Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:11:44.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boudicca, the first Colchester Potters' Shop, and the dating of Neronian Samian1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Martin Millett
Martin Millett
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historically dated pottery assemblages have been widely used in the establishment of ceramic chronologies, especially those currently used for samian ware.2 The methods employed in the construction of these chronologies have hitherto been comparatively unsophisticated and the results have rarely been subjected to critical scrutiny. Further, in most of the development and use of these chronologies it has been the presence of specific types (for instance stamps or decorated sherds) that has been considered significant rather than the overall composition of the assemblages. This is despite the fundamental assumption on which the chronologies are based, that assemblages deposited at or near the same time, within the same distribution network, will be similar in composition. This assumption has itself rarely been tested to establish the limits within which other factors determining pottery supply, use and deposition, may obscure these underlying chronological structures, and render them unreliable for the precise dating upon which Roman archaeologists rely.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 18 , November 1987 , pp. 93 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Martin Millett 1987. 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

2 The foundations of the subject are best summarised in Oswald, F. and Davies-Pryce, T., An Introduction to the Study of Terra Sigillata (1920)Google Scholar, who list the main dated assemblages on pages 39–46.

3 Millett, M. in Acta of the 2nd International Archaeological Student Congress, Szeged 1980 (Budapest, Elte University Press 1981)Google Scholar; also Millett 1983, Chapter 1.

4 In this paper only the groups from London, Verulamium and Colchester are considered. Other groups claimed as Boudiccan from Canterbury (Bennett, P.et al., The Archaeology of Canterbury i (1982), 27–30)Google Scholar Staines (Crouch, K., London Archaeologist 3 (1978), 180–6)Google Scholar, Winchester (Cunliffe, B., Winchester Excavations 1949–1960 Vol. 1 (1964), 32–33)Google Scholar, Park Street Villa (O'Neil, H., Arch. Journ. cii (1947), 21–100Google Scholar; Neal, D. in Todd, M. (ed.), Studies in the Romano-British Villa (1978), 37)Google Scholar and Gorhambury (D. Neal, ibid.) were also examined and are discussed in Millett 1983. Of these only that from Canterbury was consistent with the Boudiccan assemblages. Of the others, Park Street villa produced too little material for reliable analysis.

5 Sites excavated after August 1978 are excluded from the study.

6 See most recently Fuentes, N., London Archaeologist 4 (1983), 311–6Google ScholarWebster, G., London Archaeologist 4 (1984), 411–4.Google Scholar

7 e.g. Hartley, B. in Collingwood, R.G. and Richmond, I.A., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (1969), 241.Google Scholar

8 For this method see Doran, J.R. and Hodson, F.R., Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology (1975), 190–7.Google Scholar

9 This seems to imply that the supply of samian was organised in a way that separated the products of any one workshop (see Millett 1983, 131-2).

10 This suggests that a re-examination of conclusions based on dissimilarity (e.g. Hartley, B., Britannia iii (1972), 1–55) may be in order.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 C.R., and Orton, J., London Archaeologist 2 (1975), 285–7.Google Scholar

12 There is some circularity in this as a limited number of the dates are based on occurrences in contexts accepted as Boudiccan during the compilation of the Leeds index.

13 These vessels some of which are represented only by tiny fragments, are described in detail in Millett 1983, Appendix C.

14 Hubbard, R.N.L., Bull. Univ. London Inst. Arch., xii (1975), 197–205.Google Scholar

15 Oswald and Pryce, op. cit. (note 2) and Hartley, op. cit. (note 7) were used together with F. Hermet, La Graufesenque (1934), C. Johns, Arretine and Samian Pottery (1971) and M. Bulmer, An introduction to Roman samian ware (1980).

16 This material now in the collections of the British Museum and Museum of London comprises obviously burnt material whose exact context is not known. It was originally published by Dunning, G.C., Ant. Journ. xxv (1945), 48–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It should be noted that little of the stratified material from other sites showed any significant sign of burning.

17 This contradicts the assumption on which Orton's analysis, op. cit. (note n), is based and thus invalidates some of his results.

18 This means that the use of a pottery date to provide a terminus post quern is difficult (Cf. Webster, G., Practical Archaeology (1963), 60–61Google Scholar, and note) as the date of the deposit must be at or after the mid point, not the end, of the date range of the assemblage. Using the end of the range of the latest sherd certainly introduces a systematic dating error.

19 First published in Colchester Museum Record (1927), 30ff and ibid. (1950) 18ff. Further material from the second shop was recovered by M. Davies for the Colchester Museum in 1971 but is not published. The earlier material is most readily available in M.R. Hull, Roman Colchester (1958). Note that there are discrepancies between the various lists published. The figures given here are based on a re-examination of the museum collections.

20 Frere, S.S., Verulamium Excavations 1, (1972)Google Scholar, fig. 8. The published vessels from A IX 5 are stamps S2 and S4; decorated vessels D1-D8. Further unpublished decorated sherds are listed in Appendices 4 and 5.

21 Tacitus Annals XIV, 33, indicates an evacuation of the city, so rather than a stall, they may represent material spilled or looted from one of the shop units.

22 Compare for instance Wacher, J.S. and McWhirr, A.D., Cirencester Excavations I (1982), 64–66Google Scholar for a similar deposit.

23 See Marsden, P., Roman London (1980), 17–25.Google Scholar

24 One might for instance question the delay in the rebuilding of Verulamium after the Boudiccan fire (Frere, S.S., Verulamium Excavations II, (1983), 8).Google Scholar

25 Hull, op. cit. (note 19), 74-5.

26 Dunnett, B.R.K., Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. ii (1968), 140Google Scholar, Site 18.

27 Dunnett, B.R.K., Arch. Journ. cxxiii (1967), 27–62.Google Scholar

28 Dunnett, op. cit. (note 26), 139 Sites 8–9.

29 Hull, op. cit. (note 19), 98-100 Site 174.

30 ibid., 104 Site 126.

31 ibid., 98–100 Site 174.

32 Dunnett, op. cit. (note 27), 27.

33 Dunnett, B.R.K., Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. iii (1969), 1–130.Google Scholar

34 Dunnett, op. cit. (note 27), 39.

35 Britannia v (1974), 439–40.

36 Hull, op. cit. (note 19), 153 ff., Site 127.

37 B.R.K. Dunnett, Notes on discoveries in Roman Colchester (1971), unpublished manuscript held by the Colchester Archaeological Unit.

38 Dunnett, op. cit. (note 33), 62-77.

39 Hull, op. cit. (note 19), 198 ff., Site 171.

40 Crummy, P., Britannia viii (1977), 67 ff.Google Scholar: structural report now published in Crummy, P., Colchester Archaeological Reports 3 (1984), 31–92.Google Scholar

41 Hull, M.R., Trans. Essex Arch. Soc. xxv (1960), 301–328.Google Scholar

42 C.F.C. Hawkes and M.R. Hull, Camulodunum (1947), Period IV destruction.

43 M.R. Hull, The Roman Potters' Kilns of Colchester (1963).

44 Detailed information kindly made available by Mrs Niblett. Now published as R. Niblett, Sheepen: an early Roman Industrial site at Camulodunum (1985).

45 Balkerne Lane, published in Crummy, op. cit. (note 40), 93–153, although originally studied, has been omitted

46 Chapman, H. and Johnson, T., Trans. London and Middlesex Arch. Soc. xxiv (1973), 7.Google Scholar

47 Merrifield, R., The Roman City of London (1965), gazetteer nos. 167–172.Google Scholar

48 Chapman and Johnson, op. cit. (note 46), 56-73.

49 Accession numbers 65.12–20–111 published by Walters, H.B., Catalogue of Roman Pottery in the British Museum (1908), M1019.Google Scholar

50 Dunning, op. cit. (note 16).

51 London Archaeologist 2, 368; 400–401. Mr Boddington's draft report was kindly made available by the DUA.

52 Philp, B., Britannia viii (1977), 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Accession number 1929.129; Dunning, op. cit. (note 16).

54 Home, G., Roman London (1948), 72Google Scholar; Dunning, op. cit. (note 16) and Merrifield, op. cit. (note 47), gazetteer 50.

55 Lambert, F., Archaeologia lxxi (1921), 56–58.Google Scholar

56 Dunning, op. cit. (note 16); one of the sherds bears the accession number A22692.

57 Britannia vii (1976), 408; Malony pers. comm.

58 Dunning, op. cit. (note 16).

59 ibid.

60 Merrifield, op. cit. (note 47), gazetteer no. 283.

61 Dunning, op. cit. (note 16); accession numbers A25496 and A26389.

62 Lambert, op. cit. (note 55), fig. 3.

63 Lambert, F., Archaeologia lxvi (1915), 225–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Britannia vii (1976), 347; L. Miller pers. comm.

65 I., and Noel-Hume, A., Trans. London Middlesex Arch. Soc. xi, (1961), 249–258.Google Scholar

66 Bird, J.et al. (ed.), Southwark Excavations 1972–1974 (1978), 521 Site 29.Google Scholar

67 R.E.M., and Wheeler, T.V., Verulamium (1938), 78Google Scholar; 82–3; also sitebook p. 91.

68 Wheeler, op. cit. (note 67), 86, fig. 34.

69 Manuscript notes made available by the museum (Site BXII).

70 Frere, op. cit. (note 20).

71 Richardson, K.M., Archaeologia xc (1944), 81–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Site Kvii; Frere, op. cit. (note 24), 102–120. The finds are published in Frere, S.S., Verulamium Excavations III (Oxford, 1984).Google Scholar The manuscript of these reports was kindly made available by Professor Frere prior to publication.

73 Site code Ver 1938 M19 Layer 5.

74 Saunders, C., Herts. Arch. Review x (1976), 195–199.Google Scholar The manuscript of the final report was kindly made available by Mr Saunders.

75 Trenches X I; X XX; and X XXI: Frere 1983, op. cit. (note 24), 195–202 and Frere 1984, op. cit. (note 72).

76 Trenches D XXIII and W II: Frere 1983, op. cit. (note 24) 229–243 and Frere 1984, op. cit. (note 72).

77 The publication references given are: Richardson 1944 – op. cit. (note 71); Frere 1984 – op. cit. (note 72); Frere 1972 – op. cit. (note 24).

78 The publication references given are: Walters op. cit. (note 49); Chapman and Johnson – op. cit. (note 46); Philp – op. cit. (note 52); Noel-Hume – op. cit. (note 65); Frere 1972 – op. cit. (note 24); Richardson – op. cit. (note 71); Hull – op. cit. (note 19); Hull 1960 – op. cit. (note 41); H & H = Hawkes and Hull, op. cit. (note 42).

79 Publication references given are: Frere 1972 – op. cit. (note 24); Richardson – op. cit. (note 71); Dunnett -op. cit. (note 27); Hull – op. cit. (note 19).