Whereas the proportion of dining vessels increased to its highest ever level at the site so far (nearly 20%), this change was matched by a corresponding decline in drinking vessels (by 5%). Further change was evident in the individual vessel classes. While Gallo-Belgic imports occurred only in tiny quantities (presumably residual), associated butt-beaker and platter forms were present in equally small amounts. In contrast, there were large increases in the quantity of jars (6%) and dishes (4%), combined with smaller increases in bowls and flagons. The relatively small amounts of samian were consistent with the previous period. Again, most of the stratified pottery assemblages were from pit deposits and all were predominantly composed of jar forms.
| Form | D | H | J | K | M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beakers | 0.00% | 4.83% | 10.56% | 0.00% | 13.90% |
| Bowls | 4.03% | 3.82% | 15.91% | 3.49% | 5.01% |
| Butt-beakers | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.01% |
| Dishes | 1.24% | 1.53% | 13.55% | 1.47% | 9.46% |
| Flask-jars | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 4.60% | 1.86% |
| GB beakers | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 4.60% | 0.00% |
| GB platters | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.65% | 0.00% |
| Jars | 85.27% | 81.17% | 51.49% | 75.00% | 52.44% |
| Lids | 1.71% | 5.85% | 2.99% | 0.00% | 7.88% |
| Miniatures | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.28% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Mortaria | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.63% | 0.18% | 3.15% |
| Platters | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.55% | 0.00% |
| TSG bowls | 1.40% | 0.00% | 1.18% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| TSG cups | 3.41% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.15% |
| TSG dishes | 1.09% | 0.00% | 1.18% | 0.55% | 0.00% |
| TSG platters | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.22% | 0.00% | 1.15% |
| Storage jars | 1.86% | 2.80% | 0.00% | 7.90% | 1.00% |
Table 17: Percentages of pottery form classes in excavated areas at Elms Farm, c. AD 80 - 125 (highest proportions per form type in bold)
Given that only five excavated areas contributed pottery, it was unsurprising that the areas were quite dispersed in the CA plots. The main trends included the clustering of samian ware (bowls, cups and dishes) in areas D and J, and the clustering of dining vessels (bowls and dishes) in area J. The emphasis on dining in area J raises the possibility that this area was used for communal eating, coinciding with the replacement of the older temple with a simpler, larger building (Atkinson 2002). In addition, small amounts of mortaria and olive oil amphorae corresponded to area M. However, the significance of these results is less certain, given the comparatively small quantities of pottery in this period (Table 1) and the reduced number of areas yielding pottery in this phase.
| Feature number | Feature type | Area | Jars | Lids | Mortaria | Dining vessels | Drinking vessels | Pouring vessels | Total EVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5147 | Pit | J | 51.64% | 3.00% | 0.63% | 34.15% | 10.59% | 0.00% | 14.35 |
| 15773 | Pit | M | 48.60% | 11.16% | 5.12% | 15.35% | 16.74% | 3.02% | 4.3 |
| 6201 | Pit | H | 83.97% | 5.85% | 0.00% | 5.34% | 4.83% | 0.00% | 3.93 |
| 9349 | Ditch | D | 90.11% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 4.01% | 5.88% | 0.00% | 3.74 |
| 4136 | Pit | K | 73.03% | 0.00% | 0.33% | 10.20% | 8.22% | 8.22% | 3.04 |
| 9070 | Trench | D | 83.03% | 4.06% | 0.00% | 12.92% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.71 |
| 15757 | Pit | M | 61.19% | 2.61% | 0.00% | 16.04% | 20.15% | 0.00% | 2.68 |
| 4733 | Pit | K | 94.81% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 5.19% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.54 |
| 4458 | Pit | K | 96.51% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 3.49% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.86 |
Table 18: Assemblages by functional composition of pottery, c. AD 80 - 125 (highest proportion per assemblage in bold)
CA by excavated feature largely reinforced the results of analysis by excavated area. A couple of pits (6201 from area H, 15773 from area M) in the left-hand side of the CA plot were notable for their emphasis on food preparation vessels (storage jars, lids and mortaria), pouring vessels (flask-jars) and amphorae whose contents might be associated with food preparation (fish sauce/salazones and olive oil). Although both assemblages are of moderate size (approximately 4 EVE each), on further examination it became apparent that the quantities of the vessels in question were very small relative to the overall assemblage sizes. Therefore, without further contextual associations across additional features/assemblages, it was not feasible to make more of this intriguing combination of vessels. This example highlights the potential dangers of reading CA plots at face value, without following up the trends in the raw data.
© Internet Archaeology
URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue21/2/3_5.html
Last updated: Tue May 08 2007