Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:28:02.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

North Gaulish Pottery in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Beth Richardson  and
Paul A. Tyers
Beth Richardson
Affiliation:
Department of Urban Archaeology, Museum of LondonLondon WallLondon E.C.2.
Paul A. Tyers
Affiliation:
Department of Urban Archaeology, Museum of LondonLondon WallLondon E.C.2.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the past our recognition of Gaulish pottery in Britain has been largely confined to products of Central, Southern and East Gaul. It is significant that this pottery is, almost without exception, oxidized and/or colour-coated; the study of grey wares has traditionally lagged behind that of the more classical slipped table wares, and this has resulted in a somewhat uneven picture of Roman trading patterns. Coarse grey pottery, with its more utilitarian function, has not proved easy to define and date on stylistic grounds, and ‘miscellaneous grey wares’ have often been dismissed as the products of unknown local kilns, or, as form and fabric analysis have improved, described as unprovenanced imports. In the last ten years we have become increasingly aware of the complexities of the coarseware industry, and more receptive to the possibilities of long distance and inter-provincial trade. Gillam, Farrar and Webster have drawn attention to the evidence for large scale transportation of coarsewares by sea and Fulford has demonstrated that the products of larger British coarseware industries, Alice Holt/Farnham ware, and Black-Burnished ware 1 and 2, are found in small but significant quantities in Northern France. This paper describes a greyware type which was imported from Northern France into Britain. It stems from research on the late second-/early third-century pottery from New Fresh Wharf, London (B.R.), and the coarseware industry of Gaul (P.T.) and accordingly incorporates two sections reflecting these different aspects, with a concluding discussion by both authors on the British distribution.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 15 , November 1984 , pp. 133 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Beth Richardson and Paul A. Tyers 1984. 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 Gillam, J. P. and Farrar, R. A. H. in Detsicas, A. (ed.), Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery C.B.A. Research Report No. 10 (1973), 53–62; 67-103Google Scholar. Webster, P. V. in Dore, J. and Greene, K. T. (eds.), Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond B.A.R. (Oxford, 1977), 163–76.Google Scholar

2 Fulford, M. G. in Peacock, D. P. S. (ed.), Pottery and Early Commerce. Characterisation and trade in Roman and Later Ceramics (London, 1977), 35–84.Google Scholar

3 Richardson, B., ‘The Roman Pottery’ in Miller, L., Excavations at New Fresh Wharf and St. Magnus (forthcoming).Google Scholar

4 Tyers, P. A., Aspects of the Development of the Late La Tene and early Roman Pottery Industry of Britain and Gaul, University of Wales Ph.D. Thesis (1981), 175–82; figs. 70–2.Google Scholar

5 Jelski, G., Septentrion vii (1977), 39–50Google Scholar. Bayard, D., Cahiers Arch. de Picardie vii (1980), 147–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tuffreau-Libre, M., Rev. Arch.del'Oisevi (1975), 32–39Google Scholar; Cahiers Arch. de Picardie iii (1976), 139–52Google Scholar; La Céramique commune Gallo-Romaine dans le Nord de la France (Lille, 1980).Google Scholar

6 A number of other types of possible North Gaulish import have been identified amongst the pottery from New Fresh Wharf and during the first century a.d. North Gaulish mortaria were imported into Southern Britain; see Hartley, K. F. in Dore, J. and Greene, K. T. (eds.), op. cit. (note 1), 5–18.Google Scholar

7 Unpublished samian report by Joanna Bird. The Central Gaulish samian assemblage can be dated to c. a.d. 180 whilst the East Gaulish may well be as late as a.d. 230.

8 Gillam, J. P., Arch. Ael. 4 xxxv (1957), 180–251.Google Scholar

9 Gillam, J. P., in Wenham, L. P., The Romano-British cemetery at Trentholme Drive (London, 1968), fig. 21. 9.Google Scholar

10 Young, C., Oxfordshire Roman Pottery B.A.R. (Oxford, 1977), type C23Google Scholar. Howe, M. D. et al. , Roman Pottery from the Nene Valley: A guide (Peterborough, 1980), fig. 5, 55–7Google Scholar. Hull, M. R., Roman Potters Kilns at Colchester (London, 1963), type 395.Google Scholar

11 Bayard, D., op. cit. (note 5).Google Scholar

12 For previous terminology see Laet, S. J. De et al. , La Necropole Gallo-Romaine de Bliquy (Hainaut) (Brugge, 1972)Google Scholar. Delmaire, R., Étude Archeologique de la partie orientale de la Cite des Morins (Civitas Moriniorum) (Arras, 1976)Google Scholar. Tuffreau-Libre, M., op. cit. (note 5)Google Scholar. Jelksi, G., op. cit. (note 5).Google Scholar

13 G. Jelski, op. cit. (note 5), pl. 1, nos. I, 3, 11, 13.

14 Demolon, P. and Tuffreau-Libre, M., Gallia xxxiv (1976), fig. 7, 5 and many unpublished examples.Google Scholar

15 Tuffreau-Libre, M., Rev. Arch. de l'Oise vi (1975), 32–3. Jelski, G., op. cit. (note 5), fig. 2Google Scholar. Bayard, D., op. cit. (note 5), fig. 26.Google Scholar

16 D. Bayard, op. cit. (note 5), type 33 (with lattice), types 29 and 47 (with flaring mouth).

17 A parallel may be the development of necked jars in the Rhône Valley and, later, Switzerland. Instead of increasing the length of the neck, these potters reduce it, but form a sharper angle at the shoulder. This process is illustrated by the sequence from the Rue des Farges site at Lyon; Desbat, A., Laroche, C. and Merigoux, E., Figlina iv (1979), 1–17.Google Scholar

18 Howardries: Amand, M., Arch. Belgica, cxxvii (1971). La Calotterie: Couppe, J. et al. , Revue du Nord lix (1977), 501–44. Labuissiere: A. Bourgeois, Bulletin de la Commission Départementale des Monuments Historiques du Pas-de-Calais ix (1972), 102–16.Google Scholar

19 Jelski, G., op. cit (note 5)Google Scholar; Septentrion i (1970), 135–46.Google Scholar

20 Seillier, C. and Thoen, H., Septentrion viii (1978), fig. 10, 74.Google Scholar

21 Tyers, P. A., Septentrion x (1980), fig. A, 1–7.Google Scholar

22 Bayard, D., op. cit. (note 5), type 3.Google Scholar

23 Small pentice beakers conforming in shape to the French examples are published from a number of sites in Eastern England (e.g. Whiting, W. et al. , Report on the excavation of the Roman cemetery at Ospringe, Kent (Oxford, 1931), nos. 86, 143, 235, 343, 373, 398) but without individual examination there is clearly some risk of confusion with the later British production.Google Scholar

24 Museum of London Acc. Nos. 24053 and R. xi. 326, 3025. Identified by D. Bayard.

25 Bayard, D., op. cit. (note 5), 189–90. The derivation is not certain as there are very few second-century examples of the butt-beaker/pentice beaker form.Google Scholar

26 For example the sequence at Highgate Wood; see Brown, A. E. and Sheldon, H. L., The London Archaeologist 2. 2 (1974), 222–31.Google Scholar

27 One continental industry which may parallel the Black-Burnished style in scope and importance is that based at Mayen. In addition to its wide distribution, some Mayen-ware forms are adopted by other producers during the fourth century (information from M. Rednap).

28 Bushe-Fox, J. P., First report on the excavations of the Roman fort at Richborough, Kent (Oxford, 1926), pl. xxi, 16Google Scholar; Third report… (Oxford, 1932), pl. xxvi, 256, 259, 260Google Scholar. Cunliffe, B. W. (ed.), Fifth report… (Oxford, 1968), pl. lxxiii, 549.Google Scholar

29 Unpublished information from R. Pollard, who also comments that vessels of the vase tronconique type have been found on two first-century kiln-sites in Canterbury (St. Stephen's Road and Reed Avenue). If locally produced, this would suggest continental potters moving to Kent; the migration of North Gaulish mortarium manufacturers to? Kent in the Neronian period serves as a parallel (Hartley, K. F., op. cit. (note 6))Google Scholar. Petrological analysis may be required to distinguish the Canterbury products from the North French. See also Frere, S. S. and Stow, S., Excavations in the St. George St. and Burgate area, Archaeology of Canterbury vii (Canterbury, 1983), 270–1 no. 633 for a third(?)-century example.Google Scholar

30 Unfortunately, the dating is far from secure on many of these sites; York : R. C. H. M., Eburacum: Roman York (London, 1962), fig. 54, H826Google Scholar; fig. 59, H2338 and unpublished examples from four? second-century sites excavated by the York Archaeological Trust, information from R. Perrin. Brough-on-Humber: Wacher, J. S., Excavations at Brough-on-Humber (Oxford, 1969), fig. 69, 444Google Scholar. Aldborough: Myres, J. N. L. et al. , Yorkshire Arch. Journ xl (1959), fig. 25, 28–30Google Scholar. Vindolanda: Hird, L., Vindolanda V: The Pre-Hadrianic pottery (Hexham, 1977), 22, no. 23.Google Scholar

31 Philp, B., The Excavation of the Roman Forts of the Classis Britannica at Dover, 1970–7 (Dover 1981), fig. 65, 694Google Scholar. The same report illustrates a number of possible North Gaulish conical-necked jars from third-century groups (ibid., nos. 512, 661, 667 and 669) and an undoubted conical-necked beaker of Bayard's type 11 (ibid., no. 853 cf. Bayard, op. cit., pl. 24, 11Google Scholar). Earlier excavations have also produced examples of conical-necked jars (Murray-Threipland, L., Arch. Cant. lxxi (1957), fig. 11, 16Google Scholar; Rahtz, P. A., Arch. Cant. lxxiii (1958), fig. 6, 6). Clearly Dover's role as the principal entry point into the province from Gaul and a base of the British Fleet makes it ideally placed to collect a wide range of imports, and future analysis of the town's pottery should take account of this.Google Scholar

32 North Gaulish greywares are found on a number of other sites in the City of London, and where dated they are all of the third century a.d. (Unpublished examples from Pudding Lane, Peninsular House and Rangoon Street; Dept. of Urban Archaeology excavations).

33 Unpublished information from C. M. Green.

34 Peacock, D. P. S., Britannia viii (1977). Information from M. Stone.Google Scholar

35 Unpublished information from G. Andrews.

36 Unpublished; B. Richardson in D. Whipp (forthcoming).

37 Higgins, D. C., Proc. Norfolk and Norwich Arch. Soc. xxv. 3 (1972), fig. 2, 1–3; fig. 3, II and unpublished examples (information from M. G. Darling).Google Scholar

38 Unpublished information from M. G. Darling.

39 Dore, J. N. and Gillam, J. P., The Roman Fort at South Shields. Excavations 1875 1975 (Newcastle, 1979), fig. 45, 335. The vessel is from the collections of the Roman Fort Museum at South Shields and contains a fragment of an obtuse lattice BB1 cooking-pot. It resembles the long-necked third-century examples from Northern France.Google Scholar

40 See distribution maps by Marsh, G. D., in Anderson, A. C. and Anderson, A. S. (eds.), Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe B.A.R. (Oxford, 1981), figs. II. 12-11.14.Google Scholar

41 The distribution of Black-burnished 2 from production sites around the Thames Estuary is the best known example, but large shell-tempered storage jars, probably from North Kent, are found as far north as Cramond in Scotland (Rae, A. and Rae, V., Britannia v (1974), fig. 21, 7).Google Scholar