|
only at the last-named site and may represent a local potter working in an
alien tradition to take advantage of the market offered by the military base
and embryonic ‘small town’. Colchester vessels also include examples in
both ‘native brown ware’ (equivalent to the Richborough grog-sand ware)
and ‘pure Roman 237). Two other forms with this motif are also recorded
solely at Richborough so far as Kent is concerned, a small narrow-necked
vessel (unpublished; cf. Hawkes and Hull 1947, Form 119C) and a flask with a
carinated shoulder (Bushe-Fox 1949, no. 387). The former at least is also in
a grog-and-sand ware, which bears comparison with the Stuppington Lane
pottery, from Canterbury (Bennett et al. 1980). The fact that the
latter was associated with a kiln suggests that the Richborough ware may
also have been kiln-fired and an individual workshop or household industry
status is thus equally plausible.
The third example, that from fourth-century Canterbury, is of
the flint-and-sand tempered hand-made coarse ware described and discussed
above (4.V.3), which occurs in small numbers within the city and in one or
two instances beyond it. This ware was produced in a tradition ultimately
inspired by black-burnished ware dishes, with standard plain necked or
everted-rim jars complementing these forms (cf. Pollard forthcoming, d).
IV. INDIVIDUAL WORKSHOPS
1. Kiln Sites within Nucleations
The two nucleated industries of Kent (6.V) both seem to have experienced
formative phases when potters operated in comparative isolation from one
another in organisational terms. The Thameside and Cliffe peninsula zone of
the
|
|
Thames-Medway rural nucleation may have been the province of individual
workshops from the inception of wheel-thrown sandy ware production up to the
late second century, around A.D. 180. BB2 production in this period has not
been attested on a scale comparable with that of the late second and third
centuries: ‘early’ sites, including Chalk (Allen 1954, 1959) and Higham
Kiln C (Catherall 1983), functioned at a time when Colchester is thought to
have played a dominant role in the supply of BB2 to Scotland and London
(Williams 1977, 21 1—12). The north Kent potters’ sights in contrast
were fixed on local markets. Canterbury’s earliest, ‘North Gaulish’
pottery kilns are associated with flagons and utility vessels of types which
occur almost solely in the city itself and at the supply base of
Richborough. The jars in particular (e.g. no. 49 type) not infrequently
exhibit misshapen rims indicative of an attitude of ‘quantity not quality’
prevailing in the industry. The small scale of the industry as measured by
the proportion of its wares in contemporary assemblages (between 3 per cent
and 17 per cent: Pollard forthcoming, d), and its orientation towards
potentially the most lucrative, ‘Romanised’ markets, are suggestive of
individual workshops. The crude ‘Stuppington Lane’ ware, recognised only
at Canterbury, might belong either to this model or that of the household
industry. The hypothesized post-Antonine local potteries supplying
Canterbury with grey wares would also fit the individual workshop model.
2. Isolated Kiln Sites
These sites are associated with villa-estates, small towns or, in one
possible instance, a military base. The fine/specialised products of Otford
and Eccles are considered under the estate model
|