|
evidence of brick-making in London (Merrifield 1965, 189, 227) is purely
circumstantial. Indeed, evidence for production of building ceramics even in
the general vicinity of towns is extremely rare, as Peacock (1977b, 8-9)
has observed. McWhirr (1979a, 125-9) has dismissed Hull's suggestion
that Kilns 17 and 31 at Colchester (Hull 1963) were used for tiles, leaving
only the enigmatic Kiln 7 as a possible tilery; the Lexden kilns produced no
published evidence of associated products (McWhirr 1979a, 129-32). The
Park Street and Black Boys Pit tile kilns lie close to Verulamium, but only
a single kiln is known from each site (ibid., 141-7), while
evidence from Little London, Silchester, suggests a brickworks, perhaps
under Imperial jurisdiction, some 3 km. beyond the Roman walls (Karslake
1926; Boon 1974a, 101 and 277-9; a full gazetteer of evidence of
tile-production will be found in McWhirr and Viner (1978), updated and
amended by McWhirr (1979a)). The evidence of municipal involvement in
brick/tile production afforded by the RPG (? Res
Publica Glevensium) and PR BR LON stamps from
Gloucester and London respectively (Peacock 1977b, 9) is not paralleled at
Canterbury or elsewhere in Kent. The present author has suggested that a collegium
under local patronage may have unofficially represented the potters of
second-century Canterbury (Chapter 7) and by extension perhaps the tile
workers also; there is no hard evidence to support this, however, nor
Peacock's suggestion that some of the kilns around urban sites may have
been under estate control (Peacock 1977b, 9).
The Eccles tilery may have been an estate concern, as Peacock (ibid.)
has proposed; the present author has argued for estate interest in the
pre-Flavian pottery works (Detsicas 1977a; 6V1.2 above). It is not at
present possible to ascertain whether this tilery was engaged in supplying
other sites in the area; the approximate period of its construction (c. A.D.
180-290: Detsicas 1967, 174) covers also the construction phases 2 and 3
of the villa at
|
|
Snodland Church Field (Ocock and Syddell 1967) and construction phases 2 and
3 (if not also 1) of the Maidstone 'Mount' villa (D.B. Kelly, pers.
comm.; ceramic dating by present author), both on the banks of the Medway
within 10 km. of Eccles. The town of Rochester is also readily accessible by
river, and was involved in town defence building in the early third century
(Pollard 1981a), from which other construction may be inferred as such
defences could rarely be sited without some demolition of property.
Peacock (1982) has observed that in addition to estates, the
individual (rural) workshop model of production is particularly well-geared
to brick and tile production, with peripatetic operation. commonplace.
Nineteenth- and twentieth-century brickworks were widespread in north Kent,
using the creeks to export products along the coast and the Thames. It is
worth observing that the villa at Plaxtol produced a number of tiles with
Lowther's die 31 which was not recorded by Lowther from any other site in
southern Britain (1948), although more recently one find has been made at
the Darenth villa (Philp 1973); three of Lowther's dies (41-43) were
recorded only from Canterbury. Associations with Essex tiles are provided by
Lowther's die 16 (Canterbury, Chelmsford), 29 (Canterbury, Alresford) and
32 (Canterbury, possibly Hartlip, and Great Chesterford) and with London
tiles by dies 9 (Richborough, London) and 27 (Dover, London). The Ashtead
industry's associated dies have not been recorded at all from Kent by
Lowther, although die 5 has been recorded from several sites in east Surrey,
and 5A from Great Cansiron, East Sussex (Rudling 1986). The sample from Kent
is small, however. Long-distance associations between dies found in Kent and
elsewhere include die 16 (Wall, Staffs.), 9 (Cobham, Surrey; Leicester), 27
(Silchester), 32 (Boxmoor, Herts., Beckley, Oxon.), and 38 (Hartlip,
Silchester) (data from Lowther 1948).
|