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


The Roman Pottery of Kent
by Dr Richard J. Pollard  -  Chapter 4  page 149
Doctoral thesis completed in 1982, published 1988

(cf. Fulford and Bird 1975, 179—81). It is possible that ‘Mayen’ ware was exported to Britain in ships involved in delivering grain to the Rhineland that had been collected as part of the annona militaris (corn requisitions) in Britain (Ammianus Marcellinus, xviii, 2, 3), in much the same way as BB1 from Dorset may have been transported to the northern military zone of Britain through the Irish Sea (Fulford 1981, 202—3). The commerce between Britain and the Rhine was intensified by the emperor Julian in A.D. 359, when a large fleet was built to supply the imperial campaign in the lower Rhine (Frere 1974, 390). Glass vessels may also have been exported to Britain from the lower Rhineland (Price 1978, 75—7), but it is thought that this trade may have declined in volume in the late fourth century (ibid.). The high proportion of the total number of ‘Mayen’ vessels in Britain that jars comprise has been used to support the hypothesis that these vessels were imported laden with some commodity (Fulford and Bird 1975, 181). This is an interesting possibility, but it would be necessary to compare vessel ratios in Britain with those in the area of production, and recognise some differentiation between the two regions, before this piece of evidence can be considered valid to the testing of the hypothesis. The predominant role of the jars over other forms in Britain bears a close resemblance to the patterns exhibited by ‘Portchester "D" and late Roman shelly ware; while it is possible that these were also imported for their contents, all three patterns may also be a reflection of an especial esteem in which high-quality, often very hard-wearing, jars were held. In Kent at least, local production of sandy ware jars may have failed to fulfil the demand for such vessels in the middle and late years of the fourth century, encouraging importation to fill the void (see the following section). Slipped Nene Valley necked jars (q.v. the preceding section; Howe et al. 1980, 9 and nos. 70, 75—7) may also have taken a part in this trade.
      Late Roman grog-tempered ware (4.IV.3) may have

been the main local competitor with these imports in the late fourth century throughout Kent. It evidently emerged in west Kent somewhat later than in the east of the county, perhaps not becoming a significant element in pottery assemblages until the second or third quarter of the fourth century. Only one out of some 38 vessels represented at Bexley is in this ware, all of these vessels conceivably being of fourth-century date. Five out of the ten vessels published from one of the mid-fourth century pits at Lullingstone are grog-tempered jars (Pollard 1987, Group XLV, Fabric 75; q.v. Meates 1979, 56—7); several vessels are also represented in the destruction and post-destruction deposits of the villa, and in the occupation level south of the Temple-Mausoleum. A mid-fourth century development of large-scale importation and/or local production (it is at present not possible to differentiate between these two modes of distribution) would be concomitant with the apparent rarity of the ware at the Cobham Park and Maidstone villas, where occupation may have ended at this time (Tester 1961, 97; the Maidstone evidence has been assessed by the present author in consultation with the excavator, Mr D. Kelly). It would also help explain the low proportion of grog-tempered ware in the Chalk ‘cellar’ infill accumulation (Appendix 5; the figure of 6 per cent is under half that for this ware in the third-fourth century Rochester deposit, and one-quarter that of the Springhead deposit of the same date). The layer containing most of the pottery (layer 6), was sealed by a ‘nearly sterile’ layer (5) prior to the deposition of building material (layer 4) c. A.D. 395 (Johnston 1972, 120). Deposition of the Rochester and Springhead material may have continued into the fifth century (Redfern 1978, 54; the Springhead coin list from the temenos area includes several late fourth- to early fifth-century issues: Penn 1959, 1960, 1962; Pollard 1983a, fig. 64), as did the destruction/post-destruction sequence at Lullingstone (Meates 1979, 41—2). The development of grog-tempered ware,

Page 149

Page 148       Back to Chapter 4       Contents Page         Page 150

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