|
be more optimistic about the value of pottery as an indicator of broader
trends; this view may be presented in a qualified form, as Fulford proposed
in a paper comparing medieval pottery trade and medieval documentation for
trade with Britain’s late Roman trade (1978c). Here, and in an earlier
paper on the evidence of coins and pottery for Britain’s late Roman trade
(1977a), the conclusion reached is that while the evidence of pottery can be
used to demonstrate the existence of trade links, the greater abundance of
one type rather than another cannot necessarily be used as evidence of the
relative importance of source areas in the volume of real trade in the total
range of commodities, which is largely concealed in the archaeological
record.
The question of the value of pottery as an indicator of
economic patterns and trends is crucial to the assessment of the validity of
the study here presented. It is generally recognised that pottery comprised
a relatively unimportant element of industry and commerce in the Roman
world. Very few of the wrecks investigated in the Mediterranean contain a
cargo solely of pottery, although the Pudding Pan Rock wreck in the Thames
estuary carried a large consignment of Central Gaulish fine wares and
roofing-tiles, and traders specialising in fine pottery are known from the
epigraphic and documentary records (Hassall 1978; Middleton 1979). The
products of agriculture and mining were of far greater importance to the
economy of the Roman Empire (A.H.M. Jones 1974, Chapter 2), both on a
regional and inter-provincial level. If pottery can only be adduced as
evidence of the trade and exchange in pottery, it must be asked if the
effort expended in producing pieces of research such as this presented here
is justified. In the first place, it cannot be asserted that pottery is
unrepresentative of any other traded commodity, for in some cases it is
clearly the carrier of other commodities, and these, particularly wine,
olive oil and sauces, may be considerable profit-generators. Amphorae are an
exceptional form of pottery, however, and the lack of relevant
petrological
|
|
work published at the time of writing has necessitated the restriction of
discussion on their sources and distribution patterns. In the second place,
Hopkins (1980) has proposed that manufactured goods, including pottery,
formed an integral part of the balance of tax and trade flows that helped
support the economy of the whole empire. Clearly, the evidence for trade and
exchange that is presented by pottery has to be interpreted with some
caution; but the volume of that evidence demands that it be examined.
The geographical location and evident prosperity of Roman Kent
enabled its population to tap most of the ceramic trade routes from the
Continent throughout the period. The Rhineland (du Plat Taylor and Cleere
1978) and northern Gaul (Rigby 1973; Peacock 1977c) were both important
sources of pottery, including local products and exports in transit from
further afield. Kent’s location was less favourable with regard to the
Atlantic/Biscay trade from Spain and western Gaul than was that of the
Channel civitates (the Regni, Belgae and Durotriges in particular),
but this appears to have been a disadvantage only in the acquisition of
imports of low trade volume (notably ‘A l’eponge’ ware from the
Loire area: Fulford 1977a; Galliou et al. 1980), with no bearing on
that of the more massive trade in South Gaulish samian and South Spanish
amphorae. However, the Cantiaci did not gain their own wealth from the
exporting of pottery in any great measure, BB2 alone achieving a wide market
(Williams 1977) (cf. Monaghan 1987, 21 1—13; 220; 224—6; 233) that may
have included the Channel coast of Gaul at a restricted level (Fulford
1977a). If there was a direct, reciprocal trade from Kent to the Continent,
then it must have involved agricultural produce, particularly cereals, and
the sale of corn in the years after the Agncolan reforms and before the
imposition of the annona militaris may also have been the main
generator of the wealth of the civitas, or at least of its magnates
(cf.
|