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


The Roman Pottery of Kent
by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 4  page 139
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

1972, layers 5 and 6), and comprise less than 2 per cent (vessel rim equivalents) of the pottery from a large ‘flood silt’ deposit of the middle years of that century at Canterbury (Pollard forthcoming, d; Appendix 5). Body sherds only are present in late fourth- and early fifth-century deposits at Canterbury, in very small numbers, and the ware is entirely absent from the recorded assemblages from the late fourth- to early fifth-century destruction and post-destruction deposits at Lullingstone (Pollard 1987), the early to mid fourth-century site at Bexley Maxim Road, and the fourth-century pits at Richborough. It is probable that few vessels were in use throughout Kent later than the early fourth century.
   Oxfordshire red/brown colour-coated ware producers were the main beneficiaries from the probable closure of the Upchurch potteries. The quantities of this ware at Chalk and Canterbury more than trebled as proportions of fine wares between the late third and the late fourth centuries. Over 50 per cent of the fine wares from the third- to early fifth-century ‘black earth’ deposit at Rochester (Flight and Harrison 1978) were of this ware, and the remainder included 39 per cent fine grey wares, which on analogy should include a large residual element. The Wye pit group, from the upper Great Stour in east Kent (Pollard forthcoming, a), includes over 45 per cent Oxfordshire red/brown colour-coated ware. The fine wares from the late destruction and post-destruction deposits at Lullingstone are all in Oxfordshire wares, including a Parchment ware bowl sherd. Sherd counts of late fourth-century and early fifth-century deposits at Canterbury reveal this colour-coated ware to have been the second most common ware after grog-tempered coarse ware, but the proportions by vessel rim equivalents are depressed partially due to the small numbers of fine ware rims recovered (Pollard forthcoming, d). In this late period, Oxfordshire ware quantities also increased in relation to other wares at Portchester (Fulford 1975b, 285—6) and possibly also in southern Essex (Drury

1977, 40), although the reverse may be true in East Sussex (Green 1977, 177—8). The typological fossilisation of Oxfordshire wares that occurred after the mid-fourth century (Young 1977a, 240) renders isolation of late vessels on unstratified sites very difficult, but it is clear that the red/brown colour-coated ware was ubiquitous in Kent in the fourth century as a whole (Fig. 51).
  
The sandy white, red-painted Oxfordshire Parchment ware (Young 1977a, 80—92) is a much rarer find than its colour-coated counterpart (cf. Appendix 5), but is nevertheless widespread in Kent as elsewhere within the Oxfordshire industry’s marketing area (Appendix 3). The carinated, moulded rim bowl (Young 1977a, P24) is the most common form, but other bowls and globular beakers also occur in Kent. There is no reason to think that this ware did not continue to be exported to Kent throughout the fourth century, although it is absent from late fourth- and early fifth-century deposits at Canterbury. Oxfordshire white-slip wares (ibid., 117—22) in Kent are predominantly in mortaria forms, which are widely distributed. The carinated bowl form (ibid., Type WC3) has been recorded at Richborough (ibid.) and possibly at Otford (the ‘Progress’ site, unpublished), but flagons and jars were apparently absent from Kent.
   The Nene valley was the source of the second major group of colour-coated wares marketed in Kent in the fourth century. Late fabrics of this industry include a quite coarse-textured white ware, grey and orange wares. Slips are thick, ranging from orange to black, and often exhibit a lustrous sheen (Howe et al. 1980, 8—9). The main forms found in Kent comprise tall-necked bead-rim bulbous beakers (cf. nos. 152—3 for forms) including vessels with circular and/or narrow ‘slit’ vertical folds (Howe et al. 1980, nos. 49—57; e.g. Ospringe: Whiting et al. 1931, nos. 43, 214, and 216), incurved-rim dog-dishes and angular-flanged bead-and-flange dishes

Page 139

Page 138       Back to Chapter 4       Contents Page         Page 140

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