KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY  -- RESEARCH   Studying and sharing Kent's past      Homepage

The Roman Pottery of Kent by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 4  page 41
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

deposits (ibid., 62), superimposed on the Eocene strata of north Kent, particularly in the Great Stour valley and flood-plain, along the Swale catchment area, and in the Upper Medway (in the Weald). Mainman (forthcoming) has demonstrated that the Head Brickearths and London Clay in the vicinity of Canterbury were both suitable materials for potting, producing sandy wares with, in the former case, chalky inclusions. The Brickearths of Kent have been exploited exhaustively for the manufacture of bricks, a further indication of their merit.
   Sandy wares were of little or no importance in the century before the Claudian conquest. They comprise less than 2 per cent (by vessel rim equivalents) of the pottery from a late first century B.C./early first century A.D. deposit at Rochester, to which a further 13 per cent of grog-sand and flint-grog-sand wares may be added. The earliest levels at Canterbury, possibly of the mid-late first century B.C., contain virtually no purely sandy wares, but flint-sand and flint-grog-sand fabrics are present. Grog-tempered ware undoubtedly prevailed in the first half of the first century A.D. however, comprising 44 out of 54 sherds of one early layer on the Marlowe Car Park site III (Pollard forthcoming, d), and an even higher proportion of the groups from the lower fills of three out of four of the known late Iron Age ditches in south-east Canterbury (Frere 1954, Cellar L; Pollard forthcoming, d, layers MI 1260/1280 and MIV 732B). The evidence from Faversham (Philp 1968, 76-81) and West Wickham North Pole Lane (Philp 1973, 70-2) supports the hypothesis that sandy wares without a large grog or flint admixture were not produced in the earlier first century A.D.
   The east Kent evidence for pre-Conquest sand-tempered wares has been reviewed here in order to provide a general background to discussion of the problem of their emergence in the west. It may be inferred from occurrences of 'Gallo-Belgic-derived' platters and cups in sandy wheel-finished (if not wheel-thrown) wares throughout west Kent (see Fig. 17) that these wares were being produced by the early 
A. D. 70s at the latest, as the popularity of Gallo-Belgic forms waned in that decade. Pre-Flavian to Flavian examples occur in pre-Flavian/Flavian contexts at Cobham Park (Tester 1961, no. 12), Rochester (unpublished), Fawkham (Philp 1963, no. 15) and Farningham Calfstock Lane (Philp 1973, nos. 304-5), and in a Flavian deposit at Southwark (Sheldon 1974, no. 15). The pottery from pre-Flavian Southwark includes several other forms in reduced sandy wares, including bead-rim jars (Tyers and Marsh 1978,IIA 5-6), carinated and sub-carinated shoulder necked jars with bead or short-everted rim (ibid., IIC 2, lID, IIN-Q; q.v. nos. 93-4, 97 here), butt-beakers (Tyers and Marsh 1978 IIIA), and 'Surrey bowls' (IVK: no. 99 here). The dating of these forms at Southwark is vital to the interpretation of material from West Wickham Fox Hill (Philp 1973, nos. 159, 161-3, 175, 177-80), and Chariton (Elliston Erwood 1916, fig. 21 nos. 3 and 16, fig. 22 nos. 66-7). The internal dating evidence for these two sites is poor; close typological links with the Southwark material allow the suggestion to be made that sandy ware necked jars, at least, were circulating in north-west Kent within a quarter-century of the Conquest. The cordoned, necked jar or bowl is a widespread first-century form in Kent (cf. e.g. Fawkham: Philp 1963, nos. 13-14; Rochester: Harrison 1972, nos. 1, 5 and 11), and lasted well into the second century. Unfortunately, examples in the area between the Cray and the Medway estuary cannot be dated firmly to the pre-Flavian period, and it remains a possibility that, apart from 'fine' forms of Gallo-Belgic derivation, sandy wares were not used in this area until mid-Flavian times. This applies to bead-rim jars as much as to the necked forms. The 'Surrey bowl' has not been recorded in Kent apart from a single example in the east, at Canterbury (Frere 1970, fig. 10 no. 1, in a later second-century context).
   The evidence for pre-Flavian mortaria in west Kent is extremely limited. Claudian wall-sided

 

Page 41

Page 40      Back to Chapter 4    Contents Page         Page 42

For details about the advantages of membership of the Kent Archaeological Society   click here

Back to Publications On-line               Back to Research Page            Back to Homepage                 

This site is hosted by nVeracity      Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382
© Kent Archaeological Society 2004   
 

This website is constructed by enthusiastic amateurs. Any errors noticed by other researchers will be to gratefully received so
 that we can amend our pages to give an accurate record as possible. Please send details too research@kentarchaeology.org.uk