|
western Cliffe peninsula is only 10 by 5 km. in extent)
or standardisation imposed by a middleman or other vested interest (see
above). However, the site of a possible kiln at Preston-near-Wingham
presents an intriguing case of long-distance movement by potters producing
grey sandy wares to lucrative markets. The feature represented can be
interpreted as a double-flue kiln, with no surviving interior furniture
(Dowker 1878). Corder (1957, 23) has noted that the 'double
stokehole' kiln type is 'confined in the main to the Farnham district',
and more recent work has not wholly invalidated this statement (Swan 1984,
117-20). The New Forest kilns were wholly of single-flue type (Fulford
1975a, 13-16), while of 21 kilns of the Oxfordshire industry only
one was twin-flued (Young 1977a, 40). Hull published only two double-flue
kilns out of some 30 known structures at Colchester (Hull 1963, 3-9,
Kilns 10 and 11).
The Preston feature is the only known possible double-flue
kiln in Kent. The double-flue kiln at Arlington (Holden 1979) is also
unique, as the only pottery kiln of any type recorded in East Sussex: kiln
production is suspected at Great Cansiron (Cawood 1986) and Hassocks, and
'Pevensey' ware should be kiln-fired and could well have been produced
in East Sussex. The two kilns differ in structural detail, but they are
similar in location and, so far as can be determined, in products. The
Arlington kiln lies within 1 km. of a Roman road to Pevensey (Margary
1939, 37-44; Holmes 1979, 61) which is some 16 km. to the east, while
that at Preston is within 10 km. of Richborough via Watling Street or
perhaps via the Little Stour and Wantsum. Holmes (ibid.) has noted
the similarity between Arlington pottery and Alice Holt/Farnham grey
wares, particularly those from Overwey (Clark 1949) where the three kilns
are all double-flue types. The single vessel known to be associated with
the Preston feature, the cremation(?) vessel blocking one flue entrance,
is virtually identical to
|
|
Overwey 27 (ibid., fig. 7) in form, fabric and decoration (ref.:
Maidstone Museum reg. 5PW.3); furthermore Overwey Kilns 1 and 2 are simple
bowl ovens, as Preston would appear to have been. Holmes has suggested that
the Arlington kiln represents the work of a Farnham potter seeking to cash
in on the construction of the Saxon Shore fort at Pevensey; it would seem
reasonable to apply the same hypothesis to the Preston kiln also, the potter
there being attracted by the re-establishment of the Richborough garrison in
the Saxon Shore fort. The dates of these two potters' migrations may also
be broadly similar: Pevensey may have been constructed in the wake of
Constans' visit to Britain in A.D. 342-3 (Johnson 1976, 144) and
Richborough would seem to have witnessed a marked intensification of
activity sometime in the A.D. 330s-340s after a quiet spell in the early
fourth century (Reece 1968). The Overwey group of kilns and an associated
dump are dated by Lyne and Jefferies to c. A.D. 350 on the basis of
pottery typology (1979, 10-11). Double-flue kilns at Farnham date back to
the third century, however (ibid). Recent studies of pottery from
Saxon Shore forts (Young 1977b, 1980; Pollard 1983a, 304-6) have expressed
the view that individual forts sought out their own pottery supplies without
recourse to large-scale contracts or 'military' production. Fulford has
suggested a connection between the injection of large sums of money into the
construction of the Saxon Shore forts and of civilian defences, and the
development of the massive potteries of Alice Holt, Oxfordshire, the New
Forest and others in the late third century (Fulford 1979). The migration of
potters producing wares of a value, which might be considered to be modest
to locations closer to lucrative markets such as the forts, would seem a
logical development and the resulting production accords well with Peacock's
'individual workshop' model (1982, 9).
|