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

The Roman Pottery of Kent
by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 4  page 47
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

fine and coarse ware of this period than does that of Brenley Corner. The latter site’s assemblage is a minor subset of that of Canterbury, which explains the low correlation (2.V.2).
   It is possible that both amphorae and mortaria were being received on the rural sites of this area prior to the mid-Flavian period. Radfield’s pottery includes mortaria of both Groups 1 and 2 (Hartley 1977), whilst sherds of a South Spanish Dressel 20 amphora were recovered from one of the ditches at Brenley Corner, a mid-late first century context. Claudian ‘wall-sided’ mortaria, and amphora forms especially typical of the early-mid-first century A.D. (Dressel 2—4: Peacock 1971, 165—6) have not been recognised, however.

5. The Significance of the Claudian Conquest for
                                       Pottery Studies in Kent

A brief study of the ranges of pottery in pre-Claudian and Claudian-Vespasianic Kent might give the impression that the imposition of Roman authority brought about significant changes in the trade and production of pottery in Kent. Pre-Conquest imported fine wares were virtually confined to Gallo-Belgic wares, Arretine being found only at Canterbury and pre-Conquest(?) South Gaulish samian at Tong near Sittingbourne (a Drag. 11 with medallion and St. Andrew’s Cross motifs: Whiting 1927a, 41—3). The Conquest brought in its wake a large variety of wares from central and southern Gaul, including large quantities of South Gaulish samian that must have made a considerable impression on Canterbury’s volume of trade. Wheel-thrown sand-tempered wares were produced at Canterbury probably by potters of northern Gaulish origin, and other wares in generally similar fabrics, if not forms, were used at Southwark and possibly also in north-west Kent. A wide range of exotic forms was produced within twenty years of the Conquest at Eccles, whilst an industry producing mortaria may well have established itself in east Kent in the Neronian period

(Hartley 1977, 11—12). Flagons of mainly pre-Flavian forms (the ‘Hofheim’ collar-rim, no. 56 here) are widely distributed, both in fine wares and local grog-tempered wares. At least two coarse wares appear to have originated in the Conquest period, ‘Stuppington Lane’ sandy ware at Canterbury and ‘Patch Grove’ ware in south-west Kent and east Surrey.
   The preceding sections have made it clear, however, that most of these changes affected only a handful of sites, primarily on Watling Street and in the vicinity of the military supply base at Richborough. Pre-Flavian samian, it is true, has been recorded on several rural sites away from these areas of major Roman influence, but not in contexts necessarily of this period: the pottery could have been brought into these sites at any time in the Flavian period (cf. Orton and Orton 1975 for a study of the longevity of samian ware). Even Gallo-Belgic fine wares, white ware butt-beakers aside, are rarely encountered except on roadside and urban sites. Claudian-early Neronian ‘wall-sided’ mortaria have only been recorded on one non-urban site (the implication being that Roman methods of food-preparation were not generally adopted at this time), whilst there can be no certainty that the ?east Kent mortarium industry supplied rural sites any earlier than the 70s. Certainly there seems little doubt that the Eccles industry was not a speculative enterprise aimed at a wide civilian market, but an estate concern (6.VI.2). The ‘northern Gaulish’ sand-tempered ware industry at Canterbury was also evidently aimed at a very limited market, in this case the military base at Richborough and the city itself. The other pre-Flavian sandy ware industry at Canterbury appears only to have concerned itself with the urban trade.
   The broad pattern of British pottery ‘style-zones’ that can be traced back to at least the first century B.C. (see Chapter Three) was not broken down in the aftermath of the Conquest. It is

Page 47

Page 46      Back to Chapter 4    Contents Page         Page 48

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                 

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 as accurate a record as possible. Please send details too