KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY  -- RESEARCH   Studying and sharing Kent's past      Homepage

The Roman Pottery of Kent by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 7  page 201
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

the lack of investigation conducted into the economics of ceramic production. This aspect of the study owes much to that author's more recent work on the ethnography of pottery production (Peacock 1982). On the whole, coarse pottery does not reflect differential site status (Pollard 1983a, 444-61), except that towns and military bases are distinctive in the variety of wares of minor quantitative importance that tend to be included in assemblages. The cases of the selective marketing of BB2 in the early second century to the more prosperous sites, and of pre-Flavian Canterbury sandy wheel-thrown ware to the city and military base(s), are rare exceptions to this rule. Others may be obscured by the inadequacies of chronological refinement. Higher value wares may, in their proportions relative to coarse wares, provide information on site prosperity; occasionally, a limited distribution, such as those of pre-Flavian colour-coated wares and third-century Moselkeramik, may reflect selective marketing to (or purchase by) wealthier individuals or communities.
   It is the present author's belief that the regional study of the whole network of pottery production, importation and distribution is a valid approach in archaeology. How then might future studies be conducted? It is plain that the quantification of assemblages is of vital importance to the furtherance of such studies. The initiative must come from post-excavation teams, for much material that lies in museums is patently worthless so far as quantification is concerned. Hodder's '30 sherd threshold' was, it would seem, adopted in the absence of a more appropriate measure to test his theories against available evidence. Hodder's (1974b) own reservations on the assemblages with which he was dealing, and the low value accorded to sherd-count statistics by Orton (1975; 1980, 156-67) imply that this technique is a poor substitute for the full, or statistically sampled, quantification of recovered assemblages prior to disposal. The application of well-funded sampling strategies to post-excavation sorting should

also pay dividends in time saved and in producing comparable data. A third improvement will be aided by sampling; it is important that a greater number of assemblages be examined from each site if inter-site comparison is to be made, in order to level out possible biases due to assemblage-differentiation according to place-function within each site.
   A regional study must be followed up by the asking of specific questions: D.F. Williams' work on petrological characterisation of BB1 and BB2 (1977) and Monaghan's study of 'Upchurch' wares (1982) are excellent examples of the kind of issue that can be pursued. Mainman's (forthcoming) petrological work on late Roman and Saxon coarse wares in Canterbury provides a third case-study, and serves to highlight the need for fabric and technological analysis as well as form-decoration studies, if the thorny problem of the transition from 'Romano-British' to 'Saxon' pottery is ever to be solved (Chapter 4.VI). The fabric groups defined on visual examination by the present author also need to be examined in more detail; in particular, it would be of interest to learn whether there are any consistent differences in inclusion-composition between Canterbury, Swale, Cliffe and Mucking grey wares that might confirm the visual isolation of a 'Canterbury' group from the remainder. Other aspects of the present study that should be worth following up are the cross-Channel trade in coarse pottery (cf. Fulford 1977a and Chapter 4 above); the movement of Nene Valley wares southwards along the Anglian coast to east Kent and its relationship to the development of the Saxon Shore system (cf. Young 1977b; 1980), and the general trade along the Channel coast of Britain (cf. e.g. Williams 1971; Cleere 1974; Fulford 1975a, 1975b; Williams 1977). The latter topic would shed some light also on the mutual isolation of Sussex and Kent that is apparent (Pollard 1983a, 251-306). The two regions have much in common - physical geography, the early development of villas, and the

Page 201

Page 200     Back to Chapter 7    Contents Page         Page 202

For details about the advantages of membership of the Kent Archaeological Society   click here

Back to Publications On-line               Back to Research Page            Back to Homepage                 

This site is hosted by nVeracity      Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382
© Kent Archaeological Society 2004   
 

This website is constructed by enthusiastic amateurs. Any errors noticed by other researchers will be to gratefully received so
 that we can amend our pages to give an accurate record as possible. Please send details too research@kentarchaeology.org.uk