Two sculptures showing vessels hanging up are in Dijon and Trier museums; another tombstone at Bourges also shows pots hanging.

Dear Margaret,

I have no knowledge of the Samian ware, however, from a purely functional/technological standpoint, I do not believe the holes in the vessels you mention were used for suspension cords ... have you considered the possibility that these vessels may-have-been-used for making [medicinal or even beverage] decoctions (that is, used in producing an extract or "tea" by pouring hot-water (or perhaps even alcohol or distilled spirits) over a dried, vegetal substance placed in the vessel, and the resulting decoction draining through the lower hole and collected therefrom in another vessel). Just a technological opinion (not based on anything specifically archaeological or historical related to Samian ware).

Best regards,

Bob Skiles

Dear Margaret,

I know only of a small dish "Niederbieber 11a" (diameter of rim: 8,2 cm, diameter of bottom: 3 cm; height: 2,6 cm) with a small hole near the bottom (please see drawing) from the villa of Mendig, Im Winkel. As Bob suggested it may have served as a kind of sieve.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Margaret,

I have an idea or two, but would need to see illustrations of the vessel types, sizes, and placement of the holes. Fairly simple drawings would do. Have you identified whether there are more than one hole per vessel? How many from each amphitheater?

Thanks, Bob, Stefan and James.

So far, I've noted three such vessels at Chester and one, already published but without comment, at Caerleon amphitheatre. Three 'vessels' are fragmentary and so it's impossible to say how many more holes were on the vessels. A larger part of the fourth has survived, but again it's impossible to say if there might have been another 2 or 3 holes. 

I have mentioned in my report that there may have been some specific function, whether in hanging them up - or in pouring off liquids [cf Bob and Stefan's suggestions] at a 'fast-food joint' or in a gladiatorial banquet such as the cena libera. 

The latest Chester vessel was made at least 50-60 years after the other two, and was deposited at least 30 years after one of those two. So whatever the purpose, ritual or culinary, the activity seems to have gone on for years.

Kind regards to all!

James - I can't provide the illustrations before publication, but here's an extract from the 1920s' publication of Caerleon amphitheatre by Sir Mortimer Wheeler and his wife (see Wheeler and Wheeler 1928, plate 35.1 no 7). 

The text does not refer to the hole, but it has been measured recently, and the hole's original diameter was 7 mm.

Margaret. After reviewing thousands of drawings and photographs of terra sigillata and other wares, I see that holes like you have are rare. I remember being impressed recently at seeing a sophisticated ceramic strainer vessel recovered from, I think, Pompey. In plastic it could have come out of any kitchen section at the local store. May (1916) mentions several multi-hole strainer from Britain, some with many small pierced holes. Thus while Bob's suggestion about an infuser/strainer was good, the holes are probably too large, considering that they purposely made strainers.

In my review, I did notice two types of holes. The 1st appeared to be punched through the vessel walls from the inside during production, as evident by the clay burs around the holes. The other type were holes that appeared to have been worn down by cordage or ground to prevent chafing. Are the holes you have discovered pre-firing or are they drilled post-firing? The next question should be spalling: could the wear be from weathering/spalling?

Another question is, are these lower body holes only found in Britain? I ask this because of climate. Britain and the northern fringe (e.g. Germany) of the Roman Empire had cooler and wetter conditions than Italy. More below.

Without more info, I can only suggest a couple of probably dumb theories. The most obvious being flower pots. The holes would be for drainage, which in cooler, wetter climates, would be necessary to expel excess water and to prevent breakage during freezes. The drier Mediterranean climate would not warrant the need for holes for drainage. If covered, the holes also could provide a means of keeping items store inside dry by means of airflow between the inside of the vessel and the outside. In humid climates where nighttime and daytime temperatures vary widely, closed storage vessels not in cellars tend to sweat. A hole such as you have in the vessel would counter this effect.

These holes were definitely post cocturam and were very definitely pierced by intent, most probably by drilling. Thanks, James, for an interesting idea about aeration and flower-pots, although the Romans might have used aeration for something less pleasant than flowers in an amphitheatre.... Three are large, decorated bowls, but one plain vessel is a dish [shallow and wide].

There are colanders in various ceramic wares in Roman Britain, some having been made originally as colanders, and others pierced later on in a secondary function. However, large holes [of diameters c 7 to 9 mm] are exceptionally rare on samian vessels in Roman Britain. In contrast, small, drilled repair-holes [for inserting rivets and wire] are ubiquitous on sites across the country, as are the cut, cleat-type repairs. Large holes are rare to the extent that I don't recall ever seeing any 'repair-holes' quite this large in decades of samian publications.

Would anyone please update me if you see any references to terra sigillata anywhere in Europe with 'rivet-holes' of diameters over c 3 or 4 mm?

Thanks and kind regards!

 Was thinking more along the lines of flowers as decorations inside the stadium. Draining blood from meat into another vessel?

i have two suggestions based on seeing pottery in Pompeii from two gardens - the holes are large because the pot was potentially used to establish a plant - the holes may have been smaller to start with and made larger to allow the root system to eventually grow larger and penetrate soil - and become established.  Eventually the pot is removed.  This is a practice through time when you have a precious but vulnerable young plant - a staged planting out, where the pot forms protection and an attractive container until the plant is mature.  I also don't discount the sieving idea as from the hisotrical sources, textiles, such as silk or linen were used especially to filter liquids, especially wine, (or curds from whey, etc)

 Thanks, Robyn - do you have the references to the historical sources that you mention regarding sieving, please?

Are there any proofs of floral presence amongst pollen analyses at amphitheatres?

Margaret. The aspect of a post-fired drilled hole opens another line of inquiry and might help you narrow down choices. The presence of vessels with purposely drill holes in limited numbers could indicate a specialized use, which you have already suggested. However, if you consider the economics, post-fired drilling suggests that a) there was an immediate need, thus the modification was performed, or b) the need was so seldom that it was more economical to have someone drill existing vessels than it was to commission a potter to make the holed vessels. In the case of a or b, subsequent breakage would dictate the same. You noted that one was recovered from deposits ca. 30 years younger than the others, but did not mention whether this was a curated piece or later production. Depending on usage, I would think in multi-generational vendor shops that curated pieces would be expected or that the breakage of a specialized heirloom vessel would necessitate replacement.

Robyn. The rooting practice is interesting, but my concern is the rarity of these apparently post-fired drilled holes (non-repair) in the archaeological record. I analyze prehistoric Native American pottery and post ca. 1750 historic ceramics, and also reproduce native pottery. I am not a Classic ceramicist. However, Arnold (1985) would point out that production follows need. In this case, if holes in vessels for rooting plants is a need that is common in a region or village, then one would assume the demand would be great enough for the local potter to produce these specialty pots. That is, of course, assuming the village has a potter. Thus, the ceramics should have holes that were made through the vessel wall when the fabric was in its leather state and there should be more found in the archaeological record. This appears to be the opposite, where the need is insufficient to produce special vessels, thus existing ones are modified.

One note on repair holes. Holes in Native American pottery are not uncommon. These originally, as Margaret mentioned with classical ceramics, were attributed to repairs. Many of these holes are located near the rim or on the neck and there are several instances where 3, 4, 5 holes are found spaced around the upper portion of the vessel. I remember reading one older anthropological paper that said the holes where attempts to repair the vessel and were drilled approximately 5 cm ahead of the crack (????). Nice trick, huh? It was only after the recovery of intact vessels with rim holes that some earlier suggestions that they could be suspension holes was taken seriously. Repair holes should be on extant breaks. No break or crack, then another explanation is warranted.

James, I can't go into a detailed explanation of repaired samian ware on British sites just now, but if you look at any of the major samian reports within the large, published excavations in, say, northern England, you will find illustrations of more than one variety of repair. Those holes that were of the drilled variety, intended for what is termed 'rivet'-type repair, are not on a break line, are often of complete circumference and retain the metal 'rivet'. 

Margaret. I bow to your experience in Classical ceramics from Briton. Just trying to throw out some hopefully rational suggestions.

Yes, I really appreciate your stimulating ideas, James. So far, I can imagine sieving sauces or ritual oblations [or indeed blood from entrails!] better than I can envisage a flower display at an amphitheatre - but who knows, perhaps arenas in their off-season held flower-shows like those at modern-day Chelsea, Southport and local churches in the UK!!!! 

The appearance of drilled hole(s) in the footring is quite common in late medieval and modern Spanish dishes. I have seen these holes in Samian too (twice in my life, on TSH), but it is not a common feature. I think you are right; they likely served to hang the pieces by cords.

Thanks, Alfonso. It may be that repaired samian ware is more common in Britain than elsewhere. The average for repaired samian in groups from military sites is said to be 2%. Do any other north European regions have statistical analysis of repairs or refurbishment? 

I've discussed repairs and other refurbished samian ware from various excavations in northern England. One instance is the finds from Carlisle fort, Cumbria, on p 564-566 in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283052471_Ward_M_2009_The_samian_in_C_Howard-Davis_The_Carlisle_Millennium_Project_Excavations_in_Carlisle_1998-2001_Volume_2_the_finds_2009_Lancaster_539-566

Chapter Ward, M, 2009: The samian, in C Howard-Davis, The Carlisle M...

Thank you very much for the reference, Margaret. In Northwestern Spain, we often find repaired Samian pieces when (and where) distribution networks fail, especially in the first half of the fifth century. I am not aware of published statistical estimations. Anyway, take a look at this imported African dish retrieved near Madrid, with lead staples.

Lovely ARS and a lovely repair-job, I think! Thanks, Alfonso. We rarely see more than a small scrap of ARS of any date in northern England.

I wonder if any of you reading this question and the answers, would like to consider my question on another re-used samian ware item from Chester's amphitheatre?

It's only a fragment, but it may represent a makeshift abacus or gaming-board.

I would appreciate any comments or classical references to any such practices at the arena. See https://www.researchgate.net/post/Improvised_abacus_at_a_Roman_amphitheatre_are_there_Latin_references_to_betting_at_such_games_or_modern_references_to_Roman_uses_of_abaci

Notice: Several forums have noticed someone down voting answers. These down votes start from the top and slowly work their way down the posts. It appears to be either a malicious person or computer program responsible. I have requested ResearchGate to look into it.

I do not see that this has occurred on the forum. However, I suggest everyone keep a lookout and notify ResearchGate if it does occur. It is one thing to down vote an answer that is totally irrelevant to a question, it is another to do it just because you don't like the answer or because you can.

Dear Margaret,

is it possible that the pierced bowls have been re-used as incense burners?

In Belgium, and many other regions in NW Europe, we find pierced pottery vessels in medieval graves that have been re-used to burn frankincense.

See e.g.:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Koen_Deforce/publication/268211613_Holy_Smoke_in_Medieval_Funerary_Rites_Chemical_Fingerprints_of_Frankincense_in_Southern_Belgian_Incense_Burners/links/54648a130cf2c0c6aec5727a.pdf

Best regards,

Koen Deforce

Article Holy Smoke in Medieval Funerary Rites: Chemical Fingerprints...

Dear Koen,

Many thanks and please excuse my delay in answering, but I want to check the sherds again. I had discounted the idea of incense burning on first inspection, as they did not appear burnt. But - is there evidence of 'smoke'? I'll check again.

I must say, that my first instinct when you said that the pots were perforated near the foot-ring, was hanging plant holders - https://goo.gl/z4PRIa

Thanks, Stuart - that's just what I would like to find a depiction of in the classical world!

I know, but I've never seen anything like it on Roman mosaics or frescos, or even Greek pottery. Surely they must have done it though? It'd help stop pesky little critters from nibbling your kitchen herbs!

My hesitation is that most suspension holes on our prehistoric pottery are on the upper portion of the body. Not sure how holes just above the foot ring would allow for suspension, unless by wires up through the interior of the bowl? Does not seem correct. Could the "wear" on the exterior of the holes possibly be from a "stop" to prevent the wire from pulling through if suspended that way? Should be an easy experiment: get a modern unglazed terra cotta pot with approx. same wall curvature, drill a hole, suspend with iron(?) wire, and then identify where wear patterns would develop. You know that I now have to dig out my classical pottery books!

Margaret, no doubt you have considered that these pots may be candle holders, lamps of sorts, especially if you have found evidence of smoke. There are records of various metal hangers of this sort, and possibly terracotta.

Thanks, all! I had originally wondered if these vessels would have hung upside-down. James - time for Theodore Peña's 'Roman Pottery in the archaeological record', I think.

Bruce and Koen, I didn't see any obvious evidence of burning on the Chester remnants, though the surface of one fragment was a little dulled - not necessarily by any sort of burning and not abnormally dulled. They are all wide vessels and three are deep bowls, so unlikely to serve as lamps. 

Marsh reports the recovery at London of sherds consisting of the lower portion of a Gallic Sigillata vessel that had been cut down to a point just above the ring foot and had a hole drilled through the center of the floor, speculating that these might have had a stick inserted through the hole and been used as tops (Marsh 1981:229).

Marsh, G., 1981: "London's Samian supply and its relationship to the development of the Gallic Samian industry," in Anderson, A.C. and A.S. (eds) Roman Pottery Research in Britain and North-West Europe, Papers presented to Graham Webster, British Archaeological Reports Supplementary Series 13, Oxford.

Thanks, Bob. Marsh 1981 has always been very useful. Similar items though lacking a central hole and which the great British expert Brian Hartley considered 'spinning-tops', are present at various northern sites here, including Piercebridge where there were many [M Ward, The samian ware, in H E M Cool and D J P Mason, eds, Roman Piercebridge: Excavations by D.W. Harding and Peter Scott,1969-1981 Durham, 2008, Chapter 9; see p 192]. One of these days, I'll upload the chapter on RG.

Bob - have the pages, if you or anyone else are interested. As, I said, no holes in these items, though. The spindle-whorls had a drilled hole, of course.

M Ward, The samian ware, in H E M Cool and D J P Mason, eds, Roman Piercebridge: Excavations by D.W. Harding and Peter Scott,1969-1981 Durham, 2008, Chapter 9, pages 189-193 attached here.

Hi, No comparisons to give you here from a Roman perspective, but during our excavations in Cromarty, Highland, looking at the Medieval to Late Medieval Burgh, we have recovered ceramics with drilled holes. Some are obviously connected with the repair of vessels, but most appear to be associated with a function for the vessels - possibly strainers. We are identifying evidence for the processing of fish and other products during the medieval period (possibly fish oil), so the vessels with the drilled holes most likely have an industrial-type function.

Thanks, Steven - with little evidence to go on, we can only speculate about these items at the amphitheatres [including the possibility of a makeshift abacus or gaming board, as mentioned in my other question on RG]. However, records of such large holes on samian ware at other types of site would be of considerable interest...

Dear Margaret, Do you think that your question of your holed pots is confined to samian ware, or could it be extended to coarse ware as well? If the latter, you might want to consider (although you probably already know about it): Fulford, M G and Timby, J, 2001 Timing devices, fermentation vessels, ‘ritual’ piercings? A consideration of deliberately ‘holed’ pots from Silchester and elsewhere. Britannia 32, 293–7.

From a slightly different angle (I am a metalwork specialist), I found some – admittedly vague – hints at a ritual use of holed vessels when working on the assemblage from Britain's largest Roman temple complex at Springhead on the High Speed 1 rail link in Kent, where I came across a total of 34 lead pot-mends, 27 of which of a type (my type 1) which could have been used to plug holes of the size you describe; these were all found on coarse ware vessels though. I discuss ritual use for those plugs found in the sanctuary area to the east of the Ebbsfleet, while the plugs found in properties on the western (settlement) side of the Ebbsfleet may simply be related to the lead working carried out there. I attach the relevant pages 247-50 of my contribution to the volume (Schuster, J., 2011, Springhead metalwork, in Biddulph, E., Seager Smith, R. and Schuster, J., Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley: HS1 excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent – the late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon and medieval landscape Vol. 2: Late Iron Age and Roman finds reports. Salisbury, Oxford Wessex Archaeology, 189–291).

In their discussion of repaired vessels my colleagues Rachel Seager Smith and Kayt Marter Brown settled for an explanation attributed simply to a change of use (same volume, pp. 123-4).

Maybe this is of some use for your research.

Many thanks, Jörn. I see no reason why we shouldn't consider the 'other pottery' too, as I see samian ware very much as just one part of the pottery assemblage! So, this is very useful. I'll have a look at Britannia 2001. There are also recent studies of repaired samian vessels found in ritual/funerary contexts. 

From memory, there were no repairs of samian vessels amongst the Springhead/Ebbsfleet assemblage. You will find in one of the 2006 Appendices that I carried out the original assessment of the samian ware from the first CTRL Springhead site. Coincidence!

Looking at these four holed vessels from the two amphitheatres, the position of the hole pierced through the dish [found in an early amphitheatre context] makes it very unlikely to be representative of repair-work, due to the shape and mouldings on the form [Drag 15/17].

Jörn, may I ask for further details: when you said, 'In their discussion of repaired vessels my colleagues Rachel Seager Smith and Kayt Marter Brown settled for an explanation attributed simply to a change of use', do you mean change of use of the pot, or of the site and if so, in what way? I don't have a copy of the publication or of the pottery report. 

Also, do you [or other metal-work specialists] often find evidence of the rivets and/or cleats as used on samian ware but found separately from the pots themselves?  

Glad I could be of help. I was wondering whether you might have been involved with that site at some stage; but I normally try to stay far away from the pots so wouldn't have known.

There were in fact two samian sherds with remaining lead rivets from Springhead, but there are quite a few that have the holes or traces associated with them; Rachael and Kayt even mention eight samian vessels with cross-cut or bowtie-shaped slots (see p. 123). I'll try and dig out photos of those two rivets and post them here, but it might take a while to get the database working again.

Thanks again, Jörn. That's strange - I remember one Springhead dish of form 18 with a hole removing the basal stamp, but that was attributed to 'ritual killing of the pot'. I remember Joanna Bird saying that there were no repaired vessels in her final report, but perhaps this was referring to the cemetery alone and the eight samian repairs were from elsewhere?

From your description, those eight repairs are what some are calling 'cleat-type' repairs; the holes under discussion are definitely the round variety - and bear none of the faint traces of lead which lead rivets often leave when a repair was successful.

As I said, the pottery is not my metier. As Joanna isn't mentioned among the authors of the volume, I presume her assertion must indeed refer to the cemetery at Pepper Hill which was part of CTRL 1, while I am talking about CTRL 2 (or HS1 phase 2).

Anyway, of course the bowtie- or cleat-type repairs are not what you were after here, I merely mentioned them to show that there were repaired samian vessels at Springhead. I am interested to learn, though, that the holes you describe have no traces of lead.

I just saw your other query about the "change of use" and rivets and cleats. As far as I understood Rachael and Kayt, the "change of use" refers to the pot itself rather than the site.

As to lead rivets in metalwork reports: yes, they do come up occasionally as individual finds (as those from Kingscote mentioned earlier), but the round or sub-round plugs that would be useful to cover the holes in your pots are more common.

Thanks again - so, it was Springhead's CTRL1 that I know about, I guess!

Most repaired samian vessels have broken at the holes and they lack the metal rivet or 'cleat'. So I rarely see the metal repair itself and wonder how frequently the metal repair survives separately. I've often asked project managers for the metal-work specialists' identifications of rivets or cleats from pots, but as yet nobody has ever supplied details before publication. It would help both [or indeed other] sets of specialists if there was more sharing of information, I think? 

You are absolutely right Margaret, we need more sharing and talking across specialisms. When you finally locate the Springhead vol 2 you will see that we did just that in the case of the lead rivets.

As to rivets found without vessels, you might find the the entries in the Artefacts database quite useful. They are listed under the code AGV (for "agrafe vaiselle"). You might prefer to read the descriptions in French as the English version is automatically translated, producing a rather peculiar description.

http://artefacts.mom.fr/en/results.php?page=code&find=AGV

Again, thanks for further help. After a long search, I found the Springhead report online. But this must be CTRL1, as it mentions my name in Joanna Bird's report and says that there were no repaired samian vessels. See: 

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-335-1/dissemination/pdf/PT2_Spec_Reps/01_Ceramics/CER_research_reports/CER_RomanPot/CER_RomanPot_Text/CER_ROM_PHL_text.pdf

Then I found more tables at:  

http://www.owarch.co.uk/hs1/springhead-northfleet/pdf/springhead-volume-2-tables.pdf which gives your name - so, is this CTRL1 or CTRL2? The tables here appear to present different data.

Perhaps the CTRL2 samian report and the rivets/repairs aren't online? Or am I looking under the wrong volume/section? From what you say, the information on the repairs will be excellent. I'm keeping my mind open, but I doubt that the two amphitheatres' large-holed vessels represent repair-work.

I am glad I can shed some light into the jungle of the CTRL investigations.

The archive you can access on the ADS is what used to be known as CTRL 1 (the section from Folkestone to Pepper Hill (just outside Springhead); that is what your first link is part of.

CTRL 2 is the stage that included Springhead and Northfleet (as far as I know this was done in a separate stage because of the sheer volume of archaeology in this short section of the railway line – unfortunately, just before publication any mention of CTRL 2 in all four volumes had to be changed to HS1). Additional material (the supplementary tables in your link) for this stage is available from OWA, hosted on an Oxford Archaeology server, but you are right, the reports themselves are not available online. However, the reports were recently on offer from Oxbow at quite a reduced price ( but I just checked and it looks like vol 2 is no longer available...). Maybe you could ask someone at Wessex Archaeology to send you a PDF of the relevant section.

As to your large-holed vessel, I agree that they probably don't represent repair-work. How about a device to measure some time trial that went on in the amphitheatre?

Thanks - CTRL1-2 and HS1 are now elucidated!

For others outside the UK who are reading this, the acronyms represent the huge project known as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which was then legally documented as High Speed 1: for a quick explanation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1

I love the last suggestion concerning water-pouring devices. A clepsydra. I had wondered about an inter-active series when discussing in particular the bowls with one or more holes acting as sieves or water-pourers. Food for thought, again.

For information on the differing vessel forms:

The above-mentioned vessel published from Caerleon amphitheatre was a moulded bowl of Dragendorff form 29, the carinated bowl. The two Chester bowls of very differing dates were examples of the near-hemispherical form 37. See the sketches of typical instances.

The dish was of form 15/17: see the attached scan of some examples given by Oswald and Pryce in 1920 [including the rouletted variant, 15/17R]. Its characteristic wall-features would make it a very strange vessel to attempt to pierce and indeed probably caused the vessel to break - through the hole which was drilled at the junction of the base with the lower wall at the so-called 'quarter-round moulding.'

I just found in that old article in Britannia discussing all of this - ritual 'killing' of pots, timing devices AND the hanging of pots by cords - a reference to 'organic ties'. I will try to follow it up.

Doesn't make much sense, especially the latter form, unless the hole was used to drain liquid away from whatever was placed in the vessel. As for ritual killing of pots, all of the cultures of the world that I am aware of that practiced this either used a stone, stick, or bone to smash the center of the bottom.

I think that holes places through this dish might enable it to be lifted by cords - think of it inverted, and perhaps used as a lid...

Margaret,

Then I return to "What do the wear patterns show?"

A little wear on its footring indicates that the vessels saw very limited primary use as a 'normal' dish. If it was intended to see secondary use, if [for example] a decision was made to hang it up, or to enable water drainage, then it seems that piercing the vessel caused it to break. Hence it never served its secondary function - whatever its purpose. If this amphitheatre were never to provide further evidence, then we need examples elsewhere to suggest what that purpose might, just possibly, have been.

What we do know, is that at this amphitheatre, as at Caerleon amphitheatre, some person [or persons] was [or were] drilling holes larger than are usual through samian ware...

Dear Margaret,

I think the idea that the holes were used for lifting (as you posit, perhaps in an inverted position "as a lid") violate the principle of Occam's Razor (but we know this principle is often violated for unusual specimens of artifacts, especially those in a common class that have been modified for some other purpose). However, still,  there seems to be more rational/probable uses to consider before stretching that far for an answer.

Regards,

Bob

Bob,

The transposition of modernity on objects of antiquity is fraught with hazards that we, as archaeologists, try to avoid at every turn, but often is inescapable. A hoe is a hoe, a brooch is a brooch, a milling stone is a milling stone, but a projectile point was not necessarily used as a projectile point. The inexactitude of scrying the intended purpose/use of some everyday objects from the distant past means that there will always be unanswerable questions. I can visualize pots being converted into lids which were lifted by cordage so as to not burn the cook, but without additional data, it is only a theory. We present the most reasonable theory(s) based on the data, but we would be remiss if we also didn't posit other possibilities as well.

The suggestion of the dish's possibly having been positioned inverted as a lid was based on the known use of samian dishes as lids to other vessels in specific circumstances. Occam's Razor should be posited only when all reasonable propositions have been evaluated and discarded, I think?

I wasn't too keen on 'timing devices' at first thought, but I have to keep an open mind before bringing in the razor....

For plant-pots, there are references to those in a garden at Pompeii, in W Jashemski, The gardens at Pompeii, Herculaneum and the villas destroyed by Vesuvius [1979]. But, as the text indicates, these holed containers were pierced ante cocturam - i.e. those particular finds were made for the purpose. That is not to say that in Roman Britain, a samian bowl might not be refurbished for use as a plant-pot... but the shallow dish could not have been used much further than the germination of seeds.

So, we're still guessing.

For 'organic ties' instead of metal rivets, as referred to in the Britannia 2001 article [mentioned previously], I really hoped that we might have an answer.

However, when the 2001 reference to 'organic ties' at Verulamium was checked [in the 1989 Verulamium publication], it transpired that there were no organic ties at all. The holes on several vessels were only presumed to have contained organic ties, in that there was no trace of any metal!

I'll leave it for others to judge the scientific reasoning behind that argument.  But meanwhile, by circular argument, Verulamium's organic ties are used to suggest their presence at other sites.

I'll go on merely speculating as to the various possibilities, I think.

Thanks to everyone for the enrichment!

Dear Jörn,

I followed your advice concerning the out-of-stock HS1 volume. Wessex Archaeology was very helpful.

Please would you let me know what was fig 107, referred to on p 247 of your metalwork contribution to the volume (Biddulph, E., Seager Smith, R. and Schuster, J., Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley) - was it another plan, preceding fig 108?

Meanwhile, the research nears completion, with thanks to classical authors including Columella [on the making of curds!]. I'm very sorry that I can't thank all of you in the acknowledgments, but perhaps you would accept my sincere thanks here, instead?

Dear Margaret,

Sorry, I realised that the pertinent figure had not been included in my earlier PDF of the relevant pages. It just illustrates my type-2 potmend and other vessel-related material as well as various fittings and implements. I'll attach an updated version of the earlier PDF.

Good luck for the final stages.

Many thanks, Jörn! 

Margaret,

Have you seen the holey-sherds at the link below? 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_connection_between_pots_with_single_hole_in_the_base_and_iron_production_known_in_early_Iron_Age_400-100BC

Thanks for pointing that 'thread' out, Bob. I think that each hole shown on each of those Iron Age vessels seems to be in the middle of the base?? (not over to the side from centre of base, as on these Roman tableware vessels). If so, that might well suggest a rather different function, especially on much coarser vessels...

I'm presuming that that that is why someone on the Iron Age Q&A has there down-voted James A Green's early suggestion that this question here might be of interest. Perhaps our  examples here do not appear relevant. Although this is fine tableware and Roman, as you know, they are not all decorated bowls - again, as you all know from the discussion above. One is a shallow, plain dish or platter (according to your preferred terminology).

PS I truly hope that the down-voter will not start down-voting here.

I've sincerely appreciated each and every one of your thoughtful contributions. Such sharing of research ideas is what RG is all about, surely?

Margaret,

I did not know that I had been down-voted! I suggested contacting you or some of the other researchers because of the many references to non-offset holes in this thread. I figured that since everybody had been trying to figure out your quandary, that they might have run across something like she was asking about.

JAG

Many thanks for the inter-action!

I'm tending towards cords having been put through 'our' holes - or indeed a 'tender twig' put through the perforation, like Columella describes [but probably not specifically for making curds as he outlined]. A 'planter' remains a possibility, though.

The amphitheatre excavation reports are still 'in progress'.

Meanwhile, our RG friend Marcel Lambrechts says, 'Logically, these were pots hanging up by cords and might protect pot contents against rats/mice/small children... ' He asks if there were any chemical analyses available about the pot contents?

A good question, but I find that unless a potsherd was obviously filled with something, 'samian ware' or terra sigillata like other Roman pottery found during excavation here tends to get scrubbed clean - with a toothbrush.

Marcel also asks when rope was invented. I'm sure there's an answer to that - ?

Rope was invented when Adam was a boy, so to speak, (well the Upper Palaeoliothic). Egyptian rope making tools have been found very sepcifically, but cords and ropes of vegetative materials have been found a long way back.  One of the first things early hominids made.

Margaret,

I'm not sure enzymes could be extracted from the pores of the clay body. Normally those are extracted as charred residue on the inside surface of the pot. If enzymes could be extracted from the clay fabric, it would be very destructive process and likely take a large sherd. However, there might be a way to soak it in a solution that would pull the enzymes out of the fabric without damaging the pot/sherd of which I am unaware.

James, would 'samian ware' with its ultra-high firing and its unique illitic gloss possibly retain some such material on the surface? When not well-washed, it sometimes shows strange traces of I know not what...

Robyn, I hope Marcel may see your reply here. I've been distracting them too much from his question on 'animal thinking.'

Dear Robyn

what is the evidence for the first traces of ropes and how were they dated?

Thanks, Cecilia. The sculptures are from the earlier Roman Empire. The only Roman depictions that I have found of pots hanging up are such sculptures as these, which show wine-sellers with flagons hanging by the handles.

The greyer photo shows the tradesman with a wine-barrel as seen elsewhere on Romano-Gallic reliefs showing the wine trade on the Mosel, Rhine, etc.

In the nick of time, I did find reference to the use of plant-pots at Pompeii.

So: was their function likely to be culinary? ritual? commercial? flower-pots? hanging baskets? or... what else?!

Again, you need to know their ancient contents to have an idea what they were used for, right? Otherwise, not more than speculations?

Don't you just hate problematic artifacts?

:~)

Exactly, Marcel. But before the late 1970s, none of these re-worked vessels were published as such, and therefore we have little data with which to compare. So, all the more speculation. We need more publication.

However, the current trend in England and Wales is to publish less of the Roman pottery from excavations in general. Some nationally highly respected organisations and journals omit or drastically cut down the Roman pottery reports before publication. Much goes into 'grey literature' online. It's hard to find - even when you're the report-writer, if you don't know it's been 'published'.

Dear Margaret,

Have you seen this drilled Samian sherd from Minster ... I believe it was found closely associated in the beer-making area of the site. The archaeologist presenting this interprets this as a sherd that was drilled for repair ... but I'm not so sure that was the case ... see for yourself:

http://thanetarch.co.uk/journal/?m=201412

Here is another example of a drilled side-wall sherd (with decoration) that has been utilized as a spindle-whorl:

https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/1053 

Yes, I realize these are NOT off-centered from the bottoms (as you ask about) ... but I'm still trying to find examples *chuckle*

All the best,

Bob

At the link, you will see an example of a Samian-ware vessel (recovered from central or east Gaul). It is averred that it is from a type of vessel (mortarium ?) that was used for pulping-and-mashing fruit-and-vegetables. It has been intentionally MANUFACTURED with a hole (in the side-wall near the rim) for pouring off juice/liquid (absolutely known to be intentionally made for that purpose, because the hole has been surrounded by an appliqued spout-head like one sees on fountains).

There are other examples of similar Samian sherds from these unconventiona mortaria (?) at the second link:

http://www.binghamheritage.org.uk/history_of_bingham/roman/trades_and_crafts.php

https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/236753

To answer questions above, you'll find more details on early pages of the comments, but I'll summarise here.  

Three of the four 'vessels' in the highly fired and glossy samian ware or terra sigillata from Chester amphitheatre are fragmentary - and so it's impossible to say how many more holes were on the vessels. A larger part of the fourth has survived, but again it's impossible to say if there might have been another 2 or 3 holes. 

These holes were definitely post cocturam and were very definitely pierced by intent, most probably by drilling. Three are large, decorated bowls, but one plain vessel is a dish [shallow and wide]. They all date within the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

Colanders in various ceramic wares are known from Roman Britain, some having been made originally as colanders, and others pierced later for their secondary function. However, such large holes [of diameters over c 7 to 9 mm] are exceptionally rare on samian vessels in Roman Britain. In contrast, the much smaller, but similarly drilled repair-holes [for inserting metal rivets and 'wire'] are ubiquitous on sites across the country.These large holes are not 'normal' for repairwork.

Nor do these drilled holes represent ritual 'killing' of pots.One, in addition, shows evidence of partial smoothing of the hole, whether by the craftsman or during its secondary use.

There was no obvious evidence of burning on the Chester remnants, though the surface of one fragment was a little dulled - not necessarily by any sort of burning and not abnormally dulled. They are all wide vessels and three are deep bowls, and so are unlikely to have served as lamps, and incense-burning seems not in evidence.

The latest Chester vessel was made at least 50-60 years after the other two, and was deposited at least 30 years after one of those two. So whatever the purpose, the activity or tradition seems to have gone on for years.

I can't provide Chester's illustrations before publication, but there's a similarly large-holed vessel from the 1920s' publication of Caerleon - amphitheatre again - by Sir Mortimer Wheeler and his wife (see Wheeler and Wheeler 1928, plate 35.1 no 7). The text does not refer to the hole, but it has been measured recently by the local expert, and the hole's original diameter was 7 mm.

I have mentioned in my report the various possibilities, whether as plant-pots, or in hanging them up, or using them upside down [possibly as lids] - or in pouring off liquids at a 'fast-food joint' or in a gladiatorial banquet such as the cena libera. Even a clepsydra system of timing devices has been suggested as a general possibility for holed vessels elsewhere, although with no solid evidence

Dear Margaret,

I suggest looking at the study at the link below which is a site pottery analysis that deals with perforated sherds ... in fact, this is the most detailed statement on the subject I can locate. I paste a sample of the discussion about perforated bases in Britain, below:

"... Pierced sherds occur in a number of different feature types, with more than half coming from pit fills and 15% coming from ditches and gullies. Within these two classes of feature, more than half occurred in top or single fills, with the highest proportion within intermediate fills of pits. Layers and spreads accounted for a further 15% of pierced sherds and another 13% were found among the unstratified material. The variety of feature types coupled with the concentration of pierced sherds in pits of the southern zone suggests that the deposition of most pierced vessels is likely to be associated with domestic rubbish. The fragmentary nature of the pottery, the number of grog-tempered pierced vessels found in contexts of later date than the currency of the pottery, plus the high percentage recovered from top and single fills, lends weight to this suggestion. The distribution through time reveals a higher percentage of pierced vessels in the Late Iron Age and Early Roman period, with 77% either occurring in contexts dating up to the late 1st century AD or comprising grog-tempered vessels of intrinsic Late Iron Age date.

Vessels with post-firing holes are common site finds, with a widespread distribution in Britain, but very many are dismissed with little further comment (e.g. at King Harry Lane; Rigby 1989, 203), particularly if not interpreted as repairs. A large number of vessels were recorded in Roman Colchester (Symonds and Wade1999), where they are described as sieves or strainers (e.g. 1999, 416; fig. 6.82). At Kelvedon several pierced vessels are illustrated, including three recovered from 1st and 2nd-century graves. All three contained the cremated bone, one jar had four holes drilled in the base and the other two jar bases each had a single central hole made after firing (Rodwell 1988, figs 87 and 88). Further afield, vessels with post-firing holes were found in the Late Iron Age cemetery on the route of the A27 bypass at Westhampnett, West Sussex (Mepham 1997, 130). The jar in Burial 20384 had two holes just under the rim, one either side of a dunting crack. Another, from Burial 20029, had a row of repair holes on either side of an ancient break. Finds of pierced vessels found in graves are commonly assigned a ritual function in themselves (e.g. Great Dunmow; Going 1988, 23), although closer study might reveal a more mundane reason for the piercings. This is evidently the case with the pots from Westhampnett, at least, where repair is indicated.

It can perhaps be seen that pierced pots in burials do not necessarily hold any particular significance. The selection and deposition of functional vessels in graves is common practice. At King Harry Lane, the obviously repaired vessels outnumber those pierced with just one or two holes each. Even these holes could have been functional; those near the rim used for suspension, for instance. This is true of the bowl from Burial 20451 at Westhampnett (Fitzpatrick 1997a, fig. 91); the vessel could quite easily have functioned as a cheese-press before deposition in a grave. The perforated cinerary containers at Kelvedon (Rodwell 1988, fig. 87, G5, G14; fig. 88, G74a) may also have held no additional ritual significance as a result of being pierced. There is evidence that both cinerary containers and accessory vessels were not necessarily new, unused vessels. Many have external sooting, or interior lime-scale, and the fact that repaired vessels are routinely found in graves may demonstrate a prior role. That a pierced vessel may have had a mundane function did not preclude its use in a funerary context, although pre-existing holes may have influenced its selection. By analogy, it can be suggested that the piercing of any vessel had little religious or superstitious significance, although ritual aspects cannot be entirely ruled out.

Although large numbers of pierced vessels are found on sites throughout Britain, detailed studies have not normally been carried out. A variety of functions has been postulated in several reports, ranging from the mundane - strainers, sieves, funnels - to the more imaginative - chafing dishes, braziers, flower pots and beehives. Pierced jars found in an abandoned fish-pond at Shakenoak, Oxfordshire, were thought to have been associated with fish-farming (Brodribb et al. 1978, 18; Hands 1993, 154). More recently, at Brightlingsea, Essex, the lower half of a flagon with a pierced base and regularly spaced holes along the girth was thought to have been 'ritually killed' (Martin 1996b, 313). However, this modified vessel might just as easily have functioned as a cheese-press or strainer. Establishing ritual activity is very difficult unless it can be demonstrated that holes were made at the time of deposition, or other factors are present that would indicate a ritual deposit. That pottery played a part in ritual deposition is not in dispute, although the frequency of this activity is not likely to be high. Of the 150 or so pierced vessels identified at Heybridge, only six vessels (less than 4% of the total) could be reasonably interpreted as having been holed ritually.

A deposit with undoubted ritual connotations has been found at Dovehouse Field, Cressing Temple, Essex (Bennett 1999, 218). A number of vessels, along with loomweight fragments and apparently selected animal bones, were found in the terminal of a Late Iron Age ditch. A large, near-complete tazza-bowl (Cam 210) from the group has a square hole cut in the centre of the base. The vessel had evidently been well used; the exterior is sooted and the interior is coated with lime-scale. The hole had been cut through the lime-scale, but the edges of the hole remain scale-free. The pot had clearly been deposited not long after the hole had been cut through the base. The composition of the deposit, coupled with its location in the terminal of the ditch, indicates a likely ritual function both for the deposit and for the pierced pot. A tentative case could be made for suggesting that single, large, sub-square holes cut into the centre of vessel bases at Heybridge are deserving of a similar explanation. Three of the jars found in ditch 25274, see below, each had a single, large, central hole in the base (Figure 354, nos 1-3), and each was likely to have been intact when buried. The single central perforation in the base of the cinerary container in Grave 74 at Kelvedon (Rodwell 1988, fig. 88) appears to be large, and a section of the rim is also absent (Rodwell 1988, 119). An accessory vessel in the same grave, flagon 74b, has a large circular hole in the side (Rodwell 1988, fig. 88). There is difficulty in assigning a mundane function to these perforations and ritual defacement could be considered for the holes in both the flagon and the urn.

The consensus from a number of reports seems to be, however, that the majority of vessels with post-firing perforations in the lower body were used as strainers or in cheese-making. Jars with bases pierced with a single central hole could perhaps have been used as funnels. The contextual evidence at Elms Farm certainly supports a view that the vast majority were use-vessels; there are few examples where a ritual function could be substantiated. Exceptions that might have ritual significance are the two pairs of jars from ditch 25274, a jar from pit 20008 (KPG17), and a near-complete Cam 204 jar recovered from pit 14579 (see Catalogue below). The latter has a large irregular hole at mid-girth, which appears to have been made deliberately rather than accidentally (Figure 339, No.26).

http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue40/1/3-2-4.html

Sorry, Bob, we cross-posted there. May I list my responses numerically?

1] the first 'hole' from Broadstairs in that first, Thanet Journal is a standard drilled repair-hole, and is about half the size of the 'large holes'.

2] nice spindle-whorl. A common secondary usage in the 3rd-4th centuries and later.

3] some nice mortaria with 'lion-head' spouts for pouring off liquid from pulped foodstuff. Dated no earlier than c AD 170.

4] Thanks also for mentioning  Elms Farm. I had seen it, but it explicitly excludes samian ware. It relates to the 'other' Roman pottery mostly - usually coarsewares for cooking etc. The conclusion is similar, though:

'A variety of functions has been postulated in several reports, ranging from the mundane - strainers, sieves, funnels - to the more imaginative - chafing dishes, braziers, flower pots and beehives.'

I.e. it's all hypothetical, but we have to consider possibilities.

Many thanks for all your ideas!

Dear Margaret,

It is interesting that a number of vessels containing single large holes punched or drilled in their bases have been found in "ritual contexts" (*hee*hee* you Brits are so funny with your staunch language sometimes ).. namely in Roman period graves in Britain. In America, there are a number of prehistoric cultures that intentionally perforated the bases of vessels placed in the graves, too. This was extremely common in the Mimbres (New Mexico), and occurs not infrequently in other Puebloan cultures, as well. There are also examples known from the contemporary prehistoric Caddo phases (which I know best) in eastern Texas, although "killing" of grave vessels was decidedly rare in Caddo burials, compared to the Puebloans'. The practice was called "killing" the vessel, because it was necessary to release the spirit of the vessel [it "needed to be dead"] so that it could accompany the deceased on its journey to the after-life ["only the dead can walk that road"]. I'm not so sure about what the Puebloans believed about what happened after death/burial, but we DO know the Caddos' beliefs (they told ethnographers in the past) and the reasons they as-a-rule (almost invariably) placed vessels (containing foodstuffs) in the graves ... as sustenance for the spirit on its week-long journey to the "other side." There are indications that the Caddo were in contact with the Puebloan cultures (even engaging in long-distance exchange of the much prized Caddo osage-orange-wood bows for the Puebloans' turquoise-jewelry and woven cotton goods), which may account for the rare examples of the "killing" of vessels found in Caddo graves.

I'm just saying ... THAT ["ritual" purpose] may be another explanation for YOUR  holey [holy? *hee*hee*] pottery ... ???

http://anthropology.si.edu/cm/mimbres.htm

http://anthropology.si.edu/cm/images/mimbres-5-a326294.jpg

Yes, Bob - British archaeologists have adopted the phrase 'killing' a pot - rather too much for my liking.

But in defence of 'us English' [as is my somewhat reluctant national duty], I'll use a variation of a northern saying that was invented before word-meanings changed, 'There's nowt so queer as folk except for thee and me - and even thou's a bit daft'. I rest my case.

Incidentally, there's a rare photo of our early 20th-century samian expert, Felix Oswald at one link you gave. I'd never seen him before. Thanks!

http://www.binghamheritage.org.uk/history_of_bingham/roman/trades_and_crafts.php

All your reasoning on ancient tool use seems to be based on knowledge about modern tool use?

True, Marcel. The pottery report at Elm Farm by Ed Biddulph has a long section based on his experimentation on samian ware using... tea-spoons.

One of the perforations seems not just drilled but in part it seems smoothed in some way. This was one reason why I was wondering about the use of something like string or pliable twigs [sprigs] through perforations as Columella attested in the Augustan period. Over time, would fibre cause a highly-fired [c 1000 degrees] clay matrix to wear? I think it would break first. So... a tool seems likely?

When I mentioned tool use I considered the pots and their shapes as tools themselves. Do pottery shapes used today indicate about functions of Roman pottery?

'Spot on', as they say! There's much debate about whether samian 'cups' were cups or mixing vessels and whether 'dishes' were bowls, etc etc.

Most people do not realize that the dinner plate is a relatively modern invention (ca. 5th century), but ceramic plates were not common until around the 15th century. For most of the lower and middle class it was the ubiquitous bowl that was the standard for eating meals. Whether wood, ceramic, or metal, personal bowls, like a good knife, were taken care of.

Is it possible that Roman pottery had functions that do not exist anymore in the pottery of today, but then how to figure out their ancient function?

Cecilia, if you look at my summary now posted again on page 9 of the comments, you'll find that the items in question are from two amphitheatres. Hence various possibilities, as suggested.

Marcel, yes, that is correct. But we can at least refer to Latin literature, etc.

However, to give examples of the problem or conundrum which you have identified:

one samian type has long been termed an infant's feeding bottle. It may well not have been a feeding bottle, whether an infant's or otherwise. That it might have been a lamp-filler [for example] would only be possible if Roman oil was greatly refined. See top right on the file below.

See also at bottom right, a 'barrel beaker' - of unknown purpose.

The inkwell and small flagon on the left were surely.. an inkwell and small flagon. 

How did the Roman pottery arrive in Britain? Because the Romans lived in Britain and installed a local culture or because the pottery were introduced by Brits or other people that briefly visited the Mediterranean and transported the pottery towards Britain as a trade/economic/cultural action? How to distinguish between these two kinds of origin of Roman pottery found/excavated in Britain? This is is important because it might help to understand why the pottery were used for (e.g. decoration or a cooking device or....)?  

I can answer concerning samian ware [sigillata in Latin and various European countries]:

the Roman army, or its managers, imported it en masse from the mid-1st to mid-3rd centuries. It was made in South, Central and East Gaul - from the Millau area, to Lezoux and the Argonne, to Rheinzabern, Trier and lesser factories in Germany.

That is a simplification.