Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:58:07.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resistance is Futile? Ceramic Technology and Social Change in Later Iron Age and Early Roman Britain: Silchester Ware as a Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2020

Adam Sutton
Adam Sutton*
Affiliation:
Museum of London Archaeology, Northamptonasutton@mola.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the basic sequence of innovations that characterise ceramic production in southern Britain during the first centuries b.c. and a.d. is well-established, our understanding of resistance to these innovations remains in its infancy. Led by the theoretical principles of social constructionism, this paper presents a detailed technological characterisation of Silchester ware, a hand-built ceramic type common in late Iron Age and early Roman Berkshire and northern Hampshire, and a conspicuous example of technological and stylistic anachronism when compared to contemporary wheel-made pottery. Multi-period analyses using radiography, petrography and typology indicate that Silchester ware was not merely a technological ‘hangover’, but a traditional form of material culture with its own role in changing socio-economic structures. Contextualisation of the findings within the local archaeological background further suggests that Silchester ware may have been instrumental in the maintenance of local community and identity at a time when these aspects of social life were under threat. Supplementary material available online (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X20000355) comprises a characterisation of the chaînes opératoires of Silchester ware and its middle Iron Age antecedents, and a summarised version of the data, interpretations and the original radiographs.

Keywords

technologypotteryresistanceinnovationsocial constructionismpetrographyceramic radiographyseamless web of technology and society
Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 51 , November 2020 , pp. 53 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © The Author, 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berg, I. 2008: ‘Looking through pots: recent advances in ceramics X-radiography’, Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 1177–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, I. 2009: ‘X-radiography of Knossian Bronze Age vessels: the potential of a new technique for identifying primary forming methods’, Annual of the British School at Athens 104, 137–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijker, W.E. 1995: Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
Bijker, W.E. 2010: ‘How is technology made? – That is the question!’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 34, 63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T., and Pinch, T. 1987: The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
Boon, G.C., and Wymer, J. 1958: ‘A Belgic cremation burial from Burghfield’, Berkshire Archaeological Journal 66, 46–53Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1977: Outline of a Theory of Practice, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collis, J.R. 1996: ‘Hill-forts, enclosures and boundaries’, in Champion, T.C. and Collis, J.R., The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends, Sheffield, 87–94Google Scholar
Courty, M.A., and Roux, V. 1995: ‘Identification of wheel throwing on the basis of ceramic surface features and microfabrics’, Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 17–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowell, R.W., Fulford, M.G., and Lobb, S. 1980: ‘Excavations of prehistoric and Roman settlement at Aldermaston Wharf 1976–77’, Berkshire Archaeological Journal 69, 1–35Google Scholar
Creighton, J. 2000: Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. 1984a: Danebury: An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire 2: The Excavations 1969–1978: The Finds, Council for British Archaeology Research Report 52, LondonGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, B.W. 1984b: ‘Iron Age Wessex: continuity and change’, in Cunliffe, B. and Miles, D., Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 2, Oxford, 12–45Google Scholar
DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C., and Renfrew, C. 2004: Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Dobres, M.A. 2000: Technology and Social Agency, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Dobres, M.A., and Hoffman, C.R. 1994: ‘Social agency and the dynamics of prehistoric technology’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 211–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobres, M.A., and Hoffman, C.R. 1999: The Social Dynamics of Technology: Practice, Politics, and World Views, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
Elsdon, S. 1992: ‘East Midlands Scored Ware’, Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society 44, 83–91Google Scholar
Fulford, M.G. 2000: ‘Synthesis’, in Fulford, M.G. and Timby, J., Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester: Excavations on the Site of the Forum-Basilica 1977, 1980–86, Britannia Monograph 15, London, 545–64Google Scholar
Fulford, M.G. 2018: ‘Concluding discussion’, in Fulford, M.G., Clarke, A., Durham, E. and Pankhurst, N. (eds), Late Iron Age Calleva: The Pre-Conquest Occupation at Silchester Insula IX, Britannia Monograph 32, London, 363–81Google Scholar
Fulford, M., Clarke, A., Pankhurst, N., and Lodwick, L. 2018: ‘The excavation’, in Fulford, M.G., Clarke, A., Durham, E. and Pankhurst, N. (eds), Late Iron Age Calleva: The Pre-Conquest Occupation at Silchester Insula IX, Britannia Monograph 32, London, 6–53Google Scholar
Fulford, M.G., and Creighton, J. 1998: ‘A late Iron Age mirror burial from Latchmere Green, near Silchester, Hampshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 64, 331–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1979: Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis, BerkeleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984: The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
Green, C. 1980: ‘Handmade pottery and society in late Iron Age and Roman East Sussex’, Sussex Archaeological Collections 118, 69–86Google Scholar
Hamilton, S. 2007: ‘Cultural choices in the “British Eastern Channel Area” in the late pre-Roman Iron Age’, in Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T. (eds), The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond, Oxford, 81–106Google Scholar
Haselgrove, C. 1989: ‘The later Iron Age in southern Britain and beyond’, in Todd, M. (ed.), Research on Roman Britain 1960–89, Britainnia Monograph 11, London, 1–18Google Scholar
Haselgrove, C., and Moore, T. 2007: ‘New narratives of the later Iron Age’, in Haselgrove, C. and Moore, T. (eds), The Later Iron Age in Britain and Beyond, Oxford, 1–15Google Scholar
Hawkes, J.W. 1985: ‘The pottery’, in P.J. Fasham, The Prehistoric Settlement at Winnall Down, Winchester: Excavations of MARC3 Site R17 in 1976 and 1977, Hampshire Field Club Monograph 2, Gloucester, 57–76Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1995a: ‘How should we understand Iron Age societies and hillforts? A contextual study from southern Britain’, in Hill, J.D. and Cumberpatch, C.G. (eds), Different Iron Ages: Studies on the Iron Age in Temperate Europe, BAR International Series 602, Oxford, 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1995b: ‘The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland (c.800BC – AD100): an overview’, Journal of World Prehistory 9, 47–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J.D. 2002a: ‘Just about the potter's wheel? Using, making and depositing middle and later Iron Age pots in East Anglia’, in Woodward, A. and Hill, J.D. (eds), Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis, Oxford, 143–60Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 2002b: ‘Pottery and the expression of society, economy, and culture’, in Woodward, A. and Hill, J.D. (eds), Prehistoric Britain: The Ceramic Basis, Oxford, 75–84Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 2012: Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, T.P. 1986: ‘The seamless web: technology, science, etcetera, etcetera’, Social Studies of Science 16, 281–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C. 2005: Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C. 2012: ‘Materiality’, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological Theory Today, Cambridge, 365–99Google Scholar
Knappett, C., and Malafouris, L. 2008: Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, A. 2016: ‘The rise of the individual in late Iron Age southern Britain and beyond’, Chronika 6, 26–40Google Scholar
Lechtman, H. 1977: ‘Style in technology: some early thoughts’, in Lechtman, H. and Merrill, R.S. (eds), Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, St Paul, 3–20Google Scholar
Lechtman, H. 1984a: ‘Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy’, Technology and Culture 25, 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechtman, H. 1984b: ‘Pre-Columbian surface metallurgy’, Scientific American 250, 56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemonnier, P. 1992: Elements for an Anthropology of Technology, Ann ArbourCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemonnier, P. 1993: Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, LondonGoogle Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964: Gesture and Speech, Cambridge, MA and LondonGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L. 2004: ‘The cognitive basis of material engagement: where brain, body and culture conflate’, in DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, Cambridge, 53–62Google Scholar
Malafouris, L. 2013: How Things Shape the Mind, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, S.J., and Smith, N.J.P. 2000: Geology of the Reading District: A Brief Explanation of the Geological Map Sheet 268 Reading, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
Mauss, M. 1936: ‘Les techniques du corps’, Journal de Psychologie 32, 271–93Google Scholar
May, T. 1916: The Pottery Found at Silchester, ReadingGoogle Scholar
Meskell, L. 2005: Archaeologies of Materiality, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, H. 2011: ‘A late Iron Age and early Roman enclosure at Little London Road, near Silchester, Hampshire, 2003’, in Preston, S., Archaeological Investigations in the Silchester Hinterland, Thames Valley Archaeological Services Monograph 9, Reading, 93–108Google Scholar
O'Connor, S., and Maher, J. 2001: ‘The digitisation of X-radiographs for dissemination, archiving and improved image interpretation’, The Conservator 25, 3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, M., and Applin, B. 1979: ‘Excavations of an Iron Age and Romano-British settlement at Ructstalls Hill, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 1972–5’, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society 35, 41–92Google Scholar
Peacock, D.P.S. 1968: ‘A petrological study of certain Iron Age pottery from western England’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34, 414–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacock, D.P.S. 1969: ‘A contribution to the study of Glastonbury ware from south-western Britain’, Antiquaries Journal 49, 41–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierret, A., and Moran, C.J. 1996: ‘Quantification of orientation of pore patterns in X-ray images of deformed clay’, Microscopy Microanalysis Microstructures 7, 421–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierret, A., Moran, C.J., and Bresson, L.-M. 1996: ‘Calibration and visualization of wall-thickness and porosity distributions of ceramics using X-radiography and image processing’, Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 419–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pine, J. 2013: ‘Iron Age and Roman settlement at Manor Cottage, Temple Lane, Bisham, Berkshire’, in Preston, S.J., Iron Age Iron Production Sites in Berkshire, Thames Valley Archaeological Services Monograph 16, Reading, 61–96Google Scholar
Pugsley, P. 2003: Roman Domestic Wood: Analysis of the Morphology, Manufacture and Use of Selected Categories of Domestic Wooden Artefacts with Particular Reference to the Material from Roman Britain, BAR International Series 1118, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Quinn, P. 2013: Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery and Related Artefacts in Thin Section, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, H. 1995: ‘Iron Age/early Roman pottery’, in Fasham, P.J. and Keevill, G., Brighton Hill South (Hatch Warren): An Iron Age Farmstead and Deserted Medieval Village in Hampshire, Wessex Archaeology Report 7, Salisbury, 35–45Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., and Scarre, C. 1998: Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Rice, P.M. 1987: Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. LondonGoogle Scholar
Rigby, V., and Freestone, I.C. 1997: ‘Ceramic changes in late Iron Age Britain’, in Freestone, I.C. and Gaimster, D.R.M. (eds), Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions, London, 56–61Google Scholar
Robb, J. 2015: ‘What do things want? Object design as a middle-range theory of material culture’, Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 26, 166–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, V., and Courty, M.A. 1998: ‘Identification of wheel-fashioning methods: technological analysis of 4th–3rd millennium BC oriental ceramics’, Journal of Archaeological Science 25, 747–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rye, O.S. 1977: ‘Pottery manufacturing techniques: X-ray studies’, Archaeometry 19, 205–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rye, O.S. 1981: Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
Sharples, N.M. 2007: ‘Building communities and creating identities in the first millennium BC’, in Haselgrove, C. and Pope, R. (eds), The Earlier Iron Age in Britain and the near Continent, Oxford, 174–84Google Scholar
Sharples, N. 2010: Social Relations in Later Prehistory: Wessex in the First Millennium BC, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sillar, B., and Tite, M.S. 2000: ‘The challenge of “technological choices” for materials science approaches in archaeology’, Archaeometry 42, 2–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. 1977: ‘The excavation of Winklebury Camp, Basingstoke, Hampshire’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43, 31–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopford, J. 1987: ‘Danebury: an alternative view’, Scottish Archaeological Review 4, 70–5Google Scholar
Sutton, A.D. 2017: At the Interface of Makers, Matter, and Material Culture: Techniques and Society in the Ceramics of the Southern British Later Iron Age, unpub. PhD thesis, University of ReadingGoogle Scholar
Swift, E. 2017: Roman Artefacts and Society: Design, Behaviour, and Experience, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J.T., and Manning, W.H. 1974: ‘The pottery from Enclosures I and II’, in W.H. Manning, ‘Excavations on late Iron Age, Roman and Saxon sites at Ufton Nervet, Berkshire, in 1961–1963’, Berkshire Archaeological Journal 67, 24–39Google Scholar
Timby, J. 2000: ‘The pottery’, in M.G. Fulford and J. Timby, Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester: Excavations on the Site of the Forum-Basilica 1977, 1980–86, Britannia Monograph 15, London, 180–312Google Scholar
Timby, J. 2011: ‘The pottery’, in Fulford, M.G. and Clarke, A. (eds), Silchester: City in Transition: The Mid-Roman Occupation of Insula IX c.AD125–250/300: A Report on Excavations Undertaken since 1997, Britannia Monograph 25, London, 143–203Google Scholar
Timby, J. 2018: ‘Pottery’, in Fulford, M.G., Interim Report for Excavations at the Insula XXX Temple, Silchester, Site A2017.50, unpub. draft report, University of Reading, ReadingGoogle Scholar
Timby, J., and Bird, J. 2018: ‘The pottery’, in Fulford, M.G., Clarke, A., Durham, E. and Pankhurst, N. (eds), Late Iron Age Calleva: The Pre-Conquest Occupation at Silchester Insula IX, Britannia Monograph 32, London, 150–213Google Scholar
Tyers, P.A. 1981: Aspects of the Development of Late La Tene and Early Roman Pottery Industries of Gaul and Britain, unpub. PhD thesis, University College CardiffGoogle Scholar
van Oyen, A. 2016a: ‘Historicising material agency: from relations to relational constellations’, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 23, 354–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oyen, A. 2016b: How Things Make History: The Roman Empire and its Terra Sigillata Pottery, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oyen, A., and Pitts, M. 2017: Materialising Roman Histories. OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J., Powell, A.B, and Barclay, A. 2009: Excavation of Prehistoric and Romano-British Sites at Marnel Park and Merton Rise (Popley), Basingstoke, 2004–8, SalisburyGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Sutton supplementary material

Sutton supplementary material

Download Sutton supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 20.3 MB