|
of an entrepreneur. The Flavian expansion of the Canterbury industry
involved the adoption of a style, which can be seen in part or whole in
several other late first-century urban-orientated industries, including
Brockley Hill, London, Silchester, and Leicester. The reeded rim bowl is a
ubiquitous element (no. 70), but forms of jar, flagon, jug and dish (e.g.
nos. 64, 68—70, 73, 74) can also be found in some or all of these
industries (Pollard 1983a, 365—83). It is more likely that these
all responded to an external stimulus than that they were in direct contact
with one another. The fact that this ‘urban style’ was not universally
adopted (cf. Fig. 24) demands the rejection of a simple diffusion model for
the spread of fashions in pottery forms.
VIII. THE MIGRATION OF POTTERS:
ITINERANCY
AND SINGLE MOVEMENTS
The recognition of a considerable number of small settlements and
farmsteads, associated with small groups of kilns producing identical wares
over a century and more, around the Thames estuary has led to the
proposition that the activity of professional itinerant potters is here
represented (Rodwell 1974, 35). This hypothesis was forwarded with
specific reference to material from Orsett and Mucking, two sites only 2—3
km. apart on the Thurrock gravel plateau. The hypothesis was supported by
the evidence of roller-stamps of very similar, if not the same, die being
used at both sites. Such stamps were not apparently used at other kiln
sites, such as Higham, Cooling and Billericay, although in the latter case
at least this may be a function of the time-span of production. While this
negative evidence and the typological differences also observed between Kent
and Essex wares (Pollard 1983a; 1983b, 134—8) should not be taken as
invalidating the hypothesis, it suggests that any such peripatetic activity
|
|
was conducted only at a parochial level, respecting the natural boundary of
the Thames to the south and east. Peripatetic production has also been
adduced by Drury (1976b, 258) in respect of the ‘Rettendon’
sand-flint tempered wares of the late third to early fifth century in
mid-Essex, kiln sites producing which are scattered over an area of
eastern-mid Essex some 25 km. in length. Drury has observed minor
typological differences between the sites, which might be a function of
space, time or both factors.
Peacock (1982, 9) has observed that peripatetic production is
particularly useful to individual workshop potters serving dispersed markets
and also to potters producing cumbersome, low-value items such as storage
jars or ceramic building materials. The former seldom carry distinctive
stamps, although basic motifs such as finger-tip decoration (‘Patch Grove’
ware) and combed herringbone, chevron and wavy line patterns interspersed
with zones of slip (Alice Holt) can often be recognised and might be
interpreted as a deliberate expression of identity of source. Bricks and
tiles are often stamped, however, and itinerancy has not infrequently been
proposed to explain dispersed distribution (e.g. Lowther 1948; McWhirr and
Viner 1978, 369—71). The movements of mortaria and samian manufacturers
are well-attested by stamps, although movements in one direction only tend
to be the rule rather than circuit-tours (cf. Hartley 1973a; 1976; 1977).
There are no clear examples of possible itinerancy within Kent
itself, although the potters of the Q. Valerius Verarnus and 0. Valenus Se.
. . groups of first-century mortaria may have moved to Kent from Gallia
Belgica (Hartley 1977). The Thames Estuary kiln sites produced very similar
pottery, but stamps were not used and typological similarities of form could
equally well be explained by personal contact between potters (the main area
of production in the
|