|
(see the preceding period above), continued to supply the bulk of coarse
pottery used by the inhabitants of east Kent up until the final years of the
second century, with the consequence that there is very little
differentiation, if any, in the range of wares and types found in the
civitas capital and on rural sites. There is little evidence for a wider
market for Canterbury wares, however; it will be observed in the following
section that these wares achieved little success in trade west of the Forest
of Blean, except in mortaria and to a lesser extent in flagons. K.F. Hartley
has written of a 'herringbone' stamp die from Dover that 'all the
known stamps from the same die have been found in Kent and manufacture
there, perhaps in the Canterbury area, is certain' (1981, 203, no. 394);
and of the single die used by Valentinus, a potter probably of c. A.D.
110-160, that 'his fabric [the oxidised sandy ware] and the distribution
of his work clearly indicate manufacture in Kent' (ibid., no. 367).
However, stamps probably of this potter are widely distributed in Britain,
including examples at Caerleon, Corbridge, London, the Upchurch Marshes and
Wroxeter as well as east Kent finds at Dover, Canterbury and Highstead
(Hartley forthcoming). This evident success in a highly competitive
long-distance commerce contrasts strongly with the localised marketing of
grey wares, flagons and the 'herringbone' die mortaria described above.
There is a small body of evidence pointing to a contraction in
the spatial extent of the Canterbury industry's marketing area during the
early or mid-second century, excepting the widespread Valentinus mortaria.
The virtual absence of Canterbury grey wares from primary deposits of Period
II of the Classis Britannica fort at Dover (Philp 1981: examination
by the present author, report incorporated in the site archive), dated to c.
A.D. 155/160-180 is significant evidence for this contraction.
Canterbury wares do occur in secondary (e.g. the Period II demolition of
structure B.25-Willson 1981, 234-5, nos. 709-11, 719) and unstratified
(e.g. associated with structure
|
|
B.32-ibid., 244-5, nos. 824, 826, 828, 831, 833) deposits. The
extreme rarity of primary Period I (c. A.D. 125-150/155) deposits
renders elucidation of the pottery of this period difficult; the Canterbury
grey wares in secondary and unstratified deposits could have derived from
this period, but unfortunately the samian ware from these specific layers
containing 'Canterbury wares' is not published separately from other
layers (cf. Bird and Marsh 1981, 200, 'Unstratified deposits' with
Willson 1981, 245, 'structure B.32 Unstratified Deposits'), and it
cannot, therefore, be ascertained whether Hadrianic-early Antonine or
entirely pre-Hadrianic samian was associated with the Canterbury grey wares.
The latter case would suggest that the Canterbury grey wares were mostly
from pre-Period I 'Unfinished Classis Britannica Fort',
tentatively dated to A.D. 117 (Philp 1981, 1), as Hadrianic-early Antonine
samian was abundant on the site as a whole (Bird and Marsh 1981, 202).
Either way, it is clear that the Canterbury grey ware industry had lost the
Dover market by the time of the Period II occupation,. at least twenty years
before the collapse of the industry itself. A small body of second-century
pottery from pre-Saxon Shore fort pits at Richborough (Bushe-Fox 1932, Pit 52;
1949, Pits 77 and 113) includes only one possible 'Canterbury' grey
ware, a necked roll-rim jar (unpublished): the absence of characteristic
forms such as reed-rim bowls and bag-shape lid-seated jars, present in
Flavian-Hadrianic pits (e.g. Bushe-Fox 1932, Pit 34; 1949, Pit 101) is
suggestive of a waning Canterbury ware currency. Flagons and mortaria
possibly from Canterbury did continue to find a market at both Dover and
Richborough, however (mortaria: Hartley 1981, 1968).
An external factor of undoubted significance in the decline of
the Canterbury industry was the expansion of the Thames estuary sandy
grey/BB2 and Colchester mortarialBB2(?) industries.
|