|
that gave access to the Thames estuary and the Straits of Dover). Indeed, it
is possible that all Canterbury grey wares and grog-tempered wares were
transported entirely by land. This is in contrast with the industries of
Colchester and the lower Thames, which were undoubtedly involved in shipment
of pottery both in the Thames estuary and the North Sea (Williams 1977, 211,
concluded that products of both the Joyden’s Wood (now discounted as a
kiln site) and Cooling potteries are represented on Hadrian’s Wall in the
late second to mid-third century, and the former also occurred at
Canterbury). It was the failure to make extensive use of seaborne transport,
with the facility to carry bulk cargoes at the cheapest possible rate
(Duncan-Jones 1974, Appendix 17) that this mode offered, that was to a large
extent responsible for constricting the growth of the Canterbury industry.
However, the experience of Colchester’s industry suggests that even with a
strong coastal trade the industry might not have survived the economic
crisis at the end of the second century (Pollard 1983a, 378—83).
The demise of the Canterbury grey ware industry did not lead to
the cessation of demand for reduced sandy wares; one of the more numerous
elements of third-century pottery assemblages from Canterbury itself
(comprising between 10 and 15 per cent of all types) is a wheel-thrown
rounded and angular-roll rim, hooked-rim or angular-everted rim necked jar
in this ware. This often exhibits similar firing characteristics to the
contemporary ‘Native Coarse Wares’, with a red-scorched or vitrified
surface. Moreover, vessels are often decorated with a narrow zone of burnish
on the upper shoulder and rim, a feature that also occurs on some ‘Native
Coarse Ware’ vessels and seems to be characteristic of the first half of
the third century at Canterbury. Unslipped plain pie- and dog-dishes with
erratic facet-burnishing also occur, in small numbers relative to BB2
examples.
These grey sandy wares may have been the products of
|
|
potters who survived the difficult years of the late second-century industry
and found it worthwhile to continue production. The extent of the ‘Native
Coarse Ware’ distribution implies that local potters could still find wide
markets, whether operating in a centralised or dispersed manner. Kiln sites
of the late second and third centuries are lacking in east Kent, and the
grey sandy wares of this period are lacking in idiosyncracies that might
enable individual marketing zones to be defined. The pottery is similar to
contemporary wares of the Medway-Swale area (see below); a large number of
small-scale concerns may be postulated for the whole area east of the Medway
in the third century, with little or no co-ordination or centralisation of
production and distribution. On the grounds of minor differences in fabric,
a local pottery serving Wye may be postulated.
The production of mortaria also continued into the third
century. The forms are mostly near-vertical ‘hammer-head’ flange-rims of
rectangular or triangular section (e.g. no. 180 here), though stubby
thick-flange-and-bead forms also occur (e.g. Bushe-Fox 1932, no. 357;
Williams 1947, fig. 8, no. 12). An oxidised, sometimes sandy, fabric is
usual, with flint trituration grit and sometimes a white slip. These appear
to have been made from the late second to the late third/early fourth
century, and are abundant at Richborough (Hartley 1968, 174, Table 1). Their
overall distribution spread at least as far west as the Darent valley,
probably during the third century (4.IV.2). It is probable that they were
produced somewhere in east Kent, conceivably at Canterbury, though there is
no hard evidence for this (cf. Hartley 1981, fabric 3, and no. 386, where a
Rhineland derivation of the ‘hammer-head’ form is proposed).
In addition to Canterbury, Colchester, and ‘East Kent’, a number of
other sources of mortaria are represented in east Kent in the Hadrianic to
Severan period (Hartley 1968, 1981, 1982). These include the ‘Surrey/Sussex’
white ware mortarium (Gillam 1970, Type 272 — see
|