Roman expert or archaeologist can you please help?

[deadlylampshade]

Just realised that the hole in picture one looks a wee bit modern...:0

[BAJR]

This has been a good thread... a nd shows BAJRs helpful side.. :face-approve:

From Kira... an ex finds supervisor.

A big thanks for this email

I am a retired finds supervisor and a frequent reader of BAJR, (not a member), this is why I contact you this way, as I think I can help Simon with the second of his mystery objects.

I recognize that matronly face, we had two very similar ones, in Sandy, Beds 20 years ago. One was buff, the other pale red clay, face only, just as the one depicted.
I think they are Crambeck face/head pots. That would also fit in with the location "up North".

The only picture I can find is on p 39, Plate 15, in the Shire Archaeology Series "Pottery in Roman Britain" by Vivien G. Swan, 3rd ed. 1980. The head forms the neck of the vessel.

The text reads "Face-pot with red painted stripes on the body; the female mask would have been made in a mould, probably a late fourth-century Crambeck product, ht 25.5 cm.(RCHM (Engl); Crown Copyright).

I tried Google Images, but found only a lot of ugly mugs!

Happy Easter!

Kira

[gonetopot]

The middle picture is from a 3rd to 4th century flagon, possibly from Crambeck, possibly an abraded Oxfordshire red colour-coat. I'm afraid i'm not back in my office to check monographs until tuesday, but will post a more accurate reference/type asap.

[troll]

First one at first appears Roman...acanthus leaves around the rim is a regular aspect of Samian types. The `Griffin` is reasonably unusual for Britain...the quality of the carving overall seems to be of a higher standard to that expected during the Romano-British. Could this `frieze?` frag be Neo-classical? Or Roman-period but made outside of western Europe? The second head is possibly from a face-pot but this looks a bit on the small side and the colour-coating is very unusual for a pipe-clay figurine. The third seems to be 18th century in date as the flourishing type-script doesn`t generally fit with the Roman style. Context?:face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

There's apparently a load of face-pot illustrations for local comparisons in the recent Piercebridge monograph (next fort south along Dere Street) - they're on the accompanying CD for some reason, which is why I've never actually bothered looking at them....think there were a few from Catterick too

[Dinosaur]

I could see if you could get a discount, on account of you being Northern

Was up towards Berwick last weekend and still hadn't reached The North according to the Ministry of Transport ! }

Anyway, I come from Rugby originally so definitely a soft southerner - will have to blag a copy using the normal avenues after all

[david.petts]

Hi,
Yep- I agree with others on these images-- facepot probably Crambeck, as we've got a lot of Crambeck ware from past digs as well as our current excavations at the site
http://binchester.blogspot.com/

I'd be really interested to know which museum these are from and any further information about their provenance

cheers
David

[Sith]

..he'll know about previous work there, mostly antiquarian I'm afraid..

Ahem, be very afraid. My other half worked there with Bradford University in the 1990s. I'll ask her if she's any ideas.

[deadlylampshade]

I know this may have passed over as a "live" topic but I finally remembered where I saw the face image before.

Front cover of the Piercebridge Excavations 1969 - 1981 publication. Makes me feel better for finally getting there (bit like good ol' British Rail I suppose...)

[Dinosaur]

I know this may have passed over as a "live" topic but I finally remembered where I saw the face image before.

Front cover of the Piercebridge Excavations 1969 - 1981 publication. Makes me feel better for finally getting there (bit like good ol' British Rail I suppose...)

....see about 4 posts up.....}