Roman Pottery Studies in Britain 1890-19191
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Roman Pottery Studies in Britain 1890-19191 Colin Wallace The years 1890 to 1919 saw major changes in the look at Continental scholarship and the survey ends by progress of Roman archaeology in Britain, both in reviewing some of the many military sites excavated. fieldwork and the presentation of results. This was in It is part of a much larger, continuing study of Roman contrast to, for example, prehistoric archaeology, which archaeology in late Victorian and Edwardian Britain was being extensively studied and synthesised much which is being made because I feel that the earlier. achievements of these years deserve more prominence Several archaeologists stand out from the others of - the history of archaeology at present displays a strong this period. The principal one is Professor Francis prehistoric bias. Comments on this first foray are Haverfield, who from the late 1880s up until the Great welcomed. War, researched, wrote, lectured, organised and In compiling it, I read through Bonser's Bibliography encouraged. Of especial note are the many county (1964) and picked-out site reports of the period. surveys done for VCR volumes. His death in 1919 is Concentrating on excavations, I have not noticed taken as a closing date for this survey. isolated finds of Roman pottery or Roman pottery found A rather more neglected figure is John Ward, latterly with burials. In order to keep the attached bibliography of Cardiff Museum. It was he who produced the first to manageable limits, reports are generally only cited in authoritative general work on Romano-British detail if quoted from, otherwise abbreviated entries, archaeology, in 1911 for Methuen's 'The Antiquary's under site names, are given. Books' series. Some eight years earlier he had written: Previous Surveys It is to be regretted that the Roman Occupation of George MacDonald' s 'Biographical Notice' gives a good Britain, though of nearly four centuries' duration and account of the central character of this period fraught with great and lasting issues, should appear on (Haverfield 1924, 15-57). Roman pottery studies in the pages of our national history as but a short and Britain are briefly reviewed by Anne Anderson (1984, debatable chapter. This is mainly owing to the vague and conflicting character of the documentary material 25-28) and the development of detailed research in relating to that period, and it is difficult to see how our . North Britain was sketched by Eric Birley (1977). knowledge can be further enhanced from that source. Thomas May's contribution has been reflected on by Rather, must we turn to the evidence of the spade; and Graham Webster (1977,317-318). it cannot be doubted that the systematic exploration of Roman sites which has been an archaeological fashion Towns, Villas and Rural Sites of late years, is providing a rich store of material for the My chosen period is fairly neatly bracketed by the historian to work upon. The excavations at Silchester excavations at the Roman town-sites of SILCHESTER and Caerwent will deepen his insight into the conditions of Romano-British city life; while from those on the (1890-1909) and WROXETER (1912-1914). With all Wall in the North, and upon the sites of certain forts the Silchester finds, the plan was to wait until the whole and camps, he will infer much concerning the military site was excavated and then deal with them collectively. organisation and administration of the Province. Thus Thomas May's rather daunting 1916 report is (Ward 1903, preface) really a catalogue of the Reading Museum collection, like his similar works on York (in 1912) and Carlisle The year 1890 saw both the death of the acclaimed (1917). May's way of working, together with the antiquary Charles Roach Smith and the start of the separation of most of the pottery from its contexts, Society of Antiquaries' excavations at Silchester - it produced a report lacking a summary of dating or seems appropriate to begin my survey then. evidence for site history and function. The present paper looks first at the treatment of In contrast the three WROXETER reports by J P pottery from excavations in town, villas and rural sites. Bushe-Fox contain a dated form series for the coarse Attention is given to the publication of pottery kilns and pottery (ordered with the help of the samian) and make to individual aspects like samian studies. There is a brief much use of the pottery for elucidating site history. The Colin Wallace 81 scale of operations had also changed over the period - 'The pottery is of common Roman fonns, including some any three years digging at Silchester cleared a far fragments of so-called Samian; and of local ware some greater area than at Wroxeter, gaining in plan but losing urns, two-handled cups, and mortaria ... ' in sequence. Even in 1907 an archaeologist could write: Two other campaigns of excavation at Roman town-sites can be linked to those at Silchester and 'Pottery fragments were found in abundance, but in no Wroxeter. Like Silchester, the 1899-1912 work at instance was it possible to reconstruct a whole vessel. CAERWENT gave short shrift to the finds. Unlike The commonest was the coarse black ware, but many Silchester, no further work was done on the pottery after pieces of Upchurch, New Forest, and Caistor pottery the end of the excavations. Wroxeter's influence were found; a few also of Samian, and its British extended to the 1912-13 excavations at the small town imitation'. (Williams 1907,13) of KENCHES1ER. The report of them included a substantial pottery report largely produced by one of the The vast majority of these villa-reports gave little space Wroxeter team (A G K Hayter), let down by its to dating or the potential evidence of the finds - here illustrations. archaeology really was a matter of removing the dirt from monuments. By the end of my period, however, As a fIfth open site, the small town of the 1915 report on the COMPTON villa included an up MARGIDUNUM, the first of the long-running series of to date discussion of the pottery (J P Bushe-Fox was excavations was carried out in 1910-11, published by T involved) and the 1912 report on HAMBLEDEN D Pryce with F Oswald among his helpers. Naturally boasted several specialist contributions, among them a there is a detailed samian report, along with a selective characteristically weighty pottery report by Thomas coarse pottery report. May. An honourable mention also to PULBOROUGH Working conditions in those modem towns with with its samian mould fragments. A casualty of the War Roman predecessors were much less favourable. The was Wheeler's planned excavations at PLESHEY in reports by Philip Norman and Francis Reader on Essex (1955a, 64) - what might he have produced ... discoveries in LONDON during redevelopment in the A contrast becomes apparent with sites in North 1900s are valuable accounts of hurried rescue Britain. In the Roman forts we again have impressive observations, concerning themselves with structures building remains, here laid out in standard shapes and rather than fmds. By 1912, however, mere mentions of positions as well - and yet chronology and the pottery have given way to a detailed samian report. The presentation of groups of dated fmds are of paramount author of that, Frank Lambert, followed with a detailed interest. study of the pottery from pit groups excavated in 1914 Towns and villas having been dealt with, I shall now at the Old GPO site. His aim was 'to obtain new turn to a variety of rural sites. At the beginning of the evidence, by the association of dated with undated period come Pitt-Rivers' excavations in CRANBORNE pottery, of the age of different types of coarse Roman CHASE (1880-96), published privately in four volumes wares' (Lambert 1915,244). Much use was made of the between 1887 and 1898. Great attention was paid to the Wroxeter reports and the expertise of J P Bushe-Fox. potential worth of pottery studies (see his comments in Going out on a high note, the report on the 1920 vol Ill, pp ix-xi, too long to quote here), the volumes excavations in COLCHES1ER has the coarse pottery boasting excellent illustrations (to a scale) with full well under control, with dating incorporated into the text descriptions. Fabric classification, for the purpose of and only a small amount of pottery of interest published quantification, evolves over the years and the dating in full. Of note is the discussion of the dating provided evidence is fully discussed in the many 'Relic Tables'. by three foundation pots, with Rhineland material being As with excavation techniques, the pottery brought in. publications of Pi tt-Rivers had little effect, if any, on his Town sites can be expected to produce finds worth contemporaries. They continued with their despairing notes or glib comments, like the following: studying as much as the structural remains: what of Roman villas, where the often impressive remains ' ... the remains of Roman vessels found in this site are of (especially mosaic pavements) constrained excavation a most varied description and are well worth careful and, even as today, attracted the greatest attention? Out examination' (Walker 1911, 195 - nothing done) of a total of seventeen villa excavation reports2 published between 1889 and 1921, only two devoted Only at the end of the period, as we have seen with more than a few lines to the pottery. The comments in villas, were more substantial contributions being made the SPOONLEY WOOD report (Middleton 1890, 659) eg HENGISTBURY HEAD or LOWBURY HILL, both are echoed in almost all the other reports: by proteges of Haverfield.