• The Cherry Hinton Finewares

by J eremy Evans

This paper is a reconsideration of the finewares and The kiln site itself made use of the half silted ditches their kilns, excavated at Cherry Hinton, Cambridgeshire of an Iron Age defensive enclosure, which appears to by Mac Kenny Hughes in 1902 (1903A and B). The have been sacked at some time in the late Iron Age. At material was remarkably well illustrated by the least four kilns were excavated by MacKenny Hughes standards of the day, but further consideration of it is in his 'Segment Ill' (Fig. 2), another, in a different remarkably overdue. The kilns were not recognised as tradition , was excavated to the north by Lethbridge such at the time and were only reported as such fairly (1948), and a further was excavated by White (1963B). recently (Hartley 1960; Swan 1984). MacKenny All the kilns would seem to belong to the frrst century Hughes deposited his material in the Museum of AD (Hartley 1960; White 1963B; p. 19-20 below) Archaeology and Ethnography, Cambridge and this and potting would seem to have ceased by the Antonine collection is the subject of this re-examination. The period when a farmstead occupied the interior of material in the museum would appear to be fairly the former defensive enclosure and field ditches seem complete. The percentage of undecorated body sherds, to have been laid out across the site (White 42%, would suggest that they have not necessarily been 19623B). selectively discarded (though the ratio of rimsherd to The products of the kiln excavated by Lethbridge bodysherds at 1:4 is a little high). It seems very (1948) were published by HartIey (1960) and are in the probable that all the excavated rimsherds have remained 'Belgic' tradition, in an 'oxidized fabric, usually in the collection. orange-brown or buff ... The clay was micaceous and Three campaigns of excavations have taken place at took a good burnish, some of the sherds having the Cherry Hinton over the last 90 years; those of slightly soapy feeling that is often found with Belgic MacKenny Hughes (1903A and B), Lethbridge (1948) pottery' (HartIey 1960, 23). The little evidence from and White (1963 A and B). The fineware was, White's kiln (1963B) suggests that its products were however, mainly found by MacKenny Hughes, although similar to those of Lethbridge' s. . a little was mentioned by Lethbridge (1948, 124), and Lethbridge's kiln was circular with a tongue support, the material re-examined was that from MacKenny whilst that noted by White (1963B, 15) as 'dumb-bell Hughes' excavations. shaped, 70cm by 1. 70m' may be more closely related to those excavated by MacKenny Hughes (below). Location The site of the War Ditches lies some three miles south-east of Cambridge (Fig. 1) at 50m 0.0. on the The fineware kilns chalkland skirt of the Fens. The site (TL 484556) is on Evidence of the kiln structures is reliant upon an outlier of the Gog Magog hills of Lower Chalk MacKenny Hughes' account, which is detailed and (Geological Survey sheet 200). The kiln site was well supplied with a number of excellent sections. The four situated in terms of transport being very near to the kilns illustrated (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, figs, 3, 4 Cambridge - Colchester road (Margary 24), an and 5) are built into the lowest part of the infilled 'War important route in the frrst century. Local resources Ditch' towards its outer margin; three are in Hughes might well include timber from the Gog Magog hills 'Segment 11' and one in 'Segment Ill' (Fig.2). The and peat deposits can now be found c. 3km to the east dimensions of the kilns cannot be given accurately of the site. The nearest clay source would appear to be since the sections are not scaled, but they seem to an outcrop of the Kimmeridge clay around 1.5km to the range from c. 0.43m to 1.0m in diameter and from c. west, in the area of the modern cambridge railway 0.43m to O.98m in depth. Two of the kilns have flat station. A further outcrop of this can be found to the bases and slightly outcurving walls, whilst the others south of the site c. 3km on the Gog Magogs, whilst an have the form of an inverted bell. The main features of outcrop of Gault clay is available c. 2km to the north. the kilns are summarized below in Table 1. J eremy Evans 19

I I I • I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I Milton I I I I I I I I I .. I ...... I :~'~':-:-:':-:'l 0 . :"-, ... . . / ':: : : : ::~'<,: ::/ : -: . : ... : ·').!Dur . .. / ~, . //// " 0 \ "" , ,"" \ CAMBRIDGE \ /' \ " \ \ , KEY ... \ \ \ WO WAR DITCHES \ \ o KILN SITE \ \ ROMAN ROAD \ \ 15m CONTOUR \ ::::: 30m CONTOUR '. \ 45m CONTOUR

Fig. 1: The location of the Cherry Hinton War Ditches Kiln site

Only in the last of the kilns in Table 1 is the like stokehole at a higher level are all paralleled, but stokehole shown in the section. It is about half the depth the Cherry Hinton structures are rather deeper and seem of the kiln and extends about 0.43m from it. It is a little more permanent. In the Nene Valley this type of evident from Mac Kenny Hughes' account that the kiln structure is dated as Claudian-Neronian. There are major concentration of kilns was in his 'Segment Ill' also parallels between the range of kiln furniture at where The fIreplaces were constructed with bricks in Cherry Hinton and in the Nene Valley. The 'essential clay-lined cavities with brick supports ... there was a large proportion of the fmeware with the slip ornament' Diameter at Diameter at Depth Construction Shape (1903B, 465). MacKenny Hughes' (1903B) fIgure 5 rim base and lining shows evidence of the rebuilding of the kilns and there is also evidence of relining of the kiln illustrated in his c.1.Om c.O.58m c.O.58m clay lined inverted bell fIgure 6. There is no evidence of any permanent c.O.43m c.O.36m c.O.43m flint nodules slightly pedestal or oven floor, but a range of kiln furniture is tapering recorded. c.O.74m c.O.67m c.O.5Om clay lined slightly tapering c.1.Om c.O.48m c.O.98m clay lining inverted bell Parallels c.O.14.{).19m There are reasonable parallels between the inverted bell­ thick shaped kilns and those of Woods' type IlIA (1974) in the Nene Valley. The small furnaces and 'fIre-base' Table 1,' Principle Features of the Kilns 20 J eremy Evans

KEY

LETHBRIDGE'S TRENCH HUGHES'TRENCH TEBBUT'S PIT 1961-2 EXCAVATION (WHITE'S) EDGE 1961-2 TRENCH _ DITCH P PIT K KILN G GRAVE 910 ?030 W WELL metres .. HUT

Fig. 2: Composite plan of the War Ditches Kiln site after Hughes, Lethbridge and White (Numbers represent Hughes' segments I-Ill) concept of portability' (Woods 1974) seems to apply b) 'roughly squared pyramids 10 inches [24cm] in equally to this material and the frrebars, pedestals and height, on a base 5 x 5 inches [12 x 12cm] with a top clay plates all exhibit similarities. The use of existing 3 x 3 inches [7 x 7cm)' (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, ditches into which to place the kilns is also paralleled 474). These are illustrated (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, in the Nene Valley and at Rushden (Woods 1974; fig.36) and fall into Swan's class of slightly tapering pillar-like props (1984, 61). Woods and Hastings 1984). The form of the kilns, in comparison with those in the Nene Valley and at Four of the squared pyramids were found, apparently in Rushden suggests a slightly later date. situ, set vertically and arranged in a square, 'two were standing, the other two thrown inward. On top of one The kiln furniture of the standing ones, and close by each of the others, was one of the bun-shaped lumps of baked clay' Most of the excavated kiln furniture has not survived (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, 475). The rather improbable and this assessment of it relies on MacKenny Hughes' reconstruction drawing (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, fig. account (l903B) and Swan's (1984) reconsideration. 36) shows that these props were slightly curved, and Two types of kiln supports were described; presumably they were to lean against the kiln wall, with the clay lump above them, to support frre-bars a) 'rectangular blocks 11 x 5.5 x 1.75 inches [26 x 13 x across the kiln. A central pedestal was probably 4cm]... some perforated with holes. They occurred quite provided by 'the remains of a large black cooking pot irregularly in the clay packing of the fireplaces; not laid covered, as was much of the interior of the frreplace, to form a floor or built into the sides, but as if rammed with soot' (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, 475). This in the clay' (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, 474), which arrangement is very reminiscent of features of the Swan (1984, 60) identifies as slab pedestals. Norton kiln furniture (Hayes and Whitley 1950). Jeremy Evans 21

Cheny Hinton Fonn Fonn Fonn Fonn motif Central Gaulish Glazed ware (and others) no. %(*) no. %(*) no. %(*) no. %(*)

Motif A Brenders (1975) pU, nos.3, 4 and A, p1.9, nos.7, 8 1 8.8 16 0.4 30 0.4 44 0.8 and 11. Enlinger and Simonett (1952) taf.lO, nos.192 2 8.4 17 3.6 31 0.4 45 0.4 and 193, taf.29, nos.5 and 9. Greene (1972), fig.12, 3 9.6 18 2.4 32 0.4 46 1.2 no.13 (but also fig.3, no.25 Lyons ware), fig. 11 , no.9. 4 0.8 19 2.4 33 0.8 47 0.8 Motif B none directly 5 9.2 20 4.4 34 0.4 48 0.4 Motif C Greene (1972) fig.12, no.14, fig.1l, no.8. Brenders 6 5.2 21 2.8 35 1.2 49 1.6 (1975) pU, G. Ettlinger and Simoneu (1952) taf.29, 7 10.8 22 0.4 36 0.4 50 0.8 no.13. 8/9 1.6 23 0.4 37 0.4 51 0.4 Motif D Green (1978) fig.8.2, nos.l.l and 1.2. 11 0.8 24 0.8 38 0.4 52 0.4 Motif E Greene (1972) fig. 12, no.16. 11 0.4 25 1.6 39 0.4 53 0.4 Motif F None 12 2.0 26 0.4 40 0.8 54 0.4 Motif G Brenders (1975) pU, no.6?, p1.9, no.47 13 2.0 27 0.4 41 0.4 55 0.4 Motif H Enlinger and Simonett (1952) taf.29, no.lO, taf.10, 14 0.4 28 0.4 42 0.8 56 0.4 no.195, taf.6, no.99. 15 0.8 29 1.6 43 2.0 Motif I None Motif J Brenders (1975) pU, nos.6a and G. Greene (1972) * - Percentage of the total number (250) of rimsherds. fig. 11 , no.10. Motifs K & L None

Table 2: Parallels for Decorative Motifs Table 3: The Percentages of the Form Types used at Cherry Hinton

Grass tempered clay plates 'about half an inch thick decorative motifs employed on the Cherry Hinton and some 10 or 12 inches in diameter' (MacKenny vessels. However this does not adequately explain the Hughes 1903B, 474) are also described, most likely for vessel forms, or the fact that there would seem to have use in creating the kiln top, although they might been several centres producing ring and dot beakers possibly have been used in the oven floor. Nothing is (Green 1978) and other vessels copying the decorative known about associated structures, although a large jar motifs on continental finewares (e.g. the jars from with 'fragments of at least two other similar vessels Verulamium (Wilson 1972, fig.103, nos. 126, 131 and close by, resting upon a mass of puddled clay' 132) with a debased version of the raspberry motif from (MacKenny Hughes 1903B, 471 and fig.35) would Lyons ware cups). The only kiln site from which appear to have been associated with the potting, beakers of a similar type fairly certainly originate is perhaps holding water for wetting the potters' hands or Colchester (Hull 1963, fig.91, no.27), from kiln 26, slip (Swan 1984, 46). There was also a large amount of although there is good evidence that the group from domestic refuse spread around the kilns. Staines were manufactured locally (Shanks pers. comm.). The finewares Given the almost simultaneous appearance of several centres in England producing ring and dot beakers, and Origins the origins of the decoration, it is difficult not to The origins of both the forms and decoration of the postulate an intermediate continental centre from which Cherry Hinton finewares owes nothing to local tradition they originated. Given the absence of the type from the (cf. Potter 1965) and has nothing in common with the Rhineland (Gose 1950), a northern French location forms and fabrics of the other products from the kiln would seem the most probable. (A direct connexion with site (Hartley 1960). The origin of the forms of the ring Central Gaulish glazed ware potters seems improbable and dot beakers are a little problematical, but their in view of the lack of good form parallels with Central decoration, following a series of well defined motifs, Gaulish products.) has very clear continental parallels. Table 2 indicates the One difficulty with this explanation is the kiln types, very strong correlations between the motifs (Fig.6) which have pre-Roman Iron Age precedents. However, employed on the Cherry Hinton ring and dot beakers providing Swan is correct in viewing these as an and those on Central Gaulish glazed ware. introduction from the continent, associated with the There seems little doubt from this that the decoration on 'Belgic' pottery style, they may still have been in use at Central Gaulish glazed ware provided the origin for the the hypothetical north French source of the form types. 22 J eremy Evans

Form Motif (see fig. 2.4)

A B C D E F G H I J K D/K EfJ FIG B/D/EI Roule Colour Painted FIG/l -tted coated and rou -letted 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 4 1 5 2 6 6 3 8 7 16 - 8/9 2 10 12 5 13 3 15 2 16 17 18 6 26 27 43 5

(Only fonns with evidence for the decorative motifs are included)

Table 4: The occurrence of decorative motifs on the form types

It must be noted, however, that the Staines group is the decorated pots are slipped and most are associated with lead glazed material, also probably wheel-burnished. Whilst on most the decoration is manufactured locally, mainly bowls of Dr29 and Dr30 applied in a contrasting colour above the slip, usually in forms and the pear-shaped flagons (S. Shanks pers. an iron rich slip fIring orange to brown, on some the comm.). These do not seem to provide the direct link slip is applied over the barbotine, so that it merely with the Central Gaulish glazed wares for the inspiration creates a patterned surface. of the ring and dots beakers, however, as they would The frequencies of the decorative motifs (Fig.6) by seem to be dated c. AD75-95, i.e. rather later than the sherd number are shown on Figure 3 and Table 4. origin of ring and dot beakers (S. Shanks pers. comm.). Motifs D, G and J emerge as the most popular. Motif A appears confmed to Form 18, but the number of rimsherds for which the decorative arrangement can be The range of forms and decoration determined are too few to give an adequate The range of forms produced at Cherry Hinton is representation of the different decorative motifs distinctly limited; 19 similar forms of small 'beaker' employed with the forms. (though as Green (1978) notes drinking from them The decoration is, by its very ability to be reduced to would be rather difficult), 11 forms of small jar, 11 a short list of motif types, similarly distinctly limited. forms of flagon, 4 bowl forms which might be most This all tends to suggest that a very specialized and practically described as cups, 10 other bowls and 2 specific market was being aimed at. strainers (one of which is in a fabric more related to that described by Hartley (1960». The products do not even make a complete service of fme tableware (lacking The form types (Figs. 4-5) platters), and perhaps nearly all could be concerned with 1) Beaker with outcurving rim (cf. Green 1978, fig. 5.1, drinking, if any functional purpose is to be attributed to no. 3). them. This functional imbalance is even more marked if 2) Beaker with rather triangular-sectioned rim, cf. Form the frequencies of the various types are compared, 12 (cf. London; Green 1978, fig. 5.2, no. 7 and beaker types being predominant in the assemblage, and Fishbourne; Cunliffe 1971, type 73.2). many of the other forms being represented by only one 3) Beaker with rather vertical, ledged rim, cf. sherd (Table 3). Godmanchester and Fishbourne (Green 1960, fig 4, The technique used in decorating the pots varies. All no. 18; Cunliffe 1971 type 72). Jeremy Evans 23

50

40

30

20

10

B D E F G H J K L BIC FIG D/K E/J BID /:; o GII % OCCURRENCE OF DECORATIVE ELEMENTS /:; PAINTED o ALL SHERDS o ROULETTED ~ ALL DECORATED SHERDS o UNDECORATED

Fig. 3: The proportions of the decorative nwtifs (see Fig. 6) amongst all sherds and all decorated sherds

4) Beaker with beaded rim, cf Fonn 17 (cf. Marsh and 21) Necked jar with shoulder cordon and beaded rim. Tyres 1978, fig. 239, m.B.!; also there is an example (Nos. 20-23 are all similar to necked jars from from Guilden Morden (the reports (Fox and Lethbridge Verulamium (Wilson 1972, figs. 101-107).) 1926; Lethbridge 1936) do not seem to include this 22) Necked jar with shoulder cordon and rising rim. item, in the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and 23) Necked jar with everted rim. Ethnology, decorated with motif D). 24) Cordoned shouldered necked jar with undercut rim. 5) Beaker with well fonned triangular-sectioned rim, cf 25) Jar of butt-beaker fonn. Fonn 8 (cf. Green 1978, fig. 5.1, no. 4; Wilson 1972, 26) Rouletted cornice-rimmed beaker. no. 130; Kenyon 1948, fig. 40, no. 24; Cunliffe 1971, 27) Probably a butt-beaker rim, painted in orange-brown. type 73.5). Cf. Rushden (Woods and Hastings 1984, figs. 9.17 to 6) Beaker with everted, outcurving rim cf. Norwood(?) 9.19, c. AD45-60). and London (Potter 1981, fig. 19, no. 23; Green 1978, 28) Undercut, beaded jar rim. fig. 5.2, no. 9). 29) Jar with slightly beaded rim. 7) Beaker with everted rim (cf. Hicks and Wilson 1975, 30) Constricted necked jar, perhaps derived from fig. 2; Kenyon 1948, fig. 44, no. 39). butt-beaker fonn. 8) Beaker with a well-formed, delicate 31) Bead rimmed dish. triangular-sectioned rim, cf. Baldock and Verulamium 32) Grooved and internally beaded dish rim, (generally (Rigby 1987, no. 249; Wilson 1972, no. 129). related to Hawkes and Hull 1947, fig. 48, no. 32, and 9) Beaker with rim as 8. types 44A and 47B). 10) Beaker with trapezoid rim. 33) Internally beaded dish, cf. Verulamium (Wilson 1972, 11) Beaker with trapeziod rim and internal ledge. no. 222, AD60-75). 12) Beaker with triangular-sectioned rim. 34) Bead rimmed and grooved dish(?). 13) Everted rimmed beaker, cf. Fishbourne (Cunliffe 1972, 35) Bead rimmed bowl (or jar). type 73.2). 36) Unusual dish, perhaps related to Camulodunum type 14) Everted rimmed beaker with internal groove. 44A (Hawkes and Hull 1947). 15) Beaker with grooved rim. 37) Flanged dish, perhaps related to Fonn 38 16) Beaker with grooved rim. 38) Reeded rimmed dish, cf. Camulodunum (Hawkes and 17) Beaker with vertical beaded rim (cf. Green 1978, fig. Hull 1947, type 42). 5.1, no. 2). 39) Unusual grooved bowl or jar rim. 18) Small jar or beaker with vertical beaded rim cf. 40) Dr 27 imitation in orange-red cf. Colchester (Hull Verulamium (Wilson 1972, no. 133). 1958, fig. 54, no. 19). 19) Bead rimmed carinated jar with shoulder cordon. 41-2) Possibly Dr 27 imitations. 20) Bead rimmed carinated jar with shoulder cordons. 43) Rouletted Dr 30 imitation. 24 Jeremy Evans

44) Strainer dish with large square-cut holes. Ring and dot beakers from Cherry Hinton are 45) Strainer dish, delicately manufactured in a brown-black probably best distinguished by the use of an iron rich fabric more related to the indigenoustradition (Hartley clay, giving an orange to brown colour, for the barbotine 1960). decoration on many of them, and a low-iron, white slip 46) Internally ledged flagon with triangular-sectioned rim, on a number of those vessels in oxidized fabrics. This cf. Baldock, Verulamium and Camulodunum (Rigby 1987, no. 202, pre- Flavian; Wilson 1972, no. 55, use of contrasting colours for the ornarnent is a feature AD60; Hawkes and Hull 1947, type 161B). which would seem to be almost unique to the Cherry 47) Internally ledged flagon similar to Camulodunum Hinton and Staines kiln sites (Shanks pers. comm. for 161A/162 (Hawkes and Hull 1947). the latter). (The possible exception is the single vessel 48) Flagon with collared rim, cf Longthorpe (Dannell from Colchester kiln 26 (Hull 1958, fig. 91, no.27.). 1987, fig. 38, no. Ig). Vessels of the Staines group may be distinguished from 49) Ring-necked flagon with ledged rim, cf. Baldock Cherry Hinton products by the former's consistent fabric (Rigby 1987, no. 597, later second century). This and (an oxidized, finely sand tempered fabric with common Nos. 54 and 56 may well be intrusive material from mica and occasional black ironstone and red grog) and the Antonine settlement. by its use of unbumished and unslipped surfaces for the 50) Ring-necked flagon with concave, triangular-sectioned decoration (Sue Shanks pers. comm.). bead, cf. Silchester (Fulford 1984, no. 154). 51) Ring-necked flagon with square-sectioned rim. 52) Beaded ring-necked flagon, cf. Colchester (Hull 1963, fig. 84, no. I, kiln 23, Neronian). Dating 53) Beaded ring-necked flagon with less flaring rim than There is little direct stratigraphic evidence for the type 52. Cherry Hinton material. Two sherds of motif D and one 54) Ring-necked flagon with beaded rim and internal of form 3 decorated with motif G are recorded by Green ledge. The form is similar to second century flagons (1960) in a context dated between the third quarter of (cf. Kenyon 1948, fig. 40, nos. 26 and 27, c. the frrst century and the first years of the second ADllO-120). century. One sherd of form 10, decorated in motif For 55) Flagon (?) of constricted-necked butt-beaker form, cf. G is recorded from Baldock in a context dated after c. Longthorpe and Verularnium (Wilson 1972, no. 120, c. AD60-75). AD 120, with material the majority of which post dates 56) Flagon rim (?) or dish. The form, if a flagon would c. AD 70 (Rigby pers. comm.), and another of form 9 more usually be later second century. in pit A50 with other Flavian and pre-Flavian material 57-62) Cross sections of the types of flagon handle. (Rigby 1986, no 249). There is also a vessel from early 63-64) Footring bases ditches at Hasholme, East Yorks. (Hicks and Wilson 65) Shoulder sherd painted in orange-brown, cf. Rushden 1975, fig. 2) associated with Iron Age style material and and Colchester generally (Woods and Hastings 1984, a mortarium Gillam 237 dated c. AD 60-90, similar to Hull 1963). form 7, and decorated in motif K in red slip on a white 66) Bodysherd painted in orange-brown, cf. Colchester fabric. The ware is absent from the Antonine settlement kilns (Hull 1963, fig. 71, no. 1). at Cherry Hinton (White 1962- 3 a and b). 67) Shoulder sherd painted in orange brown, cf. Rushden The parallels, especially for the ring and dot beakers (Woods and Hastings 1984, nos. 137-138). from other sites (above p.21-2), suggest that the lifespan of types produced at the site might span c. AD 55-90 The fabrics and the end of production might be rather earlier. All the fabrics are wheel-made, most showing The group of rim and dot beakers of similar forms wheel-ridging and the bases have string marks. The produced, perhaps, in the Midlands (Leicester; Kenyon fabrics exhibit considerable diversity (30 were 1948, fig.42, no.47 (14 examples) and apparently the identified) ranging from white to scarlet to brown and commonest type found in the North (Gillam 1970, type black in colour, from hard and brittle to soft and friable 68, from Corbridge and Newstead) may be rather later, in fracture and from an absence of temper to abundant Gillam suggesting a date of c. AD 80-130. fairly coarse sand and chalk sand temper, with grog and ironstone inclusions also being found in a few pieces. Archive copies of the fabric descriptions are Distribution and 'marketing' deposited in the Cambridge Museum of Archaeology Ring and dot beakers, probably of Cherry Hinton origin, and Ethnology and in the Library of the London come from Cambridge, Godmanchester (Green 1960), Institute of Archaeology. The fabrics will not be Baldock (Rigby 1987), Guilden Morden, Norwood described further here since they do not show any clear (potter 1981), probably from Snape Abbey (Charleston correlation with form, except for the imitation Dr27, 1955, p1.57) and possibly from Hasholme (Hicks and which is in an orange-red fabric as might be expected. Wilson 1975). J eremy Evans 25

11 \ I i 21 , \ \

} 31 '\ ,. I

~ / 41 81 ~ I \ \ ! ) 1°1 \ 51 91 ~ ~ 111 >. I ~ / \ \ • ~===i13 '\ (~ \ . 114 ~ I 161 \ \ 19 <-. 1=ri1 \ ) 1 \ 211 ( \ " 20 c, 221 ) 1 ) ) ~

~ 1 25 .. 28 23 ( 7 1 \ ; 1 ~ 29 ( J 1 241 I ) ) \ \ ~, ~ I I 1 I 27

Fig. 4: The forms of Cherry Hinton Finewares (scale 1 :4) 26 J eremy Evans

J 31/ 7 \ 331 ) 35 1 1 I

} ) " 32 ) 34 ,) 36 1 , 1 ~ \ 1 I I

37 ) 38 ) 3, , 1 T , ) 1 I 1 , 4°1 ) \ 41 ) ~ .. &. a F e $ $)

41 I 7 ) \ 451...... ·7 , ••• •••• 0° o·

l t 421 ] , 49\ { ~ \63 l.LJ 64

46 \ ' •• 57 4\ 1 7 '~50 l~ _ 58 ,~ \--w .. 59 "60 ffi )1155 -61 56 ~ \~ )-n;2 \ 1 j _62

Fig. 5: The forms of Cherry Hinton Finewares (scale 1 :4) (z: [ 31Tns) S3.JVM;}U!d uo/ulH u.JdI{;) UO P3Koldw3 S/!10W 3t1.l/V.JO:J3P 31{L :9 "El.!!

r

CC Cc eCe eC;~Ce 1 cce~cee i eCc', eCc"aocec ~~ccccc':!tcc, tf cecec ,cc ,cc:c,c,cc.c, cc cce c e c~ ee~c,ec'cec't cc, C e e cc cc c cc c- cC c cc co; C "c c C cc.~ CC Geee c cc c c c. C e cC c c cc eGo c tc '0 G cc' Cc cc, '\ic GeteCc Ce',o, 'eco,cr; c cc "c" , cC.c;c r.' e~ cOot: cCc ,~c, Cc CC cc;c"o ,!Cl,' ct,ecee cOc;ce'oCee,,', ,e':G'::cc,CGc o'"'c;c,/'c'c'rP e: ce'C ecc'tecc~cccccc cc"c eC"o,,'e' ,c,,t Ge",CCe'c c GeC,','c e,'bc >I cccce O_eccc ecctc...'cC eGce crotC c.'.-e Cc e 00·. c,,"c 'cc cc.

H

o 'ccceco I ~~g~'1 ~,~~~~ cccccceCe c,~ccccc ~egc~c~ Cc ccc cc oe,,·c.cc o cOccec cc-.~ee Cc c~c~c~c.c cccecccc c: c:c~c: ~~~c~~~ CcceC, c.t C c Cc Cc ~Cc~~c~ cc ~~gg~c~ cc"Ccc GCCCc~cc c~cec~CC: eeec ceGce Cc ccc , Cec,Cc'c ,Gece Cc. GCODO c Cc e.c'!ccC)c G Cc cc~ccc G ceCc~Cc C cc c c:Gcct C Cc eGc c:ec c~cgccGC C ce C6 'e Gecctc; Ccc cGc c c ce Co C Cc Cc. c Cc 'e C °c Cc e

~ 3 .,IIclce cceec ccc :l ~ .:. ecccc cC Cc eCc; CCCCCCCC Ccceeecc c .c ICGCc- C GC cc G ccC Gce.CO cC C CICCCCC' CGCCCCCC ,c.:,cc'c'o ceccccce CcCccccc CCClccce CCOCCG'C cGco o C Gc. CCoCCecGG ,cceecc C'CCCCC c c:CC'ee,c ccececec CGGee ceC cccecc CC c"cccc ~ cc:cce cc C CC'cclc: ecc.cecctce oCcoc ccc:cceC'e~l:il~~~: eceCCGcc co.cccccc 'c'coocl cc It. G 0 C ce C'ecc.eccc coc;ccccc CO 0 coooooct ooa: a: GC cc C c cc cc cccccccee OCCcee c c C CcCc coccccCC Ccec:eC'Gce CCCccc cc clcceec,"ccccc c cceecc~~e cc:ccCtcc ooC)C)oeoo eO~ocec • t&CIC,'.CCCc.cCGCCCCCoCCCCcccccc C Cl ... c. cc. , GoI C co cCC CCCccCGC cCc ceeccc ec e cc a: a: ICecc,l' !Cc',cccc GC cece: cc cC cc; c c GC .... cC le 01 0 le oe Oce C.ClcCc.CC cCOCCOO'oc ccee cc C C clo':':c. CtOG~C.CI c acOCc:. C • cc Co 0 cc 0& c e Co cc Co 0 cc e , cc e c ~"cc •••c ~c.c.cccco eCCC cc c c 'coeCoC,'" C ecee cc c C cccct."cc,' ,CCCllCcc 'I'c' ccce c co c c ~ eCc.cc. ec'c c.c .. ,c Co C. ...c.cc.c.c. 8 o C C 0 • c CC:Cceceec ~ e CCGecc.ec.G 8 • C e Cttttce c .e • ceeecect eCCCGc..c.cCo "Cee e 'toe" cecccete C. Cc tCtC cc e C CCCCCGC cC c C Cece Ccc c Cccccc..c cC; C C cccccttt ce-,ecc.cC C c. 0 C C (, e\lC~ e ct~ ecce c t tt C.CCc.cC. Gc.. C C C cCtt t t et 'cc G Co, Co C. C Co c c tect tc cC C ctce to tec eCCGc; c,.ccc C c Co c. Co Co C. C c.. c Co t Mttttt<:. G C Co Co c C. Of.-C C. C a ttCCCCIIC CGC a e c. Co Co cc Co" e (QO(Q) ~C~~ttC~ .s:. cc. Co c cc c. Co v

a SUVt1.H KW3.J3 [ 28 J eremy Evans

What evidence there is from this of the distribution of are really from a different source. If they are from Cherry Hinton wares suggests a core distribution up to different sources then it would seem likely that the c. 50km from the site, though with little obvious barbotine clump beakers come from yet another concentration near the kiln site. Given this it seems production site. Only detailed examination of the whole unlikely that the distribution of kiln products was class of ring and dot beakers, and perhaps, petrological concentrated on the use of Cambridge to distribute to its or chemical analyses, are likely to resolve these market area. The fairly wide and thin distribution, questions. together with the fairly small scale of the kiln site suggests production may have been fairly low, but of Acknowledgements fairly high value. The rather functionless nature of many I would like to thank the following for their help and of the products (it being difficult to see the 'beaker' encouragement in the production of this paper; Mrs V. forms ever being used for such a purpose) also adds to Swan, who first directed me to this material, Miss M the impression that the products were basically status Cra'ster, M.B.E., and the staff of the Cambridge goods, attractive gegaws aimed at civilians who wished Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography who made to be regarded as 'Romanized' and wanted 'Roman' visits to Cambridge so pleasant, Mls J. Medrington, Dr. looking objects. There is no evidence that production at M. Millett, Mls S. Shanks and Dr. P. Arthur. The the kilns was 'military associated' and the presence of author's original drawings were prepared for publication potters at the kiln site producing in the local Iron Age by Mrs K. Perrin. The author remains responsible for tradition (Hartley 1960) argues strongly against this. the many inadequacies of the paper. The paper is based . on work submitted as an undergraduate dissertation to Other production centres the London Institute of Archaeology in 1978. Apart from Cherry Hinton (and possibly Colchester (Hull 1963, fig.91, no.27, from kiln 26) no other kiln Bibliography site is known to produce ring and dot beakers, and these Brenders F. 1975 Het Romeins Geglazuurd Aardwerk (University of Leuven; unpublished dissertation) comments can be no more than speculative. There Charleston R.J. 1955 Roman Pottery, Faber, London. would seem to be a distinctive, and perhaps slightly Cunliffe B. 1971 Excavations at Fishbourne, 1961-1969; later, Midlands and northern greyware group. This is Volume 1/; The Finds, Antics. Res. Rept. XXVII, well exemplified by an example from the Ebor Brewery Oxford. site in York (perrin pers. comm.) which is decorated Dannell G.B. and Wild I.P. 1987 'Coarse pottery', in Dannell with vertical lines alternately of barbotine dot circles G.B. Longthorpe 1/, Britannia Monograph Series 8, and complete circles, but which has a poppy head beaker London. rim form. There would also seem to be a local group at Down A. 1978 Chichester Excavations 1/1, Chichester. Staines in a local oxidised fabric with contrasting white Ettlinger E. and Simonett C. 1952 ROmlsche Keramikaus dem barbotine, including the production of a few folded ring Schutthugel von Vindonissa, Brugg. and dot beakers (S. Shanks pers. comm.). Fulford M.G 1984 Silchester, excavations on the defences The material from the City of London (Green 1978) 1974-1980, Britannia Monograph, London. Fox C. and Lethbridge T.C. 1926 'The La Tene and would seem to have an origin in the Brockley Hill - Romano-British cemetery, Guilden Morden, Verulamium region, though it is not clear if this is the Cambridgeshire', P.CA.s. XXVII, 49-63. case for that from Southwark, but this might reasonably Gose E. 1950 Gefdsstypen der romischen Keramik im expected, as might the Verulamium vessels (Wilson Rheinland, Koln. 1972) being of this group. Southwark form III.B.I Green HJ.M. 1960 'Godmanchester 1', Proc. CAS. LIII, (Marsh and Tyres 1978, 569) is described as having an 8-22. ovoid form and seven examples are cited, whereas this Greene K. 1972 A Guide to Pre-Flavian Finewares AD40-70, notable feature of form is not noted for those examples Cardiff. from the City (Green 1978). This and the presence of an Hartley B.R. 1960 'Notes on some pottery from some ovoid beaker of this form, in a whiteware fabric from Romano-British kilns in the Cambridge area', Proc. Binchester, Co. Durham, might suggest that these are an CA.S. LIII, 23-8. Hawkes C. and Hull M.R. 1947 Camulodunum, Antics. Res. imported group. The group from Chichester (Down Rept. XIV, Oxford. 1978) and Fishboume (Cunliffe 1971, type 73) tends to Hayes R.H. and Whitley E. 1950 The Roman Pottery at suggest a further production centre, or concentration of Norton, East Yorkshire, Roman Malton and District imports in this area. However, the presence of similar, Res. Rept. 7, Leeds. related beakers with clumps of barbotine dots at both Hull M.R. 1958 Roman Colchester, Antics. Res. Rept. XX, Fishboume and Verulamium (cf. Cunliffe 1971, type 72 Oxford. and Wilson 1972 nos. 126 and 132) seems rather Hull M.R. 1963 The Roman Potters' kilns of Colchester, disconcerting if the ring and dot beakers from these sites Antics. Res. Rept XXI, London. J eremy Evans 29

Kenyon K. 1948 Excavations at the Jewry Wall site, Leicester Potter T.W. 1981 'The Roman occupation of the central Antics. Res. Rept XV, Oxford. Fenland', Britannia XII, 79-134. Lethbridge T.C. 1936 'Further excavations in the early Iron Rigby V. 1987 'The stratifIed groups of Iron Age and Roman Age and Romano-British cemetery at Guilden Morden', pottery' in Stead I.M. and Rigby V., Baldock, P.CAS. XXXVI, 109-120. Britannia Monograph 7, London, 257-379. Lethbridge T.C. 1948 'Further excavations at the War Swan V. 1984 The pottery kilns of Roman. Britain R.C.H.M. Ditches', Proc. CAS. XLII, 117-27. Suppl. Series 5, London. MacKenny Hughes T. 1894 'On a newly discovered dyke at White D.A. 1963B 'Excavations at the War Ditches, Cherry Cherry Hinton', Proc.CA.s. VIII, 317-324. Hinton, 1961-2', Proc. CA.s. LVI-LVII, 9-29. MacKenny Hughes T. 1903A 'Excavations in the War Ditches White D.A. 1963A 'Excavations at the War Ditches, Cherry near Cherry Hinton, Cambridge', Proc. CAS. X, Hinton, 1949-51', Proc. CA.s. LVI-LVII, 30-41. 234-7. Wilson M.G. 1972 'The other pottery' in Frere S.S. MacKenny Hughes T. 1903B 'The War Ditches near Cherry Hinton, Cambridge', Proc. CAS. X, 452-81. VerulamiumExcavations, Volume I, Antics. Res. Rept. Marsh G. and Tyres P. 1978 'The Roman pottery from XXVIII, London, 263-370. Southwark', in Southwark and Lambeth Archaeological Woods P.l. 1974 'Types of late Belgic and early Excavation Committee's Southwark Excavations Romano-British pottery kilns in the Nene Valley', 1972-74 11, London, 533-583. Britannia V, 262-81. Potter T.W. 1965 'The Roman pottery from Coldham Clamp Woods P.J. and Hastings S. 1984 Rushden; the early and its affInities', Proc. CA.s. LVIII, 12-37. finewares, Northampton.