NB THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE ANONYMOUS

Please circle,mark or tick some answers where appropriate

Section 1: Your background and experience

1.1 Personal information

1.1.1) How long have you been working with Roman Pottery (cumulative experience):

a) up to 1 year, 

b) 1-2 years, 

c) 2-5 years

d) more than 5 years (please specify)

1.1.2) Are you working with ceramics: 

a) in a professional capacity, 

b) in an amateur capacity, 

c) as a student (specify level) 

d) other (please specify)

1.1.3) Do you work:

a) for a commercial Unit 

b) freelance 

c) at a museum

d) at a university or college 

e) unpaid

f) other (please specify)

1.1.4) Do you work on pottery full-time or do you have another role as well. Please specify any other role.

a) full-time

b) part-time

c) other roles:

1.1.5) How many hours a week do you work on Roman pottery.

a) 1-10

b) 11-20

c) 21-30

d) 31-40

e) 40+

f) other

1.1.6) Do you work on other pottery and/or finds.

(Please specify and give approximate proportion of time spent on each).

a) Prehistoric pottery

b) Medieval or post-medieval pottery

c) Building materials

d) Clay pipes

e) Other finds (specify)

1.1.7) Do you specialise in one or more period‌ (specify).

a) Prehistoric pottery

b) Roman pottery

c) Medieval pottery

d) Post-medieval pottery

1.1.8) How long have you been in your present position‌

a) up to 1 year,

b) 1-2 years,

c) 2-5 years,

d) more than 5 years (please specify)

1.1.9) What geographic area does your knowledge of ceramics cover:

a) town, (please specify),

b) county, (please specify),

c) region, (please specify),

d) more than one region (please specify),

e) plus continental pottery, (please specify),

f) other (please specify)



1.1.10) How often do you find yourself working on pottery from an area for which your knowledge is limited

a) occasionally

b) regularly

c) not at all

1.1.11) Do you have competence to report on specialist wares (please specify).

a) amphorae

b) mortaria

c) samian

d) other wares (please specify)

1.1.12) Are you consulted as a specialist (please specify areas and who by).

For:

By:

1.1.13) Do you have a particular area of interest in Roman pottery (please specify within category):

Geographic

Site type

Ware type

Form type

Scientific analysis

Other (please specify)


1.1.14) Do you have other related skills:

a) drawing

b) photography

c) small finds

d) coins

f) statistics

g) thin sectioning

h) residue analysis

i) computing

j) other (please specify)

1.1.15) What is your present income (gross per year), or rate charged.

(If part-time on pottery, make this clear).

a) £15-20,000

b) £20 -25,000

c) £25,000+

d) £100-150 per day

e) £150-200 per day

f) £200-250 per day

g) £250+ per day

1.1.16) Do you expect to be still involved with Roman pottery in 5 years time:

a) yes

b) no

1.1.17) Do you have any experience applying for grant funding for research:

a) no

b) EH

c) AHRC

d) NERC

e) local societies(please specify)

f) other (please specify)



1.2 Sites and reports

1.2.1) How many sites have you worked on.

(in the last 5 years if possible, otherwise as many years as feasible – give number of years)

a) 1-5

b) 6-10

c) 11-15

d) 16-20

e) 21+ (please specify)


1.2.2) What site assemblages have you worked on:

a) cremation cemeteries

b) inhumation cemeteries

c) rural settlements

d) villas

e) small towns

f) large towns/ coloniae

g) forts

h) military sites

i) vici

j) temple sites

k) industrial sites

l) kilns

m) wrecks

n) other

1.2.3) How many of the sites worked on have been taken to assessment stage only.

a) all

b) most

c) some

d) none

1.2.4) How many of these assessment reports have been/ will be published in any form (inc website)

a) all

b) most

c) some

d) none

1.2.5) How many have been/ will be deposited with the relevant HER

a) all

b) most

c) some

d) none

1.2.6) How many warranted more study than you were able to carry out.

a) all

b) most

c) some

d) none

1.2.7) Why did they warrant more study

a) local significance

b) regional significance

c) national significance

d) good group(s)

e) good sequence/dating

f) new fabrics

g) new forms

h) first group from site/area

i) kiln group

j) other


1.2.8) How many of the sites worked on have progressed/will progress to analysis.

a) all

b) most

c) some

d) none

1. 2.9) Where have these analysed sites been, or will be, published.

a) local journal

b) national journal

c) specialist journal

d) monograph

e) internet

f) other

1.2.10) Do you have any personal backlog of unpublished Roman pottery sites or research. Give details.

a) 0

b) 1-3

c) 4-6

d) 6+ (specify if possible)

1.2.11) Assess them in terms of significance

a) local significance

b) regional significance

c) national significance

d) good group(s)

e) good sequence/dating

f) new fabrics

g) new forms

h) first group from site/area

i) kiln group

j) other


Section 2: Methodology

2.1 Recording

2.1.1) Do you generally use/follow the SGRP guidelines for recording for assessment and analysis (Darling in JRPS 11; SGRP.org.uk), i.e. three potential stages comprising:

Primary site data for pottery: prepared during or immediately after an excavation, specifically to aid the excavation process.

Ceramic archive: basic ceramic data recorded post-excavation, usually covering all contexts irrespective of stratigraphic or ceramic value.

Research Archive : the ceramic archive upgraded with further detail and quantification where necessary.

a) yes

b) no

2.1.2) What variations do you use, e.g. recording weight, EVEs or other at ceramic archive stage (guidelines recommend sherd count, with weight and EVEs usually forming part of the research archive). (please specify reasons)

a) for primary site data

b) for ceramic archive

c) for research archive

2.1.3 Are there any other attributes which you think should be recorded as standard

(please specify)


2.1.4 Do you have any concerns over current quantification methodologies

a) no

b) yes (what are they)

2.1.5) How often do you use characterisation techniques (e.g. thin sectioning, NAA) for:

a) the entire type series,

b) major traditions,

c) specific sites,

d) other (please specify)

2.1.6) Do you ever use residue analysis (please specify when)

2.1.7 Do you ever have assistance for the processing of the pottery, in the production of the final report and archives‌

a) volunteers/local non-professionals

b) work experience

c) apprentice

d) other specialists

e) project manager

f) other (please specify)

2.1.8 Is the production of a published type series ever part of your programme‌

a) yes

b) no

2.1.9) Have you worked on any kiln assemblages in the past 5 years (give details) (see section 4.2 for further questions on kilns)

a) yes

b) no

2.2 Reference collections

2.2.1) Is there a fabric and form type series for your area‌ If yes, is it specific to:

a) a site

b) a town or group of sites,

c) a county,

d) a region

e) a ware

2.2.2) Where is it housed

is there access:

a) physically

b) on-line

2.2.3) What is the scope of the reference collection:

a) local wares

b) local kiln products

c) national Romano-British wares

d) imported wares

2.2.4) Does the reference collection comprise fabrics only or forms as well‌

a) fabric only

b) fabric and form

2.2.5) Is it actively curated and updated and, if so, by whom



2.2.6) If there is more than one type series within your area are they all correlated‌

a) yes, there is more than one type series

b) no, there is only one type series

c) the different types series are correlated

d) additional comments if needed

2.2.7) Of the sites worked on recently (see 1.2.1), how many had a fabric and form type series that you could use:

a) physically

1) most

2) some

3) none

b) on-line

1) most

2) some

3) none

2.2.8) Are any of the fabric type series you use underpinned by fabric analysis (specify).

a. yes, if so how many‌

b. no

2.2.9) Where there is no existing fabric and form type series, do you routinely establish one. (State if this is based on an in-house fabric and form type series)

a) yes

b) no

2.2.10) Does this fabric and form type series draw on/cross-reference other existing fabric and form type series‌, eg NRFRC (Tomber and Dore 1998), Oxfordshire (Young 1977).

a) no

b) yes (please specify)


2.2.11) Do you use the same common names as your colleagues in adjoining regions.

a) yes

b) no

2.3 Specialists

2.3.1) What specialists are routinely consulted:

a) amphorae

b) mortaria

c) samian

d) scientific

e) other

2.3.2) Is all the relevant material given to the appropriate specialist‌

a) no

b) yes

1) for the site

2) for particular contexts

2.3.3) If you have been selective, on what basis have you decided what material to submit for a specialist report‌

a) by context

b) by site phase

c) on ceramic criteria (i.e. completeness, rarity, etc)

2.3.4) Do you carry out any processing on behalf of the specialist:

a) quantification

b) dividing into fabrics and or vessel nos

c) illustration

d) stamp rubbing

2.3.5) Have you ever been unable to get access to a relevant specialist and why

2.4 Equipment and facilities

2.4.1) What facilities are available to you during processing and publication:

a) a binocular microscope,

b) computer with wordprocessing, database software, etc

c) scales (manual or computer-linked)

d) adequate working area

e) internet access

f) a microfiche reader,

g) scientific equipment for eg fabric analysis (specify)

h) a library – in house/local

i) a draughtsperson,

j) a photographer,

k) archives officer

l) editor

m) other (please specify)

2.4.2) What additional facilities would you like/should be made available

Section 3: Liaison, Project and Research Design, Research Framework

3.1 Consultation and liaison

3.1.1) Are you consulted when a project design/written scheme of investigation likely to involve Roman pottery is being written.

a) yes

b) no

3.1.2) How do you calculate estimates for:

a) Tenders

1) day rate

2) rate per box

3) ball-park figure

4) what someone else decides

5) sum available

6) other (please specify)

b) Site level

1) day rate

2) rate per box

3) ball-park figure

4) what someone else decides

5) sum available

6) other (please specify)

c) Assessment level (Ceramic archive)

1) day rate

2) rate per box

3) ball-park figure

4) what someone else decides

5) sum available

6) other (please specify)

d) Analysis level (Research Archive)

1) day rate

2) rate per box

3) ball-park figure

4) what someone else decides

5) sum available

6) other (please specify)

3.1.3) Do you routinely discuss the site with the excavator:

a) at tender stage

b) before fieldwork

c) during fieldwork

d) before processing

e) during processing‌

f) rarely

g) never

3.1.4) Do you usually receive adequate information about the site and its phasing‌

a) no

b) yes

1) before processing

2) during processing‌

3.1.5) Are you able to work closely with other pottery, finds etc specialists involved in the project‌

a) yes

b) no

c) if yes, whom

3.2 Research Designs and Frameworks

3.2.1) Do you normally work with reference to:

a) a site specific research design,

b) a local research design,

c) a regional research design,

d) the SGRP research framework and agenda

e) regional research framework

e) other (please specify)

Please give details.

Section 4: Level of analysis

4.1 General

4.1.1) What criteria do you use for selecting which material should be fully analysed.

a) stratigraphic association

b) refining site dating

c) ceramic critera (e.g. homogeneity of pottery)

d) dating gaps for the region

e) cost

f) other (please specify)

4.1.2) How do you decide on the form of the analysis and publication i.e. by group, type-series etc.

a) stratigraphic association

b) refining site dating

c) ceramic critera (e.g. homogeneity of pottery)

d) dating gaps for the region

e) cost

f) other (please specify)

4. 1.3) How do you decide which pottery should be illustrated‌

a) stratigraphic association

b) refining site dating

c) ceramic critera (e.g. homogeneity of pottery)

d) dating gaps for the region

e) cost

f) other (please specify)

4. 1.4) If adjacent sites produce similar assemblages of material, do you have a policy to avoid duplication‌

a) yes

b) no

4.2 Kilns

4.2.1) If you have worked on a kiln assemblage did you adopt a different processing methodology for these (please specify).

4.2.2) Did you produce:

  1. a fabric series

  2. a form series

4.2.3) Did you publish as a:

  1. fabric/form series

  2. groups

  3. both

4.2.4) Was it the first kiln to be excavated in your region or sub-region or was it an addition to a known kiln complex‌

a) addition to known complex

b) first in broad region

c) first in sub-region

4.2.5) Were you able to research parallels and distribution:

  1. locally

  2. regionally

  3. nationally

4.2.6) Did you consult

a) gazetteer from Swan’s (1984) Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain

b) your local HER

c) local amateurs with access to unpublished material

Section 5: Publication strategy and policy:

5.1) Do(es) the organization(s) you work for routinely seek to:

a) publish in local journal (can be as a note)

b) publish in national journal (can be as a note)

c) publish as monograph

d) publish on website

e) deposit with relevant HER

5.2) Is there an editorial policy for ceramics. What does it cover:

a) editorial house style

b) house content style

1)full finds report published

2)ceramic evidence integrated into report

3)other (please specify)

c) drawing conventions

d) table conventions

e) other (please specify)

5.3) Do you always outline the following in a report:

a) your aims and objectives,

b) your methods,

c) your constraints,

d) other (please specify)

5.4) Are the results of your ceramic research integrated adequately with:

a) the archaeological story for the site

b) the archaeological story for the region

c) the archaeological story for the province

d) other finds research

e) historical research

5.5) How is the material integrated into an overall narrative:

a) reported on in isolation

b) part of a wider study for region

c) part of a wider study for town

d) other (please specify)

5.6) Is each new site treated separately, or is it seen as contributing to, and linking into, an overall urban or regional picture‌

a) reported on in isolation

b) part of a wider study for region

c) part of a wider study for town

d) other (please specify)

5.7) Of the reports recently completed (see 1.2.1) how many were published:

a) complete in multiple hard copy,

b) combination of multiple hard copy/fiche,

c) grey literature

d) internet

e) other (please specify)

5.8) What interval was there between completion of report and publication: (tick longest and shortest)

a) 6 months,

b) 1 year,

c) 2 years,

d) more than 2 years

5.9) What control do you have over the final shape of the pottery report‌

a) complete

b) some

c) none

Expand if you wish:

5.10) How important is it to you personally that your work is published‌

a) very

b) moderately

c) not at all

5.11) Do you make use of the JRPS Bibliography.

a) yes

b) no

c) yes, initially when starting work in a new region

Section 6: Education and training

6.1) How did you learn your skills‌

a) degree course

b) evening courses

c) professional training courses through EH, IFA or other body

d) conferences

e) self taught on-the-job

c) apprenticed on-the-job

6.2) Do you communicate with other pottery specialists through, and how often (weekly, monthly, yearly)

a) telephone

b) e-mail

c) regional meetings,

d) national meetings,

e) informal meetings,

f) other (please specify)

6.3) Are you involved in any ‘outreach’ such as:

a) informal meetings for amateurs/professionals,

b) evening classes for amateurs/professionals,

c) lectures/workshops for amateurs/professionals,

d) summer schools for amateurs/professionals,

e) popular journalism for amateurs/professionals,

f) other (please specify)

6.4) Have you/do you receive any training in:

  1. ceramic-based topics

  2. communication and presentation skills, lecturing

  3. project management

6.5 Have you ever considered doing one of the MA or MSc courses offered in ceramic studies‌

a) yes

b) no

c) haven’t because of cost, time lost from work, other reasons

Section 7: Constraints

7.1) What are the major constraints to work on Roman pottery:

(Try to rank)

  1. Time

  2. Money

  3. In-house facilities

  4. Access to reference collections

  5. Access to reports/libraries/databases

  6. Access to museums

  7. Scientific support

  8. Access to colleagues

  9. Attitude of employer

  10. Attitude of field director/staff

  11. Poor site recording

  12. Understanding of requirements

  13. Other

Section 8: Towards a wider perspective and the future

8.1) What published/unpublished reports (in the last 10 years) that you have has access to have been most significant and useful (please specify which reports and why).

8.2) Please list what you consider has/have been the most significant and useful development(s) over the last 10 years in terms of, for example :

kiln excavation or publication

fabrics

typo-chronological studies

functional or social studies

specialist pottery

study of deposits of particular date where gaps/uncertainty exist

scientific analysis

corpora

backlog publication

alternative publication

new technology

8.3) Are you aware of any on-going work on significant pottery assemblages regionally or nationally that is likely to be finished/published in the next 5 years.

a) no

b) yes (please specify)

8.4) What ceramic research projects would most benefit your local area or your region and why‌ (please expand wherever possible). Examples might be:

kiln excavation or publication

study of deposits of particular date where gaps/uncertainty exist

scientific analysis of certain types

backlog publications

entering data from old sites

corpora

compilation of grey literature reports

assessment of museum collections

overview from existing published or grey literature

8.5) What aspect of ceramics would you work on, and why, if you were allowed

(aspects that you may like to include are listed in 8.2)

a) 6 months

b) 1 year

c) 2 years

8.6) What do you think are the most important gaps in our knowledge of Roman pottery in Britain‌ Reponses may include broad thematic issues, such as the use of ceramics for functional, economic or social interpretation; chronological applications or more generally the use of ceramics in archaeology. Indications of general problems as well as problems in your specific field or area of local knowledge will be helpful.

8.7) Looking at the SGRP Research Agenda generally or specifically for the areas you work in do you feel any of the objectives have been adequately addressed since its publication in 1997/2003. Please give region and details.

8.8) What objectives still need to be addressed‌

8.9) Are there any new objectives you would add to the list‌

8.10) Do you have any thoughts on what aspect(s) should be a priority over the next 5 years.

8.11) Are you interested in collaborative research that crosses traditional chronological boundaries:

a) yes

b) no

8.12) Do you have a local University with whom collaborative research could be undertaken‌

a) no

b) yes

If so, would you be interested‌

a) no

b) yes

8.13) Have you ever been contacted by a local College or University with students looking for suitable research degrees at either undergraduate or postgraduate level‌

a) no

b) yes

8.14) Have you ever been contacted by a local School looking for work experience students‌

a) no

b) yes

8.15) At what stage/level should training in pottery be made available:

a) BA degree course

b) advanced degree course

c) evening courses

d) professional training courses through EH, IFA or other body (please specify)

e) conferences targeted at aspects of training (please specify)

f) NVQ