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


The Roman Pottery of Kent
by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 4  page 61
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

within a 25 km. radius of the Upchurch Marshes, including two sites on the marshes themselves. Sherds of two vessels have been recorded from Canterbury (Macpherson-Grant 1982, no. 150, and unpublished), and none, to the knowledge of the present author, from London or Southwark. Several vessels were recovered from Richborough, however (see Appendix 3), in contexts dated to within the Flavian-early Antonine period. The high density of find-spots within 15 km. of the Upchurch Marshes (six out of ten sites), including occurrences in collections of mere handfuls of sherds, suggests the hypothesis that these were either a local product or an exotic ware from an unknown source that was intensively traded or exchanged within the neighbourhood of the most obvious point of importation, Rochester.
   Fine oxidised wares of the Flavian-Trajanic period include biconical, globular and shouldered beakers, hemispherical and carinated bowls often with ‘compass-scribed’ arcs (nos. 136 and 137 here), and segmental bowls with bead- and flange-rims (nos. 163—4, 166), and flagons, including ring-necked (cf. no. 73) and plain-conical rim (no. 160) forms. Flagons in both oxidised and white-slip wares are more common in central-northern Kent, which was on the fringes of the distribution areas of Brockley Hill and Canterbury ware flagons (see below, and Fig. 22), than elsewhere, but are found in all regions. Shouldered and butt-beakers also occur in white-slip ware, but bowls and dishes do not. White-slip and Oxidised wares may well have been produced alongside reduced and painted wares on the Upchurch Marshes, though the evidence from antiquarian reports and collections (e.g. Roach Smith 1847, 1868) suggests that the numbers of vessels in these wares that were recovered were very small in comparison to those in reduced wares. The Hoo assemblage (Blumstein 1956) included cordoned S-jars (cf. Camulodunum 220B Hawkes and Hull 1947), shouldered beakers (cf. Richborough 250 and 285 Bushe-Fox 1932) and a butt-

beaker, an assemblage which, taken in conjunction with the range of flagon types (collar-rim ‘Hofhelm’ types predominantly, plus ring-neck and plain-conical rim forms, cf. nos. 56, 155 and 160 here), should be dated to the A.D. 70s at the latest, that is at the period of transition between the first two periods discussed in this chapter. The proportions of reduced to oxidised to white-slip wares vary; in western and central-northern Kent they are of the order of 2:1:1 to 4:1:1 (see Appendix 5), while at Canterbury white-slip is generally the rarest of the three wares, and both this and the oxidised fabric may be entirely absent from some contexts. Reduced wares are ubiquitous, however.
   The London area potteries do not seem to have produced oxidised-surface, white-slip or geometrically painted wares, although painted vessels of ‘marbled’ decoration do occur (Marsh 1978). A recent survey of the Flavian-Trajanic fine wares of the London area suggests that fine reduced, mica-dusted, ‘eggshell’ and ‘marbled’ wares were all produced in or around the City in this period (ibid.). Oxidised ‘London’ (i.e. fine-combed, ‘compass-scribed’, and rouletted) wares are considered to be ‘seconds’ (ibid., 198), that is vessels whose firing rendered them imperfect by virtue of colouration (or in other cases minor warps in the form). The ‘eggshell’ wares are so named owing to the thinness of their walls, and are extremely rare in Kent, only two occurrences having been noted by Marsh (ibid., 130—1), to which may be added sherds of hemispherical cups from Canterbury (unpublished, cf. Marsh 1978, Type 13.6). ‘Marbled’ wares in white to orange fabrics with orange-brown brushed/wiped paint (over white-slip when the fabric is oxidised) have been recognised by the present author at Springhead and Richborough (Fig. 21: the sherd from Brenley Corner is probably a mottled-slip Central Gaulish white ware beaker, cf. Greene 1978a, fig. 2.3 no. 2). Fine reduced ‘London’ ware may be widespread in Kent, but macroscopic differentiation of London and Upchurch fabrics is hazardous, and has

Page 61

Page 60     Back to Chapter 4     Contents Page         Page 62

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                 

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 as accurate a record as possible. Please send details too research@kentarchaeology.org.uk