Journal of Roman Pottery Studies: Volume 19

By Oxbow Books

The main focus of this volume is upon pottery production sites. The major contribution comprises 'Excavations of Roman pottery kiln sites in Cantley Parish, South Yorkshire, 1956-1975' by Paul Buckland and the late John Magilton. Other contributions publish the well-preserved kiln complex and products at Lavenham, Suffolk (Andrew Newton, Andrew Peachey, et al.), mortaria and color-coated production at Newport, Lincoln (Ian Rowlandson and Hugh Fiske), a large typology of Roman pottery from Old Station Yard, York (Rob Perrin), an exploration of actions applied to pottery placed in graves across Kent (Martha Carter), and a review article considering the pottery assemblage from the Saxon Shore Fort at Oudenburg, Belgium, excavated by Sofie Vanhoutte.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Aug 11, 2022
• ISBN: 9781789258264

Book preview

Pottery from excavations conducted in 1939 in advance of the construction of an Air Raid Control Shelter in the area of the Colonia at York

Rob Perrin

Abstract

This article deals with the Roman pottery recovered from excavations in 1939 during the construction of an Air Raid Control Shelter in the Old Station Yard at York, located within the Roman colonia. The excavations revealed an early timber building and a later bath complex, including a caldarium. Some of the pottery went into the Yorkshire Museum, but the bulk was sent to Sir Ian Richmond, then at Kings College, Newcastle upon Tyne. Later, the pottery and finds were catalogued by John Gillam, aided by two German prisoners of war. What appears in this article is based on the author’s thesis for a M.Litt., awarded in 1976, and its simple purpose is to publish what is an important assemblage and to thereby provide additional examples of the pottery used in Roman York, particularly the colonia.

Keywords: York; Roman period; pottery types; Roman baths

Preamble

The pottery in this report was the subject of a M.Litt. thesis at Newcastle University. Work on it started in October 1972 and the qualification was awarded in 1976; the late Graham Webster was the examiner. The original thesis contained much discussion of the various fabrics and forms that occurred in the assemblage, but that has not been included here as this has been superseded by later publications by this author and others (Perrin 1977; 1981; 1990; 1995; Swan 1992; 1993; 1995; Swan and Monaghan 1993; Monaghan 1997). The simple purpose of this article, therefore, is to publish what is a significant assemblage and to thereby provide additional examples of the Roman pottery used in York, particularly the colonia. The thesis sections giving ‘context’ label details and on the history of the site have been retained to provide the background of the material, together with spatial and sequence information to the degree that that is possible. The thesis contains copies of the original site plan and sections compiled by the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Clerk of Works, together with prints of the official photographs taken by the railway company at the time, plus some of the site in more recent times. The reader is requested to bear in mind the fact that the report is almost 50 years old and that it is over 80 years since the excavations themselves. Copies of the thesis are lodged at Newcastle University Library and the Yorkshire Museum.

1. Introduction

In the summer of 1939 pottery and other small finds were uncovered during the construction of an Air Raid Control Shelter in the Old Station Yard at York within the area covered by the Roman colonia (Figs 1 and 2).¹ Most of these finds were placed in bags, together with labels denoting their find-spots, boxed and sent to Sir Ian Richmond, then at Kings College, Newcastle upon Tyne, by the excavation supervisor Mary Kitson Clark (later Mrs Derwas Chitty), a local historian. Later, John Gillam, together with two German prisoners of war, rescued the finds from their by then decaying bags and gave the contents of each bag and its label a separate number, which was written in a book along with the details from each label (Table 1). Gillam then stored the finds with the other archaeological material at Kings College. Some of the pottery from the excavations, however, found its way into the Yorkshire Museum and was taken to Newcastle by the present author and added to the rest when this study began. All the finds from the 1939 Air Raid Control Shelter excavations are now deposited in the Yorkshire Museum.

Little has been published on the 1939 excavations, apart from brief notes, simplified plans and four photographs in Volume 1 of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments publication on the City of York (Richmond 1946, 76–7, fig. 11; RCHM 1962, 54–6, fig. 39 nos 46–7, pl. 19–20), references to certain of the pottery items in other publications² and a short article in a contemporary newspaper a few days after the excavations had ended (York Evening Press, Monday 11 August 1939). The site is referenced by Monaghan in his volume on the pottery from Roman York (1997, 1124–5; the site is marked as no. 27 on figs 309, 313–5 and 435 of that publication).

2. The excavations

At the time in question the LNER network was controlled and monitored by telephone, with coordinating centres at various places. In order to avoid any disruption to services that could result from any of these centres being destroyed by enemy action, the railway authorities instigated a programme of air-raid precautions. Numerous Air Raid Control Shelters were constructed including examples at Hull, Sunderland and York. Their construction was designed to withstand the force of the then known most powerful bombs, and they were equipped with all the machinery necessary to run the railway network.

Figure 1. The location of the Air Raid Control Shelter site (marked with a black circle) in relation to the modern and Roman urban topography of York. This illustration reproduces fig. 307 from Jason Monaghan’s 1997 volume (Monaghan 1997) with permission of the author (JM) and the York Archaeological Trust.

Figure 2. Plan of the 1939 Air Raid Control Shelter site and its immediate environs.

Table 1. Label details and illustrated pottery from label groups

NB: Most of the contexts given label numbers also contained unillustrated sherds but this table only includes those with drawn pottery or where pottery is otherwise noted; the thesis contains the full table.

The York Control Shelter was inserted into the existing bank behind the medieval City Walls (Fig. 2). This bank had previously been partly cut away to allow railway sidings to be laid out, and the resulting cutting had been revetted by a brick retaining wall. When the shelter was constructed, a hole was made in this wall through which all the material cut out of the bank was carried away.³ Once the ground had been levelled a concrete floor was laid on which the shelter was raised. The hole in the wall was then bricked up, and the roof covered in turf at the same height and with the same profile as the existing bank. The only evidence for the existence of the shelter were four ventilation shafts and patches of different coloured bricks in the external wall.

Ancient remains, including Roman, were known to exist in the area, traces having been found during earlier building by the LNER on the site. A local archaeologist and historian, Miss Mary Kitson Clark, was deputed to supervise the work and to note any discoveries. At the time, however, she was involved in excavations at Castle Hill, Almondbury, near Huddersfield, which had been intensified, in common with many at the time, owing to the threat of war, and she could not therefore be in York all the time (information from Mary Derwas Chitty). Fortunately the LNER Clerk of Works, F.E. Harrison, expressed an interest in the archaeological aspects of the excavation and it was he who drew the site plan and sections. He and his workmen also endeavoured to bag and label such finds as they had time to collect, with initial guidance from Kitson Clark.

A contemporary newspaper cutting and dates on the labels suggest that the levelling of the site prior to the construction of the shelter took approximately a month, from mid-July to mid-August.⁴ Speed was the first necessity, with the main priority being to excavate and level the chosen site as quickly as possible. The label details also suggest that once the bank retaining wall was breached the workmen first cleared straight back to the mediaeval walls to provide a working area (this sector was never excavated), and then levelled the western sector containing the caldarium, followed by the eastern sector containing the miscellaneous fragments. The necessity for speed and the conditions meant recording and recovery did not resemble anything like that on an organised archaeological excavation. The major reason why any remains were left long enough to be planned was that the ground level for the shelter coincided almost exactly with the Roman ground level. The plan and sections must have been compiled after levelling was complete and immediately prior to the laying of the concrete floor.

The LNER were not the first people to carry out systematic levelling of the area, however, for Mary Derwas Chitty noted that it had ‘been levelled at least once and then covered by a mound in antiquity’ and this means that the area excavation and levelling carried out by the LNER probably did not destroy much that had not been affected before and that, while the levels above the Roman ground level are to all intents and purposes unstratified and disturbed, much of the extant remains discovered in 1939 still possessed a degree of stratification, albeit limited. Only the two ends of the Air Raid Control Shelter site, about half the total area, were cleared sufficiently to reveal Roman remains; the middle and remainder were in constant use by the site vehicles and were merely excavated to the required level, with no archaeological examination being carried out.

3. The structures

The main structures at the western end were the apse of a caldarium and a small room, containing a flue, projecting from the north-west wall. A masonry drain ran round the outside of the apse. Some flagstones of the hypocaust basement, and part of a sleeper-beam trench were also revealed. Many unrelated structures were found in the eastern end. The latter comprised: two drains (one tiled, the other flagged), part of a buttressed wall with an air duct running alongside, a section of wall with both ends broken, wattle and plaster walls, clay and cobble walls, a room with a concrete floor and plaster-covered masonry walls, and a spread of crushed wattle and plaster. Other concrete floors were observed in the sections (RCHM 1962, 54–7 (34 a–g), figs 38, 44–7, pls 19–20). After the levelling was complete and while the shelter was under construction, a tunnel to carry the telephone cables was dug through the medieval bank and wall from the site to the new Railway Station. While undertaking this work a fragment of a roughly coursed rubble wall was encountered. This has since been supposed to be part of the Roman civil town defences (RCHM 1962, 49, 16b, fig. 39).

4. The pottery

4.1 The character, survival and coding of the studied pottery

Over one thousand five hundred sherds of pottery were marked and stored by John Gillam in Newcastle. A further one hundred and eighty sherds (approximately) were contained in six boxes at the Yorkshire Museum. It is doubtful that these are all that were recovered, but they are certainly all that can now be identified as coming from the 1939 excavations. Mary Derwas Chitty noted that ‘I would not expect much stratified pottery (I think there was a little) as the site had been stripped to the bottom in antiquity and covered by a later mound, scraped up, presumably, from all around and probably further disturbed by the old railway station’. It is probable, therefore, that much of the pottery is material from elsewhere, dumped when different areas of the site became disused.

As most of the pieces found in the Museum boxes are large it is probable that they represent a collection of the better pieces from the site, sorted from the others at the time. It is unfortunate that this occurred for these important sherds cannot now be added to the pottery that went to Newcastle and was marked because they have no information accompanying them, save the Museum acquisition number (1948–12.2). Moreover, the provenance of the Museum pieces is by no means completely certain. One sherd has Blossom Street written on it and this must mean that it at least is from another excavation altogether. Many sherds do have York l939 written on them, which are grounds for some confidence. The Museum pieces have been included on the basis that most of them are probably from the 1939 excavation and as such it would be unwise to ignore the evidence they provide. They can at best, however, only provide further examples of known types definitely from the 1939 excavation, and be cited as further evidence for any dates, sequences and conclusions that have already been reached with reference to the Newcastle pottery. The Museum pieces cannot therefore be used independently and any deviation they suggest from the Newcastle pottery should be interpreted with caution.

All sherds worthy of drawing have been illustrated or noted, even when they appear extremely similar in order to increase the number of types known. The order of vessel classes and types in the coarse ware section below is largely based on that in Gillam’s Types of Roman Coarse Pottery Vessels in Northern Britain (1970). The description of each illustrated sherd does not include anything which is obvious from the drawing itself, and is confined mostly to fabric colour and sometimes texture and finish. Fabric colour descriptions can vary greatly from one pottery report to another, often leading to some confusion, so this report utilizes the Munsell Soil Color Charts (1954 edition). In connection with Munsell Charts it must be remembered that the colour of a sherd can vary quite markedly from one spot to another depending on its firing, usage and the soil conditions in which it has lain for almost two thousand years, so the Munsell codes can only be taken as a guide rather than an exact match; this is especially true with regard to grey and metallic sherds. References to fabric texture and composition in this report are confined to sherds where such characteristics are significant. The unillustrated pottery, mainly body sherds, included fabrics not otherwise represented, specifically a Lyon ware ‘raspberry’ cup (Group 122, Greene 1972, fig. 3, 21), a colour-coated beaker with roughcast decoration, possibly Cologne ware (Group 7), an Italian mortarium (Group 119), a possible Oxfordshire red-slipped and white-painted imitation of a Drag. 38 bowl (M) and sherds of probable Parisian ware (Corder 1956, Groups 73 and 91).

The definitions of pottery classes, types, wares and characteristics are those found in Webster’s Romano-British Coarse Pottery – A Student’s Guide (1969). The dates given after many of the sherds are from parallels to specific vessels, types, wares or forms found in York, northern Britain or elsewhere. Moreover, as the site has little specific dating evidence of its own, the dates given often refer to the total period in which that particular class, type, ware and so on was used, though the particular sherd itself may be capable of closer dating were it stratified or associated with other finds more easily and closely dateable. The dates and parallels are those known at the time the thesis was written; these have not been updated for this publication.

The number, word or letter after each illustrated sherd, or heading the lists of unillustrated pottery, refers to either the number assigned by Gillam to the label that sherd was with (for example (1)) or indicates that it was from one of the Museum boxes (Museum or M). Pieces which came out of their bags before they could be marked, have had their number rubbed or broken off, or came from bags which had no accompanying label, have no number in the brackets and are to be considered unstratified.

4.2 Post-thesis fabric coding

Subsequent to the thesis study locally-made pottery was classified into three different fabrics (King 1975), later termed ‘Ebor’ ware (Perrin 1981, 58) and the 1751 sherds of pottery were subsequently quantified per fabric by Monaghan (1997, table 212) as follows in Table 2; the codes are based on Monaghan’s fabric concordance (1997, 1026–30).

Continental and regionally traded Roman pottery is now classified according to The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection (Tomber and Dore 1998). Accordingly, the following codes apply (though these have not been added retrospectively to the catalogue):

Table 2. Quantification by fabric of the Air Raid Control Shelter assemblage as conducted by Monaghan (1997, table 212). The codes are based on Monaghan’s fabric concordance (1997, 1026–30)

4.3 The samian ware (not illustrated)

Fragments from seventy-one different samian vessels were present. These comprise thirteen decorated vessels and fifty-three plain, alongside five items with potters’ stamps. Nineteen were produced in South Gaulish factories, forty-two in Central Gaul, and ten in East Gaulish factories. The earliest stamp is Flavian, three of the stamps are Antonine and the fifth is late Antonine to the third century. The other sixty-six sherds show a similar pattern with eighteen being Flavian, two Hadrianic to Antonine, forty-four Antonine, one Antonine to third century and one third century in date.

Plain forms

South Gaulish: Drag. 18 (2 examples), Drag. 18/31, Déch. 67.

Central Gaulish: Drag. 18/31 (3), Drag. 18/31 or 31, Drag. 31 (5), Drag. 33 (6), Drag. 38 (2), Drag. 45, Curle 15, Curle 21.

East Gaulish: Drag. 31, Drag. 45.

Decorated forms

Drag. 29. South Gaulish, early Flavian. Lower frieze: part of trifid basal wreath and gadroons. (1).

Drag. 37. South Gaulish, early Flavian, Double-bordered ovolo with central projection. Rosette tipped tongue. Wavy line border with a band of ‘S’ gadroons below; cf. style of bowl in ‘Pompeii hoard’ (Atkinson 1914). (2).

Drag. 30. South Gaulish, early Flavian. Very thin with a good gloss. Small double-bordered ovolo with a trifid tip; wavy-line border; part of a ‘St. Andrew’s Cross’ foliate design, indicating a panelled style. Topmost part has a double-plume between curved, corded buds or leaves; cf. ‘Pompeii hoard’ (Atkinson 1914). (2).

Drag. 37. South Gaulish, early Flavian. Unusual decoration comprising leafy festoons, and large, corded ‘cigars’. (Only the lower wall survives). In the pendant festoons are curious peltae with added spirals. The vigorous and inventive work suggests GERMANUS. (34).

Drag. 29. South Gaulish, Vespasianic. Three conjoining sherds. Very good thin ware and gloss but badly moulded. Very large. Upper frieze: right to left scroll; each compartment filled by two tendrils, one ending in a leaf, the other in a stirrup leaf. Lower frieze: Panel with an eagle in a medallion. The corners of the panel contain sinuous tendrils ending in leaf buds. To the left there are signs of small panels, one filled with the same leaf as in the upper frieze. The distinctive eagle in the medallion (O.2180) can be found in the ‘Pompeii hoard’ used in the same way by MOMMO and earlier by FELIX (Atkinson 1914). The very large stirrup leaf was used by PASSSSENUS who produced similar lower frieze arrangements with the same leaf bud. (102).

Drag. 37. South Gaulish, Flavian (Domitianic) or later. Good gloss, but thick ware and poorly moulded. Double-bordered ovolo with a central projection; rosette tipped tongue and a large wavy-line border. The fragment of decoration suggests free-style or large panels. (43).

Drag. 37. Central Gaulish, Antonine. Double-bordered ovolo with a central projection. A five pointed rosette tip or tongue, used by many potters. (7).

Drag. 30. Central Gaulish, Antonine, c. AD 150–70. Double-bordered ovolo with a central projection. Straight-headed tongue. Bead row border. Decoration consists of two lengths of bead-row measuring the full height of the decorated zone, separated by, and ending in astragali. Two meandering tendrils begin on each side of the central astragalus, terminating in leaves. To the right is a tree with a spiral underneath, and to the right of the tree is part of a bird. Attributed to CINNAMUS. (23).

Drag. 37. Central Gaulish, Antonine. Small sherd. A double medallion containing two distinctive female figures. The larger is O.261. The smaller is incomplete, measuring 12 mm from foot to shoulder, with the right arm missing. She is holding an object in her left hand at her side. (73).

Déch. 72. Central Gaulish, Antonine. ‘Cut-glass’ decoration. Large fan motif and fragments of diagonal lines. (74).

Drag. 37. Central Gaulish, Antonine. A small part of an animal inhabited freestyle bowl, with a deer (O.1704) used by many potters. (112).

Drag. 29. Rim, South Gaulish, early Flavian. (1).

Stamps

TITUS FECIT. On the base of a Drag. 18/31. South Gaulish, Flavian. (127).

BELINICIM. (Retrograde). On the base of a Drag. 33. Central Gaulish, Antonine. (127).

SECU…? On the base of a Drag. 38. Central Gaulish, Antonine (-).

MAIORIS. On the base of a Drag. 33. Central Gaulish, Antonine. (36).

Illegible. On a large base of indeterminate form showing signs of repair. East Gaulish. Late Antonine or early third century? (78).

4.4 Illustrated coarse pottery

In the catalogue references to Gillam’s well-known type series are simply listed under their Gillam number as, for instance, ‘Gillam 2’. All the drawings are at one quarter size.

Figure 3

AMPHORAE

1.Dressel 2–4. Italian. Before mid-second century. (M).

2.Dressel 2–4. Italian. Before mid-second century. (M).

3.Dressel 2–4. Italian. Before mid-second century. (5).

4.Dressel 30. Spanish (Cadiz). Mid-second to third century. (M).

5.Southern Spanish. Late first to mid-second century. (M).

6.Uncertain origin. Possibly African or Eastern. (60).

7.Globular. Dressel 20. Southern Spanish. All dates. (M).

FLAGONS

8.Light red to reddish yellow 2YR 6/8–5YR 7/6. Grey core, N5. Possibly two-handled? Late first to second century. (70).

Figure 4

9.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Common type, Gillam 2. Late first/early second century. (91).

10.Reddish yellow with a grey core 5YR 7/6 and 5Y 5/I. Three-ribbed handle. Common type, Gillam 2. Date as 9. (M).

11.Red 2.5YR 4/6. Crudely attached handle. Unusual. Probably dated as 9. (M).

12.Reddish yellow 5YR 7/6. Gillam 23. RCHM 1962, 2272. Possibly late second century and after. (91).

13.Grey with a light grey surface possibly a slip, Neutral 5 and 7. Possibly second century. (73).

14.Light red with a red core 2.5YR 6/8 and 2.5YR 5/6. Very pale brown to yellow slip 10YR 8/4–10YR 8/6. Possibly second century. (73).

15.Red with a very pale brown to yellow slip 2.5YR 5/6 and 10YR 8/3 to 10YR 8/6. As Gillam 15 and Trentholme Drive (Gillam 1968) nos 7, 10 and others. Mid-second/third century. (M).

16.Dark grey 5Y 4/1. Burnished surface. Possibly a narrow-mouthed jar. Second or third century? (-).

17.Red with very pale brown slip 2.5YR 5/6 and 10YR 7/4. Close to Gillam 16 and Trentholme Drive 14, 15, 16, 19. Mid-second to mid-third centuries (M).

18.Dark grey 5Y 4/1. Single handle. Second or third centuries? (M).

19.Light reddish-brown with a very pale brown slip 2.5YR 6/4 and 10YR 7/3. (-).

20.Grey 5Y 5/1. Two pieces. Probably second or third centuries (99).

BEAKERS

21.Rhenish ware. Gillam 45. Late second to mid-third century. (93).

22.Rhenish ware. Date as 21. (67).

23.Very pale brown core with a grey to black colour–coat 10YR 8/4 and Neutral 7 to Black. Third to fourth century. (118).

24.Reddish-yellow core 7.5YR 8/6. Blue-black metallic colour-coat. Probably dated as 23. (75).

25.Pink core 7.5YR 7/4. Bluey silver grey metallic colour-coat. Probably dated as 23. (14).

26.Reddish yellow core with a grey colour-coat 2.5YR 6/8 and Neutral 5. Probably dated as 23. (73).

27.Pink core 7.5YR 7/4. Purple grey colour-coat. Rim similar to those found on colour-coated ‘copies’ at Crambeck (Corder 1937, no. 12). Gillam 42 and 43 etc. Accordingly, probably later in date. Third to fourth centuries. (46).

28.Grey core, Neutral 5. Purple grey colour-coat. Definitely a funnel neck–type (see 23). Early to middle third century and after. Seems to have been overfired. (29 and 73).

29.Reddish-brown core. Grey colour-coat 5Y 4/3 and 5Y 5/1. Dated as 28. (59).

30.Light red to red core 2.5YR 5/6 and 2.5YR 6/6. Metallic black colour-coat. Close to Trentholme Drive (Gillam 1968) no 24, dated mid-third to fourth century. (14).

31.Dark grey to reddish-brown core, Neutral 4 and 5YR 4/3. Very dark grey colour-coat 10YR 3/1. Could be from similar vessel to Gillam 78 or 81. Mid-second to mid-third century. Seems to have been overfired. (54).

32.Yellow core with very dark grey to black colour-coat 10YR 7/6 and 10YR 3/1. Dated as 28. (74).

33.Very pale brown core with very dark grey colour-coat 10YR 7/4 and 10YR 3/1. Dated as 23. (74).

34.Very pale brown core with dark blue silver grey metallic colour-coat 10YR 7/6 and 5B 4/1. Dated as 28. (73).

35.Reddish-yellow core with a red colour–coat 5YR 7/6 and 2.5YR 4/6. Dated as 28. (-).

36.Reddish-yellow core, with a blue-black colour-coat 5YR 7/6 and 5Y 2/1. Dated as 23. (141).

37.Pink core; blue–black colour-coat 7.5YR 7/4 and 5YR 2/1. Dated as 23. (50).

38.Pink to reddish-yellow core; very dark grey colour-coat 7.5YR 7/4, 7.5YR 7/6 and 10YR 3/1. Dated as 28. (74).

Figure 3. Numbers 1–8.

Figure 4. Numbers 9–61.

39.Dark grey core; blue-black colour-coat 5Y 4/1 and 5Y 2/1. Dated as 28. Seems to have been overfired. (-).

40.Reddish-yellow core; red colour-coat 5YR 7/6 and 2.5YR 6/6. Scaled decoration. Close to Gillam 53. Early to middle third to fourth century. (11).

41.Reddish-yellow core with blue-black colour-coat 5YR 7/6 and 5Y 2/1. Dated as 28. Possibly from same vessel as 36. (141).

42.White core; very dark grey colour-coat 10YR 3/1. Date range of type mid-second to late third/early fourth century. Closest parallel is May No. 6, dated probably too late as fourth century. Similar vessels occurring at Trentholme Drive (Gillam 1968) are third century, as at Catterick (Hildyard 1957, fig. 10 no. 1). Third century. (M).

43.White core; dark grey colour-coat 10YR 4/1. Indented with scale decoration similar to Gillam 53. Dated as 40. (93).

44.Reddish-yellow core; dark grey colour-coat 5YR 7/6, 5YR 7/8 and 10YR 4/1. Cornice rim. May have been decorated. Similar to Gillam 84–90. Probably mid-second to mid-third century. (93).

45.White core; dark grey colour-coat 10YR 4/1 and 5Y 4/1. Close to Hartley (1972) fig. 4 no. 3. Probably third century. (110).

NARROW-MOUTHED JARS

46.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Probably late first/second century. (13).

47.Red 2.5YR 6/6. Probably late first to second century. (65 & 68).

48.Pink core; reddish-yellow surface 7.5YR 7/4 and 5YR 6/6. Similar to Gillam 34. Could be colour-coated ware. Third century? (M).

49.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Probably late first to second century. (40).

50.Dark grey 5YR 4/1, Neutral 4. Hard fired. Similar to Swanpool (Webster and Booth 1947) C41–48. Fourth century? (M – ? not 1939).

51.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Possibly tile, but if so thin-walled. Probably late first to second century. (M).

52.Dark grey 5Y 4/1. Burnished surface. Probably second or third century. (62).

53.Dark grey 5Y 4/1. Very close parallel to a flagon from The Mount (Dickinson and Wenham 1958, nos 30 and 30a). Dated second/third century? (M).

JARS AND ‘COOKING POTS’

54.Dark grey 5Y 4/1. Burnished surface. Unusual. Possibly third to fourth century? (93).

55.Grey, Neutral 5. Paler core. Burnished surface. Unusual. Possibly third or fourth century? (93).

56.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Blackened surface. Similar vessels found by S.N. Miller (Miller 1928), No. 11 dated Flavian-Trajanic and at Brough (Wacher 1969, fig. 59 no. 138). Late first to second century. (27).

57.Light yellowish-brown 10YR 6/4. Colour altered? Cornice rim. Probably late first to second century. (93).

58.Weak red and grey sandwich fabric 2.5YR 5/2 and 5Y 5/1. Grey burnished surface 5Y 5/1. Fairly coarse fabric similar to BB1. Unusual. Second or third century? (73).

59.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Cornice rim. Dated as 57? (10).

60.Grey 5Y 6/1. Parallels from Fishergate 1929 (RCHM 1962, H50) dated first century. (3).

61.Grey, light brown, grey sandwich fabric 5Y 5/1, 7.5YR 6/4, 5Y 5/1. Dark grey burnished surface 5Y 4/1. Fairly coarse fabric. Form reminiscent of Swanpool (Webster and Booth 1947) C1-C5. Possible fourth century. (81).

Figure 5

62.Dark grey core with reddish-yellow core edges 5Y 4/1 and 5YR 6/6. Dark grey burnished surface 5Y 4/1. Fairly coarse fabric similar to BB1. Form similar to 61. Mid-second to fourth century? (62).

63.Greyish-brown 2.5YR 5/2. Sandy. Rusticated ware: nodular rustication. Late first to second century. (M).

64.Dark grey 5Y 4/1 and 10YR 4/1. Second century? (2).

65.Dark grey core with reddish-yellow core edges, Neutral 4 and 5YR 6/6. Dark grey surface 10YR 4/1. Similar to Gillam 109. Late first to second century. (11 & 60).

66.Reddish-yellow 7.5YR 7/6. Unburnished. Late first to second century. (2).

67.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Heavily burnished. Late first to second century. (83).

68.Dark grey core with reddish-yellow core edges, Neutral 4 and 5YR 6/4. Dark grey surface, Neutral 4. Similar to 65 in form and date. (M).

69.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (61).

70.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Burnished surface. Late first to second century. (124).

71.Grey, Neutral 6. Second century? (5).

72.Pink to reddish-yellow 7.5YR 7/4, 7.5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (10).

73.Grey core with reddish-yellow surface 5Y 5/1, 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (120).

74.Dark grey 10YR 4/1. Burnished surface. Fabric similar to BB1. Probably second century. (74).

75.Grey, Neutral 6 and 7. Second century? (72).

76.Grey, Neutral 6 and 7. Probably second century? (85).

77.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (82).

Figure 5. Numbers 62–116.

78.Light brownish-grey core with a grey surface 2.5Y 6/2 and Neutral 5. Second century? (-).

79.Grey core and surface, Neutral 5–Neutral 7. Second century? (-).

80.Grey core and surface 5Y 6/1. Unusual rim. Similar vessels at Trentholme Drive (Gillam 1968) nos 50–1, 58, 60–2. Late first to second century. (2).

81.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Late first to second century. (107).

82.Dark grey core; reddish-brown oxidized surface, Neutral 4 and 5YR 4/3. Similar fabric to BB2. Second or third century. (54).

83.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Burnished surface. Late first to second century. (83).

84.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (124).

85.Grey, Neutral 6. Abraded surface. Probably second century. (73).

86.Grey, Neutral 6. Abraded surface. Probably second century. (108).

87.Dark grey, Neutral 4. Similar to grey Dales ware type (206, 208–14, 217). Late second to third century. (27).

88.Light red core; dark grey surfaces 2.5YR 6/6 and Neutral 4. Second century and after? (91) 89. Light red core; dark grey surface 2.5YR 6/6 and Neutral 4. Probably same vessel as 88. Second century and after. (6).

90.Grey core, Neutral 5. Black-burnished surface. Second century and after? (73).

91.Dark grey 5Y 4/1. Second century and after? (29).

92.Light grey core and dark grey surface 10YR 7/1 and Neutral 4. Probably second century. (68).

93.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (60).

94.Grey core; dark grey surface, Neutral 6 and 10YR 4/1. Probably second century. (91).

95.Light reddish-brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (83).

96.Grey core; dark grey surface, Neutral 6 and 10YR 4/1. Probably same vessel as 94. Second century? (91).

97.Light grey 10YR 7/2. Probably second century. (71).

98.Light red 2.5YR 6/6. Late first to second century. (91).

99.Grey to dark grey 10YR 5/1 and 10YR 4/l. Probably second century. (70).

100.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Blackened surface. Late first to second century. (66).

101.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6-5YR 7/8. Late first to second century. (91).

102.Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (102).

103.Grey, Neutral 6. Probably second century. (31).

104.Grey, Neutral 6 and 5Y 5/1. Probably second century. (120).

105.Pink with yellowish-red inclusions, possibly grog 5YR 7/4 and 2.5YR 3/6. Late first to second century. (70).

106.Light red 2.5YR 6/6-2.5YR 6/8. Late first to second century. (70).

107.Pink to reddish-yellow 5YR 7/4-5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (87).

108.Light grey core with dark grey surface 10YR 7/1 and 10YR 4/1. Probably same vessel as 92. Second century. (68).

109.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (85).

110.Pink to reddish-yellow 5YR 7/4–5YR 7/6. Blackened surface. Late first to second century. (85).

111.Reddish–yellow 5YR 7/6. Abraded surface. Late first to second century. (83).

112.Light grey to grey, Neutral 7 and 5Y 5/1. Probably second century. (68).

113.Brown core; grey surface 10YR 5/3 and 5Y 5/1. Highly burnished surface. Second century and after? (73).

114.Light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Blackened surface. Late first to second century. (69).

115.Grey core with brown core edges, Neutral 6 and 10YR 6/3. Dark grey surface 10YR 4/1. Reminiscent of BB1. Late second and third century? (81).

116.Light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. Could be same vessel as 114. (69).

Figure 6

117.Dark grey 5Y 4/1. Probably second century. (M).

118.Grey core; dark grey surface, Neutral 6 and 5Y 4/1. Probably second century. (M).

119.Reddish-yellow 5YR 6/6. Blackened surface. Late first to second century. (68).

120.Grey 10YR 5/1. Probably later second century. (1).

121.Greyish-brown 10YR 5/2. Black burnished rim and part of body. Later second to third century. (59).

122.Light brown core; grey surface 7.5YR 6/4 and 5Y 7/1. Sandy fabric. Late first to second century? (M).

123.Grey 10YR 6/1. Second century? (1).

124.Light reddish-brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (7).

125.Reddish-yellow burnt to brown in places 5YR 7/6 and 7.5YR 7/4. Second century? (87).

126.Pink 7.5YR 7/4. Late first to second century. (2).

127.Light reddish-brown to light red 2.5YR 6/4-6/6. Late first to second century. (3).

128.Light red 2.5YR 6/6-6/8. Late first to second century. (1).

129.Light reddish-brown to light red 2.5YR 6/4-6/6. Late first to second century. (1).

130.Grey, Neutral 5. Second century? (2).

131.Light reddish-brown to reddish yellow 5YR 6/4-6/6. Similar to Trentholme Drive (Gillam 1968) no. 64 and Gillam 29. Later second century? (85).

Figure 6. Numbers 117–156.

132.Grey to dark grey 10YR 4/1, 10YR 5/1 and 10YR 6/1. Similar to 131. Later second century. (M).

133.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (40).

134.Light reddish-brown to light red 5YR 6/4-6/6. Late first to second century. (34).

135.Pink 5YR 7/4. Late first to second century. (14).

136.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Late first to second century. (M).

137.Very dark grey 10YR 3/1. Late first to second century. (M).

138.Grey 10YR 5/1-5/2. Second century? (72).

139.Red 2.5YR 5/6. Late first to second century. (72).

140.Grey to dark grey 5Y 5/1 and 5Y 4/1. Second century? (33).

141.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first-to second century. (72).

142.Light reddish-brown to light red 5YR 6/4–6. Late first to second century. (102).

143.Grey 5YR 5/1 and 5Y 5/1. Decoration suggests later date? Second to third century? (73).

144.Grey 5Y 5/1. Second century? (68).

145.Light reddish-brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (1).

146.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Late first to second century. (-).

147.Light reddish-brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (1).

148.Grey 5Y 7/1. Second century? (70).

149.Light reddish-brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (141).

150.Light red 2.5YR 6/6. Late first to second century. (3).

151.Light reddish-brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (1).

152.Dark grey 10YR 4/1. May be a rusticated jar. Late first to second century. (1).

153.Red 2.5YR 5/6. Late first to second century. (7).

154.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (95).

155.Grey core; light reddish-brown surface, Neutral 7 and 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (70).

156.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first-to second century. May be from a bowl. (86).

Figure 7

157.Pink 7.5YR 7/4. Late first to second century. (2).

158.Grey core and surface, Neutral 6 and 5Y 3/1. Second century? (5).

159.Grey core and surface, Neutral 6 and 5Y 4/1. Second century? Possibly same vessel as 158. (77).

160.Light red 2.5YR 6/8. Late first to second century. (16).

161.Light reddish brown 5YR 6/4. Late first to second century. (1).

162.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century. (69).

163.Pink to reddish-yellow 5YR 7/4-7/6. Late first to second century. (1).

164.Grey 5Y 5/1. Second century? (1).

165.Grey 10YR 5/2 and Neutral 6. Second century? (6).

166.Grey 10YR 6/1. Second century? (1).

167.Grey to dark grey, Neutral 6 and 10YR 6/1. Second century? (M).

168.Dark grey sandwich fabric, Neutral 4. Sandy. Large lump of ‘ironstone’ on body. Similar to Gillam 151 and Trentholme Drive (Gillam 1968) nos 49 and 59. Probably later second to third century. (92).

169.Reddish-yellow 5YR 7/6. Late first to second century? (7).

170.Reddish-yellow 5YR