SECTION 3.2:CLAYDON PIKE ROMAN POTTERY by Sarah Green and Paul Booth

With Contributions By Edward Biddulph, Brenda Dickinson, Kay Hartley, Peter Webster and David Williams

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION
Acknowledgements

3.2.2 QUANTITIES AND GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

3.2.3 FABRICS
Introduction
Samian Ware by P. V. Webster
Fine wares (F)
Amphorae (A) by D F Williams
Mortaria (M)
White Firing Wares (W)
White slipped wares (Q)
Early ‘Belgic type’ wares (E)
Oxidised ‘coarse’ wares (O)
Reduced coarse wares (R)
Black-burnished wares (B)
Calcareous tempered wares (C)

3.2.4 FORMS
Catalogue of illustrated vessels
Amphorae (Class A)
Flagons and jugs (Class B)
Jars (Class C)
Indeterminate jar or bowl types (Class D)
Beakers (Class E)
Cups (Class F)
Tankards and mugs (Class G)
Bowls (Class H)
Bowls/Dishes (Class I)
Dishes (Class J)
Mortaria (Class K)
Lids (Class L)
Miscellaneous Forms (Class M)
Other

3.2.5 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Sources of pottery supply

3.2.6 APPENDIX 1: Claydon Pike: Roman pottery from Pit 1989 by Edward Biddulph

3.2.7 APPENDIX 2: Catalogue of illustrated vessels for selected chronologically significant Trench 13 pottery assemblages

3.2.8 REFERENCES

Top of Page

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION

The excavations of Longdoles Field from 1979-1984 produced approximately 1,158,705 g of Iron Age and Roman pottery, ranging in date from the middle Iron Age to the late Roman period but concentrating principally on the late Iron Age and early and middle Roman periods. All the pottery was subject to a preliminary examination in which basic information was recorded for each context group. This information (comprising the total weight of pottery recovered, the date range and a qualitative record of the major fabric and form groups) was entered on an INGRES relational database at the Oxford University Computer Science Department and provided preliminary dating evidence for the major site phases.

The weight of pottery from each context provided by this initial record was one of the factors considered in selecting feature groups for detailed quantification, and also provides some basis for a comparative examination of the concentrations of particular classes of pottery over the whole excavated area. Apart from fulfilling a minimum weight qualification (50 g was chosen arbitrarily), contexts were chosen for quantification on grounds of their stratigraphic significance (ie whether detailed examination could elucidate some of the problems of site phasing) and that they provided a representative sample of all feature types, from all areas of the site throughout its history. On this basis some 430 kg, approximately one third (by weight) of the total pottery recovered, was recorded in detail, context by context. All samian ware and amphora sherds were recorded regardless of context.

This work was carried out by Sarah Green in the 1980s using a recording system with a unique series of codes for fabrics and vessel types. Large parts of a draft report were prepared by Sarah Green on the basis of these data. After work on the project was revived the quantification of the samian ware and amphorae was reworked (by Kayt Brown) to provide data comparable with those for other ware groups in the assemblage. All the form and fabric data were recoded to bring them into line with the pottery recording system applied to most OA sites in the region since 1990. A number of groups of key importance for the phasing of the site were reexamined and the fabric, form and phase data recalculated. The overall report was reworked, augmented and updated by Paul Booth.

The original fabric series is subsumed within the OA regional fabric series held at Oxford and the pottery database (having evolved from INGRES to dBaseIII and then Access) and other data are lodged with the project Archive.

Top of Page

Acknowledgements

Thanks are owed to David Williams, Kay Hartley, Peter Webster and his dedicated evening class and Brenda Dickinson for their specialist advice. Wendy Page, Eleanor Beard and Danyon Rey prepared and mounted the pottery drawings that form the basis of the present illustrations. Simon Palmer, Sebastian Rahtz, Debbie Duncan and Lauren Gilmour assisted Sarah Green with the computing and quantification and Jackie Carvell deciphered the original manuscript. Edward Biddulph, Kayt Brown, Grace Jones and Alex Smith all provided significant assistance in the process of revising and updating the report.

3.2.2 QUANTITIES AND GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

The breakdown of the pottery assemblage in terms of weight by area is shown in Table 1. The material concentrated in four main areas (Trenches 13, 17, 19 and 29), which together accounted for 99.5% of the total pottery. The sample examined in detail, drawn from these four areas and also including the great majority of the small group from Trench 27, the circular shrine, totaled some 35,225 sherds (Table 2). Table 1 shows that, as would have been expected, the highest densities of pottery were encountered in Trenches 13, 17 and 19, the focal areas of the settlement.

These three trenches produced very similar quantities of pottery in relation to their excavated areas. Only the assemblage from Trench 29 (and the small group from Trench 27)shows a significant reduction in the quantity of pottery in relation to the area examined. This may reflect in part a lower level of examination of features in this Trench, but increased distance from the focal area of the settlement was probably also a significant factor.

The two largest trench assemblages (13 and 17) had the lowest proportion of material extracted for detailed recording. Nevertheless the totals thus examined were broadly in proportion to the importance of these trenches in terms of area. The smaller trench assemblages were examined more intensively in order to provide fully quantified datasets that were sufficiently large to have some statistical validity.

The three principal measures employed to assess the relative frequency of pottery in the main excavated areas, sherd count, weight and RE, show considerable consistency across the trenches. The average sherd weight for the site as a whole, 12.2 g, is not particularly high, particularly when it is considered that it includes amphorae, and suggests a generally well-fragmented assemblage. There is some variation in average sherd weight from one trench to another, with a low figure in Trench 19 (the assemblage from Trench 27 is too small for the figures to be particularly meaningful) and a relatively high one in the more marginal Trench 29. There is no obvious explanation for the latter figure, though it is possible that a lack of late Roman activity here resulted in a lesser level of redeposition and consequent reduction of sherd size than was the case in other parts of the site. A rough calculation based on the figures from the detailed sample recording suggests an estimated original sherd total for the whole excavation of c 100,000.

As already indicated, it was hoped that the context groups selected for detailed recording would prove representative of the site assemblage as a whole. It is therefore worth noting the variation in representation of the two major fabric classes for which comparative data are available; samian ware and amphorae. The samian ware total for the whole site was some 1984 sherds, of which 1482 (74.7%) occurred in the fully recorded groups. The comparable data for weight (more valid, since this was the primary measure for the full site assemblage) indicate that 72.7% of the samian was from groups subsequently fully recorded, against a site average of only 37.1% for all pottery. The representation of amphorae in the fully recorded sample is not dissimilar, with 62.9% (by weight) of the material occurring in these context groups, though interestingly this sample only contained 42.9% of all the amphora sherds from the site. It does seem, therefore, that the selection of contexts for detailed recording involved a degree of ‘cherry picking’, with a bias towards groups containing samian ware and amphorae. This suggestion is supported by the high incidence of samian and amphora sherds in unphased contexts (samian accounted for 39.4% of all sherds from such contexts, for example), suggesting that these groups were selected for recording on the basis of ceramic interest rather than stratigraphic importance. This may have been subconscious, and is in any case understandable, but it may reduce the value of the assemblage as a whole in terms of comparison with other sites from the region (see further below). Any such bias should be less significant, however, in terms of assessment of intra-site assemblage variation.

Top of Page

3.2.3 FABRICS

Introduction

Some 84 fabric types were identified, divided into 11 major groups for publication (for further discussion of this approach and more detailed fabric descriptions see general introduction and Table 3). Analysis was done on the basis of macroscopic identification but it is estimated that at least 40% of the sherds were examined using a x10 hand lens and 10% using a x20 binocular microscope (fresh breaks in all cases).

Soil conditions at Claydon Pike were not ideal for the preservation of pottery, particularly of surface finishes. It is therefore possible that fabrics such as mica dusted, lead glazed, and some of the colour-coated wares have not always been recognised.

The principal data relating to fabrics are tabulated. Overall quantities of each fabric by the three major measures are presented in Table 3. The relative representation of fabrics by trench (area) is shown in terms of sherd count in Table 4and the changing occurrence of fabrics by phase for all trenches (as a percentage of sherd count) is given in Table 5.

Fabrics are discussed below in relation to the general ware groups to which they are assigned, in the sequence set out in Tables 3, 4 and 5 and drawing on the information in these tables. Specialist contributions on selected fabrics and ware groups (on samian ware, amphorae and mortaria), are placed within this sequence. This discussion covers only the main points and not all fabrics are mentioned individually.

Top of Page

Samian Ware

by P. V. Webster with assistance from the University College, Cardiff Department of Extra-Mural Studies Samian Group

Introduction

The samian pottery from Claydon Pike consists, in the main, of small fragments (and many minute scraps). Very few contexts yielded large numbers of sherds. Plain forms predominated with few large pieces of decorated ware. In these circumstance a complete published list of all samian is impractical. All sherds were listed by context on record sheets and this information transferred to the computer record of the site. In this account information derived from the archive will be found, where relevant, in the structural report above and only a complete list of potters stamps and details of all the larger fragments of decorated ware are given below. The remaining information is summarised in a series of tables with commentary below.

Acknowledgements

I should like to thank members of the University College, Cardiff, Department of Extra-Mural Studies Samian group who worked on the Claydon Pike samian and in particular, P Davies, N Hancock, L John, and D Rees, A Smith, R Taylor and H Weeks upon whose work on the decorated ware part of this report is based.

Commentary

Pieces with their provenance distribution summarised in Table 6 comprise all fragments for which an identification of source and form could be ascertained. Most, but not all, identifications are certain (some are marked with a query in the archive). Where a single context contained several fragments all certainly from the same vessel these were originally counted as a single piece but with so many small fragments, many identifiable although not from rim sherds, no other means of ascertaining the minimum number of vessels represented has been practical. It should be noted that in subsequent re-recording separate fragments were counted as such to bring the records for samian ware into line with those for the rest of the pottery from the site. RE data were recorded for the same reason. It is recognised that these measures underestimate the original number of vessels present on the site, but achieving comparability with quantification techniques for other pottery types was considered to be of paramount importance.

In Table 7 the occurrence of vessel types is presented by Trench and phase, with quantification by REs. The presence of vessels not represented by rims is also indicated, as is the total quantity of each type per Trench including the material not within the fully recorded sample. Comparison of these figures shows that there are no significant differences between the character of the samples and the complete assemblages, except in the case of Trench 19 in which, contrary to the general trend across the site (see above), rather less than half the total samian ware fell within the fully recorded sample. Even here, however, the relative representation of some types was affected, rather than the fundamental character of the group, and the total trench assemblage was insufficiently small to have any impact on understanding of the overall site samian ware assemblage.

In Table 8 the relative percentages of vessel types by trench are juxtaposed to allow comparison of vessel incidence across the site, using the overall trench totals rather than the data from the fully recorded sample. The table also gives a correlation with broad vessel class categories for the purpose of integrating the samian types with the broader evidence for vessel use.

These tables show that the overwhelming majority of the pottery was plain ware. Decorated forms formed only 5.7% of the RE total found and it will be seen that although there was a large variety of forms represented, many of these were present in small numbers only and that vessels in the form 18 to 31 range (over 42% of the RE total) and the cup forms 27 and 33 (36.5% of the RE total) together dominated the assemblage. Given the chronological range of the material (see below) the dearth of decorated forms is unusual and must, one presumes, reflect some unusual characteristic of the usage of the site. The possible religious nature of some of the structures found may be relevant here although religious groups who prefer the austere to the ornate in their belongings would, one would have thought, have been the exception rather than the rule. Can it simply be that we are seeing here a reflection of the relative poverty of this rural site? If, as seems likely, decorated samian cost more than plain ware, could the inhabitants of the locality only afford the latter?

The overall quantity of samian represented is reasonably large although this is in the main a product of the very large area excavated. Individual contexts rarely yielded many fragments and a great many produced only small pieces or minute scraps. This renders the identification of both form and source difficult and greatly increases the possibility of small fragments being either residual or even intrusive. It must be said, therefore, that many of the pieces form an inadequate basis for the dating of their particular contexts. Overall, however, the assemblage should be more reliable in terms of the site dating as a whole and the assemblage from individual trenches seems also to be large enough to allow us to draw some reasonably reliable conclusions. To this end Tables 7 and 8 have been divided by trench.

It may be noted that, even given the small quantities of decorated vessels recovered, numbers of form 29 are very low (there were no rim sherds of this form) compared with those of form 37. Numbers of form 15/17 are also low. Thus, although there are a few vessels which could be pre-Flavian (forms 24/5 and Ritterling 12) the overall pattern would suggest that occupation commenced in the Flavian period and perhaps not much before c AD 80. The plentiful Central and East Gaulish pottery shows that occupation continued through the 2nd century and the numbers of such forms as 31R and 45 (along with smaller numbers of 32, 72 and 79/80) all support occupation at least into the late 2nd century or beyond.

If we compare the relative quantities of pottery from the different sources as they appear in each of the main areas excavated (Table 6) we see that South Gaulish pottery is present in markedly larger proportions in Trench 13 when compared with the other areas. We may also note that the early forms (24/5, Ritterling 12 and 15/17) also derive solely from Trench 13 and it would be reasonable to assume that this was the area first to be occupied.

Trench 29 also has a relatively high proportion of South Gaulish pottery and so should have seen relatively intense later 1st century occupation. The proportion of South Gaulish ware from the Trench 19 and from Trench 17 suggest a 1st century occupation which was either shorter or less intense. The relatively lower quantities of Central and East Gaulish pottery in Trench 13 are probably less significant as all areas yielded pottery extending into the late 2nd century in date (compare for example the proportions of the late form 45 in each of the areas as seen in Tables 7 and 8).

Illustrated Sherds (Fig.3.2.1: Samian )

Plain Ware

Only one fragment of plain ware was sufficiently unusual to be worthy of illustration:

1. Bowl in a pinkish orange fabric with an orange-red slip, probably of East Gaulish origin. The rim is missing but there is the beginning of a handle just below the offset. The vessel is most likely to be a variant of Dragendorff’s form 34 (cf. Oswald and Pryce 1920, Pl LII; also Stanfield 1929, Fig. 13, no. 61 and pp.140 and 148). Unlike the vessel illustrated by Stanfield this is in a normal samian fabric. Possibly Antonine. From Trench 13.

Decorated Ware

The following abbreviations are used:

O. (figure type in) Oswald 1937

S & S Stanfield and Simpson 1958

From Trench 13.

2. Form 37. South Gaulish. A narrow ovolo has a straight tongue ending in a rosette. Below is a row of chevrons delineated by wavy lines above and below. A fragment of the main decorative scheme shows a half medallion containing a small animal figure (possibly a lion). The chevron may be that used by Meddillus (cf. Knorr 1952, Taf. 39, C and D and Knorr 1919, Taf. 55, B). Vessels of this general style are to be found in the Pompeii Hoard (see, for instance, Atkinson 1914, no. 55). c. AD 75-90.

3. Form 37. Central Gaulish (from les Martres-de-Veyre). The ovolo is replaced by a row of minute dolphins arranged head to tail, a motif used by Drusus I (Potter X-3) as in S & S, Pl. 12, no. 142 and Terrisse (1968), Pl. IX, no. 10066. The decoration contains a seated figure with a cup (a reduced version of 0.571; cf. Terrisse 1968, Pl. V, no. 10059) and a double and triple leaf ornament used in conjunction as ibid. Pl. XIII, no. 454. Drusus also used the six-petal rosette. c. AD 100-120.

4. Form 37. Central Gaulish. The ovolo has been replaced by a triple leaf ornament, possibly Rogers (1974) G.120. The central tongue of the ornament was beaded and is reminiscent of part of an ornament used by Vegetus (S & S, Fig. 14, 20). Substitution of decorative details for the ovolo appears mainly in the first half of the 2nd century. Early/mid 2nd century.

From Trench 17.

5. Form 37. South Gaulish. Basal portion showing a basal wreath over which was panel decoration. A panel containing a hare (O.2079) and hound survives with a fragment of a panel containing a half medallion to the left. The vertical borders terminate in six-pointed rosettes. The basal wreath is formed from the triple leaf shown with a list of its users by Knorr (1952, Taf. 49, F with detail and list to right). c. AD 75-100.

6. Form 37. Central Gaulish. Fragments of a bowl stamped ALBUCI. The die is of Albucius of Lezoux. The ovolo is his ovolo 1 (S & S, Fig. 35) but without the border below. The freestyle decoration shows, from left to right, a panther (O.1511), a warrior and a further panther (O.1533). The warrior appears in S & S, Pl. 120, no. 3, a closely similar piece. c. AD 150-180.

7. Form 37. Central Gaulish. A triple leaf motif, possibly Rogers (1974), G217, has been placed on its side and top to bottom apparently to form a continuous frieze immediately below the ovolo and wavy line border. Below this frieze is a small circle and ?beaded circle and what appears to be the hind quarters of a very large animal (perhaps a large lion). The ovolo may have had a rosette at the end of the tongue. Probably early to mid 2nd century.

From Trench 19

8. Form 37. South Gaulish. A triple tongued ovolo over panel decoration with one panel containing a running hound (probably O.1925). There is stylised grass below the hound and a tendril affixed to the wavy line border above it. For a similar motif see Knorr 1919, Taf.18, D (stamped by Calvus); also ibid. Taf.57, H (by Mercator). c. AD 75-90.

9. Form 37. South Gaulish. The vessel lacks an ovolo but originally had strap handles on the rim (cf. Stanfield 1929, no. 7 - there is no evidence for a spout on our example but it is sufficiently incomplete for such a feature to have been on the lost portion). The upper zone contains a running dog (possibly O.1925) and a fragmentary hare. The three-pronged design and the ornament below both the hound and the hare appear all to have been made using an ornament illustrated as Knorr 1919, Td.7, centre (OF COTOI; see also ibid. Taf. 27, 6 & Taf.44,10). The lower zone consists of large 13-petal flowers (cf. ibid Td.12 - Bassus, Coelus, Meddillus). c. AD 75-90.

10. Form 37. East Gaulish, Rheinzabern ware. The lower portion of a bowl showing panel decoration with to the left the edge of a medallion separated by a beaded border from a panel containing the archer O.272 (Ricken and Fischer 1963, M.174) and a running stag. The stag is incomplete but appears to be similar to one used by Comitialis V (Ricken 1948, Taf. 96-102 passim) who is among those potters who uses the archer. See also comments after no. 11 below.

11. Form 37. East Gaulish, Rheinzabern ware. Ovolo above a fragmentary medallion with an astragalus and ?half medallion to the right. The ovolo is similar to Ricken and Fischer 1963, E.17 used by a variety of potters including Comitialis V (cf. no. 10 above). 2385/C/2. Another East Gaulish bowl rim with a fragment of worn ovolo from context 2472 (*Trench 13) may be from the same bowl.

It may be noted that although the motifs appearing on nos. 10 and 11 are none of them restricted to only one potter, all are used by Comitialis V and it is likely, given the small quantity of decorated samian reaching the site that all the fragments listed under 10 and 11 are from the same bowl. The date is likely to be late 2nd to early 3rd century.

The Potters Stamps by Brenda Dickinson

Each entry gives: potter (i, ii, etc where homonyms are involved), die number, form of vessel, reading, pottery of origin and context number.

(a), (b) and (c) indicate:

(a) A stamp attested at the pottery in question.

(b) Not attested at the pottery in question, though the potter is known to have worked there.

(c) Assigned to the pottery on the evidence of fabric, distribution, etc.

1. Attius ii 8b 18/31 ATTIVS[.F]. The fabrics associated with this stamp suggest that it comes from a die used at Les Martres-de-Veyre in the Trajanic or early-Hadrianic period. It may belong to the Attius who later worked at Lezoux. 2216

2. Borillus i 5b 31 [BORILL] IOF Lezoux (a). This stamp occurs widely in Antonine Scotland. It has also been noted in the late-Antonine Aquincum Hoard and was used on forms 18/31R, 27 and 79/80. c. AD 150-180. 687/11

3. Butturrus 2a 33 BVT[TVRRI] Les Martres-de-Veyre (a). A stamp of one of the later Les Martres potters. It occurs in Antonine Scotland and in the Verulamium second fire deposits (after c. AD 150). There is one example on form 79. c. AD 140-165. 1640

4. Celsianus 1a 31 [CELSI]NAI.OF Lezoux (a). A stamp used frequently on mid- to late-Antonine forms such as 31R, 79, 79R and 80. c. AD 160-190. 2430

5. Daminus 3b 80 DA[MINI.M] Lezoux (a). A stamp from a die used on forms 31, 33, 79 and 80. Mid- to late-Antonine. 2113/2

6. Dontio 6a 27 DONTIOIIICI La Graufesenque (b). Most of the site evidence for this stamp comes from Flavian foundations such as Brough-on-Humber, Caerleon, Carlisle and Chester. There is one example from the pre-Flavian cemeteries at Nijmegen. c. AD 65-90. 633/B/2

7. Germanus i 27c or c' 18 GERMA[NIF] or GERMA[NI] La Graufesenque (a). Stamps from both versions of this die occur at Flavian foundations, including Segontium (27c) and the fortresses at Nijmegen and York (27c'). c. AD 70-90. 522/3

8. Malledo 1a 33 MALLEDON retrograde Lezoux (a). Malledo’s stamps occur on Hadrian’s Wall, in the Verulamium second fire deposits and on forms 31R and 79. This particular stamp has been noted on form 80. c. AD 150-180. U/S Tr13

9-10. Marcellinus ii 2a 31; 79 or Ludowici Tg MARCELLINIT Lezoux (a). A stamp noted in late-Antonine groups from New Fresh Wharf (London) and Pudding Pan Rock, and at forts in northern Britain reoccupied c. AD 160. c. AD 160-200. 1200/2

11. MA[ on form 31R, almost certainly from the same die as the last. 1200/2 01/66

12. Muxtullus 1b 31 MVX[TVLLIM] Lezoux (b). This stamp occurs in early-Antonine groups at Alcester and Castleford and there are three examples from Camelon. c. AD 140-160. 2161/2

13. Pateratus 1a 44/81 (stamped diagonally across the collar of a small bowl).P TE[R TIOF] Lezoux (a). This stamp is commonest on forms 18/31 and 27. There are two examples from Castleford in a context of c. AD 140-150. c. AD 135-155. 2360/A

14. Primus iii 22g 27g OFPRI La Graufesenque (a). Most of Primus iii’s output is pre-Flavian, but a few of his stamps occur at Flavian foundations, including this one, which is known from Castleford and the Nijmegen fortress. c. AD 50-75. 2421/E/1

15. Priscus iii 9b 33 PRISCVS Lezoux (b). Priscus iii’s decorated ware is mid- to late-Antonine and his plain ware turns up in groups of late-Antonine Samian from Tac (Hungary) and Pudding Pan Rock. c. AD 160-190. 1253/F

16. Tertiolus i 2a 31 TERT[IOLVS] Lezoux (c). The use of this stamp on form 18/31 and of one of his others on form 27 suggests a Hadrianic or early-Antonine date. 504/19

17. Tituro 5b 31 TITVRONIS Lezoux (b). This stamp is common on the later Antonine forms, such as 79, 79R, 80 and Ludowici forms Tg and Tx. c. AD 160-190. 1213

18. Vagiro/Vagirus 4a 33 VAGIROF Lezoux (c). This stamp occurs mainly on form 33, though one example of form 27 is noted. One of his other stamps was used on form 80. c. AD 145-175. 559/J/1

19. Vitalis vi 2a 38 or 44 VIT L[ISF] Lezoux (b). This minor Central Gaulish potter made forms 31, 33 and 38. His site record includes Chesterholm (2), Ilkley and London (a group of late-Antonine samian). This particular stamp occurs at Malton. c. AD 150-180. 2818/E/1

20. A fish, on form 32 etc., replacing the more usual name-stamp. This is from a die used at Rheinzabern (Ludowici 1905, 288, M18). Late 2nd- or 3rd-century. 504

21. I III II on form 27, South Gaulish. Flavian-Trajanic. 2807/A/1

22. ......IM on form 27g, South Gaulish. A thumbprint obscures the rest of the stamp. Flavian-Trajanic. 2261

23. ]FEC on form 27, South Gaulish. Flavian or Flavian-Trajanic. 2092/A/2

24. ]V, followed by a swallow-tail end to the frame, on form 15/17 or 18, South Gaulish. Flavian or Flavian-Trajanic. 547/M

25. ]VRI on form 18/31 or 31, Central Gaulish. Hadrianic or early-Antonine. 2342/A/2

26. ]VMA? on form 33, Central Gaulish. Antonine. 1730/A/1

27. DOCC[ on form 31, Central Gaulish. Antonine. 2597/2

28. ]VS or S [ on form 31, Central Gaulish. Antonine. 1555/2

29. P .....SF on form 31, very eroded, Central Gaulish or Trier ware. Late 2nd or 3rd century. 541/1

30. ]S or S[ on form 31, probably Trier ware. Late 2nd or 3rd century. 1205

31. ]VSF on form 31, East Gaulish. Late 2nd or 3rd century. 687/1 19055/99630

32. ]VSVSFECI or ]VTVSFECI on a flat base, East Gaulish. Late 2nd or 3rd century. 2384/2

Top of Page

Fine wares (F)

A fairly wide range of fine wares was present on the site, but many of the fabrics involved were numerically insignificant. The fine ware assemblage was dominated by Oxford colour-coated ware (fabric F51), which totaled 80% of all fine wares by sherd count and REs, and some 84% by weight. Minority components in the fine ware assemblage included two lead glazed fabrics - F21 (Central Gaulish) and F22 (local), both represented only by body sherds and neither recorded from the contexts chosen for full quantification. The single mica dusted fabric present on the site (fabric F31) was also probably a local product, used for beakers and a dish. It was confined entirely to Trench 13 and was present in Phase 2 as well as later. An early 2nd century date seems likely.

Early Roman imported fine ware fabrics F41 (Lyons ware) and F42 (Central Gaulish) were also very scarce and confined to Trench 13. Fabric F43, Central Gaulish ‘Rhenish’ ware, was also surprisingly rare, but the slightly later Moselkeramik (F44) was more common, with a notable concentration of sherds in Trench 19, where they formed 3.6% of the Phase 3/4 assemblage.

With the exception of Oxford and Nene Valley products British colour-coated wares are also notably scarce. In the case of New Forest and possible Colchester products (fabrics F53 and F55 respectively), at the limits of their distribution, this is not particularly surprising. More striking is the scarcity of other regional colour-coated wares, in particular those of the ‘south-western brown slip ware’ family (F61 and perhaps also F62), likely to have originated in Gloucestershire (cf Young 1980). A ‘local’ colour-coated ware, of broadly similar character (F63), was also present only in very small quantities. This can probably be assigned to the North Wiltshire industries (cf eg Anderson 1979, 11-12). All these fabrics were probably used solely for beakers, except F61, in which a jar form was also identified.

Nene Valley ware (F52) probably reached the site from the Antonine period onwards, though it was best represented in Phase 3/4, and again was principally used for beakers. Flagons and ‘Castor box lids’ also occurred, but it is notable that late Roman colour-coated jars, flanged bowls and dishes were not present except, in the case of jars, possibly as body sherds. Jars, at least, did form a part of the Oxford ware (F51) repertoire. This dominant fine ware was intrusive in Phase 2 contexts and thereafter present throughout, with its highest representation in the 4th century Phase 4, when it totaled 9% of all sherds. A wide range of forms was present, including Young (1977) types C4, C5, C8, C13, C16, C18, C22, C27, C37, C44, C45, C47, C51, C54, C55, C68, C70, C71, C75, C78, C81, C83 and C88

Top of Page.

Amphorae (A)by D F Williams

Amphorae of forms Dressel 20, Dressel 2-4, Southern Spanish, Camulodunum 186sp and Camulodunum 185A were identified. A total of 1707 sherds weighing approximately 68.5 kilos was examined, of which Dressel 20 sherds form by far the largest percentage. The breakdown of this material by fabric is summarised in Table 9, while Table 10 shows the distribution of the amphorae from the fully recorded sample by phase within trenches.

Dressel 20 (fabric A11)

Twenty three rims were recovered from the site, some 16 of which can be paralleled roughly with examples from Augst illustrated by Martin-Kilcher (1983) in her scheme for the development of the Dressel 20 rim. The date range suggested by these rims extends from the mid 1st century (the earliest example is paralleled by forms dated c AD 45-65 by Martin-Kilcher) to perhaps as late as the mid 3rd century, but only three of these rims are likely to date after the middle of the 2nd century.

This is the most common amphora type imported into Roman Britain (Williams and Peacock 1983). Dressel 20 amphorae were made in the southern Spanish province of Baetica, along the banks of the River Guadalquivir and its tributaries between Seville and Cordoba, and carried olive oil (Ponsich 1974; 1979). This type of amphora has a wide date-range, from the Augustan prototype Oberaden 83, with a fairly upright rim, a short spike and less of a squat bulbous body than the later form, to the developed well-known globular form which, with some typological variation, was in use at least up to c AD 260 (Zevi 1967, 234).

Dressel 2-4 (fabrics A20 and A35)

This amphora type was made over a wide area, eg in Italy, France, Spain and the Aegean, as well as Britain (Castle 1978), during the period from the late 1st century BC to the mid 2nd century AD. However, quantitative trends suggest that it was in decline by the later 1st century AD (Panella, 1973). Tituli picti indicate that the principal content carried was wine (Zevi 1966). Four of the Claydon Pike sherds are in a distinctive ‘black sand’ fabric (A35), caused by inclusions of dark-coloured augite (Peacock 1971, 164). An origin in the Latium region has been suggested for this fabric, on the basis of the presence of yellow garnet when viewed in thin section (Courtois and Velde 1978). However, yellow-brown garnet is also a feature of the sands further south, and a Campanian origin, in particular the area around Herculaneum, has been argued by Peacock (1977). Further analysis by Velde and Courtois (1983) using an electron microprobe has distinguished two separate compositional groups of yellow (melanitic) garnet, one source of which they propose is situated near to Rome and another in the region of Vesuvius. The latter proposal agrees with Peacock’s (1977) suggestion, but as yet there is no archaeological evidence for an origin near Rome for the ‘black sand’ fabric. A Campanian origin seems more likely, since examples of bricks and tiles in the Pompeii-Herculaneum region are in an identical fabric.

An amphora body sherd possibly from a Dressel 2-4 amphora was discovered (in a Phase 4 Trench 13 pit fill 1577/A/3) with the characters LEG II A roughly inscribed on the inner surface. The fabric (subsumed under A20) was soft, fairly rough and sandy with frequent small inclusions of white limestone with a buff (Munsell 7.5YR 7/3) outer surface and light red (2.5YR 6/8) inner surface and laminated core. Thin section study under the petrological microscope shows frequent inclusions of quartz grains and fossiliferous limestone, together with flecks of mica and a little plagioclase felspar and quartz-mica-schist. The particular fabric of this Claydon Pike vessel is not one the writer has encountered before. Unfortunately the inclusions present are all fairly common and not suggestive of a specific area of origin. Serious doubts have been cast on the authenticity of the inscription.

Camulodunum 186C (fabric A12)

This amphora form was made along the coastal regions of southern Spain, between Cadiz and Malaga, where a number of kilns are known, and seems to have been mainly used to carry fish-based products from the Flavian period or shortly before to the early 2nd century AD (Beltrán 1970; Peacock 1974). It was widely distributed in the western Roman Empire.

Undesignated

Several amphora sherds could not be assigned to known classes with certainty.

Top of Page

Mortaria

(M)with identification of imported and unusual types by K F Hartley

Although fourteen different mortarium fabric types were present this ware group, like fine wares, was dominated by products of the Oxford industry (fabrics M22, M31 and M41), which amounted to 85% of all mortarium sherds (83.4% RE). Local white slipped and unslipped oxidised wares (M32, M33 and M52), probably deriving from the south Gloucestershire/north Wiltshire area, were also present: two vessels of Antonine date (Nos 311-2), a wall-sided vessel (No 320) and No 321, a vessel dated to the 3rd century are illustrated in M32, ‘Cirencester’ white slipped ware (Rigby 1982b microfiche 1, D03-D05), and a single vessel in fabric M33 (No 313) is assigned to Minety as it is in the same fabric as Claydon Pike tile fabric 1. These fabrics were scarce, however, and numerically no more important than the products of major industries from outside the region - Verulamium, the Nene Valley and Mancetter-Hartshill, all of which were present (fabrics M21, M24 and M23 respectively). It should be noted, however, that the initial unquantified recording of the pottery from all contexts gave a clear impression that the ‘local’ fabric M32 was present in larger amounts than the above mentioned industries, although in spite of the source presumably being closer to Claydon Pike than the Oxfordshire kilns, it was never a serious competitor. In the late Roman Phase 4 Oxford mortaria make up about 97% of the total with single sherds of fabrics M32, M16, M24 and M52 forming the remainder. This situation is quite different at Cirencester, at least in the area of the late Roman cemetery (Sites CS and CT - McWhirr et al 1982). Here in the mid 3rd century and later there was a far higher proportion of local and Mancetter/Hartshill mortaria. Rigby suggests that in combination with the Oxford industry, they shared most of the market evenly (Rigby 1982b, microfiche 1, D13), but in the 4th century assemblage at The Beeches, however, Oxford mortaria comprised 85% (of REs), with local fabrics constituting the majority of the remainder (Keely 1986, 188-189). Claydon Pike may have been too far east of Cirencester to benefit from the presumed use of the Fosse Way in the distribution of Mancetter/Hartshill products. It was also on the eastern periphery of the marketing area of the local white slipped mortaria and flagons - few if any of these have yet been found east of Faringdon.

Equally scarce were imported mortaria, but these were notable for the relatively wide range of (Gaulish) fabrics involved:

M11. Hartley Group I (Hartley 1977)

Seven vessels belonging to Hartley Group I were identified, three of which are illustrated. 307 and 309 are dated to AD 50-80 and 308 is dated AD 65-100. One vessel (not illustrated) had the remains of a stamp which was too damaged to be illustrated. All but one of this group came from Trench 13, the majority being residual in surface spreads.

M12. Hartley Group II (Hartley 1977)

Four vessels were identified as belonging to this group, two of which are illustrated, 314 and 315, both of Gillam type 238, dated AD 70-100. Not illustrated are two further vessels of this form, one of which, dated AD 65-100, showed traces of a stamp, unfortunately illegible. The other similar vessel was dated AD 50-100.

M14. Bushe-Fox 26/30 (Bushe-Fox 1913; 1914)

Approximately six vessels were identified as Bushe-Fox 26/30. No 310 is dated c. AD 50-85 with a provenance of Central France. Two other illustrated vessels, Nos 316 and 317, are dated 80-150 and are either from Gaul or the Rhineland. This type is virtually never stamped.

M15. Central France ?

Only two sherds of this fabric recorded, one of which was drawn (No 304) and is the subject of the following thin section report: a fragment of a stamped mortarium with a lead rivet in a soft, rough micaceous fabric containing frequent discrete grains of quartz and white felspar throughout, pinkish-red (between Munsell 5YR 7/4 and 7/6) surfaces having a slightly lighter core. Thin sectioning and study under the petrological microscope shows a groundmass composed of frequent flecks of mica and some small subangular grains of quartz, set in an anisotropic matrix of baked clay. Also present are larger discrete grains of potash and plagioclase felspar, quartz and mica (including biotite). The general composition of this fabric suggests derivation from a biotite granite. A possible continental source has been suggested for this vessel on typological grounds, and the Massif Central, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland and Yugoslavia have been mentioned. Outcrops of granite are to be found in Italy (the Alpine region and in Calabria in the south), the Massif Central, in Switzerland and to a limited extent in Yugoslavia.

The sherd is too small for the exact rim profile to be determined but it does not appear to be a normal mortarium of Hartley Group I type (Hartley 1977). No other examples of the fragmentary stamp ] OF are known. It would be possible for it to be from an unknown stamp of Fronto who worked in the period AD 50-85 and whose mortaria are known from London and Martinhoe, Devon. However, until further examples of the stamp are found this identification and date can only be regarded as conjecture, especially as the two known mortaria of Fronto are not in a similar fabric.

M16. ?Central France (cf Gloucester TF 9AA, Hartley 1985)

Only body sherds present

Oxford mortaria seem to have reached Claydon Pike from shortly after the inception of their production as the range of white ware vessels includes M2 and M6, dated AD 100-170 (Young 1977, 68, 69). The overall list of Oxford white mortaria includes Young (ibid) types M2, M3, M6, M10, M11, M17, M18, M19, M22 and M23. Only three vessels have been illustrated, two examples of Young form M2 with illiterate stamps (Nos 305 and 306) and an example of Young form M6, mended with lead rivets (No 318). White and red colour-coated oxidised mortaria (fabrics M31 and M41) were also present. The latter were almost twice as common as the former in terms of sherd count, but M31 was better represented by RE measurements. All the common mortarium types in these two fabrics, ie WC4, WC5, WC7, C97 and C100, were present. These types, together with the higher representation of mid 3rd century and later white ware types (ie Young M17-M19, M22 and M23) indicate that the highest level of mortarium use at Claydon Pike was in the 4th century in Phase 4. A single

example of Young type C97 is illustrated (No 319).

Top of Page

White Firing Wares (W) (except mortaria)

White wares formed a relatively small proportion of the Claydon Pike assemblage. They derived from two principal sources. Several fabrics were ascribed to the Oxford industry, including parchment ware (W11) and fine and coarse tempered white wares (fabrics W12 and W22 respectively). A burnt white ware fabric (W23) was less confidently equated with the Oxford product (Young 1977, 113). None of these fabrics is sufficiently diagnostic for it to be certain that all sherds assigned to them were Oxford products, but in the absence of evidence for comparable white ware production in the region this seems most likely. Specific Oxford (Young 1977) vessel types identified included parchment ware forms P5, P9.2, P16, P24, P25 and white wares W2, W33, W36, W46, W49, W54, W56 and W59.

The major component of the white ware assemblage was a distinctive fabric, W24, of uncertain but probably relatively local origin. This comprised some 70% of white ware sherds, though it was slightly less well-represented in terms of REs (61.3%). This may be because W24 was not used for forms such as flagons which (occurring in fabrics W12 and W22) tend to be slightly over-represented by RE measurements. Fabric W24 was used very largely for jars (94% of REs in this fabric) with occasional bowls and lids (forms assigned were C, CC, CD, CE, CH, HB, HC and L). It was particularly prominent in Phase 2 contexts and remained the dominant white ware in the Phase 3 and 3/4 assemblages, but was in decline (and probably residual) in Phase 4. The Oxford white wares occurred throughout the life of the site, though fabrics W11 and W23, both dated after AD 240 should have been intrusive in Phase 2 and earlier Phase 3 contexts. The relatively high representation of W23 in Phase 2 might be an indicator that these sherds were not the standard Oxford burnt white product, however.

Top of Page

White slipped wares (Q) (except mortaria)

Three oxidised white slipped fabrics were present, together comprising 2% of the sherd total (and a little less by weight and REs). Fabric Q21, Oxford white-coated (WC) ware was a relatively minor component of the assemblage from Phase 3 onwards, used principally for flagons and bowls (the only specific Oxford types recorded were WC1 and WC2) though jars, beakers and dishes also occurred. The principal fabrics were both probably of relatively local origin. Q22, ‘Cirencester white slip ware’ (Rigby 1982b microfiche 1, D04-D06), had a mortarium fabric counterpart (M32) as did the Oxford fabric Q21 (with mortarium fabric M31). Flagons, jars and beakers, in that order of significance, were the vessel types represented, appearing fairly consistently from Phase 3 onwards. The known chronology of this fabric suggests that a low level occurrence in Phase 2 may have been intrusive.

Fabric Q23, the most important of the three fabrics, was certainly in production in the 1st century. It was well-represented in Phase 2 contexts and the wide range of associated vessel types included the ‘honey pot’ (type CCv, eg No 79) thought to be a specifically pre-Flavian form (see below). Flagons (eg Nos 38 and 46), jars (eg Nos 126 and 151) and beakers (eg No 178) were all significant components of this production. Bowls and dishes were also present but were much less important.

Top of Page

Early ‘Belgic type’ wares (E)

These wares, ‘Belgic’ purely in the stylistic sense implied by Thompson (1982, 4), dominate late Iron Age to early Roman assemblages in the region. The principal component is a grog-tempered ware group (E80) which with one major exception (see below) was not subdivided in detail. In terms of fabric this incorporated considerable variation, though grog or clay pellets were always the principal tempering agent, but as none of these variations can be matched with known production sites their significance is uncertain and was thought not to merit systematic recording. These fabrics show a complete spectrum in the technology employed ranging from the completely handmade through wheel-finished to wheel-thrown. The division into handmade or wheel-thrown variants (as at Cirencester into fabrics 3 and 24) has not been made here. Fabrics in the E80 group are widely encountered in the Upper Thames Valley but the lack of known sources makes it impossible to determine whether this indicates a single production location or a widespread tradition using similar raw materials across the region. The latter seems much more likely, however. The chronology of this important ware group remains uncertain - its origins are pre-conquest but are not thought to predate the 1st century AD in the Oxford region (eg Booth 1997b, 81-2; but compare also eg Timby 1996, 125).

One important individual fabric was identified within this group - fabric E83, assigned to the Savernake industry. This shared all the principal characteristics of the E80 group, but may possibly have outlasted it, perhaps surviving into the late 1st century whereas most E80 production is unlikely to have continued into the Flavian period (a point which is, of course, not demonstrable at Claydon Pike). The precise relationship between E83 and the reduced Savernake fabric R95 is unclear, however; the latter is not necessarily a linear descendant of the former.

Minor components of the E ware group included a further grog-tempered fabric E89, a distinctive fabric (E39) tempered with large rounded sand grains, and a rare flint-tempered fabric (E61). Occurrences of E39 and E61 may have been entirely residual as neither fabric appeared in Phase 2 contexts.

A relatively wide range of vessel types was present in these fabrics, but this disguises the fact that the repertoire was totally dominated by jars, which amounted to 93% of all E ware REs. The minor types were a flagon, ?tankards, bowls and dishes in E80 and bowls, dishes and a lid in E83. This last form also occurred in fabric E39. The fabric E80 bowls included very large open forms such as No 265.

Top of Page

Oxidised ‘coarse’ wares (O)

Oxidised wares formed a significant proportion of the assemblage, totalling 9.2% of sherds. These fabrics were mostly of relatively local origin, with the principal one (O31, 47.7% of all oxidised sherds) the equivalent of the main North Wiltshire reduced coarse ware fabric R35. Probable and possible Severn Valley wares were also quite significant, although there is some uncertainty about which fabrics could be assigned to that industry. Fabrics O32, O42 and O45 were initially so assigned, but the fine slightly sandy character of O32 might suggest an affinity with the North Wiltshire industry. Fabric O43, originally defined as ‘local’, is also reminiscent of the Severn Valley tradition. Fabrics O42, O43, O45 and O46 together comprise 20.3% of oxidised coarse ware sherds. If O32 is included in this group this rises to 25.9%, or 2.4% of the total sherds. These fabrics were quite broadly distributed across the site, except for a notable concentration of fabric O43 in Trench 19. Their chronological ranges are less clear cut - the principal chronological emphasis of fabric O42 was in Phase 2, of O32 in Phase 3 and O43 was most common in Phase 4, but all were present from Phase 2 onwards. With regard to vessel types the principal forms in fabrics O42 and O43 were jars, supplemented by tankards and beakers. The O43 repertoire also included bowls and a lid, while that of O42 included flagons. This last form was also important in fabric O45 and especially in fabric O32, in which it amounted to almost two thirds of REs, but as suggested above in relation to white wares these figures may exaggerate the importance of forms which may survive as complete rims, particularly when the fabric RE total is relatively small, as here.

The presence of tankards in many of these fabrics is a characteristic both of the Severn Valley and North Wiltshire industries. The output of the latter, represented most clearly by fabric O31, was dominated by jars (59.4% of REs), though not to the extent of its reduced ware counterpart, R35. Tankards, flagons, beakers and bowls (in that order in terms of RE quantities) were also significant parts of the O31 repertoire, which spanned almost the whole range of vessel forms. This fabric classification probably represents the products of at least two kilns, however these kilns are all part of the same group in the Purton/White Hill Farm/Wanborough area (Anderson 1980) and any fabric differences are insignificant. Already well-represented in Phase 2 contexts, in which it constituted almost 5% of sherds, fabric O31 reached a peak in Phase 3 and was clearly in decline in Phase 4, at only 3.8% of all sherds, when it may have been largely if not entirely residual. Other probable local products such as fabrics O82 and O84 were used almost exclusively for jars, particularly large storage jars. The same was true of the only certain non-local oxidised fabric present at the site, fabric O81 from Buckinghamshire (Booth and Green 1989) although this fabric, a regular component of later Roman assemblages in the Upper Thames Valley, was not very common at Claydon Pike.

Top of Page

Reduced coarse wares (R)

Reduced coarse wares, comprising 41.4% of the total sherds at Claydon Pike (38% of weight but 44.4% of REs), were the dominant ware group in all phases of the late Iron Age and Roman site, although they would have been introduced only in the second half of Phase 2 (after the mid 1st century AD) and their real importance in this phase is difficult to judge in the light of the clear evidence for intrusive material. At their peak, in Phase 3, R wares totaled 46.4% of all sherds. This ware group was dominated by two contrasting North Wiltshire traditions. Savernake ware (R95) comprised 6.1% of the Phase 2 assemblage and was even better represented in Phase 3 in Trench 13, although it is not likely to have been in production after about the middle of the 2nd century (Timby 2001, 81). Elsewhere it was reasonably common in all the parts of the site occupied from Phase 3 onwards, with the exception of Trench 19 from which, strangely, it was all but totally absent.

The most important component of the entire site assemblage, however, was formed by the sandy fabric group R35. As with the corresponding oxidised fabric O31 this must have included the products of several different kiln sites which cannot be distinguished readily. R35 amounted to 18.7% of all sherds in Phase 2, rising to 37.5% in Phase 3 and maintained at that level in Phase 4. Unsurprisingly it was more common (over 40%) in Trenches 17, 19 and 29, all occupied from Phase 3 onwards, than in Trench 13 with a longer occupation range in which the earliest assemblages were dominated by other fabrics. A very wide range of vessel types occurred in fabric R35, but it was dominated by jars, which together comprised 89% of REs in this fabric. Of the other forms only bowls (2.9%), flagons (1.8%), tankards (1.4%) and beakers (1.2%) amounted to more than 1% of the output. A similar fabric (R34) was presumably also a North Wiltshire product, though with (initially, at least) an early specialist focus, perhaps represented by vessels such as No 302 (cf Cooper 1998, 327). It is not certain that all the sherds assigned to this fabric are equivalent to the more closely defined Cirencester fabric 5. The range of forms, again dominated by jars, otherwise contained only bowls, dishes and lids.

The only other significant reduced ware was the fine micaceous fabric R85. This was probably a fairly local product but in a tradition which is widespread in south-west England (cf Timby 2000, 143). R85 appeared throughout the life of the site, so there is no definition of its chronological range. The repertoire of vessel types was dominated, as for all reduced wares, by jars (here 72.5%) but of the other types present lids (eg Nos 332 and 338) were unusually common, at 16.1%, much the highest representation of this type in any fabric except for a few with very small (statistically invalid) RE totals.

Top of Page


Black-burnished wares (B)

The difficulties relating to the identification of black-burnished ware have been discussed above (see 3.2 introduction above) Collectively these wares were a very significant part of the Claydon Pike assemblage, totaling 22.1% of sherds, though slightly less well-represented by weight and REs. B10 and B30 fabrics - the two sub groupings - constituted 13.6% of the assemblage in Phase 2, rising to 22.8% in Phase 3 and 30.1% in the composite Phase 3/4 assemblage before declining to Phase 3 levels. B30, the wheel-thrown imitation group, does seem to have continued to grow in importance in the 4th century Phase 4, however, while Dorset BB1 (the principal component of the B10 fabric group) was slightly reduced in importance at this time, in line with nationally observed trends. The source of B30 is as yet unknown but it is found at Cirencester (fabric 103, Rigby 1982b, fiche 1, D08; Keely 1986, 161) and may have been relatively local. Despite this it was never a really significant competitor with the main local reduced coarse ware products, although it is possible that it derived from the same sources, given a general similarity of fabrics.

As already indicated the range of forms associated with the B10 group includes types which are unlikely to be consistent with a Dorset origin. As would be expected, however, the principal forms were jars (54.2%), bowls (29.2%) and dishes (12.7%). Some rare forms, including jug/flagon fragments and lids, are also consistent with the BB1 repertoire (cf Wallace and Webster 1989). The breakdown of forms in the B30 fabric group was quite similar; jars, bowls and dishes comprising 58.3%, 24.3% and 9.5% respectively.

Top of Page

Calcareous tempered wares (C)

These fabrics were particularly important in the late Iron Age-early Roman period. A number of individual fabrics, particularly C15, C22 and C24, demonstrate the survival of regional middle Iron Age ceramic traditions through the late Iron Age and into the Roman period (eg Nos 56-60) alongside the E ware material in an intrusive south-eastern tradition. The representation of these three fabrics, confined largely to the Phase 2 assemblage in Trench 17, makes it clear that they are residual by Phase 3, if not earlier. The range of associated vessel types is also consistent with a date range unlikely to have extended far, if at all, into the Flavian period. Fabric C22 (limestone temper) includes sherds which originated in the Malvern area (Group B1; Peacock 1968) which have not been distinguished here from other sherds containing crushed limestone fragments. The fabric was also recorded at Rough Ground Farm, Lechlade (within fabric 16; Green and Booth 1993, fiche 2.16).

In contrast, other fabrics in this group had much more extended periods of use. C16, although present from the start, was best represented (as a percentage of phase sherd totals) in Phase 3. Fabric C11 had two components - a group of early material as indicated by a reasonably high representation in Phase 2 and the presence of forms such as bead rim jars, and a late component (including standard late Midlands shell-tempered ware from sites such as Harrold) reflected in the peak occurrence of C11 in Phase 4. As indicated above (see 3.2 introduct

ion) these different traditions could not be separated on macroscopic fabric criteria alone.

Top of Page

3.2.4 FORMS

The pottery is grouped into 13 major form classes which are arranged in order, broadly from closed to open forms. Each class is further divided into types which have significant characteristics in common (for further details of the classification system see 3.2 introduction). Forms were quantified in terms of rim equivalents (RE), based on percentages of rim circumference. The overall quantities of vessel type by phase are shown in Table 11 and the correlation of major vessel class with fabric is shown in Tables 12 and 13. Together these data allow a broad assessment of the character of the assemblage and its evolution through time.

In general terms the assemblage is dominated by jars. Table 11 shows that this dominance decreased gradually through time, from 81.8% in Phase 2 to 61.5% in Phase 4 (the Phase 2/3 RE total is too low to produce meaningful statistics). Reduced coarse wares accounted for almost 60% of jars (Table 13), with black-burnished ware contributing 18.1% and oxidised coarse wares 7%. In terms of the output of these ware groups, however (Table 12), 88% of all reduced coarse ware forms were jars. Jars formed an even higher proportion of the vessels in E and C ware groups, reflecting the generally early date range of these fabrics, but were also surprisingly well-represented in white wares, 77% of vessels in this group being jars occurring principally, but not exclusively, in fabric W24.

The next most important major vessel class was bowls, comprising 12.3% of vessels, while no other class amounted to more than 5% of the overall vessel assemblage. The representation of bowls was consistent (at 10.6% of REs) in Phases 2 and 3, rising to 14.3% in Phase 4. Their high representation in the unphased contexts reflects inter alia the overrepresentation of samian ware (which in total accounted for 12% of all bowls) in these contexts. Almost half of all the bowls in the assemblage were in black-burnished type wares, with probable Dorset products accounting for the majority of these. Most of the other bowls occurred in similar quantities in three main ware groups, samian, fine wares and reduced coarse wares, but while bowls formed a relatively significant component of the total of samian and fine ware forms (27.8% and 40.1% respectively), they were only of minor importance in the overall output of reduced wares (3.8%). Two reduced fabrics, R11 and R34, had significantly above average proportions of bowls compared to the other reduced wares, but even these were not major producers and together accounted for only 4.3% of all bowls on the site. The dominant fabric R35 was used for the majority of reduced ware bowls, even though these amounted to less than 3% of all vessels in this fabric.

Dishes comprised only 4.7% of all vessels at Claydon Pike, forming a mere 1.4% of the Phase 2 assemblage, rising to 4.5% in Phase 3 and remaining at that level in Phase 4. The form was better represented in unphased contexts (high quantities of samian ware in these contexts again accounting for this in part) and, for reasons which are uncertain, in the general Phase 3/4 group. Samian ware and black-burnished wares were the principal fabric groups producing dishes, accounting for 29.6% and 54.6% respectively. Reduced coarse wares contributed a further 9.9% and representation in other ware groups was minimal. At the level of individual fabrics it was only in samian ware that dishes formed a significant part of total output, amounting to 35.5% of all vessels in South Gaulish ware and 21.7% and 23.2.% in Central Gaulish and East Gaulish wares respectively. Despite the overall quantity of dishes in black-burnished wares the type only amounted to 12% of black-burnished ware output, being slightly more common in the hand-made than in the wheel-thrown group.

Flagons, beakers and mortaria all formed about 3% of the assemblage and all showed a steady increase in importance through time, flagons from 1% in Phase 2 to 5% in Phase 4, beakers from 0.1% to 4.8% and mortaria from 0.2% to 3.5%. Flagons occurred most commonly in oxidised coarse wares (36.3%), with equal representation in reduced wares and fine wares (20.4% each) while white-slipped fabrics lagged a little behind (16.2%). White wares only accounted for a very small proportion of flagons, all in the Oxford white fabric W12. Flagons were also found rarely in fabrics such as black-burnished ware. A similar range of fabrics was used for beakers, but here fine wares accounted for 47.3% of all vessels while white-slipped and oxidised and reduced coarse wares contributed roughly equal amounts (13.8%, 15.8% and 15.2% respectively). Within these groups the most significant fabric was F51 (26.7%), while R35, Q23, O31 and F52 contributed between 10% and 15%. As a proportion of ware group output, however, beakers were only really significant in fine wares (29.8% of all such wares were beakers) and white-slipped wares. Mortaria were more straightforward, being confined to the M ware class (dominated by Oxford white mortaria) with the sole exception of examples in samian ware, which together amounted to 3.4% of all mortaria REs.

Minor types, in terms of overall vessel quantities, were amphorae (only 0.7% of REs), cups (2.5%, the great majority of which were in samian ware), tankards (1.6%) and lids (1.3%). Tankards were found principally in North Wiltshire reduced and oxidised wares (R35, O31 and O32), with lesser amounts of probable Severn Valley wares, particularly fabric O42. Lids were most common in reduced coarse wares - specifically fabrics R35 and R85, which together accounted for almost half of all examples of the type - together with oxidised wares. The type was also well-represented in black-burnished wares, which provided 20.5% of all lids. While lids are well known as a part of the black-burnished ware repertoire (Wallace and Webster 1989) they are not common. The majority of s

uch lids here were in the wheel-thrown B30 fabric group, however.

Top of Page

Catalogue of illustrated vessels

A very brief description of the characteristics of each class and sub type is given here. A number of types recorded from the site were too fragmentary to illustrate but are included in the catalogue.

Amphorae (Class A) (Figs 3.2.2a: Amphorae (Class A) and 3.2.2b: Amphorae (Class A))

Dressel 20

The majority of these rims can roughly be paralleled with examples from Augst illustrated by Martin-Kilcher (1983) in her scheme for the development of the Dressel 20 rim:

1. A11. Dated at Augst c. AD 40 to c. 65 (Martin-Kilcher 1983, nos 8 and 10). 693/1.

2 A11. Dated at Augst early part of second half of 1st century AD (ibid., no. 10). 547/F/1.

3. A11. Dated at Augst c. AD 40 to early 2nd century (ibid., nos 8, 12-14). 2824/A.

4. A11. Dated at Augst c. AD 55 to early 2nd century (ibid., perhaps no. 13). 687/1.

5. A11. 504.

6. A11. Dated at Augst mid 1st to mid 2nd century AD (ibid., nos 15 and 17). 2255/2.

7. A11. Dated at Augst c. AD 65 to mid 2nd century (ibid., no. 21). 2005/A.

8. A11. Difficult to parallel at Augst. 1912.

9. A11. Dated at Augst mid 1st to mid 2nd century AD (ibid., no. 23). 541/1.

10. A11. As for No 9. 2430/1.

11. A11. Dated at Augst first half of 2nd century AD (ibid., no. 24). 746/1.

12. A11. Dated at Augst end of 1st century to mid 2nd century AD (ibid., no. 26). 503/1.

13. A11. Dated at Augst AD 70 to mid 2nd century (ibid., nos 20 and 30). 1555/1.

14. A11. Dated at Augst second half of 2nd century AD (ibid., nos 33 and 34). 693/1.

15. A11. Difficult to parallel at Augst. (but *cf M-K no 45, 250-300). 504.

16. A11. Dated at Augst mid 2nd to early 3rd century AD (ibid., nos. 34 and 36). 503/1.

Other illustrated Dressel 20 sherds:

17. A11. Part of a handle with illegible stamp. Unstratified.

18. A11. Part of a handle. 504.

19. A11. Part of a handle. 2335/1.

20. A11. Part of a handle. 504.

21. A10. Part of grooved handle, not certainly of this type. 541/2.

22. A11. Basal spike. 2355/1.

23. A11. Basal spike. 503/1.

24. A11. Base and lower body with drilled holes. 2810/E/1.

Dressel 2-4

25. A35. Rim and neck in ‘black sand’ fabric. 1989/A/5.

26. A35. Rim in ‘black sand’ fabric. 504.

27. A20. Possible shoulder of Dressel 2-4. 1392/1.

28. A35. Bifid handle in ‘black sand’ fabric, different vessel to above. 687/1.

29. A35. Base in ‘black sand’ fabric, possibly belonging to same vessel as rim no 25. 2334/1.

Camulodunum 186C

30. A12. Rim and neck. 1200/2.

31. A12. Rim and neck. 541/1.

A further rim and neck fragment is not illustrated

Undesignated

32. A31. Plain rim in deep red micaceous fabric. 1745/A/2.

33. A23. Probable rim of uncertain form, conceivably part of a handle. 2006/D.

Top of Page

Flagons and jugs (Class B) (Fig. 3.2.3: Flagons and jugs (Class B))

Type BA/BB

Sub type i

34. O31. 501/AL.

Unillustrated example in fabric R35.

Sub type ii

There is a considerable variation in the flare of the neck and the depth and number of rings. This is the commonest flagon type at Claydon Pike.

35. R35. 2837/B/1.

36. Q21.728/A/2.

37. O32. 547/D/2.

38. Q23. 1703/A.

39. O31. 2808/B/2.

40. O45. 2092/1.

41. W22. 2385/A/3.

42. Q22. 2444/B/2.

43. Q22. 1294/D/1.

Unillustrated examples in fabrics W12, Q21, O42 and R35.

Sub type iii

44. O31. 501/W/2.

45. O31. 2300.

46. Q23. 2377/1.

47. O31. 2092/1.

48. O42. 720/A.

Sub type iv

49. O32. 2441/1.

Unillustrated examples in fabrics F51 (Young 1977, 148, type C8) and R35.

Sub type v

50. W20. The sole example of this type. 577/A/2.

Sub type vi

51. O10. The sole example of this type. 2366/A/1.

Sub type vii

Not illustrated. Fabric F51 (Young 1977, 148, type C5).

Sub type viii

Not illustrated. Fabric F51 (ibid type C4).

Type BC - Jugs

No examples were complete enough to be illustrated and the type is not common.

Examples in fabrics R85 and

B10.

Top of Page

Jars (Class C)

Type C - General group for jars of uncertain form (Fig. 3.2.4a: Type C - General group for jars of uncertain form )

52. O10. 731/A/1.

53. R35. 2092/A/2.

54. R95. 620/L.

55. R29. 1414/J/1.

Type CA - Middle Iron Age open jar form (Fig. 3.2.4b: Type CA - Middle Iron Age open jar form )

56. C15. 806/A/1.

Type CB - Middle Iron Age ‘barrel shaped’ jars (Fig. 3.2.4c: Type CB - Middle Iron Age ‘barrel shaped’ jars )

57. C15. 775/A/1.

58. C15. 894/D.

59. C15. 704/A/1.

60. C24. 577/L/2.

Type CC - Narrow mouthed jars (Fig. 3.2.4d: Type CC - Narrow mouthed jars )

Sub type i

61. R35. 1294/D/1.

62. W24. 577/M/4.

Sub type ii.

Similar to (i) but with one or more handles.

Not illustrated Fabric F51 (Young 1977, 150, type C13).

Sub type iii.

63. R35. 2385/2.

64. R35. 2407/B/2.

65. R35. 1253/E.

66. O43. 1954/1.

67. R95. 1235/A/1.

68. R95. 634/J.

69. R35. 1280/A/1.

70. E83. 2257/A/6.

Sub type iv

71. W24. 620/J/1.

72. R95. 894/B/3.

73. B30. 1260/B.

74. R35. 701/B/1.

75. R35. 1367/L/1.

76. R35. 2385/A/3.

Unillustrated example in fabric F51 (Young 1977, 150, type C16).

Sub type v

77. O31. 1713/A/1.

78. O10. 620/M/3.

79. Q23. 1975/A.

80. O32. 663/C/2.

81. O32. 633/B/2.

82. B30. Linked by similarity of rim form but not by other characteristics. 1553/E.

Sub type vi

83. R35. 2407/D/1.

84. O31. 547/E/1.

Type CD - Medium mouthed jars (Fig. 3.2.4e: Type CD - Medium mouthed jars )

85 W11? Perhaps Young (1977) type P9 with possible traces of paint under the rim. 780/B.

86. R35. 2092/1.

87. R35. 1409/D/1.

88. R35. 1414/J/1.

89. W12. 2381.

90<. O30. 1409/D/1.

91. W12. 2350/1.

92. O42. 2015/C.

93. R34. 547/L.

94<. R95. 1222/1.

95<. R35. 2385/A/3.

96. E83. 547/E/1.

97. R35. 2608/B/2.

98. R95. 2801/D/1.

99<. C16. 1409/D/1.

100. R85. 2385/F/2.

101. Q22. 707/B/1.

102. R85. 502/6.

103. B30. 2385/A/3.

104. R35. 1394/C.

105. R35. 2821/A/1.

106. R35. 1402/A/1.

107. R35. 1269/B.

108. R35. 1294/E.

109. R35. 1253/G.

110. R95. 1201/B.

111. R95. 620/J/1.

112. R95. 2034.

113. R35. 2407/B/1.

114 W24. 1704/C.

115. O84. 2407/G/2.

116. O31. 1267/A.

117. R35. 2385/F/3.

118. R35. 2397/B.

119. R35. 2407/B/1.

Type CE - Jars with high shoulders, concave neck and everted rim, ‘Belgic’ type (Fig. 3.2.4f: Type CE - Jars with high shoulders, concave neck and everted rim, ‘Belgic’ type )

120. E80. 1765/D.

121. E80. 2844/C/3.

122. R34. 2519/A/1.

123. R34. 620/M/1.

124. O31. 2136.

125. E80. 781/A.

126. Q23. 1201/L.

127. O31. 2824/A/1.

128. O31. 1392/1.

129. E80. 739/A.

130. R35. 818/1.

131. E80. 1805/C.

Type CF - Carinated jars.

Only two examples, too fragmentary to illustrate, were identified.

Type CG - Globular jars (Fig. 3.2.4g: Type CG - Globular jars )

132. R34. 2001.

133. R35. 2198/A/1.

134 W24. 700/N.

135. W24. 620/M/3.

Type CH - Bead rim jars ( Fig. 3.2.4h: Type CH - Bead rim jars )

136. O82. 2156/E.

137. O84. 620/W.

138. C24. 1776/A.

139. E83. 542/A/1.

140. R95. 2198/C/2.

141. R95. 620/Q.

142. C22. 525/D/1.

143. W24. 806/A/1.

144. R95. 645/C/1.

145. E83. 547/D/1

Type CI - Angled everted rim jars (Fig. 3.2.4i: Type CI - Angled everted rim jars )

146. R35. 1402/A/1.

147. W24. 720/G.

148. O31. 501/W/3.

149. R35. 2365.

150. B30. 1409/E.

151. Q23. 2448.

Type CK - ‘Cooking pot type’ jars (Fig. 3.2.4j: Type CK - ‘Cooking pot type’ jars )

152. R35. 2407/F/1.

153<. C22. 547/L.

154. B11. 1273/B/2.

155. B11. 2521/C. Rim mended with lead rivets

156. B11. 1222/1.

157. F61.* 1201/J.

158. R35. 1202/2.

159. R35. 1453/A.

160. R95. 2828/G/1.

161. O31. 1269/F. Burnt.

162. R35. 2817/A/1.

163. R35. 1398/A/1.

164. R35. 2817/A/1.

165. B11. 1433/A.

Type CM - Wide mouthed jars (Fig. 3.2.4k: Type CM - Wide mouthed jars )

166. B30. 2377.

167. O31. 1294/D/1.

168. R35. 2407/D/1.

Type CN - Large storage jars (Fig. 3.2.4l: Type CN - Large storage jars )

169. O82. 1553/C.

170. O82. 1409/D/1.

171. O81. 2807/C/1.

172. R90. 547/

M/1.

Top of Page

Indeterminate jar or bowl types (Class D) (Fig. 3.2.5:Indeterminate jar or bowl types (Class D))

173. R95. 620/N.

174. O84. 2448.

175. O31. 501/B/1.

176. O10. 700/A/1.

 

Beakers (Class E) (Fig. 3.2.6: Beakers (Class E))

Type E - Beakers of uncertain form. Most are probably of Type ED but insufficient of the profile survives for this to be certain.

177. **SGP52 11.1

178. Q23. 2407/G/2.

179. R35. 1383/A.

180. O31. 3193/D.

181. R35. 1296/F/1.

182. B30. 1278/B/1.

183. O42. 1388/A.

184. O31. 1201/N/1.

185. O31. 780/J/1.

Unillustrated example in fabric F51 (Young 1977, 154, type C37).

Type EA - Butt beaker

186. W12. 1997/A. Young 1977, 105, type W36.

Type EC - Bag shaped beakers with cornice rims and narrow bases.

187. Q22. 707/B/1.

188. Q22. 1414/A/1.

189. R35.

190. R35. 1398/A/1.

191. R35. 1281/B/1.

192. F52. 2407/D/2.

193. O31. 1367/E/1.

Unillustrated examples in fabrics W12, Q23, O10, O32 and B10.

 

Type ED - Globular and bulbous beakers.

194. R35. 634/1.

195. F31. 547/C/1.

196. F31. 2197/1.

197. O31. 847/B.

198. R35. 700/N.

199. R35. 1249/C.

200. R35.

201. O31. 501/J/5.

202. F63. 2032. Complete, slightly lopsided vessel from the Circular Shrine.

Unillustrated examples in fabrics F44, F51 (Young 1977, 152 types C22, C27), F53, Q21 and O42.

Type EE - Indented and folded beakers.

Fragments of indented beaker occurred in Fabric F51 (Young 1977, 152 type C20). No examples were complete enough

to illustrate.

Top of Page

Cups (Class F) (Fig. 3.2.7: Cups (Class F))

Type FB - Campanulate cups.

203. O31. 1383/A.

204. O10. 700/N.

205. O31. 1288/C/1.

206. O31. 1294/A.

Unillustrated example in fabric R35.

Type FC - Conical cups

207. F51. 1202/1. Young 1977, 170, type C88.

208. O10.* 1273/B/2.

Top of Page

Tankards and mugs (Class G) (Fig. 3.2.8: Tankards and mugs (Class G) )

Type GA - Tankards. Divided here into three groups:

Sub type i

209. O31. 1335/B/1.

210. R35. 1451/B.

211. O32. 634/L.

212. O31. 1201/L.

213. R35. 1550/1.

214. *. 1269/C.

215. O31. 1269/F.

216. O32. 1451/B.

217. O42. 2801/A.

Sub type ii

218. O31. 1402/A/1.

219. O42. 2257/A/6.

220. E80. 620/W.

221. R35. 1452/B/1.

Sub type iii

Unillustrated examples in fabrics O31 and O42.

Top of Page

Bowls (Class H)

Type H (Fig. 3.2.9a: Bowls (Class H)) - General group for bowls of uncertain form.
Many of these vessels could be carinated bowls (type HA)

222. B30. 765/A.

223. B30. 1766/1. Possibly imitating Drag 30.

224. B30. 877/A.

225. O31. 2092/1.

226. O31. 1538/A.

227. R95. 620/N.

228. R34. 547/E/1.

229. R85. 1414/B/1.

230. R35. 1202/2.

Type HA - Carinated bowls (Fig. 3.2.9b: Bowls (Class HA))

231. W12. 2808/B/2.

Unillustrated examples in fabrics F51 (Young 1977, 166-167 types C81 and C83), W11 (ibid, 166, types P24 and P25), W12 (ibid 106-7, types W46 and W56) and O43.

Type HB - Straight sided bowls (Fig. 3.2.9c: Bowls (Class HB))

232. R34. 1398/B.

233. B30. 1414/A/1.

234<. B11. 2407/D/1.

235. B11. 1394/E.

236. B11. 1318/B/3.

237. B30. 765/G.

238. R35. 700/C.

239. F52. 1969/A/2.

240. C11. 765/A.

241. B11. 2385/A/3.

242. B11. 2441/B/13.

243. B30. 1244.

244. B11. 1428/C/1.

245. B11. 2407/B/1.

246. R85. 1969/2.

Type HC - Curving sided bowls (Fig. 3.2.9d: Bowls (Class HC))

247. R34. 501/B/3.

248. R35. 765/G.

249. R35. 2092/1.

250. Q21. 559/C/1.

251. W24. 2517/2.

252. R85. 2837/B/1.

253. B30. 1766/K/2.

254. B30. 620/L.

255. W22. 1202/1.

256. R34. 1278/B/1.

257. B30. 620/P/3.

258. R34. 599/D/2.

259. O34. 2817/1.

260. R34. 2847/E/1.

261. W11? 766/5. Not closely paralleled in Young (1977). The fabric is not absolutely certain and a non-Oxfordshire source is therefore possible.

Unillustrated examples in fabrics F51 (Young 1977 types C44, C45, C51, C54, C55, C68, C70, C71, C75 and C78), Q23 and R35.

Bowl bases

262. R35. 667/C. Footring base with illiterate stamp.

263. F51. 2407/F/2. Footring base with illiterate stamp. Appears very similar to Young 1977, 180 no 40, two examples of which are recorded, one from Cirencester.

264. E80. 529/C/1. Large gently rounded base with carefully formed slight indentation at very bottom. Horizontal burnished line decoration.

Type HS - Large open ‘storage’ bowls, often handmade. (Fig. 3.2.9e: Bowls (Class HS))

265. E80. 1772/A.

266. C22. 577/B/1.

267. C22. 620/U.

268. C22. 591/C/6.

269. C22. 501/B.

270. R35. 1394/D.

Top of Page

Bowls/Dishes (Class I) (Fig. 3.2.10: Bowls/Dishes (Class I) )

Type I- General group for bowls or dishes of uncertain form

271. B30/Q23*. 878.

272. B30. 1269/G/1.

273. O31. 633/C/1.

274. R34.

 

Dishes (Class J)

Type JA - Straight sided dishes (Fig. 3.2.11a: Type JA - Straight sided dishes )

275. B11. 1414/G/1.

276. B11. 2385/A/3.

277. C24. 563/A/3.

278. B11. 2385/2.

279. E83. 620/P/1.

280. B11. 1409/C/1.

281. C11. 1969/1.

282. C11. 1969/5.

283. B30. 1398/B.

284. B11. 1359/B/1.

285. B30. 1383/A.

286. O10. 2092/1.

287. B30. 1294/D/1.

Unillustrated example in fabric W22 (Young 1977, 106, type W49).

Type JB - Curving sided dishes (Fig. 3.2.11b: Type JB - Straight sided dishes )

Sub group i

288. R34. 1409/G.

289. F51??*. 2817/F/1.

290. E80. 2448.

291. R95. 2608/A.

292. R35. 700/A/1.

293. R35. 732/1.

294. R35. 765/G.

Sub group ii

295. R35. 732/1.

296. R34. 1320/E/1.

297. O31. 2397.

298. R34. 1288/B/1.

299. R34.

300. R11. 2817/D/1.

301. F31. 559/B/1.

302. R34. 1594/B. Dish with concave or "S" shaped profile.

Unillustrated examples in fabrics F51 (Young 1977, 158, type C49) and W11 (ibid, 86, type P16).

Type JF - Oval ‘fish dish’ with handles (Fig. 3.2.11b: Type JB - Straight sided dishes )
303. B11. 2407/B/1.

Top of Page

Mortaria (Class K)(Fig. 3.2.12: Mortaria (Class K) )

Type KA - Hook rimmed mortaria

304. M15. See section 2 for full description of this sherd.

Sub group i

305. M22. 2519/A/5. Young (1977) type M2, with illiterate stamp.

306. M22. 1855/A. Young (1977) type M2, with illiterate stamp.

Sub group ii

307. M11. 2092/2.

308 M11. 547/E/1.

309. M11. 1244.

310. M14. 687/1.

Unillustrated example in fabric M22 (Young 1977, 68, type M3).

Sub group iii

311. M32. 1394/D.

312. M32. 1222/1.

313. M33. 504.

Sub group iv

314. M12. 541/3.

315. M12. 504.

Sub group v

316. M14. 687.

317. M14. 687/1.

Sub group vi

318. M22. 620/M/1. Young (1977) type M6, mended with lead rivets.

Type KB - Collared mortaria with upright rim and downward pointing hooked flange.

Unillustrated examples in fabric M22 (Young 1977, types M10 and M11).

Type KD - Wall sided mortaria.

319. M41. 2375/2. Young (1977) type C97.

320. M32. 1429/D/1.

Type KE- Mortaria with tall upright bead and flattish outstretched flange.

321. M32. 1255.

Unillustrated examples of various subtypes in fabrics M22 (Young 1977, types M17, M18, M19, M22 and ?M23), M31 (Young 1977 types WC4 and WC7) and M41 (Young 1977, type C100).

Top of Page

Lids (Class L) (Fig. 3.2.13: Lids (Class L))

These have been divided into several groups based on simple characteristics of shape.

Sub group i

322. W24. 620/M.

323. O82. 2831/H.

324. R34. 501/L/2.

325. R35. 1398/B.

326. B10. 2152.

327. B10. 667/D.

328. R34. 1288/A/1.

329. B30. 1766/J/1.

Sub group ii

330. E83. 620/L.

331. R35. 2397/A/1.

332. R85. 1320/E/1.

333. R35.

334. O31. 720/G.

335. R34. 728/B/1.

336. O10. 1398/A/1.

337. R85. 2396/B/1.

Sub group iii

338. R35. 2407/F/2.

339.

R35. 2444/B/2.

340. E39. 891.

 

Sub group iv

341. B30. 1577/2.

342. R35. 2441/B/13.

343. R35. R35. 1402/A/1.

Sub group v

344. O45. 667/F/2.

345. B10. 1409/G.

Top of Page

Miscellaneous Forms (Class M) (Fig. 3.2.14: Miscellaneous Forms (Class M))

Type MA - Tazza

346. O31. 2409/C/1.

347. O43. 2444/1.

Type MF - Cheese press

348. R35. 1246/2.

Type MG - Strainer

Unillustrated example in fabric O31.

Type MI - ‘Castor Box’

349. F52. 2407/B/1. Lid

Possible copies of this form occurred in fabrics W22 (Young 1977, 107, type W59), R35 and B10.

Other (Fig. 3.2.15: Other Pottery types)

Sherds reused as spindle whorls or counters.

350. R90. 2817/E/1.

351. C22. 780/A.

352. O42. 577/M/4

353. Double stamped base from Warrens Field.

Top of Page

 

3.2.5 GENERAL DISCUSSION

The component areas of Longdoles Field demonstrate activity from the late Iron Age to the end of the Roman period. However, although the major site phases have broad date ranges activity of every phase was not present in all areas of the site. Some aspects of the pottery from the five main areas, viz., Trenches 13, 17, 19, 27 and 29 will therefore be considered separately. Only a very small amount of pottery was recovered from the Cemetery area and is not discussed in detail.

Phase 2 (Fig. 3.2.16: Group 1 Pottery from Phase 2d Ditch 2092)

Table 4lists the distribution of all fabric types by sherd numbers and percentage for the five main areas mentioned above. One of the most obvious phenomena is the restriction of the late Iron Age or ‘native’ ceramics to Trench 13. (It must be remembered that all these figures are based on the contexts selected for detailed quantification, which provide a reasonably representative sample of the archaeological activity on the site.) Here there were marked concentrations of material in a regional late Iron Age/early Roman tradition, exemplified by the E ware group, and most particularly E80, found almost exclusively in Trench 13. The same is true of many of the early calcareous fabrics such as C15, C22, C24, C32 and perhaps R77 (though this last fabric is not so clearly confined in date to the 1st century), which appear predominantly or only in Trench 13. The principal occurrence of these fabrics, as would be expected, was in contexts of Phase 2, but they are encountered in later phases. In the case of fabrics such as E80, C22, C24 and perhaps C15, such occurrences must be residual because none of these fabrics is likely to have remained in use after the late 1st century AD at the latest. E and C ware groups together accounted for 40% of the Phase 2 sherd total but only just over 5% of the material from Phase 3. In effect, as the pottery indicates, activity of Phase 2 was confined to the area of Trench 13.

A wide range of fabrics is encountered in the Trench 13 Phase 2 assemblage, reflecting the duration of this phase into the early 2nd century. By this time a substantial component of the assemblage was formed by locally produced ‘Romanised’ oxidised and reduced coarse wares. A further significant element in the assemblage was black-burnished ware or black-burnished type ware. The occurrence of this material was at a level above what would be expected given that the very end of Phase 2 coincides with the time at which the widespread distribution of Dorset BB1 commences (ie c AD 120).

It is clear, however, that intrusive material is present in this phase. This is most obviously demonstrated by the presence of fabrics such as Oxford colour-coated ware which, while not in production before c AD 240, accounted for 1.1% of the sherds in Phase 2. Fine ware fabrics F52, F53 and F63, all of later date, were also present, albeit in small quantities. The intrusive material was generally from the tops of features (particularly ditches) reasonably assigned to Phase 2, but the fact that these uppermost fills were often not distinguished in excavation makes it impossible for them to be separated off from the other fills certainly of Phase 2 date. This factor almost certainly accounts for the presence of other ‘late’ fabrics and forms noted in this phase assemblage, amongst which some of the black-burnished ware should probably be placed. The problem is that the extent of the phenomenon cannot be quantified with confidence. In the specific case of black-burnished ware it is clear that some of this material was reaching sites such as Cirencester as early as the end of the 1st century AD (Rigby 1982b, 168), though a ‘local’ black-burnished ware (Cirencester fabric 5) was consistently more common there at that time. The latter, however, was used mainly for imitations of Gallo-Belgic wares (eg Cooper 1998, 327) and is specifically equated with the present fabric R34, so should not be what is in question here. The black-burnished ware fabric group, however it is interpreted, comprised a substantial 13.6% of sherds in Phase 2.

The problem raised by the identification of intrusive material in Phase 2 is exacerbated in relation to material which could have been contemporary in this phase, but might nevertheless have been intrusive from Phase 3 contexts. It is assumed here, however, that amphorae and early mortarium fabrics consistent with the date range of Phase 2 were genuinely present on the site at that time. Some Dressel 20 forms which could be dated from roughly the middle of the 1st century are present in Trench 13, although not stratified in contemporary contexts. Mortarium fabrics such as M11 and M12, both of which can date from the middle of the 1st century, were also present. It is notable that sherds of imported mortarium fabrics (M11, M12, M14-M16) are with a single exception confined to Trench 13 (though not, of course, all in Phase 2 contexts). This is consistent either with their arrival on the site in Phase 2 when activity was confined to this area, and/or with their association with the relatively high status focus established here in Phase 3. More reassuring is the fact that in Phase 2 contexts South Gaulish samian was twice as common as Central Gaulish material, though again some of the latter (and a single sherd of East Gaulish samian) was presumably intrusive. It is notable, however, that very little if any of the samian is necessarily pre-Flavian in date (see samian report for details). Two other imported fine wares - namely Lezoux and Lyons (fabrics F41 and F42) were confined to Trench 13. Both these fabrics are present in minute quantities in the earliest phase. Apart from the diverse but numerically scarce range of genuine imports there are occasional copies of imported forms in local fabrics, such as a single example of a Hofheim type flagon (No 50) in a white ware of unknown but presumably British provenance. Overall, however, Gallo-Belgic wares are conspicuous by their absence.

In the original phasing of the site a distinction was made between a Late Iron Age phase and the earliest Roman phase (ER1), with activity in both confined to Trench 13 and the cut-off point between the two falling in the Flavian period. The issue of military ceramics formed part of this interpretative framework and was potentially linked to the introduction of Romanised building forms. With the redating of the end of Phase 2 to the early 2nd century the interpretation of aspects of the ceramic assemblage which might have military associations becomes even more difficult. Some such components have been mentioned above and include (regardless of the phase of deposition of the material) early Dressel 20 forms, some imported mortaria (for example with parallels at military sites such as Kingsholm) and Lyons ware. Local coarse wares such as Savernake ware are of course found in both military and civilian contexts, but one coarse ware form, the so-called ‘honey jar’ (classified here as a narrow mouthed jar, CC v), does have close military associations. Five certain examples of this form (Nos 77-81) were recorded, all from Trench 13 (two from Phase 2 contexts and the rest from Phase 3). All were in oxidised or white-slipped fabrics. Good parallels from Cirencester and Kingsholm are definitely military in context and pre-Flavian on the basis of association with samian ware and other early types (Rigby 1982a, 184-5; Hurst 1985, 67-8) and there is no particular reason to doubt that this is the date of the Claydon Pike examples. In contrast with this indication, however, is the more or less complete dearth of pre-Flavian samian at Claydon Pike. Conventionally this would suggest that any sort of military presence here before that date was very unlikely. The potential ceramic indicators of a military presence are therefore contradictory in their chronological emphasis, with limited indicators consistent with such a presence in the pre-Flavian period, but lacking the expected contemporary samian ware and with no structural correlates. Thereafter, fabric and form types with demonstrable military associations cannot be distinguished from the remainder of the assemblage.

There is no meaningful indication of the chronological development of the pottery assemblage through Phase 2, partly because of contamination issues and partly because the assemblages from individual sub phases (defined on stratigraphic criteria) were insufficiently large to produce reliable data (figures in archive).

Activity was widespread across the site from the early part of Phase 3 onwards. It is possible, however, that some areas outside Trench 13 also saw activity in the later part of Phase 2. In Trench 29, for example, there are indications perhaps of low level activity (compared with Trench 13 and also with Trench 17) with fewer fabric and form types represented. Fabric E39, which can be dated to the latter half of the 1st century, is well represented on Trench 29 - it appears to have a later date range than that of most of the other E wares - and an early beginning to activity in this area is also suggested by a relatively high proportion of South Gaulish samian (see Table 4), although the overall quantities are modest.

Top of Page

Phase 3 (Fig. 3.2.17: Pottery from Phase 3a Ditch 547/620)

The ceramic character of Phase 3 is not particularly distinct. This is because, in consequence of its overall time span, it contains a wide variety of ceramic components which in different circumstances might have been used to mark developmental stages in the chronological sequence. For example the appearance of the Oxford colour-coated ware and related Oxford fabrics around the middle of the 3rd century AD falls well within the phase rather than indicating the beginning of a new phase, so the presence of such material cannot be used as a clear marker of a significant stage in the development of the site. As with Phase 2, and for the same reasons, close correlation of the detailed stratigraphic sequence and the ceramic evidence (best developed in Trench 13) did not produce a clear picture of the evolution of the assemblage through this phase (despite the overall size of the Phase 3 assemblage) and the detailed evidence is not presented here. Impressions of this evolution can be based upon some aspects of the material itself, however, though without the benefit of closely supporting stratigraphic data.

The Trench 13 assemblage shows the greatest diversity in form and fabric types amongst the Phase 3 material, as was the case in all other phases, reflecting among other factors the larger area involved as well as the greater complexity (and range?) of archaeological activity. The principal coarse ware fabrics whose use was already established in Phase 2 (if not intrusive there) became significantly better established. These include oxidised and reduced wares of North Wiltshire origin (O31 and R35) and both Dorset and imitation black-burnished wares (B11 and B30). Savernake ware (R95), however, was also best represented in this phase, and clearly remained a significant component of the assemblage throughout the 2nd century. Oxfordshire products including colour-coated ware (with forms such as C45 and C51) show a small but significant increase on the anomalous levels present in Phase 2.

This general pattern of fabric proportions is seen more clearly in the Trench 17 assemblage, not affected by the problem of residual material. The assemblage was more obviously dominated by reduced coarse wares (particularly North Wiltshire products) and black-burnished wares. While not as common as in Trench 13, Savernake ware (R95) still formed a significant component of the reduced wares. Most of the various fine and specialist wares were thinly represented, Oxford colour-coated ware being the most important individual fabric in this group. The majority of the other fine and specialist wares were of types that are unlikely to be found in the region before the Antonine period, such as Nene Valley and Mancetter/Hartshill mortaria (the latter, fabric M23, strictly not present until the general Phase 3/4) and only present in small quantities at Claydon Pike. More local wares such as the white slipped fabric M32/Q22, which is dated mainly mid 2nd to mid 3rd century AD (Rigby 1982b, microfiche 1, D03-D05), were also present. Ceramically, the only noticeable distinction between the Phase 3 and 3/4 assemblages in this trench relates to the relative proportions of reduced (particularly North Wiltshire) coarse wares and black burnished wares, the former dropping from c 54% of the Phase 3 assemblage to c 44% of the Phase 3/4 group, with a corresponding increase in the latter. Since there is no meaningful increase in the level of other ‘late Roman’ ceramic markers, it is entirely possible that this change took place within the later part of Phase 3 (ie late 3rd-early 4th century) rather than later. This would be consistent for example with the low level occurrence in the Phase 3/4 group of brown colour-coated fabrics F61 and F62 whose suggested date of manufacture begins towards the end of the 3rd century (Rigby 1982b, microfiche 1, D09).

Elsewhere the Phase 3 assemblages follow a broadly similar pattern, except that there was notable variation in fine ware representation between Trenches 19 and 29. The Trench 19 Phase 3 assemblage was quite small but nevertheless contained most of the range of fabrics seen later in this area. Generally these suggest, together with the negative indicators of very low levels of South Gaulish samian ware and ‘native’ wares (E wares are completely absent in this phase group, for example), that significant activity may not have begun much before the middle of the 2nd century. The broad date range of Phase 3 makes it very difficult to establish meaningful distinctions between this assemblage and those assigned to Phase 4 or to a less certain composite Phase 3/4 in this area of the site.

The Trench 19 Phase 3 assemblage was notable for a relatively high proportion of fine wares (almost 11% of sherds in this phase group) - levels maintained in Phases 3/4 and 4. For example 85% of the Rhenish ware (fabric F44) from the site (consisting mainly of fragments of folded beakers) is recorded from this area, along with two thirds of the albeit small amount of Colchester colour-coated ware and relatively large quantities of local and Oxford colour-coated wares. These contributed to an overall very high representation of fine and specialist wares in this trench/phase group (23.6% of sherds).

While the only vessel that may provide direct support for the interpretation of this area as a ritual focus is part of what appears to be a tazza (No 347) in a possible Severn Valley ware fabric (O43 - cf Cirencester 106; Rigby 1982b, microfiche 1, D09), the high representation of fine wares might also be significant, suggesting a preponderance of drinking vessels, which can be shown elsewhere in the region to be associated with special deposits, as for example in a late 2nd century group at Alchester (Booth et al 2001, 377-378). Unfortunately, however, the Trench 19 material is fragmented and the quantification of beakers by EVEs in this area/phase group is not at all remarkable - nevertheless the high incidence and variety of fine ware sherds is suggestive of an unusual pattern.

The Trench 29 Phase 3 assemblage, in contrast, was marked by a remarkably low incidence of fine wares (only 1.6% of sherds), though other elements raised the overall fine and specialist ware total to 12.2%. Oxidised coarse wares were particularly well represented at this time, amounting to 16.4% of sherds, a figure only approached in Trench 13 (13.9%). Otherwise the assemblage appears unremarkable.

Top of Page

Phase 4 (Fig. 3.2.18: Group 3 Pottery from Phase 4a/b Pit 1989)

The general Phase 4 assemblage showed a slight but significant increase in fine and specialist ware quantities in comparison with Phase 3 and indeed with the composite Phase 3/4 assemblage. This rise was only slight in Trench 13, and in Trench 19 there was an overall decline in fine and specialist wares, marking a retreat from the high point potentially indicated by abnormal Phase 3 values with a specific functional association. Meanwhile, activity in Trench 17 appears to have ceased by this time. The fine and specialist wares were dominated at this time by Oxford products - colour-coated ware and mortaria in particular. Other components will have included residual material but it is notable that the Trench 27 assemblage, assigned entirely to Phase 4 and thus with no obvious source for residual material, includes 4.5% of samian ware and it is likely that at least some of this material will have been in contemporary use in the 4th century. Equally, in Trench 13 in Phase 4, while the 1st century ‘E’ wares were at about one eighth of their Phase 2 level, and thus clearly residual, samian ware was better represented than in Phase 2 and at about two-thirds of the level seen in Phase 3. While some of this material must have been residual it is unlikely that all of it was.

The principal components of the Phase 4 assemblage were still reduced coarse wares and black-burnished ware. The latter generally occurred at a similar level to Phase 3, though an increase from a fairly typical 23.9% of sherds in Phase 3 to 35% in the composite Phase 3/4 group was noted in Trench 17 and is not readily explained. Reduced ware levels also increased slightly from Phase 3 to 4 in Trenches 13 and 29, but declined in Trench 19, a decline corresponding to a sharp rise in the representation of fabric O43 in this trench. This development appears anomalous and is probably not representative of the general trend.

Identification of specific ceramic elements (rather than arguments based on general changes, for example in fabric proportions) which support the mid 4th century and later dating of the latest stages of activity at the site remains slightly problematic. They include Oxford colour coated ware types such as C70 and C75 (dated after AD 325), C78 (after AD 340) and C13 (?after AD 350, but see Booth et al 1994, 161-3 for a possible earlier date). A wider range of Oxford types with a terminus post quem of AD 300 (eg C68, C81 and C83) or only assigned the broad AD 240-400 date bracket, will have included examples dating after c AD 350, but these cannot be distinguished on present evidence. An increase in the representation of fabric C11 (late Harrold type shell tempered ware) was certainly chronologically significant, and characteristic rilled jar and bowl forms were present, particularly in Trench 13.

Two distinct areas not yet mentioned are the Circular Shrine (Trench 27) and the Cemetery. Both were in use for only a limited period and can be relatively closely dated. Only a very small amount of pottery was recovered from both areas. The centre of the Circular Shrine contained a complete, albeit somewhat lopsided, miniature colour-coated (fabric F63) beaker - perhaps a product of the North Wiltshire kilns (No 202). There are no precise parallels for this vessel from the region as far as is known but similar small bulbous beakers were produced by the Oxford pottery industry and dated to the 4th century (Young 1977, 74, fig 66, C102). It may be significant that at least two of these miniature Oxford vessels from sites in Somerset were found "containing hoards or in association with hoards" (ibid, 127), but a funerary association is also indicated at sites in Oxfordshire such as Barrow Hills, Radley (cf Booth 2002, 35). Apart from this vessel the pottery from the area of the shrine (approximately 3.5 kilos in total) consists primarily of equal quantities of reduced coarse wares (almost entirely the North Wiltshire fabric R35) and black-burnished ware. The small size of the assemblage makes qualitative assessment difficult, but the proportions of the ware groups, including the high representation of Oxford colour-coated ware, do not suggest that a large proportion of the assemblage was residual, for example having perhaps been redeposited from elsewhere.

Only stray sherds of pottery came from the area of the late Roman cemetery - there were no vessels associated with burials.

Top of Page

Sources of pottery supply

Table 15 illustrates the sources of supply to Claydon Pike by major site phase. The assemblage was divided into four categories: ‘local’, indicating a source of supply within c 25 km of the site; ‘regional’, sources in a band from c 25-75 km distant, including in particular the products of the Oxford industry; ‘national’, comprising British sources more than c 75 km from the site, and imports. The principal characteristics of the evolution of supply trends are clear. The Phase 2 assemblage is dominated by local products, with c 12% of sherds from ‘national’ British sources - in this case consisting very largely of Dorset BB1 - and very low levels of regional and imported products. Over time the local supply component declines to 61.5% in the 4th century. ‘Regional’ supply, essentially represented by the Oxford industry with slight input from Severn Valley and Pink Grogged wares, remains at a fairly low level until Phase 4 when it rises above 10% for the first time. A further increase in regional wares is apparent in the post-Roman Phase 5. This may represent a real trend in which the very latest Roman deposits, those most likely to be affected by post-Roman activity, contained particularly high levels of Oxford wares. ‘National’ wares reached peak levels a little earlier - particularly in the composite Phase 3/4 assemblage. As indicated above in relation to Trench 17, this may again reflect a genuine pattern in which black-burnished ware, the majority component of this group, saw a surge in distribution in the later 3rd and/or early 4th century. Imported wares never formed a large component of the assemblage, but were collectively most important in Phase 3, at which time they comprised a range of samian, amphora, mortarium and fine ware fabrics, of which only the first two were numerically significant.

With only one notable exception, black-burnished ware, the principal coarse wares supplied to the site are assigned to local sources. This group includes some fabrics which have no specific known provenance but are presumed to be local because of their abundance and utilitarian nature and also, in most cases, because their general characteristics are comparable with those of other demonstrably local fabrics in the assemblage.

Few if any of the earliest of these important fabrics or fabric groups - such as E80 or C wares - can be assigned to sources (see above). Savernake wares (E83 and R95), however, do form an identifiable, attributable element from early in Phase 2, if not from its very beginning, but before the end of this phase there begins the process of the replacement of these and other fabrics rooted in an Iron Age tradition by the Romanised grey and orange wares of the North Wiltshire industry. While attributable with confidence to this industry, no attempt has been made to try and match fabrics to the individual component kilns.

The North Wiltshire kilns were a particularly important source of supply in Phase 3, with the principal fabrics (R35 and O31) together comprising 43.5% of sherds in this phase (though oxidised wares always formed a relatively small part of this production), before declining slightly in the late Roman Phase 4. It is possible that their real peak of production was in the early to middle part of Phase 3, however, since 3rd and early 4th century evidence from the production sites is relatively sparse (Anderson 1979, 9), but the fact that fabric R35, in particular, remained important in Phase 4 supports the view that production continued into the 4th century but perhaps, for the most part, at as yet unknown sites.

These kilns have been referred to earlier in this report as being in the Swindon area and while it is true that two at least of the better known sites producing substantial amounts of pottery are located at Purton and Whitehill Farm (Anderson 1979) more recent (and unpublished) discoveries suggest that these sites may be more easterly examples of a loosely grouped industry. These kilns exploit the clay beds which run north-east to south-west across Wiltshire and were concerned with the production of both pottery and tiles. One relatively recently discovered kiln site, at Brinkworth (Currie 1988; forthcoming), produced flagons, mortaria and tiles. As is discussed in the tile report (section 3.9) the site is the source of an until recently unprovenanced tile fabric and the kiln products may be equivalent to pottery fabric O43 although the vessels at Claydon Pike recorded in this fabric would appear to be more varied than those recovered from the site at Brinkworth. This suggests either that there are further kilns in the area as yet undiscovered with a different or wider repertoire or that the site at Brinkworth would perhaps yield more information with further excavation. The association of tile and pottery manufacture is also seen at Minety, which may be slightly later in date than Brinkworth. The repertoire of these and other sites contrasts with the quite different Savernake tradition, as seen for example in the range of specialised forms such as mortaria and ring necked flagons which were produced at Brinkworth and Minety. It may also be noted that the source of the white slipped flagons and mortaria which is presumed to be in the vicinity of Cirencester remains unknown as yet. It seems likely that this kiln site or sites became important by the Antonine period, perhaps at the expense of sites such as Brinkworth which may have been in decline at thus time.

Top of Page

APPENDIX 1: Roman pottery from Pit 1989

by Edward Biddulph

As part of the process of reappraisal of the chronology of Longdoles Field a number of stratigraphically significant assemblages were scanned. Amongst these, a group of pottery from a single feature, pit 1989 in Trench 13, seemed particularly worthy of further examination. This work was carried out by Edward Biddulph, but as it was done subsequently to the main programme of work on the Roman pottery from the site the data were not integrated with those recorded by Sarah Green. They are therefore not included in any of the tables presented above, but the principal conclusions derived from them are referred to in the general discussion. A selection of material from this feature is illustrated in Fig. 3.2.18.

Fabric

Sherds

% sherds

Wt (g)

% wt

Eves

% eves

No. vessels

% vessels

Oxfordshire colour-coat ware (F51)

28

5%

90

1%

0.32

4%

3

5%

Nene Valley colour-coated ware (F52)

59

11%

476

6%

0.93

11%

6

10%

New Forest colour-coated ware (F53)

3

1%

44

1%

-

-

-

-

Oxfordshire white ware mortaria (M22)

3

1%

184

2%

0.01

<1%

1

2%

Oxfordshire red colour-coated mortaria (M41)

4

1%

46

1%

-

-

0

-

Oxfordshire fine oxidised ware (O11)

20

4%

110

1%

0.1

1%

1

2%

General sandy oxidised ware (O20)

13

3%

68

1%

0.1

1%

1

2%

General coarse oxidised ware (O80)

7

1%

153

2%

-

-

-

-

General medium sandy grey ware (R30)

200

36%

3018

40%

2.98

36%

22

37%

Black burnished ware 1 (B11)

185

34%

2470

33%

3.08

37%

18

30%

Late shell-tempered ware (C11)

30

5%

640

8%

0.85

10%

8

13%

TOTAL

-

-

-

-

Pit 1989 yielded 7.5 kg of recorded Roman pottery from 14 contexts (a further 4 kg was recorded on site but cannot be located), though in actual terms, the pottery was recovered from deposits 1 to 6. In two instances, pottery had been assigned between two contexts (3-4 and 4-5). The dating sequence from the top fill (1) to the lowest fill with pottery (6) is as follows:

1 Mid to late 4th century

2 Mid 4th century

3 Early 4th to mid 4th century

3-4 Early 4th to mid 4th century

4 Late 3rd to early 4th century

4-5 Early 4th century

6 Early 4th century

A wide range of forms and fabrics are represented in this pit assemblage. Locally-produced grey ware (R30) inevitably formed the largest proportion in most deposits. This category included North Wiltshire material (particularly fabric R35) which was not distinguished individually. It is clear that non-local coarse pottery manufacture was providing serious competition to local producers since the volume of grey ware is almost matched by black-burnished ware from Dorset (B11). Plain or flanged rim dishes and cooking jars arrived from this source, and most examples are among the latest of Dorset products. From context 6 came a splayed rim jar current during the first half of the 4th century (Gillam type 13), while an undecorated plain-rimmed dish (Gillam type 84) came from context 2. Such vessels continued to be made well into the middle of the 4th century, though production of the fabric declined rapidly at this time. Shell-tempered ware (C11) is represented in quantity in the latest fills, particularly in context 1, almost certainly pushing the date of final deposition of this fill into the second half of the 4th century. Cooking pot type jars and dishes found here are typical of the fabric. Mortaria, all from Oxfordshire kilns, are not well represented; the single recognisable form (Young (1977) type M22) is an industry standard. Of the fine wares, Nene Valley colour-coated ware (F52), surprisingly, takes a significantly larger share of the assemblage than fabric F51 from Oxfordshire. The representation of F51 is broadly in line with the Phase 3 and 4 figures from the site as a whole, and at Cirencester, for example, fabric F51 only contributes significant amounts after c 350 (Cooper 1998, table 28). Context 2 in pit 1989 yielded the most F51, including Young bowl type C45. Even allowing for the possibility that some of the pottery assigned to F52 is actually F53 from the New Forest, the proportion of F52 remains extremely high and is completely anomalous in comparison with the overall site assemblage. At least some of the F52 sherds in feature 1989 were residual; among the pieces present is an indented beaker with so-called ‘butcher’s hook’ barbotine decoration from context 4, dated to the 3rd century (Perrin 1999, 94).

With a mean sherd weight (MSW) of 14 g, pottery from the pit is reasonably well-preserved. Throughout the pit, pottery was of uniform size and condition, except in context 1, where the MSW was 23 g, and context 6, which had a MSW of 10 g. In the remaining fills it was between 13 and 15 g. A small number of cross-context joins are evident between contexts 2 and 3-4, and between 4-5 and 6. This, along with the uniform condition, suggests only short intervals between some episodes of filling, though it is conceivable that some contamination (during excavation?) has taken place. However, the composition, condition, and date of context 1 is certainly different from the lower fills, suggesting a much longer pause separating deposition of that context and context 2. Given the uniform condition (generally) and the cross-context joins, the pottery, except for that in context 1, probably derived from the same source, presumably a midden, which continued to be added to even after relocation of some of its contents. This may help to explain the seemingly residual material, especially in the lower fills.

In summary, all pottery-yielding contexts were deposited during the first half of the 4th century, probably towards the middle of the century. The final filling took place in the second half of the century, though perhaps not too far beyond AD350.

Top of Page

APPENDIX 2: Catalogue entries for selected chronologically significant Trench 13 pottery assemblages

Group 1 Phase 2d Ditch 2092 (Fig. 3.2.16)

1. O42, CC. 2092/2.

2. R95, CD. 2092/A/2.

3. R95, CD. 2092/2.

4. R35, CD. 2092/1.

5. O42, CD. 2092/1.

6. B11, CH. 2092/1.

7. R34, H. 2092/1

8. R34, HB. 2092/1.

9. B11, I, with faint traces of acute angle lattice decoration. 2092/1.

10. B11, JA, with faint traces of acute angle lattice decoration. 2092/A/2.

11. W24, JA. 2092/A/2.

12. R35, JA, with small hole drilled in base. 2092/1

.

Group 2 Phase 3a Ditch 547/620 (Fig. 3.2.17)

1. E83, CD. 547/F/1.

2. R95, CD. 620/L.

3. R35?, CD, slight sooting. 547/D/1.

4. R95, CD. 547/B/1.

5. R35, ?CD. 620/K.

6.

B11, CK. 620/N.

Group 3 Phase 4a/b Pit 1989 (Fig. 3.2.18)

In stratigraphic sequence

1. R30, CM (?Young type R38). 1989/A/6.

2. B11, JA. 1989/A/6.

3. R30, CM (?Young type R38). 1989/A/5.

4. B11, JA. 1989/A/5.

5. B11, CK. 1989/B/3-4.

6. B11, CK. 1989/B/3-4.

7. F52, E. 1989/B/3-4.

8. F52, E. 1989/B/3-4.

9. B11, JA. 19898/B/3-4.

10. M22, KD (Young type M22). 1989/A/3.

11. B11, CK. 1989/A/2.

12. F51, HC (Young type C45). 1989/A/2.

13. B11, JA. 1989/A/2.

14. R30, L. 1989/A/2.

15. C11, CK. 1989/A/1.

16. R30, CM (Young type R38). 1989/A/1.

17. C11, HB. 1989/A/1.

Top of Page

REFERENCES

Anderson, A S, 1979, The Roman pottery industry in North Wiltshire, Swindon Archaeol Soc Rep 2

Anderson, A S, 1980, Romano-British pottery kilns at Purton, Wiltshire Archaeol Mag 72/73, 51-58

Atkinson, D, 1914, A hoard of Samian Ware from Pompeii, J Roman Stud 4, 27-64

Beltrán Lloris, M, 1970 Las ánforas romanas en España, Zaragosa.

Booth, P, 1991 Inter site comparisons between pottery assemblages in Roman Warwickshire: ceramic indicators of social status, J Roman Pottery Stud 4, 1-10

Booth, P, 1997a Asthall, Oxfordshire, excavations in a Roman ‘small town', 1992, Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph No 9, Oxford Archaeol Unit

Booth, P, 1997b Pottery and other ceramic finds, in C Mould, An archaeological excavation at Oxford Road, Bicester, Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia 61 (for 1996) 75-89

Booth, P, 2002 Late Roman cemeteries in Oxfordshire: a review, Oxoniensia 66 (for 2001), 13-42

Booth, P, Boyle, A, and Keevill, G D, 1994 A Romano-British kiln site at Lower Farm, Nuneham Courtenay, and other sites on the Didcot to Oxford and Wootton to Abingdon water mains, Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia 58 (for 1993), 87-217

Booth, P, Evans, J, and Hiller, J, 2001 Excavations in the extramural settlement of Roman Alchester, Oxfordshire, 1991, Oxford Archaeology Mono 1, Oxford

Booth, P, and Green, S, 1989, The nature and distribution of certain pink, grog tempered vessels, J Roman Pottery Stud 2, 77-84

Bushe-Fox, J P, 1913 Excavations on the site of the Roman town at Wroxeter Shropshire, in 1912, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiqs London No 1

Bushe Fox, J P, 1914 Second report on the excavations on the site of the Roman town at Wroxeter, Shropshire, 1913, Rep Res Comm Soc Antiqs London No 2

Castle, S A, 1978 Amphorae from Brockley Hill, 1975, Britannia 9, 383-392

Cooper, N J, 1998, The supply of pottery to Roman Cirencester, in N Holbrook (ed), Cirencester: the Roman town defences, public buildings and shops, Cirencester Excavations V, Cirencester, 324-350

Courtois, L, and Velde, B, 1978 Une amphore à grenat jaune du Latium à amathonte, Bull Corr Hellen 102, 977-981

Gillam, J P 1976 Coarse fumed ware in north Britain and beyond, Glasgow Archaeological Journal 4, 76-80

Green, L S, and Booth, P, 1993 The Roman pottery, in T G Allen, T C Darvill, L S Green and M U Jones, Roughground Farm, Lechlade, Glos.: a prehistoric and Roman landscape, Thames Valley Landscapes: The Cotswold Water Park 1, (OUCA) Oxford, 113-142

Hands, A R, 1993 The Romano-British roadside settlement at Wilcote, Oxfordshire I. Excavations 1990-92, Brit Archaeol Rep (Brit Series) 232, Oxford

Hartley, K F, 1977 Two major potteries producing mortaria in the first century AD, in J Dore and K Greene (eds), Roman pottery studies in Britain and beyond, Brit Archaeol Rep Supplementary Series 30, 5-17, Oxford

Hartley, K F, 1985 TFs 9AA-9AC, 9Z, imported mortaria, in H R Hurst, Kingsholm, Gloucester Archaeol Reps Vol 1, Gloucester, 72

Howe, M D, Perrin, J R and Mackreth, D F, 1980 Roman pottery from the Nene Valley: a guide, Peterborough City Museum occasional paper 2

Keely, J, 1986 The coarse pottery, in A McWhirr, Houses in Roman Cirencester, Cirencester Excavations III, Cirencester, 158-189

Knorr, R, 1919 Töpfer und Fabriken verzierter Terra-Sigillata des ersten Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart

Knorr, F, 1952 Terra-Sigillata-Gefässe des ersten Jahrhunderts mit Töpfernamen, Stuttgart

Martin-Kilcher, S, 1983 Les amphores Romaines a huile de Baetique (Dressel 20 et 23) d'Augst (Colonia Augusta Rauricorum) et Kaiseraugst (Castrum Rauracense). Un rapport preliminaire, in J M Blazquez and J Remesal (eds), Produccion y Comercio del Aceite en la Antiguedad. II Congresso, Madrid, 337-347

McWhirr, A, Viner, L, and Wells, C, 1982 Romano-British cemeteries at Cirencester, Cirencester Excavations II, Cirencester

Oswald, F, 1937 Index of figure types on terra sigillata, Liverpool

Oswald, F, and Pryce, T D, 1920 An introduction to the study of Terra Sigillata, London

Panella, C, 1973 Appunti su un gruppo di anfore della prima, media e tarda etá Imperiale, Ostia III: Le terme del Nuotatore: scavo dell’ambiente V et di un saggio nell’area Studi Miscellanei 21, Rome, 460-622

Peacock, D P S, 1968 A petrological study of certain Iron Age pottery from western England, Proc Prehist Soc 13, 414-427

Peacock, D P S, 1971 Roman amphorae in pre-Roman Britain, in M Jesson and D Hill (eds) The Iron Age and its hill-forts, Southampton, 161-188

Peacock, D P S, 1974 Amphorae and the Baetican fish industry, Antiqs J 54, 232-243

Peacock, D P S, 1977 Roman amphorae; typology, fabric and origin, Coll de L’École Française de Rome 32, 261-278

Peacock, D P S, and Williams, D F, 1986 Amphorae and the Roman economy, London

Perrin, J R 1999 Roman pottery from excavations at and near to the Roman small town of Durobrivae, Water Newton, Cambridgeshire, J. Roman Pottery Stud 8

Ponsich, M, 1974 Implantation Rurale Antique sur le Bas-Guadalquivir, Madrid

Ponsich, M, 1979 Implantation Rurale Antique sur le Bas-Guadalquivir, Paris

Ricken, H, 1948 Die Bilderschüsseln der römischen Töpfer von Rheinzabern, Tafelband, Bonn

Ricken, H, and Fischer, C, 1963 Die Bilderschüsseln der römischen Töpfer von Rheinzabern, Textband, Bonn

Rigby, V, 1982a The coarse pottery, in J S Wacher and A D McWhirr, Early Roman occupation at Cirencester, Cirencester Excavations I, Cirencester, 153-200

Rigby, V, 1982b The pottery, in A McWhirr, L Viner and C Wells Romano-British cemeteries at Cirencester, Cirencester Excavations II, Cirencester, 112-125 and microfiche

Rogers, G B, 1974 Poteries sigillées de la Gaule Centrale I: Les motifs non figurés, Paris

Stanfield, J A, 1929 Unusual forms of terra sigillata, Archaeol J 86, 113-151

Stanfield, J A, and Simpson, G, 1958 Central Gaulish Potters, London

Swan, V G, 1975 Oare reconsidered and the origins of Savernake Ware in Wiltshire, Britannia 6, 36-61

Symonds, R P, 1992 Rhenish wares, fine dark coloured pottery from Gaul and Germany, Oxford Univ Comm for Archaeol Monograph 23

Terrisse, J-R, 1968 Les Céramiques sigillées gallo-romaines des Martres-de-Veyre (Puy-de-Dome), Gallia Supplement 19, Paris

Thompson, I, 1982 Grog-tempered `Belgic' pottery of South-eastern England, Brit Archaeol Rep (Brit Series) 108, Oxford

Timby, J R, 1996 Pottery, in G Hey, Iron Age and Roman settlement at Old Shifford farm, Standlake, Oxoniensia 60 (for 1995), 124-136

Timby, J R, 2000 Pottery, in E Price, Frocester. A Romano-British settlement, its antecedents and successors, Volume 2 The finds, Stonehouse, 125-162

Timby, J, 2001 A reappraisal of Savernake ware, in P Ellis (ed), Roman Wiltshire and after: Papers in honour of Ken Annable, Wiltshire Archaeol and Nat Hist Soc, Devizes, 73-84

Tomber, R, and Dore, J, 1998 The national Roman fabric reference collection: a handbook, Museum of London Archaeol Services Mono No 2

Velde, B, and Courtois, L, 1983 Yellow garnets in Roman amphorae - a possible tracer of ancient commerce, J Archaeol Science 10, 531-539

Wallace, C, and Webster, P V, 1989 Jugs and lids in Black Burnished ware, J Roman Pottery Stud 2, 88-91

Williams, D F, and Peacock, D P S, 1983 The importation of olive oil into Roman Britain, in J M Blazquez and J Remesal (eds), Produccion y Comercio del Aceite en la Antiqedad. II Congresso, Madrid, 263-80

Young, C J, 1977 The Roman pottery industry of the Oxford region, Brit Archaeol Rep (Brit Ser) 43, Oxford

Young, C. (J), 1980 The late Roman finewares, in B Rawes, The Romano-British site at Wycombe, Andoversford; excavations 1969-70, Trans Bristol and Gloucester Archaeol Soc 98, 41-46

Zevi, F, 1966 Appunti sulle anfore roman, Archaeologia Classica 18, 207-247

Zevi, F, 1967 (Review of) M.H. Callender, Roman Amphorae, J Roman Stud 57, 234-238

Top of page