The assignment that follows has been written by, and is entirely the work of Joe Hague.

Discuss the archaeological evidence for pottery production in Roman Britain? Archaeological evidence for pottery production exists on many levels in the archaeological record. In this essay I begin with one type of common evidence, a potsherd. A potsherd is evidence that may be interpreted as a particular type of pottery. A type of pottery may often evidence a distribution pattern within an area or region where it has been used, and may also present evidence of a production source. I also briefly mention evidence that bears on the local economic aspects of regionally successful pottery production.

Potsherds. Potsherds can be typologically identified from their form and fabric. Identification of type allows further identification of production location and chronology. Identification of artefacts at a Stanstead Airport site excavation referenced a series created by Essex County Council Field Archaeology Unit. This included various typologies including Goings Chelmsford typology and the Camulododunum series (Stansby & Biddulph no date). This includes recognisably common forms such as platters, dishes, bowls, jars and cauldrons. There is no intrinsically accurate way of dating pottery (although thermoluminescence may be promising) so dating is done relative to other site features such as coins, inscriptions (or any absolutely datable features if they exist). The typology can also serve as a guide here. Existing type examples will already have approximate date ranges and these can be cross-checked (although the sample checked could be earlier or later than the examples already found). Petrological analysis of the mineralogy of a pottery sample can confirm the likely nature of the source geology in the sample. Overall, evidence of distribution characteristics, mineralogical evidence, form and fabric related typology and site dating evidence provide a number of key datasets from which further inferences may be made. For example, excavations at Dorchester identified samianware as being of an early roman date and of Gaulish origin. The evidence suggests it was imported to Britain for use. Production evidence suggests that Corfe Mullen ware was locally produced and dated to the early roman period. Black Burnished ware from the southwest was also present in the popular form of round bodied open bowls. By the middle roman period these were being superseded by straight sided bowl and dish forms from the Wareham/Poole harbour area (Seager Smith 2001).

Kiln Sites. Hard evidence of production forms, fabrics and volumes is available from waster dumps at kiln sites. Siting of kilns is dependent geographic and economic factors. Large pits dug for clay, or fishponds, are often a landscape indication, eg Cantley Estate, Savernale forest and Lea (Swan, 1984: 43). Proximity to roads or rivers was also a factor (Mancetter kilns to Watling St, Brampton kilns to a

The assignment that follows has been written by, and is entirely the work of Joe Hague. timber wharf). Sand quarries may exist (eg Brockley Hill), except when non-local sand is used (Swan, 1984: 44). Clay slurry was cleaned in gullies and pits and clay-lined flotation tanks were evidenced at the Oxford kiln sites (Young 1977). Kiln structures varied by area. All Romano British kilns had superstructures of some sort, distinguishing them from iron age clamp firings, but flue types, oven sizes and internal features were variable, depending on the different temperature ranges and techniques used by local potters. Potters simple workshops were probably under cover. A wheel emplacement evidencing decayed iron in a dished circular area covered in prepared clay was found in a probable hut (Swan, 1984: 46). Associated features evidenced include troughs for clay and drying plant (eg. T shaped channels).

Production Overall there was a low volume of pre-invasion production in the south of England, with an increase in pottery imports post-invasion to satisfy military demand. By 2C social romanisation processes meant domestic demand for pottery had increased in the south, midlands and east coast causing a huge expansion of the industry. But there is a scarcity of long term kiln sites in much of highland Britain (Wales, North England, and Scotland) - although short term sites did exist to supply forts simply a lack of native demand appears to be the reason (Swan, 1984: 8). There are several types of major production ware at a regional level of distribution: New Forest, Oxfordshire, Alice Holt, Nene Valley, Upchurch and Thameside and Crambeck (Fulford & Huddlestone 1991: 16). As a specific example, the Alice Holt kilns show large production capabilities with over 80 working kilns evidenced. But calculations using estimated size of the waster dumps to arrive at yearly production volumes produce unexpectedly low figures (Lyne & Jefferies 1979: 13) given the fact that the scale of supply from Alice Holt met the needs of the Londinium and south east England coarse wares market.

Local Economies An increase in the scale of production creates other accompanying effects for a burgeoning local industry such as the range, depth, and quality of skills in the local workforce as differentiation of the industry develops. What was perhaps part time work for agrarian workers becomes full time work for skilled artisans. Better skills in turn are reflected in increased product quality which less well developed kiln areas fail to offer, perhaps ultimately disappearing. Although in some areas there may well have been value in supplying for a very local market (for the reduction in kiln numbers see Millett 1990: 124). Successful kilns distribute wares throughout a customer civitate trading partner (Millett 1990: 172). For example, in the supply of Oxfordshire pottery to the Severn valley such distribution circumvented the natural geographical barriers to normal water-borne trade that might otherwise have prevented such distribution.

The assignment that follows has been written by, and is entirely the work of Joe Hague. Millett suggests the concept of a civitate-controlled economy to explain the distribution pattern. Such an economy relies on central handling of key commercial transactions with other trading civitates, but yet enables redistribution of pottery to local level within the importing civitate. Such economic transactions would no doubt be subject to the political allegiances between civitates. If this economic model is valid one would expect to see little further pottery distribution occurring across civitate boundaries where no political allegiance exists, and a distribution that shows sharp boundary distinctions that is suggestive of further work to confirm.

Bibliography Fulford, M.G., & Huddlestone, K., 1991. The current state of Romano British Pottery Studies. English Heritage. Lyne, M.A.B., & Jefferies, R.S., 1979. The Alice Holt/Farnham Roman Pottery Industry. London: Council for British Archaeology. Millett, M., 1990. The Romanization of Britain. Cambridge, CUP. Swan, V.G., 1984. The Pottery kilns of Roman Britain. London: HMSO. Young, 1977. Quoted in Swan 1984, p45.

Electronic Sources Seager Smith, R., 2001.Suburban life in Roman Durnovaria. Pottery Finds. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3200880/Roman-Durnovaria-9-Pottery (accessed 01/12/2010) Stansby, D., & Biddulph, E., (nd). Excavations at Stansted-Airport-Iron-Age-and-Roman-pottery http://www.scribd.com/doc/3293766/Excavations-at-Stansted-Airport-Iron-Age-and-Roman-pottery (accessed 01/12/2010)