suggestive of a connection between distribution and the
scale of production (as assumed to be reflected in the area covered by
kilns) or the size of the ‘home’ market town. There are obvious flaws
in this approach, notably the assumptions concerning the area of town or
production: defended acreage does not necessarily equate with the overall
area of a town, nor need intra-mural population densities be of the same
order in all towns, while production units of a given size in terms of
scale of production may be dispersed over areas of greatly different
acreage for reasons such as availability of raw materials or density of
local population and thus local demand. In the opinion of the
|
|
present author, these weaknesses undermine the
principle... to an unacceptable degree, and it was felt that the
application of this approach would not be useful. Moreover, the dispersed
nature of production of north-west Kent/southern Essex BB2 and grey sandy
wares would make it difficult to justify the nomination of any one
settlement as the ‘marketing centre’ (Rochester, Springhead and the
possible ‘small town’ at Chadwell St. Mary may all have performed this
function). The role of these wares is fundamental to any analysis of
marketing patterns in Kent during most of the Roman period. It is possible
that most
|