|
(nos. 121 and 125), and segmental, campanulate and hemispherical
bowls (nos. 130—132, 134, and cf. 136). The shouldered and butt-beakers
are generally mid-Flavian in date, the other forms longer-lived. Pit 34 at
Richborough includes a large assemblage in this ware dateable to the
Domitianic-Trajanic period (Bushe-Fox 1932, nos. 226—7, 233, 271, 273, 280—4,
289—91, 305, 311 and 325, plus unpublished material). There is some
evidence to suggest that more than one industry was responsible for
supplying fine grey ware, and the oxidised ware produced in similar forms,
to Kent in the Flavian-Hadrianic period. There exists in north-east Kent a
group of sites from which have been recovered butt-beakers and pedestal jars
decorated with fine combed chevron or ‘compass-scribed’ arc motifs (see
Appendix 3, and nos. 122—3; Fig. 27). The forms are dateable to the late
first century on typological grounds and on their occurrences at Canterbury
and Richborough. The form-motif combination is virtually unknown in more
westerly areas, (one from Dartford — Dale 1971, no. 1 — being the sole
exception known to the present author), although narrow-neck jars with these
motifs were evidently produced in London (Marsh and Tyers 1976, nos. 135—140).
Plain and rouletted versions of these forms are known from the Upchurch
Marshes (e.g. Wood 1883, 109, no. 2, and unpublished material in Rochester
Museum), whilst the motifs occur on bowl and beaker forms from the marshes
(e.g. Roach Smith 1847, 136, and unpublished material in Rochester Museum).
It is possible that the north-east Kent vessels were produced on the
Upchurch Marshes specifically for this non-local demand, but it may also be
proposed that they represent an otherwise-undetected fine reduced ware
industry operating in east Kent. Flanged-rim bowls also exhibit a bias in
distribution towards eastern Kent. They comprise roughly 40 per cent of the
fine reduced ware group from the later first-century A.D. ditch fills at
Brenley Corner (unpublished; q. v. Appendix 5), and 35 per cent from
a similar context at Wye, which contained
|
|
coins of Vespasian and Titus (unpublished: q.v. Appendix 5). The form
would seem to be less common at Canterbury and Richborough, but it is
present on most sites in east Kent. Two vessels are included in the Hartlip
villa collection, although the form has not been recorded on the Upchurch
Marshes by the present author. West of the Medway it is virtually absent
from the large assemblages at Lullingstone (Forms VE.4, VE.5: Pollard 1987)
and Springhead (one unpublished vessel) despite the presence of contemporary
forms in the same fabric. The excavations in north-west and west-central
Kent published by Philp (1963a, 1973) have failed to produce any relevant
published material. The form was, however, manufactured in London (Marsh and
Tyers 1976, nos. 141—148, 151; Marsh 1978, Types 31, 33, 34,) to which
source the Lullingstone vessel may be ascribed on typological grounds. On
the Continent, it is most common in Upper Germany and Raetia, where a
Claudian to Flavian date-range is applicable (Greene 1979a, 115), whilst in
Britain it occurs widely as late as the early second century (Marsh 1978,
168). The absence of vessels from the collections and published material
examined by the present author that were derived from the Upchurch Marshes
does not allow the eastern Kent material to be ascribed to that area with
any confidence, although such a source cannot be ruled out, as vessels have
been recovered from sites close to the marshes (Bayford-near-Sittingbourne
and Hartlip).
The distribution of a quite distinctive group of painted wares
(Fig. 26) suggests the extent of the primary sphere of exchange of fine
wares from the Upchurch Marshes. The forms include S-jars and carinated and
hemispherical bowls broadly similar to the samian forms Drag. 30 and 37
(nos. 138—140 here). They are usually found in oxidised forms with either
a cream slip and red-brown paint or a red smoothed surface with cream paint.
The majority of find-spots fall
|