|
of grog-tempered ware, either in the range of forms that they turned out or
in the portion of the market that the latter supplied: grog-tempered ware
consistently comprises between 68 per cent and 75 per cent of pre-Flavian
and early Flavian pottery assemblages. It seems likely however that the ‘Stuppington
Lane’ industry was eclipsed by the Reed Avenue/St. Stephen’s Road
ventures.
Mention should be made of a series of small jars or beakers in
grey sand- or grog-sand-tempered wares found throughout east Kent in the
later first century A.D. These are of ovoid form with small bead-rims,
sometimes necked, and slash-incised decoration (cf. no. 42 here). They
appear to have originated in the pre-Flavian period at Canterbury (cf.
Jenkins 1950, Pit RI, nos. 26—27, in grog-sand ware), although no certain
examples in these fabrics have been found in pre-Flavian levels on
Canterbury Marlowe Car Park sites I and IV (Pollard forthcoming, d). At
Richborough they occur in pits of Claudio-Neronian (e.g. Pit 14: Bushe-Fox
1926, no. 17), mid to late first century (Pit 179, Bushe-Fox 1949; vessel
unpublished) and late first to mid-second century date (Pit 121, ibid.; vessel
unpublished). The forms were also produced in grog-tempered wares in the
pre-early Flavian period (no. 42 here). The source of this pottery is
unknown, but may well represent a third sandy ware producer in the
Canterbury area at this time. The mortaria and amphorae from Canterbury and
Richborough are dealt with in the general discussion of coarse wares in east
Kent, below.
Richborough. Unlike Canterbury, which was occupied
continuously from at least the early first century A.D., Richborough was
effectively a virgin site when the Roman bridgehead was established in A.D.
43 (Cunliffe 1968). The pottery from the two pre-Flavian (possibly Claudian)
pits examined by the present author (Pit 14— Bushe-Fox 1926, and Pit 35—
Bushe-Fox 1932) is thus certain to be uncontaminated by residual material.
It comprises grog-
|
|
tempered (including Bushe-Fox 1926, nos. 1, 3, 5, 6,
8, 18, 19), ‘Reed Avenue/St. Stephen’s Road’ sand-tempered (references above,
plus Bushe-Fox 1932, nos. 218 and 315), and miscellaneous sand-tempered
wares including bead-rim (Bushe-Fox 1925, no. 17) and lid-seated jars, the
latter with a shell/chalk admixture, and a reeded-rim dish (unpublished: cf.
Marsh 1978, Type 26). A reeded-rim bag-shape jar (Bushe-Fox 1926, no. 11;
cf. no. 68 here) may be intrusive. This assemblage is similar to the
Canterbury material described above, but it should be observed that the ‘Stuppington
Lane’ and flint-based wares are missing. The sand-shell/chalk jar may be
an import from Essex or west Kent.
Late Claudian-Vespasianic pit groups include a similar range to
those of Claudian date, but with two noteworthy additions. The
bulbous-carinated bowl (no. 59 here) is in a ‘Reed Avenue/St. Stephen’s
Road’ fabric, but does not feature in any known Canterbury kiln group. The
Canterbury and Richborough evidence together suggests that it was produced
in east Kent, probably slightly later in origin than the ‘Reed Avenue’
forms and outliving them by a decade or two (see below, 4.11.3). The second
‘new’ type is the ‘comb-stabbed’ beaker with a bead-rim and
sometimes a neck (nos. 39, 40 here). This form is paralleled by Camulodunum
108 (Hawkes and Hull 1947), and is present in both sand- and
sand-grog-tempered wheel-thrown wares in several pits ranging in date from c.
A.D. 50—80 to c. A.D. 80—110. It is extremely rare elsewhere
in Kent, examples having been recorded only at Eastry (Pollard 1982, no. 19)
and Rochester (unpublished), plus two vessels from Southwark (Bird et al.
1978b, nos. 557 and 798). This phenomenon, plus the abundance of the
form at Colchester (Hull 1958) in later first-century levels, leads to the
hypothesis that the Richborough vessels were produced by potters working in
an ‘Essex tradition’ in the immediate vicinity of the military base, or
were imported from
|