No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2012
For over three-quarters of a century the New Forest potteries have had their place in the archaeology of Roman Britain. The first discoveries at Crock Hill were made by the Rev. J. P. Bartlett in 1852, and our Secretary Akerman's paper on these, together with J. R. Wise's work at Islands Thorns and elsewhere, soon made ‘New Forest ware’ as familiar a household word as ‘Castor’ or ‘Upchurch’ in the mouths of Victorian antiquaries. These researches made it clear that the potteries flourished mainly in the latter part of the Roman period: not only do we hear of no associations with ‘Samian’ (Terra Sigillata), but the majority of the coin-finds, rare as they were, were later than the middle of the third century. But to the early explorers ‘the Romans’ remained always alien conquerors, and it was left for Haverfield, who reviewed the material in 1900, to point out that the New Forest wares ‘have no Roman or Italian analogies, and are obviously native’. ‘It is a melancholy pleasure’, he remarked, ‘to find in this secluded corner of Britain a survival, however poor, of native ways.’ And in his Romanization of Roman Britain he duly quoted ‘the New Forest urns with their curious leaf-ornament’ among the ‘little local manufactures’ attesting the ‘sporadic survival’ of native Celtic art under Roman rule. But both there and in Professor Collingwood's Roman Britain it is in the livelier decoration of Castor ware that this was more explicitly recognized; and in the latest expression of his judgement, Professor Collingwood sums the matter up in a more guarded fashion.
page 113 note 1 Archaeologia, xxxv (1853), 91 ff.Google Scholar; see also Proc. Soc. Antiq., Ist ser., ii, 285-6; iv, 167; and Arch. Journ. xxx (1873), 319 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 113 note 2 , Wise, The New Forest (1863), 214 ff.Google Scholar
page 113 note 3 V.C.H. Hants, i, 326-8.
page 113 note 4 2nd edn. (1912), 39–40; cf. , Haverfield and , Macdonald, Roman Occupation of Britain, 241Google Scholar.
page 114 note 1 1st edn. (1923), 73-5; revised edn. (1932), 101-3.
page 114 note 2 Roman Britain and the English Settlements, 2nd edn. (1937), 235-7, 257–8.Google Scholar
page 114 note 3 Excavations in New Forest Pottery Sites (Chiswick Press, 1927).Google Scholar
page 115 note 1 Richborough I, 89 ff.
page 117 note 1 Excavations in New Forest Roman Pottery Sites, 73 ff.
page 117 note 2 Ibid. 85.
page 117 note 3 Ibid. 87-8.
page 117 note 4 Ibid. 93-4.
page 117 note 5 Ibid. 73.
page 118 note 1 Excavations in New Forest Roman Pottery Sites, 76-80, with pls. xxiii-xxiv.
page 118 note 2 Y Cymmrodor, xli, 5 5-6 and fig. 31; list, 68-9, no. 25 (‘Black Heath Meadow, East’).
page 120 note 1 , Sumner, op. cit. 1.Google Scholar
page 121 note 1 Oxoniensia, i (1936), 83 ff., 90-2.
page 122 note 1 , Sumner, op. cit. 105–6.Google Scholar
page 122 note 2 Ibid. 79–80, pl. xxiv.
page 122 note 3 Richborough I, pl. xii, 9; II, pl. xvii, 19; Verulamium, fig. 44, 32; etc.
page 122 note 4 , Sutherland, Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain (1937), 124.Google Scholar
page 123 note 1 , Sumner, op. cit. 79.Google Scholar
page 124 note 1 Op. cit. 97.
page 124 note 2 , Wheeler, Verulamium, 197.Google Scholar
page 124 note 3 J.R.S. xvi, 36 ff., 41-2; pl. v, 1-4, etc.
page 125 note 1 , Collingwood, Roman Britain (1932), 99–100.Google Scholar
page 125 note 2 , Pitt-Rivers, Excavations, i, pls. xxxii ff.Google Scholar
page 125 note 3 Ibid., ii, pls. cvii ff.
page 125 note 4 Arch. Journ. lxxxvii, 285–6, fig. 26, 5.
page 125 note 5 Bushe-Fox, Hengistbury Head, pls. xxii ff.
page 125 note 6 e.g. Classes D-F at Hengistbury (pls. xx-xxi); but the pre-Belgic decorated wares of the Middle Avon region are more typically represented at Fifield Bavant (Wilts. Arch. Mag. xlii, 475 and pl. vi), Highfield, Salisbury (ibid, xlvi, 600 and fig. 7), or Yarnbury Castle (ibid. 203 and pls. xvi–xvii, showing lattice already present, but only as one of a larger repertory of designs).
page 126 note 1 Op. cit. 82.
page 126 note 2 Ibid. 76.
page 127 note 1 , Pitt-Rivers, Excavations, ii, 142Google Scholar (coins: i, 162–3; ii, 189)’ Since both sites were excavated completely one can argue from them both positively and negatively with reasonable confidence.
page 128 note 1 Op. cit. 82.
page 131 note 1 Antiquity, v (1931), 39.Google Scholar
page 131 note 2 Ibid. 43, with pl. ii, fig. 5.
page 132 note 1 Mr. T. D. Kendrick has kindly shown me a photograph.
page 132 note 2 Antiq. Journ. xviii, 70–1, pls. xxx–xxxi.
page 132 note 3 e.g. Archaeologia, lii, 2, 372, pl. xiii, 2-5, 8.
page 132 note 4 , Collingwood, Roman Britain (1923), 81.Google Scholar
page 132 note 5 Cf. , Jacobsthal, Die Antike, x (1933), 17–45Google Scholar; Burlington Mag., 09 1935, 113–27Google Scholar.
page 133 note 1 e.g. on the Witham shield: B.M. Iron Age Guide, 104, fig. 114.
page 133 note 2 P.S.A. Scot, xix, 45–50, pl. 1. The patera is ascribed to a South-British work-shop of that century by Mile Henry in Préhistoire, ii. 1, 113-14 (with fig. 26, 3).
page 133 note 3 Mlle Henry, ibid. 142-6 (fig. 45, 4 and pl. 11, Gaul; fig. 46, 2, Silchester, and itself somewhat Celtic in character).
page 133 note 4 B.M. Roman Britain Guide, pl. xiii (border), &c.
page 134 note 1 Burlington Mag., loc. cit. 118-20, pl. 11, F; Déchelette, Manuel, iv, 838-9, fig. 582.
page 134 note 2 e.g., B.M. Iron Age Guide, 61, fig. 59.
page 134 note 3 Cernon-sur-Coole: Déchelette, op. cit. 625, fig. 463, 2-2 a.
page 134 note 4 Leeds, Celtic Ornament, 6–11, with figs. 2 (Wandsworth shield-boss), 4 (Torrs champfrein), and 6.
page 134 note 5 B.M. Iron Age Guide, 141–2, figs. 158–9.
page 135 note 1 Just as the analogous patterning of Germanic ‘animal-art’ reflects in its own way a different version of the same pagan mysticism.