11.6 Repaired samian: forms selected for repair

A total of 115 samian vessels with evidence of repair are listed in Table 72. These items come from a wide variety of sites across the province. This is an 'all inclusive' listing (including stratified and unstratified items, as well as some records of certain repaired forms from sites containing other repaired items that were not necessarily reported in the published literature). While it is not an ideal sample, it brings together the first comprehensive inventory of repaired samian in Britain. The list is well balanced in terms of information from various types of site, bar the case of major civil centres for which there is a lack of available data (cf. Section 11.5).

Table 75: Summary of the incidence of repaired samian vessels in Britain by form and site type (Source: Table 72; each record is an individual vessel; data excludes items associated with burials)

Table 76: Comparison of the relative frequency of repaired samian forms at military sites (N = 32), with the relative frequency of the main forms at these sites as shown by the database (N = 41 dated site groups)

Table 77: Comparison of the relative frequency of repaired samian forms at smaller civil centres (N = 27), with the relative frequency of the main forms at these sites as shown by the database (N = 32 dated site groups)

Table 78: Comparison of the relative frequency of repaired samian forms at rural sites (N = 18), with the relative frequency of the main forms at these sites as shown by the database (N = 28 dated site groups)

Examination of the samian forms that are repaired shows an overall bias towards decorated bowls (Tables 72 and 75). Some 43.7% of the repaired vessels identified to form are decorated forms with 42.7% being decorated bowls. In the case of a few publications there may have been a tendency to report repaired decorated bowls, but not other forms, but this is not certain, and, besides, the majority of reports appear to list all instances regardless of form. There seems little doubt that these vessels were being mended preferentially as Tables 75-78 make clear. The selective repair of these vessels is explicable in terms of their likely higher cost compared to other pottery types, including samian, and, potentially, because of their unusual and distinctive character and likely social functions. Of nine vessels with evidence of lead-fashioned repairs recorded from the fort at Birdoswald, six are decorated bowls (all examples of Drag. 37; Table 72). Of the ten repaired samian vessels represented at Site B at the 'Small Town' of Alchester (1991) half are decorated bowls (Dickinson 2001d, 278); of the c. 98 examples of decorated bowls at this site, c. 5.1% were repaired (cf. Appendix 11.1). The proportion is even higher at Walton-le-Dale, where 84% of the repaired samian is decorated ware, presumably bowls (Evans forthcoming b).

The proportion of repaired decorated samian vessels from rural sites is markedly lower than with the military sites and smaller civil centres (Table 75). The reason for this is not immediately apparent. Rural sites, of course, appear to have relatively low proportions of decorated ware (cf. Section 7.3; Table 35), which may be significant, as it suggests that decorated wares may not have been frequently used at rural sites in social contexts as cultural indicators, and were perhaps less valued than at, for instance, major urban centres. Hence their repair might not have been a priority. Yet proportions of decorated vessels are also low in the case of smaller civil centres (cf. Section 7.3) which, on the present data, have a high proportion of repaired decorated bowls (c. 41%: Table 77). The sample size for repaired vessels from rural sites is small (just 18 vessels), and a larger sample will be needed to ensure reliable patterns. These data from rural sites might though be taken to indicate that it was thought worthwhile to repair samian per se, independent of form.

These data show that cups were rarely repaired (Tables 75-78). Ward notes that there are several examples of the Drag. 33 cup among the repaired samian from Piercebridge, 1969-81, which is noteworthy in terms of our understanding of the potential function(s) of this 'cup' form (1993, 19). It is widely supposed that this form was used for holding liquids and for drinking; whether a repaired samian cup was not porous is uncertain, though evidently pottery repaired using rivets can hold liquids (cf. Marsh 1981, 227). This is of relevance too, vis-à-vis the decorated bowls since they likewise may have been regularly used as drinking vessels (cf. Willis 1997c); whether repaired decorated bowls with rivets or cleats could retain a liquid is an interesting point; it may be that a repaired vessel was assigned a new function.

Ward also notes that there are examples of samian mortaria among the repaired samian from Piercebridge, 1969-81. This again is of relevance with regard to the potential function(s) of this form, as a repaired mortarium might not have been suitable for robust use (cf. Ward 1993, 19), though to replace it with a new mortarium may have been comparatively costly. Another repaired samian mortarium is recorded from Segontium (Table 72).

© Internet Archaeology URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/1/11.6.html
Last updated: Mon Mar 7 2005