Roman Pottery in South-East Wales: An Introduction

Peter Webster

The 1990 Roman Pottery Research Group meeting at Greene in this substantial volume but we can note that Swansea was based around pottery from South East the likely origin of those producing this pottery re­ Wales. This article is a revised version of an introduc­ mains, as first outlined in 1973, the Rhine/Upper Dan­ tory talk given at that meeting. The area reviewed ube. Whether we see the Usk potters as soldiers pro­ extends broadly from the Wye to the Loughor and from ducing pots for their unit or as civilians producing for the coast to the upper Usk river system (approximately a lucrative military market, the geographical origin of the modern counties of the Glamorgan, Gwent and their style seems established. southern Powys). It is intended to be less broad than the We may also note that an exhaustive study of the author's most recent review of Welsh pottery (Webster Usk mortaria by Kay Hartley (Manning 1993) estab­ 1990) but less detailed than that which will has just lishes close links between the mortaria made locally at appeared as the introduction to a regional synthesis in Usk and those made at or near Kingsholm, Gloucester, the Usk 1965-76 excavation series (Manning 1993). thus reinforcing links between both sites and the Twen­ The pattern of Roman conquest in South Wales will tieth Legion (cf Manning 1981, 34-39 & PI. 1). be well known to readers. Briefly, it consists of incur­ Along with the local coarseware and, arguably of sions into the South East margin of Wales in the greater importance in terms of the more general picture Neronian period, culminating in a frontier which runs of ceramics in Britain, is the wide range of other across our area approximately from Clyro (near Hay­ pottery reaching Neronian Usk. The finewares have on-Wye, Powys) to Cardiff, with its focus at the legion­ already been the subject of a volume of considerable ary fortress of Usk. This is followed, in the early importance (Greene 1979) and need little comment. A Flavian period, by the total conquest of Wales, by the few later finds should, however, be noted. The glazed foundation of a new southern legionary base at Caerleon flagons from Pennal published by Boon and Brewer and by a network of auxiliary forts along all or most of (1981) should perhaps be regarded, at present, as the major lines of communication (cfWebster 1984 and . anomalous. Recent finds of Lyon ware should, how­ especially maps pp 281 & 285). ever, occasion more comment. The simplicity of If we return to the Neronian frontier, our knowl­ Greene's distribution map, with no examples in Wales edge of the ceramics of this phase are dominated, west of the Usk (1979, Fig. 4, p. 16) is now disturbed suitably, by the U sk assemblage. Despite occasional by finds from a number of Flavian sites in Wales doubts expressed on the subject, anyone looking at the (including Caerleon, Loughor, Carmarthen and Usk pottery can have little doubt that Usk is a legionary Segontium). However, if as is suggested (Greene base as Manning has argued on the basis of the site plan 1979, 17-18), the production of Lyon ware ceased c (1989, 161-170). The ceramic pattern is well known, AD 69, then small numbers of finds on the Flavian sites thanks to the work of Kevin Greene (1973, 1979, and in Wales might be expected, as can the almost total in Manning 1993). The most important element, in absence of the ware from slightly later Pennine sites. terms of quantity, is the locally produced pottery, Usk, particularly in its later phases attracted pot­ undoubtedly produced for, if not by the military. An tery from a wide range of British sources, including abbreviated type series is shown here (Fig. 1) to em­ Durotrigan Black-burnished ware, Severn Valley Ware phasise the most popular forms: Hofheim flagons, a and local gritted ware. If we take away the finewares range of necked jars including the omnipresent type 11, and the Usk 'military' ware the range can be seen to be jars with corrugated or carinated shoulders, dishes, broadly similar to that found on other Neronian sites in mortaria and lids. This assemblage makes up the bulk the area, including the coastal 'camp' at Sudbrook of the pottery in the main fortress phase (currently (Nash-Williams 1939) and Neronian Cardiff. The rea­ dated cAD 55-67). This is not the place to summarise son is not far to find and is essentially that which the conclusions on this assemblage reached by Kevin explains the massive Usk pottery operation. South

III 112 Peter Webster

111.21 ~ 111J--~ !11.4n (14n 13

12

USK

Fig. 1. Usk. Abbreviated type series of pottery produced locally for the fortress. Peter Webster 113

Wales has a poor pre-Roman pottery tradition and the shows remarkable similarity on all sites. Everted rim army, in particular, would need to attract potters, jars, rusticated jars, flanged and carinated bowls and pottery and pottery traders from both near and far to simple plain-rim dishes are to be seen everywhere. The meet its considerable needs. The concentration of small assemblage from the two-period pre-Hadrianic troops at Usk will have occasioned special arrange­ site at Caerau-Beulah is illustrated below (Fig. 2) and ments, but will also have attracted a general trade shows the general range. comparison of one site with which was clearly not restricted to the fortress but another, however, shows subtle variations and suggests which resulted in a supply pattern general to all military that production is at a local level. The pattern seems to bases in the area and probably to civilian sites as well. be that of small-scale production, much of it by potters If we turn to the Flavian period, military disposi­ working within civil settlements attached to the forts, tions here are totally different from c AD 75 and it is but all working within a common (and essentially not surprising, therefore, that the pattern of pottery Roman) tradition. The only exception in South-East supply is also different. The governing factor, how­ Wales is the survival of an apparently late Iron Age ever, was probably the same. Throughout Wales there tradition of gritted pottery (cf Spencer 1983) seen both was a general lack of a sophisticated pottery-making at Usk and, for instance, in early Caerleon. The per­ tradition. As in the military north (cf Webster 1991) vading style is not, however, in such survivals but in the response was to import a Romanised pottery-mak­ the mass of imported forms. ing tradition into the area. Viewed as a generality, the Of course, not all pottery found on Flavian sites is pottery of the Flavian and Flavian-Trajanic period local. Mortaria continued to be imported (from North

\ 1 \ 4 ? 1 \ " 5 =:J ,> 7 1--\ ~// 10 I

) ~ .. 9 I ~ ~ I ) , 12 b -?=:; , 14 ( M 13 In> A

~ 1 16 \- 1 CAERAU,BEULAH

Fig. 2. 114 Peter Webster

Plate 1. Rhodian amphora from Mill Street, Caerleon. The painted inscriptions include the 'delivery label' to Legio II Augusta

Gaul and the Verulamium region in particular). Severn samian from the Prysg Fields barracks (Fig. 3) shows. Valley Ware continues to appear, but in surprisingly It is possible that it is this disruption in samian supply small quantities given the nearness of the source. As we which gave the necessary impetus for the production of shall see below, Black-burnished ware appears on some the so-called 'Caerleon Ware'. sites only. We should not forget either, that, as in the It is almost certain that potters had been making Neronian period, samian was arriving in vast quantities specialised pottery at Caerleon from early in its occu­ from South Gaul and that a range of commodities pation (cf Boon 1966). Wasters from the production of brought amphorae with them as containers. Caerleon, green-glazed vessels are known (ibid PI. Ill, 5; Arthur like Usk before it, provides evidence of importation 1978, 324-334; see also Greep in Zienkiewicz 1986, from Spain, Gaul, Italy and the eastern Mediterranean. 92-6 and a recently published vessel from Penydarren, Some of these will be apparent from the preceding Heywood 1991, No. 62). Distinctive white-slipped paper by David Zienkiewicz. Here we may perhaps mortaria seem likely also to be local products (cf also draw attention to a Rhodian amphora from Caerleon, Zienkiewicz below). Both these wares have slight rep­ found still with its address label in place (cf Boon 1987, resentation among assemblages elsewhere in South p. 31 and PI. 1 above). Wales. More significant in the regional context, how­ In South Wales, as elsewhere, the early 2nd cen­ ever, is the red-slipped wares which were made from tury was a time of considerable change. The switch in about the second decade of the 2nd century. This was the sources of samian supply from South Gaul to Les originally termed 'Legionary Ware' by Wheeler and Martres-de-Veyre and then Lezoux are, of course, well Nash-Williams but Boon and Hartley (in Boon 1966) known. At Caerleon there are indications that the advance good reasons for the potters being civilian and proportions of samian of different periods vary from the term 'Caerleon Ware' is now more generally ap­ site to site (cf Webster 1990b) but it seems likely that plied. Products include a variety of samian imitations, this site, like many others shows an early 2nd century as well as rough cast beakers (probably imitating drop in samian importation as the histogram of all Argonne forms) and mortaria. The latter, in particular, Peter Webster 115

expect to see the sudden appearance of Black-burnished Prysg Field Barracks ware in the Trajanic to Hadrianic period. In South Wales the pattern is by no means as simple. As already stated, the so-called 'Durotrigan' Black-burnished ware appears at Usk and it seems likely that it is present in small quantities along the South Wales coast from that date onwards. The situation is revealed most clearly by 40 Stephen Greep in his study of the Caerleon Fortress Baths pottery (Zienkiewicz 1986, Vol. 2, 56-7). His histogram (ibid Fig. 18) and shows a small, but signifi­ cant sale for Black-burnished ware at Caerleon in the Flavian and Flavian-Trajanic period along with the 20 expected increase in the Hadrianic-Antonine period (see also Zienkiewicz below). At the multi-period and to largely pre-liadrianic fort at Loughor (Owen-John et al forthcoming) the ware is present from at least the Trajanic period and may be present in very small quantities earlier than this. A similar situation may 65 too 140 180 pertain at Neath. Years A.D. Further inland the situation changes. BB1 is not present in the more recently excavated fort levels at Penydarren (Heywood 1991) although there are exam­ Fig. 3. Chronological pattern of the samian found in the ples from the older excavations which were not con­ Prysg Field Barracks fined to the fort area. The ware is represented by only a single sherd from the later phase of the two-period are widely distributed in South Wales and across the fort at Caerau-Beulah (Fig. 2,14 above) but it does Bristol channel (cf Boon 1966, Fig. 4 for a distribution seem to have reached Pumpsaint (the fort guarding the map). It is surprising that the Caerleon Ware industry Dolaucothi gold mines) by the late Flavian or Flavian­ survived, not only the resumption of large-scale samian Trajanic period. Some of the relevant Pumpsaint evi­ importation (from Lezoux in the 120s) but also the dence is republished below (Fig. 5). It comes from departure of large parts of its market, the Second what seems likely to be a demolition period pit sec­ Legion, to build Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine tioned by the river (Webster in Burnham & Burnham Wall. The exact date when it ceased production is 1986). When first seen, the dates of the Black-bur­ difficult to determine. However, a look at the samian nished ware and the samian seemed incompatible. forms imitated is instructive. Fig. 4 shows most of the However, Black-burnished bowls of similar type to that samian forms imitated as well as other typical shapes, illustrated have now been identified in Trajanic levels but does not include mortaria). Form 18/31 is present at Caerleon (Zienkiewicz above Fig. 8, 91) and it but not Form 31. There are certain barbotine forms would be happiest to ascribe the whole collection to an present which seem most likely to have derived their early 2nd century date. This is reinforced by re-exami­ inspiration from East Gaulish forms. However, cer­ nation of pottery from excavations by Professor Barri tainly late 2nd century forms such as 79/80 and the Jones and John Little in the 1970s and by the pottery samian mortaria are not imitated. Survival of the recovered by the Burnhams from excavation in the fort industry into the mid 2nd century seems certain but it in 1990. All of these collections contain samian which seems possible to suggest that production ceased c AD is predominantly South Gaulish, with a small amount of 160-170. material from Les Martres-de-Veyre and little else. The term 'Caerleon Ware' is used solely for the red­ The samian just does not support military occupation on slipped wares. However, anyone comparing a 2nd cen­ the site later than the early Hadrianic period. If the pit tury Caerleon assemblage with one from elsewhere in the group comes from the demolition of the fort, then a region would immediately see a colour difference. Most date c AD 100-110 seems reasonable. The succeeding sites would show a predominance of reduced fabrics, but fortlet is likely to have survived into the 120s. If we Caerleon has a predominance of oxidised wares. It accept this scenario then, we may expect Black-bur­ seems reasonable to suggest that the Caerleon potters nished ware to have arrived in this part of Wales by the produced these oxidised but non-slipped wares for their early 2nd century. local market but that, unlike the slipped pottery, its More work clearly needs to be done before we can distribution is restricted to the locality. see the pattern of BB 1 distribution clearly. At present, Those familiar with the pattern of ceramics in however, it would appear that the ware may be ex­ northern Britain, or indeed in North Wales, would pected on coastal sites in South Wales from the very 116 Peter Webster xu 4~

'--- 6

I \ 9 ~ _u 7"-J ~ 11~~

12 tt~__ :j, \: 13 ~'

~~- , -', 16 15 ) ! \' JIt

(~....:; ..•. -.;";,-' ~ 19W

20 -I

~ ______2_2 __~ ___-_- __'~_-_-_-~--~

CAERLEON WARE Fig. 4. Caerleon ware Peter Webster 117 beginning of Roman occupation. Further inland and (except at Caerleon as stated above) was reduced, further North the ware may be Trajanic in appearance. usually to a light grey colour, and sandy in texture. A There seems no reason at present to suppose that it is family of local grey ware forms was produced as shown not predominantly Hadrianic and later in North Wales. by Fig. 6 which is a highly selective series produced It would seem unwise to use BB 1 as the sole indicator from the fuller range to be published in the Usk volume of Hadrianic occupation anywhere in the southern half (Manning 1993). Typical are wide-mouthed jars (per­ of Wales and it may be that some sites dated in this way haps originally inspired from the Severn Valley) and are in need of re-assessment. flanged bowls probably intended to be 'non-spill' as The corollary of the BB 1 influx is a marked change they constrict at the rim. Although forms reminiscent in the pattern of local pottery production. The reducing of and probably derived from BBI do occur (eg Fig. number and size of forts from the Trajanic period 6,7), the tendency is to leave the Black-burnished onwards will have meant that the potters in the civil producers to what they do best (in other words, cooking settlements attached to the forts will have been forced pots, casseroles and dishes) and to fill gaps in the to move on. However, a local pottery making tradition market with storage jars, handled jars, mixing bowls does emerge in the later 1st and early 2nd century and and sundry otller containers. Other outside influences can be seen throughout the remainder of the Roman can be seen in Fig. 6,14 which seems to be remotely period. The most common locally produced fabric derived from Gallo-Belgic prototypes.

1

.. - 3

2 ) , 4 7

5 PUMPSAINT L ~

Fig. 5. Selected pottery from a pit at Pumpsainr 118 Peter Webster

2

5 (~ 4 ( i

6 <'\ ? I 7 /~~ l 8 r-\ 9

10

11

13

\ 14 E-=-l 15\:"' __~ ___ ) SOUTH WALES GREY WARE

Fig. 6. South Wales grey ware Peter Webster 119

Unfortunately, although we can see the distribution in the area occupied into the third and fourth quarters of what I have termed 'South Wales Grey Ware', of the 4th century, calcite gritted ware of probable East roughly within the tribal area of the Silures and the Midlands manufacture makes it appearance. These are eastern part of Demetan territory, we have little idea the rilled jars often with hooked rims familiar from where it was made. To date, only two kiln complexes other areas of southern Britain (cf Wheeler 1932, No. are known, both of the later 3rd to early 4th century. 57 from Lydney with Frere 1984, No. 2190 from These are at Llanedeyrn, on the outskirts of present­ Verulamium). Although correctly categorised as a type day Cardiff (Vyner & Evans 1978) and at Caldicot, not fossil for later occupation in our area, this ware does, far from Caerwent (Barnett et al1990). The locations, nevertheless, appear in very small quantities indeed. near major markets but removed from them, on what The area can contribute little to the problem of just could well be villa-estates, may be typical and explain how long Roman pottery continued to be used, as sites the absence of other discoveries in an area where the with proven continuity into the immediately post-Roman predominant agriculture is pastoral. The products of period are lacking. One may note, however, that the area the two centres, although almost contemporary, show does have a number of the so-called' Dark Age' sites and differences. Llanedeyrn specialised in handled jars, that these produce the African red-slip ware, Byzantine storage jars and flanged bowls. Caldicot had a wider amphorae and Merovingian pottery typical of high status range but its speciality, unusually for local kilns, was sites of the period (see Knight 1984, Fig. 53 for a graphic imitations of BB1 jar forms. Both sites show some representation of such imports to Dinas Powis). Pottery evidence for earlier production. Llanedeyrn yields a importation continued, therefore, even if, as seems tankard (Vyner & Evans 1978, No. 18) which must probable, local pottery production ceased. surely be 2nd century or earlier. At Caldicot, pottery from outside the immediate vicinity of the kilns (Barnett APPENDIX et al 1990, Nos. 48-65) is noticeably different and Further details on vessels published in Figures 1-6 probably earlier; so it is likely that other kilns lie (or more probably lay) in the vicinity. Figure 1. The published vessels are derived from a type series With the exception of the local pottery, the pattern produced by Kevin Greene and published in Manning 1981. in our area from the 2nd to the 3rd century is much as Full discussion with a statistical analysis appears in Manning one would expect. BB 1 continues to appear throughout 1993. The vessels illustrated here are selected on a subjective assessment of what appears most frequently and widely within the period. Colour coats from the Argonne, Koln, the fortress. Lezoux and the Moselle are present but in very small quantities. The Gaulish and Verulamium sources of Figure 2. The Caerau, Beulah assemblage was excavated in mortaria give way to local Welsh sources and Mancetter­ 1965 by Professor Barri Jones assisted by Professor Anthony Hartshill. East Gaulish samian is scarce, even at Birley. A summary appears in JRS 46 (1965) pp 196-7 along Caerleon, so there must have been a real gap in the with a defence section drawing with a further discussion in market after the cessation of Central Gaulish imports. Jarrett 1969, 46-8. The pottery has not previously been Among indigenous colour coats, New Forest ware published and is summarised below. The list includes some appears in small quantities in the extreme South East of vessels not illustrated here. Trench and layer numbers are given after each piece. our area but very rarely indeed elsewhere; only the Nene Valley and Oxfordshire make any real impact Period 1 contexts: and, of these, Oxford is by far the most important. It 1. Everted rim jar in light red fabric. 1.16. Gulley. supplied both red-slipped ware and white mortaria 2. (Not illustrated). Samian. Form 30, South Gaulish. The from the mid 3rd century and these two products are rim and a small portion of ovolo survives. A Flavian present regularly (though not in large quantity) in most date would be appropriate. 1.16. Gulley. major groups of the later 3rd and 4th century. Period 1 demolition used as the base for Period 2: To one accustomed to the dramatic change that we 3. (Not illustrated). Samian. Form 27, South Gaulish. see in north British pottery supply in the later 4th Probably Flavian. 1.12. century, the pattern in South Wales is remarkable for 4. Flanged bowl in light grey fabric. 1.12. its lack of change. Oxfordshire ware, BB1, Mancetter­ 5. Mortarium in buff fabric. The type is represented by Hartshill mortaria, the occasional Nene Valley piece Gillam 1970, type 238 and is thought to have been (including the late colour-coated kitchen wares) all made in the Pas de Calais area of North Gaul. I am appear. There is, however, no discernable break in grateful to Mrs K.F. Hartley for examining the piece BB1 supply and the late site at Lydney (only just across and commenting on it. Cf Hartley in Holbrook & Bidwell 1991, 198-201 and especially C25. cAD 70-100.1.12. the present national boundary) appears to have been 6. (Not illustrated). Samian. A South Gaulish rim frag­ receiving the ware into the late 4th century. The situ­ ment, probably of form 37. 1.12. ation elsewhere is not quite as clear due to a reduction 7. Everted rim jar in a smooth light grey fabric. 1.4. in number of suitable assemblages but does not appear 8. The base of a rouletted jar in a similar fabric to No. 7 to be any different. Both at Lydney and at other sites above and possibly from the same vessel. 1.4. 120 Peter Webster

9. Jar in light grey fabric. 1.4. 19. Amphitheatre. Wheeler 1928, No. 40 . 10. Mortarium in buff fabric. This is of Gillam 238 type as 20. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos. 306-7. No. 5 above. cAD 70-100. 1.4. 21. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, No. 303. 22. Amphitheatre. Wheeler 1928, No. 25. Period 2: 11. (Not illustrated). Samian. Form 18, South Gaulish. Figure 5. All vessels in this figure were published in Burnham Flavian. IV.2. Intervallum. & Burnham, 1986. All derive from a pit thought to have been 12. Lid in light red fabric. IV .2. Intervallum. filled at the time of the demolition of the main fort at Pumpsaint, Dyfed. At the time of publication there appeared From the area outside the main ditches: to be a discrepancy between the dates offered by the samian 13. Glass pillar-moulded bowl. 1.6. Area between the main and that of the Black-burnished ware. With our increasing ditches and the outermost 'trap' ditch. awareness of the presence of BB 1 in South Wales from the 1st 14. Jar in Black-burnished ware. 1.7 . Outermost 'trap' ditch. century onwards the discrepancy tends to disappear and the date suggested for the group is now c AD 100. Vessels Unstratified: published are as follows (B&B86 = Burnham and Burnham 15. (Not illustrated). Samian. Form 27, South Gaulish. 1.1. 1986): Topsoil. 16. Flanged bowl in light grey fabric. 1.1 . Topsoil. 1. B&B86, No . 11 . This is one of five samian vessels 17. (Not illustrated). Samian. Form 29, South Gaulish. A from the pit (ibid Nos. 11-15) all of which are South fragment of upper zone showing a series of simple Gaulish in manufacture and three of which are repre­ festoons containing spiral ornaments. The 'heavy' na­ sented by substantial portions. With samian from no ture of the decoration would accord with a Flavian date. other centre represented and taking the likely date of c AD 70-85. IV.l. Topsoil . the pieces into account, it seems unlikely that the pieces were deposited substantially after c AD 100. The Caerau assemblage is typical of Welsh forts occupied in 2. B&B86, No. 16. cream fabric. the Flavian and Flavian-Trajanic period. The Black-bur­ 3. B&B86, No. 17 . BBI. The decoration of diagonal lines nished jar, No. 14 comes from a context which cannot be in panels alternating with wavy lines has not previously safely ascribed to any period, but the total lack of BB1 from been noted in Wales . However, it does occur on a BB1 contexts of either period within the fort tends to suggest that jar with countersunk handles from Exeter (Holbrook & the ware was a late arrival on the site. Bidwell 1991, Fig. 29,24.1.) and on a south-western BB jar from the same site (ibid Fig. 41,34.2, 'early 2nd Figure 3. The histogram is one of several in Webster 1990. century'). 4. B&B86, No. 18. BBI. Figure 4. All the Caerleon Ware vessels illustrated appear in 5. B&B86, No. 21. BB1. The vessel from the Museum the appropriate section of Manning 1993. All vessels are from site at Caerleon (Zienkiewicz above Fig. 8, 91) pro­ Caerleon unless otherwise stated. Sources are as follows: vides a parallel in a Trajanic context.

1. Amphitheatre. Wheeler 1928, No. 37 . Figure 6. All vessels in this representative series of South 2. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos. 212-3; Boon Wales Grey Ware appear in the relevant type series in Manning 1966, Fig. 3,3. 1993. Sources for the illustrations are as follows: 3. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos. 214-6; Boon 1966, Fig. 3,4. 1. Whitton. Jarrett & Wrathmell 1981, No. 177. 4. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, No. 137. 2. Usk. Context EDD (1) . Manning 1993, SWG series, 5. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos. 132-6; Boon 8.2. 1966, Fig.3,5. 3. Whitton. Jarrett & Wrathmell 1981, No. 398. 6. Amphitheatre. Wheeler 1928, No . 35 . 4. LJanedeyrn Kiln. Vyner & Evans 1978, No. 9. 7. Usk, Unstratified. Manning 1993, Caerleon series, 9.3. 5. Usk. Context lOGIC (5&8) . Manning 1993, SWG se­ 8. Fortress Baths. Zienkiewicz 1986, Fig. 24, Group 14, ries, 25.1. No . 12. 6. Usk. context PEB (3). Manning 1993, SWG series, 9. Fortress Baths. Zienkiewicz 1986, Fig. 36,13. 26.2. 10. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos. 142-6. 7. Whitton. Jarrett & Wrathmell 1981, No. 473. 11. Quay. Boon 1978, 17, Fig. 12,1. 8. LJanedeyrn Kiln. Vyner & Evans 1978, No. 4. 12. Amphitheatre. Wheeler 1928, No. 36. 9. LJanedeyrn Kiln. Vyner & Evans 1978, No. 1. 13. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos. 182-3 . 10. Caerleon Amphitheatre. Wheeler 1928, No. 41. 14. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos. 177-81. 11. Whitton. Jarrett & Wrathmell 1981, No. 340. 15. Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, No. 113. 12. Biglis. Parkhouse 1988, Fig. 15,122. 16 . Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, Nos . 7-10. 13. Whitton. Jarrett & Wrathmell 1981, No. 681. 17. Usk. context 69 AH (1). Manning 1993, Caerleon se­ 14. Whitton. Jarrett & Wrathmell 1981, No. 271. ries, 17.5. 15. Caerleon, Prysg Field. Nash-Williams 1932, No . 322. 18. Usk. context FNF (30). Manning 1993, Caerleon se­ ries, 18.2. P. Webster. March 1992 Peter Webster 121

Bibliography Arthur, P. 1978: The lead glazed wares of Roman Britain', Manning, W.H. 1981: Report on the excavations at Usk in Arthur & Marsh 1978, 293-355. 1965-1976. The Fortress Excavations 1968-1971, Cardiff Arthur, P. and Marsh, G. (Eds) 1978: Early fine wares in 1981. Roman Britain, Brit Archaeol Rep Brit ser, 57, Oxford Manning, W.H. 1989: Report on the Excavations at Usk 1965- 1978. 1976. The Fortress Excavations 1972-1974, Cardiff 1989. Barnett et al 1990: C .Barnett, P. Stanley, R. Trett, Manning, W.H. (Ed) 1993: Report on the Excavations at Usk P.V.Webster, 'Romano-British pottery kilns at Caldicot, 1965-1976. The Roman Pottery. Cardiff. Gwent', Archaeol J, 147, 118-147 & microfiche M2/57- Nash-Williams, V.E. 1932: 'The Roman Legionary fortress 64. at Caerleon in Monmouthshire. Report on the excavations Boon, G.C. 1966: 'Legionary ware at Caerleon?', Archaeol carried out in the Prysg Field, 1927-9. Part Ill.' Archaeol Cambrensis, 115, 45-66. Cambrensis, 87, 265-349. Boon, G.C. (Ed) 1978: Monographs & Collections I. Roman Nash-Williams, V.E. 1939: 'An Iron Age coastal camp at Sites, Cambrian Archaeol Assoc, Cardiff 1978. Sudbrook, near Severn Tunnel, Monmouthshire', Archaeol Boon, G.C. 1987: The Legionary Fortress at Caerleon - Isca, Cambrensis, 94, 42-79. Caerleon 1987. Owen-John, H. et al forthcoming: Report on excavations at Boon, G.C. and Brewer, R.J. 1981: 'Two Central Gaulish Loughor. bottles from Pennal, Merioneth and early Roman move­ Parkhouse, J. 1988: 'Excavation at Biglis, South Glamorgan' in ment in Cardigan Bay, Bull Board Celtic Stud, 29, 363- Robinson 1988, 3-64. 367. Robinson, D.M. (Ed) 1988: Biglis, Caldicot and Llandough. Burnham, B.C. and Burnham, H.B. 1986: 'Recent survey on Three Late Iron Age and Romano-British sites in South­ the fort and vicus at Pumpsaint', Carmarthenshire Antiq, East Wales. Excavations 1977-9, Brit Archaeol Rep, Brit 22, 3-13. ser, 188, Oxford. Burnham, B.C. and Davies, J.L. (Eds.) 1990: Conquest, Savory, H.N. (Ed) 1984: Glamorgan County History. Vol.ll. coexistence and change. Recent Work in Roman Wales, Early Glamorgan. Prehistory and Early History, Cardiff. Lampeter 1990. Spencer, B. 1983: 'Limestone-Tempered Pottery from South Detsicas, A. (Ed) 1973: Current Research in Romano-British Wales in the Late Iron Age and Early Roman Period', Bull Coarse Pottery, Co Brit Archaeol Res Rep 10, London Board Celtic Stud, 30, 405-419. 1973. Vyner, B.E. and Evans, G.C. 1978: 'Excavation of a Roman Frere, S.S. 1984: Verulamium Excavations. Vol. Ill. Oxford pottery kiln at Llanedeyrn, Cardiff' in Boon 1978, 120- Univ. Comm Archaeol, Mon 1, Oxford 1984. 129. Greene, K.T. 1973: 'The pottery from Usk' in Detsicas Webster, P.V. 1984: 'The Roman Period' in Savory 1984, 1973, 25-37. 277-314. Greene, K.T. 1979: The Pre-Flavianfine wares, Excavations Webster, P.V. 1990a: 'Pottery and Trade in Roman Wales' at Usk 1965-1976, Cardiff 1979. in Burnham and Davies 1990, 138-149. Holbrook, N. and Bidwell, P.T. 1991 : Roman finds from Webster, P. 1990b: 'The Caerleon Samian Project', Archae­ Exeter, Exeter Archaeol Rep 4, Exeter 1991. ology in Wales, 30, 17-18. Heywood, B. 1991: 'The Roman fort at Penydarren, Glamor­ Webster, P. 1991: 'Pottery supply to the Roman North­ gan', Bull Board Celtic Stud, 38, 167-190. West', J Roman Pottery Stud, 4,11-18. Jarrett, M.G. (Ed) 1969: The Roman Frontier in Wales, Wheeler, R.E.M. and Wheeler T.V. 1932: Excavation of the Revised Ed. Cardiff 1969. Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman site in Lydney Park, Jarrett, M.G. and Wrathmell S. 1981: Whitton. An Iron-Age Gloucestershire, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiq London, 9, and Roman farmstead in South Glamorgan, Cardiff 1981. London. Knight, J.K. 1984: 'Glamorgan A.D.400-11D: Archaeology Zienkiewicz, J.D. 1986: The Legionary Fortress Baths at and History' in Savory 1984, 315-364. Caerleon. ll. The Finds, Cardiff.