products at the various periods of the industry. The final objective

1

must be to place the industry in its context locally and nationally. Such a synthesis should not be restricted solely to a chronological study of the wares and their distribution, though this would undoubtedly be of use to excavators. It should also consider the indu~ry in its wider economic and social contexts, and in relation to the other major potteries of Roman Britain. To achieve these objectives the first part of this study is concerned with a detailed examination of the kiln sites both in terms of their structures and organisation and in relation to the overall settlement of the valley of the upper Thames. This is followed by a classification of the Oxford products, first in terms of ware, then typologically within each fabric, including discussion of the date and distribution of each type. The last part of the work attempts to set out the history of the growth and development of the industry. The work is based on an exhaustive study of the material from the various kiln sites and of Oxford wares from other sites in museum collections and excavation finds. By good fortune the potential of _the evidence from the kiln sites was greatly increased by the opportunity to excavate a large part of a pottery-production centre at the Churchill Hospital, Oxford (Young 1973b, 1974a, 1975); the significance of the results was such that they will inevitably bulk large in this study of the industry. Regrettably it has not been possible to examine the totality of museums and other collections which might contain Oxford products but a sufficiently large number have b~en visited to ensure that a true picture of the general distribution of Oxford wares is given here. 1

NOTE 1.

I have benefitted greatly from the help of colleagues who have passed on details of finds of Oxford wares which they have seen. I owe particular debts in this connection to Dr. M. G. Fulford, Mrs. K. F. Hartley and Mrs. V. Swan.

2

CHAPTER 2 THE KILN SITES - (1) DISTRIBUTION AND SETTING

The Oxfordshire potteries naturally cannot be regarded as an isolated entity in an empty landscape. The development and siting of the industry must have been dependent on (1) adequate demand for the products; (2) location of raw materials; (3) their availability for exploitation in terms of other possible land use; (4) access to roads and/or water transport to the market. The particular location of a kiln site must have been influenced by these factors of geology, topography, and the distribution of other settlements, land uses and communications. The geology of the Oxford region appears complex at first sight, but is formed basically of a series of deposits aligned from south-west to north-east and striking to the south-east. The alternation of hard formations such as limestone or chalk with softer clays has given rise to a series of ridges and clay vales. The upper Thames valley is enclosed to the north-west and north by the limestone Cotswolds and their eastern extension, and to the south and east by the chalk ridge of the Berkshire Downs and the Chilterns. Although the latter present a dominating scarp to the upper Thames valley there is no real barrier to communication beyond the region. Within the valley the dominant feature is the Corallian ridge, running with some intermission from Faringdon in the west to Brill in the east via the high ground around Oxford. This ridge, which possesses great importance for the pottery industry, is capped by a variety of limestones, sandstones and sands, which in many places overlies clay deposits at no great depth. Imposed on the solid geology are the drainage pattern and associated drift deposits of the Thames and its tributaries, cutting through the Corallian ridge at Sandford and the chalk at Goring. All along the Thames are gravel deposits resulting from its successive courses. These terraces are at their most extensive at the confluences of the Thames with its tributary rivers, Windrush, Evenlode, Cherwell, Ock and Thame, and provide areas of well-drained, easily cultivable land in the valley bottom. Elsewhere, heavy clays may have made settlement less attractive. In the late Iron Age settlement occurred mainly on the better drained, lighter soils (Harding 1972, Pl. 1, 8, 9) and was most intensive on the river gravels, although it should be noted that settlements are now being found on the plateau gravels in the clay areas (Rowley 1974). Major defended settlements have been identified at Cassington Mill, at the confluence of the Evenlode and Thames, and at Dyke Hills, Dorchester.

At Cassington a circular ditch up to 4 metres deep and 11 metres wide enclosed an area of£· 5 hectares (Harding 1972, 55-6, Pl. 39-40; Benson, Miles 1974, Fig. 13). At Dyke Hills a massive rampart .cut off the promontory 3

R.

•

..

'' , '.,

0

l

\_

'.

~

0

{~ ,J~

• ,;

,'

---

-

';:-__--

.--~-

I'\

. ,, ,

..

~

"

-- ,,,

,,'.

•

~-.:

·:.~-

0 0

•

5 Kms

D Town ® Large settlement Villa • 0 Other settlement

Fig. 2

Temple ~ Other stone building □ Burial • Stray find

Kiln,certain Kiln,probable Kiln,possible

Roman settlement in the Oxford region. (For numbered sites see facing page)

4

Key to numbered kiln sites on Fig. 2

Group 1

Group 2

1 • Hanborough 2 • Cassington

3. Overdale 4. Foxcombe Hill 5 . Kennington Group 3

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 • 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Woodeaton, Great Forest Ground Woodeaton, Drun's Hill Headington Wick Headington, Poor's Land Marston, Cherwell Drive Old Headington Forest Hill, Red Hills Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre Headington Quarry, Harry Bear's Churchill Hospital Oxford School Open Brasenose Shotover

5

Pit

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Rose Hill Cowley, St. Luke's Road Littlemore, Mount Pleasant . Littlemore, Eastern Bypass Garsington Littlemore, old quarry Littlemore, Ashurst Clinic Sandford Blackbird Leys Baldon, Golden Ball Crossroads Dorchester, Allen's Pit Dorchester, Abbey Well Dorchester, Watling Lane

between the Thames and the Thame, enclosing an area of 46 hectares with many structures (Harding 1972, 54-5, Pl. 36; Benson, Miles 1974, Fig. 17). These were presumably the major centres of power on the upper Thames just prior to the Roman conquest. The more common settlement type on the gravels was probably the small farmstead represented by sites such as that at Linch Hill Corner, Stanton Harcourt (Grimes 1944, 47-60; Harding 1972, 1215). One other major area of settlement was emerging just before the Roman conquest. The North Oxfordshire Grims Ditch encloses about 22 square miles of fertile cornbrash plateau where later some of the richest villas of the Oxford region were built. Harding (1972, 56-60) has shown that, in conception, the Ditch is similar to late Iron Age fortifications at Colchester and elsewhere and has argued compellingly for a date in the early first century A. D. The construction of this defence work must have required considerable effort and ex- · pense, which would suggest the area was already of considerable importance. The effect of the Roman conquest was considerable. Although settlement continued and increased in those areas occupied before the arrival of Rome, major changes took place, the most noticeable being the development of roads and towns (Fig. 2). Two of the three main routes running through the upper Thames valley must be of very early date since they are part of the network of roads linking the military posts established to police the newly conquered areas. The most important of these was probably Akeman Street running from Cirencester to Verulamium across the northern part of the area. Crossing this route near Alchester was a north-south road (Margary's Road 160) which ran from Towcester on Watling Street through Alchester and then across Otmoor to Dorchester and on to Silchester (Margary 1973, 162-5). The third major road ran north-east from Wantage and should probably be seen as part of a route linking Cunetio to the Dorchester-Alchester road. Its line is certain from Grove as far north as the temple site at Frilford (Margary 1973, 170). Thereafter two possible routes have been suggested. One, running along short stretches of parish boundaries and established footpaths, would cross the Thames near Hinksey, and than run north-east to join the north-south road near Beckley (Phillips 1970), or north along the line of the modern Banbury road (Hassan 1973, 46-7). An alternative route would pass across the eastern edge of Boar's Hill, incorporating the 'portstraete· referred to in Saxon charters, and cross the Thames on a known causeway of uncertain date at Donnington to join Road 160 in the Cowley area (Lambrick 1970). This latter suggestion is supported by the discovery of Roman pottery near the crossing point of the Thames, and by the need for some such route on which the potters could move mortarium grit from its source on Boar's Hill to the mortariaproducing kilns east of the Thames (see below p. 12). It is of course possible that all these routes may have been used at one time or another. These three roads seem to have been the only major routes running into the Oxford area. A network of minor roads and trackways must have existed but was doubtless less well planned and more transient than the principal roads. Such a network on the east side of the Cherwell has recently been suggested (Hargreave, Parker 1972; Hargreave, Parker, Boarder 1974) but it is not yet 6

proven and would have been of strictly

local significance

anyhow.

The three major routes would have provided good communications with the rest of Britain. In addition, the Thames itself was probably much used as a transport route as far as its head of navigation. Regrettably it is uncertain where this lay in the Roman period. It has been suggested that the small Roman settlement at Cricklade was a river port for Cirencester (Radford 1972, 96). This seems unlikely since, despite the considerable improvements made to the Thames, navigation has rarely been possible above Lechlade and has frequently been difficult above Oxford (Thacker 1914, passim). The earliest evidence available shows that by the eleventh century navigation was possible as far upstream as Oxford and was sufficiently common to make it worthwhile for Abingdon Abbey to invest in the New Cut at Abingdon between 1052 and 1066. However it is clear that by this date navigation had already been improved by the construction of mill-weirs from the early tenth century onwards (Davis 1974, 262-6). It is unlikely that the head of navigation could have been much further upstream in the Roman period when, so far as is lrnown, no improvements had been made, and it would seem that the confluence of Thames and Cherwell is the highest point to which navigation on any regular basis could have reached in the Roman period. While Ak.eman Street ~y have followed the line of an existing prehistoric route, Road 160 established a totally new line of communication northward from Dorchester. The importance of this opening up of the area to the east of the Thames and Cherwell was greatly increased by the establishment first of forts and then of towns at Dorchester and Alchester. The effect of the road, therefore, was to open up an area previously little settled and to provide it with new and growing markets. Of the two towns Alchester was by far the larger. It lay on a low gravel ridge overlooking Otmoor. The site was subject to flooding and various ameliorative measures had to be taken during its occupation (Young 1976). The defences, built in the late second century, enclosed an area of£· 10 hectares but dense settlement extended over 43 hectares. Traces of.masonry buildings have been found over much of the settled area and some were of considerable size (Rowley 1975). Dorchester was also defended but covered a much smaller area, lying to the north of Dyke Hills on the west bank of the Thame. Although there was considerable settlement outside the def ended area, it does not seem to have been so dense as that at Alchester and should probably be regarded as agricultural occupation around the town rather than suburbs belonging to it. Within the defended area traces of quite large town houses with tessellated pavements have been found. It has been suggested also that the Beneficarius Consularis mentioned on the altar found in 1731 (RIB 235) was based at Dorchester. Certainly there must have been an administrative centre somewhere in the Oxford region and this would have been based on one of the two towns. On grounds of size Alchester was more important. Both towns would have been of great importance as markets for Romanised goods and as centres of Romanisation.

7

Although these two were the only defended towns in the region, at least one other town at least as big as Dorchester existed. This was at Abingdon where a late Iron Age settlement near the confluence of the Ock and the Thames continued throughout the Roman period. This extended under much of the medieval centre of Abingdon and contained many buildings. Smaller settlements which perhaps had some of the characteristics of small towns existed along Akeman Street at Asthall, Sansom's Platt and Wilcote, and similar sites may exist under a number of later Saxon towns (e.g. Chipping Norton, Wallingford, Wantage) (Rodwell 1975, 13-15). Other small towns have been suggested in the North Oxford area and at Woodeaton (Webster 1975, 59) but the evidence does not support the idea. The three largest settlements must all have provided a considerable economic stimulus to the surrounding rural areas by needs for food, other agricultural produce, building material and industrial products such as pottery. The effects of this demand are detectable archaeologically. Prosperity resulting from supplying the needs of the Abingdon settlement is reflected in the villas and substantial farmsteads at Frilford (Evans 1897), Barton Court (Benson, Miles 1974, Fig. 15), the Tithe Barn site south of the Ock (Brown 1969, 137) and at Sutton Courtenay, both east (Anon 1962, 118) and west (PRN 2852) of the later village, all of which are on the gravels. It is most noticeable that villas occur on the gravel terraces only close to Abingdon and Dorchester. The economic impact of the two defended towns is very noticeable on the high ground to the east of Oxford and as far north as the scarp overlooking Otmoor. Before the Roman conquest settlement was very sparse in this area, the only large site being the Iron Age predecessor to the Romano-Celtic temple at Woodeaton, and even for this site there is no evidence of use in the late Iron Age (Harding 1972, 64-5). The effect of the developing markets of Alchester and Dorchester and of the establishment of good communications to them can be seen in the development of villas at Little Milton (St. Joseph 1953, 94), Cuddesdon (Harden, Sutherland, Taylor 1939, 322), Headington Wick (Jewitt 1851), Beckley (Parker 1862), and Islip (Wilson 1974a, 257). Some of them in their later stages may have been connected with the pottery industry (see p. 241). The prosperity of these establishments was modest compared to that of the West Oxfordshire villas but nonetheless is indicative of economic exploitation of an area hitherto unsettled. This was based, presumably, on agriculture but other activities were also practised. Apart from the pottery industry there is evidence of iron-working at Drun's Hill, Woodeaton (Harden, Sutherland, Taylor 1939, 345) and at Woodpe:cry (Wilson 1846). It is likely also that deposits of building stone were exploited. Along the Thames gravels settlements increased in number. Occupation continued in areas, such as Cassington, where it had been dense in the Iron Age. Settlements, apparently of farmstead type, appeared for the first time on the gravel peninsula between Thames and Cherwell (Hassan 1973). Benson and Miles (1974) have demonstrated the existence of extensive field systems and smaller enclosures in several areas. Although these are mainly unexcavated and insecurely dated, many of them appear to be Roman. As was noted 8

above, villas and other masonry buildings occur on the gravels only in the areas around Abingdon and Dorchester and this probably indicates that most settlements elsewhere were of peasant farmers living in a style little different from that of their counterp~rts of the late Iron Age. The other major area of settlement was on the cornbrash between the Windrush and the Cherwell which is of high fertility and was traversed by Akeman Street, giving access to Alchester in the east and Cirencester in the west. Here, particularly in the area enclosed by the North Oxfordshire Grim' s Ditch, there was a dense concentration of villas and Romanised farms. · At least three of these, North Leigh, Stonesfield and Great Tew, were among the largest and most important villas of late Roman Britain and must represent the grow_th of large estates. On Akeman Street, at Wilcote, Asthall and Sa.nsom's Plat were villages or small towns which perhaps provided labour for these estates (Brodribb, Hands, Walker 1972, 140-2). The prosperity of the area must have resulted from the high fertility of the cornbrash and the good communications provided by Akeman Street. Exploitation of building materials, such as Stonesfield slate, may also have made a contribution (Williams 1971, 178). This brief survey has shown that settlement in the upper Thames valley can be divided into four major zones - the villa belt of the cornbrash along Akeman Street, the dense peasant settlement along the river gravels, Dorchester and the high ground to the north, and Alchester and the few sites in its hinter-land. Only the latter two zones were in any sense areas of new settlement in the Roman period. Agriculture was still the economic basis of the region, although some industries did develop. There were no towns of great size, but the numerous substantial farms, villas and large settlements, including the two defended small towns, suggest that a high degree of Romanisation developed and that this progress had begun by the early second century. Such dense settlement would have created a high demand for pottery and the Romanised elements would ensure that this was for fine as well as coarse wares. Three groups of kiln sites, discussed below and described in Appendix 1, are known to have met these needs. Two of these groups were of minor importance only and had only local distributions. The third group was from the start of more importance and made fine as well as coarse wares. Other small, local industries must have existed since their wares have been identified both to east (at Lewknor(Young 1974d 136) and Beacon Hill (Chambers 1974, 144) ), and to west (Chambers 1976, 183) of the known industries. A possible kiln was found at Asthall in 1947 (Cook 1957, 33). The Group 1 and 2 sites should therefore be regarded as representative of a number of potteries in the region of which only these two have been located. Each of the three groups must be considered in terms of the conditions established at the beginning of this chapter. Adequate demand for the products can be assumed since the kiln sites would not have been set up if this had not existed. The size of demand that was considered adequate can be assessed from the distribution of the wares. If a kiln site served only one or two settlements but remained in existence nonetheless,· the potters were presumably content to produce on such a scale. Location of raw materials, with one exception, can be established fairly easily. Clay and other minerals, such as sand and mortarium grit, came 9

.

from a variety of sources, the most likely of which can be identified.on grounds of proximity to the production centre. Spring lines are unlikely to have moved much, and it would seem that water was available on or near all the potteries (see below p. 16). The location of woodland is rather more difficult. Most of the soils in the Oxford region could have supported woodland or scrub suitable for burning in kilns. It is difficult to say which areas actually did so or to estimate the amount of land needed to provide sufficient fuel for a large pottery industry. A policy of simple clearance without regeneration would have quickly exhausted woods within easy reach of the kilns; some sort of woodland management, such as permanent coppicing, must have existed (Rackham 1976, 51). Many of the areas of heavy woodland known to exist in the eleventh century may have succeeded Roman woodland, and this is the only available indicator of the location of fuel resource3 for the potteries. Availability of raw materials in terms of other land use is most difficult to assess. There would obviously have been more competition for wood and water sources, and less willingness to see agricultural or pasture land sterilised by quarrying operations in areas of heavy settlement. On the ·other hand landowners presumably got some return from the sale of raw materials to the potteries. Communication between manufacturer and market can be considered by study of Fig. 2. Major road and water routes would have been needed only for an industry covering a large area. Potters supplying local communities would have made do with minor tracks. Group 1 comprised two sites only on the gravel terrace of the lower reaches of the Evenlode. At Hanborough were two kilns dating to the first century and not associated closely with any settlement. At Cassington two kilns, one of the first century, one of the second, were found in the large Roman settlement on the site of the late Iron Age valley fort. There is no evidence that use of the sites was more than shortlived or that there was any continuity of potting between the two Cassington kilns. The Cassington settlement probably absorbed the whole output of the kilns there and the products of the Hanborough kilns would also have been taken by sites in the near vicinity. Neither site is really close to major clay sources and it is likely that most of the surrounding area was already being used for agriculture "'.hich might well have limited wood supplies. Neither site was close to the major roads through the area. Group 2 lay west of the Thames and north of Abingdon. Two kilns dating to the first half of the second century have been found at Overdale, Boar's Hill, and a third, of the fourth century 300 metres to the south at Foxcome Hill, Boar's Hill. A possible outlier is recorded three kilometres to the east, at Kennington, but so little is known about it that no meaningful discussion is possible. O

Extensive pottery scatters surround the two Boar's Hill sites and it is possible that pottery production at one time or another spread over an area of up to 30 hectares. These traces of the industry are sufficiently dense to suggest that use of the site for potting continued from the second to the fourth century. Products were entirely grey wares and the most common forms were jars. 10

I

,,

I

,, ✓,

I ✓

I I.

,,

I /

I/ I/

-

0

White clay

Fig. 3

r,

L..-'-.J

Other

5

clay

Lower greensand

The Oxford region, showing ~In sites, communications and sources of raw material (For identification of sites see Fig. 2 and p. 5)

11

IlIIl]

The potters were apparently well-supplied with raw materials. At Overdale clay was dug on site, and outcrops at no great distance from the kilns. A spring Une, providing water, occurs along the outcrop. The Bagley wood area, heavily wooded in the eleventh, century (Darby, Campbell 1962, 264 ), lies close to the potteries and may have been linked to them by one of the alternative routes of Road 164. It is not certain how far the industry would have been restricted by alternative land uses in the area. Occupation spread along the Boar's Hill ridge (Harris, Young, 1975, Fig. 1) but its economic base is uncertain and may have been connected with the potteries. The major market for this industry must have been the large settlement at Abingdon and its surrounding villas. These would have consumed all that the known Boar' s Hill industry could have produced, particularly if production was seasonal as has been suggested for small industries such as this (Brown, Sheldon, 1975 ). Group 3 sites lie east of the Tha..."'llesand Cherwell, scattered over an area of about 80 square kilometres, and fall into two sub-groups. The northern group, of 1 7 definite or probable, and five possible, sites lies on the high ground to the east and north-east of modern Oxford. The earliest sites in this group are at its southern end. The four sites of the southern group are all within three kilometres of Dorchester. Both groups show concentrations in areas of maximum modern development, be it housing or mineral extraction, and the apparent gap could be in part due to lack of chance discoveries and field work in the countryside. Against this possibility it can be argued that kiln sites are not difficult to find.in agricultural areas (c.f. Shotover, Open Brasenose, Little Baldon). It would seem that the distribution of potteries, even if not completely known, is indicative of the situation in the Roman period. Raw materials would not have been a problem for this group (Fig. 3). Clay for red and grey wares, produced by all the kiln sites, could have been obtained from the Oxford or Kimmeridge beds, to one or other of which all the sites were close. The iron-free clay needed by the northern kilns to make white wares must have come from Shotover (probably from the Wealden Beds), the only considerable source in the area, which was used as late as the seventeenth century for pipes (Plot 1667, 65-6 ). Small lenses of white clay occur also in the river gravels and it would have been possible for the potters around Dorchester to have exploited them in a very limited way. The grit used by these potteries for gritting mortaria comes from the Lower Greensand measures. The nearest outcrops to the northern group of sites lie on the other side of the Thames at Boar's Hill and, to a lesser extent, Cumnor Hurst. Anoth.er outcrop occurs in the area of Nuneham Courtenay and Clifton Hampden; this would have been the most convenient source for the southern group of kilns (Arkell 1947). 1 Water was accessible close to all the sites. Many Saxon place names east of Oxford are concerned with woodland (Arkell 1942) and Domesday Book shows that a thick belt of woodland lay north and east of Oxford between the royal forests of Shotover and Wychwood (Darby, Campbell 1962, 213-5, Fig. 69). It is uncertain how far alternative land uses might have constricted access to these raw materials. North of Dorchester fairly intensive agriculture might be expected. In the northern area the Churchill kilns overlay a field system 12

and the villa at Headington Wick certainly existed long before any use of the site for potting. It is noticeable, though, that the earliest sites within the northern. group lie in an area with no other settlement, suggesting that expansion against other forms of land use occurred only when the industry was well established and prospering. The group was in an exceptionally good position with regard to communications. Road 160 ran through the production areas, linking them to Dorchester and Alchester and thence to major centres such as Corinium, Verulamium and Silchester. The branch road of late Roman date running from Road 160 towards the Headington potteries (Linington 1960) and the track shown by aerial photography at Little Baldon (Benson, Miles 1974, Map 38) are indicative of attempts to link kilns. to this road. Further south one alternative route for Road 164 runs through Cowley and would thus have provided links to the southwest. There was also good access to the Thames. Roman pottery has been found 2 in the river at Donnington, where the southern route of Road 164 is thought to have crossed the river, and at Rose Island, to the west of the kilns at Sandford and Littlemore. 3 Both would have been good embarkation points for the water transport of pottery if navigation was possible this far up stream. Sites near Dorchester would also have had good access to the river. The towns of Alchester and Dorchester and the villas that they served must have provided a market for fine, Romanised wares from an early stage in the Roman occupation. The Group 3 kilns were in an exceptionally good position to meet this need. They were located close to their initial markets and they had excellent communications. Initially at least there seems to have been little competition in terms of alternative land uses in the areas they exploited. There was also easy access to the only source of white-firing clay in the area. It is clear that pottery production existed on several levels in the upper Thames valley. At the lowest level was the potter who worked at the Group 1 sites or the first-century complex at the Churchill, producing coarse wares for local use only and not, apparently, working at any one site for more than a short period. The sites of this type of operation would have been numerous and not necessarily easy to find since they operated for so short a time. At the next level would fall the sites still used for local production only but so used over a very long period. Group 2 provides an example of this. Here presumably the potters either worked on the one site fu.11-time or returned there at frequent intervals to replenish their supply. The proximity of Group 2 to Abingdon might be held to suggest that a large, local market such as a small town or very big village was needed to sustain this sort of operation. Sites of this type should be easier to detect since production over a long period would result in large quantities of waste. If the supposition that a large market would be needed to support such an industry is correct, it is likely that further examples of this type in the upper Thames valley will be limited in number. The third level of operation is represented by Group ·3. This involved the production of fine, as well as coarse wares, and the marketing of the former over large areas. Group 3 was well fitted by virtue of its location and its communications to fulfill this role. It is unlikely that any other industry of similar pretensions existed in the region. 13

NOTES 1•

I am grateful to Mr. H.P.

2.

Information from Mr. B. Durham.

3.

Information from Mr. R. Greenaway.

Powell for advice on this point.

14

CHAPTER3 THE KILN SITES - (2) STRUCTURES AND ORGANISATION

All production of pottery involves certain processes - (1) the gaining of the raw materials of clay, tempering material, wood or other fuel, water; (2) the storage of these materials until needed; (3) the preparation of the clay body and its forming into pots; (4) the firing of the vessels; (5) their storage and dispersal after manufacture. All these stages may well leave traces which ,are archaeologically detectable. By studying the evidence provided by these traces it should be possible to determine to a certain extent the methods by which the potters worked and the conditions in which they did so. It is also possible that particular structural designs may reflect different groupings of potters. The evidence for this aspect of the Oxford industry is as poor in quantity and in quality as at most Romano-British pottery manufactories. Less than a dozen of the kiln sites have been excavated. There is recorded structural evidence from nine of these sites but at four of them (Hanborough, Foxcombe Hill, Overdale, Shotover) this relates entirely to kilns. Ancillary -structures have been found on the remaining five sites (Dorchester, Sandford, Rose Hill, Cowley, Churchill Hospital) but only at the Churchill i-s there sufficient evidence to give any idea of the plan and organisation of a production site. Traces of buildings were noted during salvage work at Mount Pleasant (Littlemore), Garsingtpn and at Allen's Pit (Dorchester), but no plans were recovered. The bias towards kilns is the inevitable result of rescue excavation where shortage .of time permitted only the excavation of the more obvious. and solid features. • A balanced picture of a manufacturing site can be obtained only by large-scale area excavation since only in this way will buildings and small ancillary structures be found and recognised. It is intended in this chapter to set out the evidence for the five stages of

production defined above and to discuss, as far as possible, the interrelationships of these processes. The site at the Churchill Hospital will bulk disproportionately large in the discussion as this has been excavated more extensively than any otiter. The evidence for each kiln site is presented in Appendix 1. Comparison is also made with potteries in other areas since this places the organisation of the Oxford potters in the context of Romano-British pottery manufacture as a whole. 1. Raw Materials a) Wood supply: Large quantities of wood were needed. Modern experimental firings have used amounts ranging from c. 4 cwts. up to 40 cwts. depending on the size of the kiln and the skill of those firing it (Bryant 1973, 158). The impossibility of identifying the sources from which fuel was ob. tained has already been discussed (above, p. 10 ). 15 ·

b) Clay and other minerals: As well as clay the potters would have needed sand for tempering their wares and also the grits used for the mortaria. Extraction of all these would leave pits traceable archaeologically. Elsewhere, for example at Brockley Hill (Middlesex) (Castle 1972, 1973), Harrold (Beds) (Wilson 1971, 276), Highgate (London) (Brown, Sheldon 1969, 43), Stanground (Northants) (Dannell 1967), these pits were actually on the kiln site among the kilns. Where production was long-term and on a large scale such local supplies would rapidly become exhausted. In the Oxford region the majority of the kiln sites do not lie on clay beds, thereby precluding the extraction of the most bulky raw material on the site. The only site to have produced clay pits close to the kilns is Overdale, Boars Hill. Elsewhere, even on those sites overlying clay beds, such as the Churchill, it seems to have been nor:mal practice to extract the clay and other minerals elsewhere. In most cases the distances involved were not great for grey or red-firing clays or sand. Rarer resources were moved over long distances. The white clay used for mortaria, found on Shotover (Plot 1667, 66), was moved up to 4 kms. The Lower Greensand grits used in the mortaria were moved over distances varying from 2 to 10 km, the majority of the mortaria-producing sites being over 5 kms. from their nearest source (see above, p. 12 Fig. 3). c) Water suppiy: One kiln site, Sandford, is situated near a large stream. Normally water was obtained from wells or tanks which have been found on all the kiln sites investigated more than cursorily. The wells vary from simple pits, as at Cowley, to elaborate stone or timber-lined structures. The three so-called 'puddling pits' found at Allen's Pit (Dorchester) fall into this last category. They would have been highly inconvenient to use in the manner suggested by the excavator (Harden 1936, 91) and they were clearly wells like those discovered subsequently at Wally Corner, Dorchester (Sutton 1963) and elsewhere on the gravels. The securing of an adequate water supply was obviously a matter of some concern to Romano-British potters generally. Wells have been found at sites such as Stibbington in the Nene Valley (Wild 1973b). At Mancetter there was an elaborate water system involving channels as well as a number of wells (Hartley 1971). 2. Storage of raw materials Any large-scale production of pottery would require extensive storage facilities. This would have been the case particularly for the clay which would have needed some period of weathering before it could be used for potting. The sites in the northern· part of the main production area must have stored two kinds of clay.

At Cowley clay dumps were placed directly on to the ground surface but at the Churchill more care was taken. The largest dump here was a stone platform, 7 m by 8 m, with rough kerb walls which could have carried some kind of roofed superstructure. On this was a deposit of blue clay mixed with numerous sherds. Smaller amounts of clay were stored in small stone chests. These were rectangular pits, the largest of which was c. 1. 3 m long and O. 9 m wide. They were lined at sides and bottom with large stone slabs. 16

C

~

0

e!e!CHs::::EH::C:EH:e::::E:Hc::E:====:===3::::== Metres

2 .. ·

....

-

0

5

cm,.

3

D

Fig. 4

A. B. C. Dl. D2. D3. D4. (See

Clay Chest (Churchill, Phase 4b); Puddling Hole (Cowley, after Atkinson 1941); Puddling Table (Cowley, after Atkinson 1941); Socket (Shotover); Flint Blade (Blackbird Leys); Bone Template (Churchill); Mould (Littlemore, Mount Pleasant). Fig. 10 for key)

17

I

·s

They do not seem to have occurred within buildings but could have had individual wooden covers (Fig. 4A). Five of these chests were found, four belonging to Complex B, the other to- Complex C (see below, pp. 49 ::50). Three of these were still filled with w~ite clay, in two cases mixed with large sherds of pottery; the reason for this practice is unknown. Similar clay chests have been found in the Nene Valley (Wild 1973b), at Brockley Hill (Castle 1972, 1501) and at Mancetter (Wilson 1971, 263). In all cases they seem to have been for immediate use, not long-term storage. Wood also must have been stockpiled although this need leave no archaeological trace .. A possible wood store has been identified at Holt, Denbighshire (Grimes 1930, 34), but it must be remembered that in origin, use and scale of structure Holt is atypical of Romano-British kiln sites. 3. The Preparation

of pots

a) Preparing the clay: Before the clay could be used for throwing pots or even for building kilns considerable preparatory-work would have been necessary. The Oxford and Wealden clay beds seem to contain few large impurities but it would have been necessary to admix considerable quantities of sand to obtain the sandy wares typical of the Oxford region. This could have been most easily done when the clay had been mixed with water into a semi-liquid consistency. Some such addition of water would have been necessary to bring the clay to the right consistency for potting. Once this stage had been reached the clay would have been wedged until it was wholly homogenous. For this process hard, flat surfaces would have been needed. Clay used for specialised purposes such as slips for the fine wares would have needed further preparation. Probably clay would have been m:ixed with large quantities of water and some flocculating agent. This would have the effect of causing all the impurities and larger clay particles to sink to the bottom of the container, leaving a thin solution of clay and water which would then be used as a slip (Brown 1976, 83). other constituents also would have required treatment before use. All these processes might leave structural ·traces such as puddling holes or tables. Four puddling holes were found at Cowley, arranged in two pairs (Fig. 4B). All were £· 1. 0 m in diameter and of about the same depth. At the bottom of at least two of them was a narrow hole£· O. 22 m deep, filled with a mixture of small stones, sand and clay. Above this the sides of the pits were lined with grey puddled clay, suggesting that they were intended to hold water. The excavator thought that clay was mixed with water in these so that all impurities would sink to the bottom, leaving a layer of clean clay at the top after excess water had evaporated (Atkinson 1941, 12-13). A variant on this would have been the use of the pits for the preparation of. slips and glosses. A similar pit was found at the Churchill Complex B and could have been used for the same purpose. The so-called puddling-holes from Dorchester were probably wells and are discussed above (p. 16 ). Puddling holes have been found also at Brockley Hill (Castle 1972, 150-1). Small stone platforms, £· 1. 00 m long by O. 5 m wide, have been found at Cowley and Dorchester (Fig. 4C). Both examples consisted of a layer of flat · stones covered by a layer of puddled clay, £· O. 07 m thick at Cowley, £· 0.15 m

18

thick at Dorchester. These would have formed suitable surfaces for the energetic pounding required to wedge the clay. Similar platforms have been found in the New Forest (Hawkes 1938, 121) and at Colchester (Hu.111963, 141). Once the clay and other· raw materials had been prepared for use the pots could be thrown. All pots from the Oxford region are wheel-made. As their basic equipment for this stage the potters would have required some form of wheel, water containers, storage areas for clay and considerable space in which to dry out the green pots before firing. Various tools for trimming and ~ecorating the pots would also have been used and some sort of shelter for these various activities would have been essential. b) Tools and equipment for forming the pots: Little is known about the equipment and tools used by Romano-British potters for throwing and finishing their pots. Small clay chests occur near to workshop buildings at the Churchill (see above p. 18 ) and large storage jars found on kiln sites may have been used for water. No such jar has been foun~ in situ like that at Linwood in the New Forest (Hawkes 1938). The most common non-ceramic artefacts from the Oxford kiln sites are rounded pebbles and quern-stone fragments. It is generally assumed that the rounded pebbles were used for burnishing or smoothing pots and they frequently show signs of wear consistent with such a use (Atkinson 1941, Pl. IDB, 1, 2). Elsewhere quern stones from kiln sites have been interpreted as flywheels from potters' wheels (Wild 1973b, 137). An alternative use on sites producing moraria would have been grinding up mortarium grits to the required size (Fulford 1975b, 16-18). · · other stone artefacts from Oxford kiln sites include a small stone socket from Shotover (Fig. 4D, 1) and flint flakes from the Churchill and Blackbird Leys (Fig. 4D, 2). The socket perhaps held the bottom of the spindle of a potters' wheel. A rather larger example has been found at Highgate (Brown, Sheldon 1974, 224). Flint flakes would have been useful as trimming knives but soine caution is necessary here as they could be residual. This problem· is particularly acute at the Churchill where undoubted prehistoric flints, such as barbed-and-tanged arrowheads, have been found. Tools of other materials are even scarcer. At the Churchill a length of rib bone cut at one end to a right-angled point was found. This could have been used as a template for setting correctly the angle of flange to body on a mortarium (Fig. 4D, 3). Also from the Churchill come a number of very small pots, some of which contained definite traces of a red pigment (Fig. 33, W70, W75). These could have been used as paint pots for painted pottery such as parchment ware. The only other ceramic tool found in the Oxford region was a mould for making face-masks for flagons (Types Cll, P3) found at Shotover (Hassan 1954). Moulds must have been used also for making the pl_aques used on the beaker form, type C21. These would presumably be of the type found in the Nene Valley at Stibbington (Taylor 1958, 139, Pl. XX, 3, 4) and also at Colchester (Hull 1963, 91-3). One fragmentary mould for a decorated bowl was found at Littlemore but this use of moulds was not common (Young 1971; Fig. 4D, 4). Dies were used for the name stamps on second century mortaria and late Roman colour-coated wares and also for the rosette-stamped wares. No examples of these have been found and it must be assumed that they were of wood. 19 .

The only metal tools known from the Oxford kilns are a knife blade from Blackbird Leys, a sickle from Cowley, and a bucket mount and knives from the Churchill. The sum total of tools connected with this stage of manufacture is thus very scanty in the Oxford region as, indeed, it is for the rest of Britain. Our knowledge of the processes and techniques adopted at this stage of manufacture, for this reason, remains slight. c) Drying the pots: The next stage of the preparatory process was the drying of the pots prior to firing. The length of time needed would have varied considerably according to weather conditions and the process could be greatly ·speeded by the introduction of some artificial aid. In a mass-production industry the stabilisation of the time factor afforded thus would have been extremely valuable. A drier would also cut down the risk of frost-damage to green pots in the winter. Pottery driers are among the more common ancillary structures found on Romano-British kiln sites. At Holt a rectangular building. had at one end a hypocaust£· 3 m by 4. 2 m apparently used as a drier (Grimes 1930, 21-4). At Mancetter the excavator discovered a shed£· 5. 8 m by 3. 65 m with rough ·stone kerbs retaining an elaborate system of flues. The structure was roofed and of two phases, dating to the mid-second century. In the second phase the drier was so designed that either half could be fired separ:itely or both halves together (Hartley 1965). Simpler T-shaped driers have been found at Norton, Yorks (Hayes, Whitley 1950, 15-18), and Hamstead Marshall, Berks (Connah 1964, 236). At Norton a T-shaped drier 3. 66 m long overall and 2. 59 m wide across the cross arm was surrounded by a pavement of limestone rubble. The drier dated to the fourth century. At Hamstead Marshall two driers·we-re· found. · No. 1 had a T-shaped flue at the bottom of a rectangular pit about O. 3 m deep. No. 2 was 3. 05 m long and 1. 85 m wide across the cross arm. Both contained quantities of pottery and also of grain and were interpreted by their excavator as corn driers. They are however close to the kilns and it is probable that they fulfilled a dual purpose. The links between pottery driers and corn driers are obvious. In both, what was required was a steady, moderate. heat, sufficient to dry but not to burn. It should be noted that while Roman corn driers fall in the later part of the occupation, at Holt and Mancetter pottery driers are attested in the second century and at the Churchill in the third. It is therefore possible that the inspiration for corn driers derived from those used for pottery. In the Oxford region driers have been found only at the Churchill where nine have been identified. They occur in all the third and fourth century complexes (see below, p.49 ). There are five variants on the basic theme: :(1) T-shaped

Drier

Four of these were found. The largest, w:hich belonged to Complex C, was 4 m long and 2.42 m wide across the cross arm. The flue was O. 8 m wide . .The structure was revetted throughout with dry-stone walling. No flooring remained in situ but fragments of large limestone slabs were found in the fill. There were traces of paving around the stokehole. Evidence of heavy burning was found only at the end of the leg of the T where the stok~hole is presumed 20

0

8o Oc::7.

1 ,

0

AHHHF3

Metres

2

4

C 6

Fig. 5

Pottery Driers,

all from the Churchill.

(See Fig. 10 for key)

21

to be.

There was no trace of a cover structure

over this drier

(Fig. 5, 1).

The remaining three examples were much smaller, all of the same design and all within buildings. One belonged to Complex A and the other two had been used successively in Complex C. The best preserved, that from Complex A, was 1. 8 m long overall and 1. 6 m wide across the cross arm. The leg of the Twas lined with pitched limestone slabs but no trace of lining survived in the cross arm though it must once have existed (Fig. 5, 2). The other two examples were both£· 2.4 m long and 1.6 m wide across the cross arm. (2) Long-flued

drier with rectangular

ends

This small drier, 1. 56 m long with a rectangular end 0. 9 m by 1.1 m, formed part of Complex B. A few pieces of calcareous grit were all that remained of its lining. It is in effect a T-shaped drier with an exceptionally deep cross arm. The drier cross arm in this case is sited over an earlier puddling pit so that its shape may have been determined by an existing depression (Fig. 5, 3). (3) Long-flued

drier with ovate end

This is another variant of the T-shaped drier and belonged to Complex D. The feature had been heavily damaged by ploughing and survived as two depressions linked by a shallow trough. It was 2. 3 m long. A quantity of ash was found in the smaller depression, suggesting that this was the stokehole. The la.cger depression, £· 1.4 m by 1.4 m, must be the sub-structure of the drying floor. Some large fragments of calcareous grit were found in the large hollow and these were probably the remains of the lining. No trace of any lining remained in situ, and robbing of the lining may have altered the shape of this depression. It ls possible therefore that the original plan may have been more regular (Fig. 5, 4). ( 4)

Drier with lobe-shaped

ends

The identification of this feature, belonging to Complex B, as a drier is not entirely certain but it is difficult to see what other function it could have fulfilled. In plan it was an irregular trefoil composed of three lobes of differing size. The maximum length was 1. 75 m, the maximum width 0.95 m. The easterly lobe, which contained more evidence of burning than the others, was the shallowest. The two westerly lobes had traces of a lining of pitched slabs of calcareous grit. If it was a drier the shallowest lobe would have been the stokehole, and the two others the substructure of the drying floor. At the east end of the structure was a post-hole.£· 0. 5 m deep but it was not possible to show whether or not it was part of the drier. If it was it would have formed the support of a cover structure but it would have been positioned inconveniently close to the stokehole. It is more likely that it belongs to a different phase (Fig. 5, 5 ). (5 ) Long troughs Two examples of this type were found, one in Complex C, the other in Complex D. In plan they were long troughs with rounded ends, wider at one end than the other. The biggest example was 3. 65 m long, and 1 m across at the point of greatest width. The sides had been lined with pitched stone slabs and a number of large flat stones were scattered around and over its widest end.

22

These were perhaps

the remains

of the drying floor.

The other example, part of Complex C, was 2 m long and contained evidence of burning at its nar:row end. No trace of any lining remained (Fig. 5, 6 ). The remains can be interpreted as trough-shaped driers with the stokehole at the narrow end and the drying floor built over the wide end. Although this design is not apparently found elsewhere in Roman Britain, it would have functioned perfectly well as a drier. d) Workshop buildings: Preparing the clay, forming the pots and drying them out before firing are all best done under cover, not only for climatic reasons but also to prevent ash and dust from other stages of the process blemishing the still damp pots. Only a few kiln sites in Britain have produced evidence of such cover buildings or workshops. At Holt a number of buildings were found (Grim.es 1930, 12-24), mainly reflecting the military nature of the site, as t,ie most substantial buildings were the commandant's house, the barrack compound and a bath-house. Two masonry buildings connected with the actual production were found. One of these was c. 30 m long divided into a number of rooms. It contained much clay and a number of potter's tools and stamps and was perhaps used for the throwing of the pots. · The second was partially occupied by the drying floor noted above (p. 20 ), and it is probable that its remaining portion was used as a workshop or store. In addition Grimes noted that there was a 'complex series of walled pits, floors and other structures' which were omitted from the original plan, and suggested that the kilns theD;1.selves were surrounded by a mass of roughly erected buildings not built to any regular plan and used for various industrial purposes. The evidence from Holt, incomplete though it is, far outstrips that from any other site. At Colchester few buildings were found to go with the large number of kilns excavated though the excavator pointed out that more might have been found if it had been possible to strip larger areas (Hull 1963, 139). The largest structure was an enclosure dug into the hillside surrounding kilns 19-22. This building was sub-rectangular, £· 6.1 m by 5.4 m. As it contained only kilns and one oven it must• be considered as a cover-building for the kilns and not as a workshop (Hull 1963, 17-19). To the east of kiln 31 was a building£· 2.4 m by 3. 9 m with painted plaster on the walls. It had a clay floor. While undoubtedly associated with the kiln its purpose is uncertain though it was presumably a workshop. West of kiln 31 was a short length of wall turning through a right angle (Hull 1963, 41-2). This too could be part of a workshop building. To the north of these kiln complexes a small area excavation revealed a number of post holes and pits indicative of industrial activity and some sort of buildings. No coherent plans could be recovered (Hull 1963, 139-141). In the Nene valley a workshop has been identified at Stibbington (Wild 1973b). This building, close to two kilns and a well, was rectangular, 12. 2 m long and 6. 4 m wide. Inside it were four stone storage tanks, one of which still contained clay. At Mancetter, apart from the drying shed mentioned above, traces of timber buildings have been found (Hartley 1971). At least one of these was substantial. One building has been found at the major mortaria pottery at Brockley Hill (Castle 1974, 251). In the New Forest only one building has been 23

found in the long series of excavations there (Sumner 1927, 101-6). This hut, an irregular pentagon, £· 7. 6 m by 6 .1 m, constructed of timber, was £· 27 0 metres from the nearest kiln site and so cannot really be considered a workshop. As Sumner suggested it is more likely to be a dwelling place. He also suggested that the areas of puddled yellow clay found near some of the kilns must have been roofed to be useable (Sumner 1927, 105). This seems likely if indeed they were floors and not clay dumps, but must remain unproven as no evidence of structures was found either by him or in subsequent excavations (Fulford 1975b, 16). In the Alice Holt Forest, seat of a major industry in the Roman period, recent excavation has identified a substantial rectangular timber building, part of which had a floor raised on clay sleeper walls. 1 Evidence for buildings on minor kiln sites is even less substantial. At White Hills, Swindon, part of a building was found in an area excavation that revealed ten kilns (Wilson 1974b, 455). At the large kiln site at Highgate, north London, an extensive area has now been investigated, but only one possible site for a building, a circular area defined by gullies, has been found (Brown, Sheldon, 1974). Stone or clay floors have been found at a number of kiln sites and it is possible that these could be the floors of insubstantial buildings rather than just hard-standings. The evidence for buildings is scanty. Substantial masonry structures are confined to major centres such as Colchester and the Nene Valley. Even at Colchester and at Holt the veidence suggests that many buildings were of a makeshift nature, and this seems to be the case for other major centes. Minor industries seem lacking in buildings but this may reflect the fact that large area excavations have been confined mainly to the major potteries. Even so, it has to be concluded that many buildings were of such slight construction as to leave no archaeological trace, for buiidings there must have been since so many of the potters' activities could only be carried out under cover. The evidence from the Oxford region supports this proposition. Traces of buildings have been found at several kiln sites. At Rose Hill a number of hut floors were identified during the 1935 building operations. They were close to the excavated kiln and much pottery of types being made there was recovered from them. No evidence of function was found and they cannot be identified definitely as workshops. Some of them, indeed, could have been domestic. At Cowley part of a stone floor, covered with ash, animal bone and pottery, was found in 1940. The excavator interpreted it as a hut floor but no trace of any superstructure was recorded. Its function remains uncertain but its siting relative to other features on the site suggests some role in the pottery industry. At the Churchill Hospital four structures, one belonging to each of Complexes A-D (see below pp.,49 -50), were found. All had been badly damaged by ploughing so that their internal arrangements are not entirely clear. There was sufficient evidence to link them all to the pottery industry on the site. The most substantial building was that belonging to Complex A (Fig. 6A). The structure was circular, being 9 m in diameter, with pitched stone footings on which were laid flat stone slabs, probably carrying a timber or half-timbered superstructure. There was no evidence for a central post supporting the roof

24

T

~

;,I

,~'','Q

A

~.~· }

~- ~ ,,,p,# rp

-' '

A

u

:: Clay i~ Chests&..:J?·

□ B

Fig. 6.

Workshop buildings, both Churchill Phase 4a; A from Complex A, B from Complex B. (See Fig. 10 for key) 25

but there could have been stone pads carrying at Shakenoak, Oxon. 2

posts as at a circular

building

There were two doorways, both formed of two posts set back from the inner edge of the wall footings. One doorway faced south where it would receive the maximum light, the other to the north-west, towards the four kilns associated with complex A. The floor had been cobbled but this had been mostly removed by ploughing. Surviving details within the building comprised two stone emplacements next to the wall, and a type 1 drier in the southern half. This could suggest that one half of the building was used as a workshop and the other as a drying and storage area. Circular buildings of this type are more common than is normally realised. The example from Shakenoak has already been mentioned, and it is possible that the 'threshing floor' at Ditchley (Radford 1936, 45-6) could also be a building of this type. Recent aerial survey work has shown a circular structure in the courtyard of the villa site at Islip (Wilson 1974a, 257). Similar buildings are recorded elsewhere in Roman Britain (Hall, Nickerson 1970). On the whole they occur either in subsidiary positions in large complexes or in industrial contexts. The type derives from the round-house tradition of the Iron Age and obviously was used in fairly humble roles, such as workshops or labourers' accommodation. The three remaining structures at the Churchill were far less substantial and in at least one of them it is not certain whether the building was roofed wholly, partially or at all. The central feature of Complex B was a rectangular enclosure £· 7 m by 6 m, bounded to north and east by ~n exiguous stone footing and on the south by a shallow gully; the whole structure had been badly damaged by a later feature. Apart from a short gully the fourth side was open and three clay chests were placed in the gap. A post hole, perhaps belonging to this enclosure lay 3 m inside the open end and 1 m from the north wall. Any post hole symmetrically placed on the south had been obliterated by later features (Fig. 6B). More than one interpretation of these remains is possible. A building could have occupied the whole area, with dwarf walls to north and east and a sleeper beam to the south, all supporting a timber superstructure. Against this is the total absence of any footings across the west end. It is notable also that elsewhere at the Churchill clay chests lay outside buildings. For these reasons it seems more likely that any building was confined to the east part of the enclosure with its west wall supported by posts set in the surviving post hole and in a corresponding position on the south side. The remaining footings on the north side would have supported a boundary wall to a courtyard in front of the building, the dimensions of which would be£· 6 m by 4 m. This would have a workshop with various ancillaries such as clay chests or pottery driers collected in the courtyard in front of it (Fig. 11). After this complex had gone out of use it was replaced by Complex D. The area of the Complex B enclosure was now covered by an open yard, bounded on north and east by a gully and again open on the west. Within the courtyard were various structures associated with pottery production (see below p.49 , 26

N

T

.,...

Drier'::

:::

::

0

A

t

----.,

el

B Fig. 7

A. B.

4

E---3

.---

/ ---

Workshop building, Churchill, Phase 4b (Complex D) Working area, Churchill, Phase 2.

27

and Fig. 12). The south side of this open space was flanked by a building. This had been constructed of lumps of calcareous grit which had weathered very badly and in parts disappeared totally except for an orange stain. In addition it had been damaged considerably by a later ditch and other agencies. Parts of it lay outside the excavated area. The evidence, such as it is, suggests that the structure was sub-rectangular with rounded corners. The best preserved section showed that stone footings were set in a slight trench and that the interior had been flagged or cobbled. The overall width was 7 m and its length was at least 4 m. No roof supports were found but post pads could have existed and subsequently decayed or been removed. No internal fittings were found. The Complex C building had been heavily damaged by ploughing (Fig. 7A). It was mostly clearly indicated by a curved gully running east-west around the northern (uphill) side, from which a gully ran south into a stone-lined sump cut into a filled-in second-century ditch. Along the southern edge of the curved gully were traces of pitched stone footings capped by stone flags which had presumably supported a wall. At the west end of the gully stone footings continued the line forming an arc with a diameter of£.· 4. 5 m. Half a metre west of this a stone-lined slot capped with stone flags ran parallel to these footings for a distance of 1. 5m. One post hole was found in the approximate centre of the enclosed area. To the south, on the projected line of the arc, was another post hole. Within this general area were two driers of type 1 and one of type 5 and post holes; to the north of it was a clay chest. It is clear that a building must have existed here, but its exact form remains uncertain. It is possible that only the north-western part of the area was roofed, since the driers, elsewhere normally found under cover, were concentrated in this area. ---The south-eastern wall of the building would then have been formed by the southern and central post holes and a ploughed-out continuation of the footings along the east-west gully. This arrangement would leave the rest of the area to the east as an open yard. hl addition to the buildings already described a stone wall was traced for a length of 10 m south-west of the Complex A workshop and north of a Complex C kiln. Its western end ran into an area not available for excavation and its east end had been ploughed out so that no returns ceuld be traced, if any had existed. One side of the wall was buttressed, suggesting that it carried considerable weight and it should perhaps be thought of as part of a rectangular building associated with Complex A. A number of ·post holes were found at various places on the site but no regular plans could be defined; it is possible that they may have supported sheds which have otherwise left no trace. There were also various driers (two in Complex D, one in Complex C) which on present evidence appear to have stood in the open. Since their function makes this unlikely it is very possible that they did in fact have cover buildings which have left no archaeological trace. It is clear that buildings at the Churchill were on the whole insubstantial and of irregular plan. The incompleteness of the structural traces is due in part at least to the severe plough damage to the site but it may result also from the fact that many of the buildings were mere sheds or shacks. That such buildings were general in Oxfordshire kiln sites is borne out by the lack of evi28

dence. It is likely that substantial masonry buildings would have been noted in the fairly extensive commercial clearances at Rose Hill and Dorchester and that at Cowley any evidence of timber structures dug into the ground round the occupation floor would have been seen by the excavator. Instead the only evidence noted was the 'hut floors' at Rose Hill and Cowley. There remains the question of the exact function of the buildings. It was suggested above that the forming and drying of the pots must have been carried out under cover. The only evidence of function from any of these structures is the presence of driers in them. Where these do occur there are still large areas of empty floor space, yet these buildings are clearly associated with the pottery industry. The activities within them were then of such a type as to leave little trace and those activities which would be most conveniently associated with the driers and the other ancillary structures found outside but close to these buildings would be the preparation of clay and the forming of the pots. The best interpretation of these buildings is as workshops for this central part of the process of pottery production, and perhaps as storage areas for the com.,.. pleted vessels. 4. Firing The last stage of production was the firing of the green pots. The application of heat to plastic clay causes, above a certain temperature, an irreversible chemical change resulting in the permanent hardness of the clay. The extent of this change varies according to the temperatures attained. The lowest heat at which any permanent change takes place is£· 500°c, resulting in a fairly soft, permeable earthenware. When higher temperatures are applied a process of fusion takes place in the clay body, producing, at very high temperatures, impermeable fabrics such as porcelain. The completion of successful firings at high temperatures depends not only on the ability of the kiln to reach the required heat but also on the parti.,.. cular clay used which must be able to withstand the heat without melting or distortion. This can occur if an insufficiently refined clay is used. A number of Romano-British kilns have, when excavated, been found to contain pots which have melted and collapsed. This would suggest that the limiting factor of Romano-British ceramic technology which prevented the production of anything harder fired than earthenware, was not one of kiln design but of inability to refine clays sufficiently. The normal firing temperature seems to have . been in the order of 900 - 1000°c so that only in rare cases (e.g. the New Forest) was anything resembling stone-ware produced. Firing techniques have been the subject of more work than any other aspect of Romano-E ~itish pottery production. This is because kilns were the most substantial st1:uctures on_;nanufacturing sites and have so attracted more attention to this stage of the process. The standard classification is that of Corder (1959), although subsequent modifications have been made. Experimental firings of kiln replicas, in particular the long series at Barton-on-Humber (Bryant 1973), have contributed greatly to our understanding of the uses and limitations of kilns and have modified views on how kiln superstructures were constructed. Studies of particular groups of kilns have added to our knowledge of the development of firing technology in Britain. A brief survey of this de.,.. velopment is essential as a background to discussion of the Oxfordshire kilns. 29

The earliest kilns so far found in Britain belong to the period immediately after the conquest. As yet there arc no proven examples of kilns occurring in Belgic contexts. The best known group of early Roman kilns is in the Nene valley and their characteristics have recently been discussed (Woods 1974). All have certain features of design in common. First, with two possible exceptions, all were of the single-flue updraught type, in which a flue leads into the furnace chamber, which lies below the pottery chamber and is divided from it by a floor on which the pots are placed. Second, all were of relatively small size. Third, all were constructed almost entirely above ground, leaveing little archaeological trace. It was noticed that the later examples in the series had been dug more deeply into the ground. Fourth, the floor and floor-supports of ·the pottery chamber, in all cases where the evidence survived, were constructed from pre-fired clay firebars and pedestals which could have been re-used in successive kilns. Normally the firebars were cig-ar-shaped and the pedestals in the form of a small dumb-bell. Similar kiln types and furniture have been found also at Mucking, Essex (Jones, Jones 1973) and it seems likely that this design was widely used in the postconquest decades. The origin of the type is still uncertain. Although kilns of pre-conquest date have not yet been found, white and other fine wares were produced in south-eastern Britain before the conquest. It is difficult to see how any control of firing, sufficient for production of these wares, could have been attained without some sort of kiln. In this context it is perhaps worthy of note that pre-fired portable clay fittings were used in salt production in Essex and elsewhere long before the conquest (Red Hills 1909). In the last quarter of the first century the basic kiln type began to change. The norm.al kiln was still of single-flue updraught type but the furnace, flue and stoking area were now sunk below ground level. The pottery chamber was still generally above ground. In most cases it was probably cylindrical with a temporary roof put on for each firing (Bryant 1973) although this is not certain since this part rarely survives to any extent. The chief reason for this development was probably one of size: a partially sunken structure could be much larger and thereby support a larger oven. More pots could then be fired in each load; production would have increased without sacrificing economy in the use of fuel. Further economy in fuel use would have resulted from the insulating effect of putting the furnace below ground. The general increase in kiln size, notable in many major production centres of the second century and later, led to more elaborate designs, often with permanent floor, obviously intended to have long lives. Variation in the implementation of the basic principle of stokehole--') flue-') furnace--')pottery chamber was always enormous, as if each potter worked out his own solution to the construction problems involved. In certain areas, however, it is possible to detect design traits which amount to regional characteristics. A particularly clear example of this is the New Forest industry, wh€)re the essential features of the kiln design have recently been shown to include the use of pilasters on the furnace walls to support the permanent vent-holed floor 30

(Swan 1971a). Many of the kilns of the Mancetter-Hartshill industry also had a common design (Hartley 1973b) and in the Nene valley there was a marked propensity towards the use of tongue pedestals, permanent floors, and stone cheek-walls carried across the flue entrance (Hartley 1960, 15-17). In addition to the normal single-flue updraught type there were a certain number of two-flued updraught kilns. Until recently these have been called horizontal-draught kilns but it has been shown that they could not have operated in this way and must have been used by firing through both flues at the same time (Bryant 1973, 149). The principal advantage over a single-flued kiln is that firing from both ends eliminates cold spots at the back of the kiln. In the single-flued type this problem is circumvented by placing the load on a raised floor to ensure that it is all in the rising hot air. Corder regarded the two-flued updraught as being confined to the area around Farnham (Corder 1959, 23) but more recent discoveries have shown that they occur in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Essex, Dorset, Hertfordshire and Wiltshire as well as in Hampshire and Surrey (Harris, Young 1975, 17). The date range of the type is from the second century onwards. Despite this wide distribution it is still uncommon by comparison with the single-flued type.

It is against this background that one must consider the various kiln types of the Oxford region in order to determine (1) whether any evolutionary sequence occurred; (2) the degree to which design practice conformed to the normal practices of Romano-British potters; (3) whether any design features are so common and widespread within the Oxford region as to be characteristic of this particular industry; (4) whether the particular designs used reflect influences from other centres such as the Nene Valley or Colchester; (5) whether particular design features correspond to the production of particular wares. structural occurred:

details have been recorded

(1) Surface kiln, no internal

for 21 kilns.

The following types

fittings

Two examples were found at the Churchill in the first-century complex (Fig. 8). Both had been badly damaged by ploughing. They were oval in plan and constricted at one end. The larger was 1. 75 m long and 0. 3 m deep at its deepest point, the smaller only 1. 5 m long and 0. 2 m deep. The larger had traces of a lining of fired clay. Possibly the smaller end acted as a stokehole and the larger end as a furnace. There was no trace of any internal fittings. Reduced . and oxidised wares were associated with these kilns. · How these kilns, if such they were, operated is totally uncertain. Any structure must have been entirely above ground and the absence of fired-clay debris suggests that the walls were of some other material such as turf. The closest parallels in design and date are Woods's types IA and IB in the Nene valley (Woods 1974, Fig. 2). (2) Single-Hued updraught kiln with temporary a) Shallow hollow with central hump: third quarter of first century (Fig. 8).

floor

One example only;

Hanborough I;

An oval pit £· 1. 83 m long and 1. 22 m wide had been dug into the natural 31

gravel to a depth of 0. 2 m. To this last dimension should be added a further 0.15 - 0. 25 m of topsoil to obtain the depth of the kiln below the Roman ground surface. Th.us the total depth originally could have been as much as 0.45 m. The furnace chamber, 1. 22 m long and 1. 0 m wide, filled two-thirds of the pit. It had a lining of fired clay and the gap between this and the side of the pit had been filled with soil. The centre of the furnace chamber was filled by a mound of clay 0. 8 m by 0. 6 m reaching a maximum height of O. 18 m. The outer skin was fired hard but the interior was still soft. At the end furthest from the stokehole a narrow slot 0.12 m long had been cut into the side of the lump and in its centre was a depression. Several large stones had been placed against the side of the hump. Numerous fragments of clay firebars were found in the furnace. The remaining third of the pit had been used as a stokehole. The central mound would have functioned as a central pedestal _onwhich part of the load could have been placed. It would also have supported a floor of firebars over the rest of the furnace. The stones laid against the mound would have given lodgement for the firebars and prevented damage to the mound during stoking or raking out. There should, therefore, have been a pottery chamber above the furnace to enable the kiln to function as a normal updraught type. No exact parallels for this type of construction are known. The size of the kiln, its shallowness, and the use of firebars are all paralleled by Woods's Northamptonshire group, particularly his type IC (Woods 1974; Fig. 2); the method of constructing the central support, however, is unknown-in the Nene valley or elsewhere, the closest parallel being the central mound in kiln 3 at Overdale (below, p. 34 ) • This type is a local adaptation of an idea current elsewhere rather than a direct copy.

b) Single-flue updraught kiln with multiple pedestals: Hanborough II; third quarter

One example only;

of first century (Fig. 8).

The overall length was 2.4 m, the greatest -width 0. 8 m. The kiln had been dug into a slight slope; the shallower and smaller west end was used as the stokehole. The east end was joined to the stokehole by a flue 0. 9 m long and O. 6 m wide. Both flue and furnace had vertical sides. At the eastern end the furnace had been dug into the natural gravel to a depth of O. 75 m to which should be added 0.15 - 0. 25 m of topsoil giving an original maximum depth of£· l m. The west end of the furnace was some 0.3 m shallower. Traces of a fired clay lining survived in the furnace chamber. Placed in the centre of the furnace were three clay pedestals shaped like dumb-bells. The upper parts of these were fired hard but the lower parts were still plastic, having presumably been insulated by ash collecting in the base of the furnace. The surviving parts of these pedestals have sub-rectangular heads with square shafts. Photographs show the unfired ends to have been similar. The original length of the pedestals can be calculated as£· 0. 2 - 0. 3 m. A number of firebars, four of which were still complete, were found. All were square in section and of uniform thickness throughout their length, the shortest being O. 335 m, the longest 0.466 m long. The floor of the pottery chamber was presumably

constructed

from the

2b

2a

\

4 0 _/_,';·' .....,..

•:.;•:::•:•,. ~ ..,r::.--:.

· ':'.•.;,-1;:;~."-

'.~~:~i \., .-~~~:

-~-,.,.-...~--t--·•

6 Fig.

8

Oxford region kiln types 1-4, 6 (see Fig. 10 for key)· 33

three pedestals and the firebars though no lodgment for the firebars had survived at the edge of the kiln. It has recently been suggested that firebars might have been used as part of the roofing structure on these early kilns (Jones, Jones 1973, 16-17) but this cannot be the case here as the bars would be too short. The height of the pedestals shows that the furnace proper occupied only the bottom third of the deeper end of the kiln so that at least part of the pottery chamber was below ground. How far it rose above ground level cannot be discovered. The presence of dome plates in the kiln debris indicates that temporary roofing was used. In plan and in the use of kiln furniture the type is very similar to Woods's type me 'dumb-bell' kiln which occurred widely along the Nene valley (Woods 1974, Fig. 2, Table 1). It is unusually deep and the partiai firing of the pedestals is also very uncommon. Like type 2a, this kiln must be regarded as a local variation on a theme rather than a direct copy of types in use elsewhere in Britain.

(3) Single-flue updraught kiln, combined furnace and pottery chamber One only; Overdale, only (Fig. 8).

Kiln B; first hall of second century;

reduced wares

Tlie most significant feature of this type is the absence of a floor dividing furnace from pottery chamber. The stokehole, a pit o.3 m deep and 1.1 m in diameter, was divided from the furnace by a flue 0.45 m long, 0.4 m wide and 0.4 m high, roofed over with yellow clay. The floor of the flue sloped up from the stokehole to the furnace-cum-pottery chamber. The furnace, O. 7 5 m in diameter, had been dug into the natural clay so that no other lining was necessary. The same material had been used to continue the walls of the kiln to the top of natural to a maximum surviving height of o.9 m. A large piece of oolitic limestone had been placed in the centre of the floor to form a platform on which pots were placed during firing. Part of the final load was found in situ showing that the pots had been stacked in inverted bungs. Fragments of 'dome plates' indicated that the kiln had had a temporary roof. The type is most unusual and examples have been found elsewhere only at Mucking in Essex (Rodwell, Jones 1973, Fig. 2). Three kilns of this type were found there, one of the late first or early second centuries, the others of the late third century. (4) Single-flue updraught kiln, permanent floor with no support One only; Churchill Hospital F. 519; third century; wares, mortaria (Fig. 8).

oxidised wares,

white

The only example of this type was badly damaged in antiquity and further disturbed by a nineteenth-century field drain and an excavation trial trench. Its overall length was 3. 35 m. The stokehole was a shallow pit 2.1 m long and 1.6 m wide. The flue had been largely destroyed but was quite short. The flue led into a small furnace 1.1 m long and 1 m wide. The original maximum internal width was O. 85 m but was subsequently narrowed to 0. 6 m by a relining. The furnace bad originally been constructed by lining a verticallysided pit with clay walls£· 0. 075 m thick. The subsequent relining of kiln 34

TABLE 1 Dimensions

Furnace

of Type 5a kilns

Stokehole

Overall length

L.

w.

D.

L.

F.306

2.65

1. 35

1.05

4.40

3.75

1.45

7.05

F.307

1.65

1.05

0.40

2.50

2.50

0.20

4.15

F.311

2.50

1. 50

0.40

2. 70

3.30

0.50

5.20

F. 315

1.00

0.80

0.20

2.60

1. 90

0.30

3.60

w.

D.

(All measurements in metres; L = length; W = width; D = depth) debris, pottery and stones, luted together with clay, was necessitated by the lowering of the floor below the base of the walls caused by raking out after firings. Debris in the fill of the kiln showed that the pottery chamber had had a permanent floor with vent holes. There was no trace of any support for this other than the walls themselves. Kilns of this type are not unknown in Britain but there is no distinctive grouping of them. As might be expected kilns without a central floor support all tend to be on the small side. (5) Single flue updraught kiln with permanent pedestal

floor SUpPorted by a tongue-

(a) With stone walls, clay pedestal, no flue: Four examples, all from Churchill Hospital, Complex A (Fig. 9). Third century. Oxidised wares, white wares, mortaria. Two stone walled kilns were found at Sandford and one at Garsington but their exact design is un~ertain. The stokehole tended to be of irregular shape and, in three of the examples, was deeper than the furnace itself. There was no proper flue between the stokehole and the furnace. The latter took the form of a long trench, widening at the end furthest from the stokehole, and lined with stone walling. This used both pitched slabs and also coursed masonry luted with clay. There was a tendency to use large blocks to form small cheek walls revetting the stoke-hole on either side of the entrance to the furnace. All four examples had a tongue-pedestal which was comparatively short for the length of the furnace. Presumably for most of its length the latter was sufficiently narrow to be spanned without a central support. Debris found in the kilns showed that the pottery chambers had permanent vent-holed floors of fired clay, which would have been supported on the pedestal and the tops of the furnace walls.

35

1r_~_-_;_·'._~-_::_:_::_:_~:.-r.~.-~.i_::-~_:_w. ____ ....,.._ .....,..,...,.,=r-----,...

.,.....

...,•.-.;-)

. .. . : .7..----~,...,-_ __,__,.-.-.---.J..

r,,-.:c,---. ·.""·. ,-, .

5a 0 Metre

5b Fig. 9

Oxford region kiln types, 5a, b. 5a: Churchill, Phase 4a; 5b: Dorchester, Allen's Pit (after Harden 1936) (See Fig. 10 for key) 36

Little evidence survived for the pottery chamber but it is clear that its walls were of fired clay. The small fragments still in situ suggested that the sides of the chamber were vertical. Fragments of 'dome plates' found in the debris indicate that there was a temporary roof. The type is, of course, a variant of Corder's ubiquitous type IA iv, its most unusual feature being the use of stone to so large an extent in its construction. This is rare but not unknown. Kilns of similar form and construction have been found in the Nene valley (Hartley 1960, 16). The parallel is not complete, however, as the Nene valley examples had floors based on firebars. (b) With clay walls, tongue-pedestal, no flue: Six examples: Churchill Hospital, late third century; Cowley, fourth century; Allen's Pit, Dorchester, fourth century; Foxcombe Hill, fourth century; Shotover, fourth century; Rose Hill, ? second century (Fig. 9).

Foxcombe Hill, certairJy, · Rose Hill, possibly, produced reduced wares, the remainder oxidised wares, and white wares also. The Allen's Pit kiln produced colour-coated wares. The stokehole tended to an irregular sub-rectangular or oval shape and was often quite shallow. In one case (Rose Hill) part of the stokehole was revetted by a stone wall. There ·was no real flue at the entrance to the furnace which was similar in shape to that of type 5a kilns except for a more pronounced widening at the end furthest from the stokehole. ·-· The narrowing of the furnace towards the stokehole would in effect have fulfilled most of the function of a proper narrow flue. '"

In all cases the kilns were constructed of clay apart from the stone piers or small cheek walls at the mouth of the furnace. These walls would both have provided reinforced support for the floor and walls of the pottery chamber at a point where there had to be a break in the furnace floor and also have minimised damage to the structure from stoking and raking out ashes. At Dorchester the kiln walls had been constructed of prefabricated clay blocks with a clay skin daubed over them on the interior surface. All other examples had walls of puddled clay. All the kilns of this type had a clay tongue-pedestal projecting from the rear of the kiln. At Cowley the base of the pedestal was protected by stones to minimise damage caused by stoking and cleaning out the kiln. At Dorchester and Rose Hill parts of the floor of the pottery chamber survived in situ, showing that these examples had had permanent floors with vent-holes around the edges and perhaps· also in the centre. Debris from other kilns of this type show this to have been normal practice. As usual little survived of the superstructure of the pottery chamber. At Dorchester and Rose Hill wall stubs suggest that the chamber rose vertically for some little height at least. Finds of 'dome plates' indicate temporary rather than permanent roofing. The type is in all respects very similar to 5a, the principal difference being the shape of the furnace; this is probably due to the greater suitability of clay for building curved walls.

37·

TABLE 2 Dimensions

Site

Hosp. F . 703

Dorchester Foxcombe Horspath

Hill I

Rose Hill

(All measurements

Overall length

Stokehole

Furnace

Cowley Churchill

of Type 5b Kilns

L.

w.

D.

L.

w.

D.

1.17

0 .61

0.25

1.67

1.06

0.30

2.84

1.10

0.95

0.35

2.60

1.50

0.40

3.70

1.52

0.91

0.75

2.44

1.83

0.30+

3.96

1.47

0.60

?

?

?

?

?

1.00

0.78

0.27

1.00 . 1.00

0.20

2.00

1.95

1.22

0.75

1.92

0.70

3.90

= length;

W

in metres;

L

1.15

= width;

D

= depth)

It is, of course, yet another variant of Corder's type I A iv. In particular type is common at Colchester (e.g. Hull 1963: Kilns 8, 18, 24, 30).

the

(c) Clay walls, tongue-pedestal, corbel floor supports, long flues: Three examples, all from Churchill Hospital, all fourth century (Fig. 10). All produced oxidised, reduced, white wares and mortaria. The stokehole was a pit of irregular shape. No trace of any revetment was found. There was a relatively long flue leading into the furnace. The flue had in all cases been revetted with pitched stone slabs and roofed with stone slabs. The flue walls served only to revet the flue and gave no support to the front of the furnace. This was roughly circular and constructed of clay throughout. In two cases puddled clay had been plastered against the sides of the pit, in the third the furnace had been built freestanding in a somewhat larger pit. From the back of the kiln there projected a tongue-pedestal which was longer at the top than at the bottom, perhaps the result of raking out and stoking. Around the sides of the kiln there were corbels sprung from half way up the wall of the furnace chamber. · The floor of the pottery chamber was supported on the corbels and the pedestal and was made of clay. The main vent-holes were between the corbels. Across the top of the flue, where there could of course be no corbels, smaller vent-holes were pierced through the floor to complete the circle. Evidence from two kilns shows that there was an inner ring of vent-holes near the centre of the floor. Such remains as survive suggest that the walls of the pottery chamber were vertical. Fragments of 'dome plate' show that temporary roofing was used. 38

Saro

0 Nletre

r.: ,, /

I

0

I

m

/ /

5d

,,

KEY

I

;;;:.::::::;;:;:;::;;:;;,,.,_

later Feature

:Fig. 10

Gravel Unfiredclay Firedclay Stone Burntstone

Oxford region kiln .types 5c and 5d. (both from Phase 4b at the Churchill)

39

TABLE 3 Dimensions

of Type 5c Kilns

Furnace

Flue

Overall length

stokehole

L.

w.

D.

L.

w.

L.

w.

D.

F.101/102

1.4

1.3

0.45

1.4

1.0

2.4

2.9

0.49

5.2

F.451

1.4

1.4

0.7

0.8

0.7

3.0

3.7

0.4

5.2

F.615

1.6

1.6

0.8

0.8

0.8

3.30

3.0

1.15

5.7

(All dimensions

in metres;

L

= length; V!= width;

D

= depth)

This type is yet another variant of Corder's type I A iv. Its most distinctive feature is the use of corbels to support the floor of the pottery chamber. The closest parallel for this elsewhere in Britain is at Hartshill (Warwicks) where one kiln of this type has been found. It produced imitations of Oxfordshire colour-coated wares. It was considered by the excavator to be the work of an immigrant potter from the Oxford region (Hartley 1973, 144). A kiln of similar design, dated to the second century, has been found at Wiggonholt, Sussex (Evans 1974, Fig. 6). (d) Very small kiln with tongue-pedestal: One example only; Hospital; fourth century. Products uncertain (Fig. 10).

Churchill

The most significant feature of this kiln is its extremely small size. The stokehole ~ad been largely removed by a slightly later water pit so that its original size remains uncertain. The surviving part was less than half a metre long, 0. 7 m wide and only 0.17 m deep. Leading off this was a flue nearly as wide (0. 6 m) lined with pitched stones. The furnace chamber had an overall length. of O. 8 m and an overall width of 0. 6 m. Much of this, however, was taken up by the wall of the kiln, which was of clay between 0.1 and 0. 2 m thick. The inner O. 08 m was fired hard but the outer part was still plastic, though reddened by heat. There was a short tongue-pedestal, of one build with the kiln wall, which projected 0. 05 m. No evidence for the floor or walls of the pottery chamber was recovered. The function of this kiln is unknown. In the Nene valley kilns of similar size are thought to have been used for firing kiln furniture such as firebars. 3 This cannot be the case here since such pre-fired kiln furniture was not used at this period in the Oxford region. (6) Twin-flued updraught kiln One example only; wares (Fig. 8).

Overdale Kiln C; first half of second century;

reduced

The overall length of the kiln and stokeholes was 3.6 m, one stokehole being

40

rather smaller than the other. The flue from the large stokehole survived and was formed of clay reinforced by stone. It was 0.45 m long, 0,37 m wide and 0. 56 m high. The other flue had been destroyed. The furnace had been dug into the natural clay and no further walling had been needed. It was 1. 30 m long and widest at the end nearest the larger stokehole. Running down the centre of the flue was a narrow ridge of oolitic limestone raised into a hump at either end. Pots would have been stacked on this in firing. As mentioned above, twin-flued kilns are not common although finds of the type are well scattered over southern and south-eastern Britain. The closest parallel to Overdale is at Hamstead Marshall (Berks. ) which, after modification, had a similar ridge running along its bottom. It was however much later than the Overdale example (Connah 1964).

It is clear that the range of kiln types within the area _is varied. Any analysis of them must be based on the five questions posed above (p 31 ) • Table 4 shows in summary form the location, date, and, if known, the wares produced by the various kiln types. A clear evolutionary sequence is apparent. The small surlace kilns of the first century, with little or no internal fittings, were succeeded ultimately by the larger kilns of the third and fourth centuries, with tongue pedestals and permanent vent-holed floors. It is unfortunate that the accidents of discovery have produced so few recorded examples of kilns of second-century date. The only two definitely second-century kilns are the Overdale type 3 and 6 examples, both of which are unusual in terms of what went before and after them. If, however, the type 5b kiln from Rose Hill is of the date claimed by its excavator, the large kilns typical of the main Oxford industry were in use by the middle of the second century. The sequence in the Oxford region is identical to that outlined for Roman Britain as a whole (see above pp. 29-31) •. It is apparent, though, that there is little evidence here for direct immigration of potters into the Oxford region. While certain types reflect designs from elsewhere in Britain there are no copies such as that discovered by Mrs. Hartley at Hartshill. The type 1 and 2 kilns are close in form to the early kilns of the Nene valley but the execution of the design is very idiosyncratic, suggesting that the full implication of the use of portable pedestals and firebars had not been realised. Types 3, 5c and 6 have close parallels elsewhere, Overdale B being close to the kilns used at Mucking, Essex, Overdale C to one at Hamstead Marshall~ Berks. However it is difficult to see that there would be emigration of potters from Essex to Oxfordshire when there is no evidence for emigration from nearer areas. In the case of the type 6 kiln the Berkshire parallel is much closer but also much later than the Overdale example. Type 5c has close _parallels in Sussex and Warwickshire (see above p.40) but the Sussex kiln is over a century earlier than the Oxford examples so that the resemblance must be coincidental, while the Mancetter example appears to be a copy of

41.

TP ..BLE 4

Location.

Date· H..,agc and Pt·oducts

Site

Type 1

1. Churchill 2. Churchill

2(a) (b)

Hospital Hospital

1. Hanborough, 1. Hanborough,

F. 804 F. 827

Kiln I Kiln II

of Oxfordshire

Kiln Types

Date

Products

Topographical Grou

50 - 100 50 - 100

R.O. R.O.

3 3

50 - 100 50 - 100

R. R.

1 1

100 - 150

R.

2

3

1. Overdale,

Kiln B

4

1. Churchill

Hospital

F. 512

240 - 300

M.O.W.

3

5(a)

1. Churchill 2. Churchill 3. Churchill 4. Churchill

Hospital Hospital Hospital Hospital

F.

240 240 240 240

M.O.W. M.O.W. M.O.W. M.O.W.

3 3 3 3

240 - 400 ?C2

M.O.R. M.C.P.O. ?C ?R R. C.P.M. W. ?R

3 3 3 3 3 3

350+ 350+ C4

M.P.R.W. M.P.R.W. M.P.R.W.

3 3 3

?

3

R.

2

(b)

6

306 F. 307 F. 311 F. 315

Churchill Hospital F. 703 Cowley, St. Luke's Road Dorchester Foxcombe Hill Shotover Rose Hill, Kiln 1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

(c)

1. Churchill 2. Churchill 3. Churchill

Hospital Hospital Hospital

F. 101/102 F. 451 F. 615

(d)

1. Churchill

Hospital

F. 519

1. Overdale,

Kiln C

C P

-

240 - 300 350+ 250 - 350 C4

C4

100 - 150

= colour-coated wares; M = Mortaria; = parchment wares; R = reduced wares;

(For explanation

300 300 300 300

of topographical

groups

0

= Oxidised = white

W

see pp. 9-13

wares; wares. )

the Churchill kilns rather than vice versa. The use of clay blocks in one of the type 5b kilns might suggest some contact with the Nene valley, but on the whole the evidence does not suggest immigration by potters into the Oxford region. Rather it seems that potters adopted and adapted ideas heard from elsewhere. The early kiln types show little uniformity but in areas of the main Oxford industry there is a regional terised by the use of tongue-pedestals and permanent kilns are not as uniform as those of the New Forest, tions within the main type. 42

the later period in the kiln type which is characvent-holed floors. The there being distinct varia-

It was thought at one point that these variations within type 5 might be the result of specialisation for the production of different wares, since 5a was not used at all for reduced wa~es, whereas 5c was used for oxidised, white and reduced wares. This might suggest that the shape of 5c was more suitable for reduced wares, perhaps because the long flue could be more easily blocked during cooling than the pear-shaped 5a. On the other hand 5b kilns, which differ from 5a examples only in the material used for construction, were used for the production of reduced wares. If this was so it is less easy to argue for a functional explanation of the variation. An alternative explanation would be that the differences merely reflect the individual tastes of particular potters. It would be extremely useful to our understanding of the pottery industry if realistic estimates could be made of the capacity of the kilns, the frequency with which they were fired and the period over which they were used. Any attempt to make such estimates is bedevilled by lack of evidence. In order to discover the number of pots included in a firing, it is necessary to know or to estimate the floor area and height of the pottery chamber, the types of pots made in the kiln, the size range of the types and the proportions in which they were fired. Some of this information is obtainable where sufficiently large areas of kiln sites have been dug. Size range and preference for particular types can be worked out by quantifying the waste material. The floor area of the pottery chamber is often known and the height of the pottery chamber can be estimated with some degree of likelihood. Estimates for the Churchill, based on the supposition of a load of mortaria of average size and that the height of the pottery chamber equalled the depth of the furnace, gives figures for type 5a ranging from 77 for F. 315 to 800 for F. 306, and for type 5c ranging from 224 for F. 101/102 to 700 for F. 615. But an equally valid estimate of height could assume that the pottery chamber was at least as high as it was wide and this would almost double the capacity of the 5c kilns. In addition it is almost certain that the load would have been mixed for technical reasons and that this mix would have varied according to market demands. Such figures can only be regarded as indicators of capacity and not as statements of what might actually have happened. It is totally impossible to estimate for the Oxford industry the frequency and number of firings of each kiln. On the question of frequency all that can be said is that it would have been possible for one potter, whose sole duty was throwing pots, to have produced in a week the 7 - 800 pots needed for the firing of the bigger kilns. Whether such frequencies were ever obtained would have depended on many factors such as the organisation of production and the pressures of market demand. An estimate of the number of times a kiln had been fired could only be made by calculating the. total number of pots produced and dividing that sum by the estimated capacity of the kiln. Such a calculation would be based on the assumption that a known proportion of the waste from the kiln had been recovered and that the wastage rate was known or could be estimated. No such estimate is yet possible for any Oxfordshire.kiln since it cannot be asserted confidently that all the waste (or a known proportion thereof) from one

43

kiln has been recovered from one kiln alone.

or, indeed, that any waste dump contained material

Since it is not possible to estimate the frequency or number of firings, no calculation of the life-span of any kiln of the Oxfordshire area is possible on that basis. An alternative method used for the New Forest industry is based on the assumption that the kilns were used seasonally so that annual repairs would have been needed. On this basis Fulford has suggested life spans of two to six years for the three kilns at Amberwood (1975b, 22-3). This method too is inapplicable to the Oxon kilns since they contain so little evidence of rebuilding and repair. Either they were used for less than a year, which is unlikely since many of them are very substantial structures, or they were used for longer periods but did not need periodic major rebuilding because their use was continuous and not seasonal, so that there was no annual cycle of neglect and subsequent repairs. Experimental firings may ultimately provide some data on the life expectancy of kilns used frequently, but such evidence is not yet available. 5. Storage of finished vessels There must have been stores for completed stock before it was sent to its markets, but no such structure has yet been identified in Roman Britain. 6. The planning and organisation

of the kiln sites

Elsewhere in Britain there is a certain amount of evidence of organisation, which provides a useful background with which the Oxfordshire industry can be compared. It is still sparse, however, because few potteries have been dug on a sufficiently large scale, and plans are avalable for fewer still. Additional evidence is provided by potters' stamps. In the Nene valley three first-century complexes have been explored on a large scale. At both Rushden (Wilson 1972, 322-3) and at Hardingstone (Woods 1969) kilns were associated with complexes of ditches, pits and gullies covering wide areas. At Hardingstone many of the kilns were sited in or on the sides of the ditches. No clear pattern of enclosures was evident and it is more likely that the ditches were intended for drainage than for boundaries. Further east, at Longthorpe, a yard was found containing a group of three kilns, a clay dump, irregular working hollows and drainage gullies. Again no trace of buildings was recorded (Dannel!, Wild, 1973). At the Highgate (London) kiln site, the prominent features were again complexes of ditches,. close to or in which were the kilns, around which had accumulated waster dumps. One building, known only from the circular gully surrounding it, lay to one side of the main groups of kilns. The excavators consider that use of the site was seasonal and that the labour force was small (Brown, Sheldon, 197 4). At the military production centre of Holt, more substantial structures and a highly planned layout were discovered (Grimes 1930 ). The complex covered over eight hectares, laid out regularly along the bank of the river Dee. Permanent buildings included a compound containing barrack blocks, a bath-house, commandant's house, workshop, drying shed and a battery of kilns around which had been a mass of temporary buildings. The three buildings in the com-

44

pound, commonly identified as barracks, are all longer than the normal centurial barracks at Chester, and their plan is abnormal. Nonetheless if they were barracks, a considerable work-force was employed at Holt, producing tiles and a wide variety of fine and coarse wares. The scale and the evidence for deliberate planning are unique in Britain and are doubtless the result of the military nature of the works depot of Leg XX. Technologically, the most advanced pottery industry in Roman Britain was that producing samian and other wares at Colchester in the late second century. The only samian kiln found was set in a walled compound with three other kilns, not all in use at the same time. Nearby to the south were three more kilns, a building with plastered walls and, perhaps, another building. It is possible that more ephemeral structures existed to the north of the compound (Hull 1963, 17-19, 34-43). Apart from the concentration of some of the kilns in a compound there is little evidence of organised layout. At Colchester additional information is provided by potters' stamps. During the lifetime of the complex at least three potters produced decorated samian, 14 plain samian and 11 mortaria. Only one potter made both samian and mortaria. In addition colour-coated and other oxidised and reduced wares were produced but it is not known how many potters were involved in their manufacture (Hull 1963, 43-74, 85-90, 110-114). Hull (1963, 143) considered that the complex was in use for about a decade .. If this was the case most of the named potters must have been working at one and the same time. Various conclusions follow from this. First, there must have been a high level of kiln-sharing, especially in the case of the samian potters who had only one kiln between them. This would suggest that the number of vessels produced per firing by each potter must have been relatively low. Second, the buildings found at Colchester are totally inadequate to house so many potters. Either others existed in the areas round the compound where excavation was not possible or the additional buildings were so flimsy as to have left no archaeological trace. The third clear implication is that a high degree of cooperation must have existed between potters who were sufficiently independent to stamp their wares with their own names. The way in which this cooperation was organised will, of course, remain uncertain. It could have ranged from a cooperative of independent potters at one extreme to a totally unitary system with one employer for all the potters at the other. Elsewhere too stamped wares show that numerous potters could be working in close proximity (cf Castle 1973; Hartley, Webster 1974), suggesting that the type of cooperation envisaged at Colchester occurred on many fine-ware sites of the second century. Stamps have also shown that the same potter could be working on two sites several miles apart, indicating that in some major production areas the organisation may have been very complex (Hartley 1973b, 143). For the late Roman period the evidence of potters' stamps is largely lacking for the fine-ware producers which must in itself be significant of some change, so that we are dependent on the structural evidence for organisation and layout. At Stibbington in the Nene valley a rectangular half-timbered 45

workshop containing clay chests was set close to a well and two kilns, one producing reduced, the other colour-coated wares (Wild 1973b). The scale of the accommodation suggests a fairly small unit used by only one or two potters, since all the production processes were probably carried o'ut within the one building, with an output of mixed wares. It should be remembered that this is suggested on the basis of archaeologically detectable structures and that buildings which left no trace may have existed. Certainly substantial permanent structures existed only at the major production centres. Some aspects of the organisation of such centres can be detected from the evidence summarised above. In the second century use of the sites by a number of potters was fairly common. The extent to which this continued into the late Roman period is uncertain but may perhaps have decreased. On the other hand this apparent decrease may merely be due to the end of the use of name-stamps and to the temporary and insubstantial nature of many buildings. Evidence for the organisation of minor centres is almost entirely lacking apart from the site at Highgate (see above p.44 ). It seems likely that work at many of these centres and even at some of the smaller fine-wa:re producers may have been seasonal with the result that all structures apart from the kilns themselves, would have been temporary and probably indetectable archaeologically (Fulford 1975b, 8, 12-13). It is against this confused background that we must consider the organisation and layout of the Oxfordshire kiln sites. Several of the Group 3 sites (to which production of fine wares was confined), notably Sandford/Blackbird Leys, Rose Hill, Cowley, Dorchester and the Churchill Hospital, covered large areas and were in use for considerable periods. It might be expected that the organisation and layout could vary considerably from time to time. There is some evidence for this. At Cowley the excavated area was used for production only in the late third and fourth centuries, having previously been used solely as an area for dumping waste (Young 1974b, 227). At Sandford/ Blackbird Leys, one end of the site was not used after the end of the third century. A fluid situation can be observed also at the Churchill (see below). Potters' stamps show that in the Oxford region, as elsewhere, a number of potters could be working on the same site during the second century. 11 different mortaria dies used by at least four groups of potters have been found at Cowley, at least four different stamps were found at Littlemore, three at Dorchester and two at Rose Hill (below p. 57 -8). The same may also be true of the late third century since four imitation samian stamps are known from Cowley, three from Dorchester, and at least eight from Sandford. Regrettably, adequate evidence of the physical layout of the sites where potters' stamps have been found is lacking. At Cowley and Rose Hill buildings and ancillary structures are known to have existed in close proximity to kilns but insufficiently large areas were dug to produce coherent plans. It is possible that at both sites domestic occupation was present in the industrial areas. Only at the Churchill has excavation here it should be stressed that probably

of a large area been possible. Even less than half the total area of the site

46

N

i

p

Platform

w

WQl"kshq:,

►

Drier i:wes 1-4 Drier type

'5

5

-0

Kin

00

Kiln probable

}?(:

Pottery tip

a

Clay chest

•

Well

b A

0·

0

., B

30

0 Metres

Fig. 11

Layout of workshop complexes

47

A and B, Churchill Phase 4a.

N

r b1953 kih

C

Fig. 12

Layout of workshop complexes C and D, Churchill Phase 4b.

48

has been dug so that other structures may have been associated with those discussed below. This means that hypothesis based on this evidence should be treated with a certain amo~ of caution. There was one minor and one major period of pottery production at the Churchill. The earliest phase, dated to the first century, comprised a partially ditched enclosure containing a well with a well-head, and a rectangular pit (Fig. 7B). One type 1 kiln lay in the entrance, another lay outside the enclosure with its stokehole running into the ditch. No buildings were found but the placing of well and pit towards the side of the enclosure suggests that the central portion could have been used for a working area or some type of shelter. This seems very similar to the potters' yard at Longthorpe (Dannell, Wild, 1973) and to other first-century sites in the Nene valley. It is likely that the site was not in use for long and that only a few people took part in its operation. After a period in excess of a century an~ a half the Churchill was again used for pottery production. Analysis of the pottery divides this second period into one phase in the second half of the third century and a second phase within the · fourth century. Within each phase the structures divide topographically into two groups, making a total of four in all, mmed as Complexes A, B, C and D (Figs. 11, 12). The topographical distinction between Complexes C and D fa less clear than that between A and B, and it is possible that they may have been part of the same production unit . • Complex A consisted of a circular building with a cobbled floor, containing a type 1 pot drier,· a stone platform, probably used as a clay dump, a well, and, perhaps, a rectangular stone building. These structures were grouped together some 20 metres south-east of a row of four kilns, arranged in two pairs, each consisting of one large and one small kiln (see Table 1, p. 35 ). It is P,erhaps possible that one pair was in use at a time and that the twodifferent sizes of kiln were used respectively for large and small vessels. Certainly the small examples could have held very few of the mortaria or widemouthed jars made in this Complex. Complex B comprised a rectangular enclosure, (probably partly roofed) (see pp. 26 -,8) containing three clay ·chests. Another clay c..J:t~st,two pottery driers (types-2 and 4) and a clay-lined water tank lay close by. Probably only one drier at a time was in use. Two kilns were associated with this complex, one lying just to the west of the enclosure, the other 15 metres to the east .. Complex Chad one insubstantial building containing three small pottery driers (two type 1. one type 5). Not more than two of these were in use at any one time. Immediately outside this was a clay-chest and further away was a large type 1 drier and two kilns. The stokehole of a third kiln was found in 1972 and the kiln found in 1953 also probably belonged to this complex. Not all these kilns were in use at the same time. Complex D largely overlay the remains of B. A possible sub-rectangular building formed one side of a yard containing two driers. Perhaps associated with this was the large type 5c kiln found 30 metres to the south-west. Some pattern does emerge from these various complexes. It is clear that individual production units were relatively small and had only one or two buildings. The fact that ancillary structures such as clay-chests and driers lay in and near the buildings supports their interpretation as workshops, in which all 49

the activities

of potting,

needing cover,

were carried

out.

Except in Complex B, there is a clear division between preparation areas and firing areas. This would liave had the advantage of keeping the dirtproducing firing away from other processes demanding some degree of cleanliness. The intervening areas would have been useful for the storage of fuel and, perhaps, other raw materials. The labour force of each unit must have been small since the known accommodation in each case could have been sufficient for only one or two potters. It is difficult to suggest that more than ten or a dozen people could have been employed by any of the Churchill units, even after allowance has been made for the labour-intensive nature of production. The permanence of the buildings and the absence of .seasonal rebuilds in the kilns suggests that work may have continued throughout the year. The use of pottery driers would certainly have made this more possible. It is worth noting that, on the basis of the highly hypothetical calculations of kiln capacity made above (pp. 43 - 4 ), a labour force of the nature suggested could have produced .£ 40, 000 pots annually. The presence of buildings which have left no archaeological trace would alter the suggested organisation somewhat. Even if it did exist this type of small unit may not have been universal within the late Oxford industry. The finds of makers' stamps on some sites suggests that in places multiple use of one centre continued until at least the end of the third century. However valid the evidence from the Churchill is for that site, it cannot be applied to the other late Roman Group 3 sites unless confirmed by extensive work elsewhere. Such work is needed also on the earlier sites to elucidate the situation at that period too. Evidence for the organisation of the sites of local significance only (Groups 1 and 2, Churchill, Phase 2) is lacking apart from the Churchill site, where the evidence suggests an ephemeral establishment. It is indeed quite possible that they did operate only on a seasonal basis and would have had only temporary shelter. Again this is a question that can only be settled by further excavation of large areas of such sites.

NOTES 1.

Information

from Mr. M. Lyne

2.

Information

from Dr. A. Hands

3.

Information

from Mr. G. Dannell.

50

CHAPTER 4 THE CLASSIFICATION OF OXFORD WARES

The Oxfordshire industry first appeared as an entity recognisable to the archaeologist in the second half of the first century A .D. The manufacture of at times up to a dozen wares continued until the end of the Roman period at some 30 known or suspected kiln sites. Large quantities of pottery have been recovered from these sites, much of it under conditions which were far from scientifically ideal. The problems of classifying so diversified a body of material are considerable; a clear statement of the methods here used should greatly aid the understanding of the succeeding chapters in which the pottery is discussed. As a preliminary it must be emphasised that pottery production in the ancient world was not the precise, standardised process found in modern manufacture. Classification of ancient wares depends on first identifying such features as reflect those everyday fluctuations of the potter's work which are not significant in terms of chronology, source or marketing patterns, and upon distinguishing them from those that are. 1.

Wares

The primary distinction used has been that of fabric. The type of ware produced is obviously primarily controlled by the clay source but can be varied, either accidentally or deliberately, by the extent to which clay is refined or temper is added, by the finish and in some. cases by the surface treatment or decoration given to the pottery and by the conditions of firing. Broadly, two types of clay were .available to the Oxford potters. One, found only on Shotover, was iron-free and, when fired, produced pottery which was white or buff. The remaining clay sources ·of the region were all ironrich and so could be fired under oxidising or reducing conditions to give on the one hand wares that were red or orange, and on the other those that were grey or black (see p. 12 above). Thus tlie clay allows a threefold division into white, oxidised and reduced wares. • Each of these can be further divided on the basis of tempering, relative fineness or coarseness of the ware, and other special treatment such as colour-coating. This sub-division has been based on visual inspection of the pottery since it was found that the wares were distinctive to the eye. It is possible that spectroscopic or heavy mineral analysis might allow us to define within certain wares the products of specific workshops (Hartley, Richards 1965), but to achieve this an expensive and time-consuming programme involving a large number of samples would be needed, and resources were not available for this • 51.

Within "the groups of oxidised wares and white wares it was found that certain fabrics were far more important than the rest in terms of market area and quantities produced and these have been defined as major wares. Within one of the wares it was found that the same was true of one particular class of vessels. Though not entirely consistent with the classification generally adopted it seemed necessary to treat this class of vessels, the white-ware mortaria, separately from the other coarse white-ware forms, since they clearly formed a particularly important part of the Oxfordshire products. Mortaria produced in other wares (e.g. colour-coat) do not stand out from the other vessels produced in those wares and so have not been accorded separate treatment. On this basis the following wares and groups of wares can be defined, and

are discussed in detail in following chapters: (i) White Wares: Major

Minor

Mortaria Parchment

Fine white ware Coarse white ware Burnt white ware Gritted white ware

ware

(11) Oxidised Wares:

Major

Minor

White colour-coat ware Red/brown colour-coat ware ·

Fine oxidised ware Coarse oxidised ware

(iii) Reduced Wares: A large number of separate reduced wares can be defined but the boundaries between t:qem are often difficult to establish. The problem is discussed further in Chapter 12. 2.

Typology

Within each fabric, further classificat~on has been based on a detailed examination of vessel forms, taking into account the general shape of the pot, its rim and other distinctive aspects of its profile, and the decorative techniques used on it. The principal problem here is to distinguish differences significant in terms of date or source of manufacture from those that were not thus significant or were merely inherent in the manufacturing methods used. Identity between pots made by the same potter or workshop could be achieved only if use was made of jigs, moulds or other mechanical devices. Pots freethrown on a wheel are bound to show a variety of minor typological variations even if their maker was trying to produce many examples of the same pot-type. This is certainly the experience of modern potters who work in this way and the same situation existed in Roman Britain as can be shown by even superficial examination of pots from loaded kilns, such as that at Overdale (Harris, Young 1975, Fig. 7, 7-11, Fig. 8, 20-25), or from rapidly accumulating kiln dumps such as the fourth-century well-group from the Churchill Hospital (Young 1973b, Fig. 5, 15-17, Fig. 6, 18-28).

52

Fortunately these problems can be resolved, partially at least, by the examination of large quantities of material from kiln sites and elsewhere. In the type-series presented in the following chapters differences which are or might be significant in chronological terms have been used to define new types. Other differences have, it is hoped, been adequately illustrated in the examples of each form. 3.

Chronology

The basic assumptions on which archaeological material is dated have been frequently discussed (e.g. Piggott 1959) as has their application to Romano-British pottery in particular (Hartley 1972). The problems of residuality and of intrusive material have also been stressed often (e.g. Hartley 1966, 55) and must be continually borne in mind in a study such as this. The examination of kiln sites has been advanced as a means of overcoming the problems of residuality by studying large groups of pottery deposited in a short period of time (Webster 1964, 2). This will not always be achieved where production sites were used over long periods, but groups from kiln sites seem, on the whole, less likely to contain residual or intrusive material than those from other types of site. In the Oxford region, this advantage is offset to a certain extent by the fact that much of the excavated material is no longer extant and that a large proportion of what does survive was recovered or subsequently stored under conditions which ensure that it can now only be reg-arded as unstratified. A further problem of dating pottery from kiln sites is that finds other than pottery are scarce, so that few independently dated objects are ever found in association with the excavated groups. Coins have been found on four Oxon kiln sites (Churchill, Overdale, Rose Hill, Sandford) but only at one (Churchill) wasftheir provenance helpful to the dating. For the proper dating of pottery, stratified, dated groups are needed as well as the associated groups from the · kiln sites themselves. Absolute dating methods, such as thermoluminescence, are unlikely to give any closer dating than can be achieved by these traditional methods. The most useful groups are those that are big, since in a large quantity Ideally such groups should also be local since they are then more likely to contain a wide range of Oxford wares of all types. Only two such groups or sequences have been thoroughly published so far. First there is the 1962 defence section at Dorchester (Frere 1964) at the southern end of the production area of the Group 3 kiln sites. This is helpful down to the late second century. Unpublished material from later excavations both at Dorchester and elsewhere in the region gives some additional information, as do some smaller published groups (e.g. Parrington, Balkwill 1976, Young 1976). of pottery absence of a type may be as indicative of date as presence.

The site most important for this purPose in the region is the Shakenoak villa near North Leigh which was occupied for most of the Roman period (Brodribb, Hands, Walker 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,forthcoming). There is a useful sequence for the second and early third centuries but the principal value of the site lies in three very large groups (Brodribb, Hands, Walker 53

1971, Figs. 36-8; Figs. 30-44; forthcoming) each of which was associated with numerous coins. One of these dates to the second half of the third century, one to the first half of the fourth and the last to the second half of the fourth century. All these were rubbish deposits and were not properly sealed, as the excavators stressed, but the dating they suggest is adequately borne out elsewhere . Outside the Oxford region three sites in particular have produced large groups of material containing considerable quantities of Oxford ware. An extremely useful group from Coygan Camp in south-west Wales (Wainwright i 967), amply dated by coins to the period 270-300, provides much useful evidence on the types of Oxford ware current in the late third century. The most important collection of material is that from the recent excavations at Portchester Castle where Oxford ware was prolific in groups dating from ~. 300 to 380. The material from Richborough is also useful since it is possible from the reports (Bushe-Fox 1926, 1932, 1949, Cunliffe 1968) to work out what Oxford types were found in many of the pits. As these often contained coins their value for dating purposes is great. In addition to these very large dated groups numerous smaller groups of dated material have been recovered and this evidence is cited in the catalogues of the various fabrics. From the dates thus obtained for the mortaria and colour-coat wares, in particular, it has been possible to date many of the surviving groups from the Group 3 kiln sites. The evidence for such groups is listed and discussed where necessary in Appendix 1 (PP. 242-256) and summarised on Table 5. (For the explanation of the Groups of kiln sites see pp. 10-13). The dating of the kiln sites of Groups 1 and 2 is more problematic since they produced only reduced wares which travelled very short distances and are not, in any case, easy to distinguish from the products of other centres (see Chapter 12). Some guidance can be obtained from the deposits at Dorchester, Alchester and at Shakenoak and this has been used to suggest dates for the products of the various kilns. 4.

Method of Study

In the following chapters each ware is considered separately, its characteristics are defined and there is a general discussion of its typological range, the origins of the various pot types, the decorative techniques used thereon, and of its distribution. This is followed by an illustrated corpus of all the types made in tl?-at fabric. The provenance of the illustrated, dated and other specimens of each form is catalogued in Appendices 2-10 and Appendix 11 lists the location and relevant publications of material from sites cited in the catalogue. Slightly different procedures have been adopted for the reduced wares and these are outlined in Chapter 12.

54

TABLE 5 Dated Contexts and Phases

of Oxford Kiln Sites

Date

Context/phase

Kiln sites Group 1

Kil.D ◄ K.a 2

A. D. 50-100

1947 Kiln 1950 Kiln

A.D. 50-100

Kiln B Kiln C

A.D. 100-150 A. D. 100-150

Kiln 1 Kiln 2 and Various Kiln 3

A.D. 180-240 A.D. 180-240 A.D. 180-240

Churchill Hospital

Phase 2 Phase 4a Phase 4b

A.D. 50-100 A. D. 240-300 A.D. 300-400+

Cowley, St. Luke' s Road

1972,. Feature 1972, Feature 1972, Feature

Dorchester,

Abbey Well

Well Group

A.D. 70-100

Dorchester,

Allen's

Pit

Kiln 1 Kiln 2 Well 1 Well 2 :Well 3

A. D. A. D. A.D. A.D. A.D.

Littlemore,

Ashurst

Clinic

? Stokehole

.A. D. 100-150

Han.borough Cassington

A.D. 50-100

Group 2 Overdale

Group 3 Blackbird

Rose Hill

Leys

1 2 4

Kiln 3 and assoc.

55.

A.D. 120-170 A. D. 240-300 A. D. 240-300

pits

250-350 250-400+ 250-400+ 250-400+ 250-400+

A. D. 240-400+

CHAPTER 5 THE WHITE WARES - (1) MORTARIA

Strictly speaking the white-ware mortarla form just one class of vessels within the coarse white wares discussed in Chapter 7. On that basis they should be discussed with the remaining classes of vessel in that ware, as has been done with those mortaria produced in white and red colour-coat wares. Unlike these two latter categories however, the white-ware mortaria stand out from the remaining white wares by reason of the vast quantities produced and of their very extensive distribution over a period of three centuries. Clearly the white-ware mortaria were of great importance within the Oxford industry and so merit discussion separate from the remaining coarse white wares which never achieved more than local significance. White-ware mortaria have been found at most of the Group 3 potteries but have occurred in quantity only in the northern part of the area, centred on the source of white clay on Shotover. They were thus an important part of production at Sandford, Cowley, Blackbird Leys, Open Brasenose, Phase 4a of the Churchill, Rose Hill, Mount Pleasant (Littlemore), Marston, Old Headington, Oxford School, Shotover, Dru.n's Hill (Woodeaton) and Headington Wick. At Littlemore (Ashurst Clinic) and in Phase 4b of the Churchill they were the most prolific of the types produced. They are also known from Dorchester (Allen's Pit) and from Garsington. THE FABRIC Hard, sandy ware, often with visible black or red sand and sometimes with larger inclusions. The colour is normally white or off-white and sometimes a thin orange wash was applied to the pots~ Overfired examples can be grey in colour. The trituration grit is invariably rounded and translucent and in colour can be black, grey, white, pink or red, depending on firing conditions (see p. 12). CLASSIFICATION AND CHRONOLOGY Mortaria in general, and in particular their makers' stamps, have been the subject of much study, notably by Mrs. Hartley, and it is clear that there could be considerable differences, in form as well as fabric, between mortaria produced by two different areas at the same time. A good case of this is provided by comparison of the late Roman hammerhead mortaria of MancetterHartshill with the contemporary flanged mortaria of the Oxford industry in the late Roman period, for example at Coygan Camp, Dyfed (Wainwright 1967, Fig. 33). · Less dramatic but none-the-less real differences exist at earlier periods also (e.g. Verulamium: Wilson 1972, Figs. 109-110).

56

The basic approach, therefore, to the Oxford mortaria must be to establish their typological characteristics and chronological sequence from the Oxford products themselves. The first step towards establishing this sequence is by study of the associations of types found on the kiln sites themselves, though this is only possible where the pottery has been retained in its stratified groups. Even where these groups have survived it must be remembered that the length of time over which they accumulated is uncertain and that some of them may in any case contain residual material. This certainly happened at the Churchill where Phase 4 layers contain a few examples each of M10, M11 and M14-16 among the vast quantities of Mi 7-23. Presumably the former are residual from the earlier Phase 3 occupation of the site, as must be the second-century samian found in the same Phase 4 contexts. A second way of establishing which types were made within a short period of each ()ther is to take account of potters' stamps, since the use of the same stamp on different forms shows that they were all made within the working lifetime of one man. At present this can be done only for the potter Vossullus since the other stamps on the kiln sites occur in small quantities and on one type of mortarium only. By means of the Vossu.llus-stamped pieces and by the associations established at Littlemore (Ashurst Clinic), Blackbird Leys and Phase 4a and 4b of the Churchill, five groupings of types contemporary with each other can be established, covering 17 of the 23 types defined in the corpus. The remaining six forms are all close variants of one or other of those present in the five groups and can be considered typologically to be contemporary with their parent type. This information ls summarised in Table 6. The sequence worked out in this way ls both broad, in that some of the groups from kiln-sites could have accumulated over half a century or more, and relative. Absolute dates have to be looked for elsewhere. In order to establish the time-span over which a type was made, a large number of dated examples are needed and for many of the forms this evidence is largely lacking. Even where examples from dated contexts do exist, many may be residual in those contexts although these can be screened out to a certain extent by comparison with the associations from the kiln sites. These problems are most acute for the period before the mid-third century; at this early period the dates offered for the various types can be based only on one or two dated examples and the groups from the kiln sites. They must therefore be regarded as being somewhat tentative and every effort has been made to avoid suggesting dates that seem over-precise. From the mid-third century onwards the large groups from Coygan Camp, Portchester and Shakenoak make it possible to determine with some accuracy which types were current at what period. Potters'

stamps

The practice of stamping mortaria with a maker's name or mark was common in the first and second centuries and is attested in the Oxford region at Blackbird Leys, Cowley, Dorchester (Allen' s Pit), Littlemore (Ashurst Clinic), 57.

TABLE 6 Relative sequence of mortaria types, based on kiln-site and potters '-stamp assQciations (shown by unbroken lines) and typological links (broken line). Residual finds are shown by crosses.

Littlemore

Vossullus Stamp

Blackbird Leys

Churchill Phase 4a

Churchill Phase 4b

Mi M2 -----------

M3 M4 M5 M6 M7

X

MS M9 M10

X

Mii

X

M12

M13 M14

X X

M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21 M22

X

M23

Rose Hill and Sandford. In addifion to those found on the kiln sites themselves, a number of stamps have been found elsewhere. All are being studied by Mrs.· Hartley as part of her work on stamped British mortaria and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, no full study of them is made here. Those stamps actually found on kiln sites are illustrated on Fig. 13. Only one, that of Vossullus, is literate. Some difference between the various kiln sites can be detected in the use of stamps. At Cowley worked Vossullus and potters who produced elaborate quadripartite illiterate stamps. At Littlemore, Ashurst Clinic, complex illiterate stamps were edged by separate herringbone dies. Herringbone stamps were also used at Blackbird Leys and Cowley, and at Sandford, Dorchester and Rose Hill there was a tendency to repeat the same stamp two or three times side by side.

58

Sf\~~"¾' (~@(

1

~//QV~/ ~~\ y~ "'~e:..~ e

o\ •

.

o. oo.

~

60

? . •o

•o • 0

.

f

•

0

0

0

Distribution

of white-ware

67

0

0

00

0 o.o

b3

17

~51

0

0

0

Fig.

51

II

"b

O(boo 0 0

Oo

0

~

0 ~ 00°

O 0

2q,

Oo 0'?

0

mortaria,

=

m,les

50

&-4

c. 300-400+ (Types M22-3)

time Oxfordshire mortaria began to reach the southern extension of the Cotswolds around Bath and into Mendip and along the Bristol Channel. To the south there was some penetration south of Wan.borough and into Hampshire. In the south-east the importance of London as a market increased and Oxon mortaria began to reach Kent for the first time. North of the Thames, sites in Essex were receiving Oxford products and a few outliers appeared in Norfolk while in the area between Baldock and the production centres the density of distribution increased considerably. To the north of the industry there was a little penetration into the Midlands. Period 4 A.D. 300-400+(Fig.

17)

Mortarium production in this period was dominated by M22, the standard late Oxfordshire type, characterised by its upstanding rim, stubby flange and simple spout. Again there is a marked contrast between this Oxfordshire type, seldom decorated, and those of the other late centres, except for the New Forest factories. The only other type produced at this time was the (normally) extra-large M2 3 which in some ways was similar to the products of Period 3, and was the only Oxfordshire mortarium commonly decorated. Period 4 marked the maximum distribution of Oxfordshire mortaria. Principally this can be seen in the increased cjensity of find-spots within the areas reached by Period 3 mortaria but there were some noteable expansions of area into the south-west around Ilchester and into Norfolk. Outside the main areas of distribution there were as always various single outliers. CORPUS OF MORTARIA Type Mi (Fig. 18). Mortarium with roll-rim turned under at tip, and with internal b~ad. The tip can be completely closed up or left open as a hook. Makers' stamps were used but not that of Vossullus suggesting that the type was not Illade by the time hewas active. The form was made at Cowley, Littlemore (Ashurst Clinic) and has been noted at Allen's Pit, Dorchester. The type was current by 130 /140 but insufficient dated examples are known to allow a firm date-bracket to be given. -100-150. For distribution seep. 61 and Fig. 14. Type M2 (Fig. 18). Mortarium with roll-rim and internal bead which is level with or lower than the peak of the rim. It was made at the same sites as Mi with the addition of Sandford. Makers' stamps were used (among others that of Vossullus). Dating of the types is not entirely certain. Like Mi it was current .by 130 /140. Unlike Mi it was made by Vossullus, suggesting that it may have continued after Mi. It is obviously residual in third century contexts since it was not made at kiln-sites of that date. 100-170 (? ). For distribution seep. 61 and Fig. 14. Type M3 (Fig. 18). Mortarium with bead-and-roll rim, the bead being at the highest point of the rim. It was made at Blackbird Leys and Cowley. Makers' stamps were used at Cowley, including that of Vossullus. Examples of both simple and elaborate incised decoration are known. Non-residual dated examples are scarce, and the date of the form is dependent upon its manufacture by Vossullus, its occurrence in a mid-second 68

-

--· M t2

..... ~-,·1 . . ...

0

•

•

0

..

5

ems

•

M 1.4

~

,. M~

I

;ro

as

M 2.9

M 2.6

P\C-:=,.::_:-:, ..,-:::·.: ... .,..... .

I~---·-·-.· M 3.5

M 3.4

~-·:

M 3.6

llJ

7

"

~

M-4.1

M 3-8

":. :·--.-,;::.-

M 4.

Fig. 18

White-ware mortaria,

69

~ ..M ~--::_.:_.·_·1 .. .. 4.3 ... '

Types Ml-4 (¼)

1-

century context at Verulamium, and its production at Blackbird Leys with forms unlikely to date before the end of the late second century. 140-200. For distribution seep. 61 and Fig. 14. Type M4 (Fig. 18). Variant of-last with straight flange, made only at Cowley. It was stamped, among others, by Vossullus. Typologically it should be the same date as M3. 140-200. Type M5 (Fig. 19). Mortarium with bead rim and thick curved flange; two examples only, both from Cowley. It ls similar to M6 and perhaps of the same date. Type M6 (Fig. 19). Mortarium with upstanding rim and thick flange, the tip of which is tumed down through a right angle. It was made at Llttlemore and Cowley, being stamped by Vossullus at the latter. This ls the only dating evidence for the type. 100-170. For distribution see p.61 and Fig. 14. Type M7 (Fig. 19). Variant of last with much thinner flange; three examples only, from Cowley and Rose Hill. Presumably the date ls similar to that of M6. 100-170. Type MS (Fig. 19 ). Mortarium with high wal_l-sided rim and hooked flange at base of rim;· one example only from Llttlemore (Ashurst Clinic) associated with Mi and M2· and presumably of the same date. Type M9 (Fig. 19). Mortarium with thick, ridged, horizontal flange; one example only, from Blackbird Leys,. suggesting a date in the late second or early third centuries. It ls stamped with a maker's mark. Type Mi 0 (Fig. 20 ). Mortarlum with upright rim and downward-pointing flange, made at Cowley and Blackbird Leys, and associated at the latter with M3, M9 and Ml4. One example has been found in Phase 4 of the Churchill but this is probably a residual stray from Phase 3 (seep. 57 above). Dated examples include one example from Period II of Rapsley Villa, surrey, but in fact found in a destruction deposit of that period (Ihm.worth 1968, 8, 40-1). A second Rapsley example comes from the start of Period m (£. 200). The type was therefore in use by 200. Since it was not made at the Churchill it can be assumed to ~ve gone out of production before the mid-third century. 180-240. For distrtbu.tlon see p.64 and Fig. 15. Type MU (Fig. 20). Variant of the last, flange hooked back to almost join the body. This ls an intermediate stage between Mi0 and M13/M14 and was made at Cowley .. Residual examples have been found in Phase 4 of the Churchill. The ·only dates for the type are in the late third century but these must presumably be residual since the type was not made at the Churchill. Its similarity to Mi0 may suggest that it ts of the same date. ? 180-240. For distribution seep. 64 and Fig. 15. Type M12 (Fig. 20). Mortarium with upstanding rim and a stubby downwaniproj ecting flange, one example with a maker' s stamp. The type was made at Sandford and Cowley. The only dated example ts late third century but this ls residual since the type ts absent from Phase 4 at the Cmirchill. The form is similar to Mi0 and Mii and ts probably of the same date. ? 180-240. For distribution seep. 64 and Fig. 15. 70

M 5.1

--- ...

~ .· ..· .· .. -·.·-

•

M 6.2

M 6.4

M~----------,

~ I I o~.,.,....._.5 crr.s

&.MB.1 M 9.1

Fig. 19

White-ware mortaria,

71

..... .. ·..

.·

Types M5-9 (¼)

: . .·

I

Type M13 ·(Fig. 20). Mortarium with bead rim and flange turned down against the side of the vessel to form a wall-sided vessel. It was made at Cowley and ts not common. The only dated examples are late third-century and later but, like M12, the type was not present at the Churchill, suggesting that its manufacturers had ceased by the mid-third century. Typologically it falls between M12 and M14 and ts presumably of the same date. ? 180-240. For distribution see p. 64 and Fig. 15. Type M14 (Fig. 20). Wall-sided mortartum, frequently grooved at top of rim and sonetimes also on wall. The top of the rim ts sometimes slashed. It was made at Blackbird Leys, Cowley and Sandford and has been found at the Churchill, but in such small quantities compared to Mi 7-23, as to suggest that it was not made there (seep. 57 ). The dating evidence ts fairly scarce. The type ts attested at Rapsley circa 220 and has also been found in the second rampart at Dorchester-onThames. If the type was not made at the ChurcJ:l.111 manufacture must have ceased by.£· 240. At Blackbird Leys it was associated with Mi0 which was current before 200. 180-240. For distribution seep. 64 and Fig. 15. Type M15 (Fig. 20). Variant of last with corrugated walls; two examples only. The date ts presumably the same as that of M14. 180-240. Type M16 (Fig. 20). Variant of M14 with raised cordon on side of wall, often decorated with slashed, stabbed or finger-natl impressed decoration. The type ts not common. Presumably the date ts the same as that of M14. 180':" 240. For distribution seep. 64 and Fig. 15. Type Mi 7 (Fig. 21). Mortarium with upstanding rim, wide, flat, flange hooked under at tlp and spout formed by turning the rim out across the flange. The rim and flange are frequently grooved. These variations have no chronological significance. The type was made in quantity in Phase 4a at the Churchill and also at Cowley, including the late third-century features found in 1972, the Nuffteld Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford School and Sandford. The dating evidence for the form ts good. The earliest context in which it is attested is one of.£· 240/250 in London. There are a fair number of dated examples from the second half of the third century, and the type was made at Phase 4a of the Churchill. Although fourth-century dated examples occur, the absence of the type in Phase 4b contexts at the Churchill suggests that these are residual. 240-300. For distribution seep. 64 and Fig. 16. Type M18 (Fig. 21). Form similar to last but with closed hook, made in quantity in Phase 4a at the Churchill and also at other late kiln sites. The rim and flange can be grooved. The earliest dated example ts at Bath in a layer dated by the excavator to the late second or early third centuries (Cunliffe 1969 ). The layer had accumulated on the back of the town rampart and could perhaps be later, as the layer above, d3:ted to the early third century, ts certainly later than the date given since it contains a sherd of red colour-coat pottery which cannot 72

I

E·

M 1 0.2

I

M

M 11.1

.

.

:.

·;. ·.-

M 12.1

M 13.1

M 14.1

M 14.5

M~'.[l7?

5

ems

M1JtE:U:51 ·

\i'.i,~;~~i:d·,';o.t ) t_

M 1 6. 3

f::_"~ ,~~~::::tJ 0

Fig. 20

White-ware

mortaria,

73

Types Ml0-16

(¼)

~---

,_ . ------1

M17.3 '·:·-·:.··:.-·•.

~-;:.:=::.E~ A ... _... ,~--1

M17.6

~

......

.

t_ ....

z)

)

AM17.9.

>

M17.8

0

5 ~ms

~

M18,4

Fig. 21

White-ware mortaria,

74

Types M17-18 (¼)

..,

7 5

0

ems

___-~ ... ..:~~~~;~~tf.i~~-~~~~£~-----,,--...J M21.5

·· '· -

Fig. 22

White-ware mortaria, 75-

Types Ml9-21

(¼)

be earlier than c. 240. Apart from this example, the dating evidence is similar to Mi 7 and the date is presumably the same. 240-300. For distribution see p. 64 and Fig. 16. Type M19 (Fig. 22). Mortarium with upstanding rim, sometimes grooved, and wide, thick, unbent flange. The manufacturing evidence is largely the same as for Mi 7, the type being made in Phase 4a at the Churchill. There is no other dating evidence but the type should be of the same date as Mi 7. 240-300. For distribution see p. 64 and Fig. 16. Type M20 (Fig. 22). Mortarium with upstanding rim, sometimes grooved, and wide, thin flange. It was made at Cowley, Open Brasenose and in Phase 4a at the Churchill. Examples have been found in Phase 4b also but in quantities so small as to suggest that they are residual. The earliest dates for the form are 215-250 at Verulamium, and£· 250 at Aldgate, London. It is also very well attested at Coygan Camp, £· 270-300. A date similar to that for Mi 7 seems likely. 240-300. For distribution seep. 64 and Fig. 16. TyPe M21 (Fig. 22). Mortarium with downward-pointing angular flange, hooked sharply back. Both rim and flange can be grooved and one example has stabbed decoration on the flange. At present the type is attested only at the Churchill among the kiln sites, where it was made extensively in Phase 4a. One example has been incised with the potter's name (Figs. 13, 22, p. 60 ). Since it was made only in Phase 4a of the Churchill, the dating should be the same as for the other Phase 4a mortaria and this is supported by the dating evidence from Coygan Camp. 240-300. For distribution seep. 64 and Fig. 16. TyPe M22 (Fig. 23). Mortarium with upstanding rim and squat flange folded quite close to body. The spout was formed by squashing the rim down over the flange. Both rim and flange can be grooved. A few examples have redpainted decoration and there is one case of stamped decoration. Within the main type there is a wide range of flange types but large groups of waste material from the Churchill and other sites show that these variations have no chronological significance. This is the standard late Roman mortarium of the Oxford potteries and was manufactured at all the late Roman kiln sites in the northern part of Group 3. It first appeared in the second half of the third century being attested in Phase 4a of the Churchill and at Coygan Camp. At this stage it was produced in much smaller quantities than Mi 7 and M18. From about 300 it was the principal mortarium product and continued with little change through the fourth century. 240-400+. For distribution see p. 6 8 and Fig. 17. TyPe M23 (Fig. 24). Large mortarium with upstanding rim, wide flange hooked down or under at tip, and with elaborate spout formed by turning rim out across flange and projecting spout across outer edge of flange. The distinguishing features of the type are the spout and the large size of the vessel, most of them being in excess of O. 4 m in diameter. It was made at Sandford and in Phase 4b at the Churchill. 76

M 2 2.11

M 22.15

M 2 2.18

Fig. 23

White-ware

mortaria,

77

Type M22 (¼)

M23.1 .. M23.2~

M 23.5

M 23. 0

5 :::m.:;

~ IA!

6

M 23.12

M 23.8

M 23.10

..

M 23.11

Fig. 24

White-ware

mortaria,

. 78

Type M23 (¼)

*0I

This is the only Oxford mortarium on which decoration is common, much attention being lavished on many of the spouts. Techniques include incision, stamping, painting, and moulding of the sides of the spout. Most of these techniques can be combined on the same vessel. Dated examples off the kiln sites are later than 350. Such a late dating is further supported by the use of rosette stamps, which were not much used before the mid-fourth century on other Oxford fabrics. Phase 4b at the Churchill certainly continued after 350 on the basis of both coin and pottery evidence. The likely date for the type is mid- or late fourth-century. 350-400+. For distribution seep. 68 and Fig. 17.

79.

CHAPTER 6 THE WHITE WARES - (2) PARCHMENT WARES

. 'Parchment ware' ls a term coined originally by Mr. David Brown of the Ashmolean Museum to describe a class of late Roman red-painted white wares (mainly used for bowl forms) produced in the Oxford potteries. Its use ls now widely accepted (e.g. Swan 1975b) and covers both the Oxfordshire products and also similar wares made in the New Forest (Fulford 1975b, Types 94-101) and at Cram.beck (Corder 1928, Pl. II, 24-9, Pl. III, 58-79). Taken together the parchment wares of all three industries form a distinctive type of late Roman fine ware for which comparatively little precedent can be found in earlier centuries. Plain white wares were of course common from shortly after the Roman conquest. They were used principally for mortaria and flagons; bowl types were relatively uncommon, though not unknown. Red painted decoration was used from time to time, for example in the upper Nene Valley {Woods 1971, Fig. 38-9) 1 Yorkshire and Humberside (Keen 1970), Colchester (Hull 1963, Fig. 19, 27) and in the Oxford industry itself (seep. 96 below), on a number of different vessel types. On the whole, however, such decorated wares were rare compared with plain white wares. From the mid-third century onwards such decoration became more common. Its development on mortaria has already been discussed (above, pp. 60-61) and its increased use can be noted elsewhere in addition to the parchment wares already mentioned, for example on the late third-century white-ware flagons of the Oxford industry (see PP-94-96 below). A similar development can be detected in other north-western parts of the Empire (Fulford 1975b, 36, for summary). This must reflect an increase in popularity for this type of decorated fine ware. It should be noted here that this increase was restricted to certain classes of vessels, mainly bowls. In the fourth-century Oxfordshire industry white-ware flagons of any type were rare, being replaced by colourcoat types while New Forest parchment-ware jar and flagon types seem nor. mally to have been painted overall. The parchment ware of the Oxford potteries can be distinguished from the other white wares of the industry by its fabric and the surface treatment thereof. Separate treatment ls also made desirable by the extensive distribution of parchment ware compared to that of the other white wares, which are discussed in Chapters 7 and 8. It has been found in small quantities at Cowley, Shotover and in Phase 4a at the Churchill, and in moderate amounts at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Open Brasenose and in Phase 4b of the Churchill. Parchment ware never formed a very large proportion of any Oxford pottery' s output. 80

THE FABRIC Hard, sandy ware, sometimes with small black and red. inclusions. The colour is white or off-white, frequently with a pink core. Sometimes the ware can be pink or light pink/orange throughout. The surface of the ware was smoothed and frequently fired to a colour similar to that of parchment. Redpainted decoration (sometimes overfired to black) was widely used on this ware and occasional examples occur on which the red paint has been spread overall like a colour-coat (P2, P10. 2, P30). Parchment ware can be distinguished from other white wares by a number of characteristics, though confusion is possible in a small number of cases. It is generally less hard-fired than the fine white ware and is much finer, with less visible temper, than the coarse white ware. The tendency to pinkness is more common in parchment ware than in the other Oxford white wares. The smoothness of the surface is also a distinctive feature. RANGE OF VESSEL TYPES A number of different types were made, not all at the same time, but only a few of them were at all common. (See Table 8 for summary of dating). 1.

Flagons and bottles (Pl-4) None of these were common and all of them except for P4 are copies of colour-coat types. In at least one case (P2) the paint had been used as an overall colour-coat. 2.

Jars

(P5-9)

These are all copies of, or close to types in other fabrics, mainly white wares. Only one type, P9, was at all common. P9 is a variant of the standard necked jar current in the Oxford region throughout the Roman period. It stands out by reason of the consistency of its size and by its decoration. Its purpose is uncertain but presumably it was used as table ware, since the decoration applied so consistently to the type would otherwise have been superfluous. 3.

Beakers

(Pi0-13)

Beakers were not common in parchment ware. Apart from P13, the exact form of which remains uncertain, they were all copies of colour-coat forms. 4.

Bowls (P14-34)

A large number of bowl types were produced. Forms shallow bowls or platters (P14-18), copies of colour-coat P31-33) and of Nene Valley 'Castor Boxes' (P34). None The only popular type was the wall-sided carinated bowl, carination and its variants (P24-7, P 35 ). The origins of but it was probably a development of the common secondcarinated bowls made in other Oxfordshire wares. 5. Miniature Vessels

include a range of forms (P19, P22, of these were common. moulded at rim and this type are uncertain and third- century

(P35-6)

As with other Oxford wares miniature varieties of the most common forms have been found, although in this instance they are not common. (See below p. 127 for discussion of miniature vessels). 81

6.

Miscellaneous

types (P37-P40)

None of the types grouped in this category were common.

It is of interest

to 11otehow colanders and sieves were made in most of the Oxford fabrics. DECORATIVE

TECHNIQUES

A number of techniques were used: 1. Grooves: these were used on a number of vessel types, most notably on the rims and carinations of P24 and its variants. It is of interest to note how often parchment-ware rims on all vessel types were grooved. 2. Incision: slashed incisions were used principally on P25, a variant qf the standard bowl type. It has also been found on one example of the platter, P14. 3. Impressed decoration: this is not common, being confined to three or four examples in all. Stamps used included plain circular, linear and rosette types. There is little dating evidence to show when they were used but it seems most likely that this was a late feature, as on other fabrics. (See pp. 131-2 for general discussion of the use of stamps). 4.

Rouletting:

the use of rouletting was extremely

rare.

5. Paint: the use of red slip was the standard method of decorating parchment ware. Horizontal bands of slip were widely used on rims, carinations and on vertical or near-vertical surfaces. Curvilinear decoration was sometimes used on the outer walls of jars or beakers. The most elaborate patterns are found on the wide, nearly flat floors of types such as P24 and the platters. Motifs used could include crosses, swags, scrolls and circles, combined to make most attractive designs. 6. Moulded decoration: female face-masks (seep. 129i below for fuller discussion). . DISTRIBUTION

were used on the flagon types P3

(Fig. 25)

The rarity of most types of parchment ware means that a study of the ware' s distribution must largely be confined to P9 and P 24. These show a strong distribution to the west in the Cotswolds, lower Severn Valley and at a few sites in south Wales. There was some penetration further north in the Marches. Distribution was also fairly extensive to the south-east along the Thames, both London and north Kent being well represented. To the east major centres such as st. Albans received consideralie quantities. Distribution in the upper Thames valley itself is of course dense. Outside these areas there is a wide but sparse distriution across most of southern England and the Midlands. Dated occurrences of parchment ware show that distriution was wide throughout the production period of the fabric. It was reaching London and east Kent by the mid-third. century and is attested as far away as south-west Wales by the last quarter of the century. As far as the evidence permits, it seems that

82

..

pg P24

0

other types

..

0

-

0

.. ...

.. 0

0

oo

o.

..

...

oo ••;~c ·-"lo 0

.,Po

0

•

.. 0

8

0

Oo

0

0

0 0

...

0

0 0

0

h

Fig.

25

kms H

H

H

100 hi-I I

Distribution

83

O

b-+

of parchment

miles

.;;;a

!50 F-fi4

ware.

a wide dis.tribution over the area outlined above was maintained throughout the fourth century. Further dated finds of parchment ware might allow some refinement of this picture.

CORPUS OF PARCHMENT WARES FLAGONS AND BOTTLES TyPe Pi (Fig. 26). Flagon with thickened bead rim. Only two examples are known. One example came from a late fourth-century context and this is the only dating for the type. 350-400+. TyPe P2 (Fig. 26). Disc-necked flagon with two handles, grooved below the rim. Two examples only. The Churchill example came from a context containing material of both Phases 4a and 4b. 240-400+. Type P3 (Fig~ 26i Flagon with face-mask on rim; two examples only, both from the Churchill, but it should be noted that a mould for making such masks has been found at the white-ware producing site on Shotover (Hassall 1953). This form was also made in colour-coat ware in which fabric it dated to the late fourth century (Cii ). Face flagons in white ware are known from the Nene Valley (Hartley 1960, Fig. 4, 15) and at Colchester in the late fourth century (Hull 1963, Fig. 106, 369). A late fourth-century date for P3 also seems likely. 350-400+. TyPe P4 (Fig. 26). Bottle neck; two examples only. century date. 300-400.

or flagon with a slashed cordon at the base of the The evidence from the Churchill suggests a fourth-

Types 1 /4 ,(Fig. 26 ). A number of bottle bodies with painted decoration are known, which could belong to any of the types Pi-4. They presumably date to the fourth century. 300-400. JARS Type P5 (Fig. 26). Neckless jar with upright, thickened rim, painted on rim; one example only. The dating evidence is entirely fourth-century. 300-400+. TyPe P6 (Fig. 26). Small, cylindrical jar, with slightly restricted everted rim; known only at the Churchill. 300-400.

neck and

TyPe P7 (Fig. 26). Small, tall, necked jar with out-turned rim. The form was made at the Nuffleld Orthopaedic Centre, where it was probably associated with late third century mortaria, and also at the Churchill, including contexts later than the mid-fourth century. A similar form was made in white wares (W33). 240-400+. TyPe PS (Fig. 26). A wide-mouthed, necked jar, close to the average size of the same form in other fabrics and considerably larger than P9. The rim ls sometimes grooved, but this ls not common. The base of the neck can also be grooved. The type ls commonly painted red on the rim and in stripes on the body. The dating evidence ls entirely fourth-century. 300-400+. 84

ffi7 P1.1

P5.1' P1/4.2

m

,

~Jr:.:~~-

P8.2

P6.1

P5.2

)

7

P8.3

)

:::::::=--

~

P19.1

7

I

,

'--.~=----7~~-~-,--~•-•&~-,i-~;-~7~·•,

Fi' P20.1

P17.1

s···---•&.• ·_··r··,·,,;

0 0

~

•

8 6o .... '

8 0

0 0

G

"'rns

1

•

Qr)

HHHHHI

Fig, 40

Distribution

of colour-coated

135

ware,

Types Cl-11.

C12-15 C16 C18

+

•

°

.. a a

0

+ 0

··LFig. 41

F3

+

L

F3

Distribution of colour-coated

136

ware, Types Cl2-18.

C20 C22-30 C31-34 C38 C2135-7

•

+

• 0

D

()

0

•

•

0

-·. ··~ . ..

.

kms

Distribution

100

of colour-coated

137

....• •

r:u

•

HH=HH)

Fig. 42

D

... ..~: .... wit· • •

•

•

:.ie

•

Do6•

••

.

•

L ware,

•

. . rr ::es

Types C20-38.

C40-3

C44 C45 C46

O HHHHFil

Fig. 43

kms

100

Distribution of colour-coated

138

O. I:..;-

wares,

miles F--i

+

... •

°

50

+---4

Types 040-6.

•

C50

•

0

0

2

..

o.

g·.

0 0

l

t

oO

5o g:..o0 §

.. ,

0

oil

0 O

00

g

00 •

0

•

I g •

,oo.

0

fcolour-coated

f_j9

0

...o.·

HI

Distribution

t

2

§fl

.. .. ..

Fig. 44

•

o• lo.a

2.

ha

wares,

°

C47-8 C49

.. 0

m,1es F-3

50 6-d

C47-50.

°

C51 C52

•

0

0 0

0 0

0

0

g•

0

0

g

0

g 0

0

0

g 0

p

O

kms

100

HHHHHI

Fig. 45

Distribution of colour-coated

140

0

b-3

wares,

miles E-4

50 e-4

Types C51-2 •.

g

C54,62-3

•

C55-6

°

C59-61 C64

0

• •

0

•

g

0

•

•

••

0

§

0

•

·f~t f

..

♦

0 0

0

kms

100

b3HHHF31

Fig. 46

Distribution of colour-coated

141

O

b-3

wares,

miles

ea

50

-4

Types C54-64.

'

. ...

C68-9

•

C70

•

C71-2 C73 C74

o

+

'

•

•

I

••

•

I\

I

':1

•

0

St

0 0

0

Ola 0

•

0

'

J

O kms HHHHHI

Fig. 47

2

I

100

Distr.ibution _ofcolour-coated

142

O

¥3

wares,

miles

.......

50

........1

Types C68-74.

.

°

C75,77

C?er80

..

0

0

0

I

II

.II 0

0

.. !IA,. f

"'

0

O

t

.0

kms

100

L..eaeeaeal

Fig. 48

to t

..

00

•

I

t

0

Distribution of colour-coated

0

o\o 0 o

0

II

0

II

.°II

0

0

I

■to t 00

t t

00 0

I

..

00

0

t+--+

wares,

miles Ea·

50

--4

Types C75-80.

°

C81-2 C83-4 C85

• •

0

2

2

2 0

oo 0

g 2

..Ii

0

Ii

0 0

i