forms have been recorded at Lullingstone Park, near the villa site
(unpublished), and also in Southwark (Bird et al. 1978b, nos. 16 and
637). Flanged vessels of Hartley’s Group 1(1977; no. 61 here), in white
sandy fabrics, occur at Otford Charne Building site (unpublished),
Lullingstone villa site (Pollard 1987, type VIE. 1(1)), Springhead (Hartley
1977, 6, and unpublished) and Southwark; the period of production of this
group of mortaria is c. A.D. 55—85 (ibid.), but none of the
Kent examples need be earlier than c. A.D. 80. The same can be said
of Hartley’s Group 2 flanged mortaria (ibid.; no. 62 here), dating
to c. A.D. 65—100+, which occur at Chariton (Elliston Erwood
1916, fig. 18, no. 5) and Springhead (unpublished), sites with
pre-Flavian occupation. The Neronian products of the Eccles industry
(Detsicas 1977a) have not been recognised away from the site itself.
West Kent is also lacking in well-stratified occurrences of
amphorae suggestive of pre-Flavian importation. South Spanish fabrics occur
on several sites with pre-Flavian/Flavian occupation, but only at Springhead
(unpublished) can finds be confidently dated to the first century; the form
of the relevant vessels is uncertain.
3. The Coarse Wares of East Kent
Discussion of the pre- to early Flavian coarse pottery in the
easternmost third of Kent is greatly facilitated by the evidence from two
sites, Canterbury and Richborough. It is appropriate, therefore, to review
these sources prior to more broad-based discussion taking in a number of
other sites on the Stour-Wantsum floodplain and the Isle of Thanet.
Canterbury. The excavations of the late 1970s in the
Roman civitas capital have placed the study of that city’s ceramics on a
much firmer footing than was previously possible, as full quantification of
closely-dateable contexts
|
|
has been executed. It is clear from this study (Pollard forthcoming, d)
that grog-tempered pottery of ‘Aylesford-Swarling’ and ‘Gallo-Belgicderived’
styles comprised the vast bulk of early to mid-first century A.D.
ceramics. The most common forms, accounting between them for perhaps 80
per cent of assemblages, are jars of plain rim (no. 24 here), bead-rim
(nos. 25 and 42) and everted-rim type, with or without necks. The necked
forms are usually accompanied by cordons or ‘corrugation’ of the lower
neck and shoulder (e.g. nos. 26—29); narrow-aperture necked vessels are
frequently encountered, particularly in later pre-Conquest and also
post-Conquest contexts. Decoration is primarily of combed or ‘furrowed’
(deep combing) oblique and/or horizontal type, covering the whole of the
body (e.g. no. 25) on all jar forms. Tooled lattice and chevron
motifs are particularly characteristic of narrow-necked forms (as at
Richborough: Bushe-Fox 1926, nos. 4 and 5), but occur also in
wide-mouth necked jars (cf. Bushe-Fox 1932, no. 254 from Richborough).
Stabbed decoration is less common, occurring on less than one in ten jars
of both pre-Conquest and later first-century A.D. date. ‘Comb-stabbing’
is confined in the main to wide-mouth necked jars (no. 28 here) in
Canterbury and on most sites in east Kent, Richborough being a notable
exception to this rule (see below). ‘Stick-stabbing’ and ‘finger-nail-stabbing’
(e.g. nos. 29 and 42) is present on all jar forms however. Other forms
include lids and straight-sided dishes (no. 34). ‘Quoit’ or
low-pedestal bases are encountered in most pre-Flavian and pre-Conquest
groups, presumably associated with necked jars and ‘bucket-urns’ as on
burial sites of ‘Aylesford-Swarling’ ritual (q.v. Birchall
1965).
Bead-rim jars also occur in flint-tempered wares, often with ‘furrowed’
decoration, and in wares of flint-sand or flint-grog admixture. The
stratigraphic evidence suggests that these wares
|