7.2.8 Summary and discussion

In 1991 Fulford and Huddleston had written, '... we know very little about ... the relative abundance of, and the distribution within Britain of samian in comparison with other wares' (1991, 38). The samples collected for this study show that this is now no longer the case. It is apparent that there is a structured pattern to the relative frequency of samian at sites in Britain and that site type is a major determinant of levels of consumption. There is an emphatic divide between the patterns seen in samples associated with the Roman military and from the major towns on the one hand, and smaller centres, including 'Small Towns' and roadside settlements and all types of rural sites, on the other hand.

Levels of samian at extra-mural sites outside military installations are, on current evidence, similar to those for forts and fortresses (cf. 7.2.3) which is a matter of some interest for our characterisations of such sites. The accumulation of more samples may well demonstrate that samian was often relatively more frequent within extra-mural sites than within forts and fortresses themselves (cf. Table 33). This would not be so surprising given the factors considered above (7.2.3).

Tables 32 and 33 summarise the data collected in Tables 23, 24, 27 and 28 by averaging the percentages of samian present per group by site type (following Table 20 above). This crude approach amalgamates the groups by site type independent of date, location or context, but in doing so clarifies the differences in supply and consumption between the categories of site, which is the main objective. These tables emphasise the divide between the military sites and major civil centres on the one hand and smaller and rural centres on the other (i.e. where the bulk of the population lived). Attention to the individual groups from which Tables 32 and 33 derive reveals differences between sites within the same category, and each individual group can be compared to the 'norm' for the site-type category to which it belongs, which will highlight any deviations from the general trend. It is the main trends, however, which are in relief here. Interestingly, Table 32 shows that the larger sample of quantified groups by weight compiled for the present study gives a picture of the general trends consistent with the smaller sample gathered in 1998, showing that the earlier sample was reliable in this respect. The only noteworthy difference relates to the smaller centres, which have a higher overall percentage for samian than in the 1998 sample, probably a result of more site publications now being available, enabling the generation of a more reliable trend.

Table 33 amalgamates the data by site type when EVE is the measure, as noted above. Again there is a marked difference visible between the relative frequency of samian at military sites and major civil centres on one side and the smaller centres and rural sites on the other. By this method the average proportion formed by samian present within groups from military sites amounts c. 25% of the pottery; from extra-mural sites, these data suggest an even greater frequency of samian, at about 1 in 3 vessels. A greater number of samples from sites of this type are needed to verify such a high frequency (cf. above). By this method too, the average frequency for samian at major civil centres is 15.5%. For the smaller centres, religious foci and rural sites the averaged proportions are much lower. In the round, the general pattern emerging from Table 33 is consistent with that of Table 32, indicating that each is a good broad guide to the relative frequency of samian by site type.

That comparatively high proportions of samian are associated with major civil centres and low percentages at smaller civil centres and rural sites warrants further discussion. It may be seen as reflecting the ability and interest of inhabitants of the major towns in acquiring fine table ware as a status indicator and as a statement of cultural affinity (since so many aspects of samian ware connect it to the Mediterranean/Roman core). Conversely, a conventional interpretation of the consistently low proportions of samian at smaller centres and rural sites would be that the people living at these sites could not so readily afford these comparatively expensive wares and were less concerned to invest in them as a prop for status display at communal meals or as expressions of 'Romanitas'. However, several indicators point strongly to the likelihood that samian was not disregarded by the inhabitants of smaller central and rural sites, but rather that it was valued and was treated in a distinctive manner:

• among grave groups associated with smaller centres and rural sites samian is prominent.
• it is often prominent among structured deposits at such sites (see Section 12).
• there is a (perhaps surprisingly) strong tendency for unusual forms to occur at rural sites.

These trends indicate that although samian is not a very frequent find within stratified pottery assemblages at settlement sites in the middle and at the bottom of the settlement structure, samian was nonetheless prized and was employed in a number of ways, relating to status passages and 'events', that marked it as of special significance. It may be that samian was more prominent in the lives of people living in smaller centres and rural sites than the nature of the archaeological record can directly reveal: for instance, it may have been employed regularly or periodically in normal domestic life, but if vessels were carefully curated there would be, accordingly, 'less turnover', so resulting in only small proportions within stratified groups.

Overall these data show that samian was markedly more frequent at the major civil centres and at military sites. These sites are likely to have been the main recipients of bulk deliveries of this specialist fine ware. Hence it is not surprising that they are the sites at which it is most common.

© Internet Archaeology URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue17/1/7.2.8.html
Last updated: Mon Mar 7 2005