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


The Roman Pottery of Kent
by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 4  page 97
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

large-scale importation of BB2 after c. A.D. 180. Other contexts from Canterbury contain varying quantities of plain and decorated BB2 dishes, but a consistent feature is the low incidence often amounting to a complete absence of BB2 jars, particularly in contexts with termini ante quos in the early third century. This is in marked contrast with Dover, where everted-rim, cavetto-rim and bead-rim BB2 jars seem to have been abundant in Period III (e.g. Wilison 1981, nos. 737, 739, 742, 745, 747, 750—2, 756, 759, 772, 775: identification by the present author), although present in smaller numbers in Period II (Willson 1981: probably one only — no. 606 — from a dump containing 52 published vessels). BB2 jars also occur in several second/early third-century pits at Richborough (Bushe-Fox 1932, Pit 52, no. 251; 1949, Pit 113, no. 464; Pit 182, unpublished; Pit 184, no. 427; Cunliffe 1968, Pit 255, unpublished). BB2-derived jars have been recovered from sites in east Kent (e.g. Folkestone and Highstead, both unstratified and unpublished), but on the whole the forms appear to have had little impact in comparison with their ubiquity in west Kent, and with BB2 dishes throughout Kent (cf. Figs. 25, 30 and 45). The existence of a direct trade between BB2 potteries on the Thames and perhaps at Colchester and coastal sites such as Dover and Richborough may be postulated; seaborne transportation of this ware to the northern military zone may be considered a certainty (Gillam 1973; Breeze 1977; Williams 1977) from c. A.D. 140—250, as may the delivery of Colchester mortaria to Kent. It is plausible that the Classis Britannica, in its role as a. supply unit, was directly involved in this movement of material at least to military sites, but the existence of ‘military contracts’ for pottery to the northern zone is a contentious issue (cf. Gillam 1973; Breeze 1977; Williams 1977; Fulford 1981; Pollard 1983a, 492—505). The shape of jars lends itself less readily to compact stowage than does the conical dish, and it may have been the extra cargo space required, and greater vulnerability to

breakage, that discouraged intensive trading in BB2 jars to inland sites in east Kent wherein some reloading onto shallow draft vessels and/or overland carriers would have been unavoidable. It is noticeable also that the jar and flask forms of the third-century lower Thames BB2 and burnished ware industries are also much rarer in relation to BB2 dishes of that period than in west Kent and southern Essex (Figs. 45—46 and Appendix 3), throughout east Kent even at Dover and, on evidence of published material, Reculver (Philp 1957; 1959).
   The expansion of the importation of BB2 to east Kent in the last quarter of the second century coincided broadly with a marked decline in the production of Canterbury sandy wares. However, it must not be assumed that the pressure exerted by other industries was the sole, or even the primary, cause of this demise of the urban industry’s fortunes. Fulford (1977b) has argued convincingly that a general shift of emphasis from urban to rural production was experienced in the late second and early third centuries, coinciding with a widespread recession in the pottery industry (Pollard 1983a, 378—83, 492—519; cf. Hull 1963, and Young 1977a). The degree of temporal finesse that is afforded by the dating evidence for south-eastern Roman Britain — primarily coins and pottery — is not good enough to allow the details of the decline of Canterbury and the rise of the BB2 industries to be recovered; it is possible that the success of the latter was a consequence, not a prime cause, of the failure of the former. The BB2 industries were not the sole heirs to the Canterbury markets, however. Small quantities of BB1, probably from Dorset, have been recovered from late second to early/mid third-century contexts at Dover (e.g. Willson 1981, nos. 468, 696, 773, 871, and 877) and possibly Reculver (Philp 1957, nos. 27 and 30), whilst second- to early third-century forms have occasionally been recognised in Canterbury. This ware was virtually absent from east Kent during the Hadrianic period, when it

Page 97

Page 96       Back to Chapter 4       Contents Page         Page 98

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