¹ e.g. S.D. Trow, ‘By the northern shores of Ocean: some observations on acculturation process at the edge of the Roman world’, in T.F.C. Blagg and M.J. Millett (eds), The Early Roman Empire in the West (1990), 103–18; various papers in Burnham, B.C. and Johnson, H.B. (eds), Invasion and Response: The Case of Roman Britain, BAR 73 (1979)Google Scholar and Blagg, T.F.C and King, A.C. (eds), Military and Civilian in Roman Britain, BAR 136 (1984).Google Scholar Regarding pottery supply to the Roman army see K.T. Greene, ‘The pottery from Usk', in A.P. Detsicas (ed.), Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery (1973), 25–37; K.T. Greene, ‘Legionary pottery and the significance of Holt’, in Dore, J. and Greene, K.T. (eds), Roman Pottery Studies in Britain and Beyond, BAR Supp. Ser. 30 (1977), 113–32.Google Scholar

² This wider study is my University of Durham Ph.D. thesis entitled Aspects of Pottery Assemblages of the Late Iron Age/First Century A.D. in the East and North-East of England (1993). The present paper represents an adaptation of ch. 9. I would like to thank Professor M.J. Millett for supervising my thesis, copies of which are held by the Library and the Department of Archaeology at Durham University, as well as by the British Library.

³ Pottery of Iron Age tradition from the region is examined in detail-in Willis, op. cit. (note 2), ch. 4. Transitional pottery, that is items the form and/or fabric of which is transitional between Iron Age tradition pottery and Roman pottery, together with typological change, is discussed in ch. 8. The term Roman pottery, as employed in this paper, defines identifiable imports into Britain from the Empire, plus all other material considered Roman on typological grounds (i.e. items displaying form and fabric attributes etc. which are commonly recognized as distinguishing Roman pottery).

⁴ J. May, Prehistoric Lincolnshire (1976); J. May, ‘The Growth of settlements in the Later Iron Age in Lincolnshire’, in B.W. Cunliffe and T. Rowley (eds), Oppida: The Beginnings of Urbanisation in Barbarian Europe, BAR Supp. Ser. 11 (1976), 163–80; J. May, ‘Major settlements of the later Iron Age in Lincolnshire’, in N. Field and A. White (eds), A Prospect of Lincolnshire (1984), 18–22; C.C. Haselgrove, ‘The later Pre-Roman Iron Age between the Humber and the Tyne’, in P.R. Wilson, R.F.J. Jones and D.M. Evans (eds), Settlement and Society in the Roman North (1984), 9–25; I.M. Stead, The Arras Culture (1979). See also Dent, J.S., ‘The impact of Roman rule on native society in the territory of the Parisi’, Britannia xiv (1983), 35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P. Liddle, Leicestershire Archaeology – The Present State of Knowledge. I: To the End of the Roman Period (1982).

⁵ Haselgrove, C.C., ‘The later Iron Age in southern Britain and beyond’, in Todd, M. (ed.), Research on Roman Britain: 1960–89, Britannia Monograph 11 (1989), 1–18Google Scholar; B.W. Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain (1991); Hill, J.D., ‘The pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: an overview’, Journal of World Prehistory ix.i (1995), 47–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ S.S. Frere, Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (1987); P. Salway, Roman Britain (1981); M.J. Millett, The Romanization of Britain (1990); see also W.S. Hanson, Agricola and the Conquest of the North (1987); Breeze, D.J. and Dobson, B., ‘Roman military deployment in north England’, Britannia xvi (1985), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ M. Todd, The Coritani (1991); Whitwell, J.B., The Coritani: Some Aspects of the Iron Age Tribe and the Roman Civitas, BAR 99 (1982)Google Scholar; H.G. Ramm, The Parisi (1978).

⁸ Millett, M.J., ‘Aspects of Romano-British pottery in West Sussex’, Sussex Arch. Coll. cxviii (1980), 57–68Google Scholar; Millett, M.J., A Comparative Study of some Contemporaneous Pottery Assemblages from Roman Britain, D. Phil, thesis, University of Oxford (1983)Google Scholar; Millett, M.J., ‘A question of time? Aspects of the future of pottery studies’, Bull. Inst. Arch., xxiv (1987), 99–108.Google Scholar

⁹ e.g. Mann, J.E. and Reece, R., Roman Coins from Lincoln 1970–1979, The Archaeology of Lincoln VI.2(1983).Google Scholar

¹⁰ M.J. Darling, ‘Pottery from early military sites in western Britain’, in Dore and Greene, op. cit. (note 1), 57–100.

¹¹ H.R. Hurst, Kingsholm (1985).

¹² Marsh, G.D., ‘London's samian supply and its relationship to the development of the Gallic samian industry’, in Anderson, A.C. and Anderson, A.S. (eds), Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe, BAR Int. Ser. 123 (1981), 173–238.Google Scholar

¹³ Evans, J., Aspects of Later Roman Pottery Assemblages in Northern Britain, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bradford (1985)Google Scholar; Evans, J., ‘All Yorkshire is divided into three parts; social aspects of later Roman pottery distributions in Yorkshire’, in Price, J. and Wilson, PR. et al. (eds), Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire. Studies in Honour of Mary Kitson Clark (Mrs Derwas Chitty), BAR 193 (1988), 323–37Google Scholar; J. Evans, ‘Crambeck; the development of a major northern pottery industry’, in PR. Wilson (ed.), The Crambeck Roman Pottery Industry (1989), 43–90.

¹⁴ Booth, P., ‘Inter-site comparisons between pottery assemblages in Roman Warwickshire; ceramic indicators of site status’, Journ. Roman Pottery Studies iv (1991), 1–10.Google Scholar

¹⁵ In the case of the material from the excavations at East Bight, Lincoln, 1964–6, it was possible to extract appropriate quantitative data from M.J. Darling, Roman Pottery from the Upper Defences, The Archaeology of Lincoln XVI.2 (1984). The data for the St Nicholas Street, Redcross Street and St Nicholas Circle sites, Leicester, and for Blake Street, York, were calculated from information kindly provided in advance of publication by Drs R.J. Pollard and J. Monaghan respectively. The Blake Street pottery is now published: J. Monaghan, Roman Pottery from the Fortress: 9 Blake Street, The Archaeology of York 16.7 (1993). The Leicester sites appear in P. Clay and R.J. Pollard, Iron Age and Roman Occupation in the West Bridge Area, Leicester: Excavations 1962–71 (1994). The data for all other groups were personally gathered by the current author.

¹⁶ D.H. Heslop, The Excavation of the Iron Age Settlement at Thorpe Thewles, Cleveland, 1980–82 (1987); S. Wrathmell and A. Nicholson (eds), Dalton Parlours Iron Age Settlement and Roman Villa (1990); Ponsford, M.W., ‘A late Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Rampton, Nottinghamshire’, Trans. Thornton Soc. xcvi (1993), 91–122.Google Scholar

¹⁷ cf. J. Evans, ‘Roman finds assemblages. Towards an integrated approach?’, in P. Rush (ed.), Theoretical Roman Archaeology: Second Conference Proceedings (1995), 33–58.

¹⁸ These criteria are discussed in detail in Willis, op. cit. (note 2), esp. ch. 2. Numerous groups examined by the author in the course of research were found to be unsuitable for quantification, being not closely dateable, too small, or ‘contaminated’; many comprised only selectively retained sherds.

¹⁹ Consider Hodder, I., ‘The distribution of Savernake Ware’, Wilts. Arch. & Nat. Hist. Mag. lxix (1976), 72Google Scholar; Orton, C.R., ‘Computer simulation experiments to assess the performance of measures of quantity of pottery’, World Archaeology xiv.1 (1982), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Note also the highly pertinent observations in C. Orton, P. Tyers and A. Vince, Pottery in Archaeology (1993), 175.

²⁰ Evans, op. cit. (note 13, 1985), section 1.6.

²¹ The absolute sizes of the groups considered (with amphora sherds excluded) are given in Table 1. Since weight is the main index of comparison used here it is significant that of the 75 groups forming the sample only three have weight totals of less than 0.71kg and in each case the sherd count total is greater than 50. Five groups have count totals under 50, but only two are under 30, these being 26 and 28, though the weight totals for the latter are 773 g and 1040 g. Several RE totals are under 0.75. Comparison by RE, though desirable, is hindered by the fact that many groups have modest RE totals.

²² On residuality generally see Evans, J. and Millett, M.J., ‘Residuality revisited’, Oxford Journ. Arch., xi.2 (1992), 225–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; G.H. Lambrick, ‘Pitfalls and possibilities in Iron Age pottery studies – Experiences in the Upper Thames Valley’, in B.W. Cunliffe and D. Miles (eds), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain (1984), 164–7; note also May's comments in S.M. Elsdon and J. May, The Iron Age Pottery from Dragonby (draft report, 1987), 5–6.

²³ See, however, Sections IX and X below, where the methodology employed may have detected the presence of residual material amongst two groups from Leicester.

²⁴ C.R. Orton, Mathematics in Archaeology (1982), 161–7; idem, ‘An introduction to the quantification of assemblages of pottery’, Journ. Roman Pottery Studies ii (1989), 94–7; R.J. Pollard, ‘Quantification: towards a standard practice’, Journ. Roman Pottery Studies iii (1990), 75–9.

²⁵ They form tables 9.1 to 9.14 in Willis, op. cit. (note 2).

²⁶ Amphorae as a group component are considered in Willis, op. cit. (note 2), ch. 6. It is evident that sherds of amphora are infrequently present amongst groups from the region of this date, including those from sites known to be comparatively well Romanized. When occurring they can be represented by one or two heavy sherds; if included in quantified analysis by weight along with other pottery their presence may skew relative percentage figures (Willis, op. cit. (note 2), ch. 2, section 3; Pollard, op. cit. (note 24), 77.

²⁷ References for the groups examined in the survey:

Ancaster, Lincolnshire. The (west) cemetery site, 1964–9: M.W. Barley, J. May and D.R. Wilson, Ancaster 1963–4. Preliminary Report (1965); M.W. Barley, D.R. Brothwell, J. May and D.R. Wilson, Ancaster 1965. Second Preliminary Report (1966); M.W. Barley, J. May, M. Ponsford, M. Todd and D.R. Wilson, Ancaster 1966. Third Preliminary Report (1966); M.W. Barley, J. May, M. Todd and D.R. Wilson, Ancaster 1967. Interim Report (1967); M.W. Barley, B. Beeby, J. May, M. Todd and D.R. Wilson, Ancaster 1968. Interim Report (1968); see also May's publications, op. cit. (note 4). The groups quantified by the author come from the 1969 season.

Binchester, Co. Durham. The excavations between 1975–80: R.F.J. Jones and I.M. Ferris, Excavations at Binchester, Co. Durham (forthcoming); Britannia viii (1977), 379Google Scholar; ix (1978), 425–6; x (1979), 284; xi (1980), 361; xii (1981), 327.

Dragonby, Humberside. Excavations 1964–73: May, J., ‘Dragonby: An interim report on excavations on an Iron Age and Romano-British site near Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, 1964–9’, Antiq. Journ. 1 (1970), 222–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 22).

Hayton, Humberside. Excavations 1975: Johnson, S., ‘Excavations at Hayton, Roman fort, 1975’, Britannia ix (1978), 57–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leicester. Redcross Street 1962: op. cit. (note 15). St Nicholas Street 1965–6: op. cit. (note 15). Bath Lane 1968: P. Clay and J. Mellor, Excavations in Bath Lane, Leicester (1985). St Nicholas Circle 1969: op. cit. (note 15). Blackfriars Street 1977: Clay and Mellor, op. cit.

Lincoln. East Bight 1964–6: J.B. Whitwell, ‘East Bight, excavations 1964–66’, in M.J. Jones, The Defences of the Upper Roman Enclosure, The Archaeology of Lincoln VII. 1 (1980), 6–13; Darling, op. cit. (note 15). East Bight 1980–1: K. Camidge, ‘East Bight’, Lincoln Archaeological Trust Ninth Annual Report 1980–81 (1981); Camidge, K. and Jones, M.J., ‘Lincoln, East Bight’, Lines. Hist. & Arch., xvii (1982), 72–3Google Scholar; Britannia xiii (1982), 355.Google Scholar The Lawn 1984–7: Britannia xvii (1986), 389Google Scholar; see also, Darling, M.J. and Jones, M.J., ‘Early settlement at Lincoln’, Britannia xix (1988), 1–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sleaford, Lincolnshire. Excavations 1984–5: G. Brown, ‘Old Place, Sleaford’, Archaeology in Lincolnshire 1984–1985 (1985), 14–6; Britannia xvii (1986), 390.Google Scholar Several stratigraphic sequences of late Iron Age and early Roman date were encountered; for ease of differentiation during post-excavation these sequences were labelled with unique ‘unit’ numbers; I have adopted these unit codes for the present analysis.

Old Winteringham, Humberside. Excavations 1964–5: I.M. Stead, Excavations at Winterton Roman Villa and other Roman Sites in North Lincolnshire 1958–1967 (1976).

Redcliff (North Ferriby), Humberside. Excavations 1986–9: D.R. Crowther and P. Didsbury, ‘Redcliff and the Humber’, in Price and Wilson, op. cit. (note 13), 3–20; D.R. Crowther, S.H. Willis and J.D. Creighton, ‘Excavations at Redcliff, in A.P.M. Halkon (ed.), New Light on the Parisi (1989), 6–9; D.R. Crowther, S.H. Willis and J.D. Creighton, ‘The topography and archaeology of Redcliff, in S. Ellis and D.R. Crowther (eds), Humber Perspectives (1990), 172–81; J.D. Creighton, S.H. Willis and D.R. Crowther, Fieldwork and Excavation at Redcliff (North Ferriby), Humberside (forthcoming).

Stanwick, N. Yorkshire. The 1951–2 excavations: R.E.M. Wheeler, The Stanwick Fortifications (1954); the only sizeable groups are from Sites A and F. The excavations of the 1980s in the Tofts: C.C. Haselgrove, R.L. Fitts, S.H. Willis and P. Turnbull, ‘Excavations in the Tofts, Stanwick, N. Yorkshire, 1984–9’, Arch. Journ. (forthcoming).

Thorpe, Nottinghamshire. Excavations 1963: JRS liv (1964), 159 and fig.12.Google Scholar

York. 9 Blake Street, 1975–6: Monaghan, op. cit. (note 15); Britannia vii (1976), 314–15Google Scholar; viii (1977), 383.

²⁸ Since the focus here is upon the Roman component of groups the percentage figures for the Iron Age/Transitional category are not directly expressed as a percentage of each bar in this histogram, nor others. The presence of this category is evident in the histograms as the percentage of each bar not formed by Roman/Romanized pottery.

²⁹ C.F.C. Hawkes and M.R. Hull, Camulodunum (1947); C. Partridge, Skeleton Green (1981); I.M. Stead and V. Rigby, Verulamium: The King Harry Lane Site (1989).

³⁰ May, J., ‘Ancaster’, East Midland Arch. Bull., vii (1966), 5.Google Scholar

³¹ May, J., ‘Ancaster’, East Midland Arch. Bull., viii (1967)Google Scholar; JRS lvi (1966), 203Google Scholar; Barley et al., op. cit. (note 27, 1968).

³² The work conducted by Margaret Jones: Jones, M.U., ‘Sleaford’, East Midland Arch. Bull., vi (1963), 5–6Google Scholar; see also May, op. cit. (note 4).

³³ The three trenches excavated in 1984–5 (Brown, op. cit. (note 27)) all lie south and west of the area investigated by Mrs Jones in the 1960s. Examination of the trench provenances of the Gallo-Belgic pottery from the 1960s work reveal this material to have come only from Jones' Trenches A to D, whilst Trenches E to H lying between c. 20 and 90 m to the west evidently produced no Gallo-Belgic pottery. It seems significant that Jones' Trenches A to D all lie immediately adjacent to Mareham Lane indicating both spatial patterning in the Sleaford pottery and that Mareham Lane pre-dates the Roman conquest (cf. May, op. cit. (note 4, 1976), 9).

³⁴ Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 22), 10, diagram 2.

³⁵ S.M. Elsdon and V. Rigby, ‘Gallo-Belgic pottery’, in Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 22), 64; cf. H. Clamp, ‘The late Iron Age and Romano-British pottery’, in Clay and Mellor, op. cit. (note 27), 49; cf. V. Rigby, ‘The Gallo-Belgic wares’, in B.R.K. Niblett, Sheepen: An Early Roman Industrial Site at Camulodunum (1985), 78; cf. I.M. Stead and V. Rigby, Baldock. The Excavation of a Roman and Pre-Roman Settlement (1986), 231.

³⁶ K.M. Kenyon, Excavations at the Jewry Wall Site, Leicester (1948); Willis, op. cit. (note 2).

³⁷ cf. May, op. cit. (note 4, 1984).

³⁸ cf. Millett, op. cit. (note 6), 74–5.

³⁹ e.g. A.P. Fitzpatrick, ‘The Celtic coins from Leicester’, in Clay and Pollard, op. cit. (note 15).

⁴⁰ cf. Clay and Mellor, op. cit. (note 27).

⁴¹ Clamp, op. cit. (note 35).

⁴² In ten of the eleven instances where Roman pottery is present amongst these sixteen groups, this material registers a higher relative frequency when sherd count is the measure than when the measure is weight (cf. Willis, op. cit. (note 2), tables 9.3 and 9.4). This indicates that sherds of Iron Age and Transitional pottery are consistently more robust than those from Romanized types. In turn the RE data (cf. Willis, op. cit. (note 2), tables 9.3 and 9.4) suggests that where rims from Roman types occur these produce figures which show a higher relative frequency for this material than arises when either weight or count are the measures. This suggests that vessels of Iron Age or Transitional type are generally heavier (and larger) than are Roman types and that the weight and count measures are biased (in the context of this pottery) if our concern is to estimate the number of vessels actually represented amongst groups (cf. Orton, op. cit. (note 24, 1989), 96). This is not problematic for the current study since the concern here is with the comparison of relative proportions occurring in different groups; for further explanation see Orton, Tyers and Vince, op. cit. (note 19), 169.

⁴³ cf. May, op. cit. (note 4, 1984); Haselgrove, op. cit. (note 4); T.C. Darvill, Prehistoric Britain (1987), 173–5; Millett, op. cit. (note 6), fig. 6; Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 5), 175–8. May has deliberately avoided categorizing these sites as oppida.

⁴⁴ Willis, op. cit. (note 26).

⁴⁵ e.g. M.G. Fulford, Silchester. Excavations on the Defences 1974–80 (1984), 128–35; J.R. Timby, pers. comm. More quantitative data on the occurrence of these imports at other sites in southern Britain is required to verify the impression that they are a relatively common component of groups.

⁴⁶ e.g. L. Hedeager, Iron-Age Societies. From Tribe to State in Northern Europe, 500 B.C. to A.D. 700 (1992).

⁴⁷ cf. C.C. Haselgrove, ‘Wealth, prestige and power: The dynamics of political centralization in South-East England’, in C. Renfrew and S. Shennan (eds), Ranking, Resource and Exchange (1982), 79–88; idem, ‘Romanization’ before the conquest: Gaulish precedents and British consequences’, in Blagg and King, op. cit. (note 1), 5–63.

⁴⁸ This pattern lends weight to the argument forwarded by Haselgrove, op. cit. (note 47).

⁴⁹ In the past the site has often been referred to as ‘North Ferriby’, e.g. Corder, P. and Pryce, T.D., ‘Belgic and other early pottery found at North Ferriby, Yorks.’, Antiq. Journ. xviii (1938), 262–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, the site lies in the parish of Welton and is more accurately referred to as Redcliff; cf. Crowther and Didsbury, op. cit. (note 27).

⁵⁰ 89 per cent by count.

⁵¹ Webster, G., ‘The military situations in Britain between A.D. 43 and 71’, Britannia i (1970), 184Google Scholar; M. Todd, The Roman Town at Ancaster, Lincolnshire: The Excavations of 1955–71 (1981), 4.

⁵² Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 22), 10.

⁵³ R.J. Pollard, The Roman Pottery of Kent (1988), 32.

⁵⁴ Both stratigraphy and finds point to a tightly clustered sequence of activity; the first three phases identified on stratigraphic grounds cannot be separated ceramically; all appear to represent Claudian occupation.

⁵⁵ J. May, pers. comm.; May, J., ‘Iron Age coins in Yorkshire’, in Mays, M. (ed.), Celtic Coinage: Britain and Beyond, BAR 222 (1992), 101.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ B.R. Hartley, ‘Samian ware found at North Ferriby’, in Stead, op. cit. (note 27), 134.

⁵⁷ Corder and Pryce, op. cit. (note 49); Corder, P. and Pryce, T.D., ‘An Arretine plate from North Ferriby, Yorkshire’, Antiq. Journ. xix (1939), 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁸ Darvill, op. cit. (note 43), 175; J.D. Creighton, ‘The Humber frontier in the first century A.D.’, in Ellis and Crowther, op. cit. (note 27), 182–98; Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 5), 194.

⁵⁹ B.W. Cunliffe, Hengistbury Head, Dorset. I: The Prehistoric and Roman Settlement, 3500 B.C.–A.D. 500 (1987) and Partridge, op. cit. (note 29), respectively. Note also the critique of Professor Cunliffe's interpretation of Hengistbury contained in N.M. Sharpies, ‘Late Iron Age society and continental trade in Dorset’, in A. Duval, J.P. Le Bihan, and Y. Menez (eds), Les Gaulois d'Armorique, Actes du Xlle Colloque de l'A.F.E.A.E, Quimper, Mai 1988, Revue Archeologique de l'Ouest, supp. 3 (1990).

⁶⁰ Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 59), fig. III, 233–6; cf. Millett, op. cit. (note 6), 30.

⁶¹ V. Rigby, pers. comm.

⁶² Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 5), 194.

⁶³ A detailed account and assessment of the results of the recent fieldwork at Redcliff will appear in Creighton, Willis and Crowther, op. cit. (note 27).

⁶⁴ J.S. Wacher, The Towns of Roman Britain (1976); Hebditch, M. and Mellor, J., ‘The forum and basilica of Roman Leicester’, Britannia iv (1973), 1–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 36–7; Liddle, op. cit. (note 4); Clay and Mellor, op. cit. (note 27), 32.

⁶⁵ It remains, for the meantime, conspicuously elusive.

⁶⁶ Clay and Mellor, op. cit. (note 27), 32.

⁶⁷ Darling, op. cit. (note 10); idem, ‘Early red-slipped ware from Lincoln’, in Anderson and Anderson, op. cit. (note 12), 397–415.

⁶⁸ ibid., 407.

⁶⁹ Willis, op. cit. (note 2); cf. Section XI below.

⁷⁰ G. Webster, ‘Introduction and notes on the pottery of the first century A.D. in use by the Roman army’, in Detsicas, op. cit. (note I), 4; Darling, op. cit. (note 10).

⁷¹ Breeze and Dobson, op. cit. (note 6).

⁷² Barley et al, op. cit. (note 27, 1968).

⁷³ Darling, op. cit. (note 67), 406.

⁷⁴ M. Todd (ed.), The Roman Fort at Great Casterton, Rutland. Excavations of 1960 and 1962 (1968).

⁷⁵ See C.C. Haselgrove and P. Turnbull, Stanwick: Excavation and Fieldwork: Second Interim Report 1984, Univ. of Durham Dept. of Archaeology Occ. Paper 5 (1985), 15; M.J. Milled, ‘The Roman pottery’, an unpublished archive report on the Roman pottery from the 1981 trial excavations at Stanwick, N. Yorkshire.

⁷⁶ This interpretation has recently been restated by J. Evans, ‘Later Iron Age and ‘Native’ pottery in the North-East’, in B.E. Vyner (ed.), Papers in Honour of Don Spratt (forthcoming).

⁷⁷ Millett, op. cit. (note 75).

⁷⁸ Wheeler, op. cit. (note 27), 9–13; Haselgrove, C.C., Lowther, P.C. and Turnbull, P., ‘Stanwick, North Yorkshire, Part 3: excavations on earthworks sites 1981–86’, Arch. Journ. cxlvii (1991), 54–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ C.C. Haselgrove, S.H. Willis and R.L. Fitts, ‘Excavations at Melsonby, North Yorkshire, 1994’, Univ. of Durham and Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne Arch. Reports for 1994 (1995), 55–60.

⁸⁰ e.g. G. Woolf, ‘Rethinking the Oppida’, Oxford Journ. Arch, xii.2 (1993), 223–34.

⁸¹ Wheeler, op. cit. (note 27), 7–9.

⁸² Sherds allocated to this category mostly comprise items from butt-beakers, or similar vessels, analogous to Gallo-Belgic forms, but occurring in a fine fabric of uncertain origin. Many sherds depicted by Wheeler are examples of this category, op. cit. (note 27), pl. 24, left-hand photo.

⁸³ cf. Willis, op. cit. (note 2), tables 6.1 and 6.2.

⁸⁴ cf. C.C. Haselgrove, S.H. Willis, R.L. Fitts and P. Turnbull, ‘Excavations in the Tofts, Stanwick, North Yorkshire, 1989’, Univ. of Durham and Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne Arch. Reports for 1989 (1990), 40–5.

⁸⁵ Clay and Mellor, op. cit. (note 27), 6.

⁸⁶ cf. op. cit. (note 15). Quantification by R.J. Pollard who states (pers. comm.) that only RE measurement was undertaken since not all body sherds may have been retained.

⁸⁷ cf. Darling, op. cit. (note 67).

⁸⁸ M.J. Darling, pers. comm.

⁸⁹ May, J., ‘Scunthorpe. Dragonby’, East Midland Arch. Bull., vi (1963), 5Google Scholar; V. Rigby and I.M. Stead, ‘Coarse Pottery’, in Stead, op. cit. (note 27), 136–9 and fig. 64; V. Swan, The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain (1984).

⁹⁰ Creighton, op. cit. (note 58).

⁹¹ Elsdon and May, op. cit. (note 22), 7 and 10, diagrams 1 and 2.

⁹² e.g. May, op. cit. (note 4, 1984); Millett, op. cit. (note 6), 24–5; Cunliffe, op. cit. (note 5), 175–7.

⁹³ This does not, of course, mean that Dragonby was not an important Iron Age centre.

⁹⁴ Willis, op. cit. (note 2), ch. 8, section 5.iii.

⁹⁵ No groups later than the filling of Gully 317 were quantified by the current author, hence the situation by the end of the first century remains to be clarified. Another group from Dragonby, from Ditch 1682, was quantified (FIG. 16). The fill of this feature was homogeneous and its dating is not tight. May and Elsdon date it as broadly Claudian to Flavian/late first century A.D. (op. cit. (note 22), diagrams 1 and 2 and p. 43). Hence it cannot be conveniently fitted into the sequence of FIG. 14.

⁹⁶ Creighton, op. cit. (note 58).

⁹⁷ Stead, op. cit. (note 27), 306 and fig. 12. The group evidently contains some typologically Claudian-Neronian pottery and presumably includes at least some deposits likely to have received pottery before the late Neronian-early Flavian period. Bearing this in mind it is consistent that this group has a higher proportion of Roman pottery than the Claudian-Neronian group from the site considered above, but a lower proportion than the Neronian group (cf. Section VI). However, M.J. Darling has pointed out (pers. comm.) that some items amongst this group may be slightly later in date than Neronian to early Flavian.

⁹⁸ Stead, op. cit. (note 27), 4–6.

⁹⁹ Creighton, op. cit. (note 58); Stead, op. cit. (note 27), 18.

¹⁰⁰ Willis, op. cit. (note 2), e.g. ch. 5, section 3.6.

¹⁰¹ e.g. Stead, op. cit. (note 27), 18; M. Todd, The Coritani (1973), 24 and 31.

¹⁰² Another possibility is that it was both of these.

¹⁰³ Darling, op. cit. (note 67), 406.

¹⁰⁴ For Eboracum wares see J.R. Perrin, Roman Pottery from the Colonia: Skeldergate and Bishophill, The Archaeology of York 16.2 (1981), 58.

¹⁰⁵ It is possible that samian had been removed from the Binchester groups prior to their quantification by the present author.

¹⁰⁶ phase 2 is comprised of ground make-up deposits presumably with a significant residual element, whilst a substantial part of Phase 3 is constituted by a pit-fill, the bulk of the pottery from which may be earlier than the latest material of Phase 1 (R.J. Pollard, pers. comm.).

¹⁰⁷ Clearly this difficulty arises from the need to impose divisions (categories) on what is a continuum.

¹⁰⁸ cf. Clamp, op. cit. (note 35), 49; R.J. Pollard, ‘The Iron Age, Transitional and Roman Pottery’, in Clay and Pollard, op. cit. (note 15).

¹⁰⁹ Monaghan, op. cit. (note 15); B.M. Dickinson and B.R. Hartley, ‘Samian ware’, in Monaghan, op. cit. (note 15), 722–5; cf. discussion in Willis, op. cit. (note 2), ch. 5, section 2.8.iii.

¹¹⁰ This case demonstrates that deposit formation processes and context of deposition are significant variables determining pottery group constitution. In assessing the material which the deposits contain it is important that we attempt to understand the context of the deposit, its origin and practices lying behind its formation. Those working with Roman pottery have tended to tacitly follow Schiffer's model (M.B. Schiffer, Behavioral Archeology (1976)). In essence this meant an evaluation as to whether deposits comprised primary or secondary refuse, etc. The premise was that the latter might be expected to be more ‘representative’ of pottery consumption at a site than the former, in so far as secondary deposits are more likely to comprise what Lambrick has referred to as: ‘thoroughly mixed homogeneous refuse reflecting no particular activity’ (op. cit. (note 22), 168). Clearly this York group does not conform to this description. However, if all contemporary groups from a site comprise well-mixed ‘refuse’ this will negate the possibility of identifying different status and functional areas, etc. Recent work on the Iron Age of southern Britain (e.g. J.D. Hill, ‘Why we should not take the data from Iron Age settlements for granted: recent studies of intra-settlement patterning’, in A.P. Fitzpatrick, and E.L. Morris (eds), The Iron Age in Wessex: Recent Work (1994), 4–8) has indicated that much of the cultural material recovered archaeologically from this era was the product of a deliberate, structured, regime of artefact burial. It may be that those of us studying the Roman period will need to adapt our approaches to monitor more closely whether similar practices are detectable in particular instances in the Roman era.

¹¹¹ Only RE data are available in the case of Phase 2A at Redcross Street, Leicester. Cf. op. cit. (note 86).

¹¹² If this group represents a selectively retained sample it is also possible that a higher proportion of samian than other wares was kept (R.J. Pollard, pers. comm.).

¹¹³ Willis, op. cit. (note 2), tables 9.13 and 9.11 respectively.

¹¹⁴ e.g. Kent; see Pollard, op. cit. (note 53).

¹¹⁵ For instance buildings; e.g. T.F.C. Blagg, ‘First-century Roman houses in Gaul and Britain’, in Blagg and Millett, op. cit. (note 1), 194–209; see also S. Trow, ibid.

¹¹⁶ Willis, op. cit. (note 2). chs 5 and 6.

¹¹⁷ C.C. Haselgrove in Blagg and King, op. cit. (note 1), 5–63; idem, ‘Culture process on the periphery: Belgic Gaul and Rome during the late Republic and early Empire’, in M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds). Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World (1987), 104–24.

¹¹⁸ A.P. Fitzpatrick, Cross-Channel Relations in the British Later Iron Age: With Particular Reference to the British Archaeological Evidence, Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham.

¹¹⁹ ibid.

¹²⁰ e.g. Haselgrove, op. cit. (note 47, 1982); Millett, op. cit. (note 6), 98.

¹²¹ Willis, op. cit. (note 2).

¹²² ibid., chs 5 and 6.

¹²³ Clay and Mellor, op. cit. (note 27), 30 and 69–70.

¹²⁴ cf. I. Hodder, Symbols in Action (1982); Millett, op. cit. (note 6), 165–74; Sharpies, op. cit. (note 59).

¹²⁵ Greene, op. cit. (note 1, 1977); Darling, op. cit. (notes 10 and 67).

¹²⁶ Greene, op. cit. (note I, 1977).

¹²⁷ ibid.

¹²⁸ Willis, op. cit. (note 2), chs 5 and 7.

¹²⁹ S.H. Willis, ‘The character of Lyon ware distribution, with particular attention to the evidence from northern Britain’, Journ. Roman Pottery Studies viii (forthcoming).

¹³⁰ Millett, op. cit. (note 8).

¹³¹ Consider Millett, M.J., ‘Boudicca, the first Colchester potters' shop, and the dating of Neronian samian’, Britannia xviii (1987), esp. 93–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³² Okun, M.L., ‘An example of the process of acculturation in the early Roman frontier’, Oxford Journ. Arch., viii.i (1989), 41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; W.J.H. Willems, Romans and Batavians. A Regional Study in the Dutch Eastern River Area (1986), ch. 6; M. Tuffreau-Libre, La céramique commune gallo-romaine dans le nord de la France (Nord, Pas-de-Calais) (1980), ch. 11.

¹³³ cf. Woolf, G., ‘The unity and diversity of Romanisation’, Journ. Roman Arch., v (1992), 349–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar