Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:36:47.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Distribution and Dating of New Forest Pottery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Michael Fulford
Michael Fulford
Affiliation:
The Institute of Archaeology, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The products of the New Forest Roman pottery kilns have been known since the middle of the nineteenth century through the work of Akerman, Wise and Bartlett, and in this century through Sumner and Cunliffe; but, as yet, there has been no attempt to define the distribution of the individual types made in the New Forest. As a result certain late colour-coated wares in distant parts of Britain have been mistakenly attributed to the New Forest with little consideration of obviously different fabric characteristics. Products of the New Forest kilns have often been confused with those of the Oxfordshire kilns discovered at Sandford, Rose Hill and Dorchester, Cowley and Headington; the pottery is similar in form, and similar but by no means identical in fabric, to that of the New Forest and so a clearer distinction between the products of the two industries has become necessary. The aim of this article is to show the nature and distribution of the New Forest pottery types and the place of the industry in the development of colour-coated industries in Roman Britain.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 4 , November 1973 , pp. 160 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Michael Fulford 1973. 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 Akerman, J. Y., Archaeologia xxxv (1853), 91–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wise, J. R., The New Forest (London 1863), pp. 214–25Google Scholar; Bartlett, J. P., Arch. Joum. xxx (1873), 319–24Google Scholar; Sumner, H., Excavations in New Forest Roman Pottery Sites, (London 1927)Google Scholar; Cunliffe, B. W., Proc. Hants. F.C. xxii (1965), 29–45.Google Scholar

2 May, T., Archaeologia, lxxii (1922), 225–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Harden, D. B., Oxoniensia i (1936), 81–102.Google Scholar

4 Atkinson, R. J. C., Oxoniensia vi (1941), 9–21.Google Scholar

5 Case, H. and Kirk, J. R., Oxoniensia xvii–xviii (1953), 224–5.Google Scholar

6 Wade, A. G. and Lowther, A. W. G., Alice Holt Forest; its history and its Romano-British Potteries (1949); Collingwood, R. G. and Richmond, I. A., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (1969), 271; Bennett, S. E., Davies, E., Thomas, R., and Vignaux, G. A., Surrey Arch. Colls, lx (1963), 19–36.Google Scholar

7 Current Archaeology 31 (1972), 202. P. Dorset N.H.A.S., 90 (1968), 174-80.

8 Sumner, H., op. cit. (note i), 81-2.

9 Hawkes, G. F. C., Antiq. Joum. xviii (1938), 124–8.Google Scholar

10 Fulford, M. G., ‘Excavations of three kilns in Amberwood Inclosure, near Fritham, New Forest’, Proc. Hants F.C., forthcoming.

11 Cunliffe, B. W., Winchester Excavations, 1949–1960, i (1964), 69Google Scholar, fig. 19: at Kingdon's Workshop pottery including Types a and 4 was sealed in a foundation trench dated by a coin of Claudius 11(268-70). Ibid., pp. 176-7, fig. 61: at Staple Gardens in the fill of Pit A, where the latest coin was of Tetricus(271-3), were Types 1, 2 and 3, and Oxfordshire equivalents of Types 3, 4 and 5.

12 In the excavations at Colliton Park (1961–3) Types 2, 3 and 4 came from a pit with coins no later than 273 (information from the excavators, Mr. & Mrs. G. M. Aitken.

13 Cunliffe, B. W., Excavations at Fishboume, 1961–1969, ii (1971), 165–7Google Scholar, figs. Group 5, dated to before 280, had Types 2 and 3; Group 6, dated to 280-90, had Type 2 and the Oxfordshire equivalent to Type 5.

14 In addition to the Winchester evidence cited above cf. Frere, S. S., ‘The Roman theatre at Canterbury’, Britannia i (1970), 107–8.Google Scholar

15 Dating for the fort is given by coins of Saloninus and Gallienus (253-68) in a primary position; Cunliffe, B. W., Antiq. Joum. xliii (1963), 226Google Scholar, although the excavator suggests that the fort was not occupied until the reign of Carausius (287-93) on the basis of the coins, Cunliffe, B. W. (ed.), Fifth Report on the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (1968), 262, fig. 35. Further work by the writer has enabled close dating to be worked out for certain New Forest types at Portchester.

16 Rahtz, P. A., Wilts Arch. Mag., 58 (1963), 303–41.Google Scholar

17 Cotton, M. A. and Gathercole, P. W., Excavations at Clausentum, Southampton, 1951–54 (1958), 115-19, figs. 27 and 28 for groups dated after 370 which include Types 1, 2, 3 and 5.

18 Akerman, J. Y., op. cit. (note 1), 95.

19 Frere, S. S., Arch. Joum. cxix (1962), 129.Google Scholar

20 E.g. in Frere, S. S., Britannia, A History of Roman Britain (1967), 291-2; Rivet, A. L. F. (ed.), The Roman Villa in Britain (1969), 202.

21 For the dating and distribution of Colchester samian, see Hull, M. R., The Roman Potters’ Kilns of Colchester (1963), 78 and 142-3.

22 Wilson, D. R., ‘Roman Britain in 1967’, JRS lviii (1968), 190–1Google Scholar, and information from Mr. G. B. Dannell.

23 Woods, P. J., Journ. Northampton Museums and Art Gallery 8 (1971); 39–44.Google Scholar

24 Stanfield, J. A. and Simpson, G., Central Gaulish Potters (1958), pp. xl-xlii; Collingwood and Richmond, op. cit. (note 6), 238–9; for the evidence of the samian stamps from Richborough and Verulamium, see Hartley, B. R., in Cunliffe, B. W. (1968), op. cit. (note 15), 146-8, and (from York) Dickinson, B. M. and Hartley, K. F. in Butler, R. M. (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (1971), 127-32. But, as Mr. Hartley informs me, owing t o th e lack of evidence for close dating of most Antonine stamps, many have to be put in the range 160-200 when it is certain that a proportion will belong to 170/180-200; and this will alter the histogram pattern.

25 Information from Mr. B. R. Hardey.

26 E.g. in Frere (1967), op. cit. (note 20), 187-90; Rivet (1969), op. cit. (note 20), 200-3.

27 Hallam, S. J. in Phillips, C. W. (ed.), The Fenland in Roman Times (1968), 48-63.

28 See note 27.

29 Information from Mr. B. R. Hartley.

30 Although the Nene Valley beaker, particularly the Hunt cup type, had a wide distribution in Britain, the Fenland is suggested as the major market for most of the Nene Valley products, see Hartley, B. R. and K. F. in Phillips, op. cit. (note 27), 165-9.

31 For the cost of land transport against that of sea transport see Jones, A. H. M., The Later Roman Empire (1964), ii, 841-2 and iii, 283.

32 Information from Mr. B. R. Hartley.

33 A detailed series of all the colour-coated types is being prepared, but since we do not yet have enough evidence to date the variations more closely, there is little point in producing an exhaustive series here.

34 From the material currently being prepared for publication from Professor B. W. Cunliffe's excavations.

35 Information from unpublished excavations gathered by the author.

36 The material from the Colliton Park excavations 1936-8, currently being studied by the author

37 Cf. Sumner, op. cit. (note 1), passim and Fulford, op. cit. (note 10).

38 Cf. Current Archaeology 31 (1972), 200-2; P. Dorset N.H.A.S., 90 (1968), 174-80.

39 For a review of this material see Cunliffe, B. W., Antiq. Journ. 1 (1970), 67–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar