Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:48:42.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roman Amphorae from Canterbury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Paul Arthur
Paul Arthur
Affiliation:
Centro per l'Archeologia Medievale Università di Salerno, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is intended as an attempt to assess the importance of the importation of overseas foodstuffs and other organic commodities to Canterbury during the late Iron Age and Roman periods through the evidence of amphorae. The material has been collected during the programme of excavations conducted by the Canterbury Archaeological Trust at the following sites around the town (FIG. I); Rosemary Lane Car Park (The Castle Vol. i of the Archaeology of Canterbury series); 77–9 Castle Street, 3 Beer Cart Lane, 69a Stour Street (CBR I–IV in Vol. 6 forthcoming); 16 Watling Street and Marlowe Car Park sites (MI–IV in Vol. 5 forthcoming); St. Gabriel's Chapel and Linacre Gardens in the Cathedral Precincts (Vol. 4 forthcoming); the Mint Yard and ‘Aula Nova’ (Norman Staircase) also in the Precincts (Vol. 3 forthcoming); St. Radigund's Street (Church Lane, Vol. 2). Although excavations are still in progress it was felt wise to attempt an analysis of all the material recovered only up to the excavation of the Marlowe IV site in 1980, the 234 kg of amphorae sherds unearthed up to that date being regarded as a sufficiently large sample to be statistically reliable, in general terms, towards reconstructing the pattern of amphora importation into the town. Further excavations might yield further types and help to refine the quantified figures, although they should be of little overall consequence.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 17 , November 1986 , pp. 239 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Paul Arthur 1986. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am most grateful to Dr Lynn Pitts and Professor S.S. Frere for providing me with data relating to amphorae from the Canterbury Excavation Committee's sites (1946–60). Further Dressel IB's are represented (in addition to the Trust's examples) together with a good number of Dressel 20's and other forms represented in this report. In no way does this other material conflict with the general trends and conclusions noted in this present study.

2 Unfortunately, the study of amphorae has proceeded sporadically in various countries leading to multiplication of denominations for individual types. For example, Pelichet Type 46 in this report may be found referred to in other texts as Beltran IIB, Dressel 38/39 or Camulodunum 186. In this text, I have employed the most frequently used terms.

3 Zevi, F., ‘Appunti sulle Anfore Romane’, Archaeologia Classica xviii (1966), 213.Google Scholar

4 Arthur, P., PBSR (1982), 22–33.Google Scholar

5 Hesnard, A., MEFRA 89, 1 (1977), 157–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Manacorda, D. in Giardina, A. and Schiavone, A. (eds.), Merci, Mercati e Scambi nel Mediterraneo Societa Romana e Produzione Schiavistica II (Roma, 1981), 3–54.Google Scholar

7 C. Panella; in A. Giardina and A. Schiavone, op. cit. (note 6), 67.

8 Peacock, D.P.S., Antiq. Journ. lvii, pt. ii (1977).Google Scholar

9 See Peacock, D.P.S. in Jesson, M. and Hill, D. (eds.), The Iron Age and its Hill Forts (Southampton, 1971), 182.Google Scholar

10 ibid., Fabric i.

11 Peacock, D.P.S. in du Plat Taylor, J. and Cleere, H. (eds.), Roman Shipping and Trade: Britain and the Rhine Provinces, CBA Res. Rep. 24 (London 1978), 49–51.Google Scholar

12 Peacock, op. cit. (note 9).

13 Courtois, L. and Velde, B., BCH xiii (1978), 977–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Peacock, D.P.S., Pottery and Early Commerce (London, 1977), 147–62.Google Scholar

15 Peacock, op. cit. (note 9).

16 Laver, P.C., Archaeologia lxxvi (1927), 241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Pagliara (1969).

18 Laubenheimer, F. and Widemann, F., Revue' Archéometrie i (1977), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Castle, S.A., Britannia ix (1978), 383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Peacock, D.P.S. in Partridge, , Skeleton Green, Britannia Mono. Ser. 2 (London, 1981), 199–204.Google Scholar

21 Callender, M.H., Roman Amphorae (Oxford, 1965), no. 699.Google Scholar

22 Baldacci, P., Atti del Centro Studi e Documentazione sull' Italia Romana I (1968), 7–50.Google Scholar

23 Callender, op. cit. (note 21), no. 365.

24 Zevi, op. cit. (note 3), 231.

25 Manacorda, D. in Carandini, A. (ed.), L'Instrumentum Domesticum di Ercolano e Pompei nella prima eta imperiale (Roma, 1977), 121–33.Google Scholar

25 Peacock, op. cit. (note 9), 168.

27 Cf. the vessel from Oberaden: Loeschcke, S. in Albrecht, C., Das römische Lager in Oberaden II: Die römische und belgische Keramik (Dortmund, 1942), type 82.Google Scholar

28 Tchernia, A., Journal des Savants (1967), 224Google Scholar ; Panella, C.; in Carandini, A. and Panella, C.; (eds.), Ostia, Terme del Nuotatore III, Studi Miscellanei 21 (1973), 460–633.Google Scholar

29 O. Farrington in K. Crouch, Friends Burial Ground Site Report, LAMAS Special Paper 2, (forthcoming).

30 Tchernia, op. cit. (note 28).

31 Callender, op. cit. (note 21), cf. no. 1365.

32 Jahrbuch des Bernischen Historischen Museums (1965–6), 424 and 442.

33 Callender, op. cit. (note 21), cf. no. 1572 d.

34 Information from Dr M. Feugere.

35 Farrington, op. cit. (note 29).

36 Callender, op. cit. (note 21), cf. no. 878.

37 Rodriguez-Almeida, E., Bull. Comm. Arch. Comun. Roma. Ixxxiv (1977), 199–248.Google Scholar

38 Cunliffe, B.W., Excavations al Fishbourne, 1961–1969, Vol. II, The Finds, xxvii (Oxford, 1971 ).Google Scholar

39 Myers, J.N.L. and Green, B., The Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of Caistor-by-Norwich and Markshall, Norfolk (London, 1973), fig. 64.Google Scholar

40 Rouquette, D. in Hommages à Fernand Benoit (Bordighera, 1972), 325.Google Scholar

41 R. Rebuffat, Thamusida. Fouilles du Service des Antiquités du Maroc. 3. École Française de Rome. Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Supp. 2.

42 Information from E. Laforgia.

43 Zevi, op. cit. (note 3).

44 Peacock, op. cit. (note 20).

45 Panella;, op. cit. (note 28), 504, 509.

46 Peacock, D.P.S., Antiq. Journ. liv pt. ii (1974), 232–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar , fig. 3, nos. 1, 5, 8, 10 and 12.

47 Widemann, F., Laubenheimer, F., Altas, M., Fontes, P., Gruel, K., Leblanc, J. and Lleres, J., Archaeophysika x (1978), 317–41.Google Scholar

48 Panella;, op. cit. (note 28), 512–3; Manacorda, op. cit. (note 25), 125–8.

49 Peacock, op. cit. (note 8), 271, flg. 1 no. 5.

50 Riley, J. in Lloyd, J.A. (ed.), Sidi Khrebish Excavations, Benghazi (Berenice), Vol. II (Tripoli 1979), 91–467.Google Scholar

51 Tchernia, A. and Villa, J.P., Méthodes Classiques et Méthodes Formelles dans l'Etude des Amphores, Coll. École Française de Rome xxxii (Rome, 1977) 231–9Google Scholar ; F. Laubenheimer and F. Widemann, op. cit. (note 18).

52 Panella;, op. cit. (note 28); Peacock, op. cit. (note 11).

53 Peacock, op. cit. (note 8), 264–5 and fig. 1.

51 Cf. Panella;, op. cit. (note 28), 625, fig. 3.

55 Information from P. Sealey; excavations 1970 by B.R.K. Dunnett; Cf. also Jones, D.M., ‘Excavations at Billingsgate Buildings, Lower Thames Street, London, 1974’, LAMAS Special Paper 4 (1980).Google Scholar

56 Gallia (1979), 373 and pl.22.

57 Information from S. Keay.

58 Peacock, op. cit. (note 20), 202.

59 Maña, J.M. in Beitran, A. (ed.) Crónica del VI Congreso Arqueológico del Sudeste, Cartagena (1950), 203–10.Google Scholar

60 Siena, Lusuardi, Coll. de L'Ecole Française de Rome, xxxii (1977), 207–230.Google Scholar

61 Cf. Panella;, op. cit. (note 28), 574–92.

62 Peacock, op. cit. (note 8).

63 Cf. Jenkins, F. in Frère, S.S., Stow, S. and Bennett, P., Excavations on the Roman and Medieval Defences of Canterbury, Archaeology of Canterbury: Vol. II (Maidstone, 1982), 140, no. 13.Google Scholar

64 Cf. Shackley, M., Archaeological sediments: a survey of archaeological methods (London, 1975), 57–9.Google Scholar

65 Reusch, W., Saalburg Jahrbuch xxvii (1970), 54–62Google Scholar and Jones, op. cit. (note 55), 45.

66 Jones, op. cit. (note 65).

67 Panella;, op. cit. (note 28), 460–2; Scorpan, C., Dacia xxi (1977), 272–3.Google Scholar

68 Perrin, R., Roman Pottery from the Colonia: Skeldergate and Bishopshill, The Arch, of York 16/2 (London, 1981), 101, no. 573.Google Scholar

69 Peacock, D.P.S. in Dore, J. and Greene, K. (eds.), Roman pottery studies in Britain and Beyond BAR (Oxford, 1977), 297–8.Google Scholar

70 Thomas, A.C., Med. Arch. iii (1959), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 Grace, V., Hesperia xl (1971), 52–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Williams, D.F., Archaeometry xxi, 2 (1979), 181.Google Scholar

73 Lang, M., Hesperia xxiv (1955), 277–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Rothschild-Boros, M.C. in Barker, G. and Hodges, R. (eds.), Archaeology and Italian Society (Oxford, 1981), 83–4Google Scholar ; Passi, S., Rothschild-Boros, M.C., Fasella, P., Nazzaro-Porro, M. and Whitehouse, D.B., Journ. of Lipid Research xxii (1981), 778–84Google Scholar . Information from D.B. Whitehouse.

75 Information from Dr R.J. Pollard.

76 Peacock, op. cit. (note 69), 297, Panella;, op. cit. (note 28).

77 P. Arthur, Libyan Studies xiii (1982), 69.

78 Panella;, op. cit. (note 28), 469–71; 642.

79 Panella;, op. cit. (note 28), 472–4.

80 Rigby, V. in Bennett, P., Frere, S.S. and Stow, S., Excavations at Canterbury Castle, Archaeology of Canterbury: Vol. I (Maidstone, 1982), 95.Google Scholar Since the completion of this amphora paper Val Rigby has examined considerable quantities of Gallo-Belgic and other imported wares from city sites. Although many will be residual, it can now be said that something approaching two hundred pre-Claudian pieces have been identified. See Rigby in Vol. V (the Marlowe Car Park, forthcoming), of the Archaeology of Canterbury series for a full catalogue of the Period 1 and 2 material with discussion of these early wares and their implications. (M.J. Green.)

81 It is now known that the majority of the potins are of Allen's Class II (beginning of the first century AD to around the conquest), while there is still a considerable number of Allen's Class I which are dateable to the beginning of the first century B.c. until the beginning of the first century A.D. (M.J. Green)

82 CIL XV, 4539 and 4575.

83 Hesnard, A. in D'Arms, J.H. and Kopff, E.C. (eds.), The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History (Rome, 1980) 143.Google Scholar

84 Information from H. Thompson.

85 Watson, M.B., Arch. Cant, lxxviii (1963), 185–8.Google Scholar

86 P. Arthur, forthcoming.

87 Cf. Peacock, op. cit. (note 9), 182.

88 Manacorda, op. cit. (note 6), 27.

89 Galliou, P., Corpus des amphores découvertes dans l'ouest de la France 1, Les amphores tardo-républlcaines (Brest, 1982).Google Scholar

90 Boon, G.C., Arch. Camb. cxxiv (1975), 52–67.Google Scholar

91 Jones, op. cit. (note 55), 76.

92 Bateman, N. and Locker, A., The London Archaeologist iv, 8 (1982), 204–7.Google Scholar

93 Sanquer, R. and Galliou, P., Gallia xxx (1972), 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

94 For Gaulish wine cf. Peacock, op. cit. (note 11).

95 This paper was substantially completed in March 1983.