ANCIENT POTTERY FOUND AT TWITTY FEE, DANBURY. 113
some of which were undoubtedly imported before the Roman
conquest, but it is extremely difficult to differentiate between
these and the great quantity of fragments which came to the
site during the early years of the Roman occupation, and also
to decide how long the native wares continued in use after
A.D. 43.
The Twitty Fee site is free of this embarrassment. With the
exception of a single dubious fragment of a spindle-shaped
amphora (see below) there is not a trace of Roman influence
anywhere. The amphora fragment, if such it be, is no difficulty,
for it is a well-known feature in late La Tene III grave furniture,
though limited to the richer tombs.
While the majority of the ware corresponds exactly with
standard common types at Sheepen there are some interesting
differences, some of which suggest that our site may have been
occupied a little earlier. There is a much larger proportion
of the thicker native fine wares, tending more to the style of
the Swarling and Aylesford cemeteries than of Camulodunum
of Cunobeline. The only distinct pedestal foot (Plate IX, 2) is
not typical of Sheepen, nor are Plate IX, figs. 5 and 6, though
they occur. Plate X, fig. 13, may possibly occur at Sheepen,
but if it does it is quite rare. Another remarkable fact is the
absence of the two commonest vessels of all, namely, the great
store jar with massive, hooked rim and the globular cooking
pot with upright neck and beaded rim.
On the other hand there can be no doubt that Twitty Fee
was occupied under Cunobeline. We have fragments of two
native platters exactly as at Sheepen, where they seem to belong
chiefly to the latter part of the occupation, and the coarser
of the Sheepen cooking pots are represented by Plate X, figs 13
and 14, and Plate IX, figs. 5 to 8. Some of the finer ware
vessels are copies of imported Gallo-Belgic products, which were
in common use at Sheepen.
We may accordingly assume that the occupants of Twitty
Fee were not able to enjoy the imported luxuries of the capital,
and that they were not at all numerous, for they left no trace
of any intensive occupation. How far back we must date their
settlement must await further evidence to show whether the
points of variance with Sheepen are due to local peculiarities
or have actually some chronological significance.