Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

The mineralogy and petrography of Low Lands Ware 1 (Roman lower

RhineeMeuseeScheldt basin; the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany)
Wim De Clercq a, Patrick Degryse b,*
a
Ghent University, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History of Europe, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
b
K.U. Leuven, Section Geology, Centre for Archaeological Sciences, Celestijnenlaan 200E, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
Received 5 December 2006; received in revised form 20 April 2007; accepted 23 April 2007

Abstract

Over the last 80 years Belgian, Dutch and German archaeologists working in the lower RhineeMeuseeScheldt basin have encountered
a Roman pottery group that occurs in large quantities at most Roman sites in the region. Several researchers have separately tried to define this
pottery, resulting in different names. Petrographic and geochemical analyses of 100 samples have now shown that the production of this
ware predominantly made use of one source of raw material, divisible into three sub-groups on the basis of technological choices. The probable
source lies in the early-Pleistocene Tegelen-formation, a clay rich in muscovite mica and garnet, which outcrops in the tertiary Scheldt escarp-
ment (Nl) and the campine microcuesta (B). On the basis of geographical characteristics, Roman finds and the presence of a large Medieval
pottery industry, production in the Bergen-op-Zoom area is suggested. In view of these new findings the name ‘Low Lands Ware 1’ is introduced
to refer to this pottery group.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Petrographic analysis; Main element analysis; Pottery production; Roman period

1. Pottery with many names: a review of past research
In his report on Forum Hadriani, the Roman military naval
base at Arentsburg in the Netherlands, the Dutch archaeologist
Holwerda (1923, Fig. 92, plate LVIII) described for the first
time a pottery-form characterized by a heavy rim as his type-
series Holw. 139e142, also known as ‘‘Arentsburgpot’’
(Fig. 1). Since these and other vessels in a similar, reduced fab-
ric often had a glossy appearance; he introduced the name
‘‘terra-nigra-like-pottery’’, to relate it to the high quality Belgic
pottery in a reduced fabric. In 1967 Thoen studied the pottery
from the small Roman town of Waasmunster-Pontrave, situated
in the Waasland-region (Flanders, Belgium). He recorded a fine
sandy fabric from which a large proportion of the reduced com-
mon wares were made, including the Holw. 139e142 type-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: w.declercq@ugent.be (W. De Clercq), patrick.degryse@
geo.kuleuven.be (P. Degryse).
series. In view of the large proportion of this ware in Waasmun-
ster and at other sites in the Waasland and the presence in the
area of a tertiary clay-outcrop (the Rupelian), Thoen concluded
that it must have been locally produced, naming it ‘‘Waasland’’
or ‘‘Rupelian’’ ware (Thoen, 1967). Haalebos (1977) and
Bloemers (1978), added further information on chronology
and distribution (including Xanten, Germany) and connected
the finds in the Netherlands to the finds in the Waasland, Bel-
gium, studied by Thoen (1967). In her 1986 study of the Roman
pottery from the Meuse-mouth area M. Brouwer made an in-
ventory of the most important forms in the same fabric, terming
the ware ‘‘blue-grey pottery’’, and concluded that, in view of the
high proportion of this fabric in the area south of the Meuse-
mouth, production not only in the Waasland, but also in the
modern-day Dutch provinces of South-Holland and Zeeland
had to be considered (Brouwer, 1986). On the basis of a study
of the Valkenburg-Marktveld (Nl) pottery-assemblage and the
recurrent combined occurrence of oxidized flagons and other
forms in the reduced ‘‘Waasland’’ fabric, Van der Werff et al.
(1997) suggested that a large amount of flagons and jugs was

0305-4403/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.04.010
 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458 449

homogeneity of the fabric and forms that had been the object
of scientific discussion for almost a century. The mineralogical
characteristics of the fabric were expected therefore to provide
insight into this problem. Secondly, if the analyzed samples
proved petrographically and geochemically to originate from
one or several distinctive group(s) of pottery, an attempt should
be made to assess the regions of provenance and the clays used.
In view of the large typological diversity, technological aspects
should also be explored. Resolving all of these questions should
not only provide new information concerning the homogeneity
and possible origin of this pottery, but moreover could raise new
and important economic questions regarding the distribution
network of this ware. Since the material concerned represents
Fig. 1. A so-called ‘‘Arentsburgpot’’, or Holw. 139e142 type-series. Guide-
fossil of the Low Lands Ware 1 Pottery Group (scale 1:4).
quantitatively the most important Roman ceramic group in
the lower RhineeMeuseeScheldt area, further questions con-
cerned the distribution, chronology and typology of this pottery
also made in this fabric and added yet another new name, ‘‘the group and its guide-fossil (Holw. 139e142) in particular.
Scheldt-valley pottery’’. Verwers (1998) noted the important
presence of this ware in the western part of the province of
North Brabant (Nl). A large assemblage of Holw. 139e142 3. Methodology
type-series found in the Roman small town of Tienen (B) was
studied by Hendrickx (2000) and Willems (2003) resulting in To resolve these questions, published excavation reports in
confirmation of its use for containers. Belgium, northern France, the Netherlands and the Rhine area
Van Enckevort (2004) has recently given an overview of in Germany were searched for the presence of this pottery,
a wide range of forms in the ‘‘Waasland’’ fabric found at the types represented, their chronology and the nature of their
Breda in the western part of the province of North Brabant find context. This query resulted in the identification of 140
(Nl). Following Brouwer he suggested that production could sites where this pottery, mostly the Holw. 139e142 series jar,
also have occurred in South-Holland or in the Breda-region was presumed to be present. From this group, selection was
in addition to the Waasland. The large quantity and typological made of 19 sites and well-dated contexts from the first three
diversity of this pottery in the Breda-region was confirmed by centuries AD that contained a wide variety of forms (Table 1).
study of pottery from Roman settlements in the adjacent Bel- Since no production sites were known and in order to assess the
gian region north of Antwerp (Delaruelle et al., 2004). In 2004 possible relationship with several presumed clay-sources, such
and 2005 finds of the Holw.140 type-series were reported as as the Rupelian (Belgium), Boom (Belgium), Asse (Belgium)
far as Köln (Germany) (B. Liesen, Xanten Museum and A. or Tegelen-clays (the Netherlands and Belgium), samples were
Bosman, Past-2-Present Archeologic/Köln Archaeologie, per- also taken from other Roman and medieval pottery production
sonal communication). sites in these regions (Table 2). Preliminary, macroscopic
To summarize it can be stated that since 1923, a series of assessment of the material, using a binocular microscope
archaeologists have reported and studied a macroscopically (10 to 40), resulted in the selection of 100 samples for pet-
uniform Roman pottery fabric that is frequently found on sites rographic study. A selection of the petrographic groups thus de-
in the lower RhineeScheldteMeuse basin. The most prevail- fined was chemically investigated by XRF analysis. Chemical
ing form is a large vessel, type-series Holw. 139e142. How- analysis was performed at ActlabsÒ, Canada. Measurements
ever, all attempts to resolve the problem of provenance have were checked against standards W-2, SY-3, SGR-1, BE-N and
only served to enhance the vagueness that surrounds this ques-
tion. Building hypothesis on hypothesis, more than 80 years of Table 1
study have resulted in the generation of several different Production sites sampled
names for a macroscopically identical pottery group. Site Code Period Context Type Clay
deposit
used
2. Research questions Kontich WD16e17 Roman Kiln Pottery wasters Boom
Waasmunster WD79 Roman Kiln Kiln wall Rupelian
No attempt had previously been made to globalize the prob- Temse WD80 Roman Kiln Tile wasters Rupelian
Bergen-op- WD84 Medieval Dump Pottery wasters Tegelen-
lem and to address problems of provenance, chronology, func-
Zoom complex
tion and distribution in a uniform way. The studies mentioned Oosterhout WD68e69 Medieval Dump Pottery wasters Kedichem
above provide useful, though scattered information on distribu- Kemzeke WD82 Medieval Kiln Pottery wasters Rupelian
tion, dating and chronology, but the ware had not been subjected Oostwinkel IIWD26e28 Medieval Dump Pottery wasters Asse
to scientific analysis. Consequently, the aim of our research was Oedelem IIWD24 Medieval Dump Pottery wasters Asse
Zomergem IIWD25 Medieval Dump Pottery wasters Asse
to shed new light on this pottery group, primarily to assess the
450 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458

Table 2
Consumption sites sampled
Site Country Sample code Site type Context Period Types sampled
Aardenburg Netherlands WD70 Military camp Hearth ca AD 180e270 Holw. 139e142
Bergen-op-Zoom Netherlands WD85e88 Sanctuary? Dump ca AD 100e270 Miniaturized amphorae
Borsele Netherlands WD36e45 Native farm Layer ca AD 50e150 Holw. 130; Holw. 139e142; beakers, dishes
Brecht Belgium WD9e10 Native farm House; byre section ca AD 80e220 Lid-seated jars
Brecht WD11 Native farm Well Dendro.dated to AD 75e95 Bowl, Holw. 139e142 prototype
Hamme Belgium WD56e60 Agglomeration Layer ca AD 180e225 Mortarium, beaker, dish; Holw. 139e142
Köln Germany WD74e75 Town Layer ca AD 180e250 Holw. 139e142
Kortrijk Belgium WD55 Agglomeration Pit ca AD 175e225 Holw. 139e142
Lieshout Netherlands WD1e3 Native farm House; byre section ca AD 200e225 Holw. 139e142
Maldegem Belgium WD4e5 Native farm Dirt road ca AD 80e170 Holw. 130
Maldegem Belgium WD6 Military camp Silo ca AD 172e174 Holw. 139e142
Middelburg Netherlands WD12e15 Native farm Layer ca AD 190e270 Holw. 139e142; beaker; bowl
Oudenburg Belgium WD71e73 Military camp Refuse dump ca AD 250e275 Holw. 139e142; Chenet 342; flagon
Tholen Netherlands WD26e35 Native farm Layer to house ca AD 60e150 Holw. 139e142; bowls, beakers, dishes
Tienen Belgium WD76e77 Agglomeration Refuse pit ca AD 180e250 Holw. 139e142; cooking jar
Velzeke Belgium WD18e22 Agglomeration Refuse pit ca AD 120e139 Holw. 139e142
Velzeke Belgium WD23e25 Agglomeration Refuse pit ca AD 60e80 Holw. 139e142; lid; bowl
Zele Belgium WD46e52 Native farm Dump in ditch ca AD 220e275 Holw. 139e142; dish; beaker; bowl
Zele Belgium WD61e63 Native farm Refuse pit ca AD 125e175 Holw. 139e142; dolium; lid-seated jar

DNC-1. Accuracy was better than 2% for all oxides. Replicate
analysis showed precision to be better than 2% for all elements
analyzed. Detection limits were better than 0.01%. MgO and
K2O proved to be useful as discriminating factors because
differences in the absolute content and ratio of these oxides cor-
relate with differences in the clay mineralogy of the original
raw material (e.g. Degryse et al., 2003).
While reviewing literature, it became clear that the amount of
pottery involved was enormous, often thousands of sherds per
site, which would have necessitated a full typo-chronological
study taking place over several years. Therefore, we focused
our efforts on characterizing the pottery group and in developing
the typology of the storage jar guide-fossil Holw. 139e142
series.
4. Results
4.1. Characterization
After petrographic characterization (Fig. 2), it became ap-
parent that a large majority of the samples analyzed belonged
to a single, chemically and mineralogically homogenous group
(Group 1), the main characteristics of which are a mineral con-
tent of up to 80% (the remaining 20% being the clay matrix),
two quartz populations, opaque minerals (mainly iron oxides),
garnet and muscovite mica. The presence of the latter mineral
is an important criterion in distinguishing the pottery macro-
scopically. Sporadic sandstone fragments, grog temper
(crushed ceramics) and organic material can be observed.
Two sub-groups, 1B and 1C, are very similar to the main
group, and most likely derive from the same raw material,
but have undergone some preliminary treatment (Group 1B;
obvious from the grain size distribution of the mineral non-
plastics, which is likely to result from levigation, in the case
of thin-walled forms, e.g. terra nigra) or had a different firing
atmosphere (Group 1C; a different matrix structure and colour,
mostly oxidized firing). In terms of geochemistry (Table 3;
Fig. 3), Groups 1A, 1B and 1C cannot be distinguished. All
materials analyzed from these groups have a homogenous
chemical composition. They define one large group of pottery
in terms of mineral raw materials. Typo-chronologically this
group consists of a wide variety in forms, covering a chrono-
logical range between AD 60 and 270 (Fig. 4).
Group 1A is by far the largest group. All 44 samples show
a grey-brown matrix under crossed polars and a mineral content
of up to 80% (20% clay matrix). Elongated pores of 500 mm in
length are evenly distributed throughout the material. Two
quartz populations can be observed: one consists of rounded
quartz grains, between 250 and 500 mm in diameter, one of an-
gular to sub-angular grains up to 100 mm in diameter. Opaque
minerals (mainly iron oxides, round, up to 250 mm in diameter),
garnet (round, up to 250 mm in diameter) and mica (muscovite
plates, up to 100 mm long) are evenly distributed throughout the
material. Sporadic sandstone fragments (angular, up to 500 mm
large) and grog temper (crushed ceramics, rounded, up to 1 mm
in diameter) or organic material (grasses?) can be observed. The
sherds analyzed from this group originally all belonged to ves-
sels, which had been fired in a reducing atmosphere. Although
most samples originated from contexts that date to the second
and third centuries AD, the contexts of some indicate a late first
century AD.
Group 1B contains four samples which are very similar in
characteristic to the samples described in Group 1A. They
have a grey-brown matrix under crossed polars and a mineral
content of up to 80% (20% clay matrix). Elongated pores of
500 mm in length are evenly distributed throughout the mate-
rial. However, only one quartz population can be observed,
consisting of angular to sub-angular grains 100 mm in diame-
ter. Opaque minerals (iron oxides, round, up to 250 mm in di-
ameter), garnet (round, up to 250 mm in diameter) and mica
(muscovite plates, up to 100 mm long) are evenly distributed
 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458 451

Fig. 2. Photomicrographs of typical examples of the different ceramic groups studied.

throughout the material. This group exclusively represents fine
pottery vessels close to terra nigra, fired in a reducing atmo-
sphere. The differences in quartz populations observed are
likely related to technological choices, more specifically levi-
gation of the clay raw material. The clay had to be pre-treated
to produce this type of thin-walled pottery. The samples exclu-
sively originated from late first to first half second century AD
sites at Tholen and Ellewoutsdijk, close to the mouth of the
Scheldt.
The 13 samples ascribed to the Group 1C are very similar
in characteristic to the samples described in Group 1A, but
have a yellow to brown matrix under crossed polars. They
have a mineral content of up to 80% (20% clay matrix). Elon-
gated pores of 500 mm in length are evenly distributed
throughout the material. Two quartz populations can be ob-
served: one consists of rounded quartz grains between 250
and 500 mm in diameter, one consists of angular to sub-angular
grains up to 100 mm in diameter. Mica (muscovite plates, up to
452 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458

Table 3
Major element chemical analysis of the ceramics and clays studied
Ceramics
Identified as major groups by thin section analysis
Group SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 LOI Total
WD3 1A 68.78 12.34 6.07 0.16 1.22 0.85 0.30 2.49 0.77 1.83 4.81 99.62
WD6 1A 71.71 14.56 5.07 0.03 1.36 0.55 0.28 2.72 0.87 0.10 1.96 99.21
WD18 1A 68.18 14.20 4.98 0.02 1.34 1.01 0.38 3.00 0.87 1.11 3.77 98.86
WD19 1A 73.70 14.52 4.69 0.02 1.35 0.66 0.34 2.87 0.83 0.14 0.89 100.01
WD24 1A 66.74 14.95 5.26 0.02 1.26 0.84 0.28 2.68 0.92 2.27 4.83 100.10
WD48 1A 71.95 14.45 4.39 0.02 1.29 0.52 0.32 2.77 0.87 0.19 2.62 99.39
WD61 1A 67.38 14.32 5.24 0.02 1.18 0.57 0.24 2.36 0.84 0.14 7.38 99.67
WD71 1A 66.49 17.55 5.80 0.02 1.13 3.58 0.29 2.83 0.83 0.32 1.15 100.10
WD72 1A 72.61 14.63 5.12 0.02 1.34 0.63 0.44 2.66 0.90 0.17 1.10 99.66
WD77 1A 73.51 12.82 4.68 0.03 1.29 0.79 0.44 2.80 0.76 0.37 1.17 98.67
WD30 1B 67.35 16.62 5.61 0.03 1.81 0.56 0.40 3.17 0.96 0.15 2.39 99.05
WD45 1B 71.71 12.59 4.44 0.04 1.24 0.77 0.85 2.85 0.77 0.13 3.83 99.22
WD15 1C 73.62 13.29 4.19 0.03 1.34 0.50 0.51 2.89 0.83 0.07 1.96 99.23
WD26 1C 66.36 12.37 5.60 0.02 1.27 0.98 0.43 2.98 0.86 0.87 8.01 99.75
WD56 1C 70.47 13.75 4.64 0.04 1.27 0.77 0.37 2.71 0.88 1.12 3.98 100.00
WD57 1C 63.94 13.08 5.91 0.03 0.90 0.86 0.30 2.34 0.83 2.67 8.91 99.77
WD78 1C 70.07 14.58 7.09 0.05 1.37 0.88 0.36 2.63 0.91 0.34 1.69 100.20
Average 69.68 14.15 5.22 0.03 1.29 0.90 0.38 2.75 0.85 0.71 3.56 99.56
St. dev. 3.02 1.41 0.74 0.03 0.18 0.71 0.14 0.22 0.05 0.83 2.53 0.46
WD25 2 71.39 15.21 5.49 0.02 1.52 0.37 0.27 2.56 0.94 0.47 1.29 99.53
WD9 2 68.31 16.25 5.75 0.01 1.41 0.45 0.33 2.90 0.89 0.24 2.06 98.62
WD23 2 70.67 15.00 5.45 0.02 1.46 0.37 0.34 2.46 0.91 0.47 1.31 98.48
WD84 Bergen-op-Zoom medieval 72.05 13.85 6.46 0.02 1.29 0.24 0.66 2.70 0.77 0.13 1.44 99.63
WD85 Bergen-op-Zoom Roman 72.00 13.78 4.40 0.03 1.28 0.69 0.39 2.50 0.95 0.32 2.47 98.83
WD87 Bergen-op-Zoom Roman 72.49 14.86 4.10 0.02 1.40 0.59 0.46 2.72 0.93 0.12 1.54 99.25
WD88 Bergen-op-Zoom Roman 72.27 10.68 3.90 0.01 0.80 1.12 0.26 2.09 0.84 1.19 6.63 99.80
Average 72.20 13.29 4.72 0.02 1.19 0.66 0.44 2.50 0.87 0.44 3.02 99.38
St. dev. 0.22 1.81 1.18 0.01 0.27 0.36 0.17 0.29 0.08 0.51 2.45 0.43
WD86 Bergen-op-Zoom Roman white 78.87 13.80 2.08 0.01 0.42 0.46 0.12 0.60 1.14 0.17 1.66 99.34

Clays
WD80 Rupelian clay 71.84 14.50 5.62 0.03 1.42 0.95 0.51 2.71 0.82 0.14 1.08 99.71
WD82 Rupelian clay 73.59 13.07 4.45 0.03 1.02 0.52 0.47 2.35 0.72 0.23 1.98 98.44
WD83 Rupelian clay 68.75 12.31 4.25 0.02 0.93 0.53 0.43 2.20 0.64 0.07 9.30 99.43
WD-II-24 Ceramics from Asse clay 72.48 13.88 6.11 0.02 1.67 0.39 0.36 2.64 0.80 0.06 0.05 98.91
WD-II-25 Ceramics from Asse clay 74.32 12.67 5.50 0.02 1.52 0.32 0.39 2.78 0.74 0.04 0.01 99.11
WD-II-27 Ceramics from Asse clay 67.49 13.96 6.12 0.01 1.26 0.31 0.41 2.52 0.81 0.08 0.02 99.20
WD-II-28 Ceramics from Asse clay 66.30 12.43 3.93 0.01 0.72 0.14 0.42 2.21 0.79 0.20 0.02 98.71
WD-II-31 Ceramics from Asse clay 68.62 15.23 7.86 0.02 1.74 0.46 0.43 2.94 0.81 0.06 0.06 98.71
WD-II-32 Ceramics from Asse clay 77.34 11.17 5.19 0.02 1.14 0.34 0.47 2.29 0.67 0.06 0.02 98.94
WD68 Ceramics from Kedichem clay 73.98 13.63 3.93 0.02 0.90 0.66 0.20 1.81 0.85 0.27 2.89 99.18

Standards
Blank <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 e e
W-2 Measured 52.20 15.14 10.77 0.17 6.40 10.74 2.20 0.62 1.08 0.13 e e
Certified 52.44 15.35 10.74 0.16 6.37 10.87 2.14 0.63 1.06 0.13 e e
SY-3 Measured 59.67 11.73 6.45 0.32 2.67 8.25 4.11 4.21 0.15 0.56 e e
Certified 59.62 11.76 6.49 0.32 2.67 8.25 4.12 4.23 0.15 0.54 e e
SGR-1 Measured 28.18 6.59 2.98 0.03 4.48 8.31 3.00 1.59 0.25 0.28 e e
Certified 28.24 6.52 3.03 0.03 4.44 8.38 2.99 1.66 0.26 0.33 e e
BE-N Measured 38.34 10.06 12.87 0.20 13.17 14.12 3.20 1.40 2.63 1.08 e e
Certified 38.20 10.07 12.84 0.20 13.15 13.87 3.18 1.39 2.61 1.05 e e
DNC-1 Measured 47.06 18.32 9.95 0.15 10.05 11.28 2.07 0.26 0.49 0.08 e e
Certified 47.04 18.30 9.93 0.15 10.05 11.27 1.87 0.23 0.48 0.09 e e
 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458
Fig. 3. Biplot MgO vs. K2O for the different groups of ceramics and clays
studied.
100 mm long) is evenly distributed throughout the material.
Also opaque minerals are present (iron oxides, round, up to
250 mm in diameter), garnet (round, up to 250 mm in diame-
ter). The majority (10 out of 13) of the sherds from this group
originate from pots fired in an oxidizing environment. Again,
a technological choice can be observed, as the firing condi-
tions used for the production of this sub-group of pottery are
different from the previous sub-groups.
A second series of only five samples, forming Group 2,
have a black-brown matrix under crossed polars, with a mineral
content of up to 60% (40% clay matrix). Elongated pores of
500 mm in length are evenly distributed throughout the mate-
rial. Two quartz populations can be observed: one consists
of rounded quartz grains with a diameter of 500 mm and one
consists of angular grains of 50 mm in diameter. Quartzite
fragments (angular, up to 500 mm) are common. Opaque min-
erals (iron oxides, round, 50 mm in diameter) are rare. Organic
material can be observed in some samples. Although macro-
scopically very close to Group 1, muscovite, the macroscopi-
cally distinctive criterion for Group 1, is absent from this
group. Three samples were taken from sherds which origi-
nated in late first to first half second century AD contexts;
the remaining two pieces came from a context containing pre-
dominantly mid second century AD material, but with a few
early third century vessels. It cannot be excluded therefore
that this group represents a late phase in production, produc-
tion in another area, or the use of different clay.
4.2. Comparison to other Roman and medieval raw and
processed clay material
Since no production sites of this type of pottery are known,
samples from other Roman and medieval pottery production
sites, situated in the core distribution area were analyzed in or-
der to assess the origin of the raw material used. The following
potential clay-sources were analyzed: the Rupelian and Boom
clay (B), the Asse clay (tertiary deposit between Bruges and
Ghent, (B), the Kedichem-formation (Nl), a possible related
453
production in the Dutch eastern river area (Nl) and the clays
in Bergen-op-Zoom region and campine microcuesta (Tegelen-
complex) (Nl/B; Fig. 5).
The problem of provenance is a very delicate one since so
few kiln finds have so far been registered. Moreover, over a
period of 80 years of research, several possible origins have
been proposed, ranging from the Waasland (Rupelian clay)
or Rupel-valley (Boom clay) in the south to the mouth of
the Meuse in the north. Thoen (1978) argued for a provenance
in the Waasland (province of east-Flanders, Belgium) because
of the presence of an outcrop of the Rupelian. A pottery kiln
was found in Waasmunster, a Roman small town near the out-
crop of Rupelian clay (Van Hove, 1996), however, the material
found in this structure, when excavated by the ADW Archae-
ological Service, has proved not to correspond to the original
contents of the kiln (R. Vanhove [director of the ADW archae-
ological unit], personal communication). In order to assess the
possibility of an origin in the Rupelian clays of the Belgian
Waasland, wasters from regional Roman and medieval tile
and pottery production in Temse, Waasmunster and Kemzeke
were analyzed. These samples did not correspond petrograph-
ically or chemically to Group 1. In particular, the presence of
large amounts of pyroxene and biotite, and the absence of
muscovite and garnet distinguish this material from Group 1.
Although based on a small number of samples, the chemical
composition of the Rupelian material is significantly different
from Group 1 in the content and ratios of CaO, K2O and MgO.
This makes the currently investigated Rupelian clay an un-
likely raw material source for our Group 1.
As another possible source of provenance, the Boom clay
(province of Antwerp, Belgium) was assessed. Two samples
from wasters found in a late first century Roman pottery kiln
from Kontich that used Boom clay (Verbeeck, 1993) were an-
alyzed petrographically. These samples show a brown matrix
under crossed polars, with a mineral content of 50%, consist-
ing of rounded quartz grains (100 mm) and mica (biotite plates,
500 mm large). Organic temper is ubiquitous. The samples
show a mica content, consisting of biotite instead of musco-
vite, and the quartz population is different from the Group 1
in occurrence, size, distribution and angularity. Garnet is
also absent. These vessels were obviously made from a differ-
ent source of raw material, probably Boom clay. Although
based on a small number of investigated samples, the clay
source used in the production of Roman ceramics in the Kon-
tich-Boom area is again an unlikely raw material source for
Group 1.
Another important tertiary outcrop, consisting of the Asse
clay, is situated between Bruges and Ghent (provinces of
West- and East-Flanders, Belgium). In this region the Holw.
139e142 series is relatively well represented, but other forms
seem largely absent. Samples from three important medieval
pottery production sites, situated in Oedelem, Oostwinkel
and Zomergem (De Clercq et al., 2001), together with the
clay raw material itself were analyzed. The material exhibits
a brown-black matrix under crossed polars, a mineral content
of 50%, a single quartz population (rounded grains up to
250 mm in diameter), occasional presence of glauconite and
454 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458
Fig. 4. A selection of sampled vessels from Groups 1A, 1B and 1C (scale 1:4).
opaque minerals (sub-angular, 100 mm in diameter) and a grog
temper of crushed black ceramics (500 mm in diameter). No
muscovite or garnet is present. Chemically, the Asse clay
has variable MgO and K2O contents, but the absolute content
of these oxides and their ratio are lower than our Group 1. The
Asse material is therefore significantly different, both mineral-
ogically and chemically.
Samples were taken from a medieval pottery production
site in Oosterhout, situated on the Kedichem clay-complex,
in the modern province of North-Brabant (the Netherlands).
The results obtained exclude the Kedichem clay as a possible
raw material for the production of Group 1 pottery. The sam-
ples show very little mica, and the quartz population is differ-
ent from the main group in occurrence, size, distribution and
angularity. Less opaque minerals are present, with garnet
and sandstone absent. Moreover, the chemical composition
of these samples is different from Group 1 with much lower
MgO and K2O contents (Table 3; Fig. 3).
Several Dutch archaeologists have pointed to the existence
of so-called Batavian or grey pottery in the Dutch middle and
eastern river area (Willems, 1981). This group is
geographically and typologically well defined, although kiln
finds are lacking. A type-fossil is the Willems T2 type, which
is typologically close to the Holw. 139e142 type-series. How-
ever, when samples of this pottery were analyzed, they proved
to differ fundamentally from Group 1. All samples show a grey
to brown-yellow matrix under crossed polars, with a mineral
content of up to 60%. Elongated pores of 500 mm in length
are evenly distributed throughout the material. A single quartz
population can be observed, consisting of angular to sub-
angular quartz grains, between 250 mm and 1 mm in diameter.
Opaque minerals (rounded, up to 250 mm in diameter) are com-
mon. No mica, garnet or sandstone fragments were observed.
A very recent discovery in Bergen-op-Zoom, on a bank of
the Roman Scheldt and close to the mouth of the river, drew
our attention to this archaeologically poorly known area,
which lies on the border of Pleistocene and Holocene marine
deposits. Close to a church, more than 700 miniaturized and
imitated Dressel 20 amphorae (most complete; height ca
15 cm), some stamped handles of real Spanish Dressel 20 ol-
ive oil amphorae, fibulae, coins and building materials were
found. In view of the finds, the site is interpreted by the
 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458
Fig. 5. Possible raw material sources for Low Lands Ware and the location of Bergen-op-Zoom (Nl).
city archaeologists as a sanctuary (Vermunt, 2005). This in-
teresting find could indeed point to the existence of an impor-
tant, but as yet unknown, Roman port, located in a strategic
position close to the mouth of the Roman Scheldt, at which
amphorae were transferred from sea- to land-transport. Petro-
graphic and chemical analysis of this material revealed all ex-
cept one of these miniature vessels to be identical to local
medieval pottery wasters found in kilns in the city, indicating
a local origin for the Roman material. Chemically and petro-
graphically, these finds were indistinguishable from the main
Group 1. All samples exhibit a red matrix under crossed po-
lars and a mineral content of up to 80%. Elongated pores,
500 mm in length, are evenly distributed throughout the mate-
rial. Two quartz populations can be observed: one consisting
of rounded quartz grains, between 250 and 500 mm in diam-
eter, one of angular to sub-angular grains up to 100 mm in di-
ameter. Opaque minerals (round, up to 250 mm in diameter),
garnet (round, up to 250 mm in diameter) and mica (musco-
vite plates, up to 100 mm long) are evenly distributed
throughout the material. Sporadic sandstone fragments (angu-
lar, up to 500 mm large) and grog temper of crushed ceramics
(rounded, up to 1 mm in diameter) were also observed. All
samples contained muscovite mica and garnet.
4.3. The Tegelen-formation and the Bergen-op-Zoom
area as a possible region of origin
The Tegelen-formation, laid down during the early-Pleisto-
cene Tiglian stage, consists of estuarine, perifluvial or tidal
Rhine deposits (Tegelen-formation: Zagwijn and Van
455
Staalduinen, 1975; Van Staalduinen, 1979; Van Staalduinen
et al., 1979; Huisman, 1988; Huisman et al., 2000; Kasse,
1990; Huisman and Kiden, 1998; De Weerdt et al., 1998). In
the study area, the Tegelen-formation outcrops in a crescent-
shaped mass in the eastern part of the modern province of Bra-
bant (Nl), from Halsteren and Bergen-op-Zoom in the north to
Woensdrecht in the south and Ravels, in the area of the Flem-
ish Kempen, in the east (province of Antwerp, B; Fig. 5) This
formation is very conspicuous in the region of Bergen-op-
Zoom, more specifically in the so-called Brabantse Wal (Brabant
bank or Scheldt escarpment), a 20 m high tertiary escarpment
on the bank of the river Scheldt, resulting from riverine erosion
of early and middle Pleistocene deposits. Further east this area
develops into the so-called ‘‘campine microcuesta’’. Garnet and
muscovite are considered typical minerals for the clay bands in
this formation, together with fine to medium-grained sand. This
mineralogy corresponds extremely well to that of Group 1 and,
moreover, distinguishes the Tegelen-formation from other
facies (Kasse, 1988). The Brabant Bank escarpment, and the
Bergen-op-Zoom region in particular, offer an ideal economic
situation for the extraction and processing of the raw material
and the transport of the finished commodities. This region
combines excellent geographical and commercial opportuni-
ties, provided by access both to inland areas via the Scheldt
and the sea and coast via the estuary, with a very large reserve
of raw material immediately below the surface.
The Bergen-op-Zoom region is famous for its medieval and
post-medieval pottery industry, dating back at least to the mid
13th century (Groeneweg, 1992; Vermunt, 2005. Van Wage-
ningen (1988), on the basis of petrographical and geochemical
456 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458
Fig. 6. Distribution area of Low Lands Ware 1.
research, and Groeneweg (1992), using archaeological and
historical data, have intensively documented the post-Roman
pottery industry at Bergen-op-Zoom. Van Wageningen con-
cluded that the ‘‘Formation of Tegelen’’ or some specific layers
in this deposit, outcropping immediately north of Bergen-op-
Zoom, was the source of the raw material for medieval and
later pottery production. It may now be suggested that
already during the Roman period an outcropping part of this
formation was probably a preferred source of raw material
for supra-local pottery industries.
4.4. Distribution
The core distribution of Group 1 pottery lies in the lower
RhineeMeuseeScheldt basin, more specifically in the estua-
rine area and immediate hinterland of these rivers, or in other
words the Belgian and Dutch Low Lands (Fig. 6). The distri-
bution of this pottery thus appears to have been water-based.
The majority of the finds come from the lower-Scheldt valley
and the Lys and Durme valleys further south, the lower reaches
of the Meuse and Rhine, further east upstream along the Rhine
into the Central-River Area (the Netherlands) and even as far
as Xanten and Cologne (Germany). In the eastern part of
Belgium, along the Roman road to Cologne, finds are known
in Tienen, Tongeren (Atuatuca Tungrorum) and Braives. In
view of the petrographic and chemical analysis and the large
distribution area in the lower RhineeMeuseeScheldt area,
the so-called ‘Low Lands’, the term Low Lands Ware 1 for
the main Group 1 seems more objective and logical than other,
previously suggested names, which have since proved to be
based on false or over-simplified assumptions. Since the
pottery was not made in the Waasland-region, the ‘‘Rupelian’’
or ‘‘Waasland’’ terms are inappropriate. The same goes more-
or-less for ‘Scheldt-valley ware’. Although the pottery was
probably made near the ancient estuary of this river, the
term ‘‘Scheldt-valley’’ risks confusion with Northern French
pottery industries in the Scheldt valley. Van der Werff et al.
(1997) introduced the name based on a large group of flagons
and jugs found in the Scheldt valley. Although some flagons
were indeed produced in Group 1 pottery, the bulk of this or-
ange-red group of pottery clearly lacks the muscovite micas
and garnet typical of Group 1 and was probably produced in
Northern France (Thuillier, 2001). The names ‘‘coastal pot-
tery’’, ‘‘terra nigra like’’; ‘‘blue-grey’’- and ‘‘red’’ ware, are
too general and allow confusion with other (often non-Roman)
pottery groups.
4.5. Chronology and typology
Regarding the chronology of this distribution, not a single
pre-Flavian site was found yielding Group 1 pottery. In the
castellum of Zwammerdam (Haalebos, 1977), Low Lands
Ware 1 appeared in the late first century AD, a starting date
which is confirmed by well-dated contexts in Brecht (Delar-
uelle et al., 2004), Velzeke (J. Deschieter, personal communi-
cation) and Ellewoutsdijk (Reigersman van Lidt-de Jeude,
2003). Production seems to have reached a peak during the
second and third century AD. The latest finds, dating to the
third-quarter of the third century AD or a little later, are known
from Breda (Van Enckevort, 2004) and Oudenburg (Vanhoutte
et al., in preparation). At present no secure late-Roman Group
1 finds are known. Additional research is needed to explore
further the chronology of this distribution, but it appears that
in the Dutch central and eastern river area, in the east of North
 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458
Brabant and in the central Belgian area, Low Lands Ware 1 is
only present from the second century AD and on some sites,
such as Lieshout, only from the last quarter of the second cen-
tury AD (H. Hiddink, personal communication). This means
that the distribution of Low Lands Ware 1 evolved gradually,
beginning in the Flavian period in a core region in the west,
spreading east during the second and third centuries AD. On
typological grounds, the growth of this distribution area is
mainly to be identified with the developing distribution pattern
of the Holw. 139e142 series. The bulk of the remaining types,
such as beakers, cooking pots, dishes and bowls and jugs, re-
mained in the core-area from the Waasland in the south to the
mouth of the RhineeMaas in the north.
5. Conclusion
To conclude it can be stated that after 80 years of research
and speculation, new insight has been gained into an important
Roman pottery industry. The main group is characterized mac-
roscopically by a fine-textured quartz fabric, rich in muscovite
mica and garnet. It is defined as a single, major entity, with
some minor differences in the treatment of raw materials.
The former Waasland group is now called Low Lands Ware
1, in accordance with the core distribution area and because
of the possible region of origin in the Bergen-op-Zoom area,
on the Brabant escarpment, near the Scheldt Estuary (The
Netherlands), which was also a very important medieval and
post-medieval centre of pottery production. All previous ter-
minology proved unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. More-
over, we think our research has revealed the dangers of
building hypothesis on hypothesis before the available data
from well-dated contexts has been characterized using stan-
dardized petrographic and geochemical methods. Further re-
search will be needed, however, to confirm our results and
to develop the typo-chronological and functional aspects of
this pottery group.
Finally, it appears that from the late first century AD on-
wards, large pottery industries emerged in the coastal region
of Northern Gaul. An entirely non-native set of forms was pro-
duced, drastically reducing the use of hand-made wares on all
types of sites. These types then came to be distributed across
large areas, whether for their contents or for functional reasons.
Analagous to the Northern French workshops (Tuffreau-Libre
and Jacques, 2001), the Tienen potteries (Hartoch and Martens,
2001), the Rhineland pottery industry (Höpken, 2005) and other
significant ceramic industries in Northern Gaul and Roman Ger-
many, Low Lands Ware 1 indicates the presence of a technolog-
ically and socio-economically well-established pottery industry
in the Scheldt Estuary, with a large geographical distribution of
its products in the lower RhineeMeuseeScheldt basin, lasting
for more than two centuries.
Acknowledgments
The following persons and/or institutions kindly provided
information or samples for analysis: ADC-Archeologisch Di-
ensten Centrum (Amersfoort; C. Wiepking, F. Reigersman);
457
ACVU (Amsterdam; J. Vandekerkehove); Antwerpse Verenig-
ing voor Romeinse Archeologie (AVRA; Rik Verbeeck); Ar-
cheologische Dienst Waasland (ADW; R. Van Hove); Cel
Cultureel Erfgoed Provincie Antwerpen (J. Bungeneers; S.
Delaruelle); B. Liesen; City-Archaeological Service Antwerp
(T. Bellens); City-Archaeological Service Bergen-op-Zoom
(M. Vermunt); City-Archaeological Service Nijmegen (R.
Van Enckevort; J. Thijssen); Free University Amsterdam
(Dr. H. Hiddink; Dr. C. Kasse, S. Heeren); Hans Koopman-
schap; Köln Archäologie (A. Bosman); Museum Het Valkhof
(Nijmegen; M. Brouwer); Provinciaal Archeologisch Museum
site Velzeke (PAMZOV; J. Deschieter); Radboud University
Nijmegen (R. Nieumeijer); Stichting Cultureel Erfgoed Zee-
land (SCEZ: R. Van Dierendonck; N. Visser); TNO-NITG
(Delft: Dr. P. Vos; Dr. W. Westerhoff); Vlaams Instituut voor
het Onroerend Erfgoed (VIOE, M Martens, S. Willems, S.
Vanhoutte); Werkgroep Archeologie Forum Hadriani (Voor-
burg; Wilco De Jonge). This research was financed by a Re-
search Grant from the Flemish Foundation for Scientific
Research (FWO).
References
Bloemers, T., 1978. ‘‘De Bult’’. Eine Siedlung der Cananefaten. Nederlandse
Oudheden 8. Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek,
Amersfoort.
Brouwer, M., 1986. Het ‘‘Romeinse’’ aardewerk in het Maasmondingsgebied.
(Roman pottery in the Meuse area). In: Van Trierum, M.C., Henkes, H.E.
(Eds.), Rotterdam Papers V, A Contribution to Prehistoric, Roman and Me-
dieval Archaeology, pp. 77e90.
Degryse, P., Poblome, J., Donners, K., Deckers, S., Waelkens, M., 2003. Geo-
archaeological investigations of the ‘potters’ quarter’ at Sagalassos (SW
Turkey). Geoarchaeology 18 (2), 255e281.
Delaruelle, St., Verbeek, C., De Clercq, W., 2004. Wonen en leven op het
HSL-traject in de Romeinse tijd (ca 50 v.C.-476 n.C.). In: Verbeek, C.,
Delaruelle, St., Bungeneers, J. (Eds.), Verloren voorwerpen. Archeologisch
onderzoek op het HSL-traject in de provincie Antwerpen. VIOE,
Antwerpen.
De Clercq, W., De Groote, K., Moens, J., Mortier, S., 2001. Zomergem.
Bauwerwaan: sporen van een 12de eeuwse kleiwinning en pottenbakker-
sactiviteit. Monumentenzorg & Cultuurpatrimonium, jaarverslag van de
provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, pp. 192e195.
De Weerdt, L., Muchez, Ph., Viaene, W., Kasse, C., 1998. Clay mineralogical
and geochemical study of the Plio-Pleistocene Kempen formation in
Northern Belgium. Aardkundige Mededelingen 9, 51e60.
Groeneweg, G., 1992. Bergen Op Zooms aardewerk. Vormgeving en decoratie
van gebruiksaardewerk gedurende 600 jaar pottenbakkersnijverheid in
Bergen op Zoom. Stichting Brabants Heem, Waalre.
Haalebos, J.K., 1977. Zwammerdam-Nigrum-Pullum. Ein Auxiliarkastell Am
Niedergermanischen Limes, Cingula, Amsterdam.
Hartoch, E., Martens, M., 2001. La production des céramiques dans le vicus de
Tirlemont (Belgique). Composition des pâtes liée à la fonction des céram-
iques. In: Actes du Congrès de Lille-Bavay, 24e27 mai 2001. Société
Française d’Etude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule, Marseille, pp.
29e40.
Hendrickx, M., 2000. Blauwgrijs en rood aardewerk (Waasland Waar) van de
Zijdelingsestraat in de Romeinse vicus te Tienen. Unpublished Master dis-
sertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Holwerda, J.H., 1923. Arentsburg. Een Romeinsch militair vlootstation bij
Voorburg. Brill, Leiden.
Höpken, C., 2005. Die römische Keramikproduktion in Köln. In: Kölner For-
schungen, Band 8. Römisch e Germanisches Museum, Köln.
458 W. De Clercq, P. Degryse / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 448e458
Huisman, D.J., 1988. Geochemical Characterization of Subsurface Sediments
in the Netherlands. University Press, Wageningen.
Huisman, D.J., Kiden, P., 1998. A geochemical record of Late Cenozoic sed-
imentation in the southeastern Netherlands. Geologie & Mijnbouw 76,
277e292.
Huisman, D.J., Klaver, G.T., Veldkamp, A., 2000. Geochemical compositional
changes at the PlioceneePleistocene transition in fluviodeltaic deposits in
the TegeleneReuver area (southern Netherlands). Journal of Earth Sci-
ences 89, 154e169.
Kasse, C., 1988. Early-Pleistocene Tidal and Fluviatile Environments in the
Southern Netherlands and Northern Belgium. Free University Press,
Amsterdam.
Kasse, C., 1990. Lithostratigraphy and provenance of the Early-Pleistocene
deposits in the southern Netherlands and northern Belgium. Geologie &
Mijnbouw 69, 327e340.
Reigersman van Lidt-de Jeude, F., 2003. Aardewerk. In: Sier, M. (Ed.), Elle-
woutsdijk in de Romeinse tijd. ADC-ArcheoProjecten Rapport 200,
Amersfoort.
Thuillier, F., 2001. L’atelier céramique d’époque gallo-romaine de Dourges
(Pas-de-Calais, France). Aperçu des structures et de la production. Rei
Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta 37, Abingdon, pp. 127e132.
Thoen, H., 1967. De Gallo-Romeinse vicus van Waasmunster-Pontrave. Oud-
heidkundige Repertoria III, Brussel.
Thoen, H., 1978. De Belgische Kustvlakte in de Romeinse tijd. Bijdrage tot de
studie van de landelijke bewoningsgeschiedenis. Verhandelingen van de
Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten
van België, Klasse der Letteren, XL, 88, Brussel.
Tuffreau-Libre, M., Jacques, A., 2001. La céramique en Atrébatie Romaine.
In: SN. Actes du Congrès de Lille-Bavay, 24e27 mai 2001. Société Fran-
çaise d’Etude de la Céramique Antique en Gaule, Marseille, pp. 97e108.
Van Enckevort, H., 2004. Het gedraaide aardewerk uit de Romeinse tijd. In:
Koot, C., Berkvens, R. (Eds.), Bredase akkers eeuwenoud, 4000 Jaar bewo-
ningsgeschiedenis op de rand van zand en klei. Erfgoedstudies Breda 1,
Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 102, pp. 281e358.
Van der Werff, J.H., Thoen, H., Van Dierendonck, R.M., 1997. Amphora
Production in the Lower Scheldt Valley (Belgium)? The Valkenburg-
Marktveld Evidence. Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores-Acta 35, Abingdon,
pp. 63e71.
Van Hove, R., 1996. Het gallo-romeins grafveld van de vicus Waasmunster-
Pontrave. Stille getuige van de dodenzorg binnen een relatief welvarende
handelsnederzetting. In: Van Roeyen, J.-P. (Ed.), Uit Vlaamse Bodem;
10 Archeologische Verhalen, Sint-Niklaas, pp. 67e78.
Van Wageningen, R., 1988. Ceramiekimporten in Amsterdam: een mineralo-
gisch herkomstonderzoek. Free University Press, Amsterdam.
Van Staalduinen, C.J., 1979. Toelichting bij de geologische kaart van Neder-
land 1: 50.000, blad Rotterdam West (37W). Rijksgeologische Dienst,
Haarlem.
Van Staalduinen, C.J., van Adrichem, H.A., Boogaert, M.J., Bless, J.W.,
Doppert, C., Harsfeldt, H.M., van Montfrans, H.M., Oele, E.,
Wermuth, R.A., Zagwijn, W.H., 1979. The geology of the Netherlands.
Mededelingen Rijksgeologische Dienst 31 (2), 9e49.
Vanhoutte, S., Dhaeze, W., De Clercq, W. A mid-3rd century pottery dump at
the Saxon Shore fort at Oudenburg (West-Flanders, Belgium). Ceramics
across the channel. In: Proceedings of the Ghent Conference of the Study
Group for Roman Pottery Studies, Ghent, 30 June to 2 July 2006, in
preparation.
Verbeeck, H., 1993. De potenbakkersoven uit de Gallo-Romeinse vicus te
Kontich. In: SN. In verscheidenheid. Liber Amicorum Prof. dr. Em. Robert
Van Passen, pp. 437e448.
Vermunt, M., 2005. Bergen op Zoom in de Romeinse tijd. Jaarboek De Ghul-
den Roos 65, 21e33.
Verwers, W.J.H., 1998e1999. North-Brabant in Roman times. Berichten
van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 43,
199e360.
Willems, W.J.H., 1981. Romans and Batavians, a regional study in the Dutch
eastern river area I. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig
Bodemonderzoek 31, 7e217.
Willems, S., 2003. Roman pottery from the reference-collection: mortaria and
coarse wares. VIOE-Rapporten 01, Brussels.
Zagwijn, W.H., Van Staalduinen, C.J. (Eds.), 1975. Toelichting bij de
geologische overzichtskaarten van Nederland. Rijksgeologische Dienst,
Haarlem.