This paper examines ceramic vessels from Roman-period funerary contexts in Essex. Using correspondence analysis, it charts changes in the choice of funerary pottery and isolates the elements in pottery assemblages that unite or differentiate sites. The paper finds that the status of sites can be distinguished on ceramic grounds, reflecting cultural differences in life. Jars and beakers are characteristic of settlement cemeteries, while cups are more typical of high-status burials. Flagons and samian ware are common between them. Underlying funerary traditions are rooted in continuity from the Late Iron Age, rather than post-conquest change. The study also suggests that funerary pottery was selected out of the supply intended for domestic use.Market forces and designer trends, which have conquered so many aspects of life, have now reached the one frontier that had seemed beyond their advance: the way in which we depart from this world.Jonathan Romain, The Times, February 21, 2004 In recent times, funerary archaeology of Roman Britain has held academic attention like few other subjects. The past few years have witnessed the publication of extensive Roman cemeteries in Brougham in Cumbria (Cool 2004) and London (Barber and Bowsher 2000) and a volume of collected papers (Pearce et al. 2000), which itself was hot on the heels -in archaeological terms, at least -of the published proceedings of an international funerary conference (Struck 1993). It is perhaps surprising, then, that gaps in our understanding remain. More surprising is that many of these concern ceramic vessels, the best-represented class of grave-goods. How was pottery acquired for funerary use? Why were certain vessels chosen, and what did they mean in terms of the social status and identity of the deceased? How were burial assemblages affected by the Roman conquest, the economy and pottery supply? These are questions seeking fuller answers. In his recent paper, Howard Williams (2004) has moved some way towards resolving these long-standing issues. He places a social meaning on the selection of funerary pottery, arguing that ceramics, associated with consumption and sacrifice, provided a potent means of remembering the dead and representing the act of cremation. His paper addresses the question of why pottery was selected. This study, in contrast, attempts to clarify what pottery was selected and to assess any differences between sites.