Roman Occupation of the Upchurch District. The district between the River Medway and the villages of Rainham, Upchurch and Lower Halstow is composed of extensive marshes separated from each other by navigable creeks. These marshes are protected from the tides by sea-walls. Outside the sea-walls are vast tracts of saltings which have been, since the Roman occupation, separated from the mainland by the gradual encroachment of the sea: at high tide these saltings are submerged. The saltings, and a vast tract of the marshland, were the site of Roman potteries, perhaps the most extensive yet found in Britain. The mud flats are strewn with sherds and occasionally whole vessels are found. At intervals a black line, 1-2ft. thick is visible at the edge of the saltings, c. 3ft. below the surface: this stratus extends for some distance and consists of fragments of various kinds of pottery, the refuse from the potters' kilns. At the time the potteries were working the area must have been dry land: either the sea had not encroached on the land or it was kept back by a sea-wall. (1)

With the sherds in the black stratus are lumps of half-burnt clay and scoriae of the furnace, leaving no doubt that it was a place of deposit for kiln refuse. The residence of the potters were, without doubt, on the high ground; and from Lower Halstow to Lower Rainham the remains of buildings are continually being discovered. Sepulchral remains are continually being discovered in almost all parts of the upper ground. See map. (2)(3) no satisfactory evidence of a Roman floor or level less
than 9 or 10ft. below the surface. (4)

Upchurch has given its name to a certain ware that is frequently found in the neighbourhood. It is black in colour, due to firing in a smother kiln, usually with a slight roughened surface which sometimes ,however, is smoothed in zones and scored with lattice lines: the most common types are small wide-mouthed jars and carinated vases, though other types are not infrequent. There are surprisingly few indications of the factory sites, and all that there is in this connection is half-a-dozen fire (or Kiln) bars, a few glazed bricks and one or two wasters in the British and Rochester Museums. The black stratum, described by earlier writers, of sherds and complete vessels contained much pottery other than "Upchurch" ware and cannot, therefore, be accepted as evidence of a factory making only "Upchurch" ware. Some authorities prefer to abandon the idea of a pottery works in favour of other theories. One suggests that the pottery has been washed out of land which
supported a dense Roman population. Another that "Upchurch" ware was imported from Gaul, where it is known to have been made, and that the layer of pottery consists of vessels lost and broken during unloading of ships. But it is certain that some of the "Upchurch" ware was made in Kent; perhaps it was not manufactured so extensively as is often supposed, and probably not in greater quantities than in any other part of Roman Britain where the raw materials were to hand. The largest and most typical collection of "Upchurch" pottery is the Woodruff Collection in Rochester Museum. (5)

Although antiquaries have recently doubted the existence of Roman potteries in the Upchurch marshes, I believe this is a result of their imperfect knowledge of the extensive site over which Romano-British vessels have been found. The difficulty of making a complete survey is very great and during the last 40 years has been increased by encroachment of the sea and the removal of many thousands of tons of mud to the cement works, so that many of the sites which yielded the best evidence of the potteries are now unrecognizable (a). (6)

As a result of 25 years study, I suggest that the Upchurch Marshes could not possibly have supported an Romano-British pottery industry. There is overwhelming proof that shortly after the commencement of the 2nd century A.D. the sea had obtained complete control over the whole district and that Scrobicularia Clay had been universally deposited to a level of 5ft. above O.D. At this stage Romano-British men occupied the intertidal surface of the marsh-clay for salt making. This industry is reflected in the occurrence over widespread areas of a deposit containing briquettage, clay fire-bars, sherds (with potters' stamps ranging from the middle of the 1st century A.D. to the third quarter of the 2nd century) and animal bones. Over this accumulation of refuse - which varies in thickness from 6 inches to 3 ft. - the sea continued to deposit marsh-clay up to a height of 11ft. above O.D., the highest level of the present salting surface. (7)(8)

There were undoubtedly Kilns in the Upchurch area, but until a thorough study has been made of their products the use of the term "Upchurch Ware" is better avoided. (9)

A number of 1st to 2nd century Romano-British salt making sites have been observed by the Upchurch Archaelological Group, between 1975 and 1978. In 1975 they also excavated an updraught pottery kiln of the same eara, prior to its destruction by erosion by the sea. (10-12)

The term "Upchurch Ware"; invented by early antiquaries for a hard grey ware containing flint chips ranging in colour from purple to pink, vessels usually with a characteristic combed decoration: has
persisted into the present century without any real signficance. It may well be that the Upchurch Marshes were the centre of the potting industry catering for the south-east but no-one would suggest today that they catered for a material market. (13)

A programme of scientific analysis was undertaken at the London Institute of Archaelogy in 1981-2, to determine the true nature of the marsh finds. The conclusion may be summarized as follows:- the occurrence of a large group of Upchurch sherds well away from other groups indicates the existence of Upchurch pottery as a district product. This group also associates with the kiln bars, wasters and
clay - confirming Upchurch as their origins. The range of styles and finishes amongst the sample looked at attested to the size and importance of the industry. Pots were traded to Canterbury and early assumptions concerning distribution of the ware may be correct. Although the facts are strongly in favour of an Upchurch industry in the late 1st, early 2nd centuries a distinctive "Upchurch Ware" is
still elusive. At least 3 fabrics, and 3 techniques of decoration were noted amongst the sherds designated as being produced at Upchurch. For the present Upchurch is therefore confirmed to be a
major Romano-British production site, but the term "Upchurch ware" cannot yet be applied to particular forms with certainty. (14)

Early antiquaries were preoccupied in finding the existence of potters' fields on the Upchurch Marshes, which precluded any close examination of the possibilities of a salt industry. In 1963 A. Miles and A. J. E. Sydell, with members of the Lower Medway Archaelogical Research Group, started a systematic survey with the object of locating and investigating Belgic and Roman sites in the Medway Estuary, where a high rate of erosion is destroying much archaeological evidence. A distribution map (see Illustration card) was compiled showing sites with stratified remains. Many more sites had to be omitted because they were not accurately located. Certainly, in Kent, salt was being produced by the beginning of the 1st century A.D., if not before. Romano-British industrial sites in the marshes thrived throughout the 2nd century, but seems to have declined by the early 3rd century, and few sites can be dated beyond this. A widespread rise in sea level in the 3rd century may account for the decline. By the late 4th century the marshes were deserted. (15)

Observations by the Upchurch Archaeological Group. (See above, authorities 10-12) continued. Amongst a jumble of post holes recorded over the last 2 or 3 years it was possible to identify a small hut of 1st century date, together with what could be part of a small stock enclosure. A new marsh site, of probably 1st century date, was also located. (16)

In 1982 the Group recorded a 1st century salt winning hearth with an adjoining brine pit. (17)

<1> Collectanea Antiqua 1893 71-81 (G Payne) (OS Card Reference). SKE39191.

<2> Collectanea Antiqua 6 1868 173-199 illus (C Roach Smith) (OS Card Reference). SKE39198.

<3> JBAA 2 1847 133-140 map (C Roach Smith) (OS Card Reference). SKE44885.

<4> Arch J 42 1885 278-80 (F C J Spurrell) (OS Card Reference). SKE36632.

<5> Archaeology of Kent 1930 210-3 263 (R F Jessup) (OS Card Reference). SKE37343.

<6> Letter from Rev C E Woodruff to the editor of the VCH (OS Card Reference). SKE46106.

<7> VCH Kent 3 1932 132-4 (R F Jessup) (OS Card Reference). SKE51019.

<8> Nature 1 5 1954 832 (J P T Burchell) (OS Card Reference). SKE47521.

<9> Arch NL 6 No 4 1959 91 (J P T Burchell) (OS Card Reference). SKE36802.

<10> CBA Research Rep No 6 1964 8 RB Coarse Pottery a students Guide (ed G Webster) (OS Card Reference). SKE38917.

<11> Kent Arch Rev 40 Summer 1975 295-8 (I Jackson) (OS Card Reference). SKE45779.

<12> Kent Arch Rev 42 Winter 1975 36 (I Jackson) (OS Card Reference). SKE45780.

<13> Kent Arch Rev 53 Autumn 1978 70 (I Jackson) (OS Card Reference). SKE45791.

<14> Arch Cant 68 1954 72-90 figs (I Noel Hume) (OS Card Reference). SKE35436.

<15> Arch Cant 98 1982 27-32 figs (J Monaghan) (OS Card Reference). SKE36324.

<16> Salt Study of an Ancient Industry 1975 26-31 figs (ed K de Brisay and K A Evans) (OS Card Reference). SKE49394.

<17> KAR 57 Autumn 1979 158 (I Jackson) (OS Card Reference). SKE45372.

<18> KAR 69 Autumn 1982 200 (I Jackson) (OS Card Reference). SKE45407.