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


The Roman Pottery of Kent
by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 4  page 128
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

albeit in small numbers. They are more frequent than cavetto-rim jars, which comprised a very small proportion of BB2 in east Kent throughout the second to fourth century, perhaps for reasons discussed above (4.III.3). Dog-dishes are second to plain pie-dishes in quantitative importance. Taking all forms together, BB2 comprised up to one-quarter of third-century Canterbury assemblages (up to half of the coarse wares), quite possibly with similar quantities in use in both early and later years.
   The third coarse ware frequently encountered in early third-century deposits, ‘Native Coarse Ware’ (q.v. 4.III.3), continued to be used throughout the century, probably declining in importance in the latter half (to under 5 per cent of total assemblages). The forms — mostly jars, but occasionally including bowls (e.g. Jenkins 1952, no. 34) and dog-dishes — exhibit no discernible typological development. They occur at Wingham and possibly Reculver (Philp 1957, nos. 22—3, 29 have profiles and scoring suggestive of this ware) in mid- to late third-century levels, as well as at Canterbury. Other, unstratified, examples in east Kent could also be of later third-century date (cf. Fig. 45).
   BB1 is a regular occurrence in Canterbury deposits of the mid- to late third century, generally comprising up to 9 per cent of total assemblages and 20 per cent of coarse ware assemblages (by vessel rim equivalents). Vessels are usually bead-and-flange dishes (Gillam 1970, Type 228) and decorated dog-dishes (ibid., Type 329), or more rarely jars with rims of wider diameter than the body (the ‘oversailing’ rim, ibid., Types 147 and 148; e.g. Jenkins 1952, no. 21). The jars, and the bead-and-flange dish, are dated to the late third century onwards in the northern military zone (ibid.), and the dog-dish (Gillam Type 329) from the late second century onwards. There is no reason to suppose that these forms reached the south-east any earlier than they did the north (Williams 1977); in consequence, it may be supposed 

that the major period of importation to east Kent began in the last third of the third century. Williams has demonstrated that some BB1 from Dorset certainly reached Canterbury (ibid.), including two bead-and-flange dishes that may be dateable to the late third century (Williams 1947, fig. 8, nos. 4 and 9; although the excavator dates their contexts to the fourth century, the coins and other finds do not rule out a third-century date for the fills, and this is certainly more likely on ceramic grounds). On the basis of visual inspection under a hand-lens, it is possible to ascribe most BB1 from third-century contexts to a Dorset source. Canterbury, and other settlements throughout Kent including Wingham and Reculver (Philp 1957, no. 7, and unpublished vessels from the foreshore), were evidently sought out by the Dorset distributors in a general intensification of trade with the south-east of Britain (Figs. 35 and 36 here) subsequent to the reduction in the scale of the northern region’s consumption (Williams 1977, 204—5). The coincidence of this trade with the development of the Saxon Shore defensive system in the English Channel, Straits of Dover and North Sea is of interest, particularly in view of the presence of oolite stone on several sites in Kent (Williams 1972, fig. 9 and Appendix 3). More research into the dating and sources of this stone is required before it is possible to provide good evidence to support the attractive hypothesis that the Dorset BB1 was imported as a by-product of the transportation of Portland oolite stone. Purbeck Marble may also have been shipped up the Channel in the late Roman period (ibid., citing Hull 1958, 96). This kind of commerce might accord with Fulford’s hypothesis (1981, 202—3) that Dorset BB1 was distributed over long-distances as a ‘makeweight’ in cargoes of more important commodities. The imposition of a system of taxation in kind on the south-east as well as in the north and west in the third century (cf. Hopkins 1980, 116 ff.) may have occasioned a restructuring of the tax collection system that resulted in an

Page 128

Page 127       Back to Chapter 4       Contents Page         Page 129

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 research@kentarchaeology.org.uk