ROMAN POTTERY RESEARCH FOR THE 1990s
Jason Monaghan

Romano-British pottery studies is an area of research which seems to float
in isolation. Within the mainstream textbooks on ‘Roman Britain’, (e.g. Salway 1981) pottery is either introduced in a selective manner or detailed as
an afterthought. Romano-British pottery is generally an under-used
resource consigned to the hands of ‘specialists’ and seemingly understood
by few other than that select band. A restricted view of the potential of pottery limits both the status of pottery specialists and the expectations of the
reports they produce. These may occasionally draw in statistical tools but
rarely progress beyond the most simplistic socio-economic assumptions.
A perusal of the bibliography of any major work on Romano-British
pottery will discover few theoretical works quoted. The reverse is also true.
Dean Arnold’s ‘Ceramics and Cultural Process’ (1985) has a nineteen page
bibliography, yet contains not a single reference to Roman Britain: perhaps
the world’s most highly investigated area of ceramic study. Its potential for
providing raw material for the theoretical archaeologist has been under-exploited, especially in transatlantic publications where the opportunities for
cross-fertilisation of ideas are rarely taken up (e.g. Miller 1985). Peacock
(1982) applied ethnographic principles in a study of Roman pottery production, but a reverse study is yet to be undertaken.
A division clearly exists between theory and practice. The Dark Ages for
Romano-British pottery studies ended circa 1970 and a decade or so of
important and innovative publications followed (Gillam 1970; Detsicas POTIERY REsEARCH FOR THE 1990s 149
1973; Fulford 1975; Young 1977; etc.}. The nineteen eighties, with a few
notable exceptions, saw increasing stagnation. Perhaps all the easy questions had been answered, perhaps all the plum subjects had been picked,
or perhaps we can blame the changed financial atmosphere. Digging
archaeologists allowed objectives in pottery publication to become narrow,
often requiring pot specialists to produce bland shopping lists, devoid of
comment beyond date ranges and supposed trading links. The results are
often as stimulating as a telephone directory and do not do justice to the
academic input expended on their creation.
The argument offered to support current practice is that once a site is
published, theoreticians can come along, soak up the data and produce
something intelligible. Unfortunately, much information is lost between excavation and publication, with technical complexities and advances in
methodology limiting the value of archive reports as a research tool. As excavating, cleaning, marking, storing, identifying and quantifying pottery is
an expensive procedure, it is cost effective for the researcher on the spot to
be allowed put in that extra effort to squeeze the data for all the intellectual benefit it can produce.
Much interest at TRAC 91 and TRAC 92 was attracted to the bottom-up
approach to the Roman empire. Both classical sources and conventional
archaeological texts concentrate on the military and social elite, their villas,
forts and temples, with an diminishing level of interest as they descend the
social scale.
An emphasis on the sexy evidence makes for a patchy and disrupted picture of Roman Britain, with periods which saw bursts of construction of
public buildings, or of military re-deployment gaining most attention.
Archaeological black holes develop where there is a lapse of historical
interest, with the mid-third century and the so-<:alled end of Roman Britain
as two good examples. It is a circular trap which can ensnare pottery
studies. Hostage to the historical approach, a town-based and fort-based
chronology falls apart in periods where there is urban desertion or where
there is little recognisable military activity. Ceramic typologies can reinforce existing assumptions rather than break new ground and therefore
contribute to the problem.
THE ROUTE.Am:AD? —-
In the foregoing paragraphs, a somewhat gloomy light has been cast on pottery studies, so what is the route ahead? Renewed interest in the subject is 150 J. MONAGHAN
seen in the growing success of the Journal of Roman Pottery Studies and its
establishment as an annual publication following the confident Volume 2
(1989). English Heritage commissioned The Current State of Romano-British
Pottery Studies (Fulford and Huddlestone 1991) which although much criticised (Greene 1992), contains the crucial shift of emphasis towards synthetic
and interpretive works. This report also spawned a number of ventures
that should aid first the consolidation, then the advancement of the subject.
Revision of the two aged but venerable guides to pottery research (Webster
1964 and Young 1980) is likewise more probable in the new atmosphere.
The clinical isolation of pottery from synthetic texts has been eased in
offerings by Reece (1988) and by Millet (1990). New thinking is turning
against the shopping-list approach to report writing, with the synthetic
overview finding new favour.
At the end of 1991, A English Heritage funded project began in York, in
which pottery from c. 250 sites is being studied with the deliberate aim of
breaking the circular traps outlined above. Single suburban rubbish-pits,
and areas of waste ground are being considered alongside the impressive
city-centre public buildings. The final report (Monaghan in prep.) will
range beyond the production of a list of dated deposits, or even a typology,
to consider the assemblage as a whole, within its ecological and demographic contexts. Circular arguments are being broken by returning to
basic principles and constructing an internal dated sequence: an approach
more often found in prehistoric archaeology. Dust is being blown off techniques such as seriation and reverence for accepted chronologies and the
sanctity of specialist fine wares is being set aside. By these means, it is
hoped to produce a pottery report for the 1990s.
Borders still remain to be crossed and serious theoretical treatment of the
subject is still a rarity (cf. Going 1992). It is the contention of this paper that
ceramic study is a m<uor route by which serious inroads can be made into
the chronologically and demographically biassed models of Roman Britain.
The cliched value of Romano-British pottery is in its ubiquity, its cheapness
and in consequence its abundance, so even non-use becomes an interesting
feature. Because it occurs in bulk, we have the benefits of being able to
apply a range of mathematical techniques with high degrees of confidence
(Orton and Tyers 1992). It provides a rich database not only for those
studying the Roman period, but for theoreticians interested in wider aspects of ceramic use and material culture. The subject itself is also ideal for
the theoretician to bite into, as there are a wide range of assumptions about
Roman pottery production and use which would benefit from critical study. POTTERY REsEARCH FOR THE 1990s 151
ROMAN PO’ITERY AS A SOCI()…EcONOMIC INDICATOR —-
Ingenious analysis has managed to show economic competition between
pottery industries (Fulford and Hodder 1974), and the literature abounds
with free-market assumptions about Roman pottery trade. These assumptions are applicable in some cases, but the overall picture was complicated
by various distortions and restraints. Jeremy Evans (1989) has pointed out a
tripartite division of Yorkshire pottery distributions, which appear to adhere to tribal boundaries. Paul Buckland, in a lecture delivered to the
SGRP in 1990, suggested similar restrictions on the activities of South
Yorkshire potters. It is well known that the military took a heavy hand in
pottery production and supply (Swan 1994), whether via official contracts
or unofficial connivance. The distribution of BB1, BB2 (Gillam 1981) and
later, Crambeck ware (Evans 1989) all illustrate this point. This does not
look like a free market.
There is also an assumption that pottery is the mark of prosperity and by
inference, that pottery production was a path to riches. That this was not
always the case can be deduced by considering the BB 1 industry of Dorset,
Upchurch ware (Monaghan 1987), the BB2 industries of the Thames estuary (ibid.) and East Yorkshire grey wares. The common denominator is
swamp or heath close to swamp; the land was fit for little else other than
pottery production. One (conventional) conclusion is that entrepreneurs
have taken advantage of peace, prosperity and the Roman Way to exploit
the pottery market, in particular the military market. Naturally, they sited
the potteries on their poorest land. If this had been a recognised way of
maximising profit, one would expect to find references to pottery production in the ancient treates aimed at the property-owning class. We do not
(Evans 1981: 521), which throws the conclusion into doubt.
Some eighty per cent of ethnographic studies reveal that potters are lowstatus people who would rather be farmers (Arnold 1985: 193). They are
only potters because they have been economically marginalised; this comparison may be totally spurious, but indicates that alternative models exist
for Roman Britain. Military and town-based potteries in the post-invasion
period gradually gave way to more dispersed rural industries. Couple population pressure with the introduction of land ownership and
taxation under Rome and conditions arise in which people might be forced
onto marginal land. Pottery production may have been a means of fending
off destitution rather than making a quick denarius. This assertion is supported by the dearth of references to potters and pottery in classical liter-152 J. MONAGHAN
ature: where mentioned, both are mean and contemptible. When we identify surges in pottery production we may therefore not looking be looking
at peaks of prosperity, but at peaks of social stress.
The conspicuous extravagance evident in the most prominent Roman
sites and the profusion of Roman material culture creates the impression
of a thriving and sophisticated economy, onto which it is tempting to overlay economic models appropriate to modern, western capitalist nations.
The Roman empire was, however, a pre-industrial society, with an economy
more analogous to a part-developed third world nation stagnating under
an oppressive dictatorship. Pottery ‘industries’ therefore have to be seen in
the correct light, as must economic principles such as supply, demand,
price, utility and conceptions of what is a quality and what is an inferior
good.
There is an implicit assumption in some studies that the pottery market
was consumer-led and there are frequent uses of words such as ‘popular’
applied to various wares. Producers and consumers of traded fine wares
could be separated by great distance and several middlemen, whilst pottery
could have spent a number of years in transit and storage before being
sold. Although there is evidence for some selectivity at the point of sale
(e.g. Hartley and Dickinson in Monaghan 1993) the potential for consumer
feedback was limited. The tastes of the inhabitants of northern Britain
could have had little bearing on the practices of Central Gaulish Samian
potters. Perhaps the only industries truly responding to demand are the
very local coarseware industries. In York, a higher proportion of utility
vessels, such as lids, was made in grey wares than is found in traded wares.
Traded wares such as BB2 comprise a higher ratio of easily transported
forms at the point of consumption than point of production (see Table
12.1). Local potters therefore make up the deficit, clearly responding to a
gap in the market. There are also instances of ‘the public wants what the
public gets’. The occurrence of ‘Mrican’ style pottery production in thirdcentury York can be explained as an act of military policy, but these pots
also seem to be used by civilians (Perrin 1981: 90, figs 445-59). A sudden
civilian demand for Mrican style casseroles is unlikely, so it may be the case
of choice being constrained by availability and availability was determined
by the producer. A similar argument may be used to explain the initial
enthusiasm for black-burnished ware (Monaghan 1987: 225) or the final
adoption of the crude and ugly Calcite-Gritted ware throughout the frontier zone in the 4th century.
This paper does not intend to review the entire Roman economy, but POlTERY REsEARCH FOR THE 1990s 153
Table 12.1. Pottery forms as percentage of fabric groups.
dish jar flag. lid other source
York, local greyware 19 61 5 14 a
York, BBW 82 18 0 0 0 a
Cooling kiln BB2 50 39 8 0 1 b
Higham kiln BB2 62 38 0 0 0 c
‘Jar’ includes necked jar/bowls; ‘dish’ includes deep dish/bowls; ‘flag: = flagons, flasks, etc.
Source: a = Monaghan 1993; b = Monaghan 1987; c = Pollard 1983.
previous assessments (Jones 1974) have indicated that a state of pennanent
shortages, or at least erratic supply, of commodities was the norm. Following the trauma of invasion and conquest, there would be no real growth in
the economy. Demand for pottery could have been totally flat once basic
needs were satisfied, leaving little room for entrepreneurs, except at the
margins. For the majority of households with static (low) incomes, the
demand curve would fluctuate largely in response to changes within that
household and its immediate environment. Going (1992: 94-97) recognises
little scope for demand fluctuations, with perceived peaks of pottery output being more directly related to the circumstances of production, rather
than consumption.
Pottery, especially fine pottery, is often quoted as being a luxury item,
with trade as a lucrative result. The intimation is that luxury equals expense, but it is well recognised that Roman pottery was very cheap, with
even samian reaching otherwise impoverished sites (Griffiths 1989). It is
unlikely that inhabitants of aceramic sites were too poor to afford pottery,
it is more probable they did not recognise a need. The question can then
be asked, did the wealthy consume more pottery because they could afford
to buy more, or simply because the complexities of their lifestyle
demanded it? The word ‘need’ would mean different things to different
social groups and it is likely that social attitudes as much as wealth ultimately detennined the extent of pottery use. That pottery was not simply a
luxury is demonstrated by the gross functionality of much Romano-British
coarseware. In contrast, that it was not strictly a necessity is shown by the
sudden demise of the craft in the early fifth century. A five-point gradation
of pottery demand by households is proposed below. This does not
progress strictly by income group, rather it is a progression of social attitudes (Fig. 12.1). 154 J. MONAGHAN
a.
CIl
U
…
Q)
a.
Q
Z
<Cl::
W
Q
” ….
2
SOCIAL
1. Aceramic; has no need for pottery.
3
COARSE
4 5
GROUP
2. Acquires basic utility vessels when required, plus the occasional ‘poor mans
luxury’.
3. Acquires additional vessels, giving a luxury of choice which leads to the
possibility of specialised use and a redundancy of forms.
4. Indulges in conspicuous consumption and more rapid replacement of
vessels, which will include purchase of novelty items.
5. Regards pottery as an inferior good and replaces it where possible with other
materials.
Figure 12.1. Idealised g;raph plotting household demand (per capita) for pottery
against social sophistication. Note that fine and coarse wares are depicted on
different scales. POTTERY REsEARCH FOR THE 1990s 155
The demand curve for coarse wares would flatten out after point (3)
above as their utility declines sharply once basic needs for cooking and
storage are fIlled. Demand for ‘fIne’ wares would increase through point
(4), then decline beyond the point they were regarded as vulgar.
CONCLUSION —-
Romano-British pottery encompasses vessels which can be regarded as
luxury items and those which are purely functional, but the utility of both
was linked to its cheapness. Given adequate access to the markets, pots
would be bought when available, with consumer choice being highly
limited and exercised at a very local level. There was therefore adequate
scope for potteries to be established in response to external socio-economic pressures rather than a sudden ‘demand’ or an entrepreneurial
gamble. Likewise a scenario can be envisaged, whereby industries such as
BB2 can lapse without another local rival taking its place.
Having partly decoupled pottery from assumptions of wealth, both in
consumption and production, it becomes more of a tool for the study of
sociology, demography and ecology, particularly in relation to the humbler
parts of the social order. It holds potential for intra-site and inter-site comparisons. This idea is far from new, and can be overplayed, but is often set
aside in otherwise commendable site reports. This has been a short excursion into the possibilities of pottery studies. We are in a new decade and
we should defIne new targets and ask new questions of our pottery.
Bibliography
Anderson Anne C. and A. Scott Anderson 1981. Roman Pottery Research in
Britain and North-West Europe. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
(British Series 123).
Arnold, Dean E. 1985. Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge.
Detsicas, Alec P. (ed.) 1973. Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery.
London: Council for British Archaeology (Research Report 10).
Evans, A. K. B. 1981. Pottery and History. In Anderson and Anderson (eds)
1981,517-535.
Evans, Jeremy 1988. All Yorkshire is Divided into Three Parts; Social
Aspects of Later Roman Pottery Distribution in Yorkshire. in J. Price
and P. R. Wilson (eds), Recent Research in Roman Yorkshire, 323-337.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series 193). 156 j. MONAGHAN
Evans, Jeremy 1989. Crambeck; the Development of a Major Northern
Pottery Industry. In P. R. Wilson (ed.), Crambeck Roman Pottery lruiustry,
43-90. Leeds.
Fulford, Michael G. 1975. New Forest Roman Pottery. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports (British Series 17).
Fulford Michael G. and Ian R. Hodder 1974. A Regression Analysis of Some
Late Romano-British Fine Pottery: a Case Study. Oxonesia 39:26-33.
Fulford Michael G. and Karen Huddlestone 1991. The Current State of
Romano-British Pottery Studies. London: English Heritage (Occasional
Paper no 1).
Gillam, John P., 1970. Types oJ Roman Coarse Pottery Fourui in Northern
Britain. Newcastle.
Gillam, John P., 1981. Roman Pottery and the Economy. In Anderson and
Anderson (eds) 1981,9-24.
Going, Christopher j., 1992. Economic ‘Long Waves’ in the Roman Period:
a Reconnaissance of the Romano-British Ceramic Evidence. OxJord
Journal oJ Archaeology 11 (1):93-117.
Greene, Kevin 1992. Review of Fulford and Huddlestone 1991. Britannia 23:
362-365.
Griffiths, Karen E. 1989. The Marketing of Roman pottery in Second
Century Northamptonshire and the Milton Keynes Area. Journal oJ
Roman Pottery Studies 2:67-76.
Jones A. H. M. 1974. The Roman Economy. Oxford.
Miller, Daniel 1985. Artifacts as Categories. Cambridge.
Millett, Martin 1990. The Romanisation oJ Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Monaghan, Jason 1987. Upchurch arui Thamesirk Roman Pottery. Oxford:
British Archaeological Reports (British Series 173).
Monaghan, Jason 1993. The Archaeology oJ York, vol. 16/ 7, Roman Pottery from
the Legionary Fortress. London.
Monaghan, Jason in prep. The Archaeology of York, vo!. 16, The Roman
Pottery of York.
Orton, Clive R. and P. A. Tyers 1992. Counting Broken Objects: the
Statistics of Ceramic Assemblages. Proceedings oJ the British Academy
77:163-184.
Perrin,j. Rob, 1981. The Archaeology oJYork, vo!. 16/2, Roman Pottery from the
Colonia: Skeldergate arui Bishophill. London.
Pollard, Richard 1983. The Pottery. In P. D. Catherall 1983, A RomanoBritish Pottery Manufacturing Site at Oakleigh Farm, Higham, Kent.
Britannia 14:103-142.
Reece, Richard 1988. My Roman Britain. Cirencester.
Salway, Peter 1981. Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swan, Vivien G. 1994. Legio VI and Its Men: African Legionaries in Britain.
Journal oJ Roman Pottery Studies 5: 1-34. POTTERY REsEARCH FOR THE 1990s 157
Webster, Graham 1964. RomarurBritish Coarse Pottery – a Students Guide.
London: Council for British Archaeology (Research Report 6).
Young, Christopher J. 1977. The Roman Pottery Industry of the Oxford Region.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (British Series 43).
Young, Christopher J. 1980. Guidelines for the Processing and Publication of
Roman Pottery from Excavations. London: DeparUnent of the Environment (Occasional paper no. 4).