|
vessel from Preston-near-Wingham (Myres 1944, no. 2) that has been examined
by the present author is grog-tempered, however, and possibly finished on a
wheel. This may represent a transitional stage between Roman and Germanic
pottery, as the form is not closely paralleled by known late Roman
grog-tempered vessels from Kent (e.g. nos. 204—1l here; Bushe-Fox 1932;
Jenkins 1950, nos. 76—80; Meates et al. 1952, nos. 82—6; Whiting et
al. 1931, nos. 60, 99, 112, 311, 337, 387, 397, 496). Germanic pottery
from west Kent has not been examined by the present author, but published
descriptions of material include everted-rim jars in ‘hard dense ware’
from Keston (Philp 1973, nos. 464-7, 470) associated with ‘grass-tempered’
shallow bowls or dishes (ibid., nos. 468—9) and sherds with
stamp-and-groove and dimple-and-groove decoration in the former ware (ibid.,
nos. 471—2). Vessels from Dartford are in ‘grass-tempered ware’,
including everted-rim jars, open bowls or cups, and a triangular-everted-rim
jar with combed grooves and stabbing from one site (Tester 1956a), and
an everted-rim jar with stamp-and-groove decoration from a burial in
association with a fifth-century glass bowl (Walsh 1980). ‘Grass-tempered’
pottery in Canterbury is at present thought to have had a floruit in
the eighth century (Mainman forthcoming).
The stylistic parallels between Romano-British and Germanic
wares that have been interpreted as representing the influence of Germanic
mercenaries upon Romano-
British potters (Myres 1956; Rodwell 1970a) have more recently, and
convincingly, been argued to be fortuitous (Gillam 1979). In any event, this
so-called ‘Romano-
Saxon’ pottery of the Roman period is extremely rare at Canterbury, where
numbers of Germanic sherds exhibiting the motifs under discussion have been
found (e.g. Frere 1966, fig,. 18, nos. 1, 7, 11, 18—26).
It may be reasonably proposed, therefore that, in Kent, there
is no clear sign of a ‘transitional’ fifth-century ceramic
|
|
tradition linking Romano-British and Germanic pottery, with the possible
exception of a single unstratified vessel from Preston. The question arises
as to what became of the Romano-British pottery industries active in the
late fourth century. Students of the major industries exporting pottery to
Kent have been unable to shed any light on their termination, other than to
speculate on the economic causes such as the loss of markets, the disruption
of communications, or the breakdown of the monetary system of exchange
(Young 1977a, 240—1; Fulford 1979, 128—9; Lyne and Jefferies 1979, 60—1).
It is generally accepted that Romano-British pottery manufacture had ceased
by c. A.D. 450 at the latest (Fulford 1979, 120), but that the major
industries of Oxfordshire (Young 1977a, 240), the Nene valley (Howe et
al. 1980, 10) and Alice Holt (Lyne and Jefferies 1979, 60—1) were
still strong at the beginning of the fifth century. These conditions almost
certainly pertain also to the late Roman grog-tempered ware industries of
Kent, and also of Hampshire (Fulford 1975b), although perhaps not to the
hand-made ‘East Sussex Ware’ potteries to the south of Kent (Green 1977,
177).
The evidence for the conditions of the pottery trade in Kent in
the late fourth and early fifth centuries in Kent is not strong, but certain
observations may be made. The distribution of Oxfordshire red colour-coated
ware types thought to have been introduced around A.D. 350 suggests that
there was still considerable interaction between town and country, for these
types; in particular, the flagons C11, C13 and C14, the ‘Drag. 38’
flanged-bowl C52, and the cordoned bowls C84 and C85 have been found on a
diverse number of sites of urban, military and rural nature throughout the
modern county (Young 1977a; Appendix 3 here). Late Roman shell-tempered
ware, dating probably to the late fourth century in Kent, has also been
recorded on urban, military and rural sites, although in east Kent it is
only known at Canterbury,
|