fine and coarse ware of this period than does that of
Brenley Corner. The latter site’s assemblage is a minor subset of that
of Canterbury, which explains the low correlation (2.V.2).
It is possible that both amphorae and mortaria were being
received on the rural sites of this area prior to the mid-Flavian period.
Radfield’s pottery includes mortaria of both Groups 1 and 2 (Hartley
1977), whilst sherds of a South Spanish Dressel 20 amphora were recovered
from one of the ditches at Brenley Corner, a mid-late first century
context. Claudian ‘wall-sided’ mortaria, and amphora forms especially
typical of the early-mid-first century A.D. (Dressel 2—4: Peacock 1971,
165—6) have not been recognised, however.
5. The Significance of the Claudian Conquest for
Pottery Studies in Kent
A brief study of the ranges of pottery in pre-Claudian and
Claudian-Vespasianic Kent might give the impression that the imposition of
Roman authority brought about significant changes in the trade and
production of pottery in Kent. Pre-Conquest imported fine wares were
virtually confined to Gallo-Belgic wares, Arretine being found only at
Canterbury and pre-Conquest(?) South Gaulish samian at Tong near
Sittingbourne (a Drag. 11 with medallion and St. Andrew’s Cross motifs:
Whiting 1927a, 41—3). The Conquest brought in its wake a large variety
of wares from central and southern Gaul, including large quantities of
South Gaulish samian that must have made a considerable impression on
Canterbury’s volume of trade. Wheel-thrown sand-tempered wares were
produced at Canterbury probably by potters of northern Gaulish origin, and
other wares in generally similar fabrics, if not forms, were used at
Southwark and possibly also in north-west Kent. A wide range of exotic
forms was produced within twenty years of the Conquest at Eccles, whilst
an industry producing mortaria may well have established itself in east
Kent in the Neronian period
(Hartley 1977, 11—12). Flagons of mainly pre-Flavian forms (the ‘Hofheim’
collar-rim, no. 56 here) are widely distributed, both in fine wares and
local grog-tempered wares. At least two coarse wares appear to have
originated in the Conquest period, ‘Stuppington Lane’ sandy ware at
Canterbury and ‘Patch Grove’ ware in south-west Kent and east Surrey.
The preceding sections have made it clear, however, that most
of these changes affected only a handful of sites, primarily on Watling
Street and in the vicinity of the military supply base at Richborough.
Pre-Flavian samian, it is true, has been recorded on several rural sites
away from these areas of major Roman influence, but not in contexts
necessarily of this period: the pottery could have been brought into these
sites at any time in the Flavian period (cf. Orton and Orton 1975 for a
study of the longevity of samian ware). Even Gallo-Belgic fine wares, white
ware butt-beakers aside, are rarely encountered except on roadside and urban
sites. Claudian-early Neronian ‘wall-sided’ mortaria have only been
recorded on one non-urban site (the implication being that Roman methods of
food-preparation were not generally adopted at this time), whilst there can
be no certainty that the ?east Kent mortarium industry supplied rural sites
any earlier than the 70s. Certainly there seems little doubt that the Eccles
industry was not a speculative enterprise aimed at a wide civilian market,
but an estate concern (6.VI.2). The ‘northern Gaulish’ sand-tempered
ware industry at Canterbury was also evidently aimed at a very limited
market, in this case the military base at Richborough and the city itself.
The other pre-Flavian sandy ware industry at Canterbury appears only to have
concerned itself with the urban trade.
The broad pattern of British pottery ‘style-zones’ that can
be traced back to at least the first century B.C. (see Chapter Three)
was not broken down in the aftermath of the Conquest. It is