HISTORY of SUSSEX

Pottery Page 1

Page 1 Page 2 Pottery 2 Pottery 2b Pottery 3 & Small Finds

The Pottery - An Introduction

The importance of the site lies not in the struclures found, but in the closely stratified groups of pottery which were recovered from the excavations. These groups are well dated by associated Samian ware.

So far no other site in Chichester has produced dated groups of this kind. It is for this reason that a large part of this report is devoted to pottery.

The large quantity of pottery belonging to phase II will be seen from the section (Fig. 2), to come from a thick layer of occupation accumulation which must represent material laid down over a period of about 50 years. During this time the whole layer was so well

churned up by worms that any stratigraphy which might have existed, was completely destroyed. However, the high percentage of Claudian Samian indicates that the site was occupied from the beginning of the Roman period.

Of the later pottery groups (with the exception of the medieval group), all that can be said is that they come from layers of derived material and must necessarily contain earlier pottery.

The initial examination and identification of the coarse pottery from trench A was made by Miss J. G. Pilmer and dated by comparison with the groups of pottery from Chichester sites previously studied by her cf. S.A.C. XCIV and XCV.

ABBREVIATIONS

Ant.J. Antiquarian Journal

Camulodunum Camulodunum. Havvkes and Hull. Society of Antiquaries,1947.

Clausenlum   Gathercole and Cotton. Excavations at Clausentum, Southampton, 1951-54. H.M.S.0.1958.

J.R.S.   Journal of Roman Studies

O. and P.   Oswald and Pryce.An Introduction to the Study of Terra Sigillata, 1920.

Richborough    J. P. Bushe-Fox. Excavations at Richhorough (4 vols.) Society of Antiquaries, 1926-1949. S.A. C.

Sussex Archaelogical Collections.

Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10

	THE SAMIAN WARE. By G. Dannel, B.A.
Phase I	See fig. 6 - Roman Pottery. Phase I - Nos. 1-3. Phase II - Nos. 4-23
Drag. 35	rim fragments. First century.
Drag. 24/25	rim fragment. Flavian
Phase II
Drag. 15/17	two fragments. Claudio-Neronic, three fragments, Neronic fragment of a stamp ? from a 15/17 reading OFLICN( Camulodunum, PL. XLII ) , No. 97 Claudio-Neronic.
Drag. 17	rim fragment, Camulodunum, p.181. fig. 42 as S 4B 10 Claudian.
Drag. 18	base stamped OF L)ICNI . Camulodunum, P1. XLII , No. 109. Licinus of Graufesenque. Claudio-Neronic. three fragments. Nero-Vespasian. two fragments. Vespasianic. four fragments. Flavian. two fragments. Late first century.
Drag. 24/24	one fragment. Neronic.
Drag. 27	one fragment 0 . and P. PI. XLIX , No. 10. Claudian. one fragment. Claudio-Neronian. one fragment. Neronian. one illegible stamp. Nero-Vespasianic. three fragments. Flavian.
Drag. 29	one fragment. Claudio-Neronic.
Drag. 35	one fragment. 0 . and P ., PI. LIII , Fig. 8., late first century. one fragment. First century.
Drag. 35/36	two fragments. 0 . and P., PI. Llll , Fig, 5, Flavian.
Drag. 37	style of CRVCVRO his ovolo (Knoor, Terra Sigillate. 1919, 29 No. 18). Dog and stag (ibid Nos. 7 and 9). The design of an open scroll is similar to that employed on the soffit of Drag 29 by CALVVS (Richborough, IV. PI. LXXIX No. 39). Small fills of leaf tip are retained over the animals, the dog being duplicated one above the other to fully fill a lower loop. Large birds of a type unusual to the potter are used in the upper loop (Knorr, 27, No. 7 OF COTOI ). The general effects are like those of Pompeii hoard bowls (Atkinson, J.R.S., 1914), and would seem to have earlier connections. 75-85 A.D.
Ritterling 9	one fragment. Claudian.
Loescheke 1a	one fragment, Camulodunum, Fig. 42, p. 181, No. 6, Claudian.
Phase III
Drag. 18	one fragment. First century.
Drag. 24/25	Probably the same vessel as in Phase II, Neronic.
	All the pottery from Phases I-III is South Gaulish.
Phase IV
Drag. 18	one fragment. First century. one fragment. Early second century.
Drag. 27	one fragment. Trajanic-Hadrianic. Central Gaulish. two fragments. Late first century.
Drag. 30	one fragment. 85-95 A.D.?
Drag. 31	one fragment. Trajanic. Central Gaulish. one fragment. Hadrianic. Central Gaulish.
Drag. 33	two fragments. Trajanic. Central Gaulish.
Drag. 35/36	one fragment. First century.
Drag. 37	one unascribed fragment. 75-85 A.D.
Pan Rock Type 7?	small piece of the upper rim. ( 0 . and P. PI. LVI , No. 14). Antonine I.
Phase V
Drag. 18R	two fragments. Hadrianic-Antonine.
Drag. 18/31	one fragment. Trajanic-Hadrianic.
Drag. 27	one fragment. Hadrianic-Antonine.
Drag. 31	one fragment. Hadrianic.
Drag. 33	base fragment stamped IS OF . Hadrianic-Antonine. base stamped P0( )S either POTITIANUS or POTTACUS of Lezoux. Hadrianic-Antonine.
Drag. 35/36	one fragment. Second century.
Drag, 37	one very small fragment with the typical pattern of many Central Gaulish potters, too small to ascribe. Antonine I.

Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10

Page 1 Page 2 Pottery 2 Pottery 2b Pottery 3 & Small Finds

Top of Page main page: www.yeoldesussexpages.com

History of Chichester

Chichester Excavations 1958-1960

HISTORY of SUSSEX

Pottery Page 1

Page 1 Page 2 Pottery 2 Pottery 2b Pottery 3 & Small Finds

The Pottery - An Introduction

The importance of the site lies not in the struclures found, but in the closely stratified groups of pottery which were recovered from the excavations. These groups are well dated by associated Samian ware.

So far no other site in Chichester has produced dated groups of this kind. It is for this reason that a large part of this report is devoted to pottery.

The large quantity of pottery belonging to phase II will be seen from the section (Fig. 2), to come from a thick layer of occupation accumulation which must represent material laid down over a period of about 50 years. During this time the whole layer was so well

churned up by worms that any stratigraphy which might have existed, was completely destroyed. However, the high percentage of Claudian Samian indicates that the site was occupied from the beginning of the Roman period.

Of the later pottery groups (with the exception of the medieval group), all that can be said is that they come from layers of derived material and must necessarily contain earlier pottery.

The initial examination and identification of the coarse pottery from trench A was made by Miss J. G. Pilmer and dated by comparison with the groups of pottery from Chichester sites previously studied by her cf. S.A.C. XCIV and XCV.

ABBREVIATIONS

Sussex Archaelogical Collections.

Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10

THE SAMIAN WARE. By G. Dannel, B.A.

Phase I

See fig. 6 - Roman Pottery. Phase I - Nos. 1-3. Phase II - Nos. 4-23

Drag. 35

rim fragments. First century.

Drag. 24/25

rim fragment. Flavian

Phase II

Drag. 15/17

two fragments. Claudio-Neronic, three fragments, Neronic fragment of a stamp ? from a 15/17 reading OFLICN( Camulodunum, PL. XLII ) , No. 97 Claudio-Neronic.

Drag. 17

rim fragment, Camulodunum, p.181. fig. 42 as S 4B 10 Claudian.

Drag. 18

base stamped OF L)ICNI . Camulodunum, P1. XLII , No. 109. Licinus of Graufesenque. Claudio-Neronic. three fragments. Nero-Vespasian. two fragments. Vespasianic. four fragments. Flavian. two fragments. Late first century.

Drag. 24/24

one fragment. Neronic.

Drag. 27

one fragment 0 . and P. PI. XLIX , No. 10. Claudian. one fragment. Claudio-Neronian. one fragment. Neronian. one illegible stamp. Nero-Vespasianic. three fragments. Flavian.

Drag. 29

one fragment. Claudio-Neronic.

Drag. 35

one fragment. 0 . and P ., PI. LIII , Fig. 8., late first century. one fragment. First century.

Drag. 35/36

two fragments. 0 . and P., PI. Llll , Fig, 5, Flavian.

Drag. 37

Ritterling 9

one fragment. Claudian.

Loescheke 1a

one fragment, Camulodunum, Fig. 42, p. 181, No. 6, Claudian.

Phase III

Drag. 18

one fragment. First century.

Drag. 24/25

Probably the same vessel as in Phase II, Neronic.

All the pottery from Phases I-III is South Gaulish.

Phase IV

Drag. 18

one fragment. First century. one fragment. Early second century.

Drag. 27

one fragment. Trajanic-Hadrianic. Central Gaulish. two fragments. Late first century.

Drag. 30

one fragment. 85-95 A.D.?

Drag. 31

one fragment. Trajanic. Central Gaulish. one fragment. Hadrianic. Central Gaulish.

Drag. 33

two fragments. Trajanic. Central Gaulish.

Drag. 35/36

one fragment. First century.

Drag. 37

one unascribed fragment. 75-85 A.D.

Pan Rock Type 7?

small piece of the upper rim. ( 0 . and P. PI. LVI , No. 14). Antonine I.

Phase V

Drag. 18R

two fragments. Hadrianic-Antonine.

Drag. 18/31

one fragment. Trajanic-Hadrianic.

Drag. 27

one fragment. Hadrianic-Antonine.

Drag. 31

one fragment. Hadrianic.

Drag. 33

base fragment stamped IS OF . Hadrianic-Antonine. base stamped P0( )S either POTITIANUS or POTTACUS of Lezoux. Hadrianic-Antonine.

Drag. 35/36

one fragment. Second century.

Drag, 37

one very small fragment with the typical pattern of many Central Gaulish potters, too small to ascribe. Antonine I.