Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware BB1: A Corpus of Forms and Their Distribution in Southern Britain, on the Continent and in the Channel Islands 178969955X, 9781789699555, 9781789699562

Citation preview

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) A corpus of forms and their distribution in southern Britain, on the Continent and in the Channel Islands

Malcolm Lyne

Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 87

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) A corpus of forms and their distribution in southern Britain, on the Continent and in the Channel Islands Malcolm Lyne

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-955-5 ISBN 978-1-78969-956-2 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and Malcolm Lyne 2022

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents List of Figures�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������iii Introduction and acknowledgements����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� v 1. The sources of and previous research into the industry��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 2: BB1 fabrics������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 3: Natural resources and their utilisation��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4 3.1: Clay������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 4 3.2: Filler���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4 3.3: Fuel ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 3.4: Water�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 4: Firing technology������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 6 5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 5.1: Class 1. Everted-rim and cavetto-rim cooking pots������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 7 5.2: Class 2. Necked bowls��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 5.3: Class 3. Neckless flanged-rim and lid-seated jars�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 5.4: Class 4. Miscellaneous jars with two handles��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 5.5: Class 5. Beakers������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 11 5.6: Class 6. Open bowls����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 5.7: Class 7. Beaded-and-flanged dishes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 14 5.8: Class 8. Straight-sided dishes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14 5.9: Class 9. Straight-sided dishes with handles������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14 5.10: Class 10. Flagons and Jugs������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 14 5.11: Class 11. Tankards������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 5.12: Class 12. Flanged-neck storage jars�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 5.13: Class 13. Everted-rim storage-jars/beehives���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 5.14: Class 14. Lids���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 5.15: Class 15. Colanders and wine-strainers������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent�������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 6.1: Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 20 6.2: c. 250-300 AD. (Figure 11)�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 6.3: c. 300-350/370 AD (Figure 14)������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 6.4: c. 350/370-430+ AD (Figure 17)����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 74 7: BB1 production and distribution mechanisms: a review of the evidence���������������������������������������������������������� 100 7.1: Production methods��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 100 7.2: The organisation of the BB1 pottery industry������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 100 7.3: Methods of pottery transportation������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 101 7.4.The mechanism behind the distribution of BB1����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 102 8: The end of the industry���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 107 Appendix 1. Gazetteer of BB1 forms seen in South and South-eastern Britain���������������������������������������������������� 110 Appendix 2. Gazetteer of BB1 forms seen on Continental sites��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 141 Appendix 3. Quantified pottery assemblages from sites in South-Central and South-East Britain���������������� 153 Appendix 4. Continental site excavations yielding BB1���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 160 Appendix 5. Breakdown of the BB1 elements in quantified pottery assemblages as per vessel form������������� 163 Appendix 6. Archaeological units, museums, amateur archaeological societies and individuals������������������� 181 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 182

i

ii

List of Figures

Figure 1: BB1 production sites�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Figure 2: BB1 Class 1 forms�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 Figure 3: BB1 Class 2 forms�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Figure 4: BB1 Classes 3 and 4 forms���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10 Figure 5: BB1 Class 5 forms������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 12 Figure 6: BB1 Class 6 forms������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 13 Figure 7: BB1 Classes 7 and 8 forms���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 15 Figure 8: BB1 Classes 9 and 10 forms�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 Figure 9: BB1 Classes 11, 12 and 13 forms.���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 Figure 10: BB1 Classes 14 and 15 forms��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 19 Figure 11: Distribution of BB1 in the South-East of Britain. c. AD.250-300���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 22 Figure 12: Distribution of types 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 bowls in the South-East of Britain������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 24 Figure 13: Distribution of BB1 on the Continent and in the Channel Islands. c. AD.250-300���������������������������������������������������������������� 52 Figure 14: Distribution of BB1 in the South-East of Britain. c. AD.300-350/370������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 54 Figure 15: Distribution of 4th c. beaded-and-flanged bowl types in the South-East of Britain.���������������������������������������������������������� 70 Figure 16: Distribution of BB1 on the Continent and in the Channel Islands. c. AD.300-350/70��������������������������������������������������������� 73 Figure 17: Distribution of BB1 in the South-East of Britain. c. AD.350/70-430+�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 76 Figure 18: Distribution of BB1 on the Continent and in the Channel Islands. c. AD.350/70-430+�������������������������������������������������������� 97 Figure 19: Distribution of Class 9 oval dishes in the South-East of Britain.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98 Figure 20: Distribution of Class 2 necked-bowls in Britain and on the Continent.��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 98

iii

iv

Introduction and acknowledgements

This publication is based on part of the author’s PhD thesis presented at Reading University (Lyne 1994) and heavily revised to take account of further research during the last 26 years. It deals with the technology employed by the Dorset Black-Burnished (BB1) ware industry and presents a new corpus of late Roman forms produced by it during the 3rd to early 5th centuries, based on that created by the author for the Bestwall Quarry production site (Lyne 2012A) with amendments. This publication also deals with the distribution of BB1 wares across south-eastern England and in the Channel Islands, France, Belgium and the Netherlands: it also discusses how such wares were marketed and when the industry ceased production. There are frequent references in this publication to the fabric and form breakdowns of numerous site pottery assemblages without reference to published reports. These pottery assemblages are either unpublished or published without detailed quantification but were examined by this author in museum and archaeological unit stores, in a programme of research between 1989 and 1994. Pottery spot-dating and reports produced by the author for a variety of clients between 1989 and the present day have also been used in the preparation of this publication. I am indebted to the staff of the numerous museums and archaeological units, as well as amateur groups and private individuals visited and worked for between 1989 and the present day: a full list of these can be found in Appendix 6 (p. 181). In the matter of work on Continental pottery assemblages during various visits to France, Belgium and the Netherlands between 1985 and the present, I must also thank Michael Batt at DRAC Rennes, Loic Languette at Rennes University. Nicola Coulthard and Karine Jardel at DRAC Caen, Bayeux Museum, Yves-Marie Adrian and Lenaig Feret at INRAP Rouen, Sonja Willems, Raphael Clotuche and Julie Flahaut at INRAP Amiens, Sofie Vanhoutte at the Flemish Heritage Institute, Mark Driessen at the Amsterdam Free University and others for their help and co-operation.

v

vi

1. The sources of and previous research into the industry All of the production centres so far located, with one exception, are situated around the shores of Poole Harbour or in the interior of the Isle of Purbeck (Figure 1). The first such production site to be written up in any detail was that at Hamworthy (SZ003905). In 1926, H.P. Smith found a small single-flued updraught kiln in the upper end of a drainage gully (Smith 1931 and 1935). Its very small internal diameter of 0.45 m. has, however, led subsequent writers to speculate as to whether the structure was used for brine boiling rather than pottery production. The bulk of the pottery from the site is of early-to-mid 1st century date but 3rd and 4th century AD material was associated with the ‘kiln’ itself. Smith also noted pottery waste on a low bank at Shipstal Point, Arne (SY98188806) on the south side of Poole Harbour (Smith 1935).

1st century BB1 cooking-pots, suggesting a ClaudioNeronian date for the structure (Calkin 1935). A whole flood of discoveries were made by local archaeologists P. A. Brown, N. H. Field and H. G. Burr after 1945 and written-up by R. A. H. Farrar as a series of notes in the Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society. Pottery waste was noted at Fitzworth (Farrar 1949, 1973), Cleavel Point, Ower (SZ00058617, Farrar 1952, 1977), Stoborough (SY92638638, Farrar 1953A), Cookoo Pound Lane, Worgret (SY91258695, Farrar 1953B), Shipstal Point (SY98188806, Farrar 1953C), Big Wood near Shipstal (SY97608843, Farrar 1956) and Redcliff (SY93558672, Farrar 1956, 1976). Limited excavation took place on several of these sites but revealed little structural evidence for kilns: the stratification, for the most part, comprised alternating layers of raw yellow and burnt red clay and black waste with potsherds. A clay-lined vat constructed from puddled-chalk was, however, found at Stoborough

A further discovery was made in the 1930s, when a kiln was destroyed by gravel digging at Corfe Mullen. By the time that archaeologists could arrive on the scene only the stoking pit was left: the fill of this yielded a mixture of white-ware flagon fragments and those from

Figure 1: BB1 production sites

1

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) and a curious double-flued oven at Cleavel Point. The former has now been published and may have either been a pit kiln or clay-puddling pit (Lyne 2002, 55-7) but the latter has been the subject of some debate (R.C.H.M 1970, Farrar 1973, 1977).

(SY912870) on the western outskirts of the town (Farrar 1953B). The Trust for Wessex Archaeology carried out a rescue excavation in 1986-87, which revealed evidence for activity commencing in the Iron Age and going on until the end of the 4th century or later. Evidence for all aspects of pottery production was present, including a waste filled clay pit and twelve kilns (Hearne and Smith 1992).

The realisation during the late 1960s that this pottery production complex was the source of vessels in handmade BB1 fabric, so common on military sites in the north and west of Britain (Peacock 1973), led to a more widespread interest in the industry. Much of this work took the form of fabric analyses and is dealt with below but there were also a number of large-scale excavations on production sites. Farrar carried out an excavation at Ower and also republished the earlier dig in greater detail (1977). An industrial site had been noted earlier at Norden near Corfe Castle (SZ95648271, Farrar 1952): large-scale excavations were carried out there in 1968-9 and revealed settlement from the 1st century onwards by people engaged in quarrying Purbeck marble and making chalk tesserae, Kimmeridge shale objects and mudstone opus sectile (Sunter 1987).

The work by Farrar and others at Redcliff and Stoborough was posthumously published (Lyne 2002) and showed that the 1st and 2nd century AD pottery from the Redcliff site had been fired in a succession of large clamps up-to 4.50 m in diameter. Lilian Ladle’s large-scale excavations between 1992 and 2005 ahead of gravel extraction at Bestwall Quarry between Wareham and Poole Harbour (2012) located 25 pottery kilns ranging in date between AD 210 and the early 5th century, together with nine workshop structures and numerous other features associated with pottery production (Lyne 2012). Archaeological work in 2007 on the line of a pipeline at Bockhampton, less than 3 kilometres east of Dorchester exposed half of the oven of a pottery kiln containing vertical stacks of BB1 cooking-pots with girth bands decorated with burnished diagonal lines (Rachel SeagerSmith pers. comm.). The pots appear to have been the last load fired in the kiln and abandoned because they had been accidentally oxidised. The kiln is situated nine miles west of the nearest other BB1 producing ones at Worgret and is clearly of late 4th or early 5th century AD date. It appears likely that some BB1 potters moved into the outskirts of Dorchester to supply the population of the town but when this happened must remain uncertain until the Bockhampton site is properly excavated. Examination of the pot fabric indicates that the sand filler is indistinguishable from that used in the pots produced in the kilns around Poole Harbour: this is not too surprising as Bockhampton lies at the western edge of the Eocene Bagshot sands outcrop.

These industries were joined by pottery manufacture during the late 3rd century AD. Three single-flued updraught kilns constructed from limestone blocks set in clay mortar were found but, as with the Hamworthy kiln, their small size makes it slightly questionable as to whether they were used in pottery manufacture.

Further large-scale excavations were carried out at Cleavel Point, Ower between 1978 and 1981 (Woodward 1987) and revealed eight phases of occupation commencing in the pre-Roman Iron Age. The Roman occupation was represented by the excavator’s Phases 4 to 7 and took the form of a complex of huts and workshops associated with pottery manufacture. This occupation commenced during the 2nd century and, after a hiatus, continued until the end of the 4th century AD or later. The construction of the Wareham by-pass threatened part of a known BB1 manufacturing centre at Worgret

2

2: BB1 fabrics The story of the recognition of BB1 as a specific pottery fabric type has one very unusual feature in that it was first defined hundreds of miles from source at Mumrills on the Antonine Wall (Gillam 1960). Long before this, however, it had been half-recognised by Thomas May at Silchester and York (May 1911 and 1916). He called it ‘Grey or Black Fumed ware containing calcite (gypsum) and quartz particles’, although the accompanying illustrations in his Silchester volume indicate that vessels from other sources were also included under the definition (May 1916 Plate LXVI).

fine-sanded ones. In the Mumrills fort pottery report, Gillam distinguished them as Black-Burnished Ware 1 or BB1 and BB2 respectively (Gillam 1960). The same report includes spectrographic analyses of the two fabrics (Richards 1960), with the suggestion that BB1 originated in the Hertfordshire/ Middlesex area. In 1967, Peacock carried out heavy-mineral analyses of a number of BB1 vessels from Alcester in Warwickshire. The tourmaline-rich suite of minerals present was reminiscent of the Upper Greensand of Devonshire and suggested a manufacturing source somewhere in the south-west of Britain. Devon itself seemed to be unlikely due to the sparse representation of Romanised wares of any description over much of the county. It was concluded that a more easterly source in the southwest peninsula was far more likely (Peacock 1967). The following year saw the publication of a group of wasters from Corfe Mullen with the same characteristics as BB1 (Farrar 1968). In this article, Farrar suggested to Peacock that the Bagshot beds around Poole Harbour might prove to be rich in tourmaline. This suspicion was proved to be correct and the Poole Harbour area was confirmed as the production centre for most vessels in BB1 fabric (Peacock 1973).

‘This kind of ware is held to be of exclusively British manufacture because no corresponding examples of the Roman period are recorded by Continental authorities or contained in Continental museums’ (May 1911). May’s somewhat vague Fumed ware terminology continued in currency until 1960 and it became clear that large quantities of coarse ware covered by this definition were present in northern fort pottery assemblages. John Gillam had been working on such wares since the late 1930s and it had become increasingly apparent to him that the bulk of the Fumed wares came from two main sources; one producing handmade coarse sandtempered wares and the other wheel-thrown fairly

3

3: Natural resources and their utilisation to whether they were Roman but may well have been a major clay source for the Roman potteries.

3.1: Clay Clay pits on excavated BB1 production sites have proved elusive until fairly recently. The 1986/87 excavations at Worgret, however, located such a pit on the southern edge of a potting area (Hearne and Smith 1992). It was fairly small and probably one of several such pits exploiting thin and irregular seams of clay interleaved with the current-bedded sands of the Eocene Bagshot Beds. These clay beds vary in character and this particular pit was dug down into iron-deficient white-firing ball-clay. Such clay was not employed in the making of the pot-bodies but is known to have been used for burnished slip applied to the interior surfaces of open forms and the shoulders and rims of cooking-pots after the mid-3rd century AD. This can be detected by drip-marks or sometimes by a white or cream coloured slip on the external/internal surfaces of sherds which have been accidentally oxidised.

Eighteen 3rd and 4th century AD clay pits were located at the Bestwall site, as well as clay dumps left outside for weathering. One of these clay dumps (Z808) lay close to the 3rd century AD Kiln Z822 and two roughly rectangular areas of flagstones, which could have been used for the puddling of the clay (Ladle 2012, figure 59). 3.2: Filler The basic BB1 fabric is macroscopically variable in coarseness, with the clay body heavily tempered with sub-angular white and colourless quartz-sand and occasional smooth, rounded or sub-angular Kimmeridge shale fragments of between 2.00 and 10.00mm in length. Farrar (1977) notes that some vessels also have a few chalky inclusions of similar size range or vesicles lined with a similar substance where it had leached out. He also observed that these inclusions did not react with hydrochloric acid and could therefore be gypsum. Calcium and its oxides do react with hydrochloric acid but calcium sulphate or gypsum does not.

It is a mystery as to why the BB1 potters should have bothered to apply such slip when their carbon-soaking firing technique would render it invisible. The New Forest and Alice Holt greyware manufacturers also used white-firing clays for decoration on their greyware products but the technology meant that it was clearly visible and could be appreciated: these potters also applied the white-firing slip to the same parts of their pots as the BB1 ones. One may speculate that the BB1 potters recognised the use of this ball-clay slip decoration as a major reason behind the increasing success of their rivals. With the white-firing clay regarded as synonymous with success, even its invisible presence could have been regarded by the potters as increasing the potency of their products.

The quartz-sand filler has been shown, for the most part, to be derived from the Bagshot sands and comes in various degrees of coarseness. Three main fabrics can be distinguished: C1A. Coarse fabric fired black with profuse upto 1.5mm colourless, white and grey sub-angular quartz-sand filler, as well as occasional-to-sparse Kimmeridge shale, chert, ironstone and gypsum inclusions. C1B. Poorly prepared vesicular version with vesicles caused by the leaching-out of calcareous inclusions. This variant tends to be used on poorly-made pots indifferently fired and is most common after 370 AD. Gerrard refers to this fabric as South-East Dorset Orange Wiped Ware (2012). It was employed mainly on ‘storage-jars’ of Bestwall type 13.2 (p. 17) but also on the latest beaded-and-flanged bowls and straight-sided dishes.

It could perhaps be argued that the application of ballclay slip to the interiors of open forms made them less permeable than when the burnished slip had previously been worked up from from the iron rich clay of their bodies. This argument, however, does not work with cooking-pots and other closed forms, where the ballclay slip was applied to the shoulders and rim tops. The heavy mineral analyses referred to above (p. 3) have indicated that the tourmaline-rich Bagshot clays around Poole Harbour were by far the most important source of clay employed by the BB1 industry. Clay digging at Doulton’s Clay Works in Hamworthy during the early years of the 20th century uncovered up to 100 ancient clay pits separated from each other by baulks 1.5m thick. They were approximately 7.5m square and arranged in orderly rows (Smith 1931). It is uncertain as

C2. Finer fabric fired black with profuse up-to 0.50 mm. colourless, white and grey sub-angular quartzsand filler with a few coarser Kimmeridge shale inclusions. As regards the minority inclusions, Kimmeridge shale fragments occur in minute amounts within the Bagshot 4

3: Natural resources and their utilisation

sands (David Williams pers comm.) and the rounded natures of some of the pieces suggests that the sands were one source. Some vessels do, however, contain larger quantities, including more angular fragments. This material may be shale-working waste mixed with the sand. Shale-working is known to have been carried out at Norden and other sites where pottery manufacture was also taking place (Sunter 1987). The gypsum inclusions are probably derived from the boiling of brine in containers and precipitated in them.

twiggy material. This was largely the case at Cleavel Point, although charcoal from large oak branches was also present there. Willow was also encountered in charcoal from the Alice Holt kilns (Pratt 1979). It is not a particularly common timber but Philip Harris of Farnham Potteries informs me that willow is one of the first colonisers of old clay pits because of its ability to take root in clayey conditions.

3.3: Fuel

Pottery manufacture on any scale requires an ample supply of water to make the clay workable. There would have been no problem with this in view of the coastal siting of most of the BB1 pottery production centres. Salt water is known to be superior to fresh water in the manufacture of pots (Rye 1976: 131). The sodium element lowers the vitrification temperature of clays and cuts down the amounts of fuel required to fire pots. Most clays contain some calcareous particles and the same sodium also raises the temperature at which that material decomposes to form quicklime. The latter is a very destructive material in pots which are used to carry or boil liquids. The quicklime combines readily with water to from calcium hydroxide, which has much greater volume and causes pots to spall or rupture in use.

3.4: Water

The heathlands around Wareham and the salt-marshes of Poole Harbour would have furnished an almost inexhaustible supply of peat, heather and podsolic turf, which were probably first used to construct clamps and then for kiln superstructures and as fuel. Heather charcoal was found at Redcliff (Gale 2002), Cleavel Point (Woodward 1987:119), Worgret (Hearne and Smith 1992) and Bestwall Quarry (Gale 2012). Gorse charcoal was also found at Redcliff, Cleavel Point and Bestwall Quarry as was that from other heathland species such as broom, hawthorn and blackthorn. Oak, poplar and willow charcoal was also found, all of which at Bestwall Quarry was from narrow roundwood and

5

4: Firing technology When Farrar wrote the first major assessment of the evidence for BB1 production in Dorset (Farrar 1973) he could point to only three possible kilns producing the wares. Two of these were abnormal: the Stoborough example (R.C.H.M.1971, Lyne 2002, Farrar 1953A) was a fired clay-lined vat set into a pottery waste mound and contained pottery of 1st and early 2nd centuries AD date. The feature was regarded as some kind of pit kiln but this is questionable.

kiln waste also includes Durotrigian BB1 but, in view of what we now know about the development of BB1 kiln technology, was probably produced in nearby clamps. Farrar’s Redcliff excavation (Lyne 2002) revealed the bases of two large late 1st and 2nd century AD pottery clamps and excavations at Worgret have yielded 12 later Roman pottery kilns (Hearne and Smith 1992): one of the three ovens at Cleavel Point, Ower may also have been a Late Roman pottery kiln. Excavations at Bestwall Quarry yielded a further 25 pottery kilns ranging in date from the early 3rd to the early 5th century AD, as well as two pot drying ovens and nine workshops.

The second structure was a double-flued oven found at Cleavel Point, Ower (Farrar 1952) and had 3rd and 4th centuries pottery associated. There are, however, problems in understanding how this structure could have been used in the firing of pottery. The excavator claimed that the dome over the 1.35m diameter oven was virtually intact apart from a small breach on the south-west side. This dome had a maximum height of 0.45m from floor to roof, with a thickness of 0.25m and was entered through two opposing flues roughly square in section, each 0.45m long and with maximum heights of 0.30m. The interior of the structure was uniformly reddened by heat.

What all this now tells us is that BB1 was made at Redcliff in large turf clamps from the Late Iron Age until c.180 AD. The second of these dated c.120-80 AD appears to have had some kind of internal structure: the evidence for this took the form of sandstone lumps projecting from the base of the clamp, together with a fragment of fired clay with withy impressions, and may have come from a kind of oven in the centre of the clamp similar to a structure used by Nigerian potters at Garki near Kano in order to protect their pots from discolouration due to direct contect with fuel (Riegger 1972: 94-7). Worgret firing structure 174 is archaeomagnetically dated to c.160-210 AD and appears to be the fired base of yet another clamp with an oven-like structure within it.

The dome, being thick and low, was over a very restricted oven capable of holding few pots and only accessible by breaking a hole through the dome. Hacking through such a thick clay dome to get at the relatively small load of pots beneath would have been a very hazardous procedure; even a small piece of the fired clay dome falling on the vessels beneath would have resulted in breakages. It would seem likely, in view of the large amounts of brine-boiling briquetage found in association and the siting of the Ower kiln on the very edge of the mud-flats of Poole Harbour, that the structure was used in brine-boiling rather than pottery production.

True BB1 single-flued updraught kilns made their appearance at the end of the 2nd century AD: both Worgret kiln 46 and Bestwall kiln Z904 are of early 3rd century AD date and, as with later BB1 kilns, share the primitive characteristic of not having separate combustion chambers beneath their ovens. Complete pot wasters were used instead with clay applied around their necks and bases in order to convert them into cylindrical pot stands to carry the kiln loads above. Late 3rd and 4th century AD kilns continue this tradition but, instead of having simple fired-clay ovens, tend to be more massive with sandstone blocks used to line their flues and incorporated in the oven walls. Later still, in the early years of the 5th century AD, the few Bestwall pottery kilns that can be attributed to this period, Z956, Z957, Z958 and Z998, are of much slighter construction with thin clay oven walls and abandonment of the use of stone.

The third kiln mentioned by Farrar was the ClaudioNeronian one at Corfe Mullen (Calkin 1935). This kiln was totally destroyed by gravel digging before it could be examined and its form is unknown. Archaeological examination was restricted to the stoking pit, the pottery content of which indicates that the kiln produced white-ware flagons inspired by Gallo-Belgic Whiteware prototypes; apparently for the Legionary fortress at Lake Farm a short distance to the north. The

6

5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms The corpus used here is that created for the Bestwall kilns with minor modifications (Lyne 2012). These modifications include the elimination of type 3.3 as being too similar to 3.2, the replacement of 4.2 by a more typical example from Wollaston House, Dorchester and the removal of the original type 10.7 because of its lack of a rim and resultant possibility that it is not a jug at all: the original flagon type 10.8 has been re-numbered 10.7. There has also been some tweaking of date-ranges.

Gillam’s Type 8 (1976), but without groove, this form is dated to c. 230-280+ AD. 1.4.Cavetto-rim cooking-pot with slightly-attenuated body and similar decoration to 1.3. With characteristics of both Gillam’s Types 10 and 11, this form can be dated to c. 280-370 AD. 1.5.Similar form but with narrow-latticed band. c. 280370 AD.

5.1: Class 1. Everted-rim and cavetto-rim cooking pots

1.6.Everted-rim cooking-pot with similarly-attenuated body and diagonal-burnished band on girth. c. 350-370 AD. There is a problem with dating vessels which have diagonal-burnished-line decoration in that this could be accidentally arrived at any time after 200 AD when a potter linear-burnishing obtuse-lattice on cooking-pots failed to turn the pot around to complete the process, due to some distraction or other.

As with the products of most pottery industries where hand-worked coil or slab building was employed, it is very difficult to define minor sub-types represented in a class of vessel. One author (Farrar 1973:75) likened any published range of Dorset BB1 cooking-pot forms as equivalent to making a selection of ‘cinematic stills’. Any identified form must therefore be an average example taken from a range of such ‘stills’ held to span the maximum typological variation within the form in question.

1.7.Bulbous form with heavily-beaded stubby evertedrim and obtuse-latticed band on its girth. c. 350/70430+ AD. 1.8.Bulbous form with diagonal-burnished band on its girth c. 370-430+ AD.

There is another problem encountered in creating a cooking-pot typology. This form and other closed ones are less robust than the thicker-walled open forms and tend to break along the angle between their rims and shoulders. Some cooking-pot rim forms are associated with more than one type of body and breakage at this point has resulted in a very large percentage of all BB1 cooking-pots examined being unattributable to a precise body form.

1.9.Bulbous everted-rim cooking-pot with herringboneburnished band on its girth. c. 350/70-400+ AD. 1.10.Crude vesicular everted-rim jar with or without vertical burnished lines on its body. Paralleled at Norden (Draper 1984), Kiln 274 at Bestwall (Lyne 2012) and 5th century AD contexts at Druce Farm villa (Lyne Forthcoming A). c. 400-50+ AD.

Figure 2 1.1.Bulbous everted-rim type with 90 degree to slightly obtuse-latticed band on the girth and no groove above the latticing. As Gillam’s Type 6 (1976) this form is dated to the early-3rd century. Similar but barrel-shaped vessels occurred in the c. 200-210 AD dated Phase 3 pot-gully at Redcliff; both with a wavy line under the rim and without and were associated with the latest acute-latticed, 90 degree latticed and the earliest obtuse-latticed decoration (Lyne 2002: figure 10, 57-61). c. 200-230 AD.

1.11.Cooking-pot with weakly-formed everted-rim. Paralleled in 5th century AD contexts at Druce Farm villa. c. 400-50+ AD. 5.2: Class 2. Necked bowls Figure 3 2.1. Everted-rim bowl with obtuse-latticed band on girth. This vessel type is not easy to distinguish from its Class 1 equivalents when represented by rim and body sherds alone. The pronounced curvature of girth sherds is one giveaway. c. 350/70-430+AD.

1.2.Bulbous type with narrow band of obtuse-latticing on its girth: with or without groove above latticing. Type 1.2A without the scored groove can be dated c. 210-250 AD and type 1.2B with groove to c. 230-280 AD.

2.2. Similar form but with diagonal-burnished lines on its girth. Paralleled at Poundbury in Pit G1104 of late 4th century AD or later date (Davies and Hawkes 1987:

1.3.Bulbous type with rolled over rim and horizontal groove above band of wide-spaced obtuse-latticing. As 7

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 2: BB1 Class 1 forms

8

5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms

Figure 3: BB1 Class 2 forms

9

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 4: BB1 Classes 3 and 4 forms

10

5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms

figure 88-41): several examples of this type and type 2.1 were also present in the late 4th -to-early 5th century latest occupation at Wollaston House, Dorchester (Batchelor forthcoming: Figures.89, 90 and 96). c. 350/70-430+ AD.

5.5: Class 5. Beakers Figure 5 5.1. Beaker with single handle and stubby everted rim. As Gillam’s form 24 (1976), the type is dated to the early-to-mid 2nd century AD: as Greyhound Yard type 10, it is, however, apparent that such beakers continued being produced until at least 300 AD and possibly later (Woodward et al 1993: 231).

2.3. Similar form but with double wavy-combed band on its girth. This was a late addition to the range of necked bowl types, in that all of the well-stratified wavy-combed girth sherds from vessels of this type come from the latest features on sites. c. 390-430+ AD.

5.2. Plain bead-rim form with handle. c. 300-400 AD.

2.4. Similar form but without any decoration other than area burnish. c. 350/70-430+ AD.

5.3. Similar form but with linear-burnished herringbone decoration on its exterior. Paralleled by two examples from the mid-to-late 4th century AD destruction levels over Building 5 at Colliton Park (Draper 1983: figure 17: 14 and 15). c. 350-400+ AD..

2.5. Similar form but with obtuse-latticing on girth above carination. c. 350/70-430+ AD. 2.6. Similar form but with diagonal burnished band above carination. c. 350/70-430+ AD. 2.7. Similar undecorated form with overall burnish. c. 350/70-430+ AD.

5.4. Similar form with combed wavy band around its girth. Two examples of this rare type came from Tombs 410 and 430 at the Frenouville cemetery near Caen in Normandy (Pilet 1987). c. 370-400+ AD.

2.8. Carinated necked-bowl with stubby everted rim. c. 370/80-430+ AD.

5.5. Two-handled scaled-down version of jar type 4.2 with similar decoration. c. 300-400+ AD.

2.9. Similar but with bead-rim and no carination. c. 370/80-430+ AD.

5.6. Similar type but with burnished ‘sycamore seed’ motifs on its exterior. The latest stratified BB1 vessel from the Rouen Cathedral, Cour de Macons site is of this type and from a context dated c. 390-410 AD (Adrian 2006: figure 9, 4704-38). c. 300-410+ AD.

5.3: Class 3. Neckless flanged-rim and lid-seated jars Figure 4

3.2. Similar but with incipient beaded-and-flanged rim and decorated panels on its exterior. c. 370-430 AD.

5.7. Bead-rim beaker with 5 handles. This very rare type is paralleled at Greyhound Yard, Dorchester in a 4th century AD context (Woodward et al 1993: figure 148-294). Another example, but with four handles came from Maiden Castle and was dated to the mid-4th century (Wheeler 1943, figures 80, 44). c. 300-400+ AD.

5.4: Class 4. Miscellaneous jars with two handles

5.6: Class 6. Open bowls

Figure 4

Figure 6

Jars with everted or bead-rims and countersunk handles are characteristic of Late Iron Age Durotrigian and Early Roman BB1 production and probably continued being made until the end of the 2nd century AD. The following types with simple attached twin handles continue the tradition up until the end of the 4th century AD.

6.1. Flanged-bowl with external burnished arcading. Bowls of this otherwise late 2nd century AD dated type but with burnished arcading occur in early-to-mid 3rd century AD contexts, including the c. 260-80 AD dated lower fill of the Silchester town wall construction trench (Fulford 1984: figure 53-457) and in rubbish dumped beside the road outside Winchester South Gate immediately after the city wall was constructed. The Bestwall Quarry evidence confirms that bowls of this type continued being made in decreasing numbers until c. 250-70 AD. c. 180-250/70 AD.

3.1. Form with polished exterior. Paralleled in Phase 3 at Ower (Woodward 1987: figure 50-190). c. 200-300 AD.

4.1. Everted-rim jar with two opposing handles and 90 degree - to - obtuse latticing on its girth. c. 200-350 AD. 4.2. Two handled bead-rim jar. c. 300-400+ AD.

6.2. Incipient-beaded and flanged bowl with similar decoration. This bowl type is absent from the Phase 3 11

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 5: BB1 Class 5 forms

pottery assemblage at Redcliff, suggesting that it was not introduced before c..210 AD (Lyne 2002: 68). The type was made for much of the 3rd century AD but is absent from both the Pevensey and Portchester shore forts. It is now thought that these forts were constructed by Allectus between AD 293 and 296. A date range of c. 21080/90 AD is therefore inferred for the type.

and undecorated Types 6.6 and 6.8 and confirm this terminus ante quem. c. 240-290/300 AD. 6.5. Variant with a cornice beneath its flange. c. 280-300 AD. 6.6. Variant similar to 6.4 but with sloppy burnished ‘arcading’ on its exterior. c. 290/300-370 AD.

6.3. Thin-walled developed beaded-and-flanged bowl. This very early beaded-and-flanged bowl form is unusually delicate and comes from a context at Bestwall where all of the other bowls are either of type 6.1 or 6.2. c. 220-50 AD.

6.7. Variant with stubby flange and sloppy burnished decoration on its exterior. c. 300-70 AD. 6.8. Undecorated variant of 6.6. Although most undecorated beaded-and-flanged bowls of this type are of 4th century date, some appear to be earlier and are simply bowls of Type 6.4 where the decoration has been omitted. c. 270-370 AD.

6.4. Beaded-and-flanged bowl with developed bead and flange and external burnished arcading. The earliest recorded example of this type comes from within the Roman quay at New Fresh Wharf, London and is unlikely to be later than AD 245 in date. Similar bowls were still in use at the time that the shore fort at Portchester was constructed c. 285-293 AD (Fulford 1975A, figures 183-85, 11) but were replaced by undecorated and sloppily-decorated examples around the beginning of the 4th century AD. The construction of the temple at Lamyatt Beacon, Somerset has been precisely dated to AD 292-93 by coins deposited in its floor (Leech 1986). The BB1 bowls from occupation within this temple and the unfinished c. 298-99 AD dated building at Barry Dock (Evans et al 1985) are all of the sloppily-decorated

6.9. Undecorated variant of 6.7. c. 300/50-400+ AD. 6.10. Crude coarse and indifferently-fired variant with corniced stubby flange. c. 370-430+ AD. 6.11. Coarse, thick-walled and stubby-flanged version in black or oxidised vesicular fabric C1B. c. 370/90-430+ AD. 6.12. Coarse similar bowl in vesicular fabric C1B with burnished zig-zag on its exterior. c. 370/90-430+ AD. 12

5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms

Figure 6: BB1 Class 6 forms

13

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) 8.11. Dish form similar to 8.8 but without any form of decoration other than polishing inside and outside. c. 220-350/70 AD (Not illustrated).

5.7: Class 7. Beaded-and-flanged dishes Figure 7 7.1. Shallow beaded-and-flanged dish with or without burnished arcading on its exterior. At Exeter (Holbrook and Bidwell 1991) a similar type (54.1) is dated c. 150400 AD but the disappearance of arcaded decoration from other types of bowls and dishes at the end of the 3rd century and its absence before AD.200 suggests a tighter c. 200-300 AD date range for the arcaded version and c. 200-370 AD for the undecorated one.

8.12. Dish form similar to 8.9 but undecorated apart from polishing. c. 220-350/70 AD (Not illustrated). 8.13. Dish form similar to 8.10 but undecorated apart from polishing. c. 220-350/70 AD. (Not illustrated). 8.14. Dish form in coarse, vesicular, indifferently-fired fabric C1B; similar to 8.13 but deeper with internal polish only and wipe marks on its exterior. c. 370/90430+ AD.

7.2. Variant with opposing flange extensions and probably inspired by East Gaulish Samian form Dr.39/ Lud Oa. c. 200-70 AD.

8.15. Dish form similar to 8.14 but with slightly-beaded rim. c. 370/90-430+ AD.

7.3. Undecorated variant with stubby flange and bead. c. 300-370/400 AD.

5.9: Class 9. Straight-sided dishes with handles

5.8: Class 8. Straight-sided dishes

Figure 8

Figure 7

9.1. Circular undecorated straight-sided dish with bilobate handles. c. 300-400 AD.

8.1. Bead-rimmed straight-sided dish with burnished chevrons on its exterior. c. 180-220 AD.

Oval dishes with handles, referred to as ‘fish dishes’ by Gillam (1976), made their appearance during the 3rd century AD and may have been used as lampholders. All of the examples from Greyhound Yard, Dorchester (Woodward et al 1993: type 21) come from the late-4th century AD occupation whereas an example from Ower (Woodward 1987: figure 146) is dated more generally to the Late Roman period. Another example is present in the c. 325-70+ AD dated pottery assemblage from the Phase A Bokerly Dyke excavation in 1958 and yet another comes from the late 4th century AD dumps over Building 3 at Colliton Park, Dorchester.

8.2. Straight-sided dish with burnished steep arcading on its exterior and a tapering wall. c. 200-70 AD. 8.3. Similar form with similar decoration but without the taper to the wall. c. 200-70 AD. 8.4. Dish with beaded rim and similar decoration. c. 20070 AD. 8’5. Straight-sided dish with flattened burnished arcading on its exterior and scrolling on its underside. c. 220-290/300 AD. 8.6. A variant with beaded rim and similar decoration. c. 220-290/300 AD (Not illustrated).

9.2. Oval straight-sided dish with two bilobate handles and a ‘diabolo’ motif on its basal interior. c. 270/300-370 AD.

8.7. Straight-sided dish with sloppy decoration on its exterior and scrolling on its underside. c. 290-330 AD.

9.3. Similar form with similar decoration but with beaded rim. c. 270/300-370 AD.

The above dish forms tend to be polished all over with slightly convex bases and scrolled decoration on their undersides.

9.4. Similar but undecorated and deeper form. c. 370400+ AD. 5.10: Class 10. Flagons and Jugs

8.8. Plain bead-rim dish with burnished Redcliff motif on its interior base and scrolling on its underside. c. 290-330 AD.

Figure 8 10.1. Two-handled jug with vertical area-burnishing on its neck. c. 150-300 AD.

8.9. Straight-sided dish with similar decoration. c. 290330 AD.

10.2. Collared version with trilobite handle. Paralleled by another example from the chalk floor of Building 2 at

8.10. Similar form but with very straight sides and similar decoration. c. 300-330 AD. 14

5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms

Figure 7: BB1 Classes 7 and 8 forms

15

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 8: BB1 Classes 9 and 10 forms

16

5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms

Colliton Park (Draper 1983: figure 17-23) in association with three coins dating to the 320s. c. 270-350 AD.

5.13: Class 13. Everted-rim storage-jars/beehives Figure 9

10.3. Ring-necked flagon type. c. 270-400+ AD.

Once again, these vessels are also almost entirely restricted to the civitas of the Durotriges.

10.4. Collared flagon with vertical burnished lines on its neck. c. 270-400+ AD.

13.1. Everted-rim storage-jar type c. 200-370 AD. .

10.5. Collared flagon with diagonal-burnished lozenges flanking its handle. c. 350-400+ AD.

13.2. Everted-rim oxidised ‘storage-jar’ type in very coarse oxidised fabric C1B variant (Gerrard 2012: 2423, South-East Dorset Orange Wiped Ware) with fingerdimpled ‘pie-crusting’ along the rim-edge, rough, poorly-finished surfaces and frequently with small holes in the body and rim made before firing. This illustrated example has a large central hole in its base; negating use as a storage vessel. If inverted, such a vessel could have been employed as a beehive. Other examples do, however, have solid bases. c. 370-430+ AD.

10.6. Biconical flagon with elaborately-burnished panels around its bilobate handle. c. 370-400+ AD. 10.7. Flagon with cupped rim and vertical-burnished lines on its neck. Paralleled at Ower (Woodward 1987: figure 49-166). c. 300-400+ AD. 5.11: Class 11. Tankards The distribution of BB1 tankards is almost entirely restricted ro the civitas of the Durotriges

5.14: Class 14. Lids

Figure 9

These almost disappeared from the repertoire of BB1 forms during the 3rd century AD but revived in importance during the later 4th century AD. The circulation of these later examples is also largely restricted to the civitas of the Durotriges.

Figure 10

11.1. Small plain tankard with four-ribbed handle. c. 200-300 AD. 11.2. Concave-sided, two-handled tankard with beadedrim and decorated panels. c. 270-370 AD.

14.1. Plain convex-sided lid with recessed boss. c. 50-300 AD.

11.3. Bell-shaped tankard with bilobate handle. c. 250350/370 AD.

14.2. Splayed lid with burnished decoration on its upper surface. c. 350-400+ AD.

5.12: Class 12. Flanged-neck storage jars

14.3. Simple lid with elaborate burnished decoration on its upper surface. c. 370-400+ AD.

Figure 9 Storage-jars of this class also have a distribution which is largely restricted to the civitas of the Durotriges. A few examples, however, are known from Portchester (Fulford 1975a: type 154), Building 1, Netherwylde, Herts (A.Rawlins pers comm..), Bush Lane, London (Unpublished) and elsewhere.

14.4. Lid with diagonally-burnished panels and hole through the centre of its boss. c. 370-400+ AD.

12.1. Very large form. c. 200-370 AD.

15.1. Colander with beaded rim and rounded base. c. 300-370 AD.

5.15: Class 15. Colanders and wine-strainers Figure 10

12.2. Small version with well-developed flange. c. 250350/70 AD.

15.2. Colander of similar form but with a more everted rim. Paralleled at Poundbury (Davies and Hawkes 1987: type 36) in association with necked bowls of Type 2.2. c. 350/70-420+ AD.

12.3. Small version with stubby flange. c. 350/70-400+ AD.

17

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 9: BB1 Classes 11, 12 and 13 forms.

18

5: A corpus of Late Roman BB1 forms

Figure 10: BB1 Classes 14 and 15 forms

19

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent This apparent decline in BB1 supply during the late-2nd and early-3rd centuries AD was not restricted to the Thames valley. Fulford’s excavations on the defences of Silchester seem to indicate that the decline commenced somewhat later at the end of the 2nd century (1984). Quantification of pottery assemblages from there have produced the following BB1 percentages: c. 80-100 1.2%, 100-50 9.5%, 150-200 27.5% and 200-70 AD 9.5%. Silchester and Staines are both on the same route to London from the civitas of the Durotriges and the evidence from these sites, taken together, gives the impression that BB1 appeared later on more easterly sites and disappeared from them first as the market shrank during the late-2nd century AD: BB1 figures from Towcester in the south-east Midlands reveal a decline in supply c. 170 AD from 11.5% of all coarse pottery to 3.5% (Woodfield 1982: 79) but this decline does not seem to have taken place at all at Caerleon (Zienkewicz 1986) and Gloucester (Heighway 1983: 86).

6.1: Introduction It has long been known that BB1 differed from most other pottery industries in Roman Britain in having a very complex and widespread distribution pattern covering most occupation sites within the British provinces. As long as sixty-five years ago, attempts were being made to produce distribution maps (Gillam 1955: 66, Map IV) and it was recognised that this was predominantly western and northern. Writing eighteen years later, Farrar made mention of the industry’s midland and south-eastern distribution and pointed out ‘that we are not concerned solely with a trade along the western seaboard’ (Farrar 1973). Three years after that, Gillam enlarged on his earlier work and was able to produce three maps giving broad outline distributions in c. 160, 280 and 400 AD. He laid no claim to precision, stating that ‘The maps are not strictly distribution maps, and it is no more intended to imply that BB1 wares do not turn up on sites which fall in the unshaded areas, than it is meant to imply that they are abundant on all sites within the shaded areas. The purpose is to give a rough indication of where they are relatively common’ (Gillam 1976).

During the mid-3rd century AD, at the commencement of the period covered by this paper, BB1 marketing in south-east Britain revived and achieved levels never seen before. These high levels of supply were maintained throughout the late 3rd century AD before a decline set in at the beginning of the 4th century AD and ultimately led to the virtual disappearance of BB1 throughout most of the south-east after AD 370. This Late Roman supply of BB1 is discussed in three sections covering the late-3rd, early-4th and late-4th centuries AD. The early-4th century AD section actually covers the period between AD 300 and 350/370, as the third quarter of the 4th century marks the disappearance of BB1 vessels from the forts on Hadrian’s Wall and the northern military zone and is also significant for the rapid growth of other handmade-pottery producing industries in Britain. This reached a point where some of these industries, such as Huntcliff in Yorkshire and the grog-tempered wares producing ones in East Kent, East Sussex and the Hampshire Basin, achieved significant shares or even domination of their local pottery markets.

The appearance of BB1 in the north of Britain had long been tied in with the construction of Hadrian’s Wall in AD 122, but it has now been shown to have already appeared on other northern military sites before that date. Not surprisingly, BB1 is present from the mid 1st century AD at Exeter (Bidwell 1977), and similarly at Dorchester (Draper and Chaplin 1982). It is also found on a number of sites in South Wales from c. 70 AD onwards and in particular at the legionary fortresses of Caerleon (Zienkiewicz 1986) and Usk (Greene 1973). This early material accounts for around 6% of the Flavian pottery from the legionary baths at Caerleon and remains an insignificant component of ceramic assemblages from there until c. 120 AD, when percentages increase significantly to around 30%. By the mid-2nd century AD, BB1 had become of major significance in the west and the north of Britain but was also getting into the south-east, albeit in somewhat smaller quantities. The ware is mainly restricted to Hadrianic contexts at Southwark (Marsh and Tyers 1978: 561) but further upstream on the Thames, Staines was being supplied with BB1 by the end of the 1st century AD. It continued to be traded there until c. 180 AD, when it temporarily disappeared from the scene (Crouch and Shanks 1984: 59).

Percentages of BB1 in pottery assemblages from Britain are calculated using Estimated Vessel Equivalents (EVEs) based on rim fragment lengths as percentages of whole vessel diameters. The percentages of BB1 in assemblages from French sites and present in their publications are, however, worked out by minimum numbers of vessels or numbers of sherds per fabric present, as French, Belgian and Dutch archaeologists do not use EVEs in their calculations. 20

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

All of the quantified pottery assemblages from sites are tabulated in Appendices 3 and 4 and the BB1 percentages of all coarse-ware jars, bowls and dishes within these assemblages are listed under county headings in Appendix 5. The purpose of this latter appendix is to highlight BB1 emphasis or lack of it on specific vessel types in such pottery groups. The percentages of BB1 in assemblages quoted below are of coarse wares only, as the Samian and mortaria elements were sometimes found to be missing from site assemblages due to being separated out for specialists in such wares and not returned: this is more of a problem in 3rd century AD pottery assemblages than in 4th century ones.

of the sites (Ibid. Figure 12). The histograms for sites further from the BB1 production centres show the same increase in supply during the 3rd century as encountered by this author in the south-east of Britain. The strength of Allen and Fulford’s article lies in its discussion of levels of BB1 production and modes and means of distribution. 6.2: c. 250-300 AD. (Figure 11) The Civitas of the Durotriges Kiln 46 at the Worgret site, west of Wareham (Hearne and Smith 1992), was of probable early-to-mid 3rd century AD date and yielded a small collection of wasters, in which jars outnumbered open forms roughly two to one. The pottery includes fragments from at least 14 obtuse-latticed cooking-pots of type 1.3 and examples of bowl forms 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4 (c. 180-250, 210-280/90 and c. 240-290/300 AD respectively), as well as straightsided dishes of types 8.3 and 8.5 (c. 200-270, 220-300 AD). Kiln 160 was of late-3rd or earliest-4th century AD date and produced considerably-more pottery waste. This has a similar two to one predominance of jars and, unlike Kiln 46, includes part of a spoilt load in situ.

The definition of a fine ware used here encompasses all colour-coated wares and sand-free greywares such as North Kent Fineware where the forms produced are clearly intended to be used at the table for eating and drinking. The French and Belgian percentages, however, are of entire assemblages Three maps (Figures 11, 14 and 17) give the distribution of BB1 in the south-east of Britain during the periods c. 250-300, 300-350/70 and 350/70-430+ AD respectively. A further three maps (Figures 13, 16 and 18) give the distribution of BB1 on the Continent during the same periods. Coarse-ware percentages of BB1 based on EVEs in Britain are shown in pie-chart form with walled towns represented by hexagons, small towns by squares, forts by squares with schematic corner towers, production sites by diamonds and other occupation sites by circles. Figures 12, 15 and 19 show numbers of specific vessel types present on sites in the south-east of Britain. Figure 20 gives the distributions of Class 2 necked-bowls in both Britain and on the Continent during the last years of BB1 production.

Kiln Z559 at Bestwall Quarry was of c. 250-275 AD date and yielded a large 41.05 EVE assemblage of wasters, with the bulk coming from cooking-pots of types 1.2 and 1.3. There are fragments from two type 6.1 flangedbowls (c. 180-250 AD), six of the incipient beaded-andflanged variety (c. 210-280/290 AD), 11 of the developed 6.4 type (c. 240-290/300 AD) and an indeterminate number of dish types 8.2, 8.3 and 8.5 (c. 200-270, 220300 AD). Two beakers of type 5.1 (c. 120-300 AD) and a storage-jar of type 13.1 (c. 200-370 AD) are also present.

The BB1 pottery industry is the only one which can be said to have had a province-wide distribution for its wares during the earlier part of the Late Roman period. Because of this, the opportunity has been taken to combine the account of this distribution with that of other industries producing both handmade and wheelturned wares during the period under review.

Kiln Z184 was slightly later (c. 270-300 AD): its 20.18 EVE pottery assemblage has a similar form breakdown (Lyne 2012: 218-220). Most of the sherds come from cookingpots of type 1.4 (c. 280-370 AD) but other forms include fragments from five bowls of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/290 AD), one of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and seven of type 6.5 (c. 280-300 AD), as well as two dishes of type 8.2, one of type 8.3 (c. 200-270 AD), 10 of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD) and one of type 8.6 (c. 220-300 AD).

Excepting for a small area of east Dorset, including most of the production centres, the core area for BB1 marketing and that in the west of Britain lie outside that covered by this book but have been dealt with elsewhere using a different methodology (Allen and Fulford 1996). This methodology does not go into the distribution of different vessel types but creates percentage ‘contour’ maps for the west of England and Wales based on the BB1 percentages of total pottery assemblages from 158 sites. These maps (Ibid. figures 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11) do not take into account variations in BB1 supply levels during the Roman occupation but that is summarily dealt with in histogram form for 20

Moving away from BB1 kiln assemblages to ones from occupation sites associated with BB1 production; the sunken Structure 4 at Bestwall Quarry yielded a c. 200/10-250 AD dated 13.85 EVE pottery assemblage made up entirely of BB1 products, These include many examples of cooking-pot types 1.1 and 1.2 with 90 degree and obtuse latticing respectively (c. 210-230 and 210-250 AD), seven type 6.1 flanged bowls (c. 180-250 AD) six bowls of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and one of type 6/3 (c. 220-250 AD), as well as many examples of 21

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 11: Distribution of BB1 in the South-East of Britain. c. AD.250-300

22

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

23

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 12: Distribution of types 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 bowls in the South-East of Britain

dish types 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 with burnished steep arcading (c. 200-270 AD): only one example of the c. 220-300 AD dated dish type 8.5 with flattened arcading is present (Lyne 2012: 218-20).

200-270 AD), one of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD),and four lids of type 14.1 (c. 50-300 AD).

A c. 250-300 AD dated 13.29 EVE pottery assemblage associated with Structure 3 at the same site is also almost entirely made up of BB1 and includes one example of bowl type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD), eight of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and two of type 6.5 (c. 280300 AD): one dish of type 8.3 ( c. 200-270 AD), three of type 8.5 and one of type 8.6 (c. 220-300 AD) are also present (Lyne 2012: 220-21)).

Pit H7 at the Studland site on the Isle of Purbeck (Field 1966) was associated with a building constructed during the early-3rd century AD and yielded a small 4.29 EVE pottery assemblage of broadly 3rd century date, with the coarse wares made up entirely of BB1 vessels. Jars and open forms are present in roughly similar numbers. Forms include two bowls of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD), three dishes of type 8.1 (c. 180-220 AD), a tankard of type 11.2 (c. 270-370 AD), a storage-jar of type 12.2 (c. 250-350/70 AD) and a lid of type 14.1 (c. 50-300 AD).

Quantification of a 6.46 EVE pottery assemblage from the c. 250-270 AD dated construction deposits associated with Building 707 at Cleavel Point, Ower (Woodward 1987) has the coarse wares made up entirely of BB1. The sherds are all black and do not include any obvious kiln wasters: this suggests that we are dealing with an occupational assemblage of vessels which were actually used. Jars, bowls and dishes make up fairly similar percentages of the pottery (31%, 36% and 24% respectively). Forms include a cooking-pot of type 1.3 (c. 230-280 AD), a beaker of type 5.1 (c.120-300 AD), two examples of bowl type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD), seven of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD), a beaded-and-flanged dish of type 7.1 (c.150/200-300 AD, one of dish type 8.2 (c. 200-270 AD), eight of type 8.3 (c.

A 3rd century AD site on Brownsea Island at the entrance to Poole Harbour is situated near the BB1 production sites along the southern edge of the harbour. Not surprisingly BB1 makes up 93% of the 6.38 EVE coarse ware assemblage but fragments from large New Forest greyware necked bowls of Fulford’s Types 9 and 13, as well as a storage-jar of Type 40 (1975b) fill a small deficiency in the range of BB1 products. The site consisted of a ditch cut into the estuarine muds at the present-day low-water mark and filled with black fibrous material. The pottery assemblage shows an abnormal emphasis on large jars and pitchers of types 3.1, 10.7 and 12.1, suggesting that the site might have had a specialised function (Lyne 1992A). 24

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

Although Dorchester (Durnovaria) lies just west of the area covered by this study, a 7.66 EVE 3rd century pottery assemblage from the Dorchester Hospital site (Lyne Forthcoming B, Assemblage 13) has BB1 making up 94% of all of the coarse pottery, with similar percentages of jars, bowls and dishes (32%, 27% and 32% respectively). Other BB1 forms are a few beakers of Class 5, a tankard, a flagon and a lid. The true percentage of BB1 in this assemblage is probably 100% as the 6% South Western Black-Burnished ware is all abraded and residual: there are no New Forest coarsewares. Finewares make up a mere 4% of the total pottery assemblage and consist, almost entirely, of Central Gaulish Samian open forms with just a few New Forest Purple Colour-coat beaker bodysherds.

overwhelming 73% of the total coarse pottery from the site. This predominance of New Forest greywares is due to the proximity of the kilns of that industry; the nearest being situated only 8 kilometres to the south-east of the villa. The BB1 fragments include those from a cookingpot of type 1.4 (c. 280-370 AD), three bowls of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/290 AD), one of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD), two of type 6.5 (c. 280-300 AD) and three of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD) in an assemblage which also includes early-4th century material. Fine and specialised wares make up a similar percentage of this assemblage as that from Tarrant Hinton, with New Forest Colour-coat beakers and other forms accounting for 17% and New Forest Parchment wares for another 7%. Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat open form and mortarium fragments make-up a mere 1% of the pottery.

The coarse pottery assemblage from the c. 250-300 AD dated Pit 381 at the Druce Farm villa, Puddletown is made up entirely of BB1 with jars accounting for 49%, bowls for 20%, dishes for 4% and storage-jars, tankards and flagons for the rest. Forms include examples of cooking-pot type 1.3 (c. 230-280 AD), beaker type 5.1 (c. 120-300 AD), bowl types 6.2 and 6.4 (c. 210-280/90 and 240-290/300 AD), flagon type 10.3 (c. 270-400 AD), tankard type 11.2 (c. 270-370 AD) and storage-jar type 13.1 (c. 200-370 AD). Fine and specialised wares add up to a mere 7% of the assemblage and include New Forest Colour-coat beakers (4%) and an unusual Central Gaulish Samian Dr.40 bowl (Lyne Forthcoming A).

It would appear from this that the eastern end of the core area of BB1 supply lay south of Bokerly Dyke and west of the Hampshire Avon. The distribution of BB1 vessels to the north and east was curtailed by vigorous trading in New Forest products, both coarse and fine. These latter, having secured the bulk of the Old Sarum market, were probably marketed down Ackling Dyke in the direction of Dorchester. Clearly, in terms of products, New Forest finewares were the most successful element behind the pottery marketing of that industry. The BB1 industry did not produce such wares and it may be that the ability of the New Forest potters to do so gave them a marketing advantage. This phenomenon is, however, unlikely to have contributed to the westerly bias in BB1 core marketing as this bias existed before the New Forest industry commenced production and may have ultimately been due to their Durotrigian cultural origin and the fact that the civitas of the Durotriges lay mostly to the west of the production sites around Poole Harbour.

The Tarrant Hinton villa (Graham 2006) lies on the Roman road linking Dorchester and Old Sarum about 22 kilometres north-north-west of Poole Harbour. A 3rd century well (Feature 56) produced a large late 3rd-toearly 4th century 44.93 EVE pottery assemblage, which had accumulated after it became disused c. 270 AD. The BB1 element in the coarse wares is down to 64% and the New Forest greywares correspondingly up to 36%. The BB1 includes fragments from many cooking-pots of type 1.3 (c. 230-280 AD) four of type 1.4 (c. 280-370 AD), five beakers of type 5.1 (c. 120-300 AD), one of type 5.5 (c. 270-400 AD), two flanged dishes of type 7.1 (c. 150/200300 AD), two straight-sided dishes of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD), two oval dishes of Class 9 (c. 270-400 AD), a flagon of type 10.8 (c. 270-400 AD) and a storage-jar of type 12.2 (c. 250-350/70 AD). Unusually, there are no BB1 beadedand-flanged bowls. Coarse wares from other sources are absent. Just over a quarter of the total pottery in the assemblage consists of finewares and mortaria, of which the bulk are in New Forest Colour-coat fabrics (20%) and parchment wares from the same source (5%): Moselkeramik and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers account for a mere 2% of the pottery between them.

The Civitas of the Belgae The Hampshire Coast Moving east from Poole Harbour, we come to Christchurch. The Mill Plain material is unsuitable for quantification because of its selective nature but does suggest that BB1 was significant there during the 3rd century AD. At the head of Southampton Water, the 1939 excavation at Bitterne on the site of the port of Clausentum (Waterman 1947) had two successive assemblages from 3rd century AD deposits. The earliest small 2.34 EVE assemblage, from Contexts F7, 6 and 5, dates to the early-to-mid-3rd century AD and has 15% BB1, with New Forest Greywares accounting for a further 17%: There are small amounts of Hampshire Grog-Tempered ware of Industry 6B (Lyne 2015, 5%), Rowlands Castle ware (3%) and Severn Valley ware (2%). The rest of the coarse

At the short-lived Downton villa (Rahtz 1963), 12 kilometres down the River Avon from Old Sarum and 35 kilometres north-east of Poole Harbour, BB1 accounts for only 16% and New Forest greywares for an 25

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) pottery (56%) comes from a variety of sources in southeast Hampshire, including Wickham. Finewares make up just 9% of all of the pottery and comprise fragments from Samian open forms (4%), New Forest Colour-coat (3%) and Moselkeramik beakers (2%).

at the shore fort of Portchester, a short distance to the east of Wallington, has similar percentages of BB1 and New Forest Greywares (16% and 49%). None of the BB1 forms are purely 3rd century in date and include two examples of bowl type 6.6 (c. 290/300-370 AD), seven of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD) and six of dish type 8.13 (c. 220350/370 AD). Rowlands Castle wares register only 6% of the coarse wares, despite the fact that the kilns lie only 14 kilometres to the north-east. This may, however, be explained by the fact that the Lower Occupation covers only a maximum of between 14 and 7 years at the end of the 3rd century AD and the whole of the first quarter of the 4th century AD. The Rowlands Castle ware market was at its most extensive during the early 3rd century, but crashed dramatically during the last quarter of it: this, coupled with an absence of occupation on the site before AD 286/93 and a corresponding lack of any residual sherds, would explain the low percentage of such wares. The fairly high percentage of Hampshire Grog-tempered wares (23%), compared with their mere 7% of the Paradise Lane assemblage, could also be explained by the presence of significant quantities of early-4th century pottery in the assemblage. Finewares account for 19% of all of the pottery and have a preponderance of New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (17%), with far fewer Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat examples (2%).

A 244 sherd pottery assemblage from a mid-3rd century occupation layer at the more recent Clausentum Quay excavation by Southern Archaeology (Lyne Forthcoming C, Assemblage 10) is only large enough for quantification by numbers of sherds rather than EVEs but, apart from a higher percentage of BB1 (34%), comprising miscellaneous cooking-pot fragments, those from a flanged-bowl of type 6.1 (c.180-250 AD) and a lid of type 14.1 (c. 50-300 AD), is very similar in having small numbers of New Forest Greyware and grog-tempered sherds (8% and 5% respectively) and a large percentage from the same sources in south-east Hampshire as were present in the similarly-dated 1939 assemblage (49%). The next 1939 assemblage is from rubbish dumps F4 and F4B on top of F5 in the 1939 excavation and is dated to c. 250-270/300 AD not only from the pottery forms present, but by the presence of coins of Gallienus and the Tetrici. This has BB1 making up 20% of the coarseware assemblage and Hampshire Grog-tempered wares of Industry 6B just 9% of it. The biggest changes are a great decline in the presence of coarsewares from south-east Hampshire (15%) and a corresponding increase in that of New Forest Greywares (56%). The increase in the trade in New Forest pottery was clearly driven by purple colour-coat and other fineware beakers from the same source, which display a rise from 3% of the previous 1939 assemblage to 50% of this one. Other finewares make up 2% of the total assemblage and comprise Central Gaulish open forms and Moselkeramik beakers.

Eight kilometres north-east of Portchester, the small 3.70 EVE pottery assemblage from the mid-to-late 3rd century occupation in the Crookhorn aisled building at Purbrook (Soffe et al 1989) is dominated by Rowlands Castle greywares (55%) with smaller percentages of BB1 (23%) and New Forest Greywares (6%). An absence of Hampshire Grog-tempered wares, coupled with the very low percentage of New Forest Greywares suggests that the site went out of use a few years before the building of the fort at Portchester. The only finewares in this assemblage come from New Forest Purple Colourcoat beakers (3%).

The next coastal to the east, where EVEs quantification was possible, is the unpublished Paradise Lane, Wallington one near Fareham. The 5.94 EVE pottery assemblage from Context F201 is largely late 3rd century AD in date and has a BB1 content of 11%: as with the late 3rd century AD assemblage from Clausentum, the predominant fabric is New Forest Greyware (43%). Rowlands Castle ware is only nominally present in the Clausentum assemblages: the appreciably greater 16% of this assemblage reflects the closer proximity of Wallington to the production centre for those wares. The BB1 includes fragments from bowls of types 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 (c. 210-280/290, 240-290/300 and 280-300 AD). Finewares make up a mere 3% of this pottery assemblage and are all from New Forest Purple Colourcoat beakers.

The latest pottery from Crookhorn was dumped in the tile kiln, archaeomagnetically dated to c. 280-330 AD and yielding a very worn as of Faustina I (AD 141-161) and a broken radiate (AD 258-296). This assemblage, like the slightly earlier one from the aisled barn has a predominance of Rowlands Castle wares (54%), with smaller percentages of BB1 (20%), a smattering of New Forest Greywares (1%) and Hampshire Grog-tempered ware (3%), as well as more significant amounts of greyware from an unknown source (21%). The BB1 includes fragments from three beakers of type 5.1 in an assemblage which probably belongs to the very last years of the 3rd century. A somewhat higher 18% fine and specialised wares, compared with that in the earlier pottery assemblage from the site, is distorted upwards by the presence of a complete New Forest Purple Colour-coat bottle rim: Oxfordshire Red Colour-

A 16.15 EVE pottery assemblage made up of a selection of c. 286/93-326 AD dated Lower Occupation contexts 26

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

coat bowl and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker fragments make up 3% of the whole pottery assemblage between them.

secured a sizeable percentage of the coarseware market in that area during the earlier 3rd century AD, it had been driven out later by an expanding New Forest industry.

The proximity of the Rowlands Castle kilns north of Havant registers very strongly at the Langstone Harbour villa, where pottery from that source accounts for 85% of the c. 100-250 AD dated coarse pottery with only small amounts of BB1 (8%) and Vectis ware (4%) and no New Forest Greyware or Hampshire Grogtempered wares. The construction of the latest villa at Langstone was contemporary with the operation of the tile kiln at Crookhorn as tiles stamped TIFR were made at Crookhorn and have also been found at Langstone (Soffe et al 1989: 77-9). The 5% finewares comprise New Forest Colour-coat beakers and bowls (4%), with just a few fragments from a Moselkeramik beaker, an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl and a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker.

The second Winchester assemblage is from Phase 524 in the 1989 Brook Street excavation and consists of pottery from primary occupation within the large masonry structure F1287: it is dated to c. 270-300 AD. The assemblage is large (25.53 EVE) and has generated fabric readings similar to those from the South Gate deposits. BB1 accounts for 26% of the coarse pottery and includes fragments from four examples of cooking-pot types 1.2 and 1.3 (c.230-80 AD), as well as four beakers of type 5.1 (c.100-300 AD), one of type 5.2 (c.300-400 AD) and eight bowls of type 6.2 (c.210-280/90 AD). New Forest greywares account for 27% and Alice Holt products for 6% of the coarse pottery. There are small quantities of Hampshire Grog-tempered and Vectis wares in both assemblages as well as some from other unknown sources: some of the latter are probably residual.

The Winchester area Moving north into the heart of the civitas of the Belgae, we have two significant quantifiable 3rd century AD dated pottery assemblages from Winchester (Venta Belgarum). These Winchester assemblages overlap slightly in date but the 15.52 EVE one from the South Gate Phase 8 contexts dates to the time of the construction of the city wall. It was put down as consolidation over the gap caused by the cutting back of the face of the existing defensive earthwork to take the new wall, between the inturn of the latter and the eastern edge of the pre-existing road into the gate. The freshness of the pointing on the mortar used in the facing of the new wall, where concealed by the dumped pottery and other rubbish of the Phase 8 deposits, indicates that they immediately post-date the wall construction and can be dated to c. 270 AD.

Both assemblages place emphasis on BB1 open-form supply. Vessels in BB1 fabric, although accounting for a quarter of all of the coarse-wares, make up half of the bowls and dishes in both of the assemblages. BB1 cooking-pots, although less significant, are also well represented. The 16% finewares in the Brook Street assemblage have a predominance of New Forest products, comprising Purple Colour-coat beakers and bowls (11%) and a Parchment-ware jug (1%). Five kilometres south-east of Winchester at Owslebury (Collis 1968, 1970) the late-3rd–to-early-4th century assemblage from the 1965 context VII-1, F.68 has only 3% BB1 present, made up of fragments from a type 6.8 bowl (c. 270-370 AD) and a type 8.13 dish (c. 220350/70 AD). Miscellaneous local greywares account for 35% of the coarse pottery with pre 270-300 AD self-slipped Alice Holt greywares making-up 26%, New Forest greywares 17% and handmade Hampshire Grogtempered wares 15%. Here again, the 13% finewares have a predominance of fragments from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers and bottles (12%)

The most significant single pottery element in the coarse pottery comes from the BB1 industry, the products of which account for a quarter of the assemblage and include two examples of beaker type 5.1 (c. 120-300 AD), six of bowl type 6.1 (c. 180-250 AD) and one of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD): the rest of the coarse pottery comes from a variety of suppliers but chiefly from the New Forest kilns (21%) and in pre- c. 270/300 AD dated self-slipped Alice Holt fabrics (15%). Fine and specialised wares make up just 4% of the pottery; coming from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (3%) and an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium (1%). Any Samian appears to have been extracted before this author examined the assemblage.

The unpublished 1972 excavations at Martyr Worthy revealed a corn dryer constructed in a hollow (Disturbance 4) packed with late-3rd century AD and earlier pottery. The predominant coarseware fabric in this 4.39 EVE assemblage is New Forest greyware (35%), followed by pre- 270/300 AD dated Alice Holt selfslipped grey wares (19%). The 14% BB1 is dominated by dishes, including two examples of type 8.3 (c. 200270 AD): minority fabrics include Hampshire Grogtempered wares (8%) and, surprising for so far north, Rowlands Castle wares (5%). A mere 2% of the pottery is made up of finewares, all of which fragments come from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers.

The absence of black or white-slipped Alice Holt products of c. 270/300 AD and later date both in Winchester and elsewhere in south-east Hampshire suggests that, although pottery from that source had 27

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Phases 2A and B at the ongoing Meonstoke villa excavations are dated c. 200-220 AD. Half of the rather insignificant 2.25 EVE assemblage of coarse pottery comes from unknown sources in south-east Hampshire: the main source of identifiable coarse pottery is the Alice Holt industry (28%) with BB1 accounting for as much as 14% and including fragments from two latticed flanged bowls of 2nd century AD types. The Rowlands Castle contribution is a fairly insignificant 8%. Samian open forms are the only finewares present (2%).

of the 3rd century. The coarseware part of the pottery assemblage from Narrow Lane (Contexts 7006, 7008 and 7009) has no BB1 at all and the Angel Hotel pit a mere 10%. New Forest greywares make up 30% of the Narrow Lane assemblage and a similar 32% of the one from the Angel Hotel pit. North Wiltshire The Butterfield Down excavations at Amesbury produced a small but statistically viable 3rd century AD dated pottery assemblage from a well (Contexts 2812 and 2814). To judge from the pottery that was present, this assemblage appears to be of early-to-mid 3rd century date. Most of the coarse pottery comes from unidentified sources but there is a significant New Forest Greyware presence (23%) and somewhat less BB1 (14%): this latter consists entirely of fragments from Class 1 cooking-pots.

Phase 2C is dated to c. 220-250 AD by the excavator: the 4.41 EVE pottery assemblage from it has a somewhat smaller Alice Holt greyware content (16%), whereas the small Rowlands Castle element remains a fairly constant 6%. Hampshire Grog-tempered and New Forest greywares make their appearance at 3% and 5% respectively. As before, the bulk of all coarsewares are from unknown sources in south-east Hampshire, although a few fragments appear to be from Arun Valley products: BB1 products account for a nominal 5% of the assemblage and include fragments from an obtuse-latticed cooking-pot of indeterminate type, a type 6.2 bowl (c. 210-280/290 AD) and a type 5.1 beaker (c. 120-300 AD). Finewares account for 8% and include fragments from early New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (2%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat examples (3%).

The Enford site, half-way between Amesbury and Pewsey, lacks BB1 in the assemblage from the 3rd century Pit C well excavated in 1967. The assemblage is of the same mid-3rd century AD date as that from Butterfield Down and has New Forest Greywares making up a similar 24% of the coarse pottery and local greyware sources the rest. The lack of BB1 here and its poor showing at Amesbury shows that penetration of the northern Wiltshire market by that industry was minimal during the period c. 200-270 AD, despite the proximity to the production area. The Enford assemblage also contained fragments from early New Forest Purple-Colour-coat beakers alongside the greywares from the same source. The bulk of the fine pottery (10%) comes from uncertain west country sources.

The pottery assemblage from the Phases 3B and 3C occupation within the newly-built aisled-barn at Meonstoke is dated to c. 250-300 AD and is characterised by the virtual disappearance of products from the unknown pottery source or sources in south-east Hampshire. The main source of coarse pottery is now the Alice Holt kilns (50%), followed by the New Forest industry (24%). The 10% BB1 element is dominated by open forms, including a cooking-pot and beaker of uncertain types, a bowl of type 6.1(c. 180-250 AD) and a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD).

The period c. 250/70-300 AD, as elsewhere, saw a considerable increase in the percentages of BB1 present on Wiltshire sites. Quantities present in late – 3rd century pottery assemblages from rural sites in Wiltshire north and west of Old Sarum tend to be greater than on such sites further to the east and reflect their proximity to a major BB1 marketing zone in Somerset, Avon, Gloucestershire and South Wales (Gillam 1976, Maps 1 and 3, Allen and Fulford 1996).

Although percentages of BB1 pottery are fairly small in these rural assemblages, the emphasis is still on bowl and dish supply. The 10% finewares from the Meonstoke aisled-barn are largely made up of fragments from Moselkeramik beakers (6%) and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat dishes (3%).

The mainly late 3rd- to – early 4th century assemblage from the Erlestoke Detention Centre site south of Devizes has considerable quantities of BB1 (29%) and New Forest Greywares (35%). Oxidised wares from Severn Valley sources make up 9% of the coarse pottery and local north Wiltshire products a further 22%.

We lack good 3rd-century assemblages from west of Winchester but ill-stratified and largely surface material from Timsbury and Ashley Camp would suggest that BB1 was largely insignificant, despite the greater proximity of the valley of the River Test to the source of those wares. Two small pottery assemblages from Romsey are both dated to the period c. 200270 AD, although the presence of New Forest Purple Colour-coat and Parchment wares in both suggests the continued accumulation of rubbish into the 4th quarter

At Knap Hill, Alton Priors, 18 kilometres to the north west of Erlestoke, the pottery from Cunnington’s excavation is of largely 3rd century AD date with BB1 making-up 22% of the coarsewares, New Forest Greywares 23%, Severn Valley type oxidised wares 5% 28

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

and local products 35%. The BB1 includes fragments from five type 1.4 cooking-pots (c. 280-370 AD) a type 6.1 flanged bowl (c. 180-250 AD), a type 6.4 example (c. 240-290/300 AD), a type 7.3 beaded-and flanged dish (c. 270-400+ AD) and two straight-sided dishes of type 8.4 (c. 200-270 AD).

pottery suppliers to produce adequate quantities of such open forms. The Isle of Wight Vectis presents us with a unique circumstance; that of a large island, presumably with a sizeable population, where any BB1 marketing would have had to have been by sea.

A short distance north of the Vale of Pewsey, we reach the edge of the late-3rd century AD New Forest Greyware distribution zone: at Baydon on the Berkshire border such wares were absent. The coarse ware pottery assemblage from Site 2 has a great predominance of local products, with nominal percentages of Alice Holt and Oxfordshire greywares (3% each). The BB1 figure, at 27%, is similar to those at Erlestoke and Alton Priors. Finewares make up just 3% of the assemblage and consist entirely of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat products: New Forest Finewares are absent.

Six 3rd or largely 3rd century AD pottery assemblages were quantified by EVEs and a seventh examined. Large quantities of broken pottery came from the beach emporium at the entrance to Wootton Creek on the north coast of the Island and probably consist of both jetsam and cargo broken when unloading ships (Lyne 2012B). The sherds were broken down into periods and quantified by EVES. The pottery datable to c.100-270 AD has BB1 making up 53% of the coarse wares in an assemblage which is mostly early-3rd century in date and local Vectis wares a further 21%. Other coarsewares in this arbitrary assemblage, such as East Sussex Ware, Rowlands Castle ware and Verulamium Region Whiteware occur in very small quantities and are most likely to be jetsam from vessels trading with the Island. The BB1 cooking-pots and open forms make up almost exactly equal percentages (21% and 20%) with the rest of the BB1 coming from a complete jug top. This has distorted the BB1 percentage upwards but it would still be the predominant fabric if that were adjusted. It seems clear that there was organised trade in BB1 to the Island by ships out of Hengistbury Head or Poole Harbour.

Just south-east of Baydon and inside Berkshire, the Odstone Down site assemblage had a significant 31% BB1, a similar 27% of Oxfordshire greywares and a mere 3% New Forest greyware. These percentages indicate that this area not only marked the north-eastern limits of New Forest greyware distribution but also the western edge of that from the Oxfordshire kilns. Northeastern Wiltshire had its own large late Roman pottery industry, based at Whitehill Farm, Lydiard Tregoze near Swindon (Anderson 1977). This industry employed both single-flued and double-flued updraught kilns to fire its pots and appears to have been most active during the late-2nd and early-3rd centuries. Two late-3rd to 4th century AD kilns have been excavated and produced greyware copies of BB1 developed-beaded-and-flanged bowls amongst other forms.

Finewares make up a high 37% of the total pottery assemblage by EVE, of which the majority are Central Gaulish Samian forms (31%) and the rest in East Gaulish Samian (6%). There are, however, a few Moselkeramik and Central Gaulish Black Colour-coat beaker bodysherds as well.

Finewares account for 9% of the Odstone Down pottery assemblage and include Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers (2%), Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (1%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (2%): the rest of the finewares probably come from Whitehill Farm.

The part of the beach assemblage which dates to c. 270300/350 AD displays a significant fall in the percentage of BB1 to 10%. This is due to the appearance of large quantities of New Forest Greywares (50%) and smaller amounts of Hampshire Grog-tempered ware (17%). Eighty years is, however, a long period of time and the quantification probably conceals radical changes in pottery supply during that period. Athough the BB1 includes some 4th century AD material, the bulk of it is late-3rd century in date, whereas most of the New Forest Greywares can be dated to the period c. 270-370 AD. One scenario has the supply of BB1 continuing at a high level until c. 300 AD, when it was supplanted by mass importation of New Forest Greywares: the second scenario has New Forest Greywares beginning to supplant BB1 as early as AD 270.

In the extreme north-east of Wiltshire, a 3rd century pottery assemblage from the Bungalow Estate site at Highworth has 19% BB1, with virtually all of the rest of the coarse pottery emanating from the Whitehill Farm kilns. It is worth noting that the overwhelming bulk of the jars that are present come from the BB1 kilns but only one incipient-beaded and flanged bowl from Whitehill Farm. The 12% finewares have Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls and dishes accounting for 6%, with the rest probably coming from the Whitehill Farm kilns. On all of these Wiltshire sites, the BB1 emphasis was on beaded-and-flanged bowls, both incipient and developed, as well as straight-sided dishes. This appears, as elsewhere, to have been due to the inability of other 29

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Finewares make up a somewhat lower 16% of this part of the pottery assemblage, with the bulk (13%) now made up of a variety of New Forest Colour-coat products: the rest consist of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat mortaria fragments.

(32%) and Hampshire Grog-tempered ware (25%): there is very little Vectis ware. The 8% finewares consist very largely of New Forest Colour-coat products (5%). The simple corridor villa at Rock was constructed on a virgin site c. 270 AD and produced a fragment of an oval Class 9 ‘fish-dish from a wall construction trench of that date. The lower fill of a drainage ditch on the west side of the building can be dated to c. 270-300 AD and produced a substantial 11.52 EVE pottery assemblage with BB1 making up 19% of the coarseware element and including fragments from another Class 9 oval dish, a dish of Bestwall type 8.5 (c. 220-290/300 AD) and another of type 8.11 (c.220-370 AD). New Forest greywares are predominant (51%), with the rest of the coarse pottery made up of Vectis ware (20%), Hampshire Grog-tempered wares (7%) and a local handmade, lowtemperature fired, vesicular sandy ware with chaff impressions (2%). The latter fabric has not been found anywhere else on Vectis and is probably local at a time when pottery supply to the site had temporarily ceased (Lyne Forthcoming T).

The late 3rd century occupation at the then coastal industrial workshop at Yaverland just north of the Brading villa may help to answer the question posed above. Here, the most significant suppliers of coarse pottery were the local Vectis ware producers (37%), the New Forest kilns (31%) and the Hampshire Grogtempered ware producers (14%): the BB1 share of the assemblage is down to a mere 10% of the coarse wares (Lyne Forthcoming D). This would suggest that the second Wootton Creek scenario is the correct one. The unpublished coarse pottery assemblage from the 3rd century upper fills of Ditch 5135 at the Brading villa to the south of Yaverland, excavated in 1995, was quantified by sherd count and is totally dominated by local Vectis ware (85%). BB1 is very much in a minority (4%) and there are hardly any Hampshire Grog-tempered and New Forest Greywares: the latter two fabrics make-up less than 1% of the assemblage between them. The BB1 includes fragments from a type 6.2 bowl (c. 210-280/90 AD) and straight-sided dishes of indeterminate types. More recent excavations at the villa (Cunliffe 2013) have produced Vectis ware dominated pottery assemblages with even less BB1 and a similar near absence of Hampshire Grog-tempered and New Forest Greywares (Timby 2013: Table 9.9).

The Civitas of the Atrebates The tribal civitas of the Atrebates covered most of northern Hampshire, western Surrey and Berkshire, and was centred on the walled town of Calleva Atrebatum; the present-day Silchester. The site is unusual amongst Romano-British towns in being almost deserted and given over to farmland at the present day, Because of this, its upper occupation levels were largely excavated during the late-19th century, although many of the pre4th century AD deposits were left intact. Excavations on the gates and defences (Fulford 1984) have provided us with two successive 3rd century pottery assemblages from the town wall construction trench east of the south gate (Ibid.p.183). The lower contexts include pottery dumped at the time of the wall’s construction and the upper of that deposited later on in the 3rd century AD.

Elsewhere in the eastern part of the Island, a 3rd century AD assemblage from the upper fills of a ditch at Mersley Farm was also quantified by sherd count and has a similar deficiency in BB1 (Lyne Forthcoming S, 1%). Only one 3rd century AD pottery assemblage from the centre of Vectis has been quantified. This is from Contexts 18 and 19 at the Combley villa and has a predominance of local Vectis ware (52%). New Forest greywares make up a further 16% of the coarse pottery, Rowlands Castle wares 6% and Hampshire Grogtempered wares a further 10%. BB1 makes up a mere 9% of the coarse pottery and includes fragments from a type 1.4 cooking-pot (c.280-370 AD) and a straight-sided dish of indeterminate type

The excavator considered the 4.27 EVE lower pottery assemblage from Contexts 12 and 17 to date to between 260 and 280 AD (Fulford 1984: 183-5, figure 53), although a date-range of c. 200-270 AD is more likely. The coarsepottery part of the assemblage has BB1 accounting for 9.5% of it, including a type 6.1 flanged-bowl (c. 180250 AD) and latticed straight-sided dishes of Severan and earlier date. The most significant element in the assemblage is c. 200-270/300 AD dated self-slip decorated Alice Holt greyware. Only nominal amounts of fine pottery are present (1%): this consists almost entirely of Central Gaulish Samian but bodysherds from Cologne and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers are also present.

We have only two 3rd century AD pottery assemblages from west Wight. The late 3rd century occupational Assemblage 11 at Grange Chine has BB1 making up 22% of it. This is higher than BB1 percentages from sites on the east side of the Island; perhaps reflecting the greater proximity of this western site to the BB1 production centres across the water around Poole Harbour. The most common coarseware fabrics in the Grange Chine assemblage are New Forest Greyware

The Alice Holt kilns lie on what was probably the southeastern edge of the civitas of the Atrebates and, together with their satellite production centres at Farnham, 30

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

Malthouse Farm Kingsley and Oakhanger were by far the biggest producers of coarse pottery in the area (Lyne and Jefferies 1979 and Wessex Archaeology pers. comm.). Excavations on waster-dump AH 52 in Alice Holt Forest produced a thirty-five phase sequence of work-shops and kilns; spanning the period between the Roman conquest and c. 270 AD (Lyne 2012C). This sequence indicates a fairly abrupt improvement in the quality of greywares, coupled with the introduction of new pottery forms, at the end of the 2nd century AD.

and consist of fragments from New Forest Parchment ware and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls (3% and 2% respectively). The small town at Neatham lay on the SilchesterChichester Roman road only six kilometres west of the Alice Holt potteries. The supply of Alice Holt bowls and dishes, so close to source, was quite adequate for Neatham’s needs: the BB1 presence here is minimal; particularly in the pottery assemblage from the well deposits from the 1989 excavations in a suburb on the east side of the enclosed settlement (Lyne 1992B) These well assemblages date to the mid–to-late 3rd century AD; terminating c. 300 AD. They are very largely made-up of Alice Holt wares (83%) with a solitary BB1 cooking-pot rim (1%). Finewares consist almost entirely of a variety of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat vessels and whiteware mortaria (12%) but bodysherds from Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers are also present.

The Alice Holt potteries were the main coarse pottery suppliers in Surrey, the Thames valley west of London, north-east Hampshire and Berkshire during the earlier part of the 3rd century. The forms produced were mainly rooted in earlier local traditions but new forms introduced after c. 200 AD included Thameside style ‘pie-dishes’, cooking-pots and incipient-beadedand-flanged bowls copying contemporary BB1 form 6.2. These bowl types were supplanted by developed beaded-and-flanged varieties towards the middle of the 3rd century AD and some everted-rim cookingpots adopted obtuse-lattice decoration in the manner of BB1 prototypes. The Alice Holt potters were clearly beginning to try to expand their distribution zones by copying the forms produced by their greatest rivals. As both the BB1 and Thameside industries controlled large shares of the London market, it would seem likely that the Alice Holt potters’ efforts were geared to securing part of that market as well. With their new technology, the potters became capable of producing large quantities of open forms, as shown by the lower pottery assemblage from the Silchester wall construction trench and those from the rural sites described below.

There is a similar situation at Ructstalls Hill, Basingstoke (Oliver and Applin 1979). The bulk of the occupation on this native farmstead site was of Late Iron Age and 1st–to-2nd century AD Roman date with only limited activity during the 3rd and early-4th centuries AD. Several Hampshire rural sites, such as Winnall Down (Fasham 1985), appear to have been of this type with ditched enclosures occupied by native farmsteads during the late-1st century AD, followed by removal of the farmstead itself but retention of the enclosure for livestock. There was, perhaps, seasonal occupation by shepherds or cowmen during the rest of the Roman period: this change in use may relate to the construction of Romanised farmhouses on better sites away from the livestock.

A fragment of a BB1 beaded-and-flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) came from the uppermost c. 270 AD dated levels of kiln wasters on Alice Holt waster dump AH 52, suggesting that it was brought to the kilns for the local potters to copy (Lyne 2012: 164)

Features 62, 64, 66, 68 and 512 at Ructstalls Hill produced a small 3.09 EVE pottery assemblage of mainly 3rd century AD date. Of this pottery, 6% of the coarse-wares are in BB1 fabric, with the Alice Holt kilns accounting for 64% and producers of high-fired pimply grey pottery from somewhere in the Middle Thames valley for a further 30% (Lyne 1994, Industry 4B). The BB1 element is made-up entirely of obtuse-latticed cookingpot fragments and those from a dish of Bestwall type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD), with the Alice Holt kilns successfully coping with most of the local bowl and dish needs. The nominal 2% finewares come from a Samian open form and an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl.

An inability by the Alice Holt potters to compete with the BB1 ones at this stage is, however, suggested from the composition of the small 3.35 EVE pottery assemblage from the top fill of the Silchester town wall construction trench. This pottery assemblage was dated by the excavator to c. 280 – 300 AD (Fulford 1984: 187-8, figure 53) and has a much increased BB1 element (29%), the emphasis in which is on bowls of types 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and 6.8 (c. 270/300-370 AD) and straight-sided dishes (Table VIII). The Alice Holt ware share of the assemblage, now including both selfslipped and black/white slipped wares, has declined to 32%. Some of the Alice Holt share of coarseware supply appears to have been taken over by BB1, but this is a very small pottery assemblage and not particularly reliable. Finewares make up only 5% of the total pottery

The Cox Green Roman villa in the Thames valley near Maidenhead lies within a different pottery distribution zone. The Periods III and IV occupation associated with the Outhouse yielded coinage ranging in date from AD 103 to 335 (Bennett 1962,74) but the bulk of the pottery is of 3rd century AD character. Here, pre-270 AD selfslipped Alice Holt greywares account for only 2% of the coarse pottery: the bulk of this material (61%) comes 31

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) from the same high-fired pimply grey pottery producing source in the Thames valley as was also encountered at Ructstalls Hill: this local source was quite capable of producing considerable quantities of open forms. There is a solitary Verulamium Region Whiteware lid fragment and an Oxfordshire greyware presence of 4%. BB1 accounts for a mere 2% of the coarse pottery and is composed of straight-sided dish fragments. The fine pottery accounts for 6% of the total pottery assemblage and is made up of similar percentages of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers.

At the Ashville Trading Estate site in Abingdon, just across the Thames from Dorchester, a similarly-dated 4.60 EVE pottery assemblage from Well 30 (Parrington 1978) has 76% Oxfordshire greywares with an even higher proportion of bowls and dishes. Here, BB1 accounts for a very similar 14% of the assemblage, but with an even greater emphasis on such forms, including two examples of bowl type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD). Finewares make-up 16% of this assemblage and consist entirely of Oxfordshire industry products. Layers 9 and 10 at the Beech House Hotel site in Dorchester are contemporary with and immediately post-date the construction of the town wall, and are associated with lime-kilns operating within the nowderelict town house and making use of its building materials. The 7.47 EVE ceramic assemblage is dated by the excavator to the late 3rd and 4th centuries and was associated with a coin of Victorinus (AD 268-70). The proximity of the house to the new town wall may mean that the twelve lime-kilns were being used to prepare the lime for the mortar used in the latter’s construction. Examination of the pottery indicates that, although small amounts of 4th century material such as Young’s Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat form C46 (c. 340-400+ AD) are present, the overwhelming majority is of late 3rd century character (Rowley and Brown 1982: 26-39). The bulk of the coarse pottery assemblage probably dates to the last quarter of the 3rd century and has a much higher percentage of BB1 than Layer 11 (29%). This, coincidentally. is exactly the same as the BB1 percentage in the probably contemporary upper town wall construction trench fills at Silchester (p. 31). Types include fragments from a 5.1 beaker (c.120-300 AD), two 6.1 flanged-bowls (c. 180-250 AD), four 6.2 bowls (c. 210-280/90 AD), two 6.4 bowls (c. 240-290/300 AD), eight type 8.3 dishes (c. 200-270 AD) and two type 8.5 examples (c. 220-300 AD).

The Dorchester-on-Thames region The hinterland of Dorchester-on-Thames in the Middle Thames valley was dominated by the coarse and fine wares from the nearby Oxfordshire potteries (Young 1977). This pottery industry had its origins in the late 1st century AD and grew in importance during the first 80 years of the 2nd century AD . At this time, the emphasis was on stamped mortaria and coarse greywares, with just a few finewares being produced. The industry seems to have gone into recession between c. 180 and 240 AD: when expansion commenced again at the end of that period certain major changes had taken place. Chief of these was the large-scale production of red and brown colour-coat finewares imitating Samian forms, now no longer obtainable in any quantity in Britannia. Young considers that water transport played a considerable role in the easterly distribution of late Oxfordshire finewares, down the Thames and along both shores of the estuary of that river (1977: 238). Distribution of grey kitchen wares was more localised, being impeded by other local greyware producing industries: these seem to have been able to compete with the Oxfordshire ones on their own ground (ibid.: 207).

Although Oxfordshire greywares account for a high 68% of all of the coarsewares, there now appear to be virtually no bowls or dishes present from that source. This appears to follow the Silchester pattern during the later 3rd century AD and would suggest that Oxfordshire greyware bowls and dishes were, like those produced at Alice Holt, unable to compete with the BB1 equivalents at this time. The percentage of fine and specialised wares (24%) is somewhat larger than that from Context 11 and is very largely made-up of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat, White-slipped and Whiteware products (20%)

The Dorchester area displays an interesting change in the pattern of coarseware supply during the course of the 3rd century AD. At Dorchester-on-Thames itself, the 12.17 EVE c. 240-270 AD dated town-house occupation assemblage from Context 11 at the Beech House Hotel excavation (Rowley and Brown 1982, 8) has a predominance of Oxfordshire greyware products (77%). These greywares include considerable numbers of bowls and dishes, representing just under a quarter of the forms that are present. Dorset BB1 pottery accounts for 13% of the coarseware assemblage, with a similar emphasis on such forms: these include three incipientbeaded and flanged bowls of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD), two latticed dishes of late 2nd century types and five of type 8.3 (c. 200-270 AD). The 11% fine and specialised wares include Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers (1%), Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (3%) and a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat box (1%).

The mass importation of BB1 into Dorchester during the last decades of the 3rd century AD may have led to a general decrease in production of open forms by the potters making Oxfordshire greywares. The pottery assemblage from the late 3rd century waterhole context 609 at Barton Court, Abingdon (Miles and Parrington 32

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

1986: Fiche 7E.4) includes a similarly high percentage of Oxfordshire greywares: these are equally deficient in open forms but there is, however, very little BB1 (4%).

being present. BB1 accounts for 32% of the coarsewares and includes straight-sided dishes with squared-off rims, as well as flanged-bowls with burnished acutelatticing: types which one would not expect to find after c. 220 AD and which are dated by Gillam to the 2nd century AD. Five incipient-beaded and flanged bowls of Bestwall type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) are also present but no developed examples of type 6.4. The dominant fabric is still Rowlands Castle greyware (41%) with self-slipped Alice Holt greywares remaining at a low 6% (c. 200-270 AD). These include coarse Class 3A jars with reeded rims which have been shown to be out of production by c. 250 AD (Lyne 2012: 213).

Dorchester on Thames is similar to the civitas capitals of Silchester and Winchester in receiving considerablylarger quantities of BB1 during the period c. 270-300 AD than rural sites in the countryside around, with open forms in the fabric similarly accounting for a disproportionately large percentage of all coarseware examples in the two pottery assemblages which were quantified. The Civitas of the Regnenses

The 13% finewares from the pits include early New Forest colour-coated beakers with variable patchy colour-coat; metallic on one side and matt on the other (2%). These early New Forest finewares are associated with Moselkeramik, Colchester and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (2%, 8% and 1% respectively).

Sussex west of the River Arun Occupation layer B37 on the Cattlemarket site at Chichester can be dated to the early 3rd century AD (Down 1989, 69-70). Only small amounts of BB1 pottery (5%) are present in an assemblage dominated by Rowlands Castle greywares (66%): these latter wares are composed almost entirely of cooking-pots. Tiny amounts of early 3rd century AD Alice Holt and Thameside pottery are also present, as are some of the last Arun Valley industry products. The finewares were not looked at.

The second pottery assemblage comes from the unpublished Shipphams Social Club site and emanates from the fills of Pit 3206 within Structure 20: it is probably of similar mid-3rd century AD date (Lyne Forthcoming E). The predominant coarseware fabric is Rowlands Castle Greyware (54%) with BB1 coming a significant second (30%) and Alice Holt greywares accounting for most of the rest of the coarseware assemblage (16%). Most of the 16% fine pottery is Samian ware (9%) but there are also fragments from Sinzig roughcast beakers (2%). The BB1 includes examples of cooking-pot type 1.3 (c. 230-270 AD), bowl type 6.1 (c. 180-250 AD), two of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and one each of dish types 8.4 and 8.5 (c. 200-270 and 220-300 AD respectively).

The Shippham’s Social Club site in Chichester produced two quantifiable early-to-mid 3rd century AD pottery assemblages (Lyne Forthcoming E). The earlier of these comes from Pit 3316 within Structure 20 and, as with all of the early 3rd century AD pottery assemblages from Chichester, has a predominance of Rowlands Castle greywares (54%), with BB1 making-up a further 22% of it. Nominal percentages of Alice Holt and Thameside products are also present. The fineware percentage has been distorted upwards to 25% of the entire pottery assemblage by the presence of the complete neck of a mica-dusted cream ware flagon (12%) but also includes fragments from Central Gaulish and East Gaulish Samian open forms (10% and 1% respectively) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat vessels (2%). The BB1 includes fragments from a cooking-pot of type 1.1 with 90 degree latticing (c. 210-230 AD), a dish of type 8.1 (c. 180-220 AD) and three of type 8.3 (c. 200-270 AD).

The east-west street at the Central Girls’ School site is later than Pits P37 and O40 and had two consecutive rubbish deposits (G31 and G29) in hollows in its surface, separated by a re-metalling layer (Down 1978). Layer G31 can be dated to the period c. 250-280 AD, produced a 5.35 EVE pottery assemblage and has BB1 making up 20% of its coarsewares, including fragments from a mixture of incipient-beaded and flanged bowls of Bestwall type 6.2 and developed ones of type 6.4 (c. 210280/90, 240-290/300 AD). Most of the coarse wares (65%) are Rowlands Castle greyware vessels, with New Forest greywares accounting for only 5% of them. Finewares are confined to a few bodysherds from an Oxfordshire Red-Colour-coat beaker.

The Chapel Street Central Girls’ School site was excavated in 1970-71 (Down 1978), revealing a narrow east-west street between stone-built houses. Immediately beneath the lowest occupation levels associated with the house on the north side of the street lay two approximately-contemporary rubbish-pits P37 and O40 containing a 14.97 EVE assemblage of early-tomid 3rd century AD pottery. The published report dates these pits to the period c. 260/70-300 AD (ibid.: 262) but examination of the coarse pottery suggests a date no later than c. 250-270 AD, with much residual pottery

The 3.37 EVE pottery assemblage from rubbish layer G29 accumulated on the surface of the remetalling of the road has BB1 accounting for a considerably greater 36% of its coarse pottery assemblage: Rowlands Castle wares now make up a much reduced 31%, New Forest Greywares are absent and Alice Holt wares, which are only nominally present in the assemblage from G31, 33

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) now stand at 15% of this one. The BB1 from G29 includes fragments from developed beaded-and-flanged bowls: this assemblage can be dated to c. 280-300 AD. Fineware fragments are very few (3%) and all come from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers.

(37%) and pre- 270/300 AD Alice Holt/Farnham grey wares coming second (25%). This site is characterised by a lack of coarseware open forms; a phenomenon encountered on many 3rd century Sussex sites and partially caused by a great deficiency in the production of such forms by the Rowlands Castle kilns and other production centres in West Sussex. What bowls and dishes that there are were very largely supplied by the BB1 industry, as were those in Chichester itself. Once again, all of the few finewares are New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (4%).

The high percentages of BB1 in mid-to-late 3rd century AD pottery assemblages from Chichester, compared with those from contemporary Portchester and other Hampshire coastal sites east of Clausentum, suggest that BB1 was being supplied directly by sea to Chichester via Chichester Harbour. This BB1 supply was on a relatively small scale until c. 250-70 AD, when it became much more significant and remained so until the end of the 3rd century.

The enclosure ditch of the Chilgrove Crossroads Field villa to the north of Chichester produced a large 3rd century AD pottery assemblage (Down 1979: 189-91). This ditch fill also produced a denarius of Julia Maesa (AD 218-225) and was probably open during the period c. 200-270 AD. The coarseware pottery assemblage, as elsewhere in West Sussex at this time, has a predominance of Rowlands Castle greywares (44%), with c. 200-270/300 AD dated Alice Holt greywares accounting for a further 24% and BB1 for 17% of the assemblage. The 4% finewares are lacking in New Forest products but include Moselkeramik and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker fragments (2%).

An interesting feature of the Chichester sequence (Appendix 5) is that, as the percentages of dishes and bowls increased at the expense of jars during the late 3rd century AD, the BB1 share of the bowl and dish percentages diminished. It would appear that, as other industries started to produce more open forms, the BB1 industry found it increasingly more difficult to compete in that area. This in turn supports the idea that some of the earlier successes by the BB1 industry during the mid-to-late 3rd century AD were not so much due to the superiority of its products but to the absence of competition in the field of open vessel forms.

Late 3rd century AD occupation at the Up Marden villa has BB1 making up 14% of the coarse pottery, including fragments from a cooking-pot of type 1.3 (c. 220-270 AD), a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.4 (c. 240290/300 AD) and a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). Alice Holt self-slipped greywares make up a further 31% and those with white/black slip decoration a further 8%. Other coarsewares include New Forest Greyware (3%) and Rowlands Castle ware (22%). Fine and specialist wares account for 14% of the total pottery assemblage and comprise New Forest Purple Colour coat (11%), a parchment ware mortarium from the same source (2%) and an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium (1%).

The Fishbourne Palace destruction deposits are of particular interest in that they date to the beginning of the 4th century AD, slightly later and more precisely dated than most of the assemblages referred to above: the latest coin is a nummus of Maximianus dated AD 299303. The high BB1 percentage (27%) probably reflects the proximity of Chichester but what this assemblage confirms is that a sharp decline in the marketing of Rowlands Castle greywares had taken place by the end of the 3rd century, leaving that industry with only 19% of the assemblage from the palace destruction deposits. New Forest and Alice Holt Greywares had filled the gap left by this decline but the increased presence of the former (26%) is not yet reflected at Chichester. The BB1 element has a predominance of open forms and includes fragments from Bestwall bowl of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and several straight-sided dishes of indeterminate types. Finewares account for 11% of this assemblage, with all fragments coming from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers.

Excavations at North Bersted near Bognor Regis between 2007 and 2010 (Taylor et al 2014) uncovered a mainly Iron Age site but with a simple rectangular late-3rd-to-early 4th century AD sunken – floored building as well. The pottery assemblage from within this ?timber-framed building (Lyne 2014) also has the Rowlands Castle kilns as the biggest single source of coarse pottery (40%) with Alice Holt wares accounting for a further 39% and BB1 for a much smaller 15%. The 9% fine and specialist pottery consists almost entirely of New Forest products with just a few residual fragments of Samian. The BB1 includes fragments from two obtuse-latticed cooking-pots of uncertain types, three bowls of type 6.8 (c. 270/300-370 AD) and several dishes of type 8.12 (c. 220-350/70 AD)

BB1 wares found their way in much smaller quantities from Chichester into the countryside around. At Sidlesham in the Selsey peninsula, a bathhouse rebuilt in c. 280 AD (Collins et al 1973) produced small quantities of pottery, of which the bulk is 3rd century AD in date with only a little early 4th century AD material. BB1 makes up a small percentage of the coarse pottery (10%), with Rowlands Castle being the main source of such wares

At Slindon to the east of Chichester, a large surface collection of predominantly 3rd century AD pottery 34

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

gives a similarly low percentage of BB1 (11%) with Rowlands Castle wares making up the largest single element (43%) and Alice Holt greywares a further 32% of the coarsewares. Once again, BB1 is responsible for a large share of the very small quantity of open forms despite being a minority over all supplier. The few finewares (5%) comprise Central Gaulish Samian open forms (3%) and New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (2%): a few Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl bodysherds are also present.

includes fragments from two obtuse-latticed cookingpots, three bowls of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). The barrier aspect of the river is shown by the very considerable fall-off in percentages of Rowlands Castle ware found on sites to the east of it. These wares account for only 8% of the pottery assemblage from Ditch G at the Belloc Road site and Alice Holt/Farnham industry ones for a further 3% (Lyne 1993:Table 1): as at Angmering, most of the coarse pottery (45%) comes from the local Arun Valley kilns. The postulated small port at the mouth of the River Arun may also explain the high percentage of finewares in this assemblage (58%), which includes significant percentages of Samian (21%) and New Forest products (18%). Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat and Colchester beakers make up a further 5% and 14% respectively.

The Slindon site lies close to Stane Street: further along that road, excavations at Bignor Roman villa by SouthEastern Archaeological Services in 1985 produced a large mainly 3rd century AD pottery assemblage from shallow scoop W12 in the courtyard (Lyne 1996). The percentages of different fabric types are very similar to those at Slindon, with BB1 at 9%, Rowlands Castle greyware at 40% and Alice Holt greywares at 27%. Once again the BB1 element is responsible for the bulk of the few coarseware open forms that are present. In his paper on Rowlands Castle ware distribution (1974), Hodder regarded Stane Street as one of the main marketing routes for this pottery: this is clearly true but equally substantial quantities were also supplied eastwards across the Sussex coastal plain and to Downland occupation sites to the west of the Arun and beyond. The 4% finewares from scoop W12 are made up of equal percentages of Central Gaulish Samian open forms and New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers

The Courtwick Lane site at Wick lies two kilometres north-west of that at Belloc Road. Its occupation is mainly Early Roman in date and terminates in the area excavated during the late-3rd century AD before starting up again during the Early Saxon period. A small 151 sherd pottery assemblage from the Enclosure F boundary ditch is dated c. 200-270 AD but is too small for quantification by EVEs (Lyne Forthcoming F). As at Belloc Road, most of the coarse pottery comes from the Arun Valley kilns (50%): BB1 and imitation BB1 from the Brighton area make up 11% and 25% of the assemblage respectively by sherd count, with the former including fragments from two bowls of Bestwall type 6.2 (Lyne 2012, c. 210-280/90 AD). Minority coarsewares include Rowlands Castle ware (12%) and Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (2%). The coarseware make-up is very similar to that from the ditch at Belloc Road but there are far fewer fine and specialised wares (4%): these include fragments from Central Gaulish Samian open forms, a Wiggonholt cream ware flagon (probably residual) and a Gauloise 4 amphora.

Sussex between the Rivers Arun and Adur The earliest of the examined quantified pottery assemblages from this area comes from the upper fill of the outer enclosure ditch at the Angmering Roman villa. It is of late 2nd to early 3rd century AD date and roughly contemporary with that from the Chichester Cattlemarket. At 19.29, the EVE total is quite large but has no BB1 (other than the rim of a cooking-pot of late 2nd century type), only 8% Rowlands Castle ware and an even smaller 2% of pre-.270 AD Alice Holt products. The bulk of the coarse pottery (88%) is from the local Arun Valley industry, which had largely ceased production by the late 3rd century AD. The assemblage is, however, rather early and has been omitted from the BB1 distribution map (Figure 11). There are no finewares.

The Northbrook College site at Worthing (Lyne Forthcoming G) follows a similar occupation pattern to that at Courtwick Lane in also terminating during the late-3rd century AD. A small 243 sherd pottery assemblage from Ditch 11042 is also dated c. 200-270 AD and was quantified in a similar manner. Most of the coarse pottery comes from the Arun Valley kilns (67%) with Rowlands Castle wares coming a poor second (18%). The 8% BB1 includes sherds from three examples of Bestwall bowl type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD), one of dish type 8.1 (c. 180-220 AD) and one of type 8.5 (c. 220-290/300 AD). Other minority coarse fabrics include nominal amounts of Alice Holt/Farnham and New Forest greywares.

The River Arun seems to have acted as both a trading barrier and a thoroughfare. Excavations at the Wickbourne Estate, Littlehampton on the east side of the river mouth revealed a Late Iron Age and Early Roman ditched enclosure, followed by a Late Roman field system with corn-dryers and a hut. One of the field ditches sectioned in Belloc Road yielded a 3rd century AD pottery assemblage rich in BB1 (42%) suggesting direct coastal trade from Poole Harbour to a small port at the mouth of the River Arun. This BB1

The poorer showing of BB1 and related wares at Northbrook College may be due to the greater distance of the site from the postulated port on the Arun at Littlehampton, which, in turn, may explain the higher 35

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) percentages of Arun Valley and Rowlands Castle wares compared with their showing at Belloc Road and Courtwick Lane. Finewares make-up 7% of the Northbrook College pottery assemblage, with most being Central Gaulish Samian (5%): the rest of the fragments come from Moselkeramik, Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat and Central Gaulish Black Colour-coat beakers

The local kiln or kilns imitated Alice Holt, Rowlands Castle and BB1 products in variations of a single greyware fabric: fineware copies include those of East Gaulish Samian forms Dr.31, 37 and 38, as well as Oxfordshire Parchment ware forms. These and other finewares make-up 14% of the assemblage. At the Chanctonbury temple site (Bedwin 1980), the stratification was badly affected by tree roots but a small 2.05 EVE assemblage from Context 108, with rim fragments from 37 vessels, was dated to the late 3rd century AD by the excavator and had 9% BB1, 5% Rowlands Castle greyware and 16% Alice Holt pottery: much of the rest of the coarse pottery was from the nearby Arun Valley kilns with just 6% coming from the Wickham Barn kilns and transported west along the Sussex Greensand Way from the production site. BB1 vessels include fragments from two type 6.1 bowls (c. 180-250 AD) and a type 6.4 example (c. 240-290/300 AD). The 9% finewares comprise fragments from Samian open forms (3%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (6%) in what is a very small and perhaps unreliable pottery assemblage.

A short distance east of the Angmering villa lies Highdown Hill, on the western slope of which a bath-house was excavated in 1938. Much of the pottery from it is of 3rd century date, with the coarsewares including BB1 (12%), Rowlands Castle greyware (20%) and Alice Holt greywares (18%). This assemblage goes on later than the Angmering villa one and includes late- 3rd century AD sherds. It is particularly noteworthy for the high Rowlands Castle percentage for the area: BB1, despite being a minority supplier, includes the majority of the bowls and dishes, including Bestwall types 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD). Nearly half of the coarse pottery comes from Arun Valley sources. The fine wares account for 13% of the total pottery and include fragments from five New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (6%), as well as those from Lower Nene Valley and Colchester Colour-coat examples (3% and 2% respectively).

On the previous sites, BB1 was a significant supplier of open forms; out of all proportion to its total shares of the coarseware pottery assemblages. On the two Downland sites at Muntham Court and Chanctonbury, however, its share of the bowl and dish element is less than on the more coastal ones. Between the Arun and Adur, as with most of the sites in Sussex west of the Arun, BB1 cooking-pots make a very poor showing and it is clear that here, as further west, that the industry’s distribution was geared to open forms.

A midden deposit (M5) from the unpublished 1955 Muntham Court, Findon excavations contained an appreciable 8.54 EVE assemblage of 3rd century pottery and is dated c. 200-270 AD. BB1 accounts for 5% of the coarse pottery, Rowlands Castle for 1% and pre-AD.270 Alice Holt wares for 10% of it. Most of the pottery is from local and Arun Valley sources. The BB1 includes fragments from Bestwall bowl types 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4 ( c. 180-250, 210-280/90 and 240-290/300 AD respectively), as well as straight-sided dishes and cavetto-rim cooking-pots. A small percentage of fine and specialised wares (4%) includes fragments from New Forest Purple Colour-coat and Colchester Colour-coat beakers (2%), Central Gaulish Samian open forms (1%) and a New Forest Parchment-ware mortarium (1%).

At Wiggonholt north of the Downs and in the Arun valley, an area of 3rd-to-early-4th century AD occupation on cobbles at Site B north of the Lickfold bath-house (Evans 1974) yielded mainly local Arun Valley coarse pottery in a 5.74 EVE pottery assemblage with fragments from 90 vessels: there are, however, smaller amounts of BB1 (5%), Rowlands Castle greyware (5%) and Alice Holt/ Farnham wares (22%). The small percentage of BB1 includes fragments from a developed-beaded-andflanged bowl of indeterminate type (c. 240+ AD) and two cavetto-rim cooking-pots. The finewares include fragments from two New Forest Colour-coat beakers (6%), five Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls (6%) and five Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (5%).

A deep well or ritual shaft was excavated a short distance away in 1971 by Dr. Ratcliffe-Densham and its very considerable 74.27 EVE pottery content prepared for publication by the author (Lyne Forthcoming L). The bulk of the pottery can be dated both typologically and by associated coinage to the period c. 250-330 AD. Most of the pottery is of very local origin and includes wasters or kiln seconds associated with a lump of prepared potting clay. Alice Holt wares, both pre and post 270 AD in date, are present (8%), as is BB1 (1%) and Rowlands Castle ware (1%). Three quarters of the coarse pottery comes from the local kiln or kilns: there is a wide range of local forms, including bottles, flagons, a strainer and an oval dish with handles of BB1 form but in a fine greyware.

The area between the Arun and the Adur, the next river to the east, clearly lay within the orbit of the Arun Valley pottery industry. This industry had been significant during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, with a Sussex-wide distribution for its wares. The fine wares produced had included high-quality imitation samian, mica-dusted and glazed wares. The earlier industry had also been characterised by a variety of coarseware 36

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

fabrics (Evans 1974) but by the early 3rd century AD the Arun Valley potteries were in decline. .

being a shortage of contemporary issues in circulation up until the reign of Gallienus. Most of the pottery is in keeping with an early 3rd century AD date for the assemblage but the presence of fragments from two BB1 developed-beaded-and-flanged bowls means that some at least of it must be later than 240 AD. The fine pottery confirms this, although not quantified by EVEs, by including fragments from two New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (c. AD.240/70-340) as well as three Moselkeramik beakers, a Colchester Colour-coat beaker and East Gaulish Samian.

This industry ceased production during the mid -to-late 3rd century AD and was replaced by others, including one situated further east in the Weald near the recently discovered Wellingham small town at the intersection of the Sussex Greensand Way and the road from London to Lewes. Two pottery kilns dated c. 250-350+ AD have been found at Wickham Barn, Chiltington just south of the Sussex Greensand Way (Butler and Lyne 2001). These Late Roman kilns produced high-fired evertedrim cooking-pots, beaded-and-flanged bowls, straightsided dishes and other forms in coarse-gritted white and orange fabrics with pimply blue-grey surfaces.

Kiln 5 was overlain by a later occupation horizon containing a coin of AD 310. The 12.38 EVE pottery content of the kiln fill below this is subtly different to that from the earlier Kiln 6. The Wickham Barn kilns element has now risen to 23% and Arun Valley coarsewares have declined to 10% of the pottery assemblage. The BB1 share has risen to 13% but the East Sussex Ware content, at 39%, remains fairly constant. Cooking-pots, bowls and dishes in a BB1 variant made by a small-scale pottery industry in the Brighton area account for a further 14% of the coarse pottery.

Sussex east of the River Adur A 3.13 EVE pottery assemblage from Pit 32 at Slonk Hill dated c. 270-300 AD (Fulford 1978) suggests that there might have been trading of BB1 by sea to the mouth of the River Adur, similar to the postulated trade in such wares into the mouth of the River Arun (p. 35). The assemblage is small but BB1 makes up 46% of it. A little Rowlands Castle ware (8%) is also present but Alice Holt wares are second in importance at 14%. The BB1 includes fragments from a cavetto-rim cooking-pot of Bestwall type 1.2 (c. 210-250 AD), a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and two straightsided dishes of types 8.2 and 8.5 (c. 200-270 and 220-300 AD respectively). Finewares make up 19% of the pottery assemblage and include Oxfordshire Red-Colour-coat beaker fragments (7%), as well as New Forest Purple Colour-coat beaker bodysherds.

This pottery assemblage probably belongs to the last quarter of the 3rd century and indicates, with the evidence from the earlier Kiln 6 and the contemporary Pit 32 at Slonk Hill, that BB1 supply east of the Adur commenced before c. 270 AD and increased during the last quarter of the century. The finewares in this pottery assemblage were also not quantified but include East Gaulish Samian, New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers and a bottle, two Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers and a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat example.

Pottery assemblages from Sussex sites east of the Adur tend to be dominated by handmade, grog-tempered East Sussex Wares in several fabric variants. These wares are, however, sparse in the Pit 32 assemblage (10%), with their place being taken by BB1. This latter industry also supplied most of the coarseware bowls and dishes, as on occupation sites further west.

In the earlier Kiln 6 pottery assemblage, the local East Sussex Wares are characterised by a predominance of bowls and dishes, with this source responsible for the bulk of such vessels on site. The later Kiln 5 assemblage displays a change in the pattern of East Sussex Ware supply, with jars now being overwhelmingly predominant and the bowls and dishes being supplied by the BB1 industry.

At West Blatchington to the east, an agricultural complex with ditched enclosure, a small aisled building and numerous corn-drying kilns of mainly 3rd century AD and earlier date has yielded several pottery assemblages (Norris and Burstow 1950). Kiln 6 produced a large 9.28 EVE pottery assemblage of mainly pre-270 AD date, of which 43% is in East Sussex Ware, 3% in BB1 and 17% in self-slipped pre-270/300 AD dated Alice Holt/Farnham greyware. The Arun Valley coarseware element is 22%, a further 3% comes from the Wickham Barn kilns and a nominal 1% Rowlands Castle greyware is also present. There were three worn 2nd century copper-alloy coins in the kiln, of which the latest was of Crispina (c. AD.177). Such coins had a long circulation and are often found in early to mid 3rd century AD contexts; there

The burial pots from the Hassocks cemetery north of the Downs are of mainly 2nd and early 3rd century date. A cemetery does not lend itself to the quantification techniques used in this paper but an occupational site adjacent to it at 20 Hurst Road (the ‘cemetery caretaker’s lodge’) yielded a 6.48 EVE pottery assemblage of similar date (Lyne 1995: Table 6). The most common coarse pottery fabric is handmade East Sussex Ware (38%), followed by early wares from an as yet unlocated predecessor of the Wickham Barn industry (27%): vessels in the post 250 AD dated coarse-sanded fabrics from those kilns account for a further 5% of the coarse pottery. Late Arun Valley industry greywares make up 19% and post-AD 270 dated Alice Holt wares for 4%: 37

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) there is no BB1 in an assemblage which terminates shortly after AD 270. Fine and specialised wares makeup 26% of the total assemblage, of which Samian open forms are the most significant (11%), followed by Hardham ‘London ware’ closed and bowl forms (9%). Mortaria include fragments from Colchester wall-sided and G255 examples.

as they were in the previous and following assemblages. Finewares make-up 25% of the total assemblage and include Samian open forms (4%), Argonne roughcast beakers (9%), Moselkeramik examples (6%), Pentice beakers from North-East Gaul (4%) and a few fragments from Colchester Colour-coat, Central-Gaulish Black Colour-coat and Cologne examples (2%).

A small 5.40 EVE assemblage of pottery from a putative shrine at Rocky Clump, Stanmer Park (Gorton 1988) had a coin of Faustina the younger (AD 175) and three of the Tetrici (AD 270-74) in association and is slightly later than that from Hassocks. Only a quarter of the coarse pottery is in East Sussex Ware but 34% comes from the Wickham Barn kilns: 23% is in sandy oxidised fabric and 3% in pre c. 270/300 AD Alice Holt/Farnham grey ware. Once again, there is no BB1. Nearly all of the fineware comes from beakers in Moselkeramik (16%), Central Gaulish Black Colour-coat (1%) Cologne colour-coat (1%) and Colchester Colour-coat (1%).

The 14.14 EVE pottery assemblage from occupation in the early-to-mid 3rd century Phase VIA western corridor overlaps in date with that from the coldplunge bath and probably spans the period c. 220270 AD. East Sussex Ware makes up 47% of the coarse pottery and consists mainly of cooking-pots: BB1 accounts for a mere 5%, having been replaced by a very good local version made by a BB1 potter who had set up production in the Brighton area (26%): this ‘ersatz’ BB1 potter made large numbers of both cooking-pots and open forms virtually identical to those produced around Poole Harbour. Rowlands Castle greywares were now nearly absent (1%). The fine and specialist wares (23%) include Samian open forms (9%) and Pentice beakers (2%): fragments from Central Gaulish Black Colour-coat, Cologne and Moselkeramik beakers make up a further 2% between them and miscellaneous amphorae 5% of the assemblage.

The 7.409 kg. (6.55 EVE.) pottery assemblage from the construction pit for the well at the Beddingham villa (Lyne Forthcoming H) is the earliest in a sequence of four assemblages from this site spanning the 3rd century AD. The well assemblage dates to c. 180-220 AD and has East Sussex Ware variants making up 42% of the coarse pottery; composed mostly of cookingpots, with just a few open forms and lids. The rest of the coarsewares have a rather unusual make-up in having an abnormally large percentage of Rowlands Castle greyware forms (25%): BB1 accounts for 12% of the coarse pottery and is composed of latticed flangedbowls and dishes of late 2nd century AD date, unlikely to have been made after AD 220, as well as another flanged-bowl with arcaded decoration of Bestwall type 6.1 (c. 180-250 AD). Late 2nd century BB1 is normally very rare in rural Sussex and, together with the high percentage of Rowlands Castle wares, suggests that Beddingham was acquiring much of its coarse pottery from outside East Sussex at this time and perhaps from the Chichester area. Finewares account for 21% of this assemblage and include Central Gaulish Samian open forms (9%) as well as Moselkeramik beakers (2%).

The final pottery assemblage from Beddingham is a very large 24.539 kg. (13.80 EVE) one from occupation within the main room of the Phase VII north wing of the villa. East Sussex Ware makes up 59% of the coarsewares and BB1 and its copy for a further 10% and 3% respectively: BB1 fragments include those from a Bestwall type 6.2 bowl (c. 220-280/90 AD) and four examples of type 6.4 (c. 240-300 AD). Newcomers to this c. 270-300+ AD dated pottery assemblage are sandy wares from the Wickham Barn kilns (14%) and Alice Holt greywares (1%). Finewares make up a much smaller 6% of this assemblage and differ from those in the earlier assemblages in including a few New Forest Purple Colour-coat beaker (2%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker sherds for the first time. Moselkeramik beakers (2%), Pentice beakers (1%) and Samian open forms (1%) are also present.

The next assemblage is the 14.64 EVE one from the upper fills of the cold plunge bath and probably dates to c. 220-250 AD. East Sussex Ware variants make up an increased 64% of the coarse pottery in this and now include significant numbers of open forms. Rowlands Castle greywares have declined to a mere 3% of the coarse pottery but BB1 has increased in significance to 22% and is now made up of post-AD 220 types such as bulbous obtuse-latticed cooking-pots of Bestwall type 1.2A (c. 210-250 AD), incipient-beaded and flanged bowls of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and straight-sided dishes of types 8.1 and 8.2 (c. 180-220 and 200-270 AD). Small amounts of Thameside greyware (2%) are also present

At Barcombe in the Ouse valley to the north of Lewes, excavations at a villa complex on the Sussex Greensand Way two kilometres east of the Wickham Barn kilns produced a substantial 38.618 kg. (40.44 EVE) midden assemblage dated c. 250-280/300 AD and spanning much of the life of the villa house (Lyne Forthcoming I). East Sussex Ware accounts for 43% of the coarseware part of the assemblage and has a predominance of jars. The most common group of fabrics, however, are the sandy wares from the Wickham Barn kilns nearby (44%) with BB1 and its local copy coming a poor third (3%) but having a preponderance of open forms. BB1 forms include obtuse-lattice cooking-pot and Bestwall 6.2 and 38

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

6.4 bowl fragments (c. 220-280/90 and 240-290/300 AD respectively). Other minority coarsewares are Alice Holt greyware (2%),Thameside greywares and BB2 from north Kent (2%) as well as Rowlands Castle greywares (4%).

up 23% of the coarse pottery, accounting for most of the open forms and including fragments from a bowl of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD) and dishes of types 8.11 and 8.12 (c. 220-370 AD). The bulk of the coarse pottery (47%) in this rather small pottery assemblage comes from wheel-turned greyware producing kilns set up to supply the fort with its needs at the time that it was constructed. Considering the fort’s siting in the heart of grog-tempered East Sussex Ware distribution, it would appear that such crude handmade pottery was thought inadequate for the garrison, as it makes up only 13% of the assemblage. Finewares are represented by a few bodysherds from a beaker and mortarium in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabric and those from New Forest Purple-Colour-coat and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (Lyne 2009, Assemblage 3).

Considering the proximity of the Wickham Barn kilns to the Barcombe villa, it is surprising that they supplied less than half of the coarse pottery in the midden assemblage: this indicates that the industry was only engaged in small scale pottery production. The 13% fine and specialised wares include Samian open forms (3%), Pentice beakers (1%), Moselkeramik beakers (1%) and fragments from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers, copies of such wares from the Wickham Barn kilns, Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers and Colchester Whiteware wall-sided mortaria.

The Civitas of the Canti

Occupation within the aisled barn at the Barcombe villa seems to have continued for a little longer: a c. 280-310 AD dated 12,459 kg. (10.71 EVE) pottery assemblage from within the building displays a marked fall-off in the percentage of East Sussex Wares to 25% of the coarsewares, whereas that of coarse Wickham Barn products remains a fairly-constant 49%. BB1 and its copy now account for 8 and 2% of the coarse pottery respectively and Alice Holt greywares for a further 7%: Thameside and Rowlands Castle products are no longer present. The BB1 fragments include sherds from a cooking-pot of type 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and a straight-sided dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). The 26% finewares include Samian open forms (7%), New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (8%), Wickham Barn kilns copies (1%) and mortaria and other forms copying Samian originals in the same fine red fabric as were in the pottery assemblage from the Findon ritual shaft (7%).

Most of Kent was still being supplied with most of its coarse pottery by the Thameside industry during the 3rd century AD. This pottery industry was totally dominant in western Kent, with a distribution zone extending west into London and across eastern Surrey, where it came into contact with and appears to have competed with the products of the Alice Holt/Farnham industry based on the Hampshire/Surrey border. This had revived at the end of the 2nd century AD after a long period of decline, which had resulted in it becoming little more than a supplier of coarsewares of indifferent quality to the rural communities in west Surrey, north-east Hampshire, north-west Sussex and parts of Berkshire. Thameside products are also found in Canterbury and in contexts at Dover dating to before AD 270 and the construction of the stone shore-fort (Philp 1989). The Thameside industry placed strong emphasis on the manufacture of BB2 and greyware bowls and dishes: on sites close to the production centres, these vessel types can make up more than 50% of the pottery supplied by the kilns. At Canterbury, such forms were overwhelmingly predominant in the Thameside percentage of an early 3rd century assemblage and indicate selective trading of such products.

At the Newhaven Meeching County Primary School site (Bell 1976), we have a site which appears to have been abandoned during the mid 3rd century AD. The upper fills of the enclosure ditch contained a 6.73 EVE assemblage of Antonine and early-to-mid 3rd century AD pottery associated with a coin of Gallienus (Green 1976: Group VIII) and having a predominance of handmade East Sussex Wares (60%). Although a couple of fragments in BB1 fabric were noted from other contexts on the site, they are absent from this ditch assemblage. Minority coarsewares include late Arun Valley products (7%) and Alice Holt greywares (3%). There is very little in the way of fine pottery (1%) and what there is comes from a single New Forest Purple Colour-coat beaker.

There were no large-scale pottery industries operating in East Kent during this period but several small ones have been identified by Pollard (1988), including that producing handmade but high-temperature-fired cooking-pots in a variety of grog and sand-tempered ‘Native Coarse Ware’ fabrics and based along the Wantsum Channel north-east of Canterbury. These were slowly replaced by low-temperature-fired wares with siltstone-grog filler produced at Lympne after c. 250-70 AD (Lyne 2014, Industry 7A).

The shore fort at Pevensey is now thought to have been constructed by Allectus in AD.293, with its earliest occupation spanning the period c. 293-300 AD and yielding a small 4.09 EVE assemblage with BB1 making

A number of 3rd century pottery assemblages from within the core area of Thameside pottery supply have 39

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) been quantified by the author and are listed, with others from Kent, in Appendix 5. They are striking in having little or no BB1 present and indicate an inability by that industry to trade in the Thameside industry’s core marketing area on any meaningful scale. This may have something to do with the ability of the Thameside potters to make large quantities of bowls and dishes; a characteristic shared with the BB1 industry.

The pottery assemblage from the late 3rd century construction contexts (L24/5) at the Maidstone Mount villa has a still predominant Thameside element down to 76% and East Sussex Wares from more than one source at 12% of the coarse pottery. Fragments from a BB1 obtuse-latticed cooking-pot and two Bestwall type 8.5 dishes (c. 220-300 AD) make up a further 2% of the 6.00 EVE coarse pottery assemblage. The finewares were not quantified.

The final occupation in the cellared building at Chalk, Layer 7, is dated by a coin of Carausius (AD 286-293) to the last quarter of the 3rd century AD (Johnston 1972). BB1 is absent from the 11.50 EVE assemblage and the overwhelming bulk of the coarse pottery (95%) comes from the Thameside kilns. Fine and specialised wares make up 26% of the total pottery assemblage and include Samian open forms (1%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls (2%), Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (12%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (3%): the presence of a complete flagon rim in late white-slipped Hoo St Werbergh fabric (9%) does, however, have an upward distorting effect on the total fineware percentage.

At the Thurnham villa, ten kilometres east of Maidstone Mount, excavations in advance of the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link yielded a small 472 sherd c. 240-370 AD dated pottery assemblage associated with metal-working (Lyne 2006, Assemblage 16). The assemblage is not large enough for quantification by EVEs but was quantified by numbers of sherds and their weights per fabric. Most of the pottery can be dated more precisely to c. 240-300 AD and has Thameside products making up 73% of the coarsewares, with white-slipped Alice Holt/Farnham greywares a further 9%, late East Kent Grog-tempered wares 14% and BB1 3%: the latter comprises fragments from a beaded-andflanged bowl of indeterminate form (c. 240-350 AD) and a dish of Bestwall type 8.2 (c. 200-270 AD). Finewares make-up 27% of the total pottery assemblage, including late North Kent Finewares (15%), the Hoo St Werbergh oxidised version (4%), Central Gaulish Samian (1%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat (1%) and Much Hadham Oxidised ware (1%).

Four kilometres nearer London at the Springhead temples site on Watling Street, the pottery assemblage from Context 56/2 at Site D can be dated to the late 3rd and early 4th centuries AD. It also lacks BB1 and has Thameside products making up 83% of the coarsewares. The fine and specialised wares include Samian open forms (5%) and an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl (5%): the rest of such wares come from uncertain sources.

It would be difficult to believe that the scattered BB1 vessels from sites in the Medway valley were any more than casual acquisitions if it were not for the fact that Pits 2 and 3 in the Holborough Roman barrow contained two complete Bestwall type 8.5 BB1 dishes (c. 220-300 AD), as well as fragments from at least three others (Jessup et al.1954). It would appear possible, therefore, that there was either some very limited supply of BB1 vessels up the Medway valley during the 3rd century or that the person buried in the Holborough barrow was from an area where BB1 was far more common.

Twelve kilometres to the east at the walled town of Rochester, a 6.69 EVE assemblage from Context 18 in the unpublished Northgate excavations had a coin of AD 268 associated and can be dated almost entirely to the 3rd century AD. Once again, the coarse pottery assemblage is made up almost entirely of Thameside products (96%): BB1 products are absent. The 7% finewares include Central Gaulish Samian open forms (2%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls, dishes and beakers (3%) and Colchester Colour-coat beakers (2%): Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker bodysherds are also present.

An explanation for the BB1 vessels in the Holborough barrow may lie upstream on the River Medway at the East Farleigh building complex. This cluster of buildings does not appear to be a normal villa but includes storehouses and what may be a Romano-Celtic temple with Late Roman industrial occupation. There are fragments from at least 24 BB1 vessels, including one example each from cooking-pots of types 1.3 and 1.5, a flanged bowl of type 6.1, two of type 6.2, 11 of type 6.4, one of type 6.5 and one of type 6.8. Other types include a dish of type 8.2, four of type 8.5 and an oval dish of Class 9 (Lyne Forthcoming R). Most of this BB1 comes from the c. 270-370 AD dated occupation on the floor of the Building 5 ?temple and accounts for 12% of the coarse pottery in that assemblage. All of this BB1

Moving twelve kilometres up the Medway valley to the villa at East Malling (Wacher 1965), the destruction deposits (Contexts I.2, 3, III.2, 12, IV.2 and V.2) produced a sizeable 11.71 EVE pottery assemblage with a coin of Gallienus (AD 258-268) in associatian. This assemblage is also dominated by Thameside products (81%) with handmade grog-tempered East Sussex Wares accounting for a further 10%. A fragment from an incipient-beaded and flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) is the only evidence for BB1 in the assemblage. The 4% finewares comprise Moselkeramik and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker fragments. 40

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

could have been discarded during the period c. 270300 AD and the percentage much greater of the late3rd century dated element in the pottery assemblage. This is an abnormally high percentage of BB1 vessels for a rural site in Kent and may indicate that the East Farleigh complex was under military control and had a specialised function like the postulated fulling mill at Dickets Mead in Hertfordshire (p. 49).

quantified by numbers of sherds and their weights per fabric (Lyne Forthcoming M, Assemblage 28). Thameside greywares and BB2 are the most significant group of coarseware fabrics (35%) with smaller quantities of BB1 (25%) and Native Coarseware (22%). This is a very small pottery assemblage, but the fact that the BB1 element includes fragments from a Bestwall type 6.4 beadedand-flanged bowl (c. 240-300 AD) and two indeterminate straight-sided dishes is suggestive that there was a real significant increase in the presence of BB1 at Canterbury during the last quarter of the century at the time of the construction of the city walls. The BB1 sherds also include fragments from a latticed bead-rim dish of Gillam type 69 (1976) dated c. 140-200 AD, raising the question as to whether the wares arrived in Canterbury with elements of the Roman army to man the newly-constructed defences and that the old dish was one remaining in use from where the unit had come from in the north or west of Britannia.

At the coastal site of Eddington Farm to the north-west of Canterbury (Lyne Forthcoming O), the coarse pottery assemblage from the fills of the c. 200-250 AD dated Ditch 3152 was completely lacking in BB1 but had Thameside greyware and BB2 products accounting for 79% and Native Coarse Wares for 14% of it. Finewares make up a mere 6% of the total assemblage and are composed of North Kent Fineware and Hoo St Werbergh oxidised equivalents (4%), as well as fine oxidised Canterbury flagons from the ?Dane John kiln (2%). A very small 18 sherd assemblage from the later c. 270-300 AD dated Ditch 4994/3160 at Eddington does, however, include bodysherds from a BB1 dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD).

The fine and specialist wares make-up 27% of the assemblage and include North Kent Finewares (13%), Central and East Gaulish Samian (2%), Nene Valley Colour-coat (1%) and Dressel 20 olive-oil and Gauloise 4 wine amphorae (9%).

It was not possible to quantify any meaningful early and mid-3rd century AD pottery assemblages from Canterbury itself by EVEs. Pollard, however, did carry out a quantification of a late 2nd-to-early 3rd century AD pottery assemblage from Building 12A at the Marlowe site (Pollard 1995). This has Thameside and reduced Canterbury products making up 94% of the coarse pottery with a heavy bias towards BB2 ‘pie-dishes’ (49%). Handmade Transitional ‘Belgic’/Native Coarse Ware accounts for a further 6% of the coarse pottery: a few indeterminate BB1 bodysherds are also present. This Canterbury pottery assemblage differs from others in East Kent in having a much lower percentage of jars. In this respect, it is similar to other walled towns such as London and Verulamium, rather than rural sites in their hinterlands. Fine and specialist wares make up nearly half of the total pottery assemblage (45%), with North Kent Finewares being predominant (33%), alongside smaller amounts of Central Gaulish Samian (11%) and Rhenish mortaria (1%).

Published excavation reports indicate that Thameside coarseware products were present in quantity at Dover from before AD 200 up until c. 270 AD. BB1 was also present in contexts associated with the Painted House in the form of a dish of Bestwall type 8.3 (Philp 1989: Fig.33, 189, c. 200-270 AD) and later destruction deposits immediately predating the construction of the shore fort. They are more common in these latter deposits; including examples of Bestwall cooking-pot type 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), bowl type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and dish type 8.3 (c. 200-270 AD).

A second Canterbury, 14.36 EVE, pottery assemblage from Trench DII Layer 11 and DIII Layer 33 in Frere’s 1970 excavations, dated c. 250-275 AD, was also examined by Pollard (1988). The coarseware element has Thameside greywares and BB2 making up 77% of it and oxidised sandy wares 3%. Native Coarse Ware jars are also present (18%), but there is no BB1. Once again, the percentage of fine and specialised wares is very high (48%) and includes Samian (22%), North Kent Finewares (17%), Hoo St Werbergh oxidised wares (8%) and Colchester Colour-coat beakers (1%).

A section through the earth bank behind the shorefort wall (Booth 1994) recovered a small but highly significant pottery assemblage from the construction of the fort wall by Allectus in AD 293-6. The assemblage is dominated by BB1 (41%), with smaller quantities of Colchester BB2 (27%) and late Thameside ‘scorched’ sandy wares (12%). As is usually the case in the south-east of Britain, the BB1 forms are nearly all bowls and dishes of Bestwall types 6.4 (c. 240-290/300), 6.8 (c. 270/300370), 8.3 (c. 200-270), 8.5 (c. 220-300) and 8.12 (c. 220370 AD) and account for the bulk of such vessel forms in the coarseware assemblage. Finewares make up 39% of this total 4.30 EVE pottery assemblage; a percentage distorted upwards by the presence of residual Samian and a Canterbury flagon and mortarium (30%) but also including fragments from at least seven contemporary Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (9%).

A small c. 270-300 AD dated 95 sherd pottery assemblage from Site CW21 at the Whitefriars site in Canterbury was

Recent excavations at the Folkestone Wear Bay villa by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust produced a large c. 41

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) 250-300 AD dated pottery assemblage from occupation over the lower courtyard metalling (Lyne Forthcoming Q). The coarseware element has Thameside greyware and BB2 products accounting for 47% of it, Native Coarse Ware jars for 18% and Late Roman Grog-tempered wares for 14%: BB1 makes up a further 10% and includes fragments from a number of obtuse-latticed cookingpots of indeterminate forms, beaded-and-flanged bowls of types 6.4, 6.5 and 6.8 (c. 240-290/300, 280-300 and 270/300-370 AD respectively) and a dish of type 8.2 (c. 200-270 AD). Finewares make-up a quarter of the total assemblage and have a predominance of North Kent Fineware products (18%), together with fragments from a Moselkeramik beaker (1%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat (2%) and South and Central Gaulish Samian residual in use (4%)>

include fragments from an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium. Further north along the coast at Worth, the 5.43 EVE pottery assemblage from the upper fill of the temple temenos ditch has the local sandy oxidised wares making up 10% of it, Thameside products 11% and BB1 3%. The bulk of the rest of the coarseware assemblage consists of local grey wares. The excavation at Sholden near Deal yielded a substantial c. 180-270/300 AD dated pottery assemblage, with the bulk of the coarse pottery coming from the Thameside kilns (56%) and comprising greyware cooking-pots and BB2 open forms. Native Coarse Ware jars account for a further 30%: there are nominal amounts of Late Roman Grog-tempered ware (1%) and Alice Holt/Farnham greyware bodysherds. Fragments from a BB1 beadedand-flanged bowl of type 6.5 (c. 280-300 AD) make up less than 1% of the coarse pottery and are the latest datable sherds in the assemblage. Small amounts of fine and specialised wares include Central Gaulish Samian and Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria fragments.

The Richborough excavations took place before modern-style quantification of pottery began to be employed. This site cannot, however, be written off from a statistical point of view, although nothing other than the most rudimentary quantifications were ever published. Examination of the site notebooks, however, shows that virtually all of the contexts excavated had their pottery assemblages quantified by minimum numbers of vessels. Fabric descriptions are usually rather vague but numerous vessel type numbers are quoted from the Wroxeter and Richborough published series. The middle Saxon Shore fort ditch south of the west gate contained some dumped rubbish associated with coins of the Tetrici (Bushe-Fox 1949: 71). This rubbish included fragments from at least 77 vessels, including 44 probable BB1 examples: these latter comprise large numbers of sherds from obtuselatticed cooking-pots, developed beaded-and-flanged bowls and straight-sided dishes. A similar situation prevails with pottery assemblages associated with the construction of an internal Shore Fort road in Area XI (ibid.: 63-5 Layer B). The indications are that, as at Dover, BBI formed a major component in the Richborough coarseware assemblage during the last years of the 3rd century AD.

The evidence from Canterbury, Richborough, Dover and these three sites leaves little doubt that BB1 supply to the city with newly-constructed walls and the two new shore- forts was on a very significant but short-lived scale at the time that their defences were constructed: the much smaller percentages of BB1 from Deal, Worth and Sholden suggest that the inhabitants of these three sites may have been acquiring their BB1 pots from the two forts or even the markets at Canterbury. The Wealden Military Estate (Andredswald)) The evidence for the Weald being under Classis Britannica and later Classis Anderitianorum control, outside the system of tribal based civitates lies both in both the name of Andredswald given to it by the AngloSaxons and the presence of tiles with Classis Britannica stamps on many of the iron-working sites in the Weald (Lyne 2009:8).

Excavations at St Richards Road, Deal in 1988 revealed an Iron Age and Roman cemetery with late Roman chalk quarries back-filled with rubbish tips of the same date (K Parfitt pers. comm.). The fill of one such quarry (Context 535) yielded a 4.97 EVE late 3rd century pottery assemblage with a coin of AD 280 associated. The coarseware element in this assemblage includes coarse-sanded oxidised wares of local origin (36%), East Kent Thameside bowls and dishes (6%) and Thameside greywares from around the estuary of the River Medway (6%). BB1 is also present, accounts for 7% of the assemblage and includes fragments from a single example of Bestwall bowl type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and three of dish type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). The fine and specialised wares are poorly represented (2%) but

Most of the Medway valley sites referred to above are situated on or near a Roman road linking Rochester with the Maidstone area (Margary 1955: Route 13). This road carried on south across the Weald to Bodiam and the coast beyond near Hastings: it was probably the route by which East Sussex Wares arrived in the Maidstone area. At Bodiam, thirty kilometres south of Maidstone, there was a small port at the head of a now silted-up inlet. Excavations there (Lemmon and Hill 1966) yielded a sequence of occupation deposits spanning the period c. 150-270 AD and associated with CLBR stamped tiles and evidence for iron working. It is thought that this small port was engaged in the export of iron and was probably controlled by the Classis 42

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

Britannica. The coarse pottery assemblage from the occupation deposits has a great preponderance of East Sussex Wares (77%), with Thameside products making up a mere 12% of it: there is no BB1. The 12% finewares in the 10.09 EVE assemblage include Samian open forms (7%), New Forest Purple Colour-coat and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (2%) and Much Hadham Oxidised wares (2%).

assemblage and include Samian (9%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beaker fragments (6%) and fine greyware beakers of probable local origin (12%). The industrial town and iron production centre at Westhawk Farm, Ashford in the Weald of Kent produced a succession of abandonment fills in disused water hole 796. The lower dumping (Lyne 2008: Assemblage 39) yielded a large 32.34 EVE pottery assemblage in association with coins, of which the latest is one of Gallienus (AD 258-268). The most significant fabric is East Kent Siltstone-Grog-tempered ware (Lyne 2015, Industry 7A), which accounts for 45% of the coarsewares, followed by Thameside products (36%). Minority wares include East Sussex Wares (14%), Native Coarse Ware from East Kent (3%) and products of the Preston kiln (1%): BB1 is absent. The high percentage of East Kent Grog-tempered wares suggests that the assemblage continued to accumulate well into the last quarter of the 3rd century. Finewares account for a significant 36% of this assemblage and comprise North Kent Finewares (30%), Samian open forms (5%) and Moselkeramik beakers (1%).

The Footlands iron production site at Sedlescombe near Hastings lies at the southern end of the road. The pottery assemblage from the unpublished Site III Layer 2 is similar in date to that from Bodiam and was quantified by the less reliable minimum number of vessels per fabric method. Nevertheless, this quantification gives a percentage of 9% Thameside pottery, almost identical to that from the former site. The handmade East Sussex Wares are totally predominant (87%), with the presence of unusual beaker types in the fabric suggesting possible production at or near the site. As at Bodiam, there is no BB1 other than a fragment from a type 8.5 dish (c. 220300) retrieved during recent excavation in 2019. The few finewares in this 60 pot assemblage all come from a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat box and lid (4%).

The upper fills of the water hole produced a further large 15.58 EVE pottery assemblage with coins of the Tetrici (AD 271-274) and Licinius I (AD 316) in association (Lyne 2008: Assemblage 40). The breakdown of this assemblage has much in common with that from the lower fills: East Kent Siltsone-Grog-tempered wares make up 39% of it, with East Sussex Wares and Thameside products accounting for a further 22% and 32% respectively. BB1 is a newcomer on the scene at 5%, including examples of Bestwall beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and dish type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). This assemblage was probably deposited during the last years of the 3rd and first years of the 4th century AD. There are fewer fine and specialist wares in this assemblage than in the previous one (18%); mainly due to a decline in the presence of North Kent Finewares (10%): percentages of Samian open forms and Moselkeramik beakers remain the same.

The Bodiam assemblage differs from the Sedlescombe one in having a great predominance of jars over bowls and dishes. In this respect it is similar to contemporary assemblages from rural sites in East Kent. Another port engaged in the exportation of iron was that at Kitchenham Farm, Ashburnham near Hastings. An 8.37 EVE pottery assemblage from the ditch cut by Trench 8 in the recent excavation by the Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group is dated c. 200-270/300 AD (Lyne Forthcoming J, Assemblage 4) and also has an overwhelming predominance of East Sussex Ware (86%). BB2 accounts for a mere 3% of the assemblage and BB1 for an even smaller 2%: the latter includes fragments from an incipient-beaded and flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD). The presence of vase tronconique fragments from Picardy (8%) may indicate where some of the iron was sent. The 18% fine and specialised wares have a predominance of Central and East Gaulish Samian open forms, beakers and mortaria (11%), with North Kent Fineware beakers (4%) and a New Forest Parchment ware mortarium (3%).

The Bardown iron-production site was dug by Henry Cleere during the 1960s and the pottery worked on by this author (Lyne Forthcoming K). Phase III Contexts 2, 2c, 3, 5, 7 and 7a yielded a substantial 53.84 EVE c. 175/200-270+ AD dated pottery assemblage, with a variety of East Sussex Ware variants making up 65% of it. Thameside greywares and BB2 account for a further 26% of the coarse pottery and BB1 and Wickham Barn greywares for a mere 3% each. The BB1 includes fragments from two type 6.4 bowls (c. 240-290/300 AD), three straight-sided dishes of uncertain types and a handled beaker of type 5.1 (c. 120-300+ AD). The 22% fine and specialised wares include North Kent Finewares (12%), Samian (3%), nominal numbers of fragments from Sinzig, Cologne, Colchester and Lower

Another, 4.21 EVE, pottery assemblage from Kitchenham Farm comes from Context 8/2 and is totally late 3rd century in date. Once again, there is an overwhelming predominance of East Sussex Ware (82%) but no Thameside products. BB1 has increased in importance to 13% of the coarse pottery and includes three examples of cooking-pot type 1.2 (c. 210-280 AD), an incipient-beaded flanged bowl of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and a dish of type 8.3 (c. 200-270 AD). Finewares now account for 31% of the total pottery 43

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (1%), Oxfordshire RedColour-coat and Whiteware mortaria (1%), Colchester Whiteware, Rhenish and other mortaria (2%). The large variety of mortaria is quite striking and reminiscent of the situation at Kitchenham Farm.

technological and stylistic innovations were taking place in the industry. Phase 5 is dated to c. 225-250 AD, with the associated 58.30 EVE pottery assemblage indicating that significant quantities of BB1 started arriving in Londinium during this phase. The 12.00 EVE coarse pottery element has a greatly-increased 33% BB1(Richardson 1986: 1245), including examples of Bestwall straight-sided dish types 8.1 and 8.4 (c. 180-220 and 200-270 AD). North Gaulish greywares make up nearly half of the coarse pottery and BB2 an increased 16%

Londinium and its environs Londinium, as the capital of Britannia, may also have lain outside the system of civitates A glance at the BB1 distribution map for the late 3rd century (Figure 11) shows that BB1 was being supplied to London and its immediate environs in very large quantities. We are fortunate in having a succession of 3rd century pottery assemblages from within the walls of London, enabling us to determine the date at which BB1 started to arrive in any quantity with some precision.

It would appear that Thamesside products were by far the most significant coarse wares arriving in Londinium during the earliest years of the 3rd century but began to be supplanted by BB1 after AD 225. Because of the way in which the Magnus House pottery assemblages were quantified, the author has been unable to quantify them according to class of vessel but three later 3rd century AD groups of pottery from the 1954 Mithraeum excavations were so quantified.

The first two assemblages come from Phases 4 and 5 at the Magnus House quay excavations and have not been seen by the author: the percentages, however, have been adapted from those published in the report to take into account coarse wares only (Richardson 1986). The Magnus House site is unusual in that the timbers from the Roman quays have supplied dendrochronological absolute dates for their construction to supplement that of the Samian and coins (Hillam and Morgan 1986).

The first two pottery assemblages from the Mithraeum are of similar mid 3rd century AD date and come from both within and outside the temple. The temple group is derived from constructional deposits associated with the first and second floorings of the nave of the Mithraeum and in the contemporary south aisle. It is a typically small 2.51 EVE constructional assemblage with fragments from only 21 vessels but has Thameside products and BBI present in equal quantities (39% each) and the Verulamium kilns supplying the rest of the coarsewares. The BB1 includes fragments from obtuse latticed cooking-pots, five type 6.1 (c. 180-250 AD) and three type 6.4 bowls (c. 240-290/300 AD). The fine and specialised wares make-up a significant 35% of the total pottery assemblage and include fragments from a Moselkeramik beaker, several Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (4 and 12% respectively) and miscellaneous mortaria (10%)

There are, however, certain problems associated with the Magnus House assemblages in that abnormallylarge quantities of North Gaulish grey wares are present and Verulamium Region Whitewares, known to be present elsewhere in London, are absent. This phenomenon is probably due to the pottery assemblages being largely derived from waterborne supply rather than representing overall pottery trade with London. This is an important point which, although it creates a bias towards waterborne pottery imports in the two assemblages, has something to say about the means by which BB1 was supplied to London: this is discussed below (p. 45).

The second group of assemblages, comprising those from Groups 17, 18, 19 and 20 occupation outside the temple, is contemporary in part with the above but goes on somewhat later as it is derived from occupation rather than constructional contexts: a white-slipped Alice Holt dish fragment suggests a terminal date to deposition after 270 AD. The group of assemblages is larger and more viable than the previous one (4.59 EVE) but has a very similar 41% of BB1 as well as pottery from a considerably greater variety of other sources compared with the temple pottery. The coarse pottery from this new range of sources includes Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares (3%) and Colchester 306 bowls and jars in pimply-grey fabric (10%). These seem to have partially replaced Thameside products, with the latter’s share of this assemblage reduced to 28%. The

Phase 4 is dated to c. 209-225 AD by both dendrochronology and stratigraphy. The total 4.90 EVE pottery assemblage is rather small and the coarse pottery element even smaller (2.90 EVE.). BB1 makesup a mere 3% of the coarse pottery, with BB2 from both Essex and north Kent Thameside sources making-up more than half of that part of the assemblage (58%): North Gaulish greywares account for much of the rest. The BB1 types or type recorded as coming from the deposits associated with this phase are not in the published report but probably come from just one vessel. The dating appears to show that BB1 started to arrive in quantity after 225 AD; the very time that 44

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

BB1 includes fragments from a type 1.4 cooking-pot (c. 280-370 AD), four type 6.2 and two type 6.4 bowls (c. 210-280/90, 240-290/300 AD), as well as two type 8.3 and one type 8.5 dish (c. 200-270, 220-300 AD). The fine and specialised wares are even more significant in this assemblage (46%) and include fragments from Moselkeramik and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (5%) a Much Hadham Oxidised ware beaker (6%) a wall-sided Colchester Whiteware mortarium (3%), two Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (3%) and a Rhenish wall-sided example (2%). The presence of a complete flagon top in a colour-coat fabric of uncertain origin (22%) has, however, distorted the significance of the finewares considerably

Although BB1 was an important component in London’s pottery supply during much of the 3rd century AD, it was even more significant immediately outside the walls. Excavations at Shadwell during the early 1970s revealed a square stone tower with ditches, postholes and other occupation deposits (Johnson 1975). Further excavations were carried out during the following year (Lakin et al 2002). A late 3rd century context in the fills of the Structure 4 boundary ditch (Context 361) yielded a significant 12.25 EVE assemblage of pottery, excluding the Samian which could not be examined at the time of processing by the author. The 4.43 EVE coarseware element in the remainder is totally dominated by BB1 (94%): the rest consists of Verulamium Region Whitewares (3%), Thameside greywares (1%) and Essex coarsewares (2%). The BB1 includes fragments from an example of cooking-pot type 1.2 (c. 210-280 AD), several others of indeterminate types (c. 200-400 AD), seven examples of incipient beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD), five of developed type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and ten dishes of types 8.3 and 8.5 (c. 200-270 and 220-300 AD): fragments from two Class 9 oval dishes with handles are also present (c. 270-400 AD). The non-Samian finewares make up the majority of the total pottery (64%), including fragments from 12 Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers, a box lid and a flagon (45%) and much smaller quantities of those from four Moselkeramik and two Cologne beakers (10%)

The third assemblage is dated to c. 280-300 AD and consists of a 4.36 EVE group of pottery from the third reflooring of the nave of the Mithraeum, together with occupation over it and in the south and north aisles. It is similar in size to the previous one and has a similar percentage of BB1 (42%). The presence of Thameside wares is further reduced to 14% of the coarse pottery and post-AD 270 white and black-slipped Alice Holt wares now account for 7% of it. A significant element in the coarsewares seems to have been coming in by land from north of London and comprises Verulamium Region Whitewares (18%) and Much Hadham greywares (19%). This increase in probable overland pottery supply may perhaps be due to the dislocation brought about by the destruction of much of London’s quayside and its replacement by a riverside wall at around 270 AD. If this were the case, the BB1 supply was as yet unaffected, but not for very long. Vessels in this fabric include fragments from indeterminate obtuse-latticed cooking-pots (c. 200-400 AD), one each of bowl types 6.1 and 6.2 and three of type 6.4 (c. 180-250, 210-280/90, 240-300 AD), as well as a dish of type 8.3 (c. 200-270 AD). The 29% fine and specialist wares include beakers in Moselkeramik, Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat and Cologne Colour-coat (4%,3% and 12% respectively) and Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (6%).

This assemblage is quite extraordinary and suggests that the BB1 wares for London were unloaded here at wharfage created after the construction of London’s riverside wall during the 270s AD. The high BB1 percentage figure is confirmed to be more than an aberration and its dating more precisely fixed by a pottery assemblage in drain feature 289 from the original excavations (Johnson 1975). This 53 pot assemblage was quantified by myself using the minimum number of vessels method in 1977 and had 94% BB1 and 6% miscellaneous Essex coarsewares. The drain also yielded a coin of Allectus (AD 293-96) in association with the pottery.

The Mithraeum pottery groups were quantified by the author before their publication (Shepherd 1998). Comparison of the published quantification tables with those used here is rendered difficult by the published ones being based on minimum numbers of vessels rather than EVEs and sometimes combining or dividing the pottery groups in a different manner to here. None of the three Mithraeum pottery assemblages used here can be exactly compared with the published groups, although combination of the Floors 1 and 2 and Floor 3 assemblages approximates to the published Group VIII (ibid.: 155-7). This blurs the transition from BB2 to BB1 supply and has BB1 making up 32%, BB2 19%, Verulamium Region Whitewares 7% and Alice Holt/ Farnham wares 9% of the coarse pottery.

The pottery assemblage from the fills of the Period 4, Phase 3 recut boundary ditch in the later 2002-3 excavations at Shadwell spans the transition from the late 3rd to the early 4th century (Gerrard and Lyne 2011: Key Group 2). This assemblage was originally subdivided into pottery from the lower and upper fills but not published as such. The 83 sherds from the lower fills have BB1 making up 75% of the coarseware fragments and Essex Thameside grey and BB2 ones 16%. The BB1 sherds include fragments from two obtuselatticed cooking-pots (c. 200-400 AD), a type 6.2 bowl (c. 210-280/90 AD) and four type 6.4 examples (c. 240290/300 AD). The 36% fine and specialised wares include fragments from several Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (23%), late East Gaulish Samian forms (5%), a 45

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Moselkeramik beaker (2%), an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium (1%) and a Gauloise 4 wine amphora (3%).

AD London pottery assemblages is the high percentages of bowls and dishes in all coarseware fabrics. Only in the latest 3rd century Mithraeum assemblage does the jar percentage exceed that of bowls and dishes. It is noticeable that the Thameside industry, superceded by BB1, also displays a tendency for bowls to be common, but BB1 seems to have had a near monopoly in coarse dish supply right from the early years of its 3rd century AD penetration of the London market.

The 184 sherds from the upper fills of this ditch were also quantified by numbers of sherds and their weights per fabric and have BB1 making up a smaller 26% of the coarse pottery and including fragments from obtuse-latticed cooking-pots, two type 6.8 undecorated beaded-and-flanged bowls (c. 270/300-370 AD) and one each of dish types 8.2 (c. 200-270 AD) and 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). Much of the BB1 has been replaced by Essex grey and BB2 wares (47%) and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares appear for the first time (9%). Fine and specialised wares make up 43% of this assemblage, with a continued emphasis on Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (18%). Other finewares include East Gaulish and Central Gaulish Samian (7%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat (1%), an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium (1%), Gauloise 4 amphorae (8%), Dressel 20 olive oil amphorae (2%) and a Tripolitanian example (1%)

Pottery assemblages from settlements in the countryside away from the immediate environs of London display a marked fall-off in the percentages of BB1. A 5.21 EVE pottery assemblage from ditch-fill contexts BD/3 and 5 at the Bemish Road, Putney site is associated with 14 coins of the Tetrici (AD 270-274): it has selfslipped Alice Holt/Farnham greywares predominant in the coarse pottery element (54%) and post 260/270 black/white slip decorated vessels from the same source accounting for a further 2%. Minority coarsewares in this c. 250-300 AD dated pottery assemblage include Verulamium Region Whitewares (18%), Thameside greywares (9%), Harrold Shell-tempered wares (4%) and BB1 (3%). The latter is represented by fragments from two type 8.5 dishes (c.200-270 AD). Fine and specialised wares make-up 29% of the total pottery assemblage and consist of Central Gaulish Samian open forms (8%), Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (3%), Lower Nene Valley mortaria (2%) and colour-coated finewares of ?local origin (16%)

The pottery from the lower fills of this ditch was probably deposited during the last years of the 3rd century AD and most of that in the upper fills just after AD 300: it records the beginning of a marked shift in coarse pottery supply to Shadwell from BB1 to Essex greywares. Well context 403 at the Union Street B site in Southwark produced a large very fresh looking 9.59 EVE assemblage of pottery associated with a radiate of AD 270 and probably dating to c. 250-300 AD. This assemblage comes from a limited range of sources and is very largely made up of BB1 (49%) and Thameside greywares (32%). The presence of small quantities of pre 270/300 AD dated self-slipped Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (6%) is interesting: such wares are significant on sites in Surrey and in the Thames valley upstream of London throughout the first half of the 3rd century but are rarely found within the city walls. The BB1 includes fragments from several examples of Bestwall type 1.3 cooking-pots (c. 240-280 AD), five type 6.2 incipientbeaded and flanged bowls (c. 210-280/90 AD), one type 6.4 developed-beaded-and-flanged bowl (c. 240290/300 AD), two type 7.1 beaded-and-flanged dishes (c. 150/200-300 AD), eleven type 8.3 dishes (c. 200-270 AD), one type 8.4 dish (c. 200-270 AD), eight type 8.5 dishes (c. 220-300 AD) and a dish basal fragment with Redcliff motif (c. 290-330 AD). The 5% finewares are made up entirely of fragments from Lower Nene Valley Colourcoat beakers.

A c. 260-330 AD dated pottery assemblage comes from the lower fill of a Ditch (Z2) at the 233-246 High Street site in Brentford (Laws 1978): this also yielded a number of coins ranging in date between AD 259 and 326. The associated 24.43 EVE pottery assemblage is from a variety of different sources, with the coarse pottery element including BB1 products (10%), those from the Alice Holt/Farnham industry kilns (54%), Verulamium Region Whitewares (7%) and Thameside greywares (4%). The BB1 includes examples of obtuse-latticed cookingpots (c. 200-400+ AD), a type 5.1 beaker (c. 120-300 AD), three type 6.2 and one type 6.4 bowl (c. 210-280/290 and 240-290/300 AD), two type 8.5 dishes (c. 220-300 AD) and eight type 8.13 examples (c. 220-370 AD). Finewares are significant (22%) and include fragments from Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls, dishes, beakers and flagons (11%), Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (1%), Oxfordshire Parchment ware bowls and beakers (1%), Moselkeramik and Colchester Colour-coat beakers (2%) as well as a variety of forms in Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat fabric (5%). The variety of Oxfordshire RedColour-coat and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat forms is perhaps due to the early 4th century AD element in the assemblage.

A glance at Appendix 5 shows that all of the London sites have one thing in common: whereas BB1 cooking-pots tend to make a poor showing in comparison with bowls and dishes from the same source elsewhere in the southeast of Britain, here in London they are often nearly as significant. Another interesting feature of 3rd century 46

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

Further south in Surrey, Context 78201 at the Beddington villa yielded mainly 3rd century AD pottery, although a few 4th century AD sherds are also present. Of this large 13.38 EVE assemblage, 57% of the coarsewares are in pre-AD 270 Alice Holt/Farnham greyware, 7% in the white-slipped post AD 270 fabric, 27% in Thameside greyware and only 3% of BB1 origin. These latter include fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD), three dishes of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD) and a Class 9 oval dish with handles (c. 270-400 AD). The few fineware fragments (4%) come from Moselkeramik, Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat and Colchester Colour-coat beakers, as well as a Much Hadham Oxidised ware jar.

Drummond-Murray 2005). Kilns were in operation from the mid 1st until the early 4th century AD, producing pottery which owed nothing to the local Late Iron Age potting tradition and seems to owe its inspiration to what was being produced around Tongres in Gallia Belgica during the early Roman period. A variety of coarse and fineware fabrics were employed during the late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD but by AD 200 all of the output was in Verulamium Region Whiteware and comprised little more than cooking-pots with triangular-section rims, reeded-rim bowls, mortaria and flagons. The very name Verulamium Region Whiteware had become a misnomer by then in that, whereas some of the early products had been fired white or buff, the later ones are usually orange or orange-brown. Reeded-rim bowl, mortaria and flagon output had largely ceased by the mid 3rd century AD, leaving just the cooking-pots.

At the Lincoln Road, Enfield site 17 kilometres north of Londinium (Gentry et al 1977), Context BBX3 was of late 3rd to early 4th century AD date and its coarse pottery content dominated by Much Hadham Greyware products (62%). A local kiln or kilns producing hard pimply greywares accounts for a further 22%, the Alice Holt/Farnham industry for 2% and the Verulamium Whiteware one for 6% of the coarsewares in the 9.90 EVE assemblage. The local kiln cannot have been very far away from the site as a very overfired waster is present in the assemblage. The 4% BB1 includes fragments from five obtuse-latticed latticed cookingpots (c. 200-400 AD), three type 5.1 beakers (c. 120-300 AD) and bodysherds from a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). The finewares are made up of Moselkeramik, Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat and Much Hadham Oxidised ware beakers (9%).

A second large pottery industry was based at Much Hadham, south-west of Bishops Stortford on the eastern side of Hertfordshire. This industry produced wares in a variety of fabrics, some of which are discussed by Going in his Chelmsford pottery report (1987). The most significant fabric during the later Roman period was a fine and silty one, either oxidised orange (Much Hadham Oxidised ware) or reduced to a blue-grey colour (Much Hadham Greyware). The forms associated with the two fabrics have led to the oxidised version being regarded as a fineware here and the reduced version as a coarseware, but it must be confessed that this arrangement is not entirely satisfactory as certain forms are found in both fabrics. Both fabric variants were used on necked-bowls and jars decorated with raised bosses or dimples; the most important variant of which used to be called Romano-Saxon ware (Roberts 1982 and Myres 1986: 89). Other forms, including bottles and flagons, were also made in both fabric variants but beaded-and-flanged bowls and straight-sided dishes are normally only found in the grey version and also in a brown sandy fabric with polished black slip: the latter probably represents an attempt to imitate BB1 in a wheel-turned fabric.

Cooking-pots are the predominant vessel form on most of the Greater London sites; contrasting strongly with the situation on sites in London itself. The BB1 supply pattern is very variable: there are no bowls and dishes in the Fulham Palace and Enfield assemblages, whereas at Putney there are no cooking-pots. Volumes of BB1 are small and the impression is given of random pots being acquired in the market at London. The Civitas of the Catuvellauni In Roman times, what are now the counties of Middlesex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire were largely covered by the tribal civitas of the Catuvellauni. The civitas capital was at Verulamium, now St Albans, on Watling Street twenty-two miles north-west of London. Verulamium was the fourth-largest walled city in Britannia and is unique in the British provinces, as far as is known, in having the rank of Municipium: this explains the lack of a tribal suffix to the name of the city.

At this time, Much Hadham wares were significant in the east of Hertfordshire on sites close to Ermine Street and in north-west Essex, but are also found in small quantities in late 3rd century AD Verulamium assemblages and further west. The Harrold shelltempered ware producing kilns lay in southern Bedfordshire, outside the area covered by this paper but small quantities of their products are found in late 3rd century AD pottery assemblages across Hertfordshire and down into the Thames valley.

Verulamium had its own large potteries with centres of production known at Bricket Wood, Radlett and other places around Verulamium in Hertfordshire, Brockley Hill in Middlesex and Moorgate, London (Seeley and

The King Harry Lane site outside Verulamium’s Silchester gate had a Late Iron Age and Early Roman roadside cemetery followed by later occupation beside the road. This occupation came to an end c. 260 AD; 47

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) an event which was thought to be associated with the construction of the city walls by the excavators (Stead and Rigby 1989). Three cellars containing pottery from the 3rd century AD occupation were found alongside the road and further similarly-dated pottery, associated with a coin of Caracalla (AD 211-217), came from Feature 18. This 59 vessel assemblage was quantified by the excavators using the minimum numbers of vessels method (Ibid.69). The assemblage Is dominated by Verulamium Region Whiteware products (58%) with only nominal amounts of BB1 (8%). The latter includes the greater parts of a flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.1 (c. 180-250 AD) and a dish of type 8.2 (c. 200-270 AD).

4). It is too small for meaningful quantification in detail but, despite Frere’s c. 400-435 AD dating, is clearly late 3rd century in date (Lyne 2016) and has BB1 making up a much-increased 43% of it, including fragments from 2 examples of Bestwall beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and four of dish type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). The BB1 percentage can not be regarded as being anywhere near accurate but the fact that there are rim sherds from six different vessels in an assemblage with such sherds from a maximum of 16 coarseware vessels indicates the significance of the fabric. Here again, the finewares were not available for study. The third, 12.03 EVE, assemblage comes from the fill of roadside ditch 487 at the unpublished Verulamium Museum Extension site and dates to the late 3rd century AD (Lyne Forthcoming P). Here again, the most significant coarseware fabric is BB1 (34%) and includes fragments from a cavetto-rim cooking pot of Bestwall type 1.4 (c. 280-370 AD), a beaker of type 5.1 (c. 120300 AD), an incipient-beaded and flanged bowl of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD) and four examples of developed beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD). Verulamium Region Whitewares make up a further 28%, Much Hadham Greywares 18% and Harrold Shelltempered wares 9%. Finewares make-up a high 53% of all of the pottery, with a predominance of Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers, boxes and lids (32%): other finewares include East Gaulish Samian (2%), Much Hadham Oxidised jars and flagons (14%), Moselkeramik beakers (2%) and Oxfordshire Whiteware and Red Colour-coat mortaria (3%).

Fine and specialised wares make-up a high 42% of this assemblage and include Lower Nene Valley Colourcoat vessels (19%), Samian (8%), a Verulamium Region Whiteware mortarium (2%) and Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (5%). Feature 7 produced potsherds from 97 vessels of later 3rd century AD date, although regarded by the excavators as belonging to the early 4th century AD. The pottery is later than the construction of the city wall and the quantification indicates that 34% of the coarse pottery was now BB1, made up almost entirely of bowls and dishes of types 6.2, 6.4, 8.3 and 8.5 (c. 210-280/90, 240-300, 200-270 and 220-300 AD). Oxidised Verulamium Region Whitewares account for a further 20% and Thameside products for 6% of the coarse pottery. Finewares account for an even higher 65% of this assemblage and comprise Lower Nene Valley Colourcoat vessels (27%), Samian (27%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat (9%) and Moselkeramik beakers (2%).

The fourth assemblage is made up of pottery from the destruction debris in Insula XIX (Layers 14a and 15) and was dated by Frere to c. 290-310 AD (1983,130). Verulamium kiln products are predominant in the 5.40 EVE coarseware element of the assemblage (59%) with Much Hadham Greywares accounting for a further 14%. BB1 is far less significant here (10%) but includes fragments from a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). This pottery assemblage was accompanied by a barbarous radiate and a small hoard, of which the latest coin is of Probus (AD 276-82): this 90 coin hoard is, however, thought to have been deposited in the wall or roof of the building some time before its destruction. As with the other pottery assemblages from Frere’s excavations, the finewares were not seen.

Four late 3rd century AD pottery assemblages from within the walls of Verulamium were examined, three of which come from Frere’s 1958 excavations. The earlier of those three assemblages comes from the lowest occupation in the L-shaped underground Room 11 in Insula XXVIII and was dated by coins as mid 3rd century down to AD 275 (Frere 1983: 263). BB1, including fragments from dish type 8.3 (c. 200-270 AD), accounts for only 2% of the 18.11 EVE coarse pottery assemblage, with Verulamium Region Whiteware products predominant (51%) and Much Hadham Greywares second (13%). The presence of fragments from a number of Thameside ‘pie-dishes’ (8%) probably reflects trade with Londinium, where such wares were being marketed in quantity during the same period. This pottery assemblage has much in common with that from the King Harry Lane site Feature 18 and is of similar date. The finewares were not seen by this author.

In all four of these Verulamium coarseware assemblages, the BB1 element has a predominance of open forms. At the Park Street villa just south of St Albans, a staircase well was blocked off and back-filled with rubbish during the early 4th century AD (O’Neil 1947). The 13.23 EVE pottery assemblage had a coin of AD 325 in association and can be dated to the late 3rd and early 4th centuries AD. Oxidised Verulamium Region Whitewares account

The second pottery assemblage comes from the uppermost fills of the corn-drier in the Period IV D third phase of Building XXVII (Frere 1983: 223-4, Layers 3 and 48

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

for 27% and Much Hadham Greywares for 6% of the coarse pottery: BB1, in the form of Bestwall cookingpot types 1.2A and 1.2B (c. 210-250 and 230-280 AD) and bowls of types 6.4 and 6.5 (c. 240-290/300 and 280300 AD), is quite significant at 18% of the assemblage. Considering that the assemblage is both late 3rd century and early 4th century AD in date, with early 4th century Harrold shell-tempered forms making up 12%, BB1 may have been a considerably more important component of the late 3rd century AD element. Of the 18% finewares, the majority are Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers, bowls and box lids (11%) with a Moselkeramik beaker (1%) and Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat bowls and beakers (6%).

from a drainage-gully adjacent to Building 2, with a coin of Victorinus (AD 268-70) and three barbarous radiates associated. The 27.00 EVE pottery assemblage is of late 3rd century AD date, with the coarse pottery including an abnormally-high percentage of BB1 for a rural site (25%). The form make-up for the BB1 element has a predominance of open forms but is unusual for a rural assemblage in that jars are well-represented, whereas they are normally insignificant. In this respect, the high BB1 element in the Dickets Mead assemblage has something in common with the London ones and may have either been brought to the site direct from there or indicate that what could have been a fulling mill was under military control. The BB1 includes fragments from five type 1.1 cooking-pots, three type 6.2 bowls, four type 6.4 examples and two type 8.5 dishes. The bulk of the remainder of the coarse-pottery is in Verulamium Region Whiteware (41%) with a smaller percentage (29%) emanating from the Much Hadham kilns. Most of the 24% finewares consists of a variety of forms in Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat (13%) and Much Hadham Oxidised ware (11%).

As we move south-west into the Chilterns, the BB1 element in pottery assemblages declines. At the Chenies villa at Latimer (Branigan 1971), a 20.17 EVE late 3rd to early 4th century AD pottery assemblage from the 191012 excavations has 36% Colne Valley kilns products, 26% Verulamium Region Whitewares, 12% Harrold Shelltempered ware, 6% Thameside greywares, 5% Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares and 7% BB1 but is rather poorly dated and includes a little later 4th century pottery. The BB1 includes fragments from two type 6.2 bowls (c. 210280/90 AD), a type 6.5 bowl (c. 280-300 AD), a type 6.8 bowl (c. 270-370 AD) and three type 8.5 dishes (c. 220-300 AD). The 8% fine and specialised pottery includes mortaria in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat and Oxfordshire Whiteware (4%) and a beaker and box lid in Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat fabric (1%).

Pottery assemblages from two small towns at the northern and southern edges of the civitas of the Catuvellauni were also quantified. At Baldock in the extreme north of Hertfordshire, the 10.54 EVE pottery assemblage from the late 3rd century AD dated well TV/F21 (Stead and Rigby 1986) had an insignificant percentage of BB1 (1%); all from a single type 8.5 dish. The small town of Baldock is situated on a branch road leading west from Ermine Street and the well deposit received the bulk of its coarse pottery (60%) from the Much Hadham kilns, with the Harrold Shell-tempered ware ones supplying a further 28%. The well assemblage is lacking in Verulamium Region Whitewares. The fine and specialist pottery comprises fragments from Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (4%), Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers and a flagon (11%), as well as a Much Hadham Oxidised ware flagon (1%).

The Period II contexts X7 and X4 from beneath the outer courtyard at the Bledlow-cum-Saunderton villa are dated by coins to the mid 3rd century AD (Ashcroft 1939) and yielded a small 3.10 EVE pottery assemblage. This has BB1 making up a mere 2% of the coarse pottery: the bulk of the rest comes from the Fulmer and Hedgerley kilns in the Colne valley near Gerrards Cross. The BB1 includes fragments from a type 6.2 bowl and three 8.5 dishes.

The other small town is that at Staines (Pontes), lying on the north dank of the Thames where the road from London to Silchester crosses that river. It appears to have declined in importance during the 3rd century AD, due in part to the flooding of low-lying riverside areas. A very-large pottery assemblage from rubbish dumped over flood deposite at the Quakers Burial Ground site (Crouch snd Shanks 1984: Y28 B6-2) is dated by coins to the 3rd and early 4th centuries AD; a date supported by the fact that of the 38% Alice Holt wares present nearly two-thirds belong to the period c. 200-270/300 AD and the rest to c. 270/300-350 AD. Verulamium Region Whitewares appear to be significant (15%) but considerable upwards distortion of the percentage has been brought about by the presence of complete flagon necks. These are, however, of 2nd century AD date and highlight a problem with the assemblage in that it

Another feature of these three rural sites south and west of Verulamium is a steady increase in the importance of jars in comparison with bowls and dishes as one moves further away from the city. A less-well-defined version of the same phenomenon was encountered around London: in both cases the lowest late 3rd century AD percentages of jars came not from within the citywalls themselves but from sites in the immediate neighbourhood. The reason for this seems at least in part to be the presence of large percentages of bowl and dish biased BB1 at Shadwell and Southwark, just outside London, and from the extra-mural King Harry Lane site at Verulamium. The Dickets Mead site at Welwyn in Hertfordshire (Rook 1989) produced a rather unusual pottery assemblage 49

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) includes a considerable amount of residual pottery. The BB1 wares (13%) include an unusually strong beaker element: there is a little residual 2nd century AD BB1 but the bulk appears to date after AD 220 and there is nothing which needs to be later than AD 300. Given this, it seems possible that, could we isolate the total 3rd century element within this pottery assemblage, we would find the BB1 share considerably greater than it is overall. Once again, the BB1 distribution emphasis is on open forms, although the cooking-pot element is significant, in an assemblage which has fragments from at least seven types 1.2 and 1.3 cooking-pots, nine beakers of type 5.1, six bowls of type 6.2, one of type 6.4, four dishes of type 8.2 to 8.4, five of type 8.5 and six of types 8.11 to 8.13. The jar to open-form ratios in all coarse ware fabrics combined are very similar at Verulamium, Baldock and Staines; the jars in all cases being confined within the 60 – 70% bracket. Finewares make up a mere 7% of the total pottery assemblage and include fragments from Moselkeramik beakers (1%), Oxfordshire industry products (3%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (1%).

Four major potteries supplied the civitas during the 3rd century AD and later, of which Much Hadham lay just beyond its western boundary and had an easterly bias in its trading patterns. Its products are found across Essex, north into Suffolk and Cambridgeshire and in London: much smaller amounts are found in on sites in Surrey, Kent and Sussex. An assortment of coastal pottery production centres at Orsett, Heybridge (Drury and Wickenden 1982) and Thurrock (Rodwell 1971) produced a variety of fine and coarse greywares, of which some are similar to those produced by the Thameside kilns just across the estuary. There were further kilns at Colchester (Hull 1963) producing similar forms in similar fabrics and believed to be one of the sources of the ‘BB2’ found in the northern military zone in assemblages dated to the later 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD (Williams 1977). There were kilns producing rough greywares with coarse quartz-sand and crushed-flint filler at Rettenden (Tildesley 1971) and Chelmsford (Drury 1972). Whereas the previously mentioned potteries had been active since the 1st century AD, these kilns were newcomers on the scene, supplying a small local market at this stage but destined to become more regionally important during the early 4th century.

Our final site from the region is Staines Hythe, immediately across the Thames from the small town. The coarse pottery from this unpublished excavation comes mainly from the fill of a massive ditch: the lower fills are dated to the later 3rd century AD by the excavator and the upper fills to the early 4th century and in this respect are more tightly dated than the pottery assemblage from the town itself. The most important coarse pottery source during the late 3rd century AD was the Alice Holt/Farnham industry (65%) with the local Thames valley high-fired pimply wares coming a poor second (8%). There is very little BB1 (3%) which, in view of what we have said about that fabric in relation to the more broadly dated Quakers site assemblage, suggests that BB1 trading at Staines was largely confined to the town. Finewares are absent.

All of these potteries, apart from the last, produced significant quantities of bowls and dishes. The Orsett, Thurrock and Heybridge kilns specialised in ‘pie-dishes’ and straight-sided dishes in fine-sanded grey BB2 fabric with glossy black slip. Colchester received regular but small quantities of BB1 throughout the 3rd century AD. Vessels in this fabric accounted for between 1 and 3% of all of the coarse pottery in assemblages dating to between c. 200 and 275 AD but this figure rose to nearly 5% during the last quarter of the century (Symonds and Wade pers. comm.). It is possible that these small amounts of BB1 were coming in directly from Dorset by sea rather than by road from London or elsewhere, as some of the rarer BB1 types are present. These include Bestwall Class 9 oval dishes with handles, a flange-necked storage jar of type 3.1 (c.200-300 AD) and a beaded-and-flanged dish of type 7.1 (c. 200-300 AD): the last two are rarely encountered outside the civitas of the Durotriges.

The pattern of BB1 supply within the civitas of the Catuvellauni is similar in most respects to that around Silchester, Dorchester on Thames and Winchester. The highest percentages recorded are those from the late 3rd century AD Feature18 at King Harry Lane and the roadside ditch at the Museum Extension site. These are both open-form biased and date to immediately after the construction of the Verulamium city walls. For the most part, the 3rd century AD pottery assemblages from villa and small-town sites in the civitas have smaller percentages of BB1: the one exception is the Dickets Mead site at Welwyn, the significance of which is discussed above (p. 49).

Tiny quantities of BB1 (2%) are also present in the pottery assemblage from Context CF16.482 from the 1988 excavations at Chelmsford. This assemblage is dated to the early 4th century AD by the excavator (Colin Wallace pers.com.) but it is this author’s opinion that there are late 3rd century AD elements as well. Bowls and dishes are the only BB1 forms that are present. Elsewhere, Going has produced other statistics, also based on EVEs which show BB1 to be absent from

The Civitas of the Trinovantes The civitas of the Trinovantes received very little BB1 pottery: in this respect it is very similar to western Kent. 50

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

site assemblages of early 3rd century AD date from the south-east part of the town. The late 3rd century AD pottery assemblages quantified by him had 2.85% BB1 (Going 1987,Table 9).

the connections between the large Classis Britannica and later Saxon Shore forts there and others across the Channel in Britannia. Elsewhere in northern Gaul, sites like Penly and Etalondes in Seine Maritime have yielded a few mid-to-late 2nd century BB1 bowls and dishes from occupation assemblages and burials (Yves Marie Adrian pers comm, Cholet 2015). These, however, are unlikely to be the result of organised trade.

No late 3rd century AD dated pottery assemblages from the small town of Great Dunmow were looked at by the author but an earlier one dated c. 190-240 AD had no BB1 at all. The Heybridge site on the estuary of the River Crouch near Malden also lacked BB1 in the pottery assemblage from the late 3rd century AD dated Well 79 fills (Wickenden 1987) and the same also applies to the similarly dated one from Well 4 at Wickford a short distance to the west.

The last quarter of the 3rd century AD saw the commencement of regular supply of small quantities of BB1 pottery to sites in northern Gaul. This commencement of small-scale trade can be dated to after AD 250-80 by the lack of flanged bowls of Bestwall type 6.1 and the near absence of bowls of Bestwall type 6.2, other than two from Boulogne and one from the 2016 Rue du Chateau d’Eue site at Montmain in the Department of Seine Maritime: the example from Montmain is unusual in including large quantities of Kimmeridge shale waste in the filler. The presence of 19 beaded-and-flanged bowls of types 6.4 and 6.5 (c. 240-300 AD) at Bayeux (4) Touffreville (2) and Vieux (3) in the Department of Calvados, Alet in Brittany (3), Boulogne (1), Lillebonne (1) and Rouen (4) in the Department of Seine Maritime and one from the Quend monastic site on what was then an island in the estuary of the River Somme indicates that this commencement of deliberate trade in BB1 pottery took place between AD 280 and 300.

The mainly 3rd century AD pottery assemblage from Context DXII-4 at the unpublished Marshall’s Farm site near Southend came from a corn-dryer and had two denari of Julia Mamaea (AD 222-235) associated. Local Thurrock/Mucking type grey wares make up the vast bulk of the coarse pottery, but BB1 is represented by a solitary straight-sided dish fragment (1%). A late 3rd century AD dated pottery assemblage from the primary silting in a drainage gully (XIII-3B) was associated with a coin of Carausius (c. 286-293 AD) and includes nominal amounts of BB1 (2%). The bulk of the greywares are still local, but coarse Rettenden products had now made their appearance and account for 25% of the assemblage. This industry came into existence c. 280 AD and is discussed by Going (1987,10). Its main products were jars with hooked rims; sometimes with swan’s neck section: this form is also characteristic of some of the coarse-sanded Thameside jars of early 4th century Kent (Pollard 1988,124). Finewares make-up 9% of the total pottery assemblage and comprise fragments from both Oxfordshire and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (5% and 4% respectively).

This deliberate trading in BB1 in France after AD 280 and before 300 is further supported by 45 examples of dishes of Bestwall types 8.5 and 8.6 (c. 220-290/300 AD) from sites there. Alet in Brittany has produced four of these, Vieux in Calvados 10, Aizier in the Department of Eure six, Grigneuesville two, La Haussaye Berenger one, Lillebonne five, Penly five, Rouen eight and Totes one in the Department of Seine Maritime, Amiens one and Quend two in the Department of Somme and Boulogne another one.

BB1 is very thin on the ground in the north-west of Essex. It is absent from the Great Chesterford layer D2 and other assemblages from Annable’s unpublished excavations, as it is from the 3rd century AD Pit 1 at Radwinter. The somewhat more mixed material from Pit 2 did, however, yield a couple of BB1 fragments.

Of the four earlier examples of dish types 8.2 and 8.4 (c. 200-270 AD), two are from Boulogne and two from the ?monastic site at Quend in the Somme estuary: the latter site is not far from Boulogne and may have acquired its pottery from there.

The 1973/74 excavations at Wendens Ambo, eight kilometres south of Great Chesterford, (Hodder 1983) yielded a number of 3rd and 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages. One of these assemblages (186.3) from a gully includes a nominal percentage of BB1 (4%) in a pottery assemblage with a total predominance of Much Hadham wares (76%).

Class 1 BB1 cooking-pots present us with a problem in that their rims tend to shear off at the junction with the body and create difficulties in identifying which types they come from. This problem is compounded by the fact that type 1.4 was in use from c. 280 to 370 AD. What we can say, however, is that there is an example of Bestwall type 1.3 (c. 240-280+ AD) from Aizier in the Department of Eure and one example each from Lillebonne and Rouen in the Department of Seine Maritime. There are also two examples of type 1.4 from Aizier securely stratified in 3rd century AD contexts: all

The Continental distribution (Figure 13) Boulogne (Gessoriacum) is exceptional on the Continent in receiving BB1 wares in small quantities from the 2nd century AD onwards. This was probably due to 51

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 13: Distribution of BB1 on the Continent and in the Channel Islands. c. AD.250-300

of these sites are close to or on the lower River Seine. The three type 1.4 cooking-pots from the Cite Judiciare site in Bordeaux (Sireix and Convertini 1997, Figs.5,13) are the furthest travelled BB1 vessels from Britannia detected so far: they may have come from ships trading in other goods from Britannia to the port of Burdigala but could be early 4th century in date.

The six 3rd century BB1 vessels from Boulogne are in one assemblage and are accompanied by obtuselatticed cooking-pot fragments (Dhaeze and Sellier 2005: figures 33-5, 6-7, 2, 3 and 4 respectively). BB1 accounts for 3% by minimum numbers of vessels of that pottery assemblage. One of the most easterly Continental findspots with late 3rd century AD BB1 vessels is the shore-fort at Oudenburg in Belgium (Lyne and Vanhoutte 2021). There is no BB1 from the 2nd century AD dated Phases 1 and 2 in the recent excavations but the c. 220-260 AD dated Phase 3 assemblages include a fragment from a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-290/300 AD). Phase 4 (c. 260-300 AD) yielded considerably more BB1, including fragments from obtuse-latticed cooking pots of uncertain profile, two type 6.4 beaded-and-flanged bowls (c. 240-290/300 AD), one of type 6.5 (c. 280-300 AD), two each of types 6.6 and 6.8 (c. 290/300-370 and 270/300-370 AD respectively), ten dishes of type 8.5 (c. 220-290/300 AD) and two of type 8.12 (c.220-370 AD). These date ranges, combined with a lack of type 6.2 bowls, suggest that nearly all of this BB1 arrived on site during the period c. 280/290-30 AD like most of that from northern France.

This late 3rd century AD BB1 is concentrated on sites in the lower Seine valley and on the high ground between Dieppe and Rouen. In the case of the latter, it is found in the final occupation levels at Totes, Grigneusville and Le Haussaye Beranger prior to an almost total cessation of human activity in the area. Amounts of BB1 are very small, usually amounting to less than 1% of any assemblage, and it is tempting to regard the presence of these wares in northern Gaul as ceramic evidence for Carausius’s brief occupation of Rouen and surrounding areas at the commencement of his usurpation in AD 286. Calculations as to percentages of BB1 in late 3rd century pottery assemblages from the urban centres of Lillebonne (Juliabonna) and Rouen (Rotomagus) are based on numbers of potsherds per fabric and give 4% of all the pottery from Lillebonne and 1% of that from Rouen (Adrian and Delage 2010) .

Voorburg (Forum Hadrianii) near Den Haag in the Netherlands (Mark Driessen pers.comm.) is, however, 52

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

important in that it was abandoned in AD 274; indicating that a dish of type 8.2 (c. 200-270 AD) from the siltedup harbour arrived there at an earlier date than most of the BB1 vessels from Continental sites other than Boulogne.

340+ AD, Kiln Z970 to c. 300-350 AD, Kiln Z388 to c. 330350/60 AD and Kiln Z203 to c. 330-370+ AD. The pottery assemblage from Kiln Z762 is too small for meaningful quantification by EVEs: that from Kiln Z227 has cooking-pots making up 73% and open forms 20% and that from Kiln 970 has 63% and 36% respectively. The pottery assemblage from Kiln Z388 has 74% cooking pots and 24% open forms: that from Kiln Z203 has 53% and 38% respectively. These assemblages, with the exception of that from Kiln Z388 show a steady decline in the significance of cooking-pots from three-quarters to half of the kiln assemblages by AD 370: this decline continued after that date (p. 75).

6.3: c. 300-350/370 AD (Figure 14) Although there are many pottery assemblages of combined late 3rd and early 4th century AD date from within the area covered by this paper, purely early 4th century AD dated ones are less common. Because of this, some of those groups with 4th century elements, listed in the previous section and shown in Figure 11, are also depicted in Figure 14. They are distinguished from the purely early 4th century AD assemblages by delineating the percentage segments on the relevant site symbols in outline only.

The 387 sherds of pottery from Kiln Z762 include fragments from bowl forms 6.2, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.8 (c. 210-280/90, 280-300, 290/300-370 and 270-370 AD respectively), two examples of dish form 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD), three of form 8.7 (c. 290-330 AD) and a dish of form 8.11 (c. 220-370 AD).

This shortage of purely early 4th century pottery AD assemblages from Britain is a well-known phenomenon and has led to speculation that levels of pottery production were in decline during this period as just one symptom of a general economic malaise (Going 1992). This author does not subscribe to this view but believes that some of this alleged pottery shortage is an illusion resulting from assemblage dating problems created by the sharp decline in coin loss between AD 296 and 330. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the BB1 pottery industry’s market in south-east Britain, the period was certainly one of decline reflected in a marked fall-off in the presence of such wares in c. 300370 AD dated assemblages from all over the region outside of the civitas of the Durotriges.

The 865 sherds from Kiln Z227 include fragments from cooking-pots of types 1.4 and 1.6 (c. 280-370 and 340-370 AD), a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.6 (c. 290/300370 AD), eight of type 6.8 (c. 270/300-370 AD), one of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), three dishes of type 8.11, four of type 8.12 and one of type 8.13 (c. 220-370 AD), an oval dish of type 9.2 (c. 270/300-370 AD) and a tankard of type 11.2 (c. 270-370 AD). The 501 fragments from Kiln Z970 include sherds from cooking-pots of type 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), two bowls of type 6.6 (c. 290/300-370 AD), seven of type 6.8 (c. 270370 AD), two dishes each of types 8.8 and 8.11 (c. 290-330 and 220-370 AD) and one each of types 8.12, 8.14 and 8.15 (c. 220-350/370, 350-400+ AD).

Another factor leading to a shortage of early 4th century AD pottery assemblages is the abandonment or near-abandonment of a number of occupation sites in South-East Britain during the last years of the 3rd century AD. This phenomenon is particularly evident on the Sussex coastal plain and in Kent and may be the result of devastation caused by pirate raids and/or rising sea levels.

The smaller 367 sherd assemblage from Kiln Z388 includes fragments from two bowls of type 6.6 (c. 290/300-370 AD), eight of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD), one of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), one each of dish types 8.7 (c. 290-330 AD), 8.11 (c. 220-370 AD) and 8.12 ( c. 220370 AD), two of type 8.14 (c. 350-400+ AD) and a handled dish of type 9.1 (c. 300-400 AD).

A marked feature of BB1 production during this period is an increase in the variety of forms being made by the industry. Most of these new varieties are rarely found outside the civitas of the Durotriges, suggesting a switch from province-wide supply of beaded-andflanged bowls, cooking-pots, straight-sided dishes and very little else to one more focussed on the needs of the local population. The Civitas of the Durotriges

The 1131 fragments from the latest kiln, Z203, include those from cooking-pot type 1.4 (c. 280-370 AD), three of type 1.6 (c. 340-370 AD), one of either type 1.7 or 1.8 (c. 330/340-400+ AD), one each of beaker types 5.3 and 5.4 (c. 350-400+ AD), a bowl of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD), 15 of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), one of dish type 8.8 (c. 290-330 AD), two each of types 8.11 and 8.13 (c. 220350/370 AD) and a coarse oxidised storage-jar of type 13.2 (c. 370-430 AD).

There are five kilns at the Bestwall Quarry site which can be dated to this period (Lyne 2012A). Kiln Z762 can be dated to c. 280/90-330 AD, Kiln Z227 to c. 300-

Three domestic pottery assemblages are also known from Bestwall Quarry and suggest that the preponderance of cooking pots in the pottery assemblages from Kilns 53

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 14: Distribution of BB1 in the South-East of Britain. c. AD.300-350/370

54

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

55

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Z227, Z970 and Z388 may have either been due to wasters being used as pot stands or to them having a greater propensity than open forms to break during firing. A 1541 sherd occupation assemblage from Ditch 2825 spans the entire period and beyond, and has BB1 making up 99% of it, including pieces from cookingpot types 1.4 (c. 280-370 AD), 1.6 and 1.9 (c. 340-370, 350/370-400+ AD), necked-bowls of types 2.2 and 2.5 (c. 350/370-430 AD), two beakers of type 5.3 (c. 350-400+ AD), five bowls of type 6.7 (c. 300-370 AD), 10 of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD), three of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), a flanged-dish of type 7.1 (c. 150/200-300 AD), four of dish type 8.8 (c. 290-330 AD), three of type 8.9 (c. 290-330 AD), five of type 8.11 (c. 220-370 AD), one each of types 8.12, 8.13 (c. 220-350/370 AD) and 8.14 (c. 350-400+ AD) and a strainer of type 15.2 (c. 350-400+ AD). A single sherd from a dish of Young’s type C47 in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabric is also present (1977, c. 270-400 AD)

of the balance being made up of New Forest Greyware jars (12%). The BB1 element consists of jars, bowls and dishes in roughly equal percentages and includes sherds from an indeterminate number of examples of cooking-pot type 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), a beaker of type 5.3 (c. 350-400+ AD), one each of bowl types 6.4 (c. 240290/300 AD) and 6.5 (c. 280-300 AD), five examples of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), one example of dish types 8.7 (c. 290-330 AD) and 11 of types 8.12 and 8.13 (c. 220350/70 AD). Finewares make up 15% of the pottery and consists entirely of New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (8%) and New Forest Parchment ware jars and bowls (7%). Excavation of a section across the bank and ditch of the Phase A Bokerly Dyke (Rahtz 1963) revealed a sealed deposit of pottery-rich rubbish derived from the neighbouring Woodyates settlement. The bank had previously been sectioned by Pitt-Rivers (1892) and a coin of Maximinus II dated AD 308 found on the old ground-surface beneath it. Rahtz dates the Phase A dyke construction to c. 325-30 AD but the true date is probably up-to 15 years earlier: its primary ditch silting was cut by Pit F18, only slightly later in date. This pit contained small quantities of pottery, including BB1 bowls of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and was sealed by rubbish deposit G. There were large numbers of coins in this rubbish, dating its accumulation to the period c. 330-375 AD. The pottery assemblage is of considerable size (15.27 EVE), with BB1 making up 53% of it and New Forest grey-ware a slightly smaller 46%. The BB1 jar percentage is roughly equal to that of combined bowls and dishes in that fabric, whereas the New Forest greywares consist almost entirely of jars. The BB1 includes fragments from an indeterminate number of cooking-pots, including examples of types 1.5, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 (c. 280-370, 330/40-400+, 330/40 – 400+ and 350/70-400+ AD). Other forms include a beaker of type 5.3 (c. 350-400+ AD), a bowl of type 6.5 (c. 280-300 AD), one of 6.6 (c. 290/300-370 AD), two of type 6.7 (c. 300370 AD), five of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD), three of type 8.11 (c. 220350/70 AD), one of type 8.12 (c. 220-350/70 AD) and two of type 8.13 (c. 220-350/70 AD). Two oval dishes of class 9 are also present (c. 270-400 AD).

The 729 sherds from Structure 5 have a similar daterange and percentage of BB1 and include fragments from cooking-pots of types 1.4 and 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), a bowl of type 6.6 (c. 290/300-330 AD), six of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD), one of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), dishes of types 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13 (c. 220-350/370 AD), a lid of indeterminate type and an oxidised storagejar of type 13.1 (c. 200-370 AD). Imported fine and specialised wares account for less than 1% of the total pottery assemblage but include fragments from a C45 dish (c. 270-400 AD), a C51 bowl (c. 240-400+ AD) and a mortarium of indeterminate form in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabric The c. 330-370+ AD dated 1509 sherd pottery assemblage from Structure 6 has BB1 accounting for 97% of the total assemblage and includes fragments from four neckedbowls of type 2.8 (c. 370-400+ AD), two type 6.8 bowls (c. 270-370 AD), nine of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), a dish of type 8.8 (c. 290-330 AD), three of type 8.11, two of type 8.12, one of type 8.13 (c. 220-370 AD), two oval dishes of type 9.1 (c. 300-400 AD) and a tankard of type 11.2 (c. 270-370 AD). Imported finewares make-up 3% of the total pottery assemblage and include fragments from bowls of Fulford’s types 73.3 (c. 345-380 AD) and 63 (c. 270-400+) and a beaker in New Forest Colour-coat fabric, as well as dishes and bowls of Young’s types C46, C51 and C75 in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat (c. 300-400, 240-400 and 325-400 AD. respectively).

The finewares make up nearly a quarter of the total pottery assemblage and comprise fragments from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (17%), New Forest Red Colour-coat bowls and dishes (5%) and an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beaker (1%).

Cooking-pots make up 57% of the BB1 from Ditch Z2825, 49% of that from Structure 5 and 33% of that from Structure 6: these percentages tend to be lower than those from the contemporary kilns.

Sixteen kilometres further up the road from Durnovaria to Sorbiodunum, a pipe-line south of the latter sectioned a large midden at the Paul’s Dene estate (Musty 1960). Further excavations yielded numbers of early 4th century AD coins and large quantities of pottery from the same period (Stone and Algar 1955).

The unpublished White’s Pit earthwork site on Canford Heath north of Poole yielded quantities of pottery of both 3rd and early 4th century AD date. BB1 is totally predominant in a 6.55 EVE assemblage (87%), with most 56

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

The bulk of the coarse-wares (77%) now consist of New Forest greywares, which are once again made-up almost entirely of jars. Most of the BB1 (23%) consists of fragments from bowls and dishes, including beadedand-flanged bowl types 6.4, 6.7 and 6.8 (c. 240-290/300, 300-370, 270/300-370 AD), and straight-sided dish types 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13 (c. 220-350/70 AD). There are many white-painted bodysherds from New Forest purple and brown-colour-coated beakers and flagons; a decorative technique which is dated by Fulford (1975B: 30) to the earlier 4th century AD.

6.8 and 6.9 (c. 270-370 and 300/350-400+ AD). Fine and specialised wares account for 37% of this assemblage, with New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers and redcolour-coat bowls and beakers making-up the largest single component (15%). Other finewares comprise Central Gaulish Samian (4%), Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat beakers and Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (5%). The rest of the finewares and mortaria come from unknown sources.

The Butterfield Down site at Amesbury, ten kilometres north of Sorbiodunum (Fitzpatrick and Rawlings 1990) , had two early 4th century AD pottery assemblages from Corndryer fill 2300 and Context 2331. The coarseware elements in both assemblages are also dominated by New Forest greyware products (59 and 53% respectively) with smaller percentages of BB1 (19 and 16%). The New Forest greywares from the corndryer have a predominance of jars but those from Context 2331 have similar percentages of closed and open forms. The percentages of New Forest greyware are less than at Pauls Dene and more than a quarter of the coarseware vessels come from unidentified local sources. In both assemblages, BB1 has a strong bowl and dish bias and includes fragments from beaded-and-flanged bowl types 6.7 and 6.8 (c. 300-370, 270-370 AD), dish type 8.13 (c. 220-350/70 AD), an oval Class 9 dish (c. 270/300-400 AD) and a jug of uncertain form. Finewares make up 27% and 33% of the two pottery assemblages and are mostly from a variety of forms in New Forest Colour-coat and Parchment ware fabrics (16% and 30%): Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat wares are also present (10% and 2%).

The Hampshire Coast

The Civitas of the Belgae

Two early 4th century AD pottery assemblages from non-rural sites were examined. Those from layers F2A and F2B in the 1939 excavations at Bitterne (Waterman 1948) were associated with occupation inside a timber building. New Forest greywares are the most significant coarsewares (62%), with handmade grog-tempered wares coming second (23%). Both of these wares increased in significance at the expense of BB1, whose share of the coarsewares had declined from 31% in the late 3rd century AD assemblages to 15% of this. There are very few coarseware open forms, although BB1 examples account for 81% of such vessels. It would appear that New Forest Parchment ware bowls were used to rectify some of this deficiency; as appears to have been the case at the Tarrant Hinton villa during this period. Fine and specialised wares make up the majority of this assemblage (54%) but the figure is greatly distorted upwards by the presence of a complete pinch-neck flagon top in New Forest Parchment ware and another of unknown origin. This severely compromises the viability of what is a small 5.53 EVE assemblage. The rest of the finewares all come from the New Forest kilns (13%) with the exception of a few residual Central Gaulish Samian vessel fragments (5%).

It seems that south-east Wiltshire lay very much within the orbit of New Forest greyware marketing: most assemblages have significant percentages of colourcoated finewares from the same source. Within this area, BB1 could make little headway except in the field of supply of open forms. Further west and north in Wiltshire, the situation appears to have been somewhat different and there are much larger percentages of BB1 from rural sites.

The pottery assemblage from Context 108 (163) in the c. 325-345 AD dated Middle Occupation at Portchester has a similar fabric breakdown to that from the Lower Occupation. Here, New Forest Greywares are the most significant in the assemblage (47%) followed by handmade grog-tempered wares (27%): BB1 accounts for 19% and Rowlands Castle greywares for 4%. The reason for the close similarities between the Lower and Middle Occupation figures is due to most of the pottery from the Lower Occupation also belonging to the first quarter of the 4th century (p. 26). The BB1 has a predominance of open forms and includes fragments from numerous examples of Bestwall cooking-pot type 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), two beaded-and-flanged bowls of type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD), eleven of type 6.8 (c. 270 -370 AD), one of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD) and seven dishes of types 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13 (c. 220-350/70 AD). The fine and specialised wares make up 16% of the

The Late Roman occupation site at Stockton earthworks 18 kilometres west of Sorbiodunum had much late 3rd and early 4th century AD coinage associated, but scarcely any which could be dated later than AD 378. The ill-recorded 12.08 EVE pottery assemblage is split between Salisbury and Devizes museums and is not an ideal subject for quantification: nevertheless, the emphasis on BB1 (42%) is so strong that it must reflect something of the true picture as must the poor showing of New Forest greywares (6%). Half of the coarse pottery from the site comes from West-Country sources outside the area of study. The BB1 element includes fragments from a number of beaded-and-flanged bowls of types 57

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) total pottery and, as with the Clausentum assemblage, the quantification is distorted by the presence of two complete flagon tops. One of these is in New Forest Purple Colour-coat fabric and the other in Parchment ware from the same source. Because of the much larger size of this assemblage (32.83 EVE), it is far less compromised by this than that from Clausentum. New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers and the flagon account for 7%, New Forest Red Colour-coat bowls for 2% and various New Forest Parchment ware forms for 4% of the total pottery assemblage.

the early 4th century saw the high-water mark of New Forest greyware trading and probably over the rest of its distribution zone: as we shall see, decline set in after AD 350. Finewares make up 33% of this assemblage and are once again dominated by New Forest Purple Colourcoat beakers (26%). The third assemblage (6.03 EVE) comes from Phase 52 at the Brooks site (Zant 1993: 137), represented by a layer of silty brown loam immediately above and sealing the fill of the construction trenches for the walls of newly constructed Buildings VIII.15, VIII.9 and VIII.1 but respecting their wall lines. This loam accumulated during the mid 4th century AD or slightly earlier: the fabric breakdown of the pottery assemblage is similar to that of the previous one, with New Forest greywares making up 62%, BB1 4%, Alice Holt/Farnham greywares 7% and handmade grog-tempered wares 13% of the coarsewares. The remainder of the coarse pottery is from unknown sources and is probably residual. The BB1 comes from a single beaded-and-flanged bowl of uncertain type. Finewares account for 40% of the entire pottery assemblage and once again have a predominance of New Forest products (38%).

The Winchester Area. We are fortunate in not only having four quantifiable early 4th century AD pottery assemblages from Winchester itself but also ones from eight rural sites in its hinterland. These latter assemblages are not precisely dated for the most part and some may include a little late 3rd century and post 370 AD material. The earliest 4th century AD pottery assemblage from Winchester to be quantified is the c. 300-325 AD dated 31.30 EVE one from fill 3262 in the Victoria Road ritual shaft. This shows a great increase in the New Forest greyware percentage over that in the preceding Brook Street Phase 524 pottery assemblage. The Brook Street assemblage has New Forest greyware making up just over a quarter of the coarseware element, whereas fill 3262 in the ritual shaft has it accounting for 70% of such material. Much of this increase in the New Forest share was, as at Bitterne, at the expense of BB1 supply. This had fallen to 8% of the coarse pottery at Victoria Road, with Alice Holt/Farnham greywares being present in small numbers (6%) and handmade grog-tempered wares increasing in significance to 16%. The BB1 is heavily biased towards bowls and dishes and includes examples of Bestwall beaded-and-flanged bowl types 6.4 (2) and 6.7 (3) (c. 240-290/300, 300-370 AD) and straight-sided dish types 8.12 and 8.13 (c. 220-350/70 AD). Fine and specialised wares make up a high 44% of the total pottery assemblage and are dominated by New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (33%): other finewares from the same source account for a further 7% and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers for 4% of it.

The fourth Winchester assemblage is a 3.70 EVE one from c. 360 AD dated Phase IX contexts at the 1960 Kingdon’s Workshop site (Cunliffe 1964: 73). It is rather small but includes fragments from 44 vessels and may indicate a shift in sources of coarse pottery supplied to Winchester during the mid 4th century AD: New Forest greywares make up a reduced 45% of the assemblage and handmade grog-tempered wares increase to 26% of it. The Alice Holt presence is still tiny (3%) and that of BB1 not much more (7%). This assemblage shows a decline in the percentage of open forms, reflecting the poor showing of such vessels in the up and coming handmade grog-tempered ware repertoire. The BB1 is all residual and includes fragments from a type 6.2 incipient-beaded-and flanged bowl. The percentage of finewares is lower than previously (16%) but continues to have a predominance of New Forest Purple Colourcoat forms (11%) with just a little Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat (3%). Fulford has pointed to a cut-back in the range and volume of New Forest coarse and fine wares being produced during the second half of the 4th century AD (Fulford 1975B,116-18) and regards this decline as taking place in two stages c. 350 and 370 AD. The Kingdon’s Workshop pottery assemblage appears to provide evidence for the first such cut-back. Fulford also considers that this decline may have been the result of a general fall-off in the demand for pottery after AD 350: this argument will be pursued in greater detail below (p. 80), but it is immediately apparent that the reduction in New Forest greyware supply was accompanied by an increase in that of handmade grog-tempered ware.

The second Winchester assemblage is a much smaller 3.55 EVE one and comes from sinkage fill 3192 directly above 3262 in the top of the same ritual shaft. This material comes from at least 53 vessels and is dated by the excavator to c. 325-350 AD: it has a similar fabric breakdown to the preceding assemblage, with 74% of the coarse pottery coming from the New Forest kilns, 3% in BB1, less than 1% from Alice Holt and 12% in handmade grog-tempered wares. The BB1 comprises fragments from a plain beaded-and-flanged dish of type 7.3 (c. 300-400+ AD) and a straight-sided dish of type 8.13 (c. 220-370 AD). The evidence indicates that 58

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

To the north and north-east of Winchester are the sites at Martyr Worthy, South Wonston, Micheldever and Dummer.

and there is a decline in the significance of Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares (7%). The small BB1 percentage (5%) may all be residual and includes fragments from an incipient-beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.2. Fine and specialised wares make-up a similar 16% of the total pottery assemblage and comprise New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (8%), a parchment ware mortarium from the same source (2%) and Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat beakers and a mortarium (6%).

The 8.56 EVE pottery assemblage from stokehole 2 of the Martyr Worthy corn-dryer has New Forest greywares accounting for most of the coarse pottery (58%) and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares and handmade grogtempered wares for a further 11% each. BB1 makes up a further 12% but includes residual beaded-and-flanged bowl rim fragments of Bestwall type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD), possibly derived from the Disturbance 4 deposit in which the structure was constructed.

The Owslebury site is only a short distance to the northwest of Meonstoke. The coarseware element in the 12.44 EVE pottery assemblage from the Feature 91 corndryer (Collis 1968) has a predominance of New Forest greywares (44%), with handmade grog-tempered wares coming second (34%). BB1 accounts for 12% of the coarse pottery, is heavily-biased towards open forms, and includes fragments from a plain early-4th century beaded-and-flanged bowl with the flange deliberately removed, as well as a straight-sided dish of type 8.11 and three examples of type 8.12 (c. 220-370 AD). Fine and specialised wares make-up 25% of the total pottery assemblage and comprise New Forest Purple Colourcoat beakers and a bottle (16%), a New Forest Parchment ware mortarium (1%) and an Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat bottle (8%). The presence of complete bottle tops in New Forest Purple Colour-coat and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabrics has, however, heavily inflated the total fineware percentage.

Ditch 7006 at the unpublished South Wonston site yielded a 8.47 EVE pottery assemblage of c. 300 -370 AD date. The most significant sources of coarse pottery are the New Forest kilns (67%) with handmade grogtempered wares accounting for a further 22% and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares for 11%. BB1 is represented by a single fragment from a dish of uncertain type and is possibly not from that source at all.. The 4.34 EVE pottery assemblage from the Site 27 topsoil at Micheldever (Fasham 1987) has fragments from 64 different vessels, with Alice Holt/Farnham greywares replacing New Forest greywares as the single biggest element in the coarseware part of the assemblage (37%): handmade grog-tempered wares make-up 29% and New Forest greywares 25% of the coarse pottery. There is no BB1. Finewares account for 31% of the total pottery assemblage and are largely composed of New Forest products (28%) with just a few Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat open forms (3%).

The Little Somborne, Longstock and Braishfield sites lie to the west of Winchester: their pottery assemblages have remarkably similar New Forest greyware percentages of 52 to 54%. The fill of Feature 10 at Little Somborne yielded a 6.42 EVE pottery assemblage with fragments from 72 vessels. New Forest greywares make up 54% of the coarse pottery, handmade grog-tempered wares 24% and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares 3%. BB1 makes up a further 3%, comes from a single evertedrim cooking-pot and straight-sided dishes of uncertain types and may be residual. Fine and specialised wares make up 14% of the total pottery assemblage, with a predominance of New Forest products (11%) and a few Oxfordshire vessels (3%).

The Meonstoke and Owslebury sites lie to the south of Winchester. The Meonstoke villa is the nearest to the coast of the two sites and has produced two consecutive assemblages from the period c. 300-370 AD. The first of these is a small 4.49 EVE assemblage from the c. 300-350 AD dated Phase 3D occupation of the aisled barn and has a predominance of greywares, mostly handmade and wheel-turned beaded-and-flanged bowls, in a vitrified grey fabric similar to Rowlands Castle ware and possibly from a successor to that industry (26%). Other coarsewares include New Forest greyware (26%), Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (16%) and BB1(16%): the latter is biased towards everted-rim cooking-pots. Fine and specialised wares make up 17% of the total pottery assemblage with a predominance of New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (12%).

The pottery from E.A.Rawlence’s excavations at the Longstock villa aisled hall in 1922 cannot be said to be well stratified but amounts to an EVE total of 9.48 from 89 vessels. The pottery is all Late Roman, with associated coinage spanning the period AD 260-361. Clearly, there is a late 3rd century AD element, which may explain the comparatively high 14% of BB1. New Forest greywares are predominant (54%) with most of the rest of the coarsewares coming from handmade grog-tempered ware producers (19%) and the Alice Holt/Farnham greyware industry (9%).

The second assemblage is a 6.89 EVE one from the aisledbarn destruction deposits, with coins dating up to AD 364: The predominant fabric is New Forest greyware (36%) and, as with that from the Phase 3D occupation, consists almost entirely of jar fragments. Handmade grog-tempered wares appear for the first time (35%) 59

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) The excavators of the bath-house at Braishfield near Romsey (Rogers and Walker 1985) consider it to have been constructed around 300 AD and abandoned in the middle of the 4th century AD The entire 11.93 EVE pottery assemblage from the building comes from at least 111 vessels of early 4th century AD date, with a predominance of New Forest greywares (52%). The rest of the coarse pottery includes handmade grogtempered wares (27%), Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (1%) and BB1 vessels (8%). The latter include fragments from everted and cavetto-rim cooking-pots, a beadedand-flanged bowl of type 6.2 (c. 210-280/90 AD), an oval Class 9 dish (c. 270-400 AD) and straight-sided dishes of types 8.7 and 8.12 (c. 290-330, 220-370 AD). The presence of the incipient-beaded-and-flanged bowl suggests that the building was constructed and first occupied before AD 290. Fine and specialised wares make up 11% of the total pottery assemblage and comprise a variety of New Forest forms (7%) and a few bowls, dishes and mortaria in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabric (4%)).

bit meagre but suggests that the port of entry for these wares was in the west of the Island. The BB1 emphasis at Rock is heavily on bowls and dishes but much less so at Shide: both of the BB1 vessels from the Newchurch corndryer are cooking-pots. The New Forest greyware percentages in the assemblages from Rock and Newchurch are quite high (31% and 47% respectively) and in that from the Shide villa, somewhat lower (23%). The Newchurch percentage is more than twice that in the assemblage from the late 3rd century AD occupation at Combley and could be taken as indicating an increase in the supply of New Forest greywares to the Island after AD 300. The Newchurch corn-dryer pottery assemblage is, however, very small and should be treated with caution. There are very few finewares from either the Rock villa or the Newchurch Packway corndryer. The Rock finewares make up a mere 6% of that pottery assemblage and consist entirely of New Forest Purple Colour-coat beaker fragments and those of a Red Colour-coat dish from the same source. The fine and specialised wares from the Newchurch Packway corndryer comprise New Forest Red Colour-coat bowl fragments (14%) and another example with a mortarium in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabric (6%).

It would appear that, as at Winchester, the BB1 vessels from these rural sites are nearly all residual in their pottery assemblages; although that residuality could take the form of old pots still in use. The Isle of Wight Considerable changes took place to the pottery supply to the Isle of Wight during the early 4th century. There are three pottery assemblages of quantifiable size from the Island. Moving from west to east, these are from Rock villa (Context 67), Shide villa latest occupation and the Newchurch corndryer. A striking feature of these assemblages is the decline in the percentages of Vectis ware, with it accounting for only 5% of the coarse pottery from Rock and 6% of that from the Newchurch corndryer. The latter, dated to c. 340 AD by a coin of Theodora, is only a short distance from the Combley villa, which had Vectis ware making up 52% of a 3rd century assemblage. The higher 22% from the Shide, Newport villa is almost certainly due to the assemblage including a late 3rd century AD element, resulting in its percentage of Vectis ware being inflated by this earlier material. One is tempted to say that all of the Vectis ware from these three sites is residual as clearly 4th century AD dated forms are absent from their repertoires.

The Civitas of the Atrebates The coarse ware markets of north-east Hampshire, eastern Berkshire and west Surrey continued to be dominated by Alice Holt/Farnham industry greyware products during this period. Silchester (Calleva Atrebatorum) is rather lacking in good c. 300-370 AD dated pottery assemblages as most of the deposits relating to this period were removed during the largescale excavations of the late 19th century. More recent excavations (Fulford 1984, Fulford et al 2006) have, however, yielded at least two pottery assemblages of this period; large enough for quantification by EVEs. The first of these assemblages is the 7.85 EVE one from rubbish dumping on the tail of the earth rampart beside the south gate (Fulford 1984: 190). To judge by the coins from the context, this rubbish probably started accumulating towards the end of the 3rd century AD and continued being dumped until some time after AD 370. The bulk of the coarse pottery in the assemblage is probably early 4th century AD in date and includes a mere 4% New Forest greyware; concluding the progression of diminishing percentages of such wares up the road from Winchester indicated below (p. 61). The most significant supplier of coarsewares was the Alice Holt/Farnham kiln complex (45%), with BB1 coming second (13%) and including examples of Bestwall beaded-and-flanged bowl types 6.5 and 6.9 (c. 280-300, 300/350-400+ AD) and straight-sided dish

The replacement for Vectis ware was handmade grogtempered ware (Lyne 2015: Industry 6A). This industry became one of the most important source of pottery used on the Island during the early 4th century AD. At Rock, it accounts for 32% of the coarseware assemblage, at Shide for 46% and at Newchurch for 48%. BB1 makes-up 16% of the coarsewares from Rock, 10% from Shide and 4% from Newchurch. The evidence is a 60

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD). Small numbers of vessels, mainly rilled jars, in Overwey/Portchester D fabric (3%) are also present as are Oxfordshire Grey wares (4%),Harrold Shell-tempered wares from Bedfordshire (1%) and Hampshire Grog-Tempered wares (6%). Fine and specialised wares make up 15% of the total pottery assemblage and have a predominance of Oxfordshire products (11%), with just a few New Forest ones (3%).

there was a similar rapid fall-off in volumes of New Forest greyware being supplied and their replacement by Alice Holt/Farnham greyware products. It is worth noting that finewares produced by the New Forest kilns had a wider distribution than greywares from the same source; probably due to the Alice Holt/Farnham industry’s failure to produce equivalents. Much of the pottery from the Lodge Farm villa at North Warnborough, six kilometres east of Ructstalls Hill, also comes from the Alice Holt/Farnham kilns (68%): Overwey/Portchester D wares from the same source make up a further 7% and BB1 6%. The BB1 includes obtuse-latticed cooking-pot and bead-rim beaker fragments, two examples of beaded-and-flanged bowl form 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD), a dish of type 8.5 (c. 220300 AD) and one of type 8.12 (c. 220-350/70 AD). This assemblage spans the period between c. 270 and 400 AD but the range of dates for the BB1 forms does, however, suggest that most of it arrived at Lodge Farm during the late 3rd century AD and either had a long life in use or is residual. There are very few fine and specialised wares; making up a mere 4% of the total pottery assemblage. These comprise fragments from an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium (2%) and a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaded-and-flanged bowl (2%).

The second assemblage from Silchester was not quantified by this author but is probably more reliable and comes from a cluster of pits in Insula IX datable to the period c. 270-350 AD but with mainly early 4th century pottery (Timby 2006: Object 116, 6.50 EVE. The overwhelming bulk of the pottery from this group of pits is in Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (70%) with BB1 making up a further 22%: the BB1 includes fragments from two cooking-pots of Bestwall type 1.5 with attenuated bodies (c. 280-370 AD). There is very little else other than a tiny amount of Hampshire Grogtempered ware (3%). Half-way between Winchester and Silchester, the Roman road linking the two passed through the Wheatsheaf settlement site at Dummer. Feature 37 was a large pit containing considerable quantities of coinage ranging in date from the late 3rd century to AD 370. Most of the large associated pottery assemblage (17.04 EVEs) is similarly dated, with the coarse pottery having a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (70%) with far less New Forest material (6%). Handmade grogtempered wares account for a further 17% and BB1 for only 4% of the assemblage. Cooking-pots are more common in the latter fabric than open forms. Fine and specialised wares make up 17% of the total pottery assemblage, with a predominance of New Forest forms (11%) and just a few Oxfordshire products (5%).

The author did not quantify any early 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages from within the small town at Neatham but the published report (Millett 1986) has percentages based on weights of sherds. Pit 14 in area B had coins ranging in date between AD 270 and 364 associated with pottery of early 4th century character (ibid.: 39): as with most of the coarse pottery assemblages from the site, this is made up almost entirely of local Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (98%). BB1 is represented by a few bodysherds.

My interpretation of the site percentages on the road between Winchester and Silchester is that coarse pottery from the New Forest kilns was being supplied directly by road from the potteries to Winchester, with a continued thrust north up the road to Silchester. To the north of Martyr Worthy there is, however, a rapid fall-off in amounts of greywares from that source being supplied to sites on or near the Silchester road and their replacement by products in Alice Holt/Farnham greyware from kilns on the Hampshire/Surrey border. Martyr Worthy, with its 58% New Forest greywares is only five kilometres from Winchester but at Micheldever (Fasham 1987), five kilometres further on, we find the greyware percentage from that source down to 25%: at the Dummer Wheatsheaf site, 10 kilometres further on, the percentage of such wares is down to 6%.

An unusual situation prevailed at the Six Bells, Farnham site (Lowther 1954), 12 kilometres north-east of Neatham and in the heart of the Farnham group of kilns of the Alice Holt/Farnham pottery industry. Levels 1 and 2 in the Building 2 bathhouse yielded a small 5.58 EVE assemblage, where Alice Holt/Farnham greywares make up a mere 27% of an assemblage which has a predominance of very-coarse-gritted handmade pottery copying straight-sided dishes, beaded-andflanged bowls and Class 3C jars of that industry, with or without white-slip decoration (69%). The site was engaged in pottery production during the 4th century AD and the probable source of these forms was Kiln 507 only a short distance away (Lowther 1939, 222). Very little pottery survives from this kiln but that which does is in this coarse fabric. There do not appear to be any fine or specialised wares from the bathhouse, although it is possible that Lowther had extracted them. BB1 is absent.

Although we have no large pottery assemblages from sites along the road from Winchester to Neatham, it would appear from small poorly-stratified ones that 61

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) There is a fall-off in percentages of Alice Holt/Farnham wares to the north of Silchester. The occupation in the main villa building at Cox Green is associated with mid 4th century coinage up-to AD 367-375 and yielded a coarse pottery assemblage dominated by Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares (45%). Overwey/Portchester D and related wares make up a further 8% and BB1 4%: the latter includes fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.4 (c. 240-290/300 AD) and is almost certainly residual. Fine and specialised wares make up 16% of this 10.85 EVE pottery assemblage and are mostly from the Oxfordshire kilns (12%): there are no New Forest finewares, but a few Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker fragments are present (2%).

Aldermaston sites but much of it, if not all, is residual 3rd century AD in date. The Dorchester-on-Thames region It has proved particularly difficult to locate good early 4th century AD pottery assemblages from within this area. The only context from the Beech House Hotel site in Dorchester-on-Thames with pottery readily assignable to this period (Layer 10) is predominantly late 3rd century AD in date and dealt with above (p. 32). Later Roman contexts were badly disturbed by postRoman activity and contained potsherds and other artefacts dating up to the end of the Roman occupation mixed with Early Saxon pottery (Rowley and Brown 1982: 39). Bearing in mind that most of the diagnostic BB1 fragments from Dorchester-on-Thames are from late 3rd century AD forms, it seems likely that BB1 trade with the region during the early 4th century was, as in northern Hampshire, fairly negligible.

The 4.24 EVE pottery assemblage from the bathhouse at Aldermaston (Cowell, Fulford and Lobb 1978) has a high proportion of coarsewares from unknown sources (48%) and a significantly lower percentage of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (24%): small amounts of grog-tempered ware are present (9%) as are highfired pimply greywares from the Middle Thames valley (11%) and BB1 (2%).New Forest grey-wares are absent from both Cox Green and Aldermaston, as are finewares from the same source. The 17% fine and specialised ware elements in the total Aldermaston assemblage are made up entirely of Oxfordshire Industry products.

An inability by the Oxfordshire grey-ware industry to supply enough open forms during the latest 3rd and early 4th centuries AD contrasts with contemporary New Forest greyware production; also associated with a more important fineware industry. One is left to conclude that Oxfordshire greywares were regarded as a much less important component of overall pottery production than the equivalent in the New Forest range of products.

The pottery assemblage from the ‘Roman scoop’ at Knights Enham has BB1 accounting for 12% of its coarse ware element: the make-up of this assemblage is unusual, with no bowls and dishes other than those supplied by the BB1 industry. This site, and the Andover Portway one, are both in the north-west corner of Hampshire and have an overwhelming predominance of coarseware jars over open forms. Much of the coarse pottery from both of these sites comes from Wiltshire sources and they clearly lie in a different pottery marketing zone to that of north-east Hampshire and drew their wares from outside of the civitas of the Atrebates. There are no Alice Holt/Farnham greyware products in the Knights Enham assemblage and only 2% in that from Andover Portway. Both site coarseware assemblages have a predominance of New Forest greywares (56% and 53% respectively). These percentages are similar to those in the Longstock and Little Somborne coarseware assemblages further to the south (p. 59) but once again are largely made-up of residual late 3rd century forms.

Young has pointed out an ability of other coarse pottery producers to trade within the heart of the Oxfordshire greyware marketing zone (1977: 238): with such a deficiency of bowl and dish production by that industry, this is not surprising. Fine parchment-ware and red colour-coat bowls and dishes, of which there was no shortage, were probably pressed into service for coarse-ware functions such as cooking. The Civitas of the Regnenses Sussex west of the River Arun The sharp decline in coarse pottery supply from the Rowlands Castle kilns north of Havant at the end of the 3rd century AD left an opening for other pottery industries to plug. This gap was filled from two directions; by the Alice Holt potters trading much increased volumes of pottery down the road from Neatham to Chichester and the New Forest ones shipping in grey wares by road or sea.

Sites in the Alice Holt potteries dominated north-east of Hampshire and eastern Berkshire are characterised by high percentages of bowls and dishes, reflecting the ability of that industry to supply adequate numbers of such forms after AD 300 and effectively block supply of the BB1 equivalents. As we have seen, BB1 is nominally present in the pottery assemblages from the Dummer Wheatsheaf, Ructstalls Hill, Basingstoke, Cox Green and

The wooden box drain in the bottom of the great eastwest sewer running to the north of the Roman baths in West Street, Chichester collapsed during the late 3rd century AD, probably due to neglect. Sometime around the beginning of the 4th century AD, it was rebuilt and 62

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

rubbish dumped over it. The new box-drain collapsed in turn during the mid 4th century AD and the sinkage left in the surface of the rubbish above filled with more of the same (Down 1978: 152).

right up to the city gates. The coarse pottery from the Fishbourne Palace wall-robbing context 62/73 (3) dated c. 300-325 AD is dominated by Rowlands Castle and New Forest greywares (36 and 32% respectively) with the small amount of BB1 (4%) including fragments from two type 1.5 cooking-pots (c. 280-370 AD) and a type 6.8 beaded-and-flanged bowl (c. 270-370 AD). This assemblage has a strong residual element but the sharp decline in the percentage of BB1 and the maintained high levels of New Forest greyware appear significant and contrast with the latter’s apparent absence within the walls of Chichester. Although Alice Holt greywares were significant within those walls, here at Fishbourne two kilometres to the west they make up only 7% of the coarse pottery. The fineware elements in the total pottery assemblage comprise New Forest and Oxfordshire industries wares (10% and 2% respectively).

The two successive rubbish fills in this sewer were identified as A1.5 and A1.3 in the Tower Street section made in 1970 (Down 1974: figure 5.4). The lower fill (A1.5) dates to c. 300-330 AD and probably includes 3rd century and earlier rubbish from material already in the ditch before the rebuilding of the drain and then thrown back after that had been carried out. The coarse pottery assemblage has a predominance of Rowlands Castle greywares (47%) with BB1 second (22%). Alice Holt/Farnham greywares has increased in significance from their showing on the Chapel Street site to 21% of all of the coarse pottery and consist amost entirely of post AD 270 black or white-slip decorated forms. The BB1 element includes large fragments from two cooking-pots of uncertain 3rd to 4th century types, a type 6.8 bowl (c. 270/300-370 AD) and a type 8.7 dish (c. 290-330 AD). The only fineware or specialised vessel is a New Forest Parchment ware mortarium.

We have two quantified assemblages of early 4th century AD dated pottery from sites in the Chilgrove valley north of Chichester. The first such assemblage comes from the fills of the demolished early 4th century bath-block of the Well Meadow villa at Chilgrove (Down 1979: 64-67). These fills contained significant quantities of pottery, as well as 54 coins commencing with a AD 313 issue of Maximinus II and terminating with a virtually uncirculated issue of Magnentius dated AD 351 (Down 1979: 134-9). The most significant group of coarseware fabrics are those from the Alice Holt/Farnham kilns (62%), with pottery from the Rowlands Castle and BB1 kilns coming joint second at 12% each. New Forest greywares account for just 6% of the coarse pottery assemblage. The fine and specialised wares elements make-up 16% of all of the pottery and comprise New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers (4%), closed forms in Red Colour-coat fabric from the same source (6%) and a mortarium in New Forest Parchment-ware (1%). A smaller Oxfordshire industry element (5%) includes a bowl in Red-Colour-coat fabric and a whiteware mortarium.

The upper rubbish fill of the sewer (A1.3) contained a small coin hoard dated AD 317-346 and its 12.68 EVE ceramic content indicates striking changes in pottery supply to Chichester later on during the early 4th century AD. The BB1 content is down to 13% and that of Rowlands Castle wares to 12%. The decline in supply of products from these two sources appears to have been to the advantage of the Alice Holt potters, who’s share of this pottery assemblage is up from 21 to 52%. Most unusually, Alice Holt open forms outnumber the closed ones from that source; a phenomenon encountered in the Alice Holt wares present in the earliest 4th century AD pottery assemblages from London. It may be evidence for a deliberate ploy to counter the BB1 potters’ strength in these vessel types: if so, it appears to have been successful in both places. The BB1 element includes fragments from two type 6.8 bowls (c. 270/300-370 AD), two of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD), one example each of dish types 8.11 and 8.12 (c. 220-370 AD) and two Class 9 oval dishes with handles (c. 270-400+ AD). The fine and specialised wares in this assemblage account for 21% of it: They include New Forest Red Colour-coat bowls and mortaria, as well as parchment-ware mortaria from the same source (7%). Oxfordshire industry products are more significant (10%) and comprise Red Colour-coat bowls, beakers and bottles and an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium. Fragments from a Pevensey ware bowl are also present and indicate that the accumulation of this rubbish continued after c. 370 AD.

A considerable pottery assemblage comes from what is mainly early 4th century AD occupation within the Building 3 bathblock at the Cross Roads villa in Chilgrove (Down 1979: 80-88, Contexts K5-6, 7, 8,11, 17, 14, K6-4, 7, 10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30 and 40). The eleven coins from this building also terminate with an issue of Magnentius (AD 350-53), although they start earlier with issues of Postumus and Claudius II (AD 259-270). BB1 makes up just 6% of the coarse pottery in this assemblage, which otherwise has Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares making up 47% of it, Rowlands Castle greywares 24%: late grog-tempered wares account for a further 6%. The BB1 is heavily broken-up but includes fragments from 3rd to 4th century obtuselatticed cooking-pots of uncertain types, at least two bowls of type 6.8 (c. 270/300-370 AD), a dish of type 8.7 (c. 290-330 AD) and another of type 8.12 (c. 220-370 AD).

New Forest greywares are absent from both of the Chichester assemblages but there is evidence that they were marketed in the surrounding countryside 63

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Finewares and mortaria all come from the New Forest and Oxfordshire industries, with the former accounting for 11% of the total pottery assemblage and Oxfordshire products for a further 5%.

early 4th century elements exist in a number of the post AD 370 ones discussed below (p. 85). The first of the three sites is that at Slonk Hill north of Shoreham, where the pottery from the fills of the western barrow ditch was associated with coinage dating to between AD 321 and 364. An estimated 28% of the coarse pottery comes from the Arun Valley kilns and 33% from the Alice Holt/Farnham ones. A further 28% of the material is in East Sussex Ware and there are small amounts of BB1 present (6%) in the form of fragments from two dishes of types 8.11/13 (c. 220-370 AD). This site is of particular interest in having a high ratio of open forms to jars, although this could be due to a ritualistic element in the assemblage (Hartridge 1978: 94). Finewares make up a mere 7% of the total pottery assemblage and consist entirely of New Forest and Oxfordshire products. There are no mortaria.

Sussex between the rivers Arun and Adur Two early 4th century AD dated assemblages of pottery were quantified from sites between the Arun and the Adur: the first of these comes from the fill of the corn-dryer, Oven 1, at Belloc Road, Littlehampton (Lyne 1993: 17-19). There is no other dating evidence for the structure but the pottery assemblage appears to belong to the period between 280 and 350 AD. The BB1 element makes up 14% of the coarse pottery and includes fragments from beaded-and-flanged bowls of types 6.4 (c. 240 – 300 AD) and 6.8 (c. 270 – 370 AD). Alice Holt/Farnham greywares make up a further 24%, with nearly all of the pottery having post AD 270/300 dated black/white slip decoration. Rowlands Castle jars and oxidised sandy wares of possible Findon origin make up a further 19% each of the assemblage. The fine and specialised wares account for a quarter of the total pottery assemblage, with the bulk (18%) coming from a single intact bottle neck of a vessel of unknown but possibly local source. Of the rest, a New Forest Purple Colour-coat beaker and Parchment ware mortarium make-up 4% and an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl and whiteware mortarium a further 3%.

The second site is that of the ‘hut’ in Findon Close, West Blatchington (Norris and Burstow 1950). An estimated 23% of the coarse pottery consists of sandy white and blue-grey fired white-wares from the Wickham Barn kilns north-west of Lewes and a further 4% is in coarsesanded orange fabric similar to that encountered in a late 3rd to early 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages from Rocky Clump Stanmer, Cissbury and Oven 1 at Belloc Road Littlehampton. These wares were probably produced in the Findon area and include developed-beaded-and-flanged bowls, jars and copies of Alice Holt/Farnham greyware Classes IC and 4 storage-jars.

The second site assemblage is that from the occupation within the Lickfold villa bathhouse at Wiggonholt (Evans 1974) to the north of the South Downs. This had much early 4th century AD dated coinage associated, terminating with an issue of Valens dated AD 367-375. The large coarseware assemblage has a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greyware products (50%): horizontally-rilled jars in Overwey/Portchester D ware make up a further 10%, Wickham Barn kilns products 15% and BB1 a mere 7% biased towards bowls and dishes. The latter includes fragments from three bowls of type 6.8 (c. 270/300-370 AD), two of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD) and one each of dish types 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13 (c. 220-370 AD). The 14% fine and specialised ware element in the total 16.97 EVE pottery assemblage has a predominance of Oxfordshire products (11%), fragments from a single New Forest Colour-coat beaker (1%), those from a single Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat example and a Pevensey ware bowl. The presence of the latter indicates that some at least of the occupation debris continued to accumulate after AD 370.

East Sussex Wares account for 29% of the coarse pottery from Findon Close and post AD 270 Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares with white/black slip decoration for a further 10% of it. The BB1 showing is feeble in the extreme (3%) and is mostly residual with the exception of a bowl of Bestwall type 6.9 (c. 300/350400+ AD). Accompanying this BB1 is a much more significant 18% in the local BB1 imitation ware (Lyne 1994, Industry 2A), including cooking pots (c. 270-300+ AD), beaded-and-flanged bowls (c. 270-350 AD), and a dish (c. 270-350 AD). Other minority fabrics include New Forest greyware (3%), Rowlands Castle ware (3%) and Thameside greyware (1%). As at Slonk Hill, there are fairly few finewares (4%), nearly all of which are New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers but include fragments from a bottle in Hadham Oxidised ware from Hertfordshire. Mortaria in New Forest Parchment ware and Oxfordshire Whiteware account for a further 4% of the total pottery assemblage.

Sussex east of the River Adur

The Barcombe bathhouse occupation continued after the abandonment of the villa and the large amounts of pottery that are present suggest that the function of the building changed from a baths to that of a replacement villa building (Lyne Forthcoming I). The coarse pottery

Readily identifiable early 4th century AD pottery assemblages from sites east of the River Adur are also few and far between. Six sites have assemblages considered worthy of detailed quantification, although 64

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

from drainage ditch 3053 spans the first half of the 4th century AD and has East Sussex Wares making up a much increased 54% of it. This increase in the percentage of East Sussex Ware appears to have been at the expense of Wickham Barn kilns products, which now account for a mere 19% of the assemblage. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares make up 13% of the coarse pottery, BB1 5% and the local copy 3%. None of the BB1 fragments are large enough for determination as to their precise forms but cavetto-rim cooking-pot and straight-sided dish fragments are present. The finewares making up 12% of the total pottery assemblage include Central Gaulish Samian forms and Moselkeramik beakers (6%), which are probably residual in use but the rest includes fragments from New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers and copies from the Wickham Barn kilns(2% and 1% respectively), an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl (1%) and a lid in the same fine red-ware as was encountered in the pottery assemblage from the Findon ritual shaft (1%).

and, despite the presence of rim sherds from 33 vessels has an EVE total of only 1.87. BB1 remains significant (20%) and includes fragments from a beaded-andflanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD). The local greywares are down to 22% of the coarse pottery and Alice Holt greywares and East Sussex Wares correspondingly up to 24% and 26% respectively. This small assemblage should, however be viewed with much caution. The Civitas of the Canti As in the 3rd century, the early 4th century AD saw West Kent with a continuing predominance of late Thamesside and related industries’ products. These later kilns, however, do not appear to have been situated on the southern coast of the Thames estuary but on more inland sites: this may have been due to rising sea-levels. Monaghan (1987B) defines his Thamesside industry as related to the coastal kilns only, declining during the later 3rd century and disappearing c. 300 AD. Pollard, on the other hand, uses the non-geographical term BB2 for the industry and does not distinguish between 3rd and early 4th century AD production in his pottery report on the assemblages from the Marlowe site in Canterbury (Pollard 1995: 698-99).

There are two early 4th century AD pottery assemblages from the 1936 excavations at Pevensey (Lyne 2009), one being largely later than the other. The first assemblage is that from a general occupation horizon in Trench XIII against the interior of the north wall of the fortress (ibid.: 106-09, Contexts 4 and 3B) and is dated to c. 293/300 – 364 AD by numerous coins. BB1 accounts for 22% of the coarse pottery, with cooking-pots, bowls and dishes being present in roughly equal quantities. The forms include cooking-pots of Bestwall types 1.3 and 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), beaded-and-flanged bowls of types 6.4, 6.8 and 6.9 (c. 240 – 290/300, 270/300 – 370 and 300/350 – 400+ AD respectively) and straight-sided dishes of types 8.6 and 8.12 (c. 220-300 and 220-350/370 AD). The local greyware kilns, which had been supplying the Pevensey garrison with most of its coarse pottery during the last years of the 3rd century AD, continued to do so (54%). Minority coarseware suppliers included Alice Holt (7%), Overwey (1%), the Wickham Barn kilns (4%) and local East Sussex Ware producers (10%). As long as the local kilns remained in operation, it would appear that handmade East Sussex Ware products held no attraction for the Pevensey garrison. The local greyware producers were, however, very deficient in their production of open forms: this, and old military contracts, may explain the continued strong presence of BB1 products at the fortress. The small fine and specialised ware element in the assemblage (8%) includes fragments of old Central Gaulish Samian (3%), a New Forest Purple Colour-coat bowl (1%), as well as one mortarium each in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat (3%) and Oxfordshire Whiteware (1%).

Elsewhere, Pollard is more reluctant to attribute the ‘grey, sandy, unslipped wares’ from West Kent to anything more precise than ‘local production’ and admits to difficulty in finding uncontaminated assemblages in the area (1988: 144-45). The author has encountered the same problem. In view of the similarities in the fabrics of the early 3rd century AD Thameside products and some of those of late 3rd – to – early 4th century date, I have termed the latter ‘late Thameside’. The most significant difference between these later products and those of early 3rd century date is the adoption of the beaded-and-flanged bowl in place of the ‘pie dish’. The everted-rim cooking-pot is also largely replaced by jars with hooked and roll-over rims, although such vessels had been present since the late 2nd century AD. The site assemblages clearly show that the late Thameside industry, like its predecessor, was capable of supplying adequate numbers of bowls and dishes to cope with local demand. Further away, on East Kent coastal sites, open forms were somewhat lacking. A 7.42 EVE pottery assemblage was quantified from Context 206 at the unpublished North Gate excavations in Rochester, the nearest urban centre to the Thameside greyware kilns, and was associated with coinage dated AD 330-375. Its coarse pottery assemblage is totally dominated by Thameside products (91%), of which many

The second Pevensey assemblage comes from the dirty sand make-up for the second road leading into the fort from the east gate and is dated by coinage to the period AD 340 – 370. The pot group is small and comminuted 65

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) are residual 3rd century in date: there is no BB1. The 12% fineware element in the total pottery assemblage is largely made up of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls and beakers (8%) with just a few fragments from Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat examples (1%).

There is a greater variety of fabrics present in this assemblage than in the others previously described, reflecting the site’s position in an area where several pottery marketing zones converged. In such an area, where no one industry was dominant, small local potteries had a better chance of flourishing. This does not, however, apply to the 16% fineware and mortaria element in the assemblage, where the bulk are Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat vessels with a whiteware mortarium and parchment ware bowls and jars from the same source (10%). Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker fragments account for a further 4% of the total pottery assemblage.

Moving west towards London, re-examination of the 5.13 EVE pottery assemblage from the latest occupation at the Cobham Park villa (Tester 1961) shows it to include much Late Thameside material, although here again there is a significant 3rd century AD residual element. The latest coin here is a Fel Temp Reparatio copy of AD 350-364. Alice Holt wares, which make up 2% of the Rochester assemblage, account for 13% of the coarse pottery here and BB1 for a nominal 2%: this latter consists of fragments from a single residual Bestwall 6.2 bowl rim, suggesting that BB1 was no longer getting to the site. The percentage of handmade grogged and gritand-grog-tempered wares (6%) is similar to that in the Rochester assemblage (5%).

Moving up the Medway valley from Rochester, the final occupation pottery assemblage at the Maidstone Mount villa (Kelly 1992) has an overwhelming predominance of Late Thameside greywares (87%). This is greater than the late 3rd century AD figure and may have been brought about by a decline in the volume of handmade East Sussex wares arriving at the site due to a sharp decline in iron production in the Weald and the abandonment of many industrial sites. There is no BB1, only 2% Late Roman Grog-tempered ware with siltstone grog filler and 1% Alice Holt/Farnham greyware with black/white slip decoration. Finewares are absent from the examined assemblage and just one fragment from an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium is present.

The final occupation (Context 8) in the cellar at Chalk had been sealed under the collapsed roof of the destroyed building above. The upper portion of the cellar had then been used as a rubbish tip (Context 6) above which humus (Context 5) had formed (Johnston 1972). Most of the Context 6 pottery is of early 4th century AD date and has Late Thameside greywares making up 75% of the coarseware element: there is virtually no residual pottery present. Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares account for 18% of the assemblage and handmade grog-tempered wares a mere 5%. Once again, no BB1 is present. There are very few finewares and mortaria (4%), nearly all of which emanate from the Oxfordshire kilns.

The author quantified just one pottery assemblage of this period from Canterbury. Assemblage 39 from the destruction debris over Building 48 in Area CW50 at the Whitefriars site (Lyne Forthcoming M) includes a little earlier and later pottery but has Thameside industry products making up 69% of the coarse pottery and Late Roman Grog-tempered wares from the Canterbury area a further 17%: the 1% BB1 all appears to be residual. There is a high level of such residual material in the assemblage, particularly in the finewares: although they make-up 32% of the total assemblage, only 3% can be said to be of c. 300-370 AD date and includes a fragment from a rosette-stamped Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl of type C83 (c. 330-400+ AD).

The considerable 15.41 EVE pottery assemblage from Hall Place, Bexley on the edge of Greater London came from a large unpublished rubbish-pit associated with coinage dated AD 270-341. There is nothing clearly attributable to the 3rd century AD and the pottery can probably be dated to the early 4th century in its entirety. Late Thameside greywares account for 32% of the coarseware assemblage: at this site, we are approaching the western edge of the Late Thameside industry marketing area and getting further into the Alice Holt/ Farnham greyware one, with the latter now accounting for 28% of the material. Other, more local pottery industries are also represented in the assemblage and, in particular, one copying Alice Holt forms with similar black/white slip decoration but in a coarser fabric with beaded-and-flanged bowls tournetted rather than made on the wheel. These wares have been seen elsewhere in the London area but Bexley with 27% has more than in any other pottery assemblage examined. Handmade grog-tempered and BB1 wares account for a mere 2% and 1% of the coarse wares respectively.

Richard Pollard has published a pottery quantification based on EVEs for the mid 4th century AD Marlowe site MIIA caldarium silts (1995). These silts produced a number of 4th century coins terminating with an issue of AD 345 and had only 24% Late Thameside products: the coarsewares are now dominated by Late Roman Grog-tempered wares (41%). Alice Holt/Farnham greywares account for 3% of an assemblage which clearly accumulated for longer than the Whitefriars one. A rather small 4.73 EVE coarseware pottery assemblage from Layers 2 to 5 over Pit 414 at the Ickham watermills and military supply base site, eight kilometres east of Canterbury and adjacent to the Wantsum channel, is 66

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

dated c. 300-370 AD (Lyne 2010: 101-3). The predominant fabric within this assemblage is Late Roman Grogtempered ware from Lympne with siltstone-grog filler (45%), with only 4% handmade grog-tempered ware from the Canterbury/Richborough area. The secondmost significant source of pottery in the coarse pottery assemblage is the nearby Preston kiln (27%), with minority suppliers being the Alice Holt/Farnham kilns on the Hampshire/Surrey borders (3%) and the Harrold kilns in Bedfordshire (4%). An absence of Thameside products is noticeable and may be due to the proximity of the Preston kiln producing similar sandy grey pottery. BB1 is also absent. Fine and specialised wares account for a high 32% of the total pottery assemblage and have Oxfordshire industry products accounting for 14% of them, including fragments from a C23 beaker (c. 270-400 AD), two type C68 bowls (c. 300-400 AD), a type C75 bowl (c. 325-400 AD), a C97 mortarium (c. 240-400 AD) and a C100 example (c. 300-400 AD). Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers, dishes and bowls account for a further 11% and roller-stamped Argonne ware bowls for 2% more.

The occupation over this metalling yielded another large pottery assemblage, differing little in fabric breakdown from that recovered from the upper courtyard metalling itself. The Thameside greyware industry is thought to have ceased production c. 370 AD and its significant presence here (33%) suggests that the villa was abandoned at some time between AD 350 and 370. The absence of any coins later than AD 360 supports this conclusion.

Further east at Deal, Quarry context 501 at the unpublished St Richards Road site had a 6.58 EVE pottery assemblage associated with a coin of AD 340346. The coarse pottery has Late Thameside and more local greywares making up 77% of it. Late Roman Grogtempered wares with siltstone-grog filler make up a further 8% and that from the Canterbury/Richborough area 4%. BB1 accounts for a further 10% of the coarse pottery, of which at least half is clearly residual: there are, however, fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.8 (c. 270 -370 AD), suggesting that some at least of the BB1 could be early 4th century AD in date. There are very few fine and specialised wares in the total pottery assemblage (4%): these include an Oxfordshire Red-Colour-coat dish (1%), with the rest coming from indeterminate sources.

The BB1 supply pattern for this period suggests that Kent sites ceased to be supplied with such wares after AD 300 apart from the odd stray pot arriving at East Kent coastal sites.

Field-walking by Sam Moorhead immediately northeast of the shore-fort at Lympne (Portus Lemanis) yielded a substantial assemblage of mainly early 4th century AD dated pottery. Most of the coarse pottery is of local production in handmade siltstonegrog-tempered ware (62%) and includes a waster, confirming manufacture in the area. Percentages of Canterbury/Richborough area grog-tempered wares, Thameside greywares, Alice Holt/Farnham industry and Preston kiln products are insignificant (5, 5, 9 and 11% respectively). The small amounts of BB1 are all residual 3rd century AD in date.

The Wealden Military Estate Most of the Wealden iron production sites appear to have been abandoned during the late-3rd century but there are indications on some such sites of low level activity continuing into the early 4th century AD. There are a few post AD 300 sherds from the Roman iron exportation port at Kitchenham Farm, Ashburnham but the best site is Castle Croft, Ninfield nearby, where the pottery from a ditch sectioned by Trench 4 appears to be entirely early 4th century AD in date. The assemblage is too small for any kind of meaningful quantification and has a significant residual element. Nevertheless, the pottery from the lowest fill includes five sherds from a handmade sand and grog tempered beaded-and-flanged bowl and other forms from West Kent (Lyne 2015, Type 8A.6, c. 300 – 400 AD). A fragment from a dish of Bestwall type 8.9 in BB1 fabric is dated c. 290-330 AD: a further five sherds come from vessels made by the BB1 potter operating in the Brighton area (Lyne 1994: 256-60).

Further down the coast at Folkestone, recent unpublished excavations at the Wear Bay Roman villa (Lyne Forthcoming Q) yielded a substantial 18.14 EVE mid 4th century pottery assemblage from the upper courtyard metalling. The biggest single element consists of BB2 and Late Thameside greywares (39%) with handmade siltstone-grog-tempered wares coming a close second (38%): the latter are made up almost entirely of cooking-pots. Canterbury/Richborough area grog-tempered wares remain insignificant (9%), as do Alice Holt/Farnham greywares and Preston kiln products (8% and 1% respectively). Fine and specialised wares make-up 16% of the total pottery assemblage but much of this is residual (11%) with contemporary fragments comprising those from an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat C52 bowl and whiteware mortarium of similar origin (3%), as well as a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat flagon (1%) and New Forest beaker (1%).

The pottery from the upper ditch fill includes three fragments from jars in a very fine version of the Overwey/ Portchester D fabric with blackened exterior and thought to made in East Sussex after c. 300/350 AD. Vessels in this fabric have also been found at Bishopstone (Green 1977: figures 75,77) and Pevensey (Lyne 2009: Fabric D1). 67

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) (c. 270-370 AD), nine dishes of type 8.5 (c. 220-300 AD) and two of type 8.13 (c. 220-350/70 AD).

Londinium and its environs We are fortunate in having a number of early 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages from London and its environs. The earliest from within the walls of Londinium is from the rubbish deposit (Context ER976) over the ruins of substantial buildings at Bush Lane (Marsden 1975: 88). It has a very large 22.26 EVE coarseware element but had no coinage associated: nevertheless, I think it possible to arrive at a fairly close dating for most of the material.

The fine and specialised wares make up nearly 19% of the total Bush Lane pottery assemblage, despite the fact that any Samian ware had been extracted before quantification took place. The bulk of the finewares are Oxfordshire industry products (13%) with Lower Nene Valley colour-coat beaded-and-flanged bowls and beakers and Hadham Oxidised wares making up a further 4 and 2% respectively.

We may not be absolutely certain as to the nature of the Bush Lane buildings complex but it seems likely that we are dealing with an official establishment of some sort. The dating of their final construction phase is suggested by a coin of Gallienus sealed beneath a new hypocaust (ibid.: 62), showing that the buildings were still in use during the late 3rd century AD. It is difficult to visualise the provincial authorities allowing the use of the ruins of official buildings for dumping rubbish except in unusual circumstances: there are, however, two recorded episodes towards the end of the 3rd century AD when such activity could have taken place.

The next pottery assemblage from London is that from Floor 6 at the Mithraeum and was associated with coinage dated AD 310-335 . The coarse pottery assemblage is rather small but has much in common with that from Bush Lane. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares make up a slightly lower 57% with a preponderence of open forms and BB1 a similarly reduced 17%, including an oval Class 9 dish (c. 270/300-370 AD). Thameside greywares of probable Essex origin make up a further 9% of the coarse pottery. The fine and specialised wares account for nearly a quarter of the total pottery: there is a predominance of Lower Nene Valley Colourcoat products (13%), with an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium accounting for much of the rest (5%).

The first of these events was in AD 286, when Carausius rebelled against the Roman Empire: the second was in AD 296, when Constantius restored that authority and liberated London from the threat of sacking by Allectus’s defeated Frankish troops. Perhaps this sack had already started.

The third pottery assemblage is that from Floor 7 at the Mithraeum and is dated by the excavator to c. 340-350/60 AD. The coarse pottery element has a similar make-up to that from Floor 6 with Alice Holt/Farnham greywares accounting for 66% and BB1 for 17%: minority wares include Much Hadham greywares (3%) and Harrold shell-tempered wares (3%). The fine and specialised ware element in the total pottery assemblage (20%) includes similar percentages of Oxfordshire and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat products (9% each).

It is known that the Bush Lane site was dug under adverse conditions, but should any significant proportion of the large ER976 pottery assemblage have been later than 330 one might have expected at least one or two coins of that period. It is suspected, therefore, that the pottery assemblage is of c. 296-330 AD date and that the destruction of the building took place at the time of the overthrow of Allectus.

The combination of the Floors 6 and 7 pottery assemblages from the Mithraeum approximates to the published Group IX from Floors 5, 6 and 7 (Shepherd 1998: 161-4) although the pottery from Floor 5 was not quantified by this author. The Group IX quantification has Alice Holt/Farnham greywares making up 53% of it, Overwey/Portchester D wares 2%, Harrold Shelltempered wares 2% and BB1 a much reduced 14% by minimum numbers of vessels.

The predominant coarseware in the Bush Lane pottery assemblage is Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (62%): these wares are unusual in their form composition in that like those from the Tower Street, Chichester sewer, they display a predominance of open forms. The Alice Holt/Farnham industry produced considerable quantities of such forms, but on most sites within its marketing area they are outnumbered by jars in a rough ratio of 2 to 1. It is only in this assemblage, the contemporary one from Chichester and other early 4th century London ones that the ratios are reversed: in both cities the BB1 producers are seen to have relinquished much of its share of the coarse pottery in circulation at this time. BB1 accounts for only 13% of the Bush Lane coarse pottery assemblage and includes six cooking-pots of Bestwall type 1.5 (c. 280-370 AD), six bowls of types 6.4 and 6.5 (c. 240-300 AD), two of type 6.8

The fourth pottery assemblage is that from Floor 8 at the Mithraeum and is dated c. 350/60-360/70 AD. Here we see a further drop in the BB1 share of the assemblage to 10% with Alice Holt/Farnham greywares remaining predominant (54%): Much Hadham greywares, which had been nominally present in the previous assemblage, now account for 12% of this one. As with the previous pottery assemblage, the 14% fine and specialised elements have similar percentages of Oxfordshire and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat wares (6% each). 68

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

This assemblage can be compared with the published Group X quantification (ibid.: 184-88) which covers Floors 8 and 9 and has Alice Holt/Farnham greywares accounting for 49%, Overwey/Portchester D wares 1%, Harrold Shell-tempered wares 1%, Mayen ware 1% and BB1 for 13%: the Much Hadham grey and blacksurfaced wares are not distinguished in this or other published Mithraeum assemblages but are lost in the miscellaneous greywares and BBS fabrics (32%).

coarse grey wares are conversely scarcely present within the walls at this time yet constitute 64% of the Shadwell pottery assemblage. This is reminiscent of a similar phenomenon, but involving Alice Holt/Farnham wares south and west of London and New Forest greywares at Chichester during the 3rd century AD. It is possible that both of these cities may have been acquiring their pottery supplies through negotiatores based within their walls. The very large 40% fine and specialised wares element in the Shadwell pottery assemblage, like that in the late 3rd century one from the same site (p. 46), has an overwhelming predominance of Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat finewares (37%) and further suggests that such wares were coming in by sea.

The BB1 in all of these Mithraeum pottery assemblages includes a residual 3rd century AD dated element, but nevertheless has numbers of Bestwall open form types which could have been supplied and discarded during the early 4th century. These include beaded-andflanged bowl types 6.6 (c. 290/300-370 AD) and 6.8 (c. 270 – 370 AD) and straight-sided dish types 8.7 (c. 290330 AD), 8.11 and 8.12 (c. 220-350/70 AD). The earlier of these London assemblages continue to have a BB1 open form bias but the Mithraeum Floor 8 one has a predominance of BB1 jars; as does the Billingsgate bathhouse post AD 370 assemblage ER 1286 (See below p. 90). This suggests that what little BB1 trade that there may have been during the mid 4th century AD was no longer geared to open form sales. What this, now trivial, longdistance trade was driven by is discussed below (p. 109).

Proceeding upstream from Londinium, we first come to the Fulham Palace site (Arthur and Whitehouse 1978), where a gravel spread (Context 9) yielded a small 3.04 EVE late 3rd to early 4th century pottery assemblage with coinage up-to AD 340 in association. More than 18% of the coarse pottery comes from Essex sources; showing that, even if these wares were not distributed within the city walls, they were still being marketed west of Londinium and possibly by river. As much as 37% of the pottery from the context is from the Alice Holt/Farnham greyware industry, 9% from the Verulamium kilns and 7% of BB1 origin: handmade Fulham Palace ware (ibid.: 63) makes up a further 10% of the coarse pottery. Fine and specialised wares account for 15% of the total pottery assemblage and are madeup of fragments from Moselkeramik beakers (2%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat and Whiteware bowls and mortaria (11%)) and a Hadham Oxidised ware bowl (2%).

Excavations on the site of the Diana, Princess of Wales, Memorial Fountain in Hyde Park just west of London (Bradley 2007) produced a significant c. 270-350 AD dated pottery assemblage. This has a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (76%), with Harrold Shell-tempered wares making up a nominal further 1% of the coarsewares and BB1 another 17% (Lyne 2007). The BB1 percentage is probably considerably higher for the late 3rd century element in the assemblage and has a considerable bias towards open forms. Those present include examples of Bestwall bowl types 6.5 and 6.8 (c. 280-300 and 270-370 AD), as well as dish types 8.3 and 8.12 (c. 200-270 and 220-350/70 AD). The fine and specialised ware element in the total pottery assemblage is a small 9%, consisting almost entirely of Oxfordshire industrry products.

The fill of a V-shaped ditch at Fulham Palace (Context 19) yielded a small 2.43 EVE early 4th century AD pottery assemblage datable to c. 300-335+ AD. Much of the coarse pottery comes from unidentified sources (49%) with Alice Holt/Farnham greywares accounting for a further 20% and Overwey/Portchester D rilled jars for 12% of the coarse pottery. Minority fabrics include fragments from Harrold Shell-tempered ware jars (7%) and residual BB1 vessels (7%). Fine and specialised wares make-up 29% of everything, with a predominance of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat open-forms and beakers (22%): fragments from a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat box lid (5%) and Hadham Oxidised ware jar (2%) are also present.

Contexts 228 and 290 from the 1975 excavations at Shadwell, immediately east of the city, are of early 4th century AD date. The combined assemblages were associated with coins dating up-to AD 340 and have BB1 making up only 17% and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares a negligible 5% of the coarseware element. The BB1 includes residual sherds but also fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.8 (c. 270 – 370 AD) and a dish of type 8.12 (c. 220-370 AD).It is curious how Alice Holt/Farnham greywares failed to penetrate in any quantity into the countryside immediately to the north and east of the city before AD 370, despite being predominant within the walls of Londinium during the early and middle part of the century. Essex Thameside

Another small, 3.73 EVE, pottery assemblage from burnt layers 17 and 18 is dated to c. 340-360 AD and has a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (63%). Harrold Shell-tempered ware jar fragments account for a further 2%, handmade shell-tempered jars from somewhere in the middle Thames valley for 3% and handmade Fulham Palace ware for 10% of the coarse pottery. Small amounts of BB1 (4%) are probably all residual. Fine and specialised wares make-up 37% of 69

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 15: Distribution of 4th c. beaded-and-flanged bowl types in the South-East of Britain.

the pottery and are dominated by Oxfordshire products (21%), with smaller amounts of Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat (5%) and Hadham Oxidised ware (6%).

wares, which had only just been present in the lower fills of the ditch, now account for 8% of the coarse pottery assemblage from Z1.

All of the Fulham Palace pottery assemblages referred to above are, however, very small and should be viewed with a certain amount of sceptism as to the information supplied by them.

The excavation of the short-lived bathhouse at Chatley Farm, Cobham (Frere 1949) produced a total 10.70 EVE pottery assemblage associated with 16 coins spanning the period AD 259-364 but with the excavator considering that the two 3rd century coins, of Gallienus (AD 258-68), were sufficiently worn to have continued in circulation into the 4th century AD. The pottery assemblage is, therefore, thought to date to the period c. 320-360 AD. Most of the coarse pottery is in Alice Holt/ Farnham greyware (62%) with Overwey/Portchester D jars, bowls and dishes accounting for a further 15%. Minority coarsewares include Mayen ware (4%), Thameside greywares (1%), handmade shell-tempered wares (4%) and West Kent handmade grit-and-grogtempered wares for a further 5%. The few BB1 sherds (3%) come from cooking-pots of uncertain types.

Arthur and Whitehouse suggested that the later defensive bank and ditch at Fulham Palace could have been part of a Theodosian or Sub-Roman military fortification guarding a river crossing and the western approaches to Londinium: it is possible that the early 4th century AD occupation could also have been military. Further west at the 233-246 High Street, Brentford site (Canham 1978), the top fill of the ditch (Context Z1) had coinage running up to AD 341 plus a large 28.40 EVE pottery assemblage (Laws 1978). The author’s quantification of this assemblage differs little in breakdown from that of the pottery assemblage from the lower fill (Context Z2) but, because of the large sizes of both assemblages, even small differences may be meaningful. The BB1 share shows a drop from 10% to 4% and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares from 54% to 51%. Overwey/Portchester D type sandy oxidised

The Civitas of the Catuvellauni The Insula XXI destruction levels in the 1956 Verulamium excavations (Frere 1983: 148) are dated to c. 330-360 AD and indicate considerable changes in pottery supply to the city during the early 4th century. The Verulamium 70

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

Whiteware kilns were in terminal decline, with their share of the coarseware assemblage down to 13% compared with the 59% of the late 3rd century AD Insula XIX, Contexts 15 and 14A one (p. 48). Their share of the pottery assemblage had been largely usurped by Much Hadham greywares, which had risen from 9% of the earlier assemblage to 53% of that from Insula XXI. The BB1 element shows little change from that of the earlier assemblage, being 9% instead of 10% and including fragments from three type 1.5 cooking-pots (c. 280-370 AD) and a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD). The finewares were not looked at.

Building 1 at the unpublished Netherwylde villa site, south east of Verulamium (T. Rawlins pers comm), has supplied two successive pottery assemblages suitable for quantification. The earlier, occupation, deposits had two coins dating between AD 330 and 346 in association with a coarse pottery assemblage dominated by Much Hadham grey and Verulamium Region Whiteware products (25% and 26% respectively). Harrold Shell-tempered wares account for another 11% and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares for 6%. BB1 is represented by fragments from a single cooking-pot. The fine and specialised wares makeup 17% of the total pottery and include fragments from Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat open forms (9%), Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (1%), Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers (2%) and a variety of forms in Hadham Oxidised ware (5%).

A similarly-dated pottery assemblage is that from the upper occupation in basement room 11 in Insula XXVIII (Frere 1983,250). There is very little BB1 (5%), but with Verulamium Region Whitewares at 32% and Much Hadham greywares at 24%, this assemblage incorporates a significant residual element.

The destruction deposits over the same building yielded several mid 4th century coins ending with issues of Valens and Valentinian I dated AD 364-67. The coarse pottery assemblage from these deposits sees Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares increase in significance to 15% and Harrold Shell-tempered wares to 36%. The increase in the latter industry’s share of Catuvellaunian civitas markets during the third quarter of the 4th century AD was clearly not confined to Verulamium and in this case appears to have been at the expense of Much Hadham products, now down to 11% of the coarse pottery: BB1 products are absent.

A 13.68 EVE pottery assemblage from Frere’s Site R (RIV.5) comes from rubbish dumped in a stream bed and is dated to c. 360-70 AD by the excavator. Amounts of BB1 are very small (1%) and almost certainly residual in an assemblage which indicates radical changes in pottery supply to Verulamium during the mid 4th century AD. Harrold Shell-tempered wares had been absent from the previous assemblage but now account for 34% of all of the coarse wares from R1V.5. A corresponding decline in the percentage of Much Hadham greywares to 17% is accompanied by the appearance of small quantities of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (3%) being marketed up the road from Staines. Verulamium Whitewares had ceased being produced and are represented by just a few residual jar fragments (4%). Finewares account for 15% of the total pottery assemblage and include fragments from Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beakers (3%), a variety of forms in Lower Nene Valley Colourcoat fabric (6%) and jars, bowls and beakers in Hadham Oxidised ware (6%).

The Datchworth Iron Age and Roman site (Information T.Rook) was enclosed by a massive ditch, used for rubbish dumping during the 4th century AD. This rubbish was deposited in different parts of the ditch at different times. Rubbish deposition in sections H to P across the ditch took place during the earlier 4th century AD and yielded not only a significant pottery assemblage but coins dating to between AD 333 and 360. The greater proximity of the site to the Harrold kilns in Bedfordshire is reflected in the high percentage of pottery from that source (62%). Much Hadham greywares are the next most significant (18%), with Verulamium Region Whitewares making up a mere 3% of the coarse pottery. Once again, there is no BB1.

An appreciable 10.70 EVE pottery assemblage was recovered from the surface of a cobbled area in Trench 2 during the 1970 excavations at Brockley Hill (Castle 1972) and was dated by coinage to c. 300-345+ AD. The excavation took place in the heart of the settlement of Sulloniacae on Watling Street, known to be a major source of Verulamium Region Whitewares throughout their production. Most of the coarsewares are in that fabric (71%), with just a little Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (3%), Thameside greyware (5%), Hadham greyware (7%) and BB1 (5%). The BB1 includes fragments from a type 6.4 beaded-and-flanged bowl (c. 240-290/300 AD), two of type 6.8 (c. 270 – 370) and a dish of type 8.12 (c. 220-370 AD). Finewares account for 14% of the total pottery assemblage and include Hadham Oxidised flagons and jars (8%), a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaker and box (1%) and an Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat beaker (1%).

The coarse pottery assemblage from the early 4th century AD dated fill of Well F.31 at Baldock near the Cambridgeshire county boundary (Stead and Rigby 1986: 369) had Much Hadham greywares making up 48% of it and Harrold Shell-tempered wares 38%: once again there is no BB1. At Staines Hythe on the extreme southern edge of the civitas, the upper fills of a ditch had a total predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares; up from 65% of the coarse pottery in the lower fills to 79%. Overwey/ Portchester D and Harrold Shell-tempered wares make 71

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) their first appearance at 3% and 2% respectively. BB1 is not present there either.

centres producing very coarsely sanded wares, such as those manufacturing Overwey/Portchester D type buff wares.

All of this creates a picture of an area where BB1 distribution was virtually at an end except possibly for tiny amounts being supplied to sites along Watling Street: even this traffic did not last long into the early 4th century AD.

The Continental distribution (Figure 16) The decline in the British BB1 distribution was not reflected in northern Gaul, where significant quantities of such wares were traded after AD 300 over a wider area. The sites having the largest numbers of and percentages of 4th century AD dated BB1 vessels are Alet, Cherbourg, Bayeux and Lillebonne; all of which are coastal and probable points of entry for the wares. Alet, in Brittany has produced fragments from in excess of 92 vessels, comprising at least 34 examples of cooking-pot types 1.1 to 1.5, 34 beaded-and-flanged bowls of type 6.8, one of type 6.9 and 23 of dish types 8.11 to 8.13.

The Civitas of the Trinovantes What little supply of BB1 products had taken place within the civitas of the Trinovantes during the 3rd century had all but dried up after AD 300. An assemblage from the c. AD 300-360 dated Pit fill 528 in the 1988 excavations at Chelmsford was quantified and had BB1 making up a mere 3% of the coarseware element. This pit belongs to Going’s Ceramic Phase 7 (1987), which he applied to site assemblages from the 1970s excavations in the south-east sector of the town. His quantifications of assemblages belonging to Ceramic Phases 5 (c. 200250 AD), 6 (c. 250-300 AD) and 7 (c. 300-370 AD) give, after separating out the finewares, nil, 3% and 1% BB1 respectively.

Cherbourg has yielded between 100 and 150 pots and a large 4th century pottery assemblage from Bayeux has BB1 making up 15-to-20% of the material: the BB1 includes fragments from at least 300 separate pots (Delacampagne and Dufournier 1989,40), of which the c. 300-370 AD dated examples include at least 96 obtuselatticed cooking-pots, 10 beakers of type 5.1, one beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.6, 35 each of types 6.8 and 6.9, 47 dishes of types 8.11 to 8.13 and an oval dish of Class 9.

The bulk of the Chelmsford Context 528 coarse wares (59%) are sandy grey and black-surfaced greywares from the Moulsham Street kilns (Going 1987: 73), but 23% are coarse-sand and flint-grit tempered Rettendon products. This latter pottery production centre expanded its distribution area towards the middle of the 4th century AD, with figures of 28% from Upminster, 14% from Marshall’s Farm and 24% from Wickford. The Much Hadham pottery industry also began to expand its marketing area in an easterly direction during the early 4th century AD. Wickford has yielded a Much Hadham greyware percentage of 8% and Going gives a figure in excess of 3% for Chelmsford. Most of the sites in parts of Essex adjacent to the Thames estuary obtained the bulk of their coarse pottery from local Thameside industry kilns, such as those at Orsett and Mucking. BB1 is absent from the mid 4th century Wickford Hearth 133 assemblage, the early 4th century one from Context 42 at Rivenhall and the 4th century AD one from Contexts XIV 1,2 and XV 2 at the Marshalls Farm, Southend site.

Lillebonne near Le Havre has a mid -4th century AD dated pottery assemblage with 46% BB1 calculated by Minimum Numbers of Vessels (Adrian 2006, tableau 19). The assemblage is rather small (22 pots) but the BB1 element comprises fragments from six obtuse-latticed cooking-pots, a type 5.1 beaker, a type 6.6 beaded-andflanged bowl, a type 6.8 example and two types 8.11 to 8.13 dishes. The sheer quantity of BB1 now being supplied to sites in northern Gaul led to the production of local copies from an unknown source in the department of Seine Maritime, fired black with iron-stained quartz-sand filler (Yves-Marie Adrian pers. comm.). The map (Figure 16) clearly shows a BB1 trade route up the River Seine, through Rouen and Paris and beyond as far as Pont sur Yonne. A mid 4th century AD dated 40 pot assemblage from the Rouen Cathedral Cour des Macons site (Adrian 2006: tableaux 1.5) has BB1 making up 7% of it; comprising an everted-rim cooking-pot of uncertain type, a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.5 and two of type 6.8. Finds from upstream of Rouen makeup less than 1% of any assemblage in which they occur and include three cooking-pots from Limetz-Villez in the Department of Yvelines, two from Vallengoujard La Garenne and one from Genainville in the Department of Val-de-Oise another from the St Denis Abbey site in the Department of Seine St Denis, a type 6.8 beaded-

Figures from Colchester (Symonds and Wade 1999) for the early 4th century AD Groups 14, 15 and 16 give an average BB1 element of less than 2%. What forms that are present could all be residual 3rd century AD in date and, together with the evidence from other sites within the civitas, suggest that supply of BB1 wares had ceased. All in all, the Essex pottery suppliers were capable of dealing with local coarseware open-form demand, although the Rettendon kilns continued to be very weak in such vessel classes. In this way, the Rettendon kilns are very similar to other new pottery-production 72

Figure 16: Distribution of BB1 on the Continent and in the Channel Islands. c. AD.300-350/70

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

73

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) and-flanged bowl from Saint Germain-les-Corbeil in the Department of Seine et Marne, and a cooking-pot from Pont sur Yonne in the Department of Yonne. A cookingpot of type 1.6 with diagonal-line burnished decoration from Limetz-Villez in the Department of Yvelines could belong to the later part of this phase but could equally well indicate that this trade route continued in use after AD 370.

residual but the rest suggest continued supply of BB1 to the fort throughout the period c. 300-370 AD (Lyne and Vanhoutte 2021). BB1 makes up less than 1% of any single assemblage and suggests that this pottery was not supplied by trade but by personnel transferred from shore-forts across the Channel bringing pots with them. The Oudenburg BB1 pottery is the only material from that source on Continental sites known to include dishes with internal Redcliff motifs: one of the two examples of type 8.9 decorated with this motif is unstratified, as is an oval dish of type 9.1 (c. 300-400+ AD).

What is clear is that amounts of BB1 in site assemblages along the upper reaches of the Rivers Seine and Yonne are so small that there must have been more significant elements in the cargoes emanating from the civitas of the Durotriges and using this riverine trade route. What these more significant elements in the cargoes may have been is debatable but may well have included grain and salt. It is known that Julian had 800 large vessels built during the mid-4th century for the purpose of transporting grain from Britannia to the military garrisons along the Rhine (Ammianus XVIII.2-3, Zosimus 3.5.2): this riverine supply route may relate to similar supply but to the interior of Gaul instead.

6.4: c. 350/370-430+ AD (Figure 17) As stated earlier, the beginning of this period saw radical changes in pottery supply, not only in southeast Britain but elsewhere across the British provinces. BB1 continued to be largely absent, except for within the civitas of the Durotriges and along the Channel coast as far east as Chichester. Form variety continued to increase, with indications of a decline in quality towards the end of the industry taking the form of the use of vesicular poorly-prepared clay and patchy pot colouration.

Small numbers of BB1 vessels are also found on French and Belgian coastal sites east of the Seine estuary in a concentration around Dieppe. They include three examples each of types 1.5 cooking-pots and 6.8 beadedand-flanged bowls, one type 6.9 example and five types 8.11-to-8.13 dishes from Penly just east of Dieppe, and two type 6.8 bowls and a type 8.11 dish from Dieppe itself.

The period after AD 370 also saw the handmade grogtempered and grit-and-grog-tempered ware producing industries of Kent, East Sussex and the Hampshire Basin become much more significant, with those in East Kent becoming overwhelmingly predominant in coarse-pottery assemblages from the area (Lyne 2015). This increase in the significence of such wares may have been due in part to the collapse of the Thameside greyware industries in Kent and a decline in the output of the New Forest kilns. The inland Alice Holt/Farnham and Harrold pottery industries did, however, expand their distribution zones considerably after AD 370; in the former case at the expense of the New Forest and other greyware producing industries.

Martainneville on the estuary of the River Somme has produced seven examples of cooking-pot type 1.5 and similar, two of beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.8 and one dish of type 8.11/13: these all come from a context dated c. 350-400 AD and were probably traded towards the end of this phase. Moving further north-east to the Pas-de-Calais, Boulogne has produced significant numbers of BB1 vessels from both the fortress of Gessoriacum and port of Bononia. There are two type 1.5 cooking-pots, four type 6.8 beaded-and-flanged bowls, six types 8.11 to 8.13 dishes and an oval class 9 dish known to this author and there are probably more vessels from various sites in the town. The hinterland of Boulogne has yielded sherds of a type 6.8 bowl from Arras and there are a few fragments from Amiens

The civitas of the Durotriges Dorset continued to be swamped by BB1 products, with very little else getting into the area except in the north, where appreciable quantities of New Forest greyware products continued to circulate. BB1 pottery waste from the stoke-pits and ovens of the late 4th century Kilns 161 and 503 on the Worgret site west of Wareham have jar percentages almost exactly equalling those of bowls and dishes combined. Bowls and dishes are present in approximately similar amounts. Does this reflect the actual composition of kiln loads during the period, or is it because some vessels forms were more prone to breakage during firing than others?

The key site in Belgium continues to be the shore-fort at Oudenburg near Bruges. Phases 5 and 5a (c. 320400+ AD) have produced one beaded-and-flanged bowl each of types 6.5 and 6.6 (c. 280-300 and 290/300-370 AD respectively), two each of dish types 8.5 and 8.9 (c. 220-290/300 and 290-330 AD) and three of type 8.12 (c. 220-350/370 AD). Some of these vessels are clearly 74

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

Kilns Z133 and Z274 at the Bestwall Quarry site east of Wareham also date to the period c. 370-430 AD, as does the pottery from the circular workshop Structure 9 (Lyne 2012). The earlier of the two kilns is Z133 (c. 36080 AD) and continues the decline in the significance of cooking-pots in kiln assemblages from the site (42%), with bowls accounting for 32% and dishes 22% of the associated kiln waster assemblage: other forms make up a mere 4% of the pottery. Kiln Z274 dates to c. 370400+ AD and has cooking-pots making up a similar 40% of the associated assemblage, with bowls and dishes accounting for nearly all of the rest (24% and 34% respectively).

beaker (c. 300-400+ AD) and type 61 dish (c. 340-370 AD) in colour-coat fabric from the same source. A series of post-AD 350/70 pottery assemblages were recovered from the Druce villa north of Dorchester (Lyne Forthcoming A). Furnace stoke-pit 781 in the western range Room W1 yielded coins dating up-to AD 383 and an appreciable 6.88 EVE pottery assemblage: most of the coarseware element is BB1 (93%) and has jars making-up 26%, bowls 31%, dishes 7% and flagons the rest. BB1 forms include a Bestwall type 1.7 cookingpot (c. 340-430 AD), two type 1.11s (c. 390-430 AD), three types 2.6 and 2.7 necked-bowls (c. 370-430 AD), five types 6.8 and 6.9 beaded-and-flanged bowls (c. 270370 and 300/350-400+ AD), seven coarse and vesicular type 6.11 examples (c. 370-430 AD), a type 8.15 dish (c. 350-430 AD) and several flagons. Finewares make-up 9% of the pottery and include fragments from a New Forest fine ware bowl and other forms (5%), as well as Oxfordshire Red-Colour-coat and Whiteware dishes and mortaria (4%).

The 13.35 EVE pottery assemblage from Kiln Z133 includes fragments from several cooking-pots of type 1.8 (c. 340-430 AD), two examples of bowl types 2.8 (c. 370-430 AD), 20 of beaded-and-flanged bowl types 6.9 (c. 300-400+ AD) and 6.11 (c. 370-430 AD) and four of type 6.8 (c. 270-370 AD.). There are 17 dishes of types 8.14 and 8.15 (c. AD.370-430), two of type 8.11 (c. 220-370 AD) and five of type 8.12 (c. 220-370 AD), as well as a flagon of type 10.4 (c. 270-400+ AD) and an oxidised storage jar of type 13.2 (c. 370-430 AD).

The lower part of Room N3 at the west end of the north wing was back-filled with pottery and other rubbish during the mid-4th century AD and a floor laid over it. The occupation over this floor yielded 214 sherds (3061 g.) of pottery, of which 26 come from Bestwall Type 13.2 Orange Wiped Ware storage-jars (c. 370-430 AD): the rest are in BB1 fabrics and include sherds from cookingpots of types 1.8 and 1.11 (c. 340-430 and 390-430 AD) and two examples of beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.9 (c. 300/50-400+ AD). This occupation clearly continued from c. 370 until after 390 AD.

The assemblage from Kiln Z274 is larger (21.85 EVE), with two-thirds of the decorated cooking-pot sherds being from 18 examples with diagonal-burnished line decoration (c. AD.340-430) and only 15% from obtuselatticed examples. Two-thirds of the 23 beaded-andflanged bowls are of type 6.9 (c. 300-370 AD.) and the remainder of types 6.8 and 6.11 (c. 270/300-370 and 370430 AD respectively). Dishes are all variants of types 8.14 and 8.15 (c. 370-430 AD).

There are few sherds of coarse-pottery from non-BB1 sources on any of the Isle of Purbeck occupation sites. A mid-to-late 4th century AD dated surface collection from the Witchampton villa site 16 kilometres north of Poole has New Forest greywares accounting for 20% of the coarse pottery and made up entirely of jars, storage-jars and flagons.

The very large 106.55 EVE pottery assemblage from the occupation in the circular hut (Structure 9) includes both occupational and industrial elements. Cooking pots of types 1.8, 1.9 and 1.11 make up 41% of the coarse pottery, which consists entirely of BB1 and its SouthEast Dorset Orange Wiped Ware variant. Bowls of types 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12 account for a further 25% and dishes of types 8.14 and 8.15 for 21%: other forms, which formed such an insignificant part of the kiln assemblages, are considerably more significant here; with beakers making up 4%, Orange Wiped Ware storage jars of type 13.2 2%, BB1 storage-jars 1% and jugs, Class 9 oval dishes, lids etc a further 5%. Fine Oxfordshire, Lower Nene Valley and New Forest colourcoated wares are also present, make up 3% of the total pottery assemblage and include fragments from bowls and dishes of forms C73.4 (c. 350-400+), C46. (c. 340-400+), C49 (c. 240-400+), C51 (c. 240-400+), C68 (c.300-400), C78 (c.340-400), C81 (c.300-400+) and C82 (c. 325-400+AD) in Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat fabric. Fragments from a New Forest Parchment Ware mortarium of Fulford’s type 81 (c. 300-380 AD) and a closed form in the same fabric are also present as are the base from a type 33

The Bokerly Fore-dyke was constructed after AD 400 (Rahtz 1963). Very little pottery came from Pitt-Rivers’ sections across its ditch compared with the large pottery assemblage from that of the Rear Dyke but include a tiny dish made by grinding down the base of a cooking-pot to create a vessel only 45mm in diameter (Pitt-Rivers 1892: Plate CLXXXVI-12). The presence of this item suggests that BB1 and other coarsewares had ceased being produced before this ditch was dug. The section through the Fore-Dyke produced large numbers of coins, including one of Honorius (AD 393-402) from the ground surface beneath the rampart. All of this is suggestive of total coin discard taking place at the time that the feature was created and that any pottery from within its ditch is residual or dates to after c. 420-30 AD. 75

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 17: Distribution of BB1 in the South-East of Britain. c. AD.350/70-430+

76

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

77

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) The Civitas of the Belgae

The Hampshire Coast

North Wiltshire

The period after AD 370 saw continued trafficking in BB1 along the Hampshire coast to begin with, but the supply of other wares underwent considerable changes. The most signifiant of these changes was a sharp decline in New Forest Greyware supply. This ware’s presence at Clausentum drops from 62% of the pottery assemblage from the early 4th century AD layer F2B in Waterman’s excavations(1947) to 32% of that from rubbish dump F1 above. Alice Holt/Farnham wares make an appearance (6%) and there is an increase in the percentage of Hampshire Grog-tempered wares to 34% of the coarseware assemblage. BB1 accounts for 21% and includes examples of types 1.5 and 1.8 cookingpots (c. 280-370 and 340-430 AD) and a type 6.11 beadedand-flanged bowl (c. 370-430 AD). The high level of fine and specialised wares (33%) may be due to total loss of such wares in use during the early 5th century. There is a predominance of New Forest Purple Colour-coat beakers, with a parchment-ware mortarium from the same source (26%). Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat dishes and an Eponge fabric bowl account for most of the rest of such wares (5%).

The fills of hollow roadway 1302 on the Butterfield Down site at Amesbury were associated with a coin of AD 341-46, but the pottery assemblage is of post-AD 370 character. New Forest greywares make up 29% of the coarsewares and horizontally-rilled jars in a coarsegritted grey-buff fabric of unknown but probable New Forest origin for a similar percentage. BB1 makes up a mere 6% of the coarse pottery, all of which may be residual in nature. Overwey/Portchester D fabric rilled jars account for a further 1% and jars, bowls and dishes in Hampshire Grog-tempered ware for 19%. The small 48 sherd pottery assemblage from context 3024 is thought to come from the vicinity of a very late hoard of eight gold solidi of Gratian, Valentinian II, Arcadius and Honorius found by a metal-detectorist in a New Forest colour-coat beaker of Fulford type 30.12. and thought to have been deposited after AD 405 (Burnett 1990),. There are 10 sherds of Hampshire Grogtempered ware, one in BB1 fabric, 31 in miscellaneous coarseware and six in New Forest colour-coat (Lehmann 1990), but cannot be dated any more closely than to the 4th century AD.

More recent excavations at Clausentum Quay in 1996 yielded another late 4th century AD dated pottery assemblage from demolition deposits in Trench 17 (Lyne Forthcoming C: Assemblage 17). This paints a somewhat different picture of pottery supply to Clausentum after AD 370, in having New Forest greywares making up a much higher 69% of the coarse pottery, Hampshire Grog-tempered wares 15% and BB1 7%. The BB1 includes fragments from a further type 1.8 cooking-pot and a 6.11 bowl. Fewer fine and specialised wares are present than in the pre-War excavation assemblage (20%) but there is a similar predominance of New Forest products (11%), with Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat vessels (1%) including fragments from a C46 dish and a C85 bowl ( c. 350400+ AD). Most unusually, fragments from a Spatheian amphora are present (c. 350-400+ AD).

The 1970 excavations at Durrington Walls(Swan 1971, Wainwright 1971),a short distance to the north of Amesbury, produced several late 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages. All of these assemblages are too small for quantification by EVEs: amounts of BB1 are small but include fragments of a type 1.8 cooking-pot (c. 340-430 AD) from the stoke-hole of a corn-dryer (Swan 1971 figure 22-15). The pottery assemblage sequence indicates that Alice Holt/Farnham greywares appeared on the site at the end of the 4th century AD and began to eat into the very high New Forest Greyware share of the market. Occupation on the site continued well into the 5th century AD, with the coins including a clipped siliqua of Eugenius. A number of pottery assemblages from northern Wiltshire were also examined, but all come from old excavations where some material had been discarded. A well at the walled town of Mildenhall near the Berkshire border was excavated in 1912 (Cunnington 1920). It yielded Valentinianic coinage and large amounts of pottery of late 4th century AD date. Most of the coarse pottery (69%) comes from sources in northern Wiltshire: New Forest Greywares make up a further 18%, Alice Holt/Farnham greywares 8% and Hampshire Grog-tempered wares 4%. Small amounts of BB1 are also present but are residual in nature.

The pottery from the general occupation layer F2 above cobbles at Paradise Lane, Wallington is also of late 4th century AD character and displays a similar fall-off in the supply of New Forest greywares as is indicated at Clausentum by Waterman’s excavation, but this time from 47% of the coarse pottery to 20% of the same. As at Clausentum, much of the New Forest share of that market went to the handmade Hampshire Grogtempered ware industries, the percentage of which doubles to 32%. A newcomer on the scene is an industry producing simple, slack-profiled jars in a coarse-sanded white or buff fabric with rim-edge blackening: these account for 20% of the assemblage. The rim treatment is reminiscent of that on many jars in Overwey/ Portchester D fabric; now known to have been made at 78

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

several production centres such as Alice Holt, Overwey and East Sussex.

ware mortarium (17%): Oxfordshire industry products account for the rest.

Horizontally-rilled jars in the real Overwey/Portchester D fabric are also present in this assemblage (4%). The industry manufacturing the East Sussex version was, from the Truleigh Hill evidence (p. 86), making both kinds of jar in white as well as buff/orange fired fabric and may have been engaged in coastal trade with the Fareham area. BB1 makes up 18% of the assemblage, some of which is clearly residual in nature but also includes examples of bowl type 6.11 (c. 370-430 AD) and dish type 8.15 (c. 350-430 AD). There is a very high percentage of fine and specialised wares in this fairly small 4.15 EVE pottery assemblage (39%) and, as at Clausentum, the bulk consists of New Forest products (31%), with Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat vessels represented by fragments from a single mortarium. It should be said, however, that the New Forest Colourcoat percentage of the total assemblage is heavily distorted upwards by the presence of a complete bottle rim.

This brings us to what may be the latest Roman pottery assemblage so far from Hampshire coastal areas. The Crown Offices, Fareham site (Holmes 1975) consisted of a ditch containing building debris and quantities of pottery. There are no coins but the presence of sherds of Early Saxon rusticated ware indicate a 5th century AD date for some of the pottery from Layers 1, 2 and 3 in the top of the feature. New Forest greywares, all jars, account for 23% of the coarsewares. This is similar to the situation in other late 4th century AD dated assemblages from sites in the area. Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares make up 7% of the coarse pottery and Hampshire Grog-tempered wares a further 12%, including another embossed dish. BB1 is represented by a fragment from a single beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.11 in the late coarse, vesicular version of the fabric (c. 370-430 AD). The most extraordinary feature of the assemblage is the high 55% Overwey. Portchester D ware presence. The sheer quantity of jars and other forms in this fabric led the excavator to call it Fareham ware (ibid.: 57) on the assumption that it was made locally. If this were the case, the mystery is why it never appears in such large percentages in late assemblages from Portchester, only six kilometres to the east of Fareham.

A substantial 19.52 EVE pottery assemblage from Trench 88, Layer 10 above the latest Roman road at Portchester (Cunliffe 1975: figure 213) was quantified. The layer was disturbed by Early Saxon features but the pottery content follows the local trend of a falloff in the percentage of New Forest greywares from the 47% of the Middle Occupation assemblage to 24% of this one. The corresponding rise in the percentage of Hampshire Grog-tempered wares from 27% to 32% is quite small and much of the New Forest greyware share of the Portchester coarse pottery supply seems to have been taken over by Alice Holt/Farnham ware products: these rise from a nominal 1% share of the Middle Occupation assemblage to 19% of that from Layer 10. Vessels in Overwey/Portchester D fabric had appeared at Portchester in c. 325 AD (Fulford 1975A: 299) but were initially very rare: they now account for 3% of this assemblage.

An explanation for this phenomenon may lie in the field of chronology, in that the Crown Offices pottery assemblage may be later than the final Roman occupation at Portchester or be datable to the very last years of activity on that site. This, from the lack of Theodosian coinage at Portchester, has been argued as having been interrupted between AD 387 and 397 (Reece 1975: 196), although Reece himself expresses scepticism regarding his hypothesis. This author concurs with his scepticism and believes that, as at Chichester, there was simply a local breakdown in coin supply during the last years of the 4th century AD. The Fareham Overwey/ Portchester D type vessels, like those at Paradise Lane, Wallington may have come in by sea from the postulated East Sussex production centre, with their predominance at Fareham reflecting proximity to the point of entry.

BB1 makes up a slightly reduced 14% of the coarse pottery from Layer 10 and includes fragments from Bestwall cooking-pot types 1.5 and 1.7 (c. 280-370 and 340-400+ AD), beaded-and-flanged bowl types 6.8 and 6.10 (c. 270-370, 370-430 AD) and dish type 8.13 (c. 220350/370 AD) in an occupation layer that started to be deposited c. 346 AD and continued accumulating until at least the end of the 4th century AD. A very late date for some of the pottery is indicated by the presence of a Hampshire Grog-tempered ware convex-sided dish with solid external bosses (Lyne 2015: Type 6A.25, c. 400-450 AD).

We thus have a picture of continued BB1 supply to sites along the Hampshire coast until after AD 370. The absence of the last BB1 jar forms from Portchester and elsewhere does, however, indicate that such traffic was largely at end by the end of the century and restricted to just the occasional vessel after AD 370. There was increasing emphasis on coarseware supply from handmade grog-tempered ware producing sources, although such wares may have been partially supplanted by wares in Alice Holt and Overwey/

Here again, there is a high percentage of fine and specialised wares (23%); largely made up of New Forest Colour-coat bowls and beakers, and a Parchment 79

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Portchester D type fabrics at the end of the century. The New Forest greyware suppliers seem to have been operating at a much reduced level throught the period, but probably continued manufacturing well into the first decade of the 5th century AD.

The third pottery assemblage comes from the Phase 53 Pit F1342 on the same site, which contained a hoard with coins dating to AD 395 and beads from a necklace with a clipped siliqua threaded on to it, dating the pit to after AD 402. The rather small pottery assemblage does, however, seem to be telling a story in having New Forest greywares down to 16% and Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares maintaining a share of 28%. There is a considerable increase in the presence of Overwey/ Portchester D wares to 16% of the coarse pottery but handmade grog-tempered wares decline to 17%. There is a nominal percentage of BB1 present, all of which is residual in nature. It would appear that BB1 supply to Winchester had terminated by AD 370.

The Winchester area Moving inland from the Hampshire coast, three very late 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages from Winchester have been quantified. The first is a 16.32 EVE one from Phase X in the 1956 Kingdon’s Workshop excavation (Cunliffe 1964) and is of c. 360-380 AD date; consisting of the pottery from a soil horizon sealing the Phase IX second building occupation beneath. The most common coarseware fabric is New Forest greyware, which at 39% is down slightly on that from the Phase IX Pit 8 at the site (p. 58). Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares show a rise to 11%, Overwey/ Portchester D fabric vessels make an appearance at 6% and Hampshire Grog-tempered wares increase in significance to 31% of the coarsewares. BB1 makes up 7% of the assemblage and includes a beaded-andflanged bowl of type 6.6 and an oval ‘Fish Dish’ of Class 9 (c. 290/300-370 and 290/300-370/400 AD): residual late 3rd century forms are also present. Fine and specialised wares make up 32% of the total assemblage and once more have a predominance of New Forest vessels (25%): these include fragments from 17 Purple and Red Colour-coat beakers and five bowls and a flagon in the latter fabric. The somewhat fewer Oxfordshire industry products (7%) include fragments from a C97 wall-sided mortarium and several beakers.

This sequence of pottery assemblages also shows a steady decline in the presence of New Forest Colourcoat vessels, resulting in a corresponding increase in the coarseware share of the total pottery in the assemblages. The pottery assemblage from the Phase 53 pit could be used to argue that New Forest greyware production had ceased by the time that it was deposited, with just a little residual pottery being present. The assemblage is, however, rather small with an EVE total of 2.94 and fragments from 26 vessels. A late Roman pottery assemblage combined with black sandy handmade Early Saxon fabrics was associated with a structure constructed over the fallen end wall of an aisled building at Meonstoke (A King pers comm.). The Saxon pottery includes one sherd with stamped decoration. The Roman wares differ from those in the rubbish dumped within the ruined hypocaust (p. 59) in having a much-reduced and probably residual New Forest greyware content (2%). Alice Holt/Farnham wares, on the other hand, are up to 24% of the coarse pottery and Hampshire Grog-tempered wares down from the 35% of the assemblage from the aisled-barn destruction contexts to a mere 4% of this.

The second, post AD 370, assemblage is a much smaller 3.24 EVE one from the Phase 53 Pit F1466 in the 1989 Brook Street excavations and comprises fragments from 36 vessels. This feature was dug against the wall of the rebuilt mid 4th century Phase 525 building; confirming its late date. It is probably later than the previous assemblage in that, as at Bitterne, Fareham and Portchester, the New Forest greyware percentage is down and the Alice Holt/Farnham greyware one is up: in this particular assemblage, New Forest greywares make up 28%, Alice Holt/Farnham greywares 26%, Overwey/Portchester D wares 3% and handmade grogtempered wares 33% of the coarse pottery. Comparison of these statistics with those from the previous assemblage suggests that the Alice Holt potters were the main beneficiaries of the decline in the New Forest industry fortunes and that the Hampshire Grogtempered ware producers simply maintained their share of the market. Residual BB1 accounts for 6% of the coarsewares, with most of the sherds coming from a single type 6.8 beaded-and-flanged bowl (c. 270-370 AD). This assemblage is, however, too small to give a reliable picture of the pattern of pottery supply to Venta Belgarum after AD 370.

This assemblage supplies further evidence for both the New Forest greywares and handmade grog-tempered ware industries being in terminal decline during the early 5th century AD, with the former starting its decline slightly earlier than the latter. As at Winchester, both of these wares were supplanted by Alice Holt and Overwey/Portchester D wares, but also in this case by what appears to be the same industry as was supplying the Chilgrove valley and Chichester towards the end of the 4th century AD with black-ironstone grit and grogtempered wares. At Meonstoke, the forms supplied in this fabric were tournetted roll-over rim jars and beaded-and-flanged bowls: these account for 27% of the coarse pottery. BB1 makes up 4% of the assemblage and includes fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.8 (c. 270 – 370 AD): this is residual in what is a 5th century AD context. The percentage of fine and specialised wares is a very small 9% and probably 80

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

entirely residual: it comprises fragments from an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium and a small New Forest Parchment Ware jar of Fulford’s Class 97 (c. 300380 AD).

This pit was probably dug after AD 400, despite the presence of a mid 4th century coin and one of the most important aspects of it is that demolition for timber, tile and building-stone was taking place at this late date. This demolition probably relates to the bath-block at the eastern end of the south range and the nearest structure to the pit. This bath-block was replaced by the crude rectangular Building 6 with rubble wall sills and a suspected timber superstructure and it is to the occupation within this ?5th century building that the pottery from the pit probably relates. The Victorian excavations had removed any occupational material from within the structure itself (Cunliffe 2013, 75-77).

The important question about this assemblage is whether the Roman element is contemporary with the Saxon pottery or totally residual in its context. There is no abnormal make-up to the assemblage as regards the forms that are present but a beaded-and-flanged bowl fragment in the ‘Chilgrove’ fabric appears to have had its flange deliberately removed in antiquity. The aisled-barn destruction levels immediately overlay the hypocaust fills and the hut, with which the occupation assemblage is associated, was on the surface of the collapsed end wall of that building. The Roman pottery from the hut occupation is very different to that in the final destruction deposits within the aisled barn, so it is possible that the Roman and Saxon pottery were in contemporary use.

Five small pottery assemblages from the Rock villa in the west of Vectis are very significant in that four of them come from squatting in the ruins of the building after its roof had collapsed (Lyne Forthcoming T). The earliest of these assemblages is a 4.45 EVE one from the lower fill of a recut drainage ditch on the east side of the villa and is lacking in Vectis ware. Coarse wares account for 87% of the entire pottery assemblage and have a predominance of New Forest Greywares (47%) with Hampshire Grog-tempered wares coming a close second (39%). BB1 makes up a mere 8% of the pottery, but, more importantly, there are small quantities of chaff-tempered and sand-tempered Sub-Roman/ Early Saxon pottery (5%). These lower ditch fills appear to be of late 4th – to – mid 5th century date and were sealed by a dump of tile fragments from the collapse of the roof of the villa. This tile dump included more sherds, including one from a BB1 necked bowl of Bestwall type 2.2 (c.370-430+): these sherds are probably derived from the lower fills beneath.

The Isle of Wight Only one EVEs quantifiable pottery assemblage of the period c. AD 370-400 has been examined from the Island and that is from squatting in the building at Rock: pottery of latest 4th century AD date does occur, however, as elements in larger more generally 4th century AD dated assemblages. An old unstratified collection from the Carisbrooke villa suggests an assemblage dominated by up-to 60% handmade grogtempered ware with much smaller amounts of New Forest greyware and BB1. The latter includes fragments from beaded-and-flanged bowls of types 6.9 and 6.11 (c. 300/50-430 and 370-430 AD) as well as an oval dish with handles (c. 270/300-400+ AD).

A corndryer was then constructed through the collapsed roof debris in Room 4. The sherds from its fill include the greater part of a large oxidised storagejar with blackened rim; similar to Bestwall type 13.2 but without any obvious added filler. The few other fragments comprise those from a BB1 deep dish of type 8.14 in late vesicular fabric (c. 370-430 AD) and a handmade slack-profiled jar with crushed pottery filler.

There are also small post AD 400 dated pottery assemblages from Brading in the east of the Island and Rock in the west. The pottery assemblage from Pit 510 to the south of the south range of the Brading villa complex was excavated in 2003 and comprises 261 sherds (3544 g.) in association with large numbers of tile fragments from demolition activities. The assemblage was quantified by numbers of sherds per fabric and is characterised by a near absence of Vectis ware sherds (1%) and the presence of significant numbers of sherds in Hampshire Grogtempered ware (36%). These grog-tempered fragments include pieces from convex-sided dishes of Lyne type 6A.24 (c. 350-400+ AD) and the embossed type 6A.25 (c. 400-430 AD). New Forest greyware products account for a further 107 sherds from the pit (41%) and there are 43 sherds from very late 4th century dishes in coarse, vesicular BB1 fabric (c. 370-430+ AD, 16%).

Pit 1 was also dug through the roof collapse in Room 5 and yielded fragments from a BB1 necked-bowl of type 2.5 (c. 370-430+), as well as a handmade jar in soapy filler-free fabric and three jars in Hampshire Grogtempered ware: a fragment from an Early Saxon vessel is also present. A hearth dug through the occupation over the roof collapse debris in the same room produced two coins of Valentinian II (AD 388-392) as well as fragments from a BB1 bowl of type 6.10 in vesicular late fabric (c. 370-430 AD) and a hook-rim jar in New Forest Greyware. 81

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) This group of assemblages provides evidence for both the continuation in use of Roman coinage and BB1 production well into the 5th century.

the rest (19%) and almost certainly also from the Alice Holt potteries only eight kilometres to the east. The only other coarse fabric present in this assemblage is a white-cored sandy grey one, represented by a dish rim of rather early looking and probable residual nature.

The Civitas of the Atrebates The 1939 excavations on Site K outside the north-west wall of Silchester revealed a street running northsouth, pre-dating the walling of the city and with 3rd century AD dated occupation associated (Cotton 1947). Above this occupation were the fragmentary remains of a circular hut, with mid-to-late 4th century coinage running up to AD 383 associated with its lower occupation. The pottery assemblage from this lower occupation (Context K7) was heavily contaminated with 3rd century material from the deposits beneath but after extraction of this residual material the coarseware element was seen to have a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (73%); an increase of 28% over that in the pre AD 370 dated assemblage discussed in the previous section (p. 60).

The second pottery assemblage is a very late one indeed and comes from the fill of the grubenhaus (Context 136A) in the top of Well 5, the fill of which contained coins dating to as late as AD 402. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (73%) and buff Overwey/Portchester D ones (13%) are cumulatively slightly less dominant in an assemblage containing sherds in a greater variety of fabrics than the previous one. The coarse Farnham Six Bells fabric accounts for less than 1% of the assemblage, as does a single residual BB1 bowl sherd. Millett has pointed out (1986:76) that there is hardly any BB1 in any of the Late Roman pottery assemblages from Neatham examined by him. There are vessels in three handmade fabrics making up a further 5% of the coarseware assemblage: the first two of these are in Hampshire Grog-tempered wares Industry 6A fabrics but the third, a grit tempered one with additional organic material, is Early Saxon/SubRoman. It is possible that all of the Roman element in this large 34 EVE assemblage is in a sense residual and derived from the well fills into which the grubenhaus was dug, but if so it may still be largely post AD 402 in date.

Overwey/Portchester D wares are also represented (7%), as are Harrold shell-tempered wares from the southeast midlands (6%). All of the BB1 is pre AD 370 in date. There are two interesting aspects of this assemblage in that there are no coarseware bowls present and there is an overwhelming predominance of fine colour-coated vessels in the total assemblage, to the extent that the coarseware element is only 29% of it. The Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat element alone, at 44% of the total assemblage, exceeds the total coarseware share. What this suggests is the final discard of fine pottery after it had ceased to be obtainable.

An extremely-late looking pottery assemblage from a massive ditch at Ranks Hill, Frithend, only a few hundred metres south of the main cluster of Alice Holt pottery kilns and sectioned by the Oxford Archaeological Unit in 1988 (D.Miles pers.comm), includes what must be some of the very last vessels produced by that industry. Amongst more orthodox forms, these feature a jar in buff Overwey/Portchester D fabric with a tubular neck and beaded rim, a greyware cooking-pot with black slipped interior instead of exterior and an oxidised very-fine-sanded convex-sided dish with bosses applied in the same manner as those on post AD 390 grog-tempered examples.

The pottery assemblage from the level above (Context K2) is also contaminated by 3rd century AD dated pottery but, after removing this residual material, revealed considerable changes in its pottery makeup. The Alice Holt/Farnham ware share of the coarse pottery is down to 50% and the Overwey/Portchester D element up to 14%. Harrold shell-tempered wares are absent and a rim fragment from a ?biconical, holemouthed jar in handmade black-brown ware with white grog and calcite filler may be either sub-Roman or Early Saxon in date. All of the BB1 is residual late 3rd century AD in date. This pottery assemblage is, however, very small and it may be that the Roman pottery is entirely residual.

Apart from the feeble showing of handmade wares, there was no obvious replacement fabric for the Alice Holt one and the inference is that the industry was the last to function in the area and ceased production during the early-to-mid 5th century AD.

Twenty-six kilometres down the Roman road from Silchester to Chichester, two assemblages from the small town at Neatham were quantified (Millett and Graham 1986). The earlier of these is from Layer B in Well 6 and was associated with coinage dating to as late as AD.375 (ibid.: 38). The coarse pottery is dominated by Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (80%) with buff sandy Overwey/Portchester D wares making-up nearly all of

An 8.44 EVE pottery assemblage from a late 4th century rubbish-pit at Wivelrod House, Bentworth nine kilometres west of Neatham, consists of large unabraded sherds and has a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (74%); indicating little diminution in their importance in this direction, as does the Overwey/ Portchester element in the coarseware assemblage (14%). 82

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

The rest of the coarsewares are made up of Hampshire Grog-tempered wares being distributed from the direction of Winchester: BB1 is absent in an assemblage which is totally lacking in dishes from any source.

Layer 7 above 8 consisted of an area of stiff black soil with flecks of charcoal and burning and was regarded as representing Late Roman or early post-Roman activity by the excavators (ibid.: 10). The coarse pottery assemblage make-up differs from that from Layer 8 in several respects. The Oxfordshire greyware share is somewhat smaller (56%) and coarse burnt whiteware from the same source appears for the first time (9%). This last-mentioned ware seems to have been the Oxfordshire industry’s version of Overwey, Rettenden and similar coarse-sanded fabrics and its presence in such quantities is probably indicative of a very late date for the assemblage. Shell-tempered wares account for 7% of the coarse wares but now include handmade, as well as wheel-turned vessels. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares and their coarse Six Bells ware variant appear for the first time in what is probably an early 5th century AD assemblage (3%) and include a storagejar rim fragment. BB1 accounts for 13% of this pottery assemblage but includes both 3rd and 4th century forms: much if not all of it is probably residual, in an assemblage where at least another 10% of the coarse pottery is similarly derived from earlier deposits.

The unpublished excavation at Bray, carried out between 1969 and 1971 (C. Stanley pers comm), revealed a late 4th to early 5th century sequence of burials, sealed by and cut into cobbled areas. The four Roman and ?Sub-Roman phases were sealed by Thames flood deposits, above which was mid 5th to 5th century AD Early Saxon occupation. Much of the pottery from this excavation is no longer attributable to specific contexts, but a rubbish dump assemblage from the late Roman Phase IV seems to be intact and was quantified. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares are predominant (56%), with Overwey/Portchester D wares accounting for a further 8% of the coarse pottery. There is a nominal 1% Harrold shell-tempered ware and no BB1: local pimply, vitrified greywares, also encountered at Yewden and Cox Green, account for a further 31% of the coarse pottery. A deep handmade dish fired black with sand filler may be Early Saxon in date. BB1 trade with the civitas of the Atrebates was all but over during this late period. There is, however, a solitary necked bowl of Bestwall type 2.2 (c. 350/70-430 AD) with diagonal burnished line decoration from the fill of a well at Oakridge near Basingstoke (Oliver 1993: figure 12,80). This is one of the most easterly examples of the type discovered so far in Britain but may have been brought to the site by means other than trade.

Well 950 at the Barton Court Farm villa site in Abingdon was constructed in an earlier gravel-pit and yielded two successive pottery assemblages belonging to the last years of the 4th and the early 5th centuries (Miles and Parrington 1986). The lower fills of this well (950.52) produced a 7.73 EVE pottery assemblage. The coarse ware element has an overwhelming predominance of Oxfordshire Greywares (78%), including most of the jars and nearly all of the open forms in the assemblage. The rest of the coarse pottery comprises fragments from an oval BB1 dish of Bestwall Class 9 (3%), handmade shell-tempered cooking-pots and a storage jar (6%), wheel-turned jars in similar fabric from the Harrold kilns in Bedfordshire (8%) and Pink-Grog-tempered ware storage-jars from the Towcester area in northern Buckinghamshire (5%). Fine and specialised wares account for 29% of the total pottery assemblage, with a predominance of Oxfordshire industry products (28%). These include examples of Oxfordshire Red-Colourcoat forms C41, C51, C81 and C97, and an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium of uncertain type. The only other finewares comprise fragments from a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat wall-sided mortarium of Howe, Perrin and MacKreth type 45 (1980).

The Dorchester-on-Thames region The 1972 excavation on the Beech House Hotel site in Dorchester-on-Thames (Rowley and Brown 1982) produced a series of late 4th-to-early 5th century AD dated occupation horizons, heavily cut up by later features and contaminated by residual and intrusive pottery. The stony Layer 8, at the eastern end of Cutting 1, rested on deposits connected with earlier limeburning activities on the site and was of probable late 4th century date. The coarse pottery from this layer has a predominance of Oxfordshire greywares (70%); a similar percentage to that from Layer 10 below (p. 62). The forms in the fabric do, however, differ from those in the earlier Layer 10 assemblage in displaying a significant presence of open forms (20%). The rest of the coarsewares include Harrold shell-tempered wares and BB1 (9% each). Most of the BB1 consists off rim chips from non-descript everted-rim jars but an example of beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.10 (c. 370430 AD) suggests that one at least of the vessels in the fabric might be contemporary with the layer. There is a solitary ?intrusive Early Saxon rim fragment.

The upper fill of the well (950.1) produced a slightly smaller 6.65 EVE pottery assemblage, with Oxfordshire Greywares making-up a similar 77% of the coarse pottery. Minority coarse wares include handmade shell-tempered wares (3%), wheel-turned Harrold shell-tempered wares (5%) and Pink-Grog-tempered ware storage jars (3%): Alice Holt/Farnham greywares appear for the first time, in the form of a type 1A.16 liquid storage-jar (2%), as do Thames Valley Pimply 83

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) wares (1%) and a convex-sided dish in hard greyware with external hemispherical bosses from the Compton kilns (c. 400-420 AD) There is, however, no BB1 in this assemblage. The fine and specialised wares make up 26% of the total material with fewer Oxfordshire products than previously (12%) and more Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat vessels (14%).

probably seaborne, trade may have still been taking place. The 4.32 EVE coarse pottery assemblage from context C101 in the top of the well has a very similar percentage of New Forest Greyware as occurred in the fills below (24%) but the Alice Holt/Farnham greywares and Overwey/Portchester D ones have both increased in significance to 48% and 7% respectively. Harrold shell-tempered wares are also nominally present and the percentage of Hampshire Grog-tempered wares is similar to that in the pottery assemblage from C103 (11%). BB1 has almost disappeared from the scene: it is represented by fragments from a solitary dish of Bestwall form 8.14, indicating that, as at the Crown Offices, Fareham site, some very limited trade in BB1 may have continued.

The Civitas of the Regnenses West Sussex Roman sites within the walls of Chichester have proved singularly lacking in Theodosian coinage, leading to the suggestion that the city was abandoned before the end of the 4th century AD (James Kenny pers comm). This deficiency, however, probably reflects a local cut-off in coin supply rather than the termination of occupation, as the same phenomenon also occurs at Portchester.

The fills of Well 3 on the Cattlemarket site yielded large quantities of pottery and had a coin of AD 378 in the very bottom. The coarse pottery is, however, mainly pre AD 270 in date and derived from occupation deposits of that period in the vicinity but the bulk of the large percentage of finewares appear to be of the late 4th century and include Argonne ware. Late coarsewares are largely restricted to fragments from three small dishes, jars and bowls. Two of the dishes and a jar are handmade in a very-coarse fabric with grog, black ironstone and calcite filler, from the same source as vessels supplied to sites in the Chilgrove valley and Meonstoke: a tournette-finished beadedand-flanged bowl in the same fabric is also present. The third dish is also handmade but in Alice Holt/ Farnham greyware with internal white slip. It is rather poorly finished, only 100 mm. in diameter and rather deep in proportion. A few more orthodox Alice Holt/ Farnham greyware forms of 4th century AD date are also present. BB1 accounts for 3% of the coarse pottery but consists entirely of residual 3rd century material. The impression is given that this well was back-filled during the early-to-mid 5th century AD and the final Roman/Sub-Roman occupation.

The only post AD 370 dated pottery assemblages from Chichester which were quantified by the author are well-fill assemblages C103 and C101 from the Needlemakers site outside the walls of the town (Down 1981) and the pottery from the similarly extra-mural Well 3 on the Cattlemarket site. Needle-makers Well fill group C103 is a very large 37.24 EVE one: it belongs mainly to the third quarter of the 4th century AD, although probably added to later. The latest coin from context C103 is dated AD 378 but this may not mean very much because of the general deficiency in Theodosian coinage referred to above. An interesting feature of this pottery assemblage is the significant percentage of New Forest greywares (22%), raising the question as to whether such wares were still being traded around Chichester but not within its walls themselves? As much of the pottery assemblage belongs to the third quarter of the 4th century, however, and within the period covered by the previous section, it may relate to the situation in the east of Sussex at Pevensey, where New Forest greywares appear briefly in small quantities in the c. 340-370 AD dated pottery assemblage from context EG4.

There are a couple of good late pottery assemblages from the Chilgrove valley north of Chichester. The destruction debris over the Batten Hanger villa at Elsted yielded a significant coarse-pottery assemblage dated by coinage to AD 388-402 or later (Lyne 2016). The most significant element in this pottery assemblage is Overwey/Portchester D ware (39%) with Alice Holt/Farnham greyware coming a close second (38%). Rowlands Castle ware makes up a further 9% but nearly all comes from a single 3rd century storage-jar, which would have had a long life in use. Vessels in the same coarse fabric as was encountered in the late pots from Well 3 at the Cattlemarket site make up a further 6% of the assemblage and include fragments from an everted-rim jar and a beaded-and-flanged bowl with

Alice Holt/Farnham greywares make up 39% of the coarse-pottery assemblage from C103 and Portchester D/Overwey oxidised wares for a further 3%: there are also a few residual late Rowlands Castle ware products (12%). Handmade Hampshire Grog-tempered wares account for a further 9%: these and the presence of a Mayen ware jar rim (1%) and a Harrold Shell-tempered ware one indicate the lateness of much of the pottery. BB1 accounts for 8% and includes fragments from Bestwall bowl forms 6.9 and 8.14 (c. 300/50-400+ and 350-400+ AD respectively), indicating that small-scale, 84

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

both internal and external linear decoration. BB1 is also present in small quantities (5%) and comprises fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl with the flange ground off and much of an oval dish with handles: fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl in Hampshire Grog-tempered ware are also present.

tempered ware account for the rest. Once more, there is no BB1. A later pottery assemblage from occupation within an ephemeral structure on the surface of rough cobbling in the central courtyard of the villa (Lyne Forthcoming U: Context 151) is a little bit larger and was quantified by EVEs. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares are still predominant (53%) with Overwey/Portchester D wares accounting for a further 8% of the coarse pottery. The coarse grog, ironstone and calcite-tempered fabric encountered in Chichester and on the sites referred to above is now very significant at 39%, suggesting that this occupation may, in part, be contemporary with that in the early 5th century AD dated Batten Hanger hall. Another feature of this assemblage is the unusually high percentage of fine and specialist wares (23% of the total pottery assemblage). These wares are made up of very-worn Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat vessels and late Lower Nene Valley Colour coat ones, suggesting total pottery discard as aceramic conditions set in.

A stone hall was constructed over the remains of the Batten Hanger villa, with an unstratified coin of Valentinian III (AD 425 – 435) indicating occupation well into the second quarter of the 5th century, if not later. The pottery assemblages from this phase are very small, with much residual material, but indicate that far less pottery was in use and made up largely of both handmade and wheel-turned wares in the coarse grog, black ironstone and calcite-tempered fabric. Vessels in this fabric tend to be fired to high temperatures and include a handmade narrow-necked jar with solid applied bosses (Lyne 2016: figure 15), a wheel-turned neckedbowl (ibid.: figure 16) and a wheel-turned beaded-andflanged bowl with internal burnished decoration (ibid.: figure 22), paralleled in both form and fabric at both the Meonstoke villa and Chilgrove Well Meadow Field villas and in the latter case with iron-working at the end of the occupation. A handmade beaded-and-flanged bowl with internal latticing in the same fabric (ibid.: figure 23) has an inturned rim similar to those on early 5th century AD dated bowls in ‘ceramique granuleuse’ from the Ile de France (Bertin and Sequier 2011). There is another identical example from Well 2 at the Needle-makers site in Chichester, but with iron slag in its filler. The use of pottery seems to have ceased during the lifetime of the Batten Hanger hall.

The impression is given of small amounts of BB1 being traded into Chichester up to AD 370 and, as in Hampshire coastal regions, ceasing to be so shortly afterwards. Of the BB1 from well context C103, more than threequarters consisted of jar fragments and suggests that the motive behind the small-scale trading was no longer geared to open form supply as had been the case during the 3rd century. The rest of West Sussex seems to have lain beyond the limits of BB1 trading after AD.370. East Sussex

A pottery assemblage from a complex of ovens and floor re-patching deposits within the ruins of Building 2 at the Chilgrove Cross-Roads Field villa, three kilometres south of Batten Hanger, gives a high percentage of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (62%) and nominal amounts of New Forest greyware (4%). Overwey/Portchester D wares make-up 3% of the assemblage and the coarse grog, ironstone and calcite-tempered fabric 6%. As much as 19% of the coarseware comes from unknown but probably local sources and 2% is in Hampshire Grog-tempered wares. There is no BB1 in a pottery assemblage which probably ceased to be added to before AD 380 and is associated with Valentinianic coinage running up to AD 378.

There are three post AD 370 dated pottery assemblages of EVEs quantifiable size from the Downland block between the Rivers Adur and Ouse. Two of these sites, Thundersbarrow Hill and Truleigh Hill, overlook the east side of the Adur valley. The southerly of these two sites is Thundersbarrow Hill, excavated by the Curwens in 1932 (1933). This excavation revealed evidence for 1st to 4th century AD dated occupation associated with an earlier Iron Age enclosure, with two corn-dryers and a series of pits and hollows containing occupation debris. The combined pottery assemblage from the two 4th century corn-dryers and Pits 5 and 6 is not an ideal one, having clearly undergone some ‘weeding’. Nevertheless, quantification was carried out of the coarse pottery, giving a high 70% of grog-tempered East Sussex Wares, 3% Alice Holt/Farnham greywares, 6% Overwey/ Portchester D fabric and 21% of local wheel-turned greywares. There is no BB1 in an assemblage which has fine-and specialist wares making-up a quarter of all of the pottery and consisting very largely of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat finewares, whiteware and white-

At the Bignor villa, the pottery assemblage from rubbish dumping and pit-digging deposits A75 and A125 in the derelict Room 58 is mid to late 4th century AD in date (Lyne 1996) but too small for further quantification by EVEs: nevertheless it has Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares making up more than half of the coarse pottery that is present and the coarse Six Bells, Farnham variant nearly 10% more. Residual Rowlands Castle ware and vessels in handmade flint and grog85

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) slipped mortaria from the same source, and Pevensey ware (c. 370-400+ AD). The northern site, Truleigh Hill, lies at the western end of the chalk escarpment, overlooking the village of Beeding. A large quantity of pottery was recovered in 1952, after what may have been the first ploughing of an Iron Age and Roman settlement with associated field system since Roman times. A clipped siliqua of Gratian and a buckle fragment of Hawkes and Dunning type 1A are in keeping with the post AD 370 character of most of the pottery. There is a problem, however, in that there was early Roman occupation as well, associated almost entirely with grog-tempered wares. This early Roman pottery has been excluded from the EVEs quantification as far as is possible but, because of the conservatism of many of the later grog-tempered ware forms, the East Sussex Ware share of the Late Roman post AD 370 pottery assemblage is probably exaggerated.

the final road leading into the fort from the east gate and was associated with a number of coins dating from after AD.370 and terminating with an issue of Honorius (AD 393-402). East Sussex Wares account for 33% of the coarse pottery and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares for 31% of it. A further 14% is from horizontally-rilled jars in both fine and coarse Overwey/Portchester D fabrics, probably originating wholly or in part from the East Sussex source. A Mayen ware jar rim and fragments from two Harrold Shell-tempered jars are also present, as are two Early Saxon/Sub-Roman fragments. The rest of the coarse pottery includes residual BB1, Wickham Barns ware and locally-produced sandy greywares. Finewares make-up 23% of the total assemblage, including Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls and mortaria (7%), Pevensey ware bowls (12%) and A l’Eponge (2%). Argonne ware and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat bowl fragments account for a further 1% of the pottery.

The figures, as they stand, have grog-tempered East Sussex Ware accounting for 31% of the coarse pottery, in sharp contrast to the 70% of such wares at Thundersbarrow Hill. A further 23% are in Overwey/ Portchester D fabric and local finer versions of it, and 25% in Wickham Barns kilns fabrics. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares make up a further 10% of the coarse pottery. There is no BB1.

Assemblage 10 comes from the silts within the defensive ditch outside the West Gate of the fort and comprises 97 heavily comminuted sherds, unfit for any form of quantification other than by sherd count and their weights per fabric. Most of these sherds look abraded and residual and were probably deposited during the 5th century AD: a single sherd of chaff-tempered pottery is also present.

Wolstonbury, lying seven kilometres to the east of Truleigh Hill, is a very similar site: the pottery from the 1930s excavations (Holleyman 1935) has a comparable fabric breakdown, with East Sussex Ware and Overwey/ Portchester D fabric making up 28% each of the coarse pottery and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares a further 30%. Once again, there is no BB1.

The Downland blocks between the Ouse and Beachy Head have two occupation sites, Bishopstone and Frost Down, where post AD 370 pottery assemblages were examined by this author. The most westerly of these two sites is Bishopstone on the east side of the Ouse estuary (Green 1977). The Group IX pottery assemblage associated with Structure LXII was examined and had East Sussex Ware making up 50% of its coarseware element and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares a further 16%. Horizontally-rilled jars, flasks and at least one beaded-and-flanged bowl in local variants of Overwey/ Portchester D fabric make up another 7% of the pottery: the rest of the coarse pottery is of uncertain origin except for a little residual BB1 (2%). Finewares account for 23% of this assemblage, with Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls, flagons and mortaria makingup 10% and Pevensey Ware copies of post AD 370 date a further 7%.

A few more pottery assemblages of very small size from the block of Downland between the Adur and the Ouse were also examined. They are too small for EVEs quantification but give some idea of the nature of pottery supply to the sites in question. The pottery from a small 1927 excavation at Kingston Buci on the coast east of Shoreham is totally dominated by rilled jars in Overwey/Portchester D type and Wickham Barns kilns fabrics. At Woodingdean, east of Brighton, another small pottery assemblage from a 1941 excavation by Burstow has East Sussex Wares making up nearly twothirds of it and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares just under another quarter. This pottery assemblage cannot be dated any more precisely than to the 4th century AD but has a late look to it.

Excavations at Frost Down, Beachy Head in 1979 revealed ploughed traces of a Romano-British farmstead (Drewett 1982). Feature 8 contained a small assemblage of late 4th century pottery with three coins of AD 350-367 in association. East Sussex wares account for more than half of the coarse pottery (55%), with a much smaller percentage of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (13%). Overwey/Portchester D type wares of probable East Sussex origin make-up a further 7% and miscellaneous greywares of uncertain origin a further

The most significant site east of the Ouse is the Roman Saxon Shore fort at Pevensey (Anderitum). Two post AD 370 pottery assemblages were examined (Lyne 2009: Assemblages 9A and 10). The first of these is a large assemblage from rubbish dumped on the surface of 86

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

21% of the coarse pottery: BB1 is absent. Fine and specialist wares account for only 9% of this assemblage but include fragments from Pevensey ware bowls (3%) and Oxfordshire Whiteware mortaria (4%). The coins might suggest that the pottery assemblage should belong in the previous section of this publication, but the presence of Pevensey ware suggests a post AD 370 element.

Portchester D ware jars (2%), Wickham Barns kilns products (4%) and BB1 (3%). All of these latter minority wares are probably residual but the BB1 fragments include those from two oval Bestwall Class 9 ‘Fish dishes’ which could be post AD 370 in date. A fragment from a handmade sandy black open form may take the accumulation of this pottery assemblage into the 5th century AD and there are fragments of an Early Saxon buckelurne from the baths destruction debris. Fine and specialised wares comprise 10% of the assemblage, with a predominance of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls, including Young’s Classes C83 and C85 of post AD 350 date. A fragment from a stamped Pevensey ware bowl is also present (c. 370-400+ AD).

The Bridge Farm, Wellingham settlement lies kilometres to the north of Lewes at the intersection of the Sussex Greensand Way and the London-Lewes Roman road. Work on the pottery from this site is still underway but earlier work on the site at Pond Field yielded a small late 4th century AD dated 339 sherd pottery assemblage from a clay-puddling pit (Lyne Forthcoming V: Assemblage 6). This was quantified by sherd count, showing a predominance of East Sussex Wares (58%), with Alice Holt/Farnham greywares coming second (20%). Products of the Wickham Barns kilns account for another 8% of the coarse pottery and residual BB1 for a further 6%. Considering that the Wickham Barns kiln lie only three kilometres west of the site, the small percentage of such wares suggests residuality as well. Finewares make-up 26% of this assemblage and consist very largely of Oxfordshire and New Forest colour-coat vessels: there is no Pevensey ware.

The Beddingham villa, like that at Barcombe, was also abandoned during the 4th century AD but a small apsidal-ended shrine in the field immediately to its north was turned into a habitation during the 5th century. The 147 sherd pottery assemblage from this structure is very-largely made up of fragments from Early Saxon standfussgefass pots and other forms (77%): the few Roman sherds are largely residual but include fresh Pevensey ware fragments; later in date than the termination of occupation within the main villa building (Lyne Forthcoming H). A Romano-British farmstead was excavated in 1976 at the foot of Ranscombe Hill to the north of Beddingham (Bedwin 1978). The material was not available for study but EVEs generated coarseware percentages have been published (ibid.:249). The fill of a late 4th century corndryer (Context 9) has Pevensey ware making-up 16% of all of the pottery, indicating a post370 date for much, if not all, of the assemblage. Three different handmade grog and grog-and-grit tempered East Sussex Ware fabrics account for 69% of all of the coarse pottery, after adjustment to this author’s quantification system. The other fabric descriptions are not precise enough to determine whether any East Sussex variant Overwey/Portchester D wares are present, but Alice Holt/Farnham greywares account for 6% and BB1 for a similar percentage of this very small assemblage. In the absence of drawings, it is impossible to say whether the BB1 is residual or not: it is indeed possible that it is not BB1 at all but the local Brighton area variant.

A 9.47 EVE assemblage from the same site is from the Context 6102 rubbish dumping over the top of the backfilled defensive ditches of the settlement carrying the re-instated London-to-Lewes road. The coarse pottery has a predominance of East Sussex Wares (48%) and an only slightly smaller 39% of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares. Minority coarsewares include fragments from an Overwey/Portchester D fabric rilled jar (1%), a lid-seated Mayen ware cooking-pot (3%) and fragments from at least three residual BB1 vessels of 3rd to early 4th century types (4%). The few Wickham Barn kilns products from only two kilometres to the west make up only 5% of the coarse pottery and can also be regarded as residual. Fine and specialised wares make up a high 30% of the pottery and are predominantly from the Oxfordshire kilns (21%). There are very few New Forest finewares (3%), which, together with the Samian (5%), are from vessels residual in use. The Barcombe villa can now be seen to be part of ribbon development along the Sussex Greensand Way to the west of the Bridge Farm small town and was abandoned during the early 4th century AD. The Barcombe bathhouse in the field to the east of it does, however, appear to have continued in use during the late 4th century. A substantial 9.80 EVE assemblage from Ditch 3214 (Lyne Forthcoming I) has late East Sussex Wares making up 68% of the coarse pottery and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares a further 18%. Minority coarsewares include horizontally-rilled Overwey/

This group of pottery assemblages appears to indicate that there was little, if any, BB1 supply to East Sussex after AD 370. The Civitas of the Canti The eastern part of the civitas east of the Medway appears to have been ceramically dominated by handmade grog-tempered wares after AD 370. 87

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Several Canterbury assemblages belonging to this period were examined. A pottery group (CVII) from Trench 1A, Layer 6 in Frere’s Rose Yard excavation was dated to c. 360-400 AD (Wilson 1995, 758-9). The coarse pottery consists very largely of handmade grog-tempered wares (79%) with 20% in miscellaneous Thameside greywares and a mere 1% Alice Holt/Farnham greyware. This is a virtual doubling of the grog-tempered ware share over that in the mid 4th century assemblage discussed in the previous section. Fine and specialist wares make up 15% of this assemblage and consist almost entirely of Oxfordshire products, including Young’s rosettestamped bowl type C78 (c. 340-400+ AD) and whitepainted types C72.1 and C82.3 (c. 300-400+ and 325-400+ AD respectively).

Rhodaus Town to the south of the walls is associated with a late cemetery and continued in use until c. 380 AD. Assemblage 7 comes from Pits 1018, 1019, 1438 and 1466 dug into the fills of the polygonal shrine enclosure ditch (Lyne Forthcoming W) and appears to be part of some kind of closing deposit; perhaps prompted by Theodosius’s declaration in AD 380 that Christanity was the only official Roman state religion, followed by a repression of pagan practices over the next decade. Late grog-tempered wares make up 80% of the coarse pottery by EVE with coarse late Thameside greywares accounting for the rest. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares are present in the form of bodysherds. Finewares makeup 19% of the total assemblage. The Ickham water-mill site was excavated between 1972 and 1975 (Bennett et al 2010) and yielded a large late 4th century 36 EVE pottery assemblage from the Area 4 extension. This has late grog-tempered wares making up 73% of the coarse pottery, with Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares a further 7%. A late pottery kiln, found during the late 19th century at Preston near Wingham, only four kilometres north of Ickham, produced copies of Alice Holt/Farnham greyware forms (Dowker 1878, Pollard 1988: 152). These make-up 3% of this assemblage, with nominal amounts of Overwey/ Portchester D, Harrold Shell-tempered, residual BB1 and Mayen ware also being present. Finewares make up an unusually high 35% of the pottery and come from a variety of sources, including the Argonne (3%), Oxfordshire (21%) and the Lower Nene Valley kilns (3%).

The Whitefriars site pottery assemblages of post AD 370 date tend to be too small for EVEs quantification but a 5.88 EVE one from an AD 375-390 coin-dated sequence of 10 contexts over Pit 53 was so quantified (Lyne Forthcoming M.: Assemblage 45). After abraded residual material was extracted, this has late grogtempered wares accounting for 86% of the coarse pottery, Thameside greywares for 9% and Harrold Shelltempered wares for 3%: Alice Holt/Farnham greywares are represented by a few bodysherds. Finewares make up 21% of the entire assemblage and consist entirely of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl and dish fragments. An even later assemblage from dark-earth context 291 on the Marlowe III site and associated with a scattered Theodosian coin hoard, was quantified by Pollard (1995: Table 16). His figures, adjusted to this author’s system, shows grog-tempered wares accounting for an even higher 88% of the coarse pottery, Alice Holt/Farnham wares for 9% and residual Thameside greywares for 3%. Finewares account for 22% of the pottery and are made up almost entirely of Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat bowls and a Streak-Burnished Ware jar. This gives a good picture of coarse pottery supply to Canterbury at the end of the 4th century AD. There is no BB1 in either of these assemblages.

Site notebook derived figures by Thomas May at Richborough indicate that handmade grog-tempered wares made up two-thirds of the 64 coarse pottery vessels from a rubbish-deposit in the fort ditch opposite the north postern gate. The rubbish was dumped in the ditch in order to create a causeway and was dated by the excavator to c. 380-90 AD. The sources of the rest of the coarse pottery are uncertain but there is no BB1 present. Finewares make up a high 45% of the total 117 pots by minimum numbers of vessels and include Argonne ware roller-stamped forms (13%), Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls, dishes and mortaria (13%), Oxfordshire White-slipped mortaria (2%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat vessel fragments (7%).

Three early 5th century AD dated pottery assemblages from the Whitefriars site (Lyne Forthcoming M: Assemblage Groups 47 and 51 and Assemblage 56) give a picture of the end of Romano-British pottery usage from supply totally dominated by local grog-tempered wares, with small amounts of Alice Holt/Farnham greyware and Overwey/Portchester D fabric vessels coming in from further afield, to a near aceramic society making use of a few old pot-wasters acquired from kiln sites and very little else (Lyne 2015, p.93). BB1 is again totally absent.

A considerably larger pottery assemblage from occupation on cobbles put down over the demolished Chalk House has fragments from at least 354 vessels, as well as 353 coins associated: 217 of these coins are Theodosian and may be indicative of total coin loss during the early 5th century AD. Of the 207 coarseware vessels, 63% are in Late Roman Grog-tempered ware, 8% in Alice Holt/Farnham greyware, 3% in Overwey/ Portchester D fabric and 2% in Mayen ware: once again there is no BB1. This early 5th century AD dated assemblage also has a high 42% fine and specialised

Most extra-mural sites around the walls of Canterbury ceased to be occupied by the end of the 3rd century AD but an unpublished shrine at St Augustine’s House, 88

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

wares element, including Oxfordshire Red Colourcoat bowls, dishes and mortaria (21%), Oxfordshire White-ware mortaria (10%), Oxfordshire White-slipped mortaria (1%) and Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat dishes and beakers (4%)

Harrold Shell-tempered wares for 9%. Fragments from a solitary BB1 dish with handles of Bestwall Class 9 are also present and could conceivably be from a late 4th century vessel. The pottery assemblage from the ritual shaft at Keston, up on the North Downs and 16 kilometres south-west of Dartford (Piercy-Fox 1955), is clearly of mid to late 4th century AD date, despite lacking external dating evidence. The assemblage has a predominance of West Kent grog and grit-and-grog-tempered wares (46%) with Alice Holt/Farnham greywares and Overwey/Portchester D fabric vessels accounting for a further 16% and 4% of the coarsewares respectively. A significant percentage of the coarse pottery (32%) is from unknown but probably local sources. Nominal amounts of BB1 are also present and include fragments from a beaker of Bestwall type 5.1 (c. 120-300+ AD) and a beaded-and-flanged bowl of type 6.6 (c. 290/300-370 AD). The beaker is clearly residual and the bowl unlikely to be later than AD 370.

A small and somewhat unreliable 2.54 EVE ditch fill assemblage (Context 302) from the St. Richards Road site at Deal, ten kilometres south of Richborough, has late handmade grog-tempered wares making up 56% of the coarse pottery, Alice Holt/Farnham greywares 3% and Overwey/Portchester D wares 2%: sandy oxidised wares of unknown origin (22%) make up the bulk of the rest. BB1 is absent. Finewares make up 20% of this assemblage and are composed very largely of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls, beakers and mortaria. A pottery assemblage from a late 4th century AD dated rubbish-pit at Wye (Pollard 1988: 243) is also lacking in BB1 and was associated with a number of coins dating between AD 337 and 348 and a belt-buckle of post AD 370 date. The coarseware element in this assemblage also has a predominance of handmade grog-tempered wares (74%), accompanied by small amounts of Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (5%), Preston kiln products (1%) and miscellaneous greywares (20%).

The Wealden Military Estate Late 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages of quantifiable size are absent from the Wealden ironworking sites of Sussex and Kent examined by this author.

West of the River Medway, rubbish dumping in the top of the partially-backfilled cellar ruins at Chalk had late Thameside industry products making up a third of the coarse pottery, with slightly smaller quantities of Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (28%) and handmade West Kent grog and grit-and-grog-tempered wares (22%): Overwey /Portchester D wares account for a further 9% of the assemblage. The context also yielded Theodosian coins and, according to the excavator (Johnston 1972), was deposited after AD 395. BB1 is absent, despite the presence of much residual pottery, including most, if not all, of the late Thameside material.

Londinium and its environs The Mithraeum Floor 8 pottery assemblage of c.370 date has a greater variety of coarse pottery fabrics than earlier ones from the site. Most of these new fabrics are from Hertfordshire, Essex and unknown sources and occur in insignificant quantities. Above the latest Mithraeum occupation, on Floor 9, were rubbish dumping deposits of post AD 380 date. These have a much diminished 29% Alice Holt/Farnham greywares. Much Hadham greywares account for 4% and Harrold shell-tempered wares for a further 5%. Small amounts of BB1 (3%) include a fragment from a verycoarse BB1 bowl similar to Bestwall type 6.11 (c. 370420 AD). The most significant feature of the assemblage, however, is the exceptional showing of Camulodunum 306 type bowls. Hammerson (1988,212) states that wasters were found in the 107-115 Borough High Street excavations, indicating that some at least of these bowls were made in Southwark. The problem is that stratified examples from Southwark are securely dated to the period c. 270-300 AD, whereas the Mithraeum ones were in a post AD 380 context. At Colchester, however, the Butt Road Christian cemetery had severally rituallybroken examples in late 4th century graves (Robin Symonds pers comm). The CAM 306 bowl form appears to have been made for ritualistic purposes during the 3rd and 4th centuries AD and the large quantities

Another very late and less-contaminated pottery assemblage from Spital Street, Dartford, 14 kilometres to the west, has handmade West Kent grog and gritand-grog-tempered wares making up a somewhat larger 33% of the coarse pottery. The rest of such wares are largely made up of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (21%), Overwey/Portchester D wares (8%), coarsegritted wheel-turned wares of local origin (17%), Mayen ware (7%) and Harrold Shell-tempered wares (7%). Once again, there is no BB1. The latest occupation pottery from Rooms 1 and 2 at the Poverest Road bathhouse in Orpington can probably be dated to c. 370-400+ AD. Handmade West Kent grog and grit-and-grog-tempered wares account for 37% of the coarse pottery, Alice Holt/Farnham greywares for a further 30%, Overwey/Portchester D wares for 7% and 89

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) dumped over the demolished Mithraeum due to the discard of vessels used there during its life.

outside the walls, where rubbish was dumped in a series of gravel pits along the line of the road to Colchester. The pottery assemblage from Areas 2 and 3 shows that Alice Holt/Farnham greywares were now being distributed in quantity east of London for the first time and account for 49% of the coarse pottery, with Overwey/Portchester D making-up a further 12%: much of the rest of the coarse pottery is in Essex greyware fabrics (26%) and Harrold shell-tempered ware (4%). BB1 is represented by residual rim sherds from a dish of Bestwall type 8.5.

The Billingsgate Bathhouse excavations produced a stratified late 4th to early 5th century pottery sequence from its final occupation and later abandonment. The pottery from the dumped rubbish deposit to the south of the stokehole of the bathhouse hypocaust (ER 1286) post-dates the abandonment of the underfloor heating system. It is probably contemporary with the final occupation debris from off of the surface of the opus signinum floor of the frigidarium (ER 1280), which was associated with a scattered hoard of 18 Theodosian nummi dating up to AD 402. These indicate that this post AD 370 occupation material was still accumulating at the end of the century. Although the pottery assemblage from ER1280 is large, the predominance of smashed and reconstructable pots means that the actual numbers of vessels that are present are too small for meaningful quantification.

There are three key pottery assemblages from the 2002-3 excavations at Shadwell which relate to the final stages in pottery supply to the site (Gerrard and Lyne 2011, Lyne 2011). The earliest of these pottery assemblages is Key Group 4 derived from the fill of Pit A1373 truncated by the cut of Well A1399. There are only 48 sherds of pottery from this feature but they include large, very fresh fragments from a dish of Lyne and Jefferies type 6C.2 in Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (Lyne and Jefferies 1979: c. 370/90-400+ AD) and a BB1 necked-bowl of Bestwall type 2.2 with diagonalburnished line decoration on its girth ( c. 350/70-420/50 AD). The nearest other find of a vessel of this latter type is in the late 4th / early 5th century fills of the Oakridge well near Basingstoke in northern Hampshire (Oliver 1993: figure 12-80) It belongs to the period when BB1 had lost its eastern markets and is seldom found east of the civitas of the Durotriges. The presence of this vessel at Shadwell, along with the post AD 370 BB1 bowl from the the dumps over the London Mithraeum (see above) does, however, indicate that there was very limited trading of such wares to the London area after AD 370; perhaps on the back of sea-salt and/or grain supply.

The pottery assemblage from ER1286 (Richardson 1994) includes a wide range of fabrics, as was the case in that from Floor 8 at the Mithraeum. These new fabrics appear to have largely replaced Alice Holt/Farnham greywares, now down to 36% of the coarse pottery element. Much Hadham greywares remain at a level similar to that in the Mithraeum Floor 8 assemblage (12%). The shelly Harrold wares make-up a similar 11% of the coarse pottery: this is a high percentage of such wares for a London site and, in view of the evidence from Hertfordshire (p. 92), gives further confirmation that this assemblage is contemporary with that from ER1280. Dorset BB1 makes-up 4% of the pottery, most of which is residual but includes fragments from a beadedand-flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.10 (c. 370-420+ AD), contemporary with the rest of the pottery.

The next pottery assemblage is Key Group 5 from the lower fill of Well 1399 (Context 1615). The 141 sherds (7412 g.) of pottery from this context are also unsuitable for any form of quantification because of their coming from just a few reconstructable vessels. These vessels do, however, include much of an Alice Holt/Farnham greyware storage-jar of Lyne and Jefferies type 1C.6 (Gerrard and Lyne 2011: figure 60-3, c. 350-400+ AD), a dish with out-turned rim in similar fabric (ibid.: figure 60-2, c. 370-400+ AD) and a dish of Bestwall type 8.14 in BB1 fabric (c. 350/370-420 AD). The fineware vessels include an intact Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowl of Young’s type C77 with white-paint scrolling.

The occupation on the floor of the Billingsgate bathhouse was overlain by a mass of collapsed roof tile (ER1281) which, although lacking in pottery, yielded an Early Saxon saucer brooch of a type paralleled in Grave 1 at the Mitcham cemetery and dated c. 450-500 AD. Above this collapsed roofing was a series of black pebbly silts (ER1324, 1325 and 1326); incorporating small quantities of highly-abraded and comminuted Late Roman pottery. This pottery is clearly residual in nature but is accompanied by large fresh sherds from a deep handmade dish in black sandy ware from a West Kent source (Lyne 2015: Industry 8A). Above these silts was ER1327, a dump of rammed gravel mixed with black earth. The pottery assemblage from this is very similar in make-up and condition to that from the silts but also includes a sherd in Early Saxon fabric.

The 116 sherds (3924g.) of pottery from the upper fill of the well (Key Group 6) are from a much larger number of vessels and were quantified by EVEs. More than half of the coarse pottery comes from the Alice Holt/Farnham kilns, with 4% in Overwey/Portchester D fabric. There is a Mayen ware cooking-pot rim sherd and another from a Much Hadham Black-slipped beadedand-flanged bowl: the rest of the coarse pottery comes

Four late 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages from the area just east of London were quantified. The nearest site to London is the 1986 Mint Lane one just 90

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

from Essex sources. The most significant aspect of this pottery assemblage is the very high percentage of fine and specialist wares (57.3%); almost entirely made up of Oxfordshire products. This is very suggestive of total pottery discard during the 5th century.

century AD date. The pottery assemblage from Z40 has Alice Holt/Farnham greywares making up 40% of the coarse pottery and Overwey/Portchester D wares a further 13%. Much Hadham greywares account for 10%, but the most striking feature of the assemblage is the high percentage of BB1 (16%). Some of the vessels in this fabric are of 4th century character and include an example of Bestwall dish type 8.14 (c. 350/370-400+ AD). A handmade, fine-sanded beaded-and-flanged bowl with brown grog inclusions is similar to a handmade jar from Context ER1280 at the Billingsgate bathhouse site and, like that, is a late product of the West Kent Gritand-Grog-tempered ware industry 8B (Lyne 2015: Type 8B.17).

Upstream from London, the pottery assemblage from the Gay Street, Putney roadside ditch contexts in Trenches X and XIII was associated with a coin of Arcadius (AD 395-402) and can thus be dated, in part at least, to the last years of the 4th century AD or later. The coarseware assemblage has a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (68%), with Overwey/ Portchester D horizontally-rilled jars accounting for a further 8% of the assemblage. Minority wares include fragments from Harrold Shell-tempered jars (2%), a lidseated Mayen ware cooking-pot and a small handmade Early Saxon very-fine-sanded jar. There are also fragments from a residual BB1 cooking-pot of uncertain type.

There are two late assemblages from the unpublished Eden Street site in Kingston. The earliest such assemblage comes from the fill of an old water channel (Context 1287) and was associated with numerous 4th century AD coins; some of which are deliberately mutilated and suggest ritual activity. These coins run no later than the 370s and some of the attendant pottery is of early to mid 4th century AD date. The bulk of the pottery is, however, of late 4th century character with a predominance of Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (51%) and a nominal presence of Overwey/Portchester D fabric vessels (4%). A small local pottery industry producing tournette-finished forms similar to Alice Holt/Farnham ware products in both fabric and the use of black/white slip decoration accounts for another 11% of the coarse pottery. The BB1 element is a quite high 9%, including a Bestwall Class 2 bowl fragment (c. 350/70-420+ AD). Unfortunately, the shoulder breaks off just above where the decorated girth band should be, so we are unable to determine the exact type.

At the Fulham Palace site, just across the River Thames, the bank of the earthwork with ditch was constructed over and through the earlier Roman occupation and yielded Theodosian coinage and quantities of pottery (Arthur and Whitehouse 1978). This pottery assemblage includes much residual material and is similar in makeup to that from the earlier 4th century AD beneath; with 52% Alice Holt/Farnham greyware and its coarse Farnham Six Bells variant. Jars and other forms in Overwey/Portchester D fabric make up a further 11% of the coarse pottery and there is a small and residual BB1 presence (7%). The residual nature of much of this pottery scooped up to make the earthwork bank seriously reduces the value of the assemblage. Beneath the bank, however and sealed by it was a ditch, which was cut through the early 4th century contexts and backfilled with rubbish (Context 19). The latest coin from this feature is an Urbs Roma of AD 335, but the pottery from the feature is clearly later than AD 360. A considerable variety of fabrics are present, including handmade gritty ware (1%), a significant percentage of Overwey/Portchester D fabric (12%) and Harrold Shelltempered ware (7%). An interesting feature of this small assemblage is the poor showing of Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares (20%), reminiscent of the situation regarding the pottery assemblage from ER1286 in the Billingsgate bathhouse and the rubbish deposits over the Mithraeum. BB1, in the form of residual dish fragments, accounts for a further 7% of the coarse pottery.

Above this context, and separated from it by sterile silts, was Context 1256 with a small mixed pottery assemblage of late Roman and sandy black Early Saxon pottery. The Roman pottery consists mainly of fragments from Alice Holt/Farnham greyware vessels, including small, deep, handmade dishes of straightsided type, similar to that from Well 3 at the Chichester Cattlemarket site and of probable early 5th century AD date. Handmade grog-and-grit tempered wares from West Kent are also present. The Roman pottery element in the Context 1256 assemblage is quite small but is unusual in having a complete lack of bowls; just dishes and jars are present. The dish element includes fragments from an oval dish of Bestwall Class 9 in BB1 fabric, which could be late 4th century AD in date.

Context Z40 at the 141-147 High Street, Brentford site (Laws 1978) was a dark occupation layer containing a number of 4th century coins, the latest of which is one of Valentinian II (AD 388-392). This layer overlay the fill of Ditch Z43 containing a coin of AD 388-402, strongly suggesting that Context Z40 is of early 5th

The civitas of the Catuvellauni The pottery assemblage from Trench RIII, Layer 3 in Frere’s mill-race excavations outside the city walls of Verulamium was dated c. 375-400 AD by the excavator and has residual BB1 making up a mere 3% of the coarse 91

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) pottery. The assemblage has a total predominance of Harrold shell-tempered ware (65%), with local greywares coming a poor second in importance (16%). The appearance of such large quantities of shelltempered ware in Verulamium has already been shown to have started shortly before AD 370 and marked the beginning of its domination of both the Verulamium and other coarse ware markets for the rest of the century.

At the other end of the civitas of the Catuvellauni, the Yewden villa overlooking the Thames valley yielded one significant later 4th century AD pottery assemblage. This is the large group from Pit 1 and has a wide range of coarsewares. About 55% comes from a local source supplying high-temperature-fired pimply greyware jars with tournette-finished and handmade bowls (Lyne 1994: Industry 4B, 277-85). The Oxfordshire industry greywares are responsible for a somewhat smaller 12% of the coarse pottery: Harrold shell-tempered wares are a minority component (7%), as are Alice Holt/Farnham greywares (3%) and Overwey/Portchester D ones (1%).

The Park Street villa lies just to the south of Verulamium (O’Neil 1947) and yielded a significant pottery assemblage from a burnt layer on its cellar floor (ibid.: 92). This was associated with coins ranging up to AD 364 in date and also has a predominance of Harrold shelltempered wares (44%), with a considerably-smaller Much Hadham greyware element (12%). The Alice Holt/ Farnham greyware element is a high 16%, although distorted upwards by a large rim fragment from a beaded-and-flanged bowl (ibid.: figure 20-1). There is an insignificant residual BB1 presence (8%), including fragments from a beaded-and-flanged bowl of Bestwall type 6.9 of earlier 4th century date.

During the period c. 370-400 AD, it would appear that most of the pottery markets of the civitas, other than those in the south-west of it, were dominated by Harrold shell-tempered ware products. Of similar importance in the east of the civitas, was the greyware and fine oxidised ware producing centre at Much Hadham near Bishop’s Stortford. This production centre specialised in a range of fine-ware bowl and flagon forms, not attempted by the Harrold kilns, and as a result was able to survive the swamping of the local coarse-kitchen ware market by the products of the latter industry. BB1 is almost absent from the region but the odd pot made its appearance in Verulamium and its immediate environs for a short time after AD 370.

The percentage of shelly Harrold wares is somewhat lower than that from the Trench RIII Layer 3 context at Verulamium but still high. This observation, plus the presence of internally-latticed Alice Holt vessels, leads me to assign a later post AD 370 date to at least some of the assemblage despite the evidence of the coinage.

What was the ceramic history of the civitas after AD 400? Verulamium is particularly important in this respect in having an early 5th century AD dated pottery sequence from the theatre fills and smaller assemblages of similar date from elsewhere in the city. The pottery from these rubbish dumps within the theatre suggest that the comparatively high BB1 percentage from the c. 400 AD dated Context Z40 at Brentford (p. 91) may be more than just a local aberration. The pottery from the theatre deposits has already been quantified in its entirety (Geddes 1977) but this author decided to requantify the pottery from the 1933 Strip 8 only. This was done because of its more precise subdivision into layers and recording; superior to that of the rest of the theatre rubbish dumps, excavated the following year.

The pottery sequences from the various excavations at Ware on the east side of Hertfordshire were examined in detail by Pomel (1984). This author managed to quantify one late 4th century AD dated pottery assemblage from these sequences. This comes from Context C7 in the 1974 excavations and is dated by coinage to the period AD 360-390/400. The context consisted of an occupation deposit inside a building, the chalk floor of which produced coins of Magnentius (AD 351-53) from its construction. The coarse pottery assemblage is once more dominated by Harrold Shelltempered wares (47%), with Much Hadham grey and black-surfaced wares coming a close second (40%). BB1 is absent but Alice Holt/Farnham greywares and Overwey/Portchester D fabric products account for a nominal 2% and 1% respectively.

The sequence consists of a lower group of brown earths (Layers 6A to 5), overlain by three successive dumpings of black earth (Layers 3,2 and 1). Large quantities of mixed 4th century coinage, up-to and including Theodosian issues occurred throughout these deposits, suggesting total coin loss and indicates, as Frere concluded (Frere 1967: 334), that the entire rubbish deposition sequence dates to after AD 400.

The cone fills in the top of Well B179 at Baldock in the extreme north of Hertfordshire (Stead and Rigby 1986: 371) yielded a pottery assemblage associated with coinage of Valens and Arcadius. This pottery assemblage reflects its proximity to the Harrold kilns in having 63% of its coarse pottery from that source. Much Hadham greywares are also significant (31%) but, once again, there is no BB1.

Starting at the bottom of the sequence, it can be seen that there was a steady increase in the ratio of open forms in relation to jars through the successive phases of dumping. The brown earth pottery assemblages are dominated by a mixture of Hadham grey wares and 92

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

black sandy wares of local origin (59%). Wheel-turned Harrold shell-tempered wares make up a smaller 21% of the coarse kitchen wares. The Much Hadham and local wares in the assemblage are characterised by ‘pie-dishes’, as well as beaded-and-flanged bowls, but a number of the Much Hadham ‘pie-dishes’ look more like the late devolved Alice Holt beaded-and-flanged dish type 6C-2 than 3rd century examples. The local black sandy ware ‘pie-dish’ type is simply a deep straightsided one with the rim bent over. An isolated example of this type came from Context ER1286 at the London, Billingsgate bathhouse site, dated to the end of the 4th century AD (Richardson 1994: figure 14-145).

Up to this point, the theatre fills assemblages have coarsewares making up more than 95% of them, but the final and uppermost Layer 1 sees a drop in such wares to 74% of all pottery. The pottery assemblage from this uppermost layer is, of course, directly below the topsoil and subject to contamination but may, however, indicate final fineware loss at the end of the use of Romano-British style pottery. Such wares might be expected to have a longer life in use than coarse kitchen ware. The coarse pottery from Layer 1 has no shell-tempered or Alice Holt/Farnham greywares, but is dominated by local and Much Hadham greywares (87%): these include examples of the straight-sided bowl form with bentover rim referred to earlier. The BB1 from this layer makes-up an increased 13% of the coarseware part of the pottery assemblage and consists of fragments from beaded-and-flanged bowls of uncertain but probable 4th century AD types . At the time of quantification at the beginning of the 1990s, it was thought that some of the late BB1 from Layers 1 to 3 at the theatre could be a local imitation. The fabric is, however, very similar to genuine BB1 and suggests that limited trade in BB1 bowls and dishes from Dorset to Verulamium may have continued until the end of the 4th century and beyond.

Alice Holt/Farnham greywares account for 7% of the Verulamium theatre brown earth assemblage, whereas they had been absent from most earlier Verulamium pottery assemblages examined by both Pomel and this author. Handmade pimply high-temperature-fired greywares from the unknown source in the Thames Valley west of Reading are nominally present here in the form of a beaded-and-flanged bowl (1%): Residual BB1 vessels account for 2% of the coarse pottery and are made-up entirely of fragments from non-descript straight-sided dishes . In this assemblage, coarse kitchen wares account for 96% of the entire pottery. The 4% fine and specialised wares element includes fragments from Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat and whiteware mortaria, a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beaded-and-flanged bowl and a Much Hadham Oxidised ware jar.

The finewares and mortaria have Oxfordshire RedColour-coat and Whitewares accounting for 16% of the total pottery assemblage, Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat wares for 9% and Much Hadham Oxidised ones for 1%.

The coarse pottery from black earth Layer 3 immediately above the brown earth shows a drop in the percentage of shell-tempered wares to 12%. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares stand at 1% and Overwey/ Portchester D fabric wares at 4% of the coarse pottery. Nearly all of the rest of it (80%) consists of a mixture of local and Much Hadham greywares. BB1 is nominally present (1%) and includes possible fragments from beaded-and-bowls of Bestwall type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD). The small fineware percentage (3%) comes from an Oxfordshire Whiteware mortarium and a Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat convex-sided dish.

There are two successive late 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages from rubbish dumpings in the unpublished ditch at Datchworth to the north-east of Verulamium (Tony Rook pers.comm). The earlier of these (H/P 1) was above the early 4th century assemblage described above (p. 71). Associated coinage went up-to AD 378 and, as with the Verulamium millrace assemblage, Harrold shell-tempered wares are predominant (61%). Much Hadham greywares make up a further 21% of the coarsewares, similar to their percentage of the early 4th century assemblage beneath. Alice Holt/Farnham greywares are a newcomer on the scene and account for a nominal 3% of the coarse pottery. BB1 is absent.

Layer 3 was covered by stony black layer 2, which continues to have local and Much Hadham greywares making up the bulk of the associated coarseware pottery assemblage (74%), Harrold Shell-tempered pottery for 17% and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares for 5% of it. BB1 accounts for a further 4% and includes fragments from two Bestwall beaded-and -flanged bowls of type 6.9 (c. 300/350-400+ AD). Finewares and mortaria account for only 4% of the entire pottery assemblage and are made up of Oxfordshire RedColour-coat fineware beaker fragments and a whiteware mortarium from the same source.

Dump C.1 in the ditch at Datchworth yielded a coin of Arcadius dated AD 395-402. The associated pottery assemblage could be contemporary with those from the lower St. Albans theatre fills and, like them, indicates a decline in Harrold Shell-tempered ware content; in this instance to 28% of the coarse pottery. Much Hadham greywares and other coarsewares from the same source are predominant (54%) and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares represented by an exceptionally high percentage (18%). BB1 is absent from the assemblage which, as in those from the Verulamium theatre, shows 93

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) an increase in the importance of coarse open forms from 30% of the earlier H/P 1 assemblage from the ditch to 49% of this. Coarsewares make up only 49% of the total pottery assemblage, with the finewares having a predominance of Much Hadham Oxidised jars, bowls and beakers (36% of the entire pottery assemblage): Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat jars, bowls and dishes account for a further 8% and Oxfordshire products 7%.

that from Phase 9 and a small Harrold Shell-tempered ware percentage similar to that from Phase 8L (4%). Pink Grog-tempered storage-jar fragments make up a further 2%, Overwey/Portchester D jar body sherds are present, but the rest of the coarse pottery (24%) is of unknown origin. There is no BB1. Pomel (1984) was of the opinion that the Roman pottery from these phases was largely residual. He is probably right as regards the Phases 9 and 10 silts, although the material from Phase 8L must surely include the latest occupational pottery from Building III.

Excavations between 1976 and 1979 at the Allen and Hanbury (Glaxo) site in Ware located a series of post AD 400 brown silts and occupation deposits associated with a series of timber buildings along the west side of Ermine Street (A.Tinniswood pers.comm.). These contexts all produced large quantities of 4th century coinage ranging in date up-to AD 395-402.

The pottery from the post-villa sequence at Latimer (Branigan 1971) was not examined. Re-working of Branigan’s quantifications based on sherd counts give Harrold Shell-tempered ware percentages for post-villa Phases 1, 2 and 3 of 5.8, 14.3 and 14.4% of the coarsewares respectively. His preferred short chronology (Ibid : 176) would place these first three post-villa phases between c. 380 and 410 AD and aceramic Phase 4 after. It is suspected that much of the Phases 1 to 3 pottery is residual and, to judge by the published pottery drawings, there does not appear to be any BB1.

The pottery from that part of the sequence overlying Building III and the area between it and the roadside was also quantified. The Phase 8L silts and occupation deposits lay on the surface of the pebble floor of that building and had 155 coins running up-to AD 395-402 associated. Much Hadham greywares account for the bulk of the coarse pottery (66%), with much smaller percentages of Alice Holt/Farnham greyware (8%) and Harrold Shell-tempered ware (3%). Other minority coarsewares include fragments of a large grog-tempered storage-jar from Essex and a tournette-finished jar rim fragment in pimply greyware from the Middle Thames valley source. A bodysherd from a Mayen ware jar is also present but 17% of the greywares could not be attributed to any known source. There is no BB1.

Rooms C and D in House 1 at the Yewden villa were lived in after the rest of the building had become derelict and have very late 4th to early 5th century AD dated occupational material. Most of the pottery assemblage is still local but Alice Holt/Farnham greyware products account for 5% of the coarse pottery and Overwey/ Portchester D wares for a high 14%. A similar but softer, relatively sand-free, buff fabric of probable very local origin was used for rilled Overwey-style jar forms and accounts for a further 12% of the coarse pottery: Once again there is no BB1.

Finewares make up a high 46% of the total pottery assemblage and are predominantly from the Much Hadham kilns (34%), with smaller percentages from a variety of Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat forms (8%) and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat and Parchment ware forms (1%).

What the Verulamium theatre, Ware and Datchworth sequences suggest is that the supply of Harrold Shell-tempered ware products to the civitas of the Catuvellauni, although significant during the late 4th century AD, went into sharp decline after c. 400 AD and were supplanted by local greywares and those from the Alice Holt/Farnham pottery industry. How long this situation continued is debatable, but the volumes of rubbish dumped in the Verulamium theatre are considerable and probably represent several decades of dumping. The coinage volumes there are also very large, as they were at Ware, and suggest that, as at Richborough, activity at a time of total coin loss when the monetary economy had ceased to function. The presence of occasional nummi on British sites dated to as late as AD 435 and probably acquired through trade with the Continent suggests that this abandonment of the monetary economy took place as much as 30 years after the Roman Empire relinquished control of the British provinces.

The pottery from the Phase 9 silts above has a similar Much Hadham greyware element (68%) and an increased Harrold Shell-tempered ware presence (17%). Alice Holt/Farnham greywares are only nominally present (1%) and there are fragments from at least three Pink Grog-tempered storage jars from the Towcester area. A solitary BB1 beaded-and-flanged bowl fragment is of Bestwall type 6.8 and residual in nature. Finewares make up 29% of the total pottery assemblage with most coming from the Much Hadham kilns (16%): Lower Nene Valley Colour-coat beakers and dishes account for 8% and Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat bowls for 2% of the total pottery assemblage: one of the latter is rosette stamped. The pottery assemblage from the later Phase 10 silts has a similar Much Hadham coarseware element (69%), an identical Alice Holt/Farnham greyware percentage to 94

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

Very small amounts of BB1 pottery appear to have been supplied to Verulamium during the late 4th and into the first years of the 5th century AD but are absent from elsewhere in the civitas of the Catuvellauni.

Shell-tempered wares and the appearance of Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares may be a pale echo of what appears to be happening in the civitas of the Catuvellauni to the west and elsewhere during the first decades of the 5th century AD.

The Civitas of the Trinovantes

All of Going’s BB1 comes from Group 20; the other major component of his Phase 8 quantified assemblage. Although quantification was not carried out on Group 20 by this author, a look was taken at the BB1 element and it was found to be something of a mixture. It includes fragments of palpably late 3rd century AD forms such as Bestwall beaded-and-flanged bowl type 6.4 dated c. 240-290/300 AD and straight-sided dish 8.5 dated c. 220-300 AD (Going 1987: figure 32-379 and figure 31-374 respectively): on the other hand, the type 1.5 cookingpot could easily be as late as AD 370 or as early as AD 280 (ibid.: figure 32-389). Going states that much of the pottery in his Group 20 came from the fill of a postmedieval ditch cutting Feature T71: the BB1 could, therefore, be residual and his case for an increase in the trading of such wares to Chelmsford between AD 370 and 380/90 in error.

Symonds and Wade’s BB1 illustrations in their Colchester pottery report for sites dug between 1971 and 1986 (1999: figure 6 33-6. 39) do not include anything that needs to be later than the first years of the 4th century AD. This lack of 4th century BB1 is underlined by a very late pottery assemblage from the Temple of Claudius site (Going 1984). BB1 is lacking from this assemblage, the coarse pottery element of which is dominated by sandy greywares of uncertain but non Colchester origin (78%). Harrold Shell-tempered wares are also present in small quantities (6%). Going, in his work on the Roman pottery from 1970s sites in the south-east sector of the Chelmsford small town, noted an increase in the presence of BB1 from 0.7% in his c. 300-370 AD. dated Phase 7 to 9.1% in the period c. 400-425 AD (Going 1987: 107: figures adjusted to this author’s quantification system). In drawing attention to this phenomenon (Ibid.p.8), Going suggests that the lack of the latest BB1 jar types indicates that the ware had ceased arriving at Chelmsford by c. 380390 AD and was therefore only arriving in quantity for a brief period after AD 370.

At another small town, Great Dunmow, an assemblage generally dated c. 350-390 AD came from the first phase of a shrine (Going and Ford 1988: 66). The coarseware element in this assemblage has Harrold Shell-tempered wares forming the largest single element (42%) with minority fabrics including Much Hadham greywares (11%) and Rettenden-type wares (6%). Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares are represented by a number of bodysherds from two large Class 1C storage-jars, which had been stood in the shrine but then broken and rivetted together again with lead. The second phase of activity in the shrine appears to have been aceramic, with only residual pottery being present. The layer above produced eight sherds from Early Saxon/SubRoman sand-and-chaff tempered ware vessels (ibid.: 45). There was no BB1 in any of the contexts associated with the structure.

This author has re-analysed Going’s Group 21 from feature S.25, making up part of his Phase 8 pottery quantification, and has subdivided it into the lower Layers 2 and 3 and the upper Layer 1. The feature contained 8 coins, including issues of the House of Theodosius (AD 388-402). The coarse pottery assemblage from the lower fill lacks BB1 but has Harrold Shelltempered wares accounting for 20% and Much Hadham coarse wares for 12% of it. Rettenden-style fabrics make-up mere 6% and would appear to have lost some of their share of the Chelmsford market after c. 370 AD. The bulk of the coarse pottery comes from unidentified sources and includes a small vitrified greyware element (5%). A similar but less highly-fired leaden-grey fabric accounts for a further 9% of the coarse pottery. Seven of the eight coins from feature S.25 come from this lower fill, including three of the period AD 388-402.

The report on the 1962-71 excavations at the Harlow temple (France and Gobel 1985) indicated that the structure was already derelict by the mid 4th century AD. The more recent excavations have, however, shown that occupation of sorts took place after AD 360 and into the 5th century AD (Bartlett 1988). Context 111 was a pit in the forecourt of the temple and is dated to after AD 370 by the presence of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat wares. The most common coarse pottery in the fill of this feature was Much Hadham grey and other coarse fabrics (40%), with other greywares from unknown sources making up a further 47% of the material. Minority fabrics include Harrold Shell-tempered wares (10%): Alice Holt/Farnham greyware and Overwey/ Portchester D ware bodysherds are also present.

The pottery assemblage from the upper fill of feature S.25 has a much higher percentage of the leaden-grey fabric and its more vitrified version (36%). Rettendenstyle fabrics account for 11% and Much Hadham coarse wares for 10% of the coarse pottery. The Harrold Shelltempered ware element is down to a mere 2% and Alice Holt/Farnham greywares appear for the first time, in the form of a solitary straight-sided dish. The two fill assemblages are rather small but the decline in Harrold 95

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) The forecourt of the temple also had an area of late occupation (Context 601) with a hearth (605). The pottery assemblage from this occupation includes a similar percentage of Much Hadham coarse pottery to that from the pit (36%) but there are no Harrold Shelltempered or Alice Holt/Farnham greywares. The most common group of fabrics are Early Saxon chaff-andsand and grit-tempered ones (38%). Some of the vessel forms and fabric variants resemble ones from the Late Iron Age temple occupation and may be residual but much of the rest is in the form of large, fresh-looking sherds trodden into the surface of the occupation horizon and includes those from a form similar to one recovered from above the Great Dunmow shrine (Wickenden 1988: figure 35). A more Roman-looking jar form in the same fabric is also present. Neither of these two Harlow assemblages has any BB1.

Holt/Farnham greyware presence (10%) and a much smaller percentage of Overwey/Portchester D fabric (1%). These, together with Argonne roller-stamped bowl fragments amongst the finewares, go a long way towards confirming Drury’s dating. A soil horizon above the ditch fills yielded a small pottery assemblage with fragments from the rims of 31 different vessels. Although disturbed by later agricultural activities and hardly ideal for analysis, the assemblage from this soil is strikingly different in content to that from the ditch fills beneath and may be significant. Rettenden ware has declined to only a fifth of the assemblage, which from the nature of the pottery may not be very meaningful. A new handmade fabric with brown and grey grog filler as well as angular white grits, makes an appearance (20%): the few vessels present in this fabric include a deep dish (ibid.: figure 11-68), a beaded-and-flanged bowl (figure 11-64) and what appears to be a copy of an Alice Holt/Farnham greyware Class 1C storage-jar. This fabric has not been seen on sites outside Rawreth and probably represents local household production. There is no BB1 in either of the Rawreth pottery assemblages and no Alice Holt/ Farnham greywares or Harrold Shell-tempered wares from the later one. A solitary Early Saxon sherd came from the upper soil horizon.

Two sites, Heybridge and Rawreth, on the Essex coast have each furnished two consecutive pottery assemblages of late 4th to early 5th century AD date. The earlier one from Heybridge comes from the fill of Ditch F122 and has a predominance of local greyware products (72%); with the rest of the coarsewares coming from the Rettenden kilns, except for a solitary jar bodysherd in Harrold Shell-tempered ware. As usual, there is no BB1. The pottery assemblage from Grubenhaus 1 at Heybridge has been discussed elsewhere (Drury and Wickenden 1982). The conclusion was drawn that the Roman sherds that are present are all residual and characterised by a strong emphasis on Oxford RedColour-coat fragments. This author tends to concur with their conclusions with the small reservation that amongst these sherds is what appears to be a handmade vitrified greyware jar fragment similar to vessels made in the Middle Thames valley.

It is unlikely that there was any BB1 supply to the civitas of the Trinovantes after AD 370. The Continental distribution (Figure 18) The supply of BB1 to northern Gaul appears to have continued after AD 370. Some of the BB1 from Bayeux can be dated later than that and the last vessels to reach Rouen come from c. 400-420 AD dated contexts at the Cathedral Cour de Macon site (Adrian 2006: 8). The Frenouville cemetery near Caen has yielded two late 4th century dated BB1 beakers of type 5.4 with combed decoration (Pilet 1980) and a villa site at Martainville near the mouth of the Somme has produced types 2.1 and 2.2 necked bowls from late 4th century AD dated contexts (Tuffreau-Libre et al 1995: figure 20, 1-2).

The handmade Early Saxon wares include fragments from a deep convex-sided dish similar in profile and surface treatment, if not fabric, to those emanating from the Late Roman grog-tempered industries of East Kent after AD: 350/70. The site at Rawreth (Drury 1977) lies between Chelmsford and Southend. The pottery from Sections III and IV across a re-cut boundary ditch of Drury’s Period D was quantified in two parts. The first assemblage consists of pottery from fills III-3, 4, 5 and IV-2 and 3 in the ditch proper. The only external dating evidence is a barbarous radiate and coin of AD 336-341, but Drury took the presence of Oxfordshire Red Colour-coat wares in some of the Phase D assemblages as indicating a post AD 360 date for it.

There are fragments from at least 63 cooking-pots of types 1.6 and 1.8 with diagonal burnished linear decoration from the midden over the baths at Bayeaux, three from the nearby Frenouvilla cemetery, three from Penly just east of Dieppe, two from sites in Rouen and one each from Isneauville, St Pierre de Manneville in the Department of Seine Maritime and Limetz-Villez in the Department of Yvelines on the River Seine upstream of Paris. Necked bowls of Class 2 are also known from northern France and comprise five from Bayeux, three from Penly, two each from Rouen and Martainville on the estuary of the River Somme and one from Saint Oven du Breuil.

The predominant coarseware fabric is Rettenden ware (36%), whereas Harrold Shell-tempered ware makes-up a mere 2% of the assemblage. There is a significant Alice 96

Figure 18: Distribution of BB1 on the Continent and in the Channel Islands. c. AD.350/70-430+

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

97

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1)

Figure 19: Distribution of Class 9 oval dishes in the South-East of Britain.

Figure 20: Distribution of Class 2 necked-bowls in Britain and on the Continent.

98

6: Trading patterns in the South East of Britain and on the Continent

The atypical c. 350-400+ AD dated occupation site at Saint Ouen du Breuil on the otherwise-deserted high ground between Rouen and Dieppe has BB1 makingup 12% of the pottery (Gonzales et al 2003: 156). The published material includes examples of Bestwall types 2.4, 6.9, 8.11 and 8.12 in this fabric, as well as both bulbous cooking-pots and those with attenuated bodies (ibid: figure 8) and there are vessels in the local

BB1 imitation fabric referred to above (p. 72). This site also has buildings of Germanic type, with handmade Frankish pottery accounting for 29% of the total assemblage. A BB1 beaded-and-flanged bowl of Type 6.10 from Oudenburg indicates that at least one pot came to that fort after AD 370 (Lyne and Vanhoutte 2021).

99

7: BB1 production and distribution mechanisms: a review of the evidence possibility is that the BB1 industry was under the control of procurators until the end of the 3rd century AD and then ceased to be so.

7.1: Production methods Peacock (1982) discusses several different methods of organising potteries in the Roman world. His most basic form is that of Household Production, where families make pottery for their own use; a task usually allocated to women. As with Household Production, Household Industry is usually carried-out on a part-time basis, but producing enough surplus pottery for sale within local communities.

Peacock is of the opinion that BB1 production commenced as a household industry. It is an almost universal phenomenon in the third-world today that wherever handmade pottery producing industries are found, they are female operated and those employing the potters’ wheel by men. Handmade pottery is almost invariably fired in bonfires or clamps, whereas wheelturned pottery tends to be fired in kilns.

Individual Workshop manufacture is very similar to Household Industry but such pottery production is now the main source of income. Nucleated Workshop manufacture involves the bringing together of potters into a community specialising in the production of such wares and perhaps selling their products to middlemen responsible for marketing. These and larger-scale pottery manufacturing systems tend to be associated with the use of the potters’ wheel and kilns; but, as we shall see, this is not always the case.

It is considered that one way of determining whether BB1 pottery was produced by women would be to to examine any articles of personal adornment which may have come from excavation of BB1 production sites. The Worgret pottery waste produced a Backworth-style trumpet brooch (Hearne and Smith 1991: figure 19-1). Trumpet-brooches were worn in pairs and have been thought by some to be more suited to female dress (De la Bedoyere 1989). This interpretation, however, appears to be at variance with the evidence from 2nd century AD dated military establishments. Large numbers of trumpet-brooches have been found on such sites (Austen 1991: figure 88, Allason-Jones and Miket 1984: figures 3.30 to 3.42), although it is possible that these belonged to soldiers’ wives and camp-followers.

Manufactories differ from workshops in the sheer number of workers employed. Peacock has suggested a maximum of twelve for a workshop, with any more than that being indicative of a manufactory. Estate production ranks as a special category and was an important feature of the Roman economy. The actual production centre can either be a workshop or manufactory and be set up by an estate owner to fulfill his needs: any surplus production is sold off at a profit.

The Late-Roman BB1 production site at Bestwall Quarry, Wareham yielded very few non-ceramic artifacts not associated with pottery production: these compise a shale armlet, five spindle whorls in the same material (Cox 2012) and an iron buckle of Sommer Sort 1, Form A, Type B (1984). The shale objects could well be indicative of female activity but the buckle is of a kidney-shaped 4th century military type: having said this, however, the military examples are invariably of copper-alloy and not iron.

Military and State production is regarded by Peacock as being mainly restricted to tile and brick manufacture in the Roman world, although legionary pottery production in association with that of tile is attested at Holt in Denbighshire (Grimes 1930) and probably at York (King 1975). 7.2: The organisation of the BB1 pottery industry

Peacock considers that the great increase in the BB1 marketing area during the last years of the 1st and earliest of the 2nd century AD, associated with the securing of much of the northern and western military pottery supply, must have elevated the production of BB1 to that of a workshop industry (1982). He is of the opinion that the pottery was bonfire fired, but the discovery of kilns at Worgret, Bestwall Quarry and Ower has shown that this technology was discarded in favour of more sophisticated firing methods during the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD.

In view of the large-scale distribution of BB1 pottery to military sites in the north and west of Britain after AD 120, the question needs to be asked as to whether it and other Purbeck industries were private concerns or under the control of procurators. This is difficult to assess, but the fact that the Alice Holt/Farnham wares potteries could make inroads into the BB1 share of coarse-ware markets after AD 300 would either indicate that they were not or Alice Holt was another state-controlled pottery production centre. A third 100

7: BB1 production and distribution mechanisms: a review of the evidence

True kilns are normally associated with the firing of wheel-turned wares. Some of the earlier firing structures encountered at Worgret may have been of a hybrid bonfire/kiln nature, but could equally well have been surface-built kilns. All this indicates that the organisation of BB1 potting came to combine characteristics of both Household Industry and Workshop Production. The intensity of activity at Worgret, Bestwall Quarry and Ower further suggests that some workshops were nucleated into manufactories.

deposit of pottery from construction levels behind the wall of the shore-fort at Dover; just down the coast and similarly-dated (Booth 1994), had BB1 accounting for nearly half of the coarse pottery (p. 41); much greater than the nominal showing from the Painted House sequence of early-to-mid 3rd century AD date (Willson 1989). Unfortunately, there appear to be no shale objects from the fort construction levels: this also appears to be the case at Portchester but it should borne in mind that the excavations in the shore-forts at Dover and Portchester were on a much smaller scale than those at Richborough.

Excavation indicates that a number of these pottery producing settlements were also engaged in other industrial activities and particularly those of salt, stone-working and the production of shale objects. Pottery production may well have been run by women, explaining the handmade nature of the wares, while the men-folk were engaged with the other industries and possibly managing the kilns with which the later BB1 industry was associated. Peacock thought that the pottery output was sold to negotiatores or middlemen who were responsible for its distribution and possibly that of the other products of the area (1982: 86-7).

All in all, the archaeological evidence seems to show direct connections between the Poole Harbour industries, even if this only took the forms of potters buying shale waste for fuel, making containers for brine boiling and the products of all of the industries being marketed by the same negotiatores. 7.3: Methods of pottery transportation A glance at the pattern of 3rd century AD BB1 pottery distribution across South-East Britain and to the Continent (Figures 11 and 13) indicates that there must have been both seaborne and road marketing involved. There is clear evidence for the former type of distribution along the Sussex coast, initially into Chichester and then onwards to small ports at the mouths of the Rivers Arun and Adur and, after 293, to the shore-fort at Pevensey. Seaborne trade was also carried on around the Kent coast, as indicated by the high BB1 percentages at both Dover and Richborough. Sea-going vessels would have also been needed to supply BB1 to the Isle of Wight and Continental sites.

Salt itself rarely leaves any trace in the archaeological record other than in the form of briquetage container fragments, but the other Purbeck industries can all be shown to have disseminated their products the length and breadth of the British provinces. Can we show that all of these industries were under the same management? There is a certain amount of evidence; scarcely conclusive but strongly circumstantial. The 3rd century AD Hamworthy brineboiling site had large numbers of BB1 jar wasters in orange, oxidised fabric, which were used along with Fitzworth troughs for the operation (Lyne Forthcoming N). This is indicative of the salt-workers having easy access to pot ‘seconds’ and therefore some kind of relationship with the pottery manufacturers. The Fitzworth troughs themselves differ from the much cruder Late Iron Age and Early Roman Hobarrow pans in being manufactured from prepared BB1 potters’ clay by craftsmen clearly skilled in the manufacture of pottery. At some sites, such as Ower, pottery production can be shown to have been carried out in the immediate vicinity of brine-boiling activities (Woodward 1987: 65).

The main target of the eastern coastal seaborne trade in Britain appears to have been Londinium, where the earliest pottery assemblages from the new port at Shadwell, just east of the city, are totally saturated with BB1 vessels to the almost total exclusion of all other coarse pottery. As for the city itself, BB1 makes up an average of slightly less than half of all the mid to late 3rd century AD coarse ware assemblages examined by the author. Further sea-borne trade seems to have been carried on up the Essex coast to Colchester, where Symonds and Wade have recorded BB1 pottery makingup approximately 5% of the coarse pottery in late 3rd century AD dated assemblages.

The BB1 kilns at Worgret had been fired using the oil in shale-working waste as one of the fuel sources (Hearne 1992: 95). Work carried out by this author in cataloguing the large number of shale objects from the pre-war excavations at Richborough showed that the majority of those from datable contexts came from the c. 280300 AD dated occupation within the newly-constructed stone fort: pottery quantifications recorded in the site notebooks suggest very high percentages of BB1(1999) in site assemblages of similar date-range. A large

With the exception of the Sussex coastal sites and those within the civitas of the Durotriges, late 3rd century BB1 pottery is concentrated in the newly-walled civitas capitals at Chichester, Winchester, Silchester, Dorchester-on-Thames and Canterbury, as well as the provincial capital of Londinium and the shore-forts of Portchester, Pevensey, Dover and Richborough. Only small quantities of these wares found their way into the 101

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) countryside around but nearly all late 3rd century rural pottery assemblages have fragments from at least one vessel.

in quantification or evidence for secondary BB1 supply from Londinium. The successive maps showing the Continental distribution of BB1 (Figures 13, 16, 18 and 20) give clear indication of direct supply to the Channel Islands, Alet, Cherbourg, Bayeux and Dieppe with a trade route up the River Seine to well beyond Paris. Two sites related to this activity are of particular interest.

Supply to the inland walled towns must surely have been by road, although riverine trade with Winchester, Canterbury and Dorchester-on-Thames is technically possible. Was all of this network of urban and coastal markets supplied directly from Poole Harbour? This is not easy to determine but it was thought that one way of finding out might be to plot the distribution of rarer BB1 forms, such as Type 3.1 jars, Class 9 ovaldishes and Class 12 storage-jars. These are missing from most pottery assemblages outside the civitas of the Durotriges, but small concentrations of Class 9 oval dishes are centred on Londinium and sites along the Sussex coast (Figure 19) and types 3.1 and 12.1 vessels are known from both London and Colchester.

The first of these is the ship wreck in the harbour of St Peter’s Port, Guernsey (Monaghan 1987A), which yielded fragments from a type 1.5 BB1 cooking-pot (c. 280-370 AD) and a bowl of either type 6.2 or 6.5 (c. 210290/300 AD) in similar fabric. The presence of these vessels suggests that the ship foundered towards the end of the 3rd century, with the pots probably being for the use of the crew and unlikely to be cargo. They do, however, suggest that the ship may have traded between Poole Harbour and the Channel Islands.

This indicates that sea-borne traffic in the greater range of forms as traded in the immediate neighbourhood of the BB1 kilns was going directly into the latter two places and along the south coast at least as far as Pevensey. BB1 pottery assemblages from other areas tend to be restricted to a limited range of cooking-pot, beaker, bowl and dish forms. As an alternative to direct trade in a limited range of mass-produced forms by road from Poole Harbour, there may have been secondary trade out of Londinium after the rarer pottery forms had been sold off.

The second site is an entrepot enclosure at Locmariquer on the shores of the Gulf of Morbihan in an area with just a little evidence of BB1 importation (Brunie 2012). The pottery comes from a wide range of sources, including a latticed ‘pie-dish’ and everted-rim cooking-pot in BB2 fabric (c. 130-200 AD) and two type 1-5 cooking-pots and a 6.8 beaded-and-flanged bowl in BB1 fabric (c. 270/280-370). These are likely to be jetsam from ships trading between Britannia and the Breton south coast, rather than actual trade-goods, particularly as BB2 is almost unknown in the area.

The percentages of BB1 on coastal sites, east from Poole Harbour along the Channel coast, around North Foreland and along the Kent side of the Thames estuary as far as Londinium suggest that the BB1 supply to Richborough, Dover and possibly Lympne was coming out of Shadwell, where, judging by the near absence of other coarsewares in 3rd century AD dated pottery assemblages, there may have been a military supply depot as well as a port for Londinium. The forts at Pevensey and Lympne both lie in a gap between the direct Sussex coastal trading area and that where BB1 may have been distributed out of Londinium; although Pevensey was getting moderate amounts of such wares at the limits of the coastal trade along the Sussex coast. These two forts were the only ones which attracted or set up new industries to circumvent deficiencies in pottery supply during the last years of the 3rd century AD.

7.4.The mechanism behind the distribution of BB1 The period up-to c. 200 AD What were the reasons for this industry’s success? No other coarse pottery producer had such a wide area of distribution; reaching into nearly corner of Roman occupied Britain by AD 120. The bulk of open form vessels were in samian and other finewares during the late 1st and 2nd centuries AD; mainly because such vessel forms were not usually used for cooking but intended for the table. The importation of South Gaulish Samian was on an enormous scale during the late 1st century AD and that of Central Gaulish material on an only slightly lesser one during the 2nd century.

The percentages of BB1 pottery on sites linked by road between Chelmsford and Hamworthy show that there is very little of such pottery in Chelmsford and a gradual fall off in percentages of late 3rd century AD dated BB1 present in walled civitas capitals moving west and south-west from Londinium. This fall-off in percentages of BB1, however, is not enough for us to be sure as to whether we are dealing with margins of error

The sheer volume of samian importation may have discouraged local producers of coarse pottery from making dish and bowl forms when it was at its peak. This is illustrated by comparing the changing percentages of open forms during the c. 43-270 AD dated 36 phases of successive drying-sheds and kilns encountered during the excavation on waster-dump AH52 in Alice Holt 102

7: BB1 production and distribution mechanisms: a review of the evidence

Forest (Lyne 2012) with the varying levels of Samian importation into Londinium and Verulamium during the same period.

situation has changed somewhat. Pottery, including wasters, from construction contexts associated with Building 707 at Ower (Woodward 1987) has jars accounting for only a third of the BB1 pottery; with bowls at 40% and dishes at 26.3%. This suggests that production of BB1 pottery may have been in roughly equal quantities for the three vessel types; perhaps indicating the marketing of sets of pots.

The pottery assemblages from the c. 43-100 AD dated drying-shed sequence in Alice Holt yielded only nominal percentages of bowls and dishes but there was an appreciable increase in their significance after the collapse of much of the South Gaulish Samian industry in the early years of the 2nd century AD. These Alice Holt open forms now include limited production of fineware lead-glazed bowls and oxidised Curle 11 copies as well as greyware forms.

It would appear, therefore, that increased manufacture of bowls and dishes had some bearing on the success of 3rd century BB1 marketing within the south east and elsewhere in Britain. Both the BB1 and Thameside industries were supplying the northern military garrisons during the early 3rd century AD (Gillam 1973: 60) and it is probably no coincidence that the latter industry’s BB2 production also included large numbers of bowls and dishes. The Thameside BB2 emphasis on these vessel types commences earlier than that of BB1 but its northern military markets seem to have succumbed to increased supply of BB1 during the middle part of the century.

Such production of lead-glazed vessels and other fineware forms was a widespread British phenomenon during the first 30 or so years of the 2nd century AD and went some way towards meeting a demand no longer fulfilled by the relatively-small quantities of Martresde-Veyre Samian pottery entering the province during that period (Marsh 1978: 207). The resumption of mass importation of samian after c. 120 AD, this time from the Central Gaulish Lezoux kilns, coincides with a decline in the bowl and dish presence at Alice Holt, but not to levels as low as those reached during the Flavian period. This may be due to the fact that the importation of Central Gaulish Samian, even at its peak, was on a somewhat smaller scale than that of the South Gaulish variety (Bird and Marsh 1978: figure 228). An analysis of all samian from Chichester has South Gaulish material making up 61.6%, Central Gaulish 29.6% and East Gaulish 2.5% (Millett 1980). On Sussex rural sites, however, Central Gaulish Samian was predominant; reflecting increased Romanisation of rural communities during the 2nd century AD.

Despite the presence of more BB1 bowls and dishes than jars in 3rd century AD dated pottery assemblages from urban sites in the south-east of Britain, the overall percentages for jars in all fabrics still tends to be greater than those for combined-bowls and dishes. The major exceptions to this rule come from some Sussex coastal sites. This is in contrast to the situation in Northern Britain, where over half of the 3rd century AD dated pottery assemblages from military sites have a predominance of bowls and dishes (Jeremy Evans pers.comm.). The early 4th century AD dated pottery assemblages from south-eastern sites display a similar form breakdown to the preceding 3rd century ones from the same area. There is, however, a decline in the number of assemblages with a predominance of open forms outside Londinium. This decline in the overall importance of open forms also took place in pottery assemblages from northern sites during the same period.

c. 200-300 AD The collapse of the Central Gaulish Samian industry towards the end of the 2nd century AD must have left a considerable shortfall in the supply of bowls and dishes; a deficiency which the relatively small-scale importation of early 3rd century AD dated East Gaulish Samian could only partially rectify. With the almost total disappearance of Central Gaulish Samian imports at the end of the 2nd century AD, Alice Holt bowls and dishes increased in significance to between a quarter and a third of all of the pottery in the Severan and later pottery assemblages from the excavation on wasterdump AH52. These figures compare well with those from the early 3rd century BB1 Kiln at Worgret (Hearne and Smith 1992), which had jars accounting for 63.5% and bowls and dishes for 36.5% of the total pottery assemblage.

Large-scale production of bowls and dishes goes some way towards explaining BB1 success during the 3rd century AD and may be enough in itself to explain the phenomenon. There may, however, have been largerscale economic forces at work. Going has put forward the hypothesis that the Roman economy was subject to cycles of ‘boom’ and ‘slump’ and has tried to identify these through ceramic and coinage evidence (1992). He argues that there were periods when ceramic innovation slowed down or came to a halt; coinciding with shortages of base coinage and other indications of economic recession.

By the time that we get to the later 3rd century AD, at just about the time that BB1 was beginning to appear in quantity on sites in the the south-east of Britain, the

Going’s first period of economic boom runs up-to c. 90 AD and is followed by economic decline until c. 130 AD. 103

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) The second economic upturn coincides with the floruit of the Central Gaulish Samian industry and ends with its collapse c. 200 AD. A depression follows until c. 240 AD and is followed by another economic revival lasting until c. 300 AD.

being handmade and cheap, with the ability to survive longer in use when cooking over an open camp fire. Furthermore, the ability of the potters to supply large quantities of bowls and dishes meant that the vessels could be issued to soldiers in sets.

It may be significant that the two great surges in the supply of BB1 commenced during two of Going’s periods of recession in the early 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD and may have been triggered by depressed supply from other sources using more sophisticated technology and perhaps more susceptable to economic pressures. BB1 production methods had changed little since the Late Iron Age and if the pottery was made by the female element in households as an adjunct to a more economically important male salt-production industry, then it was in a better position to exploit a decline in pottery production elsewhere.

What has such military supply got to do with late 3rd century AD BB1 distribution across south-east Britain? As we have shown, the distribution of these wares appears to be centred on newly-walled towns and shore-forts throughout the region, with lesser quantities getting into rural areas. There would have been little point in walling civitas capitals unless there was some kind of militia to defend them and the construction of these new defences seems to coincide with the appearance of large quantities of BB1 on sites excavated within them. The construction date of the landward wall of Londinium has been narrowed down by the finding of a worn coin of Commodus in a layer cut by its foundations and the presence of forgers’ coin moulds for copying issues of c. 225 AD on the floor of a defensive wall tower (Wacher 1974). This dates the defences quite closely to c. 200-220 AD. The Magnus House Phases 4-5 sequence of timber wharves was dated by both pottery and dendrochronology. Examination of the pottery assemblages from these phases (Richardson 1986) indicates most strongly that the mass importation of BB1 into the city commenced very close to the time that the landward defences were constructed. Further defensive measures were undertaken during the mid 3rd century AD when the riverside wall was built. The percentages of BB1 in Londinium remain high throughout the period but appear to have dropped-off sharply at the end of the 3rd century AD.

BB1 also had an advantage over most other handmade pottery in having a superior finish, similar to that of wheel-turned pots, but in a fabric heavily tempered with coarse quartz-sand grit to withstand the thermal shock of fast bonfire or clamp firing. Such fabrics continued in use even after the adoption of kiln-firing technology towards the end of the 2nd century AD. The ability of BB1 pottery to withstand such thermal shock makes it particularly attractive for open-fire cooking. Wheel-turned pots may look better but they have horizontal lines of weakness caused by the aligning of clay and inclusion particles on the wheel. This could lead to the shearing-off of rims and bases during open fire cooking although perhaps not when subjected to the steady heat of the more sophisticated charcoal fired oven. This brings us to the question of military supply. The presence of BB1 pottery on northern and western military sites, far away from the production area, has been cited as evidence for military contracts from c. 120 AD onwards. The pattern of pottery supply to the forts on the newly-constructed Hadrian’s Wall suggests that BB1 was coming in by sea at the western end and being used more by the Cumbrian fort garrisons, and Thameside BB2 wares also arriving by sea at the mouth of the River Tyne and being distributed more to the eastern forts (Gillam 1973: 58). There was, of course, considerable overlap in the distribution of the two wares, with BB1 being found alongside BB2 on most wall sites, including Vindolanda.

The bulk of Roman town walls in the south-east appear to have been constructed during the third quarter of the third century, about fifty years later than the landward wall of Londinium. That around Silchester has been subjected to excavation (Fulford 1984). It was shown that the wall was built c. 270 AD; inserted in the front of a pre-existing earth rampart with the lower part of its construction trench containing pottery dumped at the time of the wall’s erection (p. 30). The walls of Winchester are of similar date. The relationship of the South Gate Phase 8 pottery assemblage to the gate itself has already been discussed (p. 27) and includes sherds of both early 3rd century and immediately post AD 270 date.

The idea of BB1 military contracts is quite attractive, even if the prime movement was not in pottery at all but in other commodities such as salt for the preservation of meat supplies etc. and grain from the civitas of the Durotriges. The pottery must have held a certain attraction for the military procurers in

In the cases of both Bitterne and Chichester, the town walls also appear to be of mid 3rd century AD date; with those at Bitterne more closely dated to after AD 268 by the presence of a coin of Gallienus in a context cut by the wall foundation. This coin was originally 104

7: BB1 production and distribution mechanisms: a review of the evidence

identified as being one of Valens (Waterman 1947), an error which led to the stone defences being dated as late as AD 370. A more recent re-examination of the coin by Professor King of Winchester University (pers. comm) has led to the revised identification, which has brought the date of the stone defences in line with most of the others around towns in the south-east of Britain. Further excavations during the early 1950s (Cotton and Gathercole 1958) produced three more coins associated with Phase IX building construction contexts laid down at the same time as the building of the town wall. These are of Gallienus, Salonina and Tetricus I and support a date of just after AD 270 for the stone defences.

from the make-up of a late 3rd century floor in Building II associated with coins terminating with a barbarous radiate of the 270-80s AD (ibid.: Plate LXIVa-2,3). A late pugio was also found sealed beneath a reconstruction of Building III (Plate LXIVb-8) and had seven coins in association, terminating with an issue of Carausius (AD 286-293). The absence of walled civitas capitals and other urban sites from the Notitia Dignitatum indicates that any defensive garrisons were removed at some stage and replaced, if at all, by burgi or other irregular troops. It is easy to understand why regular troops should have been posted in southern freshly-walled towns during the mid to late 3rd century AD. Some of the greatest threats to the British provinces during this period came from the Continent; firstly during the barbarian invasions of Gaul, then attacks by Frankish pirates and finally by the tetrarchs attempting to restore their authority during the Carausian rebellion of AD 286-96. It may be that the newly-walled towns acquired garrisons of regular troops at the time that their defences were constructed and that these were withdrawn when the authority of Rome was restored in AD 296.

No such precise dating for Chichester’s walls is available, but the pottery evidence from a section put across the wall and rampart at the south-west corner of the city indicates a date sometime during the late 3rd century AD (Magilton 1993). Chichester is particularly interesting in yielding late 2nd to early 3rd century AD dated items of military equipment: two identical openwork belt plates of Oldenstein Type 795 (Down 1974: figure 8.16,36 and 1989: figure 28.1,1). This could be regarded as evidence for a military presence associated with the building of the walls.

The walling of the civitas capitals and some other towns seems, for the most part, to have preceded the building of the shore-forts by between 15 and 20 years. We can determine this by the fact that the BB1 associated with the walling of Winchester, Chichester and Clausentum includes early forms such type 6.1 flanged-bowls and 8.1 dishes. Such forms are regarded as pre-dating AD 250 but the former could have continued being made in limited quantities until AD 270. Incipient beaded-andflanged bowls are also found on the above urban sites as well as in 3rd century AD dated contexts from Londinium and elsewhere, but are absent from the earliest shorefort occupation levels at Portchester, Pevensey, Dover and Richborough. Developed beaded-and-flanged bowl fragments occur both in urban site and shore-fort assemblages.

The Beech House Hotel excavations at Dorchesteron-Thames (Rowley and Brown 1982) revealed an interesting occupational sequence within the northwest corner of the Roman town defences. A house was constructed c. 240 AD pre-dating the erection of the town wall. It was largely demolished before the end of the century and lime-burning carried out in the ruins. The demolition seems to have been carried out at the time of the construction of the town defences c. 270-290 AD (Frere 1985) and it may be that the wall-robbing and lime-burning were associated with that act. The construction of Verulamium’s city walls is dated by Frere to the period c. 260-270 AD and as at Calleva seems to coincide with the clearance of most of the suburban settlement beyond. The final suburban occupation on the King Harry Lane site at Verulamium had very little BB1 pottery associated, but a much higher percentage was present in the pottery assemblage from the later 3rd century AD dated feature F.7. Like Chichester, Verulamium has produced a number of pieces of 3rd century military equipment.

Excavations at Pevensey in 1993-94 produced both coin and dendrochronological evidence for the fort walls having been constructed by Allectus c. 293 AD and the same dating could apply to most of the other shoreforts. The shore-fort system may have been conceived as a defence against an invasion by Maximian and Constantius’s forces after Allectus’s loss of Boulogne and the rest of his territories in northern Gaul (Lyne and Hooke 2008).

A cellar belonging to the second phase of Building VIII had been refloored shortly before being backfilled with rubbish (Wheeler and Wheeler 1936) and incorporated coins of Salonina, Gallienus and Postumus within the new floor. The superincumbent rubbish included a peltate sword scabbard chape of 3rd century AD type and part of an iron pilum (ibid.: figure 46-59 and Plate LXIVa-1). An iron spear-head and shield-boss came

c. 300-400 AD The supply of BB1 to the northern frontier garrisons continued on a more limited scale than hitherto until the mid 4th century AD and was largely replaced by more local wares such as those from the Crambeck and 105

Late Roman Dorset Black-Burnished Ware (BB1) Huntcliff potteries in Yorkshire during and at the end of this period.

Portchester shore-fort and in much smaller quantities to the Chichester area.

As in the north of Britain, BB1 supply to the southeast was on a muted scale from the beginning of the century. The very presence of what are often very small amounts of pottery travelling long distances may, however, indicate that trade in other commodities from the Isle of Purbeck and other sites around Poole Harbour, such as salt, shale objects and building stone, was unaffected but that the increased ability of more local coarseware suppliers to provide bowls and dishes made it uneconomical for the BB1 potters to attempt long distance trade in other than the occasional small batch of pots put on the wagons and ships carrying other more lucrative cargoes. Replacement coarse pottery on south-eastern sites includes both Alice Holt/ Farnham and New Forest greywares.

There also seems to have been some late specialised marketing in Class 9 oval dishes with handles. This vessel type is known from pottery assemblages as early as the late 3rd century AD in date but is regularly found in late 4th century AD dated contexts in and around Londinium and elsewhere (Figure 19). It was not made by wheel-using pottery industries because of its shape, although a few handmade East Sussex Downland ware copies are known (Lyne 2015, Figure 4, 5C.30). This lack of competition seems to have made the marketing of the form a minor BB1 success story during the mid to late 4th century AD. After AD 370, the BB1 distribution zone in Britain was largely confined to the south-west. The potters abandoned all pretence at producing jars with pearshaped bodies in imitation of wheel-turned and now made barrel-shaped examples and squat neckedbowl variants in the manner of their Late Iron Age predecessors. The relatively-small numbers of such forms from sites such as Poundbury suggest much reduced levels of production and perhaps marketing methods based on barter. Both the jars and neckedbowls are often decorated with diagonally-burnished girth bands there are only three necked-bowls with this type of decoration or obtuse-latticing known from east of Dorset; from the Oakridge well near Basingstoke in northern Hampshire, Kingston upon Thames and the Shadwell port site just east of Londinium.

This abandonment of large-scale trade in BB1 is reflected in the composition of the small 4th century AD dated assemblages of such wares. Gone is the emphasis on bowls and dishes and there is a predominance of cooking-pots instead. Going (1992) considers, on the strength of his work on the pottery from Chelmsford sites and elsewhere, that there was a modest revival in BB1 trading fortunes during the 360s and 370s AD. The increased BB1 percentages from Chelmsford sites are really quite modest and re-examination of that material suggests that much, if not all, of the BB1 is residual. Some limited supply of BB1 pottery was certainly taking place eastwards along the Channel coast during the third quarter of the 4th century; to the

106

8: The end of the industry The BB1 production centres lay beyond the limits of the 5th century Saxon settlement and may have lasted longer than the large pottery producers further to the east. As we have seen, the loss of the BB1 industry’s share of the military market during the mid-4th century AD led to the area supplied by it comprising little more than the civitas of the Durotriges and neighbouring areas.

None of these assemblages are large enough for quantification by EVEs but a larger, but still small, 3.89 EVE assemblage of similar date-range came from a midden south of Room N3. This has BB1 making up 93% of it and Orange Wiped Ware accounting for the rest by EVEs. Cooking-pots account for 42% of the assemblage, beaded-and-flanged bowls 7%, dishes 17%, beakers 13%, storage-jars 8%, Orange Wiped Ware examples 7% and flagons 6%. There are fragments from eleven examples of cooking-pot type 1.8 (c. 370-430 AD), one of type 1.10 and three of type 1.11 (c. 390-430 AD). Other forms include an example of necked-bowl type 2.8 (c. 370/80-430 AD), three examples of beaded-andflanged bowl type 6.11 and four of dish type 8.14 (c. 390430 AD), as well as at least three storage-jars of type 13.2 in Orange Wiped Ware (c. 370-430 AD). Of great significance are two rilled fragments of a LR1 amphora from the uppermost levels of the stratified sequence: these are the most easterly examples known and date from between AD 450 and 550 (Campbell 2007: 18-24). They raise the question as to whether the terminal date for BB1 manufacture should be raised from AD 430 to sometime after AD 450.

The best sites with evidence for the end of BB1 production within the civitas of the Durotriges are the Bestwall Quarry production centre at Wareham, The Druce Farm villa at Puddletown, The Wollaston House bath-block in Dorchester and Poundbury just to the west of the town. A very late kiln, Z998, was cut into the edge of the fill of the late-4th century workshop Structure 9 at Bestwall Quarry, suggesting that the people who constructed it were unaware of the existence of the previous feature (Lyne 2012A, 234). The 292 sherd (3126 g.) pottery assemblage from this kiln is too small for quantification by EVEs but includes fragments from cooking-pots with diagonal burnished line and obtuse lattice decoration, a dish of type 8.15 (c. 370-430 AD) and 20 sherds from type 13.2 storage-jars in Orange Wiped Ware (c. 370-430 AD). Much of this pottery may be derived from the fill of Structure 9 but the assemblage from the fill of the kiln also includes a sherd in vesicular grey organic-tempered handmade ware with occasional