69
medie MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS RAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS AL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVA MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS M RAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CER EVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS ME val cera medieval ceramics JOURNAL OF THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY RESEARCH GROUP Volume 29 2005 medieval ceramics The Medieval Pottery Research Group was founded in 1975 to bring together people with an interest in pottery vessels that were made, traded and used in Europe between the end of the Roman period and the sixteenth century. Its remit has subsequently expanded to include the pottery of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from both sides of the Atlantic and beyond, as well as post-Roman building materials. Volume 29 2005

Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Medieval Ceramics is the journal of the Medieval Pottery Research Group (www.medievalpottery.org.uk). MPRG was founded in 1975 to bring together people with an interest in the pottery vessels that were made, traded, and used in Europe between the end of the Roman period and the 16th century. Its remit has subsequently expanded to included the pottery of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries from both sides of the Atlantic and beyond, as well as post-Roman ceramic building materials.The Medieval Pottery Research Group has a broad and diverse membership. The membership includes professional and non-professional archaeologists actively engaged in the study of ceramics as well as those with a general interest in ceramics or who are involved with local archaeology/history societies. Institutional members include universities, commercial archaeological field units and local, regional and national museums. The Group has strong overseas representation among its membership, in particular from the European Union and North America.Contents:•'Pottery and identity in Saxon Sussex', by Ben Jervis•'The 'material culture' of monasteries in Liguria between the late middle ages and the early modern age', by Paolo de Vigno•'The use of wooden vessels in medieval institutions', by Robin Wood•'A late medieval whiteware from Clarence Street, York', by Alan Vince•'Normandy Whitewares from Ronaldsons Wharf, Edinburgh', by Alan Vince and Richard Jones•'The use of ceramics in late medieval and post-medieval monasteries: Data from three sites in eastern Flanders', by Koen de Groote•'An unexpected 'catch' for the Brixham trawler Cataer', by Phillip Armitage and Kate Armitage

Citation preview

Page 1: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

medieMEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICSRAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS

AL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAMEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MRAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CEREVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL CERAMICS ME

val cera

medieval ceramics

JOURNAL OF THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY RESEARCH GROUP

Volume 29 2005

med

ieva

l ceram

ics

The Medieval Pottery Research Group was founded in 1975

to bring together people with an interest in pottery vessels

that were made, traded and used in Europe between the end

of the Roman period and the sixteenth century.

Its remit has subsequently expanded to include the pottery

of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from both sides

of the Atlantic and beyond, as well as post-Roman building

materials.

Volume 29 2005

Page 2: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

medieval ceramics

Page 3: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

THIS JOURNAL was conceived to meet the need for anannual publication devoted to all aspects of potterystudies from the Early Saxon to the Post-Medievalperiod, including theoretical, methodological andanalytical aspects of pottery research.

An annual conference is held (usually in May) andmeetings of regional groups take place at more frequentintervals. The Medieval Pottery Research Group hasmany Continental members whose work overlaps withthat of British members. Medieval Ceramics welcomesoffers of appropriate articles on all aspects of ceramicresearch for publication.

Notes for contributors are given on page iv.

All general correspondence concerned with theMedieval Pottery Research Group should be sent to theSecretary, MPRG, c/o Museum of London SpecialistServices, Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle WharfRoad, London N1 7ED.

Membership

All applications for membership, subscriptions andorders for Medieval Ceramics should be sent to theTreasurer, MPRG, at the same address.

Subscription rates

Individual £20Institutional £25

The Medieval Pottery Research Group is a RegisteredCharity, No. 1018513.

Copyright Individual authors

ISSN 1358-2496

Published by The Medieval Pottery Research Group

Designed and typeset by Christina Unwine-mail [email protected]

Printed by Farquhar and Son Ltd, Perth

The cover design shows the excavation of a woodenstaved bucket at Kirk Close in Perth (courtesy of SUATLtd), an Islamic pottery vessel from off the coast ofDevon, England (courtesy of Philip Armitage, MikeMiller, John Maule and Brixham Heritage Museum)and fragments of a terracotta plaquette of the crucifiedChrist from the Carmelite priory of Aalst (courtesyKoen de Groote).

Page 4: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

medieval ceramics

JOURNAL OF THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY RESEARCH GROUP

Volume 29 2005

editor Derek Hall SUAT Ltd

assistant editors

Chris Jarrett Pre-Construct Archaeology Ltd

Stan Cauvain freelance archaeologist

Page 5: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Notes for contributors

Contributions can be submitted at any time, butmain papers, which are subject to peer review, mustbe received by 31st August for consideration for thevolume to be published the following year.

Manuscripts should contain a brief summary (100–150 words) for translation into other languages. Theyshould be types or printed on good quality A4 paper,double-spaced and with a good left-hand margin (30mm). Authors are requested to follow the layout andconventions used in this journal. Three copies of themanuscript with drafts of all artwork and tablesshould be sent to: The Editor, MPRG, c/o SUAT Ltd,55 South Methven Street, Perth PH1 5NX.

Authors, where feasible, should make every effortto ensure that their contribution comes with somepublication grant aid.

Proofs will be sent to all authors for checking (not re-writing). Failure to return the proofs by the requireddate will lead to the editors sending their own correctedproofs to the printer without further reference to theauthor. Ten free offprints and a pdf version on disc willbe supplied to the authors on publication of a paper.

All statements and views published in MedievalCeramics are those of the contributors, and are not theresponsibility of the editors or the Medieval PotteryResearch Group.

Page 6: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

ContentsEditorial Derek Hall

Papers

Pottery and identity in Saxon Sussex Ben Jervis

The ‘material culture’ of monasteries in Liguria between the late Middle Agesand the early Modern Age Paolo de Vingo

What did medieval people eat from? Robin Wood

A late medieval whiteware from Clarence Street, York Alan Vince

Normandy whitewares from Ronaldsons Wharf, Leith, Scotland Alan Vince and Richard Jones

The use of ceramics in late and post-medieval monasteries Data from three sites in Eastern FlandersKoen De Groote

An unexpected ‘catch’ for the Brixham trawler Catear Philip Armitage and Kate Armitage

Reviews

David R M Gaimster The historical archaeology of pottery supply and demand in the Lower Rhineland,AD 1400–1800. BAR International Series 1518 2006 Mark Redknapp

Rémy Guadagnin Fosses – Vallèe de L’Ysieux. Mille ans de production cèramique en Île-de-France.Volume 2: Catalogue typo-chronologique des productions Duncan Brown

Andreas Heege (editor) Topferofen – pottery kilns – Fours de potiers. Die Erforschung fruhmittelalterlicherbis neuzietlicher Topferofen (6–20 Jh) in Belgien, den Niederlanden, Deutchland, Osterreich und der Schweiz.Basler Hefte zur Archaologie Volume 4 Derek Hall

Kevin Leahy Interrupting the pots. The excavation of Cleatham Anglo-Saxon Cemetery.Council for British Archaeology Paul Blinkhorn

Clive Orton The pottery from medieval Novgorod and its region. The archaeology of medieval Novgorod.Volume 1 Duncan Brown

News

List of officers and council of the group 2005

Accounts for year ending 31 January 2005

Regional Group Reports 2005

Information and notes for contributors

vi

1

9

19

21

23

29

43

47

48

49

50

52

56

57

58

60

Page 7: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

vi

EditorialIt is with great pleasure that I welcome all readersto Volume 29 of Medieval Ceramics. This year’sjournal features a couple of papers that examine therelationship between monastic institutions and theirpots, a consideration of how past peoples may haveused their pottery to reflect their sense of identity, and acouple of papers detailing the use of chemical sourcingin attempting to provenance ceramics. We also haveanother good range of books under review and are oncourse, I hope, to bring our publication date closer tothe date on the cover!

I would like to thank my fellow members of theeditorial team, Chris Jarrett and Stan Cauvain, andwould like to acknowledge the help of Julie Edwards.Finally I would like to thank Christina Unwin for thedesign and typesetting of this volume and the carefullyconsidered redesign of the front cover, FrederikeHammer and Gwladys Montiel for their German andFrench paper summaries, and Farquhars of Perth theprinters.

Derek Hall 2008

Page 8: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Pottery and identity in Saxon Sussex

Summary

This paper explores the ways in which potterymanufacture served to create and maintain feelingsof identity in Saxon Sussex. The concept of identityis outlined before the archaeology of Saxon Sussexis introduced. A practice based approach to pottery

Introduction

Identity is at the root of much Early Medievalarchaeology. One of our main historical sources,Bede’s ecclesiastic history, has in many ways set amanifesto for research into ethnic groupings and themovements of Angles, Saxons and Jutes and theiramalgamation into the English. Archaeologistshave attempted to see these identities representedthrough objects, looking for example at the movementof specific styles of brooch or cremation urn. As westand here in the modern climate of archaeology,identity has become something of a buzz word withmany inadequate definitions and applications. Still,there is, in many ways, a preoccupation with ethnicityand an almost culture historical view that practice andbehaviour is identity. We are coming to realise howeverthat the reality is much more subtle, that practice is abuilding block of identity yet identity is also a buildingblock of practice. In this paper I shall review someof the current literature on identity creation beforediscussing this in the context of my study area,Saxon Sussex.

The study of identity

Identity is the way in which people perceived themselvesand were perceived in the past. I would argue that tocompletely reconstruct this is impossible. All we can everdo is reconstruct the circumstances and relationshipswhich create identity and form our own categorisationsthrough observation. I have not set out looking for anyparticular scales or types of identity, but entered intothe study with an awareness that identity is changingand plural (Conlin Casella and Fowler 2004, 1). Themodel of identity I am creating here is not a new one,and it draws largely on the structuration theory ofthe sociologist Anthony Giddens (1979/2002). I alsoacknowledge that it is a somewhat simplified versionof identity construction and that other factors willplay a role. We can see practice and time being thekey constituents of both identity and the material and

Ben Jervis

manufacture is then taken to explore the ways inwhich pottery manufacture caused people to perceivethemselves in relation to their landscape, to each otherand to pottery.

social world in which it is created. Practice is a set ofrelationships between people, objects and the naturalworld, governed by factors such as experience andupbringing with no hard and fast naturalistic rules.These practices are carried out through time andthus they act as a medium through which the socialenvironment is built, reconstructed and modified(Gosden 1994, 8). A history of practices is thereforea life history, unique to every person, artefact andlandscape. In order for practices to continue they haveto be carried out in a material and social environmentthrough time, so in as much as practice can be seen tostructure this world, so this world structures practice.Within this world and this concept of biography peopleperceive and place themselves in relation to objects,people and their landscape through practice. It is thisperception which is identity.

Material culture is often all we have left of the pastand therefore its place within this model needs to bedefined. The pot, to take an example, is the result oftechnological practice. These practices are governed bytechnical considerations as well as social, political andeconomic influences (Dobres 2000, 96). The sequenceof pottery manufacture can be broken down into sets ofrelationships. Some of these are visible archaeologically,some can only be speculated from analogy and somewill be highly personal and contextual and thuscompletely invisible (Gosselain 2000, 248). Once a potbecomes situated in the material and social world it canbe seen to be developing an identity resulting from thepractices it partakes in. The process of objectificationoccurs whereby the pot is created by us but at the samecreates aspects of us (Miller 2005, 9–10). To take anexample from pottery manufacture, skill can be seen tobe creating the vessel, but the act of producing the vesselcan be seen to be creating skill (Ingold 2000/2004, 262).Such a viewpoint is untenable because it makes the potand the person indistinguishable. We have to sink to alower analytical scale, and see the pot as acting witha person. Objectification therefore becomes the waypeople in engage with things in order to play out theirpractices within the constraints of their context. Further

1

* Department of Archaeology . University of Southampton . Avenue Campus . Highfield Road . Southampton . [email protected]

*

Page 9: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Ben Jervis2

meaning is generated through interactions with a pot,the users ideas of function are projected onto the objectjust as the material properties of the pot informs thisperception of function. In this way pots can abstractlyat least be seen to be acting to generate and reinforcetheir place in relation to people and other objects,and thus generate and reproduce their identity.

It has been implicit so far that identity cannot bethrust upon the past, nor can it be the initial aim ofstudying an artefact assemblage. The assemblage itselfhas no meaning, it is only once it is used to reconstructthe world in which it originally existed and the practicesin which it partook that we can begin to ask questionsabout identity. As identity is highly contextual, we mustunderstand the wider context before studying potteryin depth.

Saxon Sussex

The modern county of Sussex formed the kingdomof the South Saxons in the Early Saxon period. In the8th and 9th centuries this kingdom declined to becomeamalgamated into Mercia and then Wessex. A numberof sites are known from Sussex from both the Early andLate Saxon periods. These are largely focussed on thecoastal plain and the South Downs (Welch 1983). Thismay be partly due to a lack of archaeological fieldworkin the Weald but is also due in part to this area probablybeing quite densely wooded. Both cemeteries andsettlements match this pattern (Figure 1).

The area was divided into formal units. Hundredsexisted before Domesday and are probably a 7th–9thcentury phenomenon, however it is possible that theywere based on earlier less formal divisions of land(Joliffe 1930). They may have developed out of naturalcommunities with similar interests, bounded perhapsby geographical features. Thus each hundred or groupof hundreds would have different interests in terms of

maintaining subsistence and the calendar of events fora year would vary greatly (Table 1), naturally causingdifferences in peoples perception of time and thelandscape. The 10th century brought civil defence andthus burhs to Sussex. Chichester, Lewes and Hastingsdeveloped as urban centres whilst Burpham and themysterious Eopburnham remained purely militarysites, perhaps supported by the growth of smaller urbancentres such as Steyning and Rye. The vast majority ofDomesday settlement was located along the coastalplain and the downs. Both rural and urban settlementsexisted, causing differences is peoples lifestyles andperceptions of their world.

Of the rural sites the largest are at Bishopstoneand Botolphs in the Ouse and Adur valleys respectively.At Bishopstone, Early and Late Saxon settlements areknown. The later settlement is in the valley bottomwhereas the earlier settlement is on top of a ridge,inhabited since the Bronze Age. The two settlements arevery different, the earlier site on Rookery Hill consistsprimarily of sunken featured buildings (Bell 1977) whilstthe site in the modern day village is a cluster of hallsand pits which have been interpreted as being a Minsteror Thegn’s home (Thomas 2005, 9). This is based on thepresence of a rare latrine feature, a possible tower andevidence for metalworking. In the Adur valley a ruralsettlement at Botolphs again uncovered late and earlyoccupation, although it is possible that the site wasabandoned in between these two phases. The evidencein terms of buildings is similar and subsistence wasbased mainly on farming and salt exploitation(Gardiner 1990, 240).

Major excavations have taken place in two towns;Steyning (Gardiner 1993) and Chichester (See Down1989 for the most up to date gazetteer of sites in thecity). Both developed into urban centres with mints.Other rural sites are also known, sunken featuredbuildings have been found at Westhampnett (Chadwick2006) and North Marden near Chichester (Drewett

Figure 1Location of sites mentioned in the text Copyright Ben Jervis. Drawing Ben Jervis

Page 10: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

3Pottery and identity in Saxon Sussex

1982) and at Old Erringham at the mouth of the Adur(Holden 1976). Small settlements of Early and LateSaxon date are known at Hassocks (Butler 2000) andPagham (Gregory 1976) and evidence of settlementhas also been found at Pevensey (Lyne unpublished).

By 1066 the Sussex landscape was heavily managedwith communities grouped by their environment as wellas political allegiance and no doubt other factors suchas religion. This landscape like every person and objectin it developed over time with its own biography andhad meaning and perceptions endowed upon it. Whilstlooking at one class of artefact, pottery, is somewhatrestrictive, it is the only artefact commonly occurring onevery site and its nature is such that it can be involvedin a number of practices related to a number of spheresof interaction. Pottery production and use are alsoexperiential processes involving a number of interactionswith the material and the object in which meaning andperception are developed (Ingold 2000/2004, 251), justas they are we analyse an archaeological assemblage(Holtorf, 2002, 60).

The pottery from these sites is fairly similar to theuntrained eye. The majority of vessels are sagging jars,tempered with flint and unevenly fired. On closerinspection however the practices behind them arevariable. I shall focus here on aspects of manufacture.This is primarily because ceramic use has yet to beconsistently studied in the area. The focus is necessarilyon the general picture and thus the idiosyncrasies ofindividual assemblages will not be discussed.

Identity through pottery manufacture

The pot can be seen as a medium through which anumber of practices can be investigated through thesignatures which they leave. Not all of the practiceswhich have taken place in the pots biography will bevisible and their full implications cannot necessarilybe understood. We can begin to reconstruct the rolethe pot played in the particular social context. Thecontext of manufacture was probably one of householdor small workshop production (Hodges 1980, 98).

In many cases the dating evidence is sparse andinsecure however it seems that the Norman Conquestdoes not have a major or immediate impact on ceramics.In Chichester the general methods of ceramic

manufacture continue into the 12th century althoughat a different production site (Down 1978, 353). Similarcontinuity is exhibited in a recent assemblage fromLewes (Luke Barber, pers comm).

Resource procurement

At all of the sites in Sussex clay and temper werecollected locally (Table 2). This is probably related toa need to fit in with other economic activities whichwere probably more important (Arnold 1985, 99–108).It is unclear at what time of year resource procurementoccurred, although if we assume material from northof the Downs was brought by boat down the riversOuse and Adur to Botolphs and Bishopstone it wouldbe reasonable to suggest that these trips may have hada secondary purpose, possibly linked to the movementof iron resources from the Weald or the movement ofan agricultural surplus.

Local resources were used in both the Early and LateSaxon periods but there were some significant changes indistinct areas. Whilst in some places new resources wereutilised in others they were not. I would suggest that thisis potentially linked to a changing relationship with thelandscape, at least in the case of Bishopstone (Table 2).Settlement shift may have altered peoples understandingand perception of their landscape through the way theyacted within and created it through practice. This mayhave led to its resources’ being utilised in a differentmanner. This may not have been the case, such as atBotolphs, where there was more stability in the positionof the settlement (Gardiner 1990, 240). The individual’sstable perception of their place in the landscape isperhaps reflected in the consistency in the clay resourcesutilised. The choice was not necessarily governed byutilitarian factors but by a wider understanding of clayin the landscape, brought about through the potterssocialisation (cf Blinkhorn 1997, 119). At Chichesterthere is a further change. In the 8th–9th centuries arange of clay resources were used from around the citybut the development of the Chapel Street industry in the10th century caused significant changes in the potteryproduction process. The Eocene clays found in theChichester Channel were exclusively used by pottersoperating within this industry. On this basis it can besuggested that this resource was controlled. This mayhave acted to reinforce Chichester’s place as an urban

Table 1

General outline of activities at three Saxon sites in Sussex based on the archaeological and historical evidence

After Gardiner 2003 and Down 1981

Bishopstone (Rookery Hill) Botolphs Chichester

hunting of deer hunting of deer weaving (loomweights)

f ishing (particularly eel and whiting, also shell fish) ?salt production defensive role (particularly important

during spring and summer)

agricultural processing (quern stones) administration and mint

pottery production pottery production

Page 11: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Ben Jervis4

entity, controlling the surrounding landscape. Accessto this controlled resource may also have allowed aparticular group of potters to become perceived asfull time artisans, rather than part time craftsmen(Jervis 2007).

Fashioning

During the fashioning of pots the potter has a dialecticrelationship with his material, experiencing and reactingto changes to form the object (Ingold 2000/2004, 251).A number of ethnographic studies have demonstratedthat the skills required to manipulate the material take along time to acquire and are heavily linked to the historyof the potter and his interactions with pots and otherpotters (eg Roux 1989). The repertoire of Saxon potterswas quite limited, the majority of vessels made weresimple sagging jars (Figures 2 and 3). Over time therewas a change from inverted and straight rims to moresharply everted rims (Lyne unpub. 386; Gardiner 1990,246; 252; Bell 1977, 279; Jervis forthcoming). There isalso an introduction of the tournette for finishingpottery and these everted rims gradually become squarer(Gardiner 1990, 253). The introduction of the tournettemay also have facilitated the production of larger vessels(Jervis 2007). Further variability is exhibited in theassemblage at Chichester where larger vessels suchas pitchers were produced as well as large platters(Down 1981, 184–91). Pitchers occur in the highestnumbers in urban contexts, although are also presentat Pevensey and Bishopstone. Their chalk temperedfabric marks them out from the majority of vesselswhich are tempered with flint. Whilst these vesselsconform to a wider tradition stretching as far northas the Thames Valley, the purpose of these vessels isunclear. Their presence may however mark some changein consumption practices or the development of a newform of food or drink preparation (cf Down 1981, 190).Both of these vessels types often exhibit pie crusted rims.

I would suggest that this change in fashioning practiceis primarily related to changes in use practice ratherthan an increased understanding of clays potential. Thepie crusting could be related to a change in the scale ofmanufacture to a small workshop (Down 1981, 190–1)and be an overt statement of individuality by pottersworking in Chichester. These changes in practice aredifficult to interpret. Dramatic changes in formingtechnique, such as the adoption of the wheel generallyoccur over long periods of time and are heavily groundedin social relations, particularly learning networks. Thechanges which occurred here are not hugely dramaticbut it is unclear whether they would be noticed orunderstood by non-potters (Gosselain 2000, 248).Pottery forming techniques were fairly stable and thiscould be due to the demand being for vessels whichwere required, but also reproduce, stable patterns ofconsumption. New forming techniques and formswere only introduced when the requirements for potterychanged, due to changes in use. It is reasonable to suggestthat these developments operate on two levels, at thelevel of wider regional identity based on the superficialbut widespread changes in form but also at a morelocalised level of potting groups based on the gradualchange in techniques, the objectification of the develop-ment of potting skills, such as the use of the turntable.

Decoration

The majority of the pottery is undecorated meaningthis most common of indicators of stylistic groups andcultural identities is not fully open to us. Where thereis decoration it is focussed on Early Saxon pottery andis primarily in the form of stamps. The motifs of thesestamps form part of a decorative network, appearingon other forms of material culture. A tradition ofburnishing the exterior and the inside of the rim occurson Early Saxon and small amount of Late Saxonmaterial from the Adur Valley (Gardiner 1993, 41).

Table 2

The primary clay source and it’s distance from the site for selected sites in Sussex. Italic text indicates thin sectioning has been carried out

After Jervis forthcoming a and b, Bell, 1977, Gardiner 1990, Gardiner 1993, Foster 1982, Down and Welch 1990, Chadwick 2006,Surtermeister 1974

site period primary clay source exploited approximate distance from site

Bourne Valley (Eastbourne) Late Saxon Weald 2 miles

Rookery Hill Early Saxon Weald 10 miles (up river)

Bishopstone Late Saxon clay with f lints and London Clay 1 mile

Botolphs Early and Late Saxon Weald 5 miles (up river)

Steyning Late Saxon Weald 5 miles (up river)

Chichester Late Saxon London/Reading Clay 1 mile

and brickearth deposits

North Marden Early Saxon London/Reading Clay 4 miles or on site

and Apple Down Cemetery or clay with f lints

Westhampnett Early Saxon London/Reading Clay 1 mile

or clay with f lints

Burpham Late Saxon clay with f lints 1 mile

Page 12: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

5Pottery and identity in Saxon Sussex

Figure 2Examples of Early Saxon Pottery from Botolphs, West SussexScale 1:4. Redrawn from Gardiner 1990, f igure 18

In West Sussex and into Hampshire stamping continuesinto the Late Saxon period, possibly due to the influenceof continental imports (Cunliffe 1974). In the east stick-end decoration is more common (Figure 4). The distinctzones of use of these decorative forms may indicatesome divide between east and west but the presenceof this decorative form in the Adur Valley and atChichester emphasise that any barrier was permeableand that influences continued to flow across the coastalplain. Thumb impressions are a Late Saxon developmentand occur across Sussex. They are most prominent inChichester and Steyning and may be indicative ofparticular workshops, or of a desire to identifywith potters from other urban centres where similardecoration was used. This may also have acted tocreate a divide between urban and rural, althoughthumb impressions are present, albeit in smallerquantities, at rural settlements. Highly visible changesof this type have been defined as being related to themore temporary and situational facets of identity suchas economic pressures (Gosselain 2000, 189). Decorationis a strong indicator of the tension between localinteraction and wider interaction and control, both

with the rest of Southern England and the rest ofSussex. Detailed study of motifs may enable furtherunderstandings of these levels of interaction andtheir longevity.

Firing

Firing is a crucial practice in pottery manufacture.It is also the result of the most complex system ofrelational practices. Firing requires an understandingby the potter of the way his materials react to the firingprocess. The production of the clamp kiln requiresinteraction between potters and landscapes and otherpeople; picking appropriate fuel, placing the kiln inan appropriate place and so forth. All of the potterywas produced in simple bonfire or clamp kilns, oneof these has been found in Chichester and is believedto date from the 10th century (see Down 1981, 190–1and Gardiner 1990, 251 for a discussion of date). Asignificant change in firing technique occurs, mostnotably in Chichester but also at Botolphs and to alesser extent at Bishopstone and Pevensey. This isthe introduction of oxidising conditions causing the

Figure 3Examples of Late Saxon pottery from Bishopstone, East Sussex Drawing Penny Copeland

Page 13: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Ben Jervis6

pottery to have an orange or red surface rather than ablack one. This practice requires a greater amount ofcontrol over firing if it is intentional, or can be the resultof a lack of control. It seems to be a purposeful strategyat Chichester where the vast majority of pottery isoxidised (Down 1978, 347). Where it is present in lesserquantities it is unclear why it occurs. It is however a LateSaxon development and as such can be seen to be linkedto the introduction of the turntable and a greateramount of skill and effort being placed into potterymanufacture.

The development of oxidation at Chichester canbe seen separately to the developments elsewhere,with distinct practices causing the development of anincreasingly distinctive urban identity, producing potterydistinct from that used in the surrounding area. Thismay have been appreciated by non-potters but alsoappreciated in a more personal and, for want of a betterphrase, professional manner by potters, making themdistinct from the household potters producing reducedwares (see Saunders, 2000 for a more general discussionof this phenomena). Oxidation was quickly adopted atSteyning (Gardiner 2003) but in more rural areas, suchas at Bishopstone, it appears to have developed moreslowly, re-enforcing the concept of the urban asdifferentiated from the rural. This change in technicalprocess, linked to an increased level of skill and under-standing, can tentatively be suggested to representa change in the intended biography of pottery, nolonger is it intimately linked to the community whichmanufactured it, it is made in a workshop for sale andcommodisation. Any meaning erodes away and isgradually consumed with new meaning manifestingitself over time (cf Kopytoff 1986, 73).

Summary

Identities are created and reproduced through theparticipation of individuals in recurring practices.

Only some of the ways people perceive themselves arerelevant to pottery manufacture. Resource procurementacted to reproduce peoples perceptions of themselveswithin a landscape, and to locate themselves and theiractivities within changing patterns of agricultural andsettlement activity. Wider similarity in pottery usepractices is illustrated through the wide generalhomogeneity in pottery form, perhaps suggestingthat people perceived others as living in a similar wayto them, albeit in a different landscape. The continuityof vessel forms acts to emphasise the way people usematerial culture in practices which maintain structuretheir social system, and how this system acts toreproduce the requirements for specific vessels forspecific functions. The practices used to producethese vessels may have varied locally but this cannotbe perceived from the archaeological record. The use ofthe turntable may be linked to wider economic pressuresrequiring larger vessels which was felt over the entirearea. The development of oxidation firing may be linkedto the development of craft specialisation, through anincreasing understanding of the materials behaviour,which possibly also grew out of changing economicconditions, particularly the development of moreintensive urban living. It also serves to create adistinction between those living on urban sitesand the rural population. Decoration is possiblythe most subtle indicator of the tension betweenlocalised and wider levels of interaction, bothwithin and between settlements.

Conclusions

Different practices lead to identity becoming objectifiedat different levels. Clay procurement can be argued to bedeeply embedded in a groups habitus (Bourdieu 1977,73), its second nature. This in turn allows strategies tobecome embedded in yearly cycles linked to agriculture

Figure 4Distribution of decorative forms in SussexAfter Cunf lif fe 1974 and Barton 1979. Copyright Ben Jervis. Drawing Ben Jervis

Page 14: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

7Pottery and identity in Saxon Sussex

and other economic activities. Forming practices relatemore intimately to small groups of potters and thereproduction of their learning networks. Superficialchanges in form, as with changes in decoration areperhaps more illustrative of the fickle, situationalaspects of identity. Firing, like forming, requires a highlevel of understanding and thus the increasing regularityin firing perhaps suggests the development of more craftspecialists, supported by the increasing repertoire ofvessels being produced. Ethnoarchaeological work in anumber of environments suggest skills such as thesedevelop where craft specialisation is more prevalent(Rice 1991, 268). The fuel resources required for firingalso tie it into wider cycles of agriculture and landscapemanagement meaning it to acts to reproduce variousinter personal and person/landscape/object relationshipsand perceptions.

Through pottery it can be argued that peoplegenerally perceived themselves as members of localand regional communities. These scales are more subtlethan this however, linked to practices and interactionswhich occurred at these scales. The local level is basedon communal histories in the landscape, localisedpractices based on the subsistence strategies andcemented by new formalised groupings. The regionallevel is perhaps linked to a common heritage, a commonway of living and increasing economic and politicalinteractions. These ideas of community are relationalin themselves and although practices may be widelyseen as signify-ing community, the values attached tothem will vary depending upon individual relationships.This is not the whole story of identity. By looking atpractice I have shown that different aspects of potterymanufacture relate to different spheres of perceptionand thus to different levels and scales of identity of bothpotters and non-potters. These practices both build newidentities, cause older ones to dissolve and reproducepresent ones. I have merely shown therefore that identityis present at a number of scales, is not static and isplural. It is highly contextual relying on interactionsbetween people and pots but also between peopleand other items of material culture as well as withthe landscape.

Acknowlegements

This paper began life as an undergraduate dissertationat the University of Exeter supervised by HowardWilliams whose support and guidance I am extremelygrateful for. I would also like to thank Duncan Brownand Gabor Thomas for the opportunity to work withthe Bishopstone material, the staff of Worthing andChichester museums for allowing access to collectionsand Mark Gardiner for discussions about the AdurValley assemblages. Trips to Worthing and Chichestermuseum were funded by the University of Exeter’s Fox–Lawrence Fund.

References

Arnold, D, 1985, Ceramic Theory and Social Process,Cambridge University Press.

Barton, K, 1979, Medieval Sussex Pottery, PhilimoreBell, M, 1977, Excavations at Bishopstone, Sussex,

Sussex Archaeol Coll 115.Blinkhorn, P, 1997, ‘Habitus, Social Identity and Anglo-

Saxon Pottery’, in Blinkhorn, P and Cumberpatch, C(eds), Not So Much a Pot as a Way of Life, Oxbow113–124.

Bourdieu, P, 1972, Outline of a Theory of Practice,Cambridge University Press.

Chadwick, A 2006, ‘Bronze Age Burials and Settlementand an Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Claypit Lane,Westhampnett, West Sussex’ in Sussex Archaeol Coll144, 7–50.

Conlin Casella, E and Fowler, C, 2004, The Archaeologyof Plural and Changing Identities: Beyond Identifi-cation, Springer.

Cunliffe, B, 1974, ‘Some Late Saxon Stamped Potteryfrom Southern England’, in Evison, V, Hodges, H andHurst, J (eds),’Medieval Pottery From Excavations:Studies Presented to Gerald Clough Dunning, With aBibliography of His Work, London: John Baker, 127–36.

Dobres, M, 2000, Technology and Social Agency,Blackwell.

Down, A, 1978, Chichester Excavations 3, Phillimore.Down, A, 1981, Chichester Excavations 5, Phillimore.Down, A and Magilton, J, 1993, Chichester Excavations

8, Phillimore.Drewett, P, 1986, The ‘Excavation of a Saxon Sunken

Building at North Marden, West Sussex’. SussexArchaeol Coll 124, 109–119.

Gardiner, M, 1990, ‘Excavations at Botolphs, Sussex’.Archaeological Journal 147 216–75.

Gardiner, M, 1993, ‘The Excavation of a Late Anglo-Saxon Settlement at Market Field Steyning’, 1988–9.SAC 131, 21–68.

Gardiner, M, 2003, ‘Economy and Landscape chage inPost-Roman and Early Medieval Sussex’, 450–1175,in Rudling, D (ed), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD2000, Heritage, 151–60.

Giddens, A, 1979/2002, ‘Agency, Structure’, in Calhoun,C, Gerteis, J, Indermoten, V, Moody, J and Pfaff, S(eds), Contemporary Social Theory, Blackwell,232–43.

Gosden, C, 1994, Social Being and Time, Blackwell.Gosselain, O, 2000, ‘Materializing Identities: An

African Perspective’. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 7(3), 187–217.

Gregory, V 1976, ‘Excavations at Beckett’s Barn Pagham1974’. Sussex Archaeol Coll 114, 207–17.

Hodges, R, 1980, ‘Potters, Pottery and Marketing AD700–100’. Sussex Archaeol Coll 118, 95–104.

Holtorf, C, 2002, ‘Notes on the Life History of a PotSherd’. Journal of Material Culture 7, 49–71.

Page 15: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Ben Jervis8

Ingold, T, 2000/2004, ‘Making Culture and Weaving theWorld’, in Buchli, V, Material Culture Volume 3 (1),Routledge, 245–64.

Jervis, B, 2007, Making Pots, Making Identities in aLate Saxon Town: An Analysis of the Late SaxonPottery from Chichester, Unpublished MADissertation (University of Southampton).

Jervis, B (a), Forthcoming, ‘The Pottery’ in Thomas,G (ed) Excavations at Bishopstone, CBA ResearchReport.

Jervis, B, 2007, ‘Saxon and Early Medieval Pottery’, inAllen, M, Evidence of the Prehistoric and MedievalEnvironment of Old Town Eastbourne: Studies ofHillwash in the Bourne Valley, Star Brewery Site.Sussex Archaeol Coll 145.

Joliffe, J, 1930, ‘The Domesday Hidation of Sussexand the Rapes’. English Historical Review XLV,427–35.

Kopytoff, I, 1986, ‘The Cultural Biography of Things:Commoditization as Process’, in Appadurai, A (ed),The Social Life of Things, Cambridge UniversityPress 64–91.

Lyne, M, 2000, ‘The Pottery’, in Butler, C, 2000, SaxonSettlement and Earlier Remains at Friars Oak,

Hassocks, BAR 295, 23–26Lyne, M, Excavations at Pevensey Castle, 1936–64,

Unpublished report in Barbican House Library,Lewes.

Miller, D, 2005, ‘Introduction to Materiality’, in Miller,D (ed), Materiality, Berg, 1–52.

Rice, P, 1991, ‘Specialization, Standardization andDiversity: A Retrospective’, in Bishop, R and Lange,F (eds), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O Shepard,University Press of Colorado, 257–80.

Roux, V, 1989, The Potters Wheel: Craft Specializationand Technical Competence, New Delhi: Oxford andIBH Publishing.

Saunders, T, 2000, ‘Class, Space and “Feudal” Identitiesin Early Medieval England’, in Frazer, W and Tyrell,A, Social Identity in Early Medieval England,Leicester University Press, 209–32.

Surtermeister, H, 1976, ‘Burpham: A Settlement SiteWithin Saxon Defences’. Sussex Archaeol Coll 114,194–206.

Welch, M, 1983. Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex. BritishArchaeological Reports 112.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Arbeit erforscht die Wege, in denen Töpferwaren-herstellung dazu diente, im sächsischen Sussex Gefühleder Identität zu schaffen und zu unterhalten. DasKonzept der Identität wird skizziert bevor die Archäologieim sächsischen Sussex vorgestellt wird. Eine auf derPraxis beruhende Annäherung an Töpferwarenher-stellung soll dann die Wege erforschen, in denen dieTöpferwarenherstellung die Menschen dazu anhielt,sich selber in Beziehung zur Landschaft, zueinanderund zur Töpferware zu verstehen.

Résumé

Cet article explore les moyens par lesquels la productionde poterie a permis de créer et de maintenir un sentimentd’identité en Sussex Saxon. Cet article passe brièvementen revue le concept d’identité et présente une introductiongénérale sur l’archéologie du Sussex Saxon. Une approchepratique des mécanismes de production de céramiqueest proposée afin d’explorer comment cette production apu influencer la manière dont les hommes se percevaientles uns les autres et appréhendaient leur environnementet la céramique.

Page 16: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Conventual pottery in Sarzana (eastern Liguria)between the Middle Ages and the early Modern ageA comparison between documentary and archaeological sources

Summary

In Liguria, the archaeological methodology appliedin the excavation of monastery sites, both male andfemale, poses significant problems involving integrationand comparison within what is certainly a more complexframework that emerges from the documentary sources.Obviously, these sources refer to specific meanings forparticular objects and, at the same time, describe thepresence of entire categories of products that, forpreservation reasons, are rarely or never included in theexcavation documentation. The analysis of the objects

Introduction

The pottery presented in this contribution represents themost numerous type of manufactured objects comingfrom the excavations in Sarzana, a town located in theextreme eastern part of Liguria (Figure 1), from PiazzaGaribaldi, Via Mazzini (Figure 2) and adjacent streets(Frondoni et al 2000, 107–108), an area occupied inmedieval times by the convent of S. Domenico and laterby that of the Franciscan nuns of St Chiara (de Vingo2001, 183–184).

The materials are in an excellent state of preservation,even if fragmented. Owing to the quality of the finds,the nature of their context and the methodologyadopted during the excavation, the materials can beanalysed while focusing on various objectives: toimprove the chronology of conventual pottery, toanalyse its circulation in a Ligurian town of mediumsize and importance, and to understand the ways inwhich a specific social nucleus received supplies duringa very complex historical-political period.

This last aspect is of particular importance becauseit enables us to delve even further into those mechanismsand economic-cultural processes that would seemto define the ‘material culture’ of the monasticcommunities, both male and female and, naturally, tocompare them. This will gradually lead us away fromwhat is essentially or exclusively a taxonomic approachand permit us to reconstruct significant relationshipsbetween the consumption of pottery and its socio-economic contexts. However, owing to the incompletenature of the excavations and the discovery of arelatively small quantity of material, we cannot reach

Paolo de Vingo

providing evidence of the communal behaviour inrelation to usage and individual ownership of thematerial culture, so elaborate from written sources,must be limited solely to ceramic pieces. In this paperthe author intends on examining such materials inorder to reconstruct the economic trends in the religiouscommunities, to determine the supply sources andtherefore, through pottery objects, to propose a socialand not just an archaeological interpretation of thereligious context.

9

* SAAST Department . University of Turin

*

Figure 1Western Liguria, showing the location of Sarzana on themargins of the Ligurian territory

Page 17: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

those absolute and quantitative conclusions that havebeen hypothesised instead by the documentary sourcesbut cannot be verified directly on the basis of ourcurrent knowledge.

In recent years in the archaeological literature, and inpottery studies in general, the definitions of ‘conventual’or ‘monastic’ pottery have appeared together withthat of ‘religious’ pottery, but in a sporadic and lessdistinctive manner. These definitions indicate all thepottery items that because of formal components ordecorative motifs or owing to the location of the findscan be linked directly to convents or monasteries. Thepotential of this vocabulary is however rather vagueand at times imprecise, and in any case has been usedto define categories of products that are often quitediverse. On the basis of these considerations it willbe necessary, therefore, to elucidate what exactly isintended by this definition, whether its usage hasbeen more or less improper, and when and underwhat circumstances it might still be useful to employthe term conventual pottery (Gelichi 1998, 107).

The first use of the term is the traditional one, ie toindicate manufactured objects that document religioussubjects through diverse iconography. The presence ofdecorations that refer to the themes of the Passion or todepictions of saints and others who have been beatifieddoes not appear to define specific social environments,not even after 1500, a period that underwent a generalised‘religiousization’ of the motifs on majolica and ‘graffita’pottery (Nepoti 1991, 139). Moreover, pottery acquiredby monasteries and convents was not always and noteverywhere decorated with religious subjects, just likethe secular use of recipients decorated with iconographyof an ecclesiastical nature also should not be excluded.Therefore, the iconographical component, howeverimportant it may be, does not seem to be able toexclusively define a category of products in termsof their use in the social sphere.

A second use of the definition refers to the locationof the finds: the provenance, and often a certain‘homogeneity’ (Farris 1968, 267), would distinguish themas ‘conventual’. In any event, it is easy to understandhow in this case the use of the term is improper or rathervague, and completely ineffectual in characterising therecipients in any specific manner. If instead we intend onwho commissioned the pieces, i.e. containers specificallyordered by a religious institution (Soave et al 1982, 115),

Pottery in convents and conventual potteryAn introduction

10 Paulo de Vingo

Figure 2Map of Sarzana, indicating the two excavations carried out in 2001, 1 the convent of St Domenico and 2 the monastery ofthe Clarisse

Page 18: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

then we must explain how the phenomenon is linkedto secular realms and vice versa how it is not alwayspresent in ecclesiastical areas. This occurs ratherfrequently in those cases involving objects foundwithout any particular markings that might indicateownership or possession, such as monograms, familycrests or coats of arms.

A third possible use of this terminology can belinked to a specific class of products. This refers tothe use proposed by Tiziano Mannoni (Mannoni1975, types 71–72, 96–97) for a particular categoryof ‘graffita’ pottery, until recently defined as ‘pavesi’(Mannoni 1968), that because of its particulardecorations – but it is important to recall that mostof the subjects are of a religious character – and,obviously, because these types are so frequently foundwithin monastic environments, have been redefinedusing this term (Gelichi 1998, 108). In this case it isimportant to note the lack of a single provenance ordistribution, as well as the absence of a homogeneityin terms of the objects’ style: the objects, in fact, wereproduced and distributed in Pavia (Nepoti 1978, 185–188) and more generally throughout Lombardy (Nepoti1978, 188) and in Liguria (Mannoni 1975, 96–97; 53–54; Gardini et al 1994, 53–54), where it is not evenclear whether they should be considered exclusivelyas imports.

There is little doubt therefore that the ‘conventual’pottery category, regardless of the significance that hasbeen attributed to it, does not define a homogeneousproduct class in an unequivocal manner: consequently,it seems rather futile to define a very specific potterygroup such as that of the ‘graffita pavesi’. Hence, itmight be more useful to attempt to trace the channelsthat, over the centuries, have characterised the monasticsupply lines. Perhaps we will not be able to use a termthat has become familiar to us, but at least it may bepossible to begin to reconstruct a phenomenon thatis much more complex than what might have beenexpected.

It’s obvious that cenobies have particular needs forwhich supply models will be different than those insecular contexts. If anything, because of the numbersinvolved, when switching from the generalised use ofindividual wood recipients to those in ceramic, thequantity of individual objects that had to be acquirednotably increased within a short period of time. Aninitial problem, that for the moment we are unable toresolve, is to determine exactly when this transitionphase occurred.

Toward the mid 14th century, for example, thereare very few pottery bowl items recorded in the expenseregisters of San Domenico, an important convent inSavona (while there is still a large number of woodenbowls). Furthermore, open forms amongst the materialsfound in the excavations of the cemetery at the sameconvent in the St Domenico district (Ramagli et al 1999,222) are also rather rare. In the same period anotherconvent, Saint Francis of Assisi, certainly no less

committed to the vows of poverty, offers, accordingto the same type of documentation, what are certainlymore significant data regarding the purchase ofindividual pottery products (Blake 1981, 30–31).

It is therefore evident how other motives, morecultural by nature or involving a simplification of thesupply methods rather than what is strictly a religiouscontent, piloted and influenced the behaviour modelswhich, in the initial phase, were the same as thoseutilised by the secular community. It seems, however,that only from the last quarter of the 14th century thenumber of individual pottery recipients increased inconvents as well, as is indicated, amongst other things,by the finds from the convent of San Domenico inBologna (Gelichi 1987; Gelichi 1998, 108), or in Liguriafrom St Margherita in Carignano (Milanese 1985, 120)and St Silvestro, both in Genoa (Pringle 1977, 126–130).

The pottery found at the monastic or conventualcomplexes of the 14th and a good part of the 15thcentury does not seem to have particularly distinctiveformal or figurative features; the reference markets forquality coated wares (glazed, enamelled, ‘engobed’)would seem basically to be those of the various secularcommunities, with a single difference that generatedvery important consequences at a quantitative andoften a qualitative level. In fact, it is evident thatwhen the production of pottery bowls was authorised,products with similar forms and dimensions werepurchased on a large scale.

A second problem is the lack of documentarysources that would allow us to refer to ‘commissions’.In fact, even if they existed, we would not have resolvedanything of importance because, despite having thisinteresting fact at our disposal, we would still not haveany additional or more precise information about thecharacteristics of individual pottery objects. To havedocumented instead the morphology and dimensionsof every recipient ordered and purchased, whichobviously vary according to the different productionareas, would permit us to evaluate the number ofindividual typologies and their standardisation,comparing sequences of chronologically homogeneousfinds from convents.

Based on our current state of knowledge, it wouldseem irrefutable that ‘graffita pavesi’ appeared in thesecond half of the 15th century. Defined as ‘conventualgraffiti’, these standardised products also had austereand simple iconography and, in some cases, a strongreligious element. These factors would seem to excludea specific type of user (Gelichi 1998, 108–109).

In Tuscany, an initial phase of marking with ‘signsof ownership’ engraved after firing under the base ofthe container, and homogeneous consignments ofrecipients featuring the monogram of the relevantconvent took place immediately prior to this period:I’m referring to the monastery of St Maria in Siena,where pottery with these characteristics alreadyappeared in the first half of the 15th century(Francovich 1982, 276–322).

11Conventual pottery in Sarzana

Page 19: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

In Genoa, small hemispherical or carinated cupswith disc bases and double opposing vertical handles,subdivided in two types based upon distinct decorativestyles, were unearthed amongst the materials from theconvent of St Silvestro. The first iconographical subject,identified as the ‘crucifix’ type, presents the symbols ofthe Passion of Christ and has been dated to the secondhalf of the 15th century, although it might also comefrom a slightly earlier period (Pringle 1977, 126–128).In both the examples proposed it should be emphasisedthat this is in reference to women’s monastic settlements.From this moment on not only were recipients withreligious symbols and emblems of the relevant conventappearing with increasing frequency throughout thepeninsula, but also products with monograms of owner-ship, family crests and, in numerous cases, completenames. The diffusion of products witha high degreeof personalisation, therefore clearly carried out oncommission, does not imply that we must exclude allother types of supplies, that can be considered as a moreanonymous category of products, that nonetheless werealso subject to marking or signing (Gelichi 1998, 109).

This phenomenon needs to be examined morethoroughly, and not necessarily solely in order torecognise, as is possible, the result of a profoundideological and religious transformation that musthave influenced even the most marginal aspects ofthe ‘material culture’ of the period in discussion. Itis not only a question of investigating the eventual‘conventuality’ of certain pottery as much as under-standing if there were diversified mechanisms thatinfluenced the composition of the furnishings of thedifferent communities: an initial and fundamental levelof comparison should be carried out between the men’sand women’s institutions. At this point it might bepossible to verify if the phenomenon developed indifferent directions, also because it must be consideredin relation to the most secular forms relating to thecomposition of dowries (Gelichi 1998, 109).

A fundamental factor in the economic life of themonastery and its interaction with the social fabric inwhich it was inserted consisted of the institution of thedowry, i.e. the amount in money or in equivalent goodsthat the family or other private individuals were obligedto pay to the convent to cover the costs of maintainingthe novice and eventually the future nun. It should beremembered that the cost was quite low, and that it wasa small sum compared to that necessary for a wedding,the reason for which it became a convenient, andconventional, choice for parents who didn’t wish tosubdivide the family’s property owing to the marriageof their daughters (Zarri 1986). The perverse element ]ofthis mechanism was acknowledged on diverse occasionsby the religious authorities and achieved its most

extreme expression, in human and personal terms,between the late Middle Ages and the early ModernAge, when enrolment in the convents was normalalso for girls with relatives already installed as nuns.

The dowries contemplated various types of emolu-ments to maintain the woman who would become anun. In addition to cash, it was also expected that thefamily would provide a set of furniture that could varynotably in size. In the course of the 16th century, alsodue to the economic reconstruction necessitated by the‘tridentine’ normatives against the poverty of the nunsand the desire to make monasteries economically self-sufficient, the dowry price was notably increased, to thepoint that it was very difficult to undertake the monasticlife for those without substantial financial backing. Inthe documentary sources relative to the monastery ofthe Clarisse in Sarzana, starting from the mid 1500s, thedowry was increased from five hundred to a thousandlire to sums of between four to six thousand lire in themid 1600s.

The women welcomed into the convents with variouslevels of insertion came from families of diverse socialstanding, but in general in those urban institutions ofgreater prestige the relatives of the richest familiesentered at the highest levels. This difference in economicmeans is often reflected in the extraordinary quantityof objects that might be needed in everyday life – oftenconducted at a qualitatively high level – which wereconsequently included in the dowry. And yet, under theinfluence of the council of Trento, the prescriptions ofthe late fifteen hundreds envisaged a truly minimalnumber of personal objects, which focused almostexclusively on bed sheets and the personal clothingessential for hygienic reasons. Everything that wasforbidden – money, gifts, vegetable or animal products –was placed in the communal coffers, with the singleexception of the ‘things necessary for the cell’. However,the real situation implied by the dowry lists is oftenmuch richer and extensive than what might have beenexpected. Even though the expression ‘things necessaryfor the cell’ remained rather imprecise, the infractionsmust have been very frequent and quite significant.Besides pictures and other devotional objects, thisdefinition included furniture and handicraft tools, inparticular cloth and all that was needed for sewing, avery common activity amongst the nuns. Certainly lessessential were fine clothes and jewellery, cutlery made ofprecious metals and various undefined ‘extravagances’.

In any case, it is difficult to assess what might havebeen the real value of the dowry lists and in particularof those very numerous examples dating from the firsthalf of the 17th century considered a primary source forunderstanding the true entity of these patrimonies. Thisis because they seem to lack generalised informationregarding what the nuns in the convents owned, apartfrom some interesting exceptions.

For example, in one of the few complete financialbalances carried out inside a monastic community,the property of all the nuns of the Clarisse convent

12 Paulo de Vingo

Dowries in women’s monasteriesbetween the 16th and 17th centuries

Page 20: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

these two components are perfectly harmonised.The technical interpretation of these objects and theirpotential stylistic comparison, that should permit aspecific and non-generalised chronological analysis,can be found directly in Liguria, where this type ofpottery is very common, and not only in Genoa, in themonastery of St Maria in Passione (Gardini et al 1982,66) and of St Margherita in Carignano (Milanese 1985,46), in SS Concezione (Farris et al 1971, 130–131) and inthat of the Santissima Annunziata in Levanto (Gardini1993, 143–144). Such pottery is also found in the urbancentres of the adjacent western Liguria, in Albisola(Bernat et al 1986, 133–137), in Savona (Ramagli 1996,60) and in Albenga (Gardini et al 1994, 53).It can be suggested that the initial production phasebegan in the second half of the 1400s, based on thedates that emerged from an analysis of the materialsfound in the excavations of the church of St Silvestro,on the castle hill of the Ligurian provincial capital(Gardini et al 1997, 309) and in contexts immediatelyfollowing the foundation of the women’s Dominicanmonastery of the Corpo di Cristo (Benente et al 1994,53), the building that from 1452 replaced the previousEpiscopal residence (Gardini 1996, 167). The icono-graphical repertory is rather varied and reproduces,using both simple and complex compositions, thetraditional elements of the Christian faith, often witha deliberately symbolic intention, in which references toepisodes of the New Testament are quite evident. In facta basic motif appears, that of the centrally placed cross,reproduced on bowls, cups, hemispherical cups anddrinking flasks with a spherical body, in all possiblevariations: surmounted by a Christian ornamentalinscription and accompanied by three nails – symbols ofthe Passion; with the base of the cross resting on threebridges that represent the Calvary; with the insertion ofthe crown of thorns, drops of blood gushing from theside arms of the cross, a stylised skull at the base of thecross, a ladder symbolising the deposition and finally achalice surmounted by the Host (Pringle 1977, 126–128;Benente et al. 1994, 54–55).

Amongst the materials from St Silvestro in Genoa thedepictions of men and women are less frequent (Pringle1977, 128–131) and, in any case, are not casual finds.While the preceding decorative themes, withoutdiminishing their quality, are not to be linked to specifictypes of production, because they were distinctive ofthe generalised purchases by institutes and religiousorganisations, the representation of the complete figureof personages corresponds to much more precise criteriaand intentions. In fact, they depict founders of ordersand therefore do not have a symbolic value, but a muchdeeper significance, because they conveyed descent andmemory and would have had a much more dynamiceffect upon communal life: in this sense they werecarriers of ideas and subject matter. One of thesepottery pieces decorated with a female iconographicmotif, comes from the collective burial in a crypt of thechurch of St Silvestro, and is to be considered a personal

Conventual pottery in Sarzana 13

in Sarzana was registered in 1570. The nuns waived theirrights to said property but requested to retain the rightto use it in order to provide for their daily needs. Fromall this it appears evident that the retained effectsconsisted mainly of what was strictly necessary to livein a dignified manner, except for a few cases of manifestwealth. The nuns had at their disposal clothing, bed-sheets, furniture, metal cauldrons for cooking food orfor washing garments, lanterns, rosaries and holybooks, rarely paintings or products of high artisticquality, while personal plates, cutlery or cookingimplements are never mentioned. This situation seemsto only partially match other documented cases – thatare never based upon such extensive documentationof the available assets – in particular with regard to thepoverty or the scarce consideration for the table service.It is a fact that can probably be attributed to theprecociousness of the form that was previously seen,under the initial impulse of the conciliatory years.We should also not ignore the differences between thevarious convents that attracted women belonging tovery different social strata.

In the second half of the seventeenth centurythe nuns in Sarzana also seemed to have an internaleconomy reduced to the most essential items, in whichdebts were established only with the coppersmith, thelantern maker, the tinker and the vase maker, to remainwithin the sphere of estimated costs for non-food items.This leaves us with an image of their daily life in whichthere was room only for the most essential things, asituation probably falsified by the different methodsof purchasing other items, including pottery.

The pottery

The pottery items presented in this paper consist of twobowls made in tawny monochrome, without variationsin colour shades, with a compact and uniform earthen-ware glaze decorated with double engravings on thesurfaces: internally with distinct human figures, in afull profile, depicting two individuals, one male theother female, both portrayed in religious habits, andexternally with a kind of motif of equidistant radiallines originating from the upper profile of the disc base.On the basis of iconographical comparisons, the twopersonages (Figure 3) can be provisionally identified asSt Domenico and St Chiara (de Vingo 2001, 183–184).In fact, in Sarzana it is no coincidence that from thebeginning of the 1300s two different religious settle-ments appear, traceable to those of the Dominican friarsand the Franciscan nuns of St Chiara (Bonatti 1988,121–137). The materials found in Sarzana that canbe linked to the products forming the communalendowment of the religious institute are expressionsof a refined technological culture (Morra 1996, 173–176). That’s because the stylistic level of the figuresrepresented presupposes advanced creative ability,considering the artistic result of the product in which

Page 21: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

object, that belonged to one of the nuns, who wasprobably killed by the plague of 1656–1657 (Presotto1965, 370–420). The materials found in Sarzana canbe linked to this same example, because they sharethe same cultural motives, morphology, technologicalcharacteristics and decorative schemes (de Vingo2001, 186).

Discussion and conclusions

The possibility of applying archaeological methods toconventual contexts, both male and female, generatessignificant problems of integration and comparisonwith the situation, certainly more variable, reportedby the archival sources. These, as it is obvious that theyshould be, refer to specific significances for determinedobjects and, at the same time, describe the presence of

entire categories of objects that, for reasons ofpreservation, rarely or never appear in the dataregistered from excavations (Gelichi et al. 1998, 136).The examination of the objects that provide evidence ofcommunity behaviours, in relation to the consumptionand the individual properties that together make up the“material culture”, so variable in the written sources,must be restricted to the pottery. These are the onlyobjects consistently present and in sufficient quantitiesin archaeological deposits. Their representativenesspermits us to reconstruct how they were used in anindividual community and, at the same time, tocompare those objects with the materials from othercontexts. It should be recalled however that, from thispoint of view, there are still only limited conventualcontexts in which a complex and lasting sequence,with a discussion of quantitative production indices, isavailable for study. Usually, the conventual pottery, when

Figure 3Conventual pottery originating from the context of1 St Domenico and 2 the monastery of the Clarisse

14 Paulo de Vingo

Page 22: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

it is recognised, ends up being analysed exclusivelyat a typological level based on what is indubitably alegitimate approach but of little use, however, forunderstanding the mechanisms through which suchcontexts were formed within a specific social nucleus.Basically, in this situation, one reproduces and amplifiesa social approach to the history of production andthe usage of post-classical pottery that, in general,has always characterised, in a negative sense, ourstudy methods.

With the aim of formulating a hypothesis concern-ing the formation of these pottery centres, it would beuseful to restate some of the considerations that wereformulated earlier with regard to the pottery presentin convents, to identify those product categories thatinfluenced their supply over time and in relation toother social contexts (Gelichi et al 1998, 136).

. Undifferentiated pottery, of daily use also in secularcontexts. The only items present up to the mid 15thcentury, they are continually found in considerablenumbers even in the modern era.

. Pottery decorated with subjects of a religious natureor generalised iconography, such as the cross, symbolsof the Passion, the lamb, the chalice or the trigram‘IHS’ of St Bernardino of Siena. These are all objectspresent with some continuity within monasticcontexts in the Po Valley area, between the 15th andthe 19th centuries. Sometimes they are also presentwith the same characters in secular contexts.

. Pottery with markings relative to monasteries orportraits of specific saints. In this case the finds areconcentrated between the 15th and the 16th centuries.

. Undifferentiated pottery, typical also of secularcontexts, featuring monograms engraved on the pieceafter purchase.

. Pottery produced ad personam, featuring monograms,names, family crests with monograms or dates. Thisphenomenon seems to develop mainly during the1600s.

. Pottery with monograms related to their place ofuse – cellars, kitchens, refectories, infirmaries, or atthe table – soup plates, salad bowls – some of which,however, are not exclusive to religious contexts.

Based on the published examples of Ligurian monasticcontexts we can suggest that the men’s monasteriesutilised almost exclusively materials from the first threegroups. Besides the current types of pottery, theexcavation of St Domenico in Savona, for example, hasproduced only shards with the monogram SD, with thetrigram IHS or with dates associated to symbols.

In contrast with the women’s convents, the previouslydescribed categories almost always appear together withthe exclusion (or at least in a truly modest quantity) ofpottery with monograms engraved on the piece, or itemsspecially produced with engravings that allow them tobe easily and immediately identified. The productionof pieces with a specific iconographic scheme, therefore,

seems to receive a significant impulse during thesame 25 years in which the Council of Trento beganits work. Therefore, if on the one hand the praxis canbe considered the result of a different type of pressure,in that a certain level of personalization was alreadypresent in the late fifteenth century, on the other it canbe said that successively diversified needs and tastescame together (Gelichi et al 1998, 137).

Let’s attempt to summarise: the general frameworkof the finds from women’s convents in Liguria is, afterthe mid 16th century, certainly more complex. Suchcomplexity is, in my opinion, clearly linked to the diversemethods for supplying materials, also considering howinfluential and determinant the institution of the dowryhas been shown to be. A preliminary and incompleteverification of the written sources has revealed howcommon in the women’s monasteries was the practise ofdonating large quantities of those objects that exceededthe needs of the individual. These consistent donationsof materials by the sore morte (literally the ‘deceasedsisters’), periodically provided an indispensable supportfor sustaining the community. Amongst these donationsthere are also indications that refer explicitly to thepresence of pottery.

Communal purchases of recipients must have beenmade in rather modest quantities because the needs ofthe women’s convents were to a great extent probablyalready satisfied by the dowry gifts. In the Ligurianterritory pottery personalised for ‘private use’ (before orafter the purchase) would not seem to be very common,but in particular there is a significant amount of potterypersonalised for ‘community use’ that becomes part ofthe dowry given to the convent together with the novice.Despite the fact that the study of this phenomenon isonly in the early stages and more complete and precisearchaeological data are not yet available, documents doexist (and in the process of being transcribed) thatprovide evidence of the purchase of numerous quantitiesof pottery for use in communal life and brought to themonastery with the individual nuns in the form of adowry, and naturally in such large quantities that astrictly personal use can, to all intents and purposes,be excluded (Gelichi et al 1998, 138).

When the doctrinal religious reforms began to bringback within the limits of the communal life what waspreviously a complex social panorama within eachindividual convent, one notes the development of acountertrend that attempted to facilitate the recoveryof personal donations. This countertrend was confinedto the women’s monasteries, where the situation couldbe interpreted as a clear response by the family – whichobviously had an interest in maintaining the differenti-ation within the monastic structure – and by the samenuns whose duty it was to carry forward such interestsand privileges. If the available archaeological data hasbeen interpreted correctly this phenomenon had alreadybegun during the Council of Trento and it is likely thatit was affected by the first practical results of the Reforminitiated at the beginning of the sixteenth century.

Conventual pottery in Sarzana 15

Page 23: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Acknowledgements

The materials presented in this contribution comefrom the excavations carried out by the Departmentof Archaeological Heritage of Liguria in Sarzanabetween 1990 and 2001, directed by AlessandraFrondoni, Archaeologist Director Coordinator withthe same Department. The archaeological researchwas entrusted to the Società Lombarda di Archeologia(SLA) under the operative responsibility of FabrizioGeltrudini. My sincere thanks go to Alessandra Frondonifor authorising the presentation of the data on thisoccasion, while I am indebted to Fabrizio Geltrudinifor his considerations regarding the particular problemsrelating to his excavations in Sarzana. Rossana Managliacreated the drawings of the materials presented here,while Tatiana Sidoti was responsible for the initialcleaning of the objects.

References

Bernat, C, Ciccotti, M, Giacchino, G and Restagno, D1986, ‘Lo scavo della fornace Giacchino (AlbisolaSuperiore – August–September 1983). Parte I – Laceramica graffita’, Atti del Convegno Internazionaledella Ceramica, XIX, Albisola, 131–154.

Blake, H 1981, ‘La ceramica medioevale di Assisi’,Ceramiche medioevali dell’Umbria: Assisi, Orvieto,Todi, Florence, 15–33.

de Vingo, P 2001, ‘I materiali medievali e postmedievaliprovenienti dagli scavi urbani’, Giornale Storicodella Lunigiana e del territorio lucense, XLIX, 1–4,171–224.

Farris, G 1968, ‘La maiolica conventuale ligure neidepositi di scavo’, Atti del Convegno Internazionaledella Ceramica, I, 266–270.

Farris, G and Rebora, G 1971, ‘Ceramica conventualeimportata a Genova nel XVII secolo (Recentirinvenimenti)’, Atti del Convegno Internazionaledelle Ceramica, IV, Albisola, 129–140.

Francovich, R 1982, ‘La ceramica medievale a Siena enella Toscana meridionale (secc XIV–XV). Materialiper una tipologia’, Florence: All’Insegna Del Giglio.

Frondoni, A and Geltrudini, F 2000, ‘Archeologia urbanaa Sarzana: indagini preventive e d’emergenza’, in GP Brogiolo (ed), Atti del Congresso Nazionale diArcheologia Medievale, II, Florence: All’InsegnaDel Giglio, 107–113.

Gardini, A 1993, ‘La ceramica del convento dellaSantissima Annunziata a Levanto’, in P Donati (ed),Le Arti a Levanto nel XV e XVI secolo, Milan,143–163.

Gardini, A 1996, ‘Piazza della Maddalena. I materiali.Periodo Medievale’, in P Melli (ed), La città ritrovata.Archeologia urbana a Genova (1984–1994), 333–339.

Gardini, A and Melli, P and Milanese, M 1982, ‘S Mariain Passione. Per la storia di un edificio dimenticato’in P Melli (ed), Quaderni, 5, Genoa.

Gardini, A and Benente, F 1994, ‘Ceramica post-medievale in Liguria: dati archeologici, Atti ConvegnoInternazionale della Ceramica, XXVII, 47–72.

Gardini, A and Benente, F 1997, ‘Archeologiapostmedievale in Liguria’, in M Milanese (ed),Archeologia Postmedievale: l’esperienza europea el’Italia, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi,Sassari 17–20 October 1994, Florence: All’InsegnaDel Giglio, 305–328.

Gelichi, S 1987, ‘La ceramica medievale’, in S Gelichiand R Merlo (eds), Archeologia Medievale a Bologna.Gli scavi nel Convento di San Domenico, Bologna,182–193.

Gelichi, S 1998, ‘La cultura materiale e i monasterifemminili tra XVI e XVII secolo’, in S Gelichi andM.Librenti (eds), Senza immensa dote. Le Clarissea Finale Emilia tra archeologia e storia, Bibliotecadi Archeologia Medievale, 15, Florence: All’InsegnaDel Giglio, 107–109.

Gelichi, S and Librenti, M 1998, ‘Monasteri, culturamateriale e archeologia: alcune linee di ricerca’, inS Gelichi and M Librenti (eds),’Senza immensa dote.Le Clarisse a Finale Emilia tra archeologia e storia,Biblioteca di Archeologia Medievale, 15, Florence:All’Insegna Del Giglio, 136–142.

Mannoni, T 1968, ‘La ceramica in Liguria dal secoloVI al secolo XVI’, Atti del Convegno Internazionaledella Ceramica, I, 213–228.

Mannoni, T 1975, ‘La ceramica conventuale a Genovae nella Liguria’ Bordighera–Genova.

Milanese, M 1985, ‘L’area dell’ex monastero di SMargherita ed il versante occidentale del colle diCarignano in Genova’, Archeologia Medievale, XII,17–128.

Morra, C 1996, ‘La ceramica ingobbiata’ in G PantÚ(ed), Il Monastero della Visitazione a Vercelli,Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica delPiemonte, Monografie, 5, Alessandria: EdizioniDall’Orso, 289–366.

Nepoti, S 1978, ‘Le ceramiche postmedioevali rinvenutenegli scavi nella torre civica di Pavia’, ArcheologiaMedievale, V, 171–218.

Nepoti, S 1991, ‘Ceramiche graffite dalla donazioneDonini Baer’, Faenza.

Presotto, D 1965, ‘Genova 1675–1657. Cronache di unapestilenza’, Atti della Società Ligure di Storia Patria,Nuova Serie, V, LXXIX, 370–420.

Pringle, D 1977, ‘La ceramica dell’area Sud del conventodi San Silvestro a Genova (1971–1976)’, ArcheologiaMedievale, IV, 100–161.

Ramagli, P 1996, ‘Ingobbiate e graffite monocrome epolicrome’ in R Lavagna (ed), Museo Archeologicodi Savona al Priamàr, Genoa, 58–62.

Ramagli, P and Ventura, D 1999, ‘Savona. Priamàr-complesso di S Domenico’, Archeologia Medievale,XXVI, 221–222.

Zarri, G 1986, ‘Monasteri femminili e città (secoli XV–XVIII)’, La Chiesa e il potere dal medioevo all’etàcontemporanea, Storia d’Italia, Annals, 9, 357–429.

16 Paulo de Vingo

Page 24: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Zusammenfassung

In Ligurien wirft die archäologische Methodik, diebei der Ausgrabung sowohl männlicher als weiblicherKlöster verwendet wird, bedeutende Schwierigkeitenauf, was die Einbindung und den Vergleich innerhalbdes sicherlich weit komplizierteren Rahmens angeht,wie er uns aus dokumentären Quellen bekannt ist.Offensichtlich beziehen sich diese Quellen auf diebesondere Bedeutung bestimmter Gegenstände,beschreiben aber gleichzeitig die Existenz ganzerProduktgruppen, die aus Gründen der Erhaltung seltenoder nie in eine Ausgrabungsdokumentation eingehen.Die Analyse von Gegenständen, die Beweismaterialfür das gesellschaftliche Verhalten in Bezug auf derenGebrauch und des persönlichen Eigentums daran liefern,wie sie so sorgfältig ausgearbeitet in schriftlichenQuellen erscheint, muß hier allein auf keramischeStücke begrenzt bleiben.

In diesem Beitrag beabsichtigt der Autor bei derUntersuchung solcher Materialien die wirtschaftlichenEntwicklungen in religiösen Gemeinschaften zurekonstruieren und die Herkunftsquellen zu bestimmen,das heißt durch Töpfereigegenstände eine soziale undnicht nur archäologische Interpretation des religiˆsenZusammenhangs zu geben.

Résumé

En Ligurie les méthodes archéologiques utilisées lors defouille de sites monastiques, pour moines et religieuses,limitent les possibilités d’intégration et de comparaisonavec les données recueillies dans les sources écrites surces structures complexes. De toute évidence ces sourcesparlent de symbolique particulière pour chaque objetet, en même temps, décrivent la présence de catégoriesentières d’objets qui pour des raisons de mauvaiseconservation, sont rarement ou jamais inclues dans lematériel archéologique. L’analyse du matériel donnantdes informations sur l’usage communautaire et lapropriété privée des objets, si élaborés dans les sourcesécrites, doit malheureusement se limiter au matérielcéramique. Par cette contribution, l’auteur espèrereconstituer les fluctuations économiques descommunautés religieuses, déterminer les sourcesd’approvisionnement et, grâce aux objets céramiquesproposer à la fois une interprétation archéologique etsociale du milieux religieux.

Conventual pottery in Sarzana 17

Page 25: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Figure 1Excavation of a wooden staved bucket at Kirk Close in Perth.Courtesy of SUAT Ltd

Page 26: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

What did medieval people eat from?

The differential survival rates of pot and wood giveus difficulties in estimating proportions of each inuse during the medieval period. An individual sitecan easily yield 30,000 pot sherds and even if there isa waterlogged pit only a few wooden bowls and perhapsone fragmentary pewter vessel. Given this tremendousoutnumbering it is easy to overestimate the importanceof pot at the time. The truth is that in an age when allcooking was done over an open fire an old damaged fatsoaked wooden bowl would be the perfect kindling, thefew that were not burnt would rot away unless quicklyburied and continually waterlogged. Damaged oroutdated pewter vessels would be melted down tomake new vessels, compared to this virtually everypot ever made is still there in the ground.

If we look at medieval accounts we find that woodwarewas purchased in vast quantities, for the wedding ofRichard II in 1189 over 12,000 wooden vessels wereordered. The Howard household accounts from 1460–1485 include orders for 2,562 wooden vessels, an averageof 100 a year over the 25 year period. In contrast ChrisDyer looking for records of purchases of pots has neverseen an individual order for more than 24 pots, the normbeing orders for one or two at a time and an average ofabout 3 pots per household per year.

In 1431–2 the household accounts of John de VereEarl of Oxford record orders for an unusually large totalof 25 pots (11 for the cellar presumably jugs 10 for thekitchen) but in the same year they ordered 96 pewtervessels and 234 wooden cups/bowls. Could threepots a year give rise to the large pottery assemblagescommonly found on medieval sites or are the pots notbeing recorded? Chris Dyer suggests the accounts arepedantic enough to record everything and the woodenvessels which are recorded are no higher value (averagetwo vessels for 1d). Three vessels per year would be1,500 pots over a 500-year period, if each or these wasbroken into 20 sherds we would have 30,000 sherds. Ifthe same household was ordering 100 wooden vessels ayear then 50,000 wooden vessels would have been used/burnt/disposed of on the same site over the same period.

Were so few pots ordered because they had a verylong in use lifespan compared to wood? I would be

Robin Wood

19

interested to know of any work suggesting averagelifespans of pots before disposal. The huge numbersof wooden vessels ordered by medieval householdssuggests that they were replaced regularly yet the vesselsthat survive commonly show signs of very long use,wear repair and continued use. Perhaps the large house-holds were continually replacing their vessels with newones and passing them on down the social scale wherethey had longer useful lives. One example of this maybe a record of the butler of Prince Edward (the futureEdward V) who was entitled to the ‘worn cups’ as partof his pay (Woolgar 1999).

It has been suggested that woodware does not varymuch over time or regionally though it is becomingclear as more pieces are found that there was as muchvariation in wood as pot. There is no doubt if we hadhundreds of thousands of surviving pieces that it wouldbe possible to identify local styles which changedthrough time, so far we have in the region of 1,000wooden vessels surviving from the medieval periodin Britain and these form only a small part of amuch larger picture. Carole Morris has describedit as the tip of a wooden ice berg. For every vesselthat has ever been found it is likely that 100,000were produced used and burnt.

The vessel forms do change through time and theywere also used at all levels in society not as just by thepoor. Two of the richest ship burials in Europe SuttonHoo and the Oseberg Ship were well equipped withwooden vessels. From pre-conquest sites in Britainwooden bowls tend to be fairly small (6"– 8" diameter)hemispherical in form and most commonly made ofalder. Another characteristic pre-conquest form is theglobular drinking cup, most commonly made of mapleand 3"– 4" diameter, examples come from CoppergateYork, Winchester and small walnut ones from SuttonHoo. After the Norman Conquest this form graduallygets replaced by drinking bowls, the practice iscommonly seen in medieval illustrations from theBayeux Tapestry onwards.

Post conquest bowls tend to be of similar hemi-spherical form but ash becomes the favourite timber(Morris 2000). These vessels are commonly referred

Summary

Despite large numbers of pottery fragments occurringon most medieval excavations including many that areclassified as ‘tableware’ the proportion of what couldbe described as ‘eating vessels’ is very small. The

predominant forms are jugs, storage and cooking pots.This paper looks at the production, purchase and useof wooden eating and drinking vessels and comparesand contrasts this with pottery.

Page 27: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

20 Robin Wood

Zusammenfassung

Trotz der großen Anzahl an Töpferscherben, die beimittelalterlichen Ausgrabungen vorkommen inklusivederjenigen, die als Tafelware bezeichnet werden, bleibtder Anteil dessen, was man als Eßgefäße beschreibenkönnte, gering. Die ¸berwiegenden Formen sind Krüge,Vorrats- und Kochtöpfe. Die vorliegende Arbeitbetrachtet die Herstellung, den Kauf und die Benutzunghölzerner Eß- und Trinkgefäße und vergleicht sie mitTöpferware und stellt sie dieser gegenüber.

Résumé

En dépit du grand nombre de tessons de poterieretrouvés sur les fouilles de sites du Moyen Age, enparticulier les fragments de poterie classifiée commevaisselle de table, le pourcentage de céramique que l’onpeut décrire comme vaisselle ‘pour manger’ est faible.Les formes prédominantes sont les cruches, la céramiqueculinaire et les jattes. Cet article examine et comparela production, la consommation et l’ utilisation desvaisselles de table en bois à celles en céramique.

to in medieval accounts as ciphis fraxini, oftentranslated as ‘ashen cups’; it is not clear if they wereprimarily eating or drinking vessels or, perhaps mostlikely, dual purpose. One thing that is clear is thatthey do not have knife cuts in them so whilst they wereprobably used for pottage they were not used for meator anything that required cutting. Some bowls calledmazers were turned very thin from maple and reservedas drinking vessels, these sometimes had gilt rimmounts, excellent examples are on display in theMuseum of Canterbury and the British Museum.

The wooden bowl as the universal drinkingvessel went into decline in the 15th century with theintroduction of pottery drinking jugs and the last largecollection of wooden drinking bowls are from the MaryRose 1545. Through he 16th century the wooden dishbecame more common, up to this point over 95% ofeating vessels had been bowls which work well for handholding and eating pottage. Perhaps the change towarddishes and latter plates was diet related as all dishes

have knife cuts indicating people were now eating meatfrom individual vessels, or perhaps it has more to dowith sitting at a table to eat a practice which becamemuch more common for ordinary people during the17th and 18th centuries.

The second half of 17th Century saw a vast increasein the amount of pottery vessels which I would class aseating vessels, bowls, dishes and plates. This was theperiod when pottery replaced wood as the standardeating vessel for normal peoples everyday use. It isinteresting that it was also the period when turnedparts became commonplace in furniture and therewas a great increase in furniture production and use,the turners who for 1,000 years had produced tablewarefound a new market in chair legs.

Reference

Woolgar, C M 1999, The Great Household in LateMedieval England.

Page 28: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

A late medieval whiteware from Clarence Street, York

Summary

Excavations at 44 Clarence Street, York, by AntonyDickson in 2006 produced an unusual late medievalvessel which could not be precisely paralleled in formor fabric. It was recommended that analysis of thisvessel was undertaken and the present paper is a resultof that analysis.

Description

Form and manufacture

The vessel is wheelthrown and globular-bodied with asquared rim, diameter c140mm, and has a rod-sectionedhandle luted to the girth and outer edge of the rim. Thebody handle join is strengthened by thumbing on theinterior. The exterior has a glossy pale olive (5Y 7/4)to olive (5Y 5/4) glaze, which does not extend over thehandle (which suggests that the vessel was dipped inglaze, holding onto the handle). The glaze coloursuggests local reduction and is probably an indicationthat the vessel was fired one rather than given a biscuitfiring and then a second glaze firing.

A deliberate ridge or cordon is present on the shoulderbut otherwise the vessel is plain.

At x20 magnification the fabric is seen to betempered with moderate quartzose sand grains, well-sorted and between c 0.5mm and 0.8mm across. Thegroundmass is fine-textured, pink (7.5YR 7/4), andsparse fine mica is visible.

Alan Vince

22

The vessel is identified here as a product of the NorthYorkshire whiteware potteries located on the westernfoothills of the Hambleton Hills and appears to havebeen a copy of late medieval Low Countries types.

Thin section analysis

The following inclusions were noted in thin section:

Quartz Moderate subangular and rounded grains ranging from

c 0.1mm to 0.8mm. The smaller grains tend to be more angular

and the grains appear to be bimodal, with peaks at c 0.2mm and

c 0.5mm. Some of the grains have a thin brown coating but since

these grains are closest to the original surface of the sherd they

are probably a post-burial infill of the shrinkage gap between the

quartz and groundmass. Some of the grains have one or more

straight edge, indicative of overgrowth with no trace of the original

grain boundary. Most grains are monocrystalline and unstrained but

monocrystalline strained grains and polycrystalline grains occur.

The latter include strained crystals with sutured boundaries and

unstrained mosaic quartz. These features indicate that some of

the grains come from metamorphic rocks.

Clay pellets Sparse inclusionless pellets up to 0.5mm across, slightly

lighter in colour than the groundmass.

Muscovite Rare sheaves up to 0.2mm long.

The groundmass is light brown, optically anisotropicand contains sparse angular quartz and muscovite.

Chemical analysis

Chemical analysis was undertaken at Royal HollowayCollege, London, under the supervision of Dr J N Walshusing Inductively-Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy. A rangeof major elements were measured as percent oxides(Appendix 1) and a range of minor and trace elementswas measured in parts per million (Appendix 2). Silicawas not measured but was estimated by subtraction ofthe total measured oxides from 100%. The data werethen normalised to aluminium.

The features observed in thin section are similar tothose of some Surrey Whiteware vessels (eg Kingston-type ware Pearce and Vince 1988) as well as to late 12th-to 13th-century York Glazed ware (Jennings 1992).

Figure 1Late mediveal whiteware vesselfrom 44 Clarence Street, York.Scale 1:4

Page 29: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Neither type was in production in the late medievalperiod, when this vessel is likely to have been madeand the contemporary late medieval wares are CoarseBorder Ware and Brandsby-type ware.

ICPS data is available for all these wares and adataset consisting of production waste from sites inSurrey and North Yorkshire, and finds from YATexcavations in York was compared with the ClarenceStreet find.

The Surrey data consists of samples fromFarnborough Hill, Kingston-upon-Thames andSouthwark and the Yorkshire data consists of samplesfrom the Brandsby kiln excavated by J Le Patourel; asample from the Stearsby kiln; possible wasters of YorkGlazed ware from Byland Abbey and sherds of a 12th-century gritty ware recently identified as a NorthYorkshire product contemporary with York Grittyware, from a site at Easingwold.

Discussion

The Clarence Street vessel is identified here as a NorthYorkshire, Hambleton Hills, product. However, its formis clearly late medieval in date and imitative of LowCountries redware vessels (such as the two-handled,footed cooking pots (Hurst, Neal, and van Beuningen1986, Fig 59) or single handled tripod pipkins, Hurst etal 1986, Fig 60). These Low Countries vessels not onlyhave the large rod handles found on the Clarence Streetvessel but also the cordon on the shoulder. This featureis probably itself a skeuomorph of cast copper-alloyvessels which are also mostly of late medieval date.

The chemical similarity of the Clarence Street vesselto York Glazed ware and North Yorkshire gritty warevessels from Easingwold is probably due to the fact

that all three groups are deliberately tempered withquartzose sand and that the main discriminatingelement is zirconium, which is present mainly in zircongrains. The sand used to temper these vessels thereforehas a higher zirconium content than the Brandsby andStearsby vessels which contain similar quantities ofsilica, but from a different source, the parent clay.

The discovery of this vessel requires a reconsiderationof the classification of North Yorkshire medievalwhitewares. On the one hand, the visual similarityof this vessel’s fabric to York Glazed ware is confirmedand this means that undecorated body sherds cannotbe dated more closely that late 12th to late 14th/15thcenturies. On the other hand, York Glazed ware isactually defined mainly on style and decoration andit would clearer if fabric and form/style were treatedseparately.

Table 1 is an attempt to clarify the products ofthe Hambleton Hills Whiteware Industry and includeswaste from Castle Howard, which was recovered fromexcavations undertaken by Time Team in 2002 (Vince2002). Confusingly, the products of the latter industryare classified as Hambleton ware, but Castle Howard isactually in the Howardian Hills. It is proposed that theClarence Street vessel and similar vessels containingquartzose sand temper not paralleled at the Brandsbykiln are classified as Gritty Brandsby-type ware.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Stephen Willows,Contract Manager, Lintoin Construction, York, forpermission to publish this note.

Figure 2Factor analysis of this data (omitting mobile elements –calcium, phosphorus, strontium and the rare earth elements)indicates four main factors and a plot of the factor scores forthe two main factors clearly indicates two clusters, oneconsisting of Surrey products and the other North Yorkshireproducts which can be subdivided on the basis of the F1 andF2 scores into an Easingwold group and the rest. The ClarenceStreet vessel falls into the Bransby/Byland/Stearsby group.

Figure 3The Factor 3 scores do not separate any of the groups butthe Factor 4 scores (essentially a reflection of zirconium andcobalt values) separate individual groups within the two mainclusters. This is made clear by including the estimated silicavalues, which distinguish the Surrey and North Yorkshiregroups. The diagram shows a plot of estimated silica scoresagainst F4 scores and in this plot the Clarence Street vesselplots between the Byland and Easingwold groups.

22 Alan Vince

Page 30: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

References

Hurst, J G, Neal, D S, and van Beuningen, H J E (1986)Pottery Produced and Traded in North-West Europe1350–1650. Rotterdam Papers VI Rotterdam,Museum Boymans–van Beuningen.

Jennings, Sarah (1992) Medieval Pottery in theYorkshire Museum. York, The Yorkshire Museum.

Pearce, J E and Vince, A G (1988) A Dated Type-series

A late medieval whiteware from ClarenceStreet, York 21

Zusammenfassung

Ausgrabungen in 44 Clarence Street, York, unter derLeitung von Antony Dixon im Jahre 2006 brachtenein ungewöhnliches, spätmittelalterliches Gefäß zutage,für das keine genauen Parallelen in Form und Materialvorlagen. Es wurde empfohlen, dieses Gefäß zu unter-suchen und die vorliegende Arbeit zeigt das Ergebnisdieser Untersuchung.

Das Gefäß wurde als Erzeugnis der Nord-YorkshireWeißwaren Töpfereien identifiziert, die in den westlichenAusläufern der Hableton Hills liegen und scheint eineKopie der spät-mittelalterlichen, niederländischen Artzu sein.

Résumé

Des fouilles entreprises à Clarence Street, York parAnthony Dickson en 2006 ont révélé une céramiqueinhabituelle du Bas Moyen-Age sans équivalent enmatière de forme ou de pâte. Une analyse plus pousséede cette céramique a été demandée et les résultats ensont présentés ici . Cette céramique provient des centresde production de North Yorkshire Whiteware situés surles contreforts ouest de Hambleton Hills et semble Ítreune copie de types des Pays Bas du Bas Moyen-Age.

of London Medieval Pottery: Part 4, SurreyWhitewares. London Middlesex Archaeol Soc SpecPap 10 London, London Middlesex Archaeol Soc.

Vince, Alan (2002) Assessment of the medieval andlater pottery from Castle Howard, North Yorkshire(CASH02). AVAC Reports 2002/81 Lincoln.

Appendix 1

TSNO Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO

V4510 23.51 3.42 1.04 0.52 0.25 2.35 1.25 0.26 0.015

Appendix 2

TSNO Ba Cr Cu Li Ni Sc Sr V Y Zr* La Ce Nd Sm Eu Dy Yb Pb Zn Co

V4510 398 107 44 115 54 23 95 189 45 102 72 119 75 16 4 8 4 6,184 83 22

Table 1

fabric 12th century Late 12th to 13th century Later 13th to 15th centuries

gritty NYGW (Easingwold) none none

sandy York Glazed (Byland) Gritty Brandsby-type (Clarence Street)

untempered Brandsby-type (Brandsby, Stearsby)

fine white Hambleton (Castle Howard)

Page 31: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Table 1

pottery group reference abbreviation

Normandy White ware this note NORW

Normandy Gritty ware, found at Exeter Hughes forthcoming NORG

Normandy Gritty ware, found at Leith This note Leith NORG

Northern France, found at Boston Vince 2005 NFREM

Northern France; found at Exeter, Southampton, Hughes forthcoming NFRE

Worcester and Dublin McCutcheon 2006

Rouen ware from Bergen, major elements only Deroeux et al 1994 ROUEN

Dublin and Viborg McCutcheon 2006

La Londe ware Vince 2006 ROUEN UGW

Early Glazed Ware from Rouen Vince unpublished ROUEN EGW

Early Glazed Ware from York Vince unpublished EGW

Table 2

element Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Fe2O3 0.862 0.143 0.119

MgO 0.834 -0.446 0.232

K2O 0.655 -0.525 0.405

TiO2 -0.024 0.622 0.066

Na2O 0.108 0.036 0.501

sum of squares 1.879 0.883 0.487

percent of variance 37.6 17.7 9.7

Page 32: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Normandy whitewares from Ronaldson’s Wharf,Leith, Scotland

Samples of two whitewares from Ronaldson’s Wharf,Leith, both putative Normandy products, (Haggarty, G2006 word file 42),’were selected by George Haggarty,courtesy of John Lawson the City of EdinburghArchaeologist. These were studied using InductivelyCoupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-ES)following on from the recent study of Scottish WhiteGritty ware (Jones et al 2002–3). The first groupconsists of samples identified as Normandy Grittyware (NORG) and the second of two samples of afine whiteware not previously recognised on sites inthe British Isles but identified by Duncan Brown asprobably a Normandy product, and here given the warename Normandy White ware (code: NORW). A rangeof major, minor and trace elements were measured, thefirst as percent oxides and the remainder as parts permillion (Appendix 1).

The data were compared with various datasets,some of which were obtained at the Centre for CeramicResearch at the University of Caen where only majorelements are measured (Deroeux et al 1994).Furthermore, it was subsequently realised that the CaOand P2O5 values for some samples were enhanced (forexample, the base level for calcium oxide was c. 0.3%and the enhanced samples ranged up to 3.3%), probablyafter burial, and therefore the element set was reducedfurther to exclude these elements. All the data wasnormalised by dividing the measured values by that forAl2O3 to try and remove the dilution effect broughtabout by variations in quartz sand temper.

The comparative data include samples of Rouenglazed wares, Rouen early glazed wares (10th/11thcentury), York Early Glazed Ware (which is probably aLower Seine product) and La Londe ware from the kilnsite (immediately south of Rouen on the south side ofthe Seine), La Londe ware from consumer sites in theBritish Isles (Vince 2006), Normandy Gritty ware fromsites in Exeter (Hughes forthcoming), various otherFrench and putative French whitewares, as describedin Table 1.

An estimate of silica content was obtained bysubtracting the sum of the major elements from 100%.This indicated that the two Normandy white samplesat Leith contain substantially less silica than any ofthe comparative material, whilst the Leith NormandyGritty fabric had a similar silica content to the ExeterNormandy Gritty ware samples but less than theremainder of the comparative material (Figure 1). Thisis consistent with the appearance of these fabrics at x20magnification, where the Lower Seine types can be seento contain abundant silt-sized quartz.

Alan Vince and Richard Jones

25

Factor analysis was carried out on this datasetusing the WinStat for Excel program (Fitch 2001).This indicated only one factor with an eigenvalue over 1(Table 2). The variation in this dataset was therefore theresult, primarily, of fluctuations in the contents of MgOand K2O, which are highly correlated, and TiO2.

A plot of the F1 scores (dominated by the potassium,magnesium and iron oxide contents) for this datasetagainst those of F2 (eigenvalue 0.6; dominated bythe cerium and lanthanum contents) was produced(Figure 2). This shows that the Leith samples can bedistinguished from much of the comparanda using acombination of these two factors. All of the LowerSeine samples (La Londe ware – ROUEN UGW; Early

Figure 1The silica ranges in the pottery groups from Normandy,Northern France, Rouen and the test samples from Leith(see Table 1)

Figure 2Plot of the first two factor scores resulting from factoranalysis for the pottery samples in the nine groups shown

Page 33: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

26 Alan Vince and Richard Jones

Lower Seine Glazed ware (ROUEN EGW); and medievalRouen ware (ROUE) had higher F2 scores, as did thesamples of Early Glazed Ware from York (EGW). Itis therefore clear that neither the Leith NormandyGritty ware nor Normandy White ware were lowerSeine products.

The Leith data were then compared with a setof analyses carried out for Phillippe Husi’s study ofWestern French glazed wares. These analyses, whichwere carried out using XRF, did not include lithium,scandium, neodymium, samarium, europium,dysprosium, ytterbium, and cobalt. The ExeterNormandy Gritty ware samples and the La Londe kilnwaste samples were included in this analysis. Factoranalysis revealed 3 factors with eigenvalues over 1(Table 3).

A plot of the first two factors (Figure 3) shows thatthe Leith samples and the Exeter Normandy Gritty waresamples tend to have higher F1 scores than the westernFrench whitewares and La Londe ware (with a fewexceptions). A plot of the first against the third factor(Figure 4) separates the La Londe samples from theremainder. This analysis confirms that the Leithsamples are not western French products.

Finally, the Leith data were compared with samplesof French whitewares from Dublin, Exeter, Southamptonand Boston, all of which were analysed using ICPS andinclude data for the same range of elements as the Leithsamples. Four factors with eigenvalues over 1 werefound (Table4).

A plot of F1 against F2 for this data (Figure 5) showsthat the Exeter Normandy Gritty ware samples havehigher F2 scores, whilst the Southampton whitewaresamples and those from Dublin have similar F1 andF2 scores. However, a plot of the F3 against F4 scores(Figure 6) separates the Leith samples from theremainder except for five of the Dublin samples.However, when the F1 and F2 values for these fivesamples is examined, it is evident that they too can beseparated from the Leith samples, having lower F1 andF2 scores. These Dublin samples consist of whitewaresof unknown origin identified as French by their generalmethod of manufacture and fabric characteristics (perscomm C McCutcheon).

In conclusion, although there are differences inchemical composition between the two groups ofwhiteware from Leith, as can be seen from theircompositions in (Appendix 1), when compared witha range of French whitewares these two groups areconsistently more similar to each other than to othersamples. However, the closest match is with the foursamples of Normandy Gritty ware from Exeter,although even these samples can be distinguished fromthe Leith ones. The most likely interpretation of thisdata is therefore that the two Leith fabric groups areindeed of Normandy origin but not from the LowerSeine valley, nor, probably, from the same productionsite as those found at Exeter.

Table 3

element Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

K2O 0.841 0.187 -0.132

MgO 0.829 0.120 -0.283

Fe2O3 0.814 0.074 0.185

V 0.639 0.231 0.415

Ni 0.635 0.149 0.135

Ba 0.591 0.510 -0.072

Zn 0.581 -0.077 0.258

Zr -0.447 0.421 -0.241

MnO 0.325 -0.073 0.157

Ce 0.009 0.956 -0.065

La 0.048 0.903 -0.031

Na2O 0.185 0.763 -0.226

Y 0.095 0.540 0.220

Cr 0.227 -0.012 0.887

TiO2 0.026 -0.093 0.856

sum of squares 3.96 3.192 2.101

percent of variance 26.4 21.3 14.0

Figure 3Plot of the f irst two factor scores resulting from factoranalysis for the samples in the Normandy Gritty ware,Normandy White ware, Rouen La Londe ware and theWestern French White wares

Figure 4Plot of the scores on Factors 1 and 3 resulting from factoranalysis for White ware from Amboise, Angers, Blois, Chinon,Exeter, La Londe, Leith, Poitiers, Rigny Ussé and Tours. Factor3 is dominated by the chromium and titanium contents

Page 34: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Normandy whitewares from Ronaldson’s Wharf, Leith, Scotland 27

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Clare McCutcheon and MichaelHughes for supplying copies of their data in digitalform and for permission to use it in this study. GeorgeHaggarty suggested the analysis as part a survey ofFrench pottery in Scotland.

Figure 5Plot of the f irst two factor scores resulting from factoranalysis for the pottery samples from Boston, Dublin, Exeter,Normandy White and Gritty found at Leith, Southamptonand Worcester

Figure 6Plot of the scores on Factors 3 and 4 resulting from factoranalysis for the pottery samples from Boston, Dublin, Exeter,Normandy White and Gritty found at Leith, Southamptonand Worcester

Table 4

element Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Sm 0.964 0.002 -0.025 0.043

Ce 0.938 0.134 0.152 0.111

La 0.905 0.146 0.276 0.090

Nd 0.898 0.167 0.284 -0.105

Dy 0.861 0.267 0.327 -0.154

Y 0.842 0.309 0.262 -0.198

Eu 0.820 0.396 -0.079 -0.0214

Ni 0.651 0.412 -0.085 -0.199

Yb 0.634 0.4249 0.553 -0.258

Sr 0.629 -0.049 0.091 0.289

K2O 0.110 0.928 0.002 0.215

MgO 0.153 0.919 -0.068 0.0396

V 0.226 0.810 0.140 0.247

Co -0.007 0.680 0.455 -0.166

Fe2O3 0.388 0.610 0.202 0.008

Li 0.334 0.575 -0.137 -0.353

Zr 0.221 0.130 0.942 -0.122

TiO2 0.1488 -0.090 0.813 0.174

Zn 0.349 -0.040 0.609 0.436

Cu 0.024 0.107 0.437 0.209

Na2O -0.225 0.245 0.251 0.654

MnO -0.152 -0.185 -0.115 0.647

Ba 0.185 0.499 0.162 0.638

Cr 0.315 0.113 0.310 0.561

sum of squares 7.528 4.665 3.282 2.394

% variance 31.4 19.4 13.7 10.0

References

Deroeux, D Dufournier, D and Herteig, A (1994)‘French medieval ceramics from the Bryggenexcavations in Bergen, Norway.’ Bryggen Papers:Supplementary Series 5, 161–208.

Fitch, Robert K (2001)Winstat for Microsoft (r) Excel.Haggarty, G 2006 ‘A gazetteer and summary of French

pottery imported into Scotland c 1150 to c 1650 aceramic contribution to Scotland’s economichistory’. A CD-Rom in Tayside and FifeArchaeological Journal, 12 (2006), 117–8.

Hughes, M J (forthcoming) Report on the analysis byinductively-coupled plasma atomic emission analysis(ICP-AES) of imported northern French pottery,including a sherd found at the Althea Library,Padstow.

Jones, R E Will, R Haggarty, G and Hall, D (2002–03)Sourcing Scottish White Gritty Ware’ MedievalCeramics 26–27 (2003), 45–84.

McCutcheon, C (2006) Medieval Pottery from WoodQuay, Dublin: The 1974–6 Waterfront Excavations.Series B 7 Dublin, Royal Irish Academy.

Vince, A (2005) The Imported Medieval Pottery fromBoston (BSE01). AVAC Reports 2005/111 Lincoln,Alan Vince Archaeology Consultancy.

Vince, A (2006) ‘Les analyses scientifiques descéramiques datèes entre le VIIe et le VIIIe siècleprovenant de Lundenvic (Citè de Westminster,Londres).’ In V Hincker and P Husi, eds, LaCèramique du Haut Moyen Age dans le north-ouest,Editions NEA du Levant au Ponant, Conde-sur-Noireau, 365–371.

Page 35: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

28 Alan Vince and Richard Jones

Zusammenfassung

Proben zweier Weißwaren aus der Ausgrabung in derRonaldson-Werft, Lieth, beide vermeintliche Erzeugnisseaus der Normandie, wurden auf Empfehlung JohnLawsons, dem City of Edinbourg-Archäologen, vonGeorge Haggarty für diese Untersuchung ausgewählt.In Verfolg einer kürzlichen Untersuchung schottischerWeiß-Sandware wurden diese Gefäße mit Hilfe derICPES-Methode (Inductively Coupled Plasma EmissionSpectroscopy) untersucht. Die Daten über dieZusammensetzung wurden dann mit verschiedenenanderen Waren verglichen: mit glasierter Rouen-Ware, mit früher glasierter Rouen-Ware (10. und 11.Jahrhundert), mit früher glasierter York-Ware (diewahrscheinlich ein Erzeugnis vom unteren Seine-Laufist) und auch mit La Lande-Ware von einer Töpfereiunmittelbar südlich von Rouen auf der Südseite derSeine, sowie mit La Lande-Ware, wie sie an Stättenauf den Britischen Inseln gefunden wurden (Vince 2006),sowie mit normannischer Sandware von Ausgrabungenin Exeter (Hughes in Vorbereitung) wie auch mit andererfranzösischer und vermutlich franzˆsischer Weißware.

Résumé

Des échantillons de deux types de céramique blancheprovenant de fouilles à Ronaldson’s Wharf, Leith,toutes deux provenant peut-Ítre de Normandie ont étésélectionnés par George Haggarty avec la permissionde John Lawson Archéologue en charge de la Citéd’Edinburgh.

Les données recueillies sur la composition ont étécomparées ‡ des échantillons de céramique vernie deRouen, de céramique vernie précoce de Rouen (10/11ème siècles), de céramique vernie précoce de York(probablement un produit de Basse Seine), de céramiquedu centre de production de La Londe (au sud de Rouensur la rive sud de la Seine), de céramique de La Londetrouvée sur des sites de consommation au Royaume Uni(Vince 2006), de céramique type Normandy Gritty waredécouverte à Exeter (Hughes à paraître) et diversesautres céramiques blanches de France ou supposéesde France.

Appendix 1

Normandy White ware found at Leith: major elements (percent oxides)

sample Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO

N1 32.61 3.34 0.79 0.27 0.14 2.31 1.25 0.12 0.06

N2 30.85 2.61 0.75 0.17 0.14 2.17 1.19 0.05 0.02

mean 31.73 2.98 0.77 0.22 0.14 2.24 1.22 0.09 0.04

Normandy Gritty Ware found at Leith: major elements (percent oxides)SD standard deviation

sample Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO

LRW1 29.71 3.35 0.73 0.13 0.09 1.56 1.06 0.04 0.019

LRW2 26.57 2.44 0.56 0.14 0.12 2.05 1.19 0.07 0.010

LRW3 23.63 3.34 0.58 0.13 0.13 1.96 1.12 0.07 0.013

LRW4 23.28 3.19 0.56 0.14 0.13 1.91 1.09 0.08 0.012

LRW5 26.79 2.51 0.56 0.15 0.12 2.04 1.16 0.10 0.011

LRW6 26.46 2.48 0.56 0.13 0.13 2.04 1.17 0.09 0.010

LRW7 27.70 3.11 0.77 0.32 0.22 1.80 1.09 0.06 0.090

LRW8 25.75 3.76 0.73 0.44 0.20 1.60 1.10 0.05 0.023

LRW9 25.70 3.78 0.70 0.44 0.19 1.59 1.10 0.05 0.021

mean 26.18 3.11 0.64 0.22 0.15 1.84 1.12 0.07 0.023

SD 1.96 0.52 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.21 0.04 0.02 0.026

Normandy White ware found at Leith: trace elements (ppm)

sample Ba Cr Cu Li Ni Sc Sr V Y Zr* La Ce Nd Sm Eu Dy Yb Pb Zn Co

N1 458 173 36 308 70 20 167 126 27 81 81 143 81 9 2 5 3 49 51 20

N2 396 162 35 317 61 19 154 125 23 66 70 127 70 9 2 5 2 211 48 7

Page 36: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

The use of ceramicsin late medieval and early modern monasteriesData from three sites in East Flanders (Belgium)

Summary

Usually, the average pottery assemblages from wastelayers or cess pits in monasteries do not seem to havetypical features to identify their origin. The researchof three monastic sites in Flanders resulted in a largedataset of late and postmedieval ceramics. It confirmsthe general picture of the use of pottery in abbeys, butit also revealed some special features, such as specific

Koen De Groote*

29

Introduction

This paper is a slightly adapted version of a presentationgiven at the MPRG Annual Conference, held in Chesteron 12th–14th June 2006, which had pottery frommedieval institutions as the subject and was titled‘Ceramics cloistered and crenellated’. This text willpresent and discuss some aspects of the use of ceramicsin three monasteries in eastern Flanders during the latemedieval and early post-medieval periods. For Flanders,this is a first survey of the subject, based on publishedand unpublished data, and certainly not the accountof a finished study.

The three selected sites, all situated within a distanceof 35 km in the Belgian province of East Flanders(Figure 1), have a different historical background.The Saint Saviour abbey of Ename, was foundedin the 11th century, and represents an average maleBenedictine abbey (Callebaut 1987). The second,the Beaulieu abbey of Peteghem is a female, Clarissemonastery, which became part of the Wealthy ClareNuns, also called the Urbanists, after the 15th centuryreformation of the order (De Groote 1993). Bothabbeys are situated in the countryside aroundOudenaarde, in the valley of the river Scheldt. Thethird monastery is located within the walls of Aalst,a small town on the river Dender, situated betweenBrussels and Ghent. It is a male priory of the CarmeliteOrder, founded there in 1497 (De Groote et al 2005,idem 2006).

* Flemish Heritage Institute (VIOE) . Wallestraat 167 . 9700 Oudenaarde-Ename . Belgium

wearing marks on jugs and scratch marks, whichgive a link between the pottery and their monasticenvironment. The meaning of the specific presenceof late-medieval mediterranean tin-glazed waresin monastic sites from inland Flanders is anothersubject that requires special attention in this context.

Benedictine Saint Saviour abbey of Ename

Until now, the Saint Saviour abbey of Ename is thebest studied archaeological site of these monasteries.Excavations took place during the 80s and 90s andunearthed the complete central building complex ofthe abbey. Ceramic assemblages dating from the 12thto the early 18th century became available and werestudied (De Groote 2008). These assemblages showparticular characteristics in their composition, relatedto their time of deposition. Most of these characteristicscan indeed be explained within the general chronological

Examples from the abbey sites of Ename,Petegem and Aalst

Figure 1Location map.

Page 37: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

evolution of the consumption of ceramics in Flanders,but some elements seem to be connected with the status,the organisation or the way of living within the abbey.However, in the ceramic data, no specific links withreligious life have been detected or recognised so far.

The assemblages from the late 12th and early 13thcentury of the abbey of Ename contain a largepercentage of highly decorated earthenware, all togetheralmost 10 percent in sherd count, and more than 16%when quantified by rim percentage (De Groote 2008).This percentage is remarkable for this period, becausethe production of highly decorated wares had juststarted. A second remarkable fact is that almost half

of the amount consists of an imported northern Frenchhighly decorated ware, probably produced in Douai(Figure 2) (De Groote 2006, 254–255, 265). Some of thelate-12th-century assemblages contain almost 6 % ofthis northern French import, while this pottery is ratherexceptional in other rural or urban assemblages fromthe same period, both in the same region as in Flandersin general. The abbey probably acquired this potterythrough its properties in Picardy, around Douai,especially during the second half of the 12th century(probably before 1190) (Louis 1996), when the Flemishlocal redware production did not yet produce this typeof pottery. The data from the region of Oudenaarde

Figure 2Selection of Northern French highly decorated ware, found in the abbey of Ename.

0 10 cm

30 Koen De Groote

Page 38: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

seems to indicate that the social status of highlydecorated jugs was rather high during their very firstperiod of appearance. Many late 12th-early 13thcentury examples, both local products and northernFrench imports, show traces of the use of mounted lids,probably in silver or pewter. On several rims verycharacteristic traces of heavy wear can be distinguished.This interpretation is supported by the find of severalfragments from the same jug, containing both a wornrim and an indented handle, clearly suggesting the useof a mounted metal lid (Figure 3).

The conclusion to be made for this period is thatpottery from the abbey of Ename shows elements oftheir social position (in this case exemplified by thestatus of tableware) and of their economic position (inthis case the manner of acquisition). The ceramics reflectstatus, but not the religious background of the site.

Remarkable is the fact that during later periods,these traces of status more or less remain hidden inthe general ceramic consumption waste of the EnameAbbey. Even the opposite is true: the ceramic assemblagesof the 14th to 16th century contain a lot of lower statusmaterial, or even minor, second or third-class quality(De Groote 2008). A large 14th-century assemblage,derived from a sewer next to the guest-quarter of theabbey, contained an important assemblage of drinkingvessels in greyware (Figure 4). In an early-16th-centurycess-pit, poor quality cooking vessels were found. Asan aside it can be mentioned that recent research inFlanders clearly shows that the percentage of stonewarewithin ceramic assemblages does not tell much aboutstatus ‘from the middle of the 14th century onwards,stoneware is generally well spread’ but mostly only gives

information about the amount of tableware present inan assemblage (De Groote 2008).

One group of ceramics does seem to be linked tothe religious character of the site: a group of earlymaiolicas dating from the late middle ages until the firsthalf of the 16th century. However, this assumed relationis the result of a recurrent pattern in the assemblagesfrom monastic sites, related to this kind of pottery. Thisitem will be discussed at the end of this paper, togetherwith specific data from other sites.

Clarisse Beaulieu abbey of Petegem

The second abbey discussed is the Saint Clare monasteryof Petegem, commonly called the‘Beaulieu abbey’. Onthis abbey site, only two small excavation campaignstook place; one in the choir of the demolished 13th-century stone church (De Groote and Moens 2002),and one on the edge of the abbey enclosure, where alarge refuse dump dating from the early 16th centurywas excavated (De Groote 1993). This rubbish contextprovided a good insight into the material culture ofa female abbey from that period. The analysis of thedifferent finds groups made clear that we were dealingwith a general dump at the edge of the abbey lands,where all kinds of waste, derived from different partsof the abbey, were deposited together. The ceramicassemblage from this waste dump (in total more than6000 sherds and about 880 vessels counted) (Figure 5)showed special features, of which the interpretationremains problematic (De Groote 2008).

Scratch marks

Remarkable is the appearance of scratch marks on thepottery (Figure 6). 104 examples with marks are present,mainly redware, representing about 12% of the totalassemblage. But they only appear on six of the seventeen

Figure 3Fragment of a jug in Northern French highly decorated warefrom the abbey of Ename. The worn rim and the indentedhandle point to the use of a mounted metal lid.

Figure 414th-century drinking bowl in greyware from the abbeyof Ename.

0 5 cm

The use of ceramics in late medieval and early modern monasteries 31

Page 39: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

32 Koen De Groote

main vessel types: the bowl, the dish, the one-handledpipkin, the skillet, the chafing dish and the flower pot(De Groote 1993, 375–376). Remarkably, these scratchmarks from Petegem are the only known examples fromthe whole region, while only a few examples are knownfrom other parts of Flanders. This most probablyindicates that these scratch marks on the vessels arelinked with the identity of their users, in this case thenuns of the Beaulieu abbey. The heterogeneous characterof the marks, and of the way of writing/scratching,seems to show that the owners/users made the marksthemselves. The majority of these marks consist of oneor two characters in roman or gothic script, possibly theinitials of a real name or a monastic name (Figure 7).However, a large number of them seem to represent anabbreviation of a religious kind, like ‘MA’ for Maria, ‘I’for Jesus, ‘IC’ for Jesus Christ, ‘IM’ for Jesus and Mariaand ‘F’ for Saint Francis (the Clarisse nuns basicallyfollowed the rule of Saint Francis). But also simplemarks occur, for example symbols such as a trident,a cross or a star.

At least 40% of the chafing dishes, bowls and pipkinswere marked in this way (De Groote 1993, 375–376)

(Figures 8 and 9). The symbols seem to representproperty or user marks on individual utilities.Maybe this phenomenon is linked with the structureof the Beaulieu abbey during the period considered.The nunnery did not consist of a central cloister butof a collection of about 15 single larger and smallerbuildings in a loose structure (Figure 10), with separatehouses or cells for the nuns, as shown on an early-17th-century gouache of the abbey in the Albums de Croÿ(Duvosquel 1990, 10, pl 32). One interpretation of themarks is that they served to discriminate the vesselswhen bringing individual portions of food from thekitchen to an individual cell. The nature of most ofthe marked pottery forms does not contradict thisinterpretation, as they consist of one-handled cookingpots to carry individual portions directly from the fireto the table, bowls to transport other prepared food,chafing dishes to keep the food warm and dishes toeat. A study by Thier shows that the phenomenon ofproperty marks mostly appears in abbeys (Thier 1995).Indeed the 15 known examples at the time of Thiersresearch, from Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium,appeared to be from nunneries, among which 12 were

0 10 cmFigure 5Ceramic assemblage from an early-16th-century waste layerfrom the Beaulieu abbey at Petegem.

Page 40: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

The use of ceramics in late medieval and early modern monasteries 33

of the Cistercian order. A recent study of a large13th-century pottery assemblage from the femaleCistercian abbey of Herkenrode (Belgium) revealedabout five examples of property marks on Andenne-type small cooking pottery, and are the earliest examplesstudied in Belgium (De Groote, unpublished). Also thescratch marks are in a two or three letter form, placedon small cooking pots and are from a Cisterciannunnery. Thier discusses several possibilities for thepurpose of these marks.

The first one is that in nunneries with communalmeals in a refectorium, marked pots could have servedto make sure that individual meals arrived at the rightperson. This may have been the result of the socialstructure of the monastic community, where ladies ofhigh status could have had certain prerogatives. Fromhistorical sources is known that part of the convent ofboth the Beaulieu abbey of Petegem and the monasteryof Herkenrode consisted of noble origin (De Ghellinck1912, Smeets 2006). A second possibility is a monasticsystem where nuns are preparing their own food orare eating separately. In this system monastic rulesstipulated that meals only had to be used in community

on sunday and on holidays. The specific structureof the Beaulieu abbey can be an indication in thisdirection. Another possibility is that tableware forthe hospital had to be separated from the rest. Becauseof the high amount of marked pottery, it seems lessprobable that this was the case for the Beaulieu abbey.

Another question is whether we have to considerthese scratch marks as real property marks, or merelyas marks of the users. In accordance to the commonmonastic rules, personal property was not allowed, allproperty belonged to the community. Property marksshould thus be excluded. However, monastic rules werenot strictly applied after a while, and a lot of examplesare known of personal property and special prerogativesfor high status religieux and for entered nobles (Thier1995).

These scratch marks point directly to the user ofthe pot. As mentioned, the marks are always made bydifferent hands, which indicates the personal characterof this action. Several objects with two different marksmay support the hypothesis that we have to deal withuser-marks or identification-marks on pottery that iscommon property (De Groote 1993, 373) (Figure 7.9,

0 5 cm

Figure 6. Scratched marks on redware, finds from the Beaulieu abbey at Petegem..

Page 41: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

34 Koen De Groote

Figure 7List of scratched marks on redware from Petegem-Beaulieu. From De Groote 1993

Page 42: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

The use of ceramics in late medieval and early modern monasteries 35

Figure 81–11 Redware bowls and 12–15 pipkins with scratched marks from Petegem-Beaulieu.

Page 43: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

36 Koen De Groote

Figure 9Redware chaf ing dishes with scratched marks from Petegem-Beaulieu.

Figure 10On the gouache from the Albums de Croÿ (1608–1609), the Beaulieu abbey is situated right of the castle of Petegem, across theRiver Scheldt. The abbey is depicted as a collection of buildings in a loose structure, protected by a cloister wall.

Page 44: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

The use of ceramics in late medieval and early modern monasteries 37

10, 12, 24, 32, 47). A possible explanation is that afterthe death of a user, the pot was passed through to anew user, who marked it with her own sign. But howdo we explain the pots with double marks that aremostly remarked with the same sign, and with anabbreviation that points at a holy name, such as F(Saint Francis) or IM (Jesus and Maria)? This seemsto be an extra argument that the marks point at theuser of the pot, not at the owner. Maybe there is alink with some aspects of common property. But theuse of abbreviations of holy names can also have hada direct religious meaning.

It is certain that the appearance of marked potterygives a remarkable insight on the use of ceramics ina religious community. The pattern not only yieldsinformation about the function of the pot itself, butalso about its use, about the structure of property,about its use within a monastic community, and evenabout the organisation and customs of a nunnery.The analysis makes clear that the data can only befully explored if combined with historical research:information on the monastic rules of Clarisse enCistercian abbeys, on the structure, the customs andthe practice in nunneries in Flanders in general and ofthe specific abbeys in peculiar, in this case the ClarisseBeaulieu abbey of Petegem and the Cistercian monasteryof Herkenrode.

Carmelite Holy Virgin priory of Aalst

Several objects from the early 16th-century waste layerof Beaulieu refer to a religious context: religious textson pottery and metal objects (O Mater Dei, mementome), or small clay pipe figures of the Holy Virgin, Christas a child, the crucified Christ or Saint Catherine (DeGroote 1993, 381–382). Remarkably, such specificobjects do not occur in the male Benedictine abbeyof Ename. On the other hand, the ceramic assemblagesfrom the male Carmelite priory of Aalst, the thirdabbey investigated from this region, show a comparablepicture (De Groote et al. 2006b). The 16th-centurywaste pits almost always contained a number ofspecific ceramics. Several dishes with a religious textor a depiction in sgraffito were found, such as the ‘IHS’symbol (Figure 11.1), referring to the name of Jesus,or the depiction of the Holy Lamb (Figure 11.2). Thepresence of fragments of tens of statues and plaquettesin fine white or red-firing clay is also remarkable. Someiconographic themes are dominant: Maria with childand Christ as a child, but also fragments of a largeplaquette depicting the crucified Christ were found(Figure 12). The Carmelites are also known as the‘Brothers of the Holy Virgin’, and the Crowned Marywith Child was their symbol, also found on severalother objects, like an official seal matrix in copperalloy of the priory (Figure 13) and a silver ring, bothfound in monks graves, or a pewter pilgrim ampullawith Mary with child on one side and the Christmonogram on the other.

Mediterranean maiolica in religious contexts

A final issue to discuss in this paper concerns theappearance of early maiolicas. In the research area, thistype of pottery almost exclusively appears on monasticsites. At Aalst, the only known finds of Mediterraneanpottery are originating from the carmelite priory:some fragments of Classic Valencian lusterware andof Isabela polychrome, a jug in Italo-Moresque ware,probably from Central Italy, and a very rare fragmentof an incense burner in Merida-type ware from Portugal

Figure 11Redware dish and tazza with white slip and yellow glaze insidecombined with a sgraf f ito decoration, from the Carmelitepriory of Aalst.

Page 45: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

38 Koen De Groote

Figure 12Fragments of a terracotta plaquette of the crucif ied Christfrom the Carmelite priory of Aalst.

Figure 13Official seal matrix in copper alloy of the Carmelite prioryof Aalst.

from an early-16th-century context (Figure 14). At thebenedictine abbey of Ename only some fragments ofValencian lusterware and of Isabela polychrome werefound (De Groote 2008, pl 123A). A remarkable highquality dish from Deruta in Italy comes from a cess-pitt of the Franciscan monastery in the town ofOudenaarde (near Ename and Petegem) (Figure 15)(De Groote 2008). However, most striking is theremarkable collection of tin-glazed pottery, originatingfrom production centres in Spain, Italy and the LowCountries, that was found as part of the early-16th-century waste layer of the Clarisse nunnery of Beaulieu(De Groote 1993, idem 2002b, idem 2008).

In the Beaulieu context eighteen vessels can beidentified as Valencian lusterware, amongst whichone of the Pula-type, the early production of the14thcentury. Fifteen vessels belong to the Classic Valencianproduction, mainly from the 15th century (Figure 16)and two are from the Late Valencian overall lustreproduction (c 1475–1550). Two albarelli and one dishprobably belong to the group of Paterna blue ware.One albarello can be identified as Catalan blue. TheIsabela polychrome is represented by fragments oftwo dishes (De Groote 2008, tabel 95).

Fragments of nine individual vessels represent SouthNetherlands maiolica ‘seven jugs and/or vases, onebowl or dish, and one albarello’ although an Italianorigin can not be excluded for the jugs and vases (Hurst1999). For example: a vase-fragment decorated withblue foliage in a brown-orange and blue frame is verysimilar to a two-handled vase from the Guildhall inLondon, of which neutron activating analysis of theclay showed that its origin lies in Italy, and not in thesouthern part of the Low Countries, as thought before(Hughes and Gaimster 1999). Four sherds can beidentified as fragments of Italian maiolica, probablyfrom Tuscany (De Groote 2002b). A stem and ashoulder fragment derive from a vessel of the sametype as the armorial maiolica vases from London.The two other sherds are fragments of a dish, witha decoration in brown-orange and blue.

Figure 14Large fragment of an incense burner in Merida-type ware(Portugal), from the Carmelite priory of Aalst.

Page 46: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

The use of ceramics in late medieval and early modern monasteries 39

Figure 15Polychrome painted dish from Deruta, Italy, found in theFranciscan monastery of Oudenaarde.

Figure 16Bowl in Classic Valencian Lustreware, decorated withcrowns, fern and elongated f lowers, from the Beaulieuabbey of Petegem.

0 5 cm

Discussion

The presence, within the research area, of late medievalMediterranean maiolica, generally rare in Flanders,shows particular characteristics. Three elements willbe discussed: first, the specific locations of appearance,secondly, the large variety of groups, of which some arevery rare, and thirdly the recurrent discrepancy betweenthe period of fabrication and the period of deposition.

Until the first quarter of the 16th century, almost allknown finds of early maiolica in the area of research(the towns of Aalst and Oudenaarde and the abbeys ofEname and Petegem), originate from abbeys. However,this clear and direct link between early maiolica andmonastic sites is not a general pattern in all parts ofFlanders. Most of the published Flemish finds wereexcavated in the coastal area (Hurst 1977; Mars1987).Mediterranean tin-glazed wares are present in ports (forexample Bruges, Damme, Sluis), coastal settlements (forexample Raversijde and Oostkerke), large trade towns(such as Bruges, Ghent or Antwerp) and abbeys. Itseems that the distribution pattern is totally different incoastal areas compared to their hinterland, with a betterdistribution in terms of quantities of pots, number ofsites or type of site, than further inland. In smallerinland towns, late-medieval Mediterranean potteryseems to be absent in civilian, middle-class households.Almost all finds from the inland are indeed coming frommonastic sites, both in towns and on the countryside.

The remarkable presence of maiolica in monasticsites is clearly not accidental. But what made thispottery so attractive to the monastic environment?It seems to have been much more than rare objects ofprestige or beauty, as they do not appear in contexts ofthe substantial civilian middle-class of merchants andartisans. It appears that a certain religious connotationwas present, which made this pottery attractive tomonastic communities, but only a little or even

completely not to the wealthy civilian middle-class.Looking at the pottery itself, we see that the monogramof Christ (IHS on Spanish maiolica and YHS on Italo-Netherlandish)is common. The numerous depictions of Spanish andItalian maiolica on religious paintings from the 15thcentury are corroborating this observation (De Groote2008). However, it is not clear how this religiousconnotation has to be understood and how its symbolicmeaning was experienced in that time. The more generalspread in the Flemish coastal area, and also in England(GutiÈrrez 2000), shows that this association does notautomatically implies that this pottery was only usedin religious contexts. In this sense, the presence of twoclassic Valencian dishes with scratched marks in thewaste deposit of the nunnery of Beaulieu (Figure 17),could point to a non-religious function. They just couldbe a reflection of the wealth of the abbey. But more inlanddata is needed to get a better picture of the distributionand the use of this pottery.

Figure 17Scratch mark on a plate in Classic Valencian Lustrewarefrom the Beaulieu abbey of Petegem.

Page 47: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

A second remarkable fact is the diversity of maiolicagroups, especially within the Beaulieu abbey assemblage.At least three main production areas are represented:Spain, Central Italy and the Low Countries. The Spanishmaiolica derives from three production regions: Valencia,Catalonia and Andalusia. Central Italy is representedby at least two production regions: one in Tuscany(probably Florence itself) and one in Umbria (Deruta,near Perugia). The origin of the early maiolica fromthe Low Countries remains unknown, but also hereseveral production centres are possible. The Valencianproducts are best represented amongst the Mediterraneanmaiolicas. The limited presence of Catalonian,Andalusian and Central-Italian maiolicas probablyis more the result of a limited supply (and accessibility)of these groups, than that they were less wanted.

A third remarkable fact is that in most cases, themajority of Spanish maiolica is significantly olderthan the period of deposition. In the early-16th-centuryassemblage of Beaulieu, that does not contain anyresidual material amongst the local wares or stoneware(De Groote 1993), most of the Classic Valencianlustreware must be dated before 1450, based on itsform and/or decoration (De Groote 2008, tabel 94).One early Valencian dish in Pula-type ware even belongsto the 14th century (Blake 1986). This seems to indicatethat this kind of pottery was treated with great care,and did not belong to the daily used material. In thisway this pottery could be in circulation for manydecades. On average, Valencian maiolica was 50 to 75years old before it was thrown away, the Pula-type disheven at least 125 years old. The nature and the quantityof this maiolica seem to indicate that this Spanishlustreware, mostly dating from the middle of the 15thcentury, was thrown away at the same moment. In thebeginning of the 16th century it probably becamedecrepit and unfashionable, maybe due to the rise of theItalian inspired Low Countries maiolica and the ItalianRenaissance style tinglazed wares. It is not unlikely tosuppose that at a certain moment the nuns decided tothrow away a complete set of old and old-fashionedMediterranean maiolicas.

Conclusions

The data presented here provide a first idea of thepotential and the possibilities of ceramic assemblagesas part of the study of the material culture of monasticcommunities. A number of specific cases were discussed,from which a lot of new questions arose.

Different angles of research are open: materialculture as a mirror of wealth and status, as theexpression of belief or monastic rules, the contrastbetween monasteries located at the countryside or intown, the differences between male and female monasticcommunities, etc... It is clear that a lot of research stillneeds to be done on this subject and that only a start ismade exploring the possibilities.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Derek Hall for his encouragement topublish my Chester presentation, and for the correctionsin the English text; Marta Caroscio for the assistancewith the determination of the central Italian tin-glazedwares; Timothy Wilson for the determination of theDeruta dish. I also want to express my gratitude tomy colleague Jan Moens from the Flemish HeritageInstitute (VIOE) for his help with the illustrationsand for the drawings of Figure 10. The photographyof Figure. 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 is from HansDenis (VIOE).

References

Blake, H 1986, ‘The ceramic hoard from Pula (provCagliari) and the Pula type of Spanish lustreware’.In Segundo Coloquio Internacional de CeràmicaMedieval en el Mediterraaneo Occidental, Madrid,365–408.

Callebaut, D 1987, ‘De vroeg-middeleeuwse portus enBenedictijnenabdij van Ename (stad Oudenaarde).Interimverslag 1986’, Archaeologia Belgica III,213–224.

De Ghellinck, A 1912, ‘Obituaire de l’abbaye de SainteClaire de Beaulieu à Peteghem-lez-Audenarde’,Annales du Cercle ArchÈologique et Historiqued’Audenarde IV, 39–154.

De Groote, K 1993, ‘Het afval van de Rijke Klaren.Noodonderzoek in de voormalige abdij van Beaulieute Petegem (gem Wortegem-Petegem, prov Oost-Vlaanderen)’, Archeologie in Vlaanderen II-1992,335–412.

De Groote, K 2002a, ‘Low countries maiolica:fragments of drinking bowls found at the SaintSalvator Abbey of Ename and in the town ofAalst (East-Flanders, Belgium)’, in J Veeckman(ed), Maiolica and glass: from Italy to Antwerpand beyond. The transfer of technology in the16th – early 17th century, Antwerp, 447–448.

De Groote, K 2002b, ‘Spanish, Italian and South-Netherlands maiolica from an early-16th-centurydeposit of the Saint Clara Abbey of Beaulieu atPetegem (East-Flanders, Belgium)’ in J Veeckman(ed), Maiolica and glass: from Italy to Antwerpand beyond. The transfer of technology in the16th-early 17th century, Antwerp, 443–445.

De Groote, K 2006, ‘L’évolution de la ceramique dansla vallée de l’Escaut (Flandre) du IXe au XIIe siècle:Interprétations culturelles, sociales et économiques’in V Hincker and P Husi (eds), La céramique duhaut Moyen Age (Ve-Xe siécles) dans la nord-ouestde l’Europe. Bilan et perspectives dix ans après lecolloque d’Outreau. Actes du Colloque de Caen2004, Condé-sur-Noireau, 249–264.

De Groote, K 2008, Middeleeuws aardewerk inVlaanderen. Techniek, typologie, chronologie en

40 Koen De Groote

Page 48: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Zusammenfassung

Normalerweise scheinen die durchschnittlichenTöpferwarenfunde in klösterlichen Abfallagen oderKlärgruben keine typischen Merkmale zu haben, umihre Herkunft zu identifizieren. Die Untersuchungvon Ausgrabungen dreier Klöster in Flandern jedochresultierte in einer umfangreichen Datei spät- undnachmittelalterlicher Keramik. Neben der Bestätigungdes allgemeinen Bildes vom Gebrauch von Töpferwarenin Klöstern legte sie besondere Eigenarten, wieAnzeichen des Gebrauchs und Kratzspuren offen, dieeine Verbindung zwischen der Ware und ihrer Benutzungim Kloster herstellen. Ein anderes Thema, dem in diesemZusammenhang besondere Aufmerksamkeit gebührt,ist die Bedeutung des speziellen Vorkommens spät-mittelalterlicher mediterraner Zinn-glasierter Warein Klöstern im flandrischen Binnenland.

Résumé

Généralement, les groupes de poteries provenant decouches de déchets ou des fosses d’aisance dans lesmonastères n’ont rien d’exceptionnel ou de particulierqui d’identifier leur origine. Suite à une rechercheentreprise sur trois sites monastiques de Flandres, unelarge base de données sur la céramique du Bas MoyenAge et de l’Epoque Moderne a été accumulée. Cettebase de données a permis de confimer l’idée généraleque l’on avait sur la poterie dans les abbayes mais aaussi revélé des caractéristiques particuliËres commedes traces d’usure bien spécifiques sur les cruches oudes graffitis gravés. Ces caractéristiques établissent unlien direct entre les céramiques et leur environnementmonastique. La présence de céramique étaméeméditerranéenne du Bas Moyen Age dans les sitesmonastiques du centre de Flandres est aussi unequestion qui demande plus d’étude.

evolutie van het gebruiksgoed in de regio Oudenaardein de volle en late middeleeuwen (10de–16de eeuw),Relicta – Archeologie, Monumenten- and Land-schapsonderzoek in Vlaanderen - Monografie 1,twee delen, Brussel.

De Groote, K, De Maeyer, W, Moens, J and De Block,A 2005, ‘Het archeologisch onderzoeksproject

Hopmarkt te Aalst (O–Vl)’, ArchaeologiaMediaevalis 28, 102–104.

De Groote, K, De Maeyer, W, Moens, J and De Block, A2006a, ‘Het archeologisch onderzoek op de Hopmarktte Aalst (O–Vl)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 29, 47–51.

De Groote, K and Moens, J 2002, ‘Prospectieopgravingaan de westzijde van de kapelaanwoning van de RijkeKlarenabdij van Beaulieu te Petegem (Wortegem-Petegem) (O-Vl)’, Archaeologia Mediaevalis 25, 8.

De Groote, K, Moens, J and De Brandt H 2006b, Tijdvoor Pottenkijkers. Cataloog bij de tentoonstelling‘Gelieve de werf te betreden. 25 jaar archeologie inde Aalsterse binnenstad’, Aalst.

Duvosquel, J (ed) 1990, Albums de Croÿ. Valleien vanSchelde en Scarpe, Brussel.

Gutièrrez, A 2000, Mediterranean pottery in Wessexhouseholds (13th to 17th centuries), BAR BritishSeries 306, Oxford.

Hughes, M and Gaimster, D 1999, ‘Neutron activationanalyses of maiolica from London, Norwich, the LowCountries and Italy’, in D Gaimster (ed), Maiolica in

the North, British Museum Occasional Paper 122,London, 57–90.

Hurst, J G 1999, ‘Sixteenth-century South Netherlandsmaiolica imported into Britain and Ireland’ in, DGaimster (ed), Maiolica in the North, BritishMuseum Occasional Paper 122, London, 91–106.

Hurst, J G and Neal, D S 1982, ‘Late medieval Iberianpottery imported into the Low Countries’, RotterdamPapers IV, 83–110.

Louis, E 1996, ‘La céramique très décorée à Douai.L’Etat de question’ in, D Piton’ (ed), La céramiquetrès décorée dans l’Europe du nord-ouest (Xème–XVème siécle). Actes du Colloque de Douai (7–8avril 1995), Nord-Ouest ArchÈologie 7, 105–120.

Mars, A 1987, De luister van luster. Spaans-Islamitischelusteraardewerkvondsten uit Vlaamse en Nederlandsebodem (14de–17de eeuw); een overzicht van de standvan zaken, Unpublished PhD manuscript.

Smeets, M 2006, Herkenrode omgekeerd. Rapportbetreffende het archeologisch onderzoek naar deresten van de voormalige cisterciÎnzerinnenabdij, sl.

Thier, B 1995, ‘Besitzmarken auf spätmittelalterlicherund neuzeitlicher Keramik’, in W Endres and FLichtwark (eds), Zur Regionalität der Keramikdes Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, 26. InternationalesHafnerei-Symposium 1993 in Soest, Denkmalpflegeund Forschung in Westfalen 32, Bonn, 167–186.

The use of ceramics in late medieval and early modern monasteries 41

Page 49: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Figure 1Location map of the 14th-century Mamluk ceamic bottle.

Figure 2Drawing by Kate Armitage. Scale 1: 4

Page 50: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

An unexpected ‘catch’ for the Brixham trawler Catear

Among the itmes recently donated to BrixhamHeritage Museum is an unglazed earthenware bottlewith moulded decoration. According to the donor MrB T Stockton (Catear Fishing Co Ltd, Brixham), thisitem had been recovered ten years ago in the trawl netof Brixham trawler Catear whilst fishing ‘fifteen milesoff Start Point, slightly to the east’ (Figure 1). In August2004, prompted by local newspaper accounts ofarchaeological activities carried out by BrixhamHeritage Museum, Mr Stockton decided to bringthe ceramic bottle to the museum for identification.

At the initial examination of the item both of theauthors recognised its antiquity and considered thedecorative style was non-European, probably NearEastern (Islamic). Photographs and measurementsof the bottle were then sent to ceramic specialists inLondon and Oxford, which results in confirmation of itsprovenance and revealed further details about its datingand function. In view of the unusual nature of this findoff the south Devon coast, we decided to bring itsdiscovery to the wider attention of archaeologistsand ceramic specialists across Europe.

Philip Armitage and Kate Armitage

43

Both the body and the ring base are complete but onlythe lower portion of the neck has survived with all ofthe mouth missing (probably resulting from post-depositional damage in antiquity) (Figure 2). Thebottle is of unglazed earthenware (pinkish fabric)with moulded decoration(Figure 3), the maximumcircumference of the body is 755 mm, the diameterof the ring base is 127 mm, and the height (from baseto edge of surviving of the neck) is 272 mm.

Tony Grey (Museum of London Specialist Services)was the first ceramic specialist to answer our enquiryconcerning the date and country of origin of this bottle.He identified it as a cram-ware bottle of the Mamlukperiod, most likely 14th-century in date, and probablymade in Palestine or Syria. Professor James Allan(Deparment of Eastern Art, Ashmolean MuseumOxford) subsequently (independently) confirmedthe dating and provenance, explaining also that suchearthenware bottle in the Near East were used forwater storage. Being unglazed, the water seepedslowly through the body, evaporating on the outsidesurface and thus colling the remaining liquid inside.

Late medieval maritime trade

The discovery by Brixham fishermen of an Islamicceramic bottle on the seabed off the south Devoncoast suggests the presence at that location of a late-medieval shipwreck. Clearly this interpretation canonly be confirmed if further associated artefacts arerecovered from the same area, which to our knowledgehas not yet taken place. Based upon the date and placeof manufacture of the Start Point find, however, thereis an historical basis for the suggestion it derived froma shipwreck. The 14th century date corresponds tothe period of establishment of regular maritime tradebetween the Mediterranean and North Western Europe(Spain, France, England and the Netherlands). Merchantsailors from Venice dominated much of this sea bornetrade, and their extensive trading ventures resulted inthe distribution of a wide range of commodities fromthe eastern Mediterranean (Levant) to the Europeanports, including Southampton and London. Perhapsduring one such trading voyage a Europen-boundmerchant ship was lost off the south Devon coast,and it was from the sunken wreck site of this vesselthat the Mamluk-period earthenware bottle came.Figure 3

Description and identificationof the ceramic bottle

Page 51: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

[page 44 / blank]

Page 52: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

medieval ceramics Reviews

Page 53: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

[page 46 / blank]

Page 54: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

David GaimsterThe historical archaeology of pottery supply and demandin the Lower Rhineland, AD 1400–1800: an archaeologicalstudy of ceramic production, distribution and use in thecity of Duisburg and its hinterland2008 . Studies in Contemporary and Historical Archaeology 1,BAR International Series 1518270 pages,131 figures, 8 data appendices, price £37.00

As is often the case withdoctoral research topics,there is often a delaybefore a revised versionappears in print. Theauthor’s study of thehistorical domesticceramic market in theLower Rhineland wascompleted in 1990, andsubmitted as a PhD thesisin 1991. Dr Günter Krauseprovides in his preface tothe book a forthrightexplanation for the subsequent delays in publication,which have been beyond the control of the author.There has been limited editorial revision to the thesis,but bibliographical references stop at 1999 (with a fewexceptions).

The platform for this study of regional manufactureand material consumption in the Lower Rhineland wasprovided by the pottery sequences from the large scaleurban excavations conducted in the Duisburg Altstadtbetween 1980 and 1995 (under the direction of DrKrause). Thanks to the director’s enterprising mobilisa-tion of volunteers, most of the latrines, wells, wasterpits and settlement layers from the Alter Markt andother sites could be stratigraphically excavated andrecorded. Volunteers also participated in the post-excavation process, so that by 1990 the Duisburgarchaeology unit was held in high regard for its scientificoutput and cost-effectiveness. This situation was not tolast, for a variety of reasons given in Krause’s preface –noteworthy for its critical indictment of developmentsin Duisburg since 1999.

This book begins with some scene-setting.Summaries of post-medieval ceramic researchundertaken between 1850 and 1990 are organisedaccording to ware (salt-glazed stoneware given thelongest treatment, followed by lead-glazed earthenwareand slipware, and briefer reviews of stove-tiles, tin-glazed earthenware, oriental and native porcelain,and Staffordshire finewares). This is followed bystatements on research strategy and methodology,and an account of the background to the excavations.Section 2 provides a more detailed description of themethodology adopted. The actual number of discretedatasets analysed is relatively small – 51 stratifiedand associated groups of pottery from the DuisburgAltstadt, 32 similar groups from the hinterland of the

Reviews 47

city and Lower Rhine area, and 12 contexts frompublished excavation reports of Lower Rhine sites(total 95; none post–1989). Many have only beenexamined on a ‘presence and absence’ basis (p 132).However, the purpose of this study is not thecomprehensive description of all available ceramicassemblages that fall within the research period fromthe Altstadt excavations. Rather, it concentrates onthese selected consumer assemblages in order to assessregional patterns in pottery marketing, fashion, statusand function. The date range’ c AD 1400–1800 wasdictated pragmatically by the large quantity of suchmaterial made available by the Duisburg excavations,and by author’s desire to look at the speed andgeographical extent of trends in ceramic consumptionduring the so-called ‘transitional’ period of the 15thand 16th centuries (p 39). The earlier ceramicssequences excavated at Duisburg, dominated bySiegburg products from the mid-13th to the end ofthe 14th centuries, have been excluded from this study.A post-1400 ceramic-type series for Duisburg is definedand characterised in Section 3, and its forms arecorrelated with already published typologies.

The British Museum agreed to complement itsregional database on the chemical compositions ofpost-medieval Rhenish stove-tiles with Michael Cowell’sprogrammes of Neutron Activation Analysis of LowerRhineland post-medieval ceramics, in particular regionallead-glazed wares, and the results are represented inSection 4. Chemical analysis was undertaken of justunder 100 samples of lead-glazed earthenware andstove-tiles from excavations and museum collectionsin the Lower Rhineland (pp. 67–76). As this elementof the study is somewhat abstracted, detail on exactlywhat forms have been analysed is condensed while howthe new analyses, which incorporates data on samplesfrom waster groups from Kˆln, Mayen, Issum(slipwares) and Frechen, compare with datasetsgathered by others, is not discussed.

Section 5 provides a summary of the principal trendsin regional ceramic production and distribution for theperiod covered by the book. Sections 6 and 7 discuss therelative composition of archaeological consumerassemblages on an intra-site basis (as demonstrated byexcavations in L¸beck) and using an inter-site approach.Section 8 embraces a number of themes, from theorganisation and mechanisms of regional potterysupply to ceramics as an index of consumer habitand social emulation. The fact that more recentcontributions to such topics have since appeared inprint – for example, Ellmers (2004) on the organisationof the Frechen industry and the shipmasters andmerchants engaged in the distribution of its wares –does not devalue the value of this discussion. Futurepriorities advocated for socio-economic analysis includeprogrammes of micro-topographic research (in LowerRhineland towns) to link discarded artefacts withindividual households, analysis of non-ceramic findsand multi-media studies of individual contexts on a

Page 55: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

48

comparative basis. This is not the first time that suchaspirations have been proposed; how many times hasit actually been achieved?

Variations of this socio-historical approach toarchaeological material culture have been conductedelsewhere–– for example the publication of 35% ofcesspit complexes excavated between 1968–1996 inDeventer, Dordrecht, Nijmegen and Tiel (Bartels1999;reviewed in Medieval Ceramics 22–23, 1998–99, 177–79). These however lack statistical data, and werebut a sample. Constrained by time and the problemorientation of the research, material excavated since1989 was not included in the Duisburg study. Nor was itpossible in this study to assimilate the available archivalinformation for Duisburg (one of the many proposalsfor the future that are cited), in the manner demonstrat-ed by Reichmann (1988) for the Krefeld–Linn cellargroup. This shortcoming is readily acknowledged by theauthor, and his interpretation of each assemblage andits socio-economic status is based on the archaeologicalevidence alone. The reader is consequently left uncertainabout the reasons for some popular fashions failingto appear within the waste of certain households.Generalisations may hold true (and the statistics hereare extremely interesting). For example, the periodc 1575–1625 in particular witnessed a dramatictransformation in the composition of the ceramicassemblages, with the introduction of sophisticatedearthenware for table use, to satisfy a discrete consumerniche and changes in dining habits. Dutch faience,oriental porcelain and English exports accounted for46% of the pottery consumed in Duisburg during thesecond half of the 18th century (Staffordshire waresaccounting for 20%), while for the same period in thehinterland Dutch faience increases, Chinese porcelainstarts to appear, and English finewares are marginallyrepresented. However, the micro–histories of individualassemblages offer a myriad of explanations, socialtrajectories and tempos, and these have yet to beaddressed.

The end product is an extremely useful characterisa-tion of regional ceramic consumption in the Duisburgarea and assessment of the role that pottery has played– be it functional, socio-behavioural and economic –over a 400-year time span. The volume is well-producedand illustrated, notwithstanding a few typographicalerrors that are a by-product of the production process.Gaimster has admirably illustrated the potential ofsystematic, painstaking analysis of such late urbanassemblages. The illustrations provide a useful sourcefor comparative material, and Appendices facilitatecross-referencing of forms, features and sites (thoughuse of ware codes rather than short names entailssome work by the reader).

The comment on page 43 that it is a pilot study, istelling, given the implications for as yet unpublishedassemblages and the introductory comments madeon pages 20–24.

We should be extremely grateful to the author forpersevering to ensure that this version of his doctoralresearch has appeared in English in BAR (not the firsttime this solution has been found: see Brown 2000,99). This reviewer agrees with the author’s own self-justification in his foreword (page 15) – that it makesa timely contribution to the fast-emerging disciplineof European historical archaeology and materialculture studies. As an illuminating study of patternsand potential in the Lower Rhineland, it sets a bench-mark against which any future progress towards a truehistorical archaeology of pottery supply and demandin this region can be measured.

Mark Redknap

References

Bartels, M Steden in scherven – Cities in sherds.Vondsten uit beerputten in Deventer, Dordrecht,Nijmegen en Tiel (1250–1900) – Finds from cesspitsin Deventer, Doordrecht, Nijmegen and Tiel (1250–1900), SPA/ROB, Zwolle.

Brown, D H Review of A. Gutiérrez, MediterraneanPottery in Wessex Households, BAR 306.

Ellmers, D 2004, ‘Die Aussagen dreier Bartmannskr¸gezur Schiffahrt um 1700’, Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv27, 285–96.

Reichmann, C 1988, ‘Das Haushaltgeschirr desSyndikus Küpers um 1784’, in J Naumann (ed),Keramik vom Niederrhein. Die Irdenware derDüppen- und Pottbäcker zwischen Kuoln und Kleve,Kuoln, 125–34.

Rémy GuadagninFosses – Vallée de L’Ysieux: mille ans de productioncéramique en Île-de-France . Volume 2 . Catalogue typo-chronologique des productions2007 . Publications du CRAHM . Caen, 2007735 pages, 478 figures including colour plates

The sight of the hugevolume brought backfond memories of myvisit to the excavationsat Fosses in August 1995.I’d met Rémy Guadagninin Paris in the morningand he took me out tosee the site, where wearrived in time for lunch.I don’t recall ever beingmore warmly welcomedat an excavation, and Istill have on view a large photograph of a pile of in situwhiteware pots that was sent to me afterwards. MyFrench has hardly improved since then, making a

Page 56: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Reviews 49

thorough review of this mammoth work somewhattricky, but the illustrations speak for themselves, andthe general gist is easy to discern.

This is the second of a two-volume set, the firstof which deals with the structural and stratigraphicevidence, while this considers the pottery. What potteryit is too! The kilns at Fosses are located almost 30kilometres due north of Paris, on a tributary of theRiver Oise, where there seem to be good supplies ofwhite-firing clay. The nature of that clay is exploredin the introduction, as soon as page seven, on whichthere are tables setting out the chemical compositionof various clay samples. Location and methodologyare also considered in this opening chapter, and it isrefreshing to see photographs of personnel trying tofind sherd fits. The caption ‘De giganteques puzzles …’says it all. The following five chapters discuss thepottery produced at Fosses in chronological order: ‘Lehaut Moyen Âge’, ‘Le Moyen Âge classique’, ‘Le basMoyen Âge’, ‘La Renaissance’ and ‘L’Ancien Régime’.As the title says, a thousand years of pottery-making,that takes us through most of the traditions we arefamiliar with. Tenth century glazed, red-painted andplain whitewares, developed into a wider variety offorms in the twelfth century, including lamps, mortarsand horns. Forms of the thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies included curfews and dripping pans amongthe range of jugs, jars and bowls, while the fifteenthcentury saw the introduction of cups and socket-handled pipkins. As in many other places, the sixteenthcentury brought changes, with two-handled tripodcooking pots, chafing dishes and fuming pots all makingan appearance. The first section in the chapter on thepottery of ‘L’Ancien RÈgime’ is entitled ‘Stagnation,puis restructuration …’ and this period is characterisedby a simplification of products and a narrowing in therange of forms. The overall story may be easily told(although, with apologies, oversimplified here), but thetelling of it in this volume is a masterpiece of techniqueand attention to detail.

For one thing, the illustrations are superb. The linedrawings are clearly presented, and there are hundredsof them, depicting vessel forms, the forms of componentparts and techniques and motifs of decoration. Figure161, for example, shows the methods of decorating apot with red slip, which is actually shown as red and isall the more effective for it. Such an unsparing approachto depicting every detail is terrific, and this is carriedinto the photographs, which are all excellent. Theyrange from groups of vessels to close-ups of finger-prints in the surface of impressed clay. There are alsoplates of manuscript illuminations and other artworkswhere pottery has been represented. I imagine most ofus would use this volume as a reference catalogue, andit will certainly be easy to do so. The pottery of eachperiod is summarised in charts that illustrate theevolution of the main forms, a ‘panorama synthétique’that acts as a quick look-up guide. Within each period

there is an introductory section discussing thebackground to pottery-making at the time. The productsof specific kilns are then presented in separate sections,sub-divided by vessel type. L’atelier 10.21, for instance,in Chapter Two, contains the following headings in thefirst section: ‘Les données chronologiques ‘Les tendancesgénérales de la production est leur evolution’, ‘Les pâtes’(‘The fabrics’) and ‘Les décors peints’. The followingsection on the earliest sequence of production for thekiln considers vessel groups and other elements: ‘Lesoules’, ‘Les cruches, ‘Les pichets’, ‘Les formes ouvertes’,‘Les formes rares et les décors exceptionnels’, ‘Colatypique glaçuré’ and ‘Décors plastiques exceptionnels’.It is very easy to find your way around and to understandwhat is going on, especially when the illustrations areso well integrated with the text. This is more than acatalogue, however. It goes deeply into the compositionof the assemblage, exploring particular idiosyncrasiesamong the pots, seeking to understand and illustratespecific techniques of manufacture and decoration,and pondering the wider issues that affected pottery-making. The overall aim seems to be to gain a closeunderstanding of not just what the potters of Fossesproduced at different times, but also how and why.This is really good archaeology.

The final chapter considers the distribution of thepottery in the Île-de-France and Picardy. This is mainlycomprised of an inventory of sites, rather than anextended discussion of quantitative evidence, and thatmight be the next stage in the huge task of putting theproducts of Fosses into context. That, perhaps, is nota job that will be completed by RÈmy Guadagnin. Heand his team have obviously worked hard to producethis extensive, thoroughly comprehensive and fabulouslywell presented book. It will be up to others now to usethis to identify the products of Fosses on different sitesin the region, and perhaps further afield. There is nodoubt this was very well-made pottery, and it may wellhave been taken considerable distances. I recommendthis book not only as a very useful work of reference,but also as a demonstration of how to research andpublish a huge kiln assemblage. The team at Fosses,I remember, were fond of Kenneth Branagh’s filmHenry V. This glorious enterprise too, is a fineillustration of leading by example.

Andreas Heege (editor)Topferofen – pottery kilns – fours de potiers: die Erforschungfruhmittelalterlicher bis neuzietlicher Topferofen (6–20 Jh)in Belgien, den Niederlanden, Deutchland, Osterreich und derSchweizBasler Hefte zur Archaologie Volume 4432 pages, 545 illustrations (line and black and white photographs),accompanying CD with images of 1795 pottery kilns, 60

When Andreas Heege emailed me to tell me that therewas a new book on the pottery kilns of Belgium, Germany,the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland about to be

C

Page 57: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

published that might beof interest to MPRG I justknew that it had to bereviewed! This is anenormous multi-authorextravaganza that hasinvolved the work of atleast 22 different peopleand is testament to theimportance of the sortof work that is currentlybeing carried out acrossEurope. Largely writtenin the authors native tongues the various papers aresupported by a fantastic selection of photographs andillustrations and there is an important seven pagesummary in English by Andreas Heege which comesto some interesting and important conclusions. To top itall off the accompanying CD contains photographs andillustrations of 1795 pottery kilns! To those us ceramicspecialists who have a particular interest in technologyand manufacturing techniques this bookis a godsend and I highly recommend it.

Kevin LeahyInterrupting the pots: the excavation of CleathamAnglo-Saxon cemetery

This work is perhaps a perfect example of thedifficulties of attempting to carry out importantarchaeological research in the face of the somewhatgrotesque imperatives of the modern ‘heritage industry’.It is a report on what is the third-largest Anglo-Saxoncremation cemetery ever to have been excavated inEngland. The site in question was excavated between1984 and 1989, with the work carried out entirely byvolunteers, often working in dreadful conditions.Between them, they rescued 1204 cremation urns and62 inhumations, with an estimated 260-odd burials lostto the plough by the time of excavation. If not for theintervention of Kevin Leahy and his team, the entirecemetery would by now have probably been ploughedaway, and would exist only as smashed pots, scatteredbones and metal fragments in the topsoil, with the onlypossible record of this extremely important site perhapsbeing a distribution plot of unstratified non-ferrousobjects, assuming that the finders had bothered toreport them.

As anyone who has worked with early Anglo-Saxonpottery will know, the area of chronology is one withmany uncertainties. This site offers, perhaps for thefirst time in many years, a key to its understanding. Itsunusual topography meant that burial had taken placeis a very limited area, and thus many urns were insertedinto places were others had already been buried, resultingin long stratigraphic sequences, and an unparalleledopportunity to establish a reliable, dated typologicalseries for cremation urns. It is likely to be unique in this,

especially when the attrition rate of buried archaeologyin eastern England is taken into account.

Some aspects of the post-excavation phase, such asthe conservation of the metal finds, the drawing of thefinds, the colour photographs, the cost of publicationand the on-line archiving were aided with piecemealgrants from various private and public bodies, but thebulk of the project was again carried out by unpaidvolunteers.

The most glaring omission from the volume is a lackof any analysis of the cremated human bone as it provedimpossible to raise funds for this crucial part of theproject from any major public body. In the author’sown words ‘As Cleatham is the only phased, largeAnglo-Saxon cemetery in England, if not in Europe, thefailure of funding bodies to support this, the final aspectof the project, can only be described as scandalous’. Ientirely agree. Kevin and his team have brought this siteto publication on a shoe-string, for which they must behighly commended but it must now be a priority to allthose working on the archaeology of this period tolobby for funding to complete the analysis of a sitewhich appears crucial to our understanding of thearchaeology of what is arguably the most importantand definitely the least-understood period of post-Roman England.

Kevin Leahy’s starting point with the analysis ofthe pottery is an overview of previous work on suchmaterial. He successfully identifies most of the majorflaws in J N L Myres’ work, particularly the largelysubjective nature of most of his classifications of form,and his ‘cleaning up’ of the decorative schemes utilizedby early Anglo-Saxon potters.

The main thrust of Leahy’s pottery analysis is theexamination of the different aspects of the cremationurns (in terms of form, decoration etc) with respect tothe stratigraphy, to allow the definition of a develop-mental sequence, and it established fairly convincinglythat decorative style, in terms of the combination ofmotifs (incised decoration, bosses and stamping) isthe most rewarding area for study.

One small potential worry was the method whichLeahy has used to establish stratigraphic associationsbetween the urns; he states that ‘problems wereencountered in distinguishing archaeological featureson the site and it was rarely possible to define the edgesof urn pits’. In the case where one urn cut another,then a stratigraphic relationship of earlier and lateris obviously established, but the worry is with his‘associated’ urns. Basically, if two urns were foundclose together with their bases at the same level, thenthey were assumed to have been buried together, andthus contemporary. On a site were identification ofarchaeological features was extremely difficult, andwhere the urns were packed in far more densely thanis normal, it is surely possible that non-contemporaryurns would end up close together. However, once hisdevelopmental stylistic sequence was established, itwas tested by ‘plugging-in’ the dates of diagnostic

50

Page 58: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

artefacts found with the urns, and these suggest thathis use of ‘associated’ urns in the matrix worked; earlyartefact types generally occur with early style urns,and so on.

There is also the problem of multiple burials inthe same urn. The fact that a fairly high proportionof Anglo-Saxon cremations contain the bones of morethan one individual suggests that there was at least insome cases a time lapse between the insertion of thetwo individuals and final burial. The fact that nofunding was forthcoming for the analysis of thecremations means that any possibility of identifyingurns containing more than one individual was notpossible, despite the implications that this may have.

This aside, the production of a developmentalsequence of decoration was achieved, and it has thrownup some fascinating results, not least of which is thefact that wheel-thrown and kiln fired ‘Romano-British’pottery was still in use, and perhaps even still beingmade, in the late 5th century, and the implication thatsome ‘Romano-British’ cremation cemeteries, or at leastsome of the burials in them, are in fact sub-Roman.

Not all the urns at the site could be accommodatedby Leahy’s classification, but an impressive 96.5%were; importantly, he also analysed the urns fromother cremation cemeteries in eastern England andfound that in all cases, the majority of the urns wouldfit into his classification, with over 80% of all but oneof the cemeteries accommodated. Clearly, this worksignifies real progress in the classification of decoratedearly Anglo-Saxon pottery. There are problems, but notof the analyst’s making. It has been shown in the pastby Richards (1987) that there are grounds to suspectthat the size, shape and style of Anglo-Saxon cremationurns were influenced by the age and gender of thosecontained within them. Thus, it is entirely possible,that within Leahy’s ‘runs’ of contemporary urns, weare seeing differentiated age/gender considerations, orindeed single/multiple burials. As there was no fundingfor skeletal analysis, there is simply no way of knowingif this is the case.

At the end of the book, Leahy flags up a number ofaspects of the analysis of the excavated material that hewas unable to carry out due to the lack of financialsupport. Correspondence Analysis of the urns and thecontained artefacts is flagged up, and a similar analysisof the age and gender of the deceased with the decorativestyles of their burial containers would doubtless alsoprove useful. Lack of time and funding also precludedspatial analysis and scientific dating. This is allunderstandable in the light of the problems whichwere encountered during the process of bringingthis important site to publication.

This is a remarkable report, not merely for theimportant conclusions reached, but also for that factthat it was brought to publication with virtually no helpfrom those national bodies charged with the distributionof public funds in archaeology. Simply bringing a projectof this size and complexity to publication in such

circumstances is an achievement for which Kevin andhis team should be warmly congratulated, and indeed,thanked. It is certainly a valuable, and perhaps crucialstep forward in the understanding of Anglo-Saxoncremation pottery, and it is to be hoped that in future,the work for which Kevin was unable to obtain fundingwill be carried out.

The main thrust of Leahy’s pottery analysis is theexamination of the different aspects of the cremationurns (in terms of form, decoration etc) with respectto the stratigraphy, to allow the definition of adevelopmental sequence, and it established fairlyconvincingly that decorative style, in terms of thecombination of motifs (incised decoration, bossesand stamping) is the most rewarding area for study.

One small potential worry was the method whichLeahy has used to establish stratigraphic associationsbetween the urns; he states that ‘problems wereencountered in distinguishing archaeological featureson the site and it was rarely possible to define the edgesof urn pits’. In the case where one urn cut another,then a stratigraphic relationship of earlier and lateris obviously established, but the worry is with his‘associated’ urns. Basically, if two urns were foundclose together with their bases at the same level, thenthey were assumed to have been buried together, andthus contemporary. On a site were identification ofarchaeological features was extremely difficult, andwhere the urns were packed in far more densely thanis normal, it is surely possible that non-contemporaryurns would end up close together. However, once hisdevelopmental stylistic sequence was established, it wastested by ‘plugging-in’ the dates of diagnostic artefactsfound with the urns, and these suggest that his use of‘associated’ urns in the matrix worked; early artefacttypes generally occur with early style urns, and so on.

There is also the problem of multiple burials in thesame urn. The fact that a fairly high proportion ofAnglo-Saxon cremations contain the bones of morethan one individual suggests that there was at leastin some cases a time lapse between the insertion ofthe two individuals and final burial. The fact thatno funding was forthcoming for the analysis of thecremations means that any possibility of identifyingurns containing more than one individual was notpossible, despite the implications that this may have.

This aside, the production of a developmentalsequence of decoration was achieved, and it hasthrown up some fascinating results, not least of whichis the fact that wheel-thrown and kiln fired ‘Romano-British’ pottery was still in use, and perhaps even stillbeing made, in the late 5th century, and the implicationthat some ‘Romano-British’ cremation cemeteries, or atleast some of the burials in them, are in fact sub-Roman.

Not all the urns at the site could be accommodatedby Leahy’s classification, but an impressive 96.5% were;importantly, he also analysed the urns from othercremation cemeteries in eastern England and foundthat in all cases, the majority of the urns would fit into

Reviews 51

Page 59: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

52

his classification, with over 80% of all but one of thecemeteries accommodated. Clearly, this work signifiesreal progress in the classification of decorated earlyAnglo-Saxon pottery. There are problems, but not ofthe analyst’s making. It has been shown in the past byRichards (1987) that there are grounds to suspect thatthe size, shape and style of Anglo-Saxon cremationurns were influenced by the age and gender of thosecontained within them. Thus, it is entirely possible,that within Leahy’s ‘runs’ of contemporary urns, weare seeing differentiated age/gender considerations, orindeed single/multiple burials. As there was no fundingfor skeletal analysis, there is simply no way of knowingif this is the case.

At the end of the book, Leahy flags up a numberof aspects of the analysis of the excavated material thathe was unable to carry out due to the lack of financialsupport. Correspondence Analysis of the urns and thecontained artefacts is flagged up, and a similar analysisof the age and gender of the deceased with thedecorative styles of their burial containers woulddoubtless also prove useful. Lack of time and fundingalso precluded spatial analysis and scientific dating.This is all under-standable in the light of the problemswhich were encountered during the process of bringingthis important site to publication.

This is a remarkable report, not merely for theimportant conclusions reached, but also for that factthat it was brought to publication with virtually no helpfrom those national bodies charged with the distributionof public funds in archaeology. Simply bringing a projectof this size and complexity to publication in suchcircumstances is an achievement for which Kevin andhis team should be warmly congratulated, and indeed,thanked. It is certainly a valuable, and perhaps crucialstep forward in the understanding of Anglo-Saxoncremation pottery, and it is to be hoped that in future,the work for which Kevin was unable to obtain fundingwill be carried out.

Paul Blinkhorn

References

Richards, J D, 1987, The Significance of the Form andDecoration of Anglo-Saxon Cremation Urns. BritArchaeol Rep Brit Ser 166.

Clive Orton (editor)The pottery from medieval Novgorod and its region:the archaeology of medieval Novgorod . Volume 1UCL Press . 234 pages

British archaeologists,at least most of those ofmy acquaintance, knowthat Novgorod is a bigmedieval town in Russiawhere excavations ofextraordinary longevityhave uncovered a lot ofwood. There are woodenhouses and streets, woodendocuments and a widerange of wooden artefacts.Novgorod was alsoimportant as a place where trade routes converged,including those between Scandinavia, western andcentral Europe and the Near East. According to MarkBrisbane, the editor of the Archaeology of MedievalNovgorod Series, the import-ance of Novgorod ‘to thestudy of both early Rus and the development of Europecannot be over-emphasised’. It is probably true to sayalso that the importance of the excavations in theprogress of archaeology is fundamental. Work beganin 1932, and has continued virtually every year since.Archaeology in Soviet times suffered its own peculiartrials and tribulations, but the post-Glasnost comingtogether of the British and Russian team that is workingon this series signals the value of this project on manylevels, not least the breaking down of cold war barriers.This collaboration has been working for over ten yearsnow, and The pottery from medieval Novgorod and itsregion is the first in a series that will include volumeson other artefacts and environmental material. Thepolitical significance of this publication should be bornein mind as we consider the contents of this slim buthefty volume. For some Russian archaeologists this is along-awaited opportunity to communicate their findingsto a wide audience, and that alone is to be welcomed.

It is not clear why the pottery should be the firstthing to be published. Of all the wonderful finds fromNovgorod the ceramics do not seem to stand out. Evenafter working through the ten chapters presented hereby a variety of authors, it is hard to grasp any sort ofoverall picture of what pottery actually meant to theinhabitants of Novgorod, nor what it represents andcontributes to the study of medieval north-west Russia.It is also difficult to gain any sense of importance tothe study of early Rus or the development of Europe,which may be difficult to over-emphasise, but shouldbe brought out somehow. Perhaps the numerous authorsare part of the problem, because it is rarely easy to findcoherency or continuity in a collection of separatearticles. There are two papers with an introductoryflavour. Mark Brisbane and Clive Orton present ‘The

Page 60: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

Reviews 53

study of medieval ceramics from North-West Russia:a view from the West’ in the first chapter, and Ortonagain offers ‘Handling large urban assemblages andtheir statistics’ as Chapter 6. In between, and thereafter,we are treated to a further eight, more specific chaptersgrouped under various headings.

In Chapter 1, Brisbane and Orton point up thedifferences between approaches to ceramic studiesin western Europe (mainly Britain) and the moreprocessual line followed in Russia. The effects of Sovietisolation on academic communication are now wellknown, and those differences are no surprise, so thereis little point in focussing on them here. The authors,to their credit, pass no comment either. They simplydescribe the present position and it is apparent thatone aim of their project is to enable communicationwith other specialists. The contribution from DavidGaimster, on the German stoneware, exemplifies thatpurpose. The first group of papers, ‘Chronology andTechnology’ includes four articles dealing with potteryfrom the towns of Novgorod, Ryurik Gorodishche,and Pskov. Each of them combines to provide anunderstanding of which pottery types came and wentin the region between the 10th and 16th centuries. Thesechapters are essentially descriptive, and there are fewattempts to consider what prompted observed changes,or how the pottery might have been used. The finaleffect is to leave one wondering why this should beof interest to archaeologists working much beyond theBaltic region, but they are all well-ordered and thoroughpieces of work. Chapter 6, Orton’s consideration of thestatistical approaches, provides a partial response, forif nothing else, he brings the problems facing Russianceramicists into sharp focus. At Novgorod, one season’sexcavations alone produced 247,000 sherds, and evenif that is only around 60 sherds per cubic metre, that isstill a lot to work through. It is no surprise to find thatceramicists are still getting to grips with the dauntingtask of characterisation. This in part explains the lessthan contemplative approach of those who have workedon this material, and the following article by O A Rud,‘An attempt to classify the decoration of Novgorodmedieval pottery using material from Troitskyexcavation XI (Spits 22–10), is a case in point. It seemswe might have to wait a bit longer, and certainly untilthe rest of the evidence can be brought to bear, beforeinterpretation will really take off. Orton’s paper andthe one that follows are grouped under the heading‘Methodology’, and it is here that the peculiaritiesarising from a project of such extraordinary longevityare most pointed. It is unlikely that statistical analysisof pottery sherds was on the minds of those who, inthe 1930s, initiated the spit-digging approach to thisrich and complex site. Orton demonstrates that theapplication of statistics can, as he puts it, ‘bring outpreviously unexpected features of the data, theexplanation of which should lead to further under-standing of the role of ceramics in Novgorod’. The

subsequent classification of decorative techniques andmotifs should therefore be recognised as the first stepin ordering the data to allow more profound enquiry.The final group of three papers is headed ‘Internationalcontacts’. This includes a paper by David Gaimsterentitled ‘Pottery imported from the West: receptionand resistance’, I V Volkov’s consideration of amphoraefrom Novgorod and V Y Koval on ‘Eastern pottery fromthe excavations at Novgorod’. These papers may be ofinterest to a wider audience than those dealing withlocal products, not least because they touch on theuniversal themes of long-distance exchange mechanismsand the various requirements of traders and consumers.A biblio-graphical index to publications on potteryfrom the Ilmen region and medieval Novgorod formsa final section, followed by the references and index.There is also a CD-ROM with six appendices to a fewof the papers. These are data files in Microsoft Excelor text file formats. Not all of them appear to have keys,and are therefore of very limited value because themeaning of the data is not immediately apparent. The‘Experimental coding of a sample of pottery from theTroitsky XI excavations’ is profoundly obscure. It issupposed to complement Orton’s Chapter 6, but thereis no reference to it there.

It would not be useful here to delve into the specificcontent of individual papers. All of them are wellpresented, with plentiful illustrations, tables and charts.The Russian texts were ably translated by KatherineJudelson, and read very well. A few colour plates wouldhave been welcomed to give an idea of what the materialactually looks like. That, perhaps, is the main issue.Novgorod remains a completely alien place to most of us,and many of you will probably be wondering why youshould invest in this volume. Well, as discussed above,this is an important step in the collaborative projectthat brings together western European approaches tothe discipline with local knowledge and experience.In those terms it is a success, mercifully untainted byany hint of patronage or competition. You could readthis book in order to learn an awful lot about whatthe pottery of Novgorod and its region looked like,but that may not appeal to many of you. You shouldread this book to extend your understanding of thedevelopment of pottery studies on a wider scale. Partsof it may seem naive and simplistic to some of us, butwe should take more time to pass judgement. Few ofus can claim to understand fully the experiences of theRussian archae-ologists past and present who studied,or study, the archaeology of Novgorod. This collectionadds up to an extensive statement of the approach tothe subject and the current level of progress. As Volkovputs it ‘the analysis … at this time is, so far, only in itsinfancy’. Indeed, the whole volume carries the flavourof work being carried out with genuine pleasure, andif you allow yourself to enjoy its warmth and depth,then you can’t help but look forward to the nextinstalment.

Duncan H Brown

Page 61: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

[page 54 / blank]

Page 62: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

medieval ceramics News

Page 63: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

56

President Maureen Mellor

Vice President Mark Redknapp

Secretary Anne Boyle

Assistant Secretary Andrew Sage

Treasurer Jane Holdsworth

Assistant Treasurer Nigel Jeffries

Editor Derek Hall

List of Officers and Council of the Group 2004

Co-editor Stanley Cauvain

Assistant Editor Chris Jarret

Regional Groups Officer Beverley Nenk

Meetings Secretary Duncan Brown

Continental Representative Frans Verhaege

Irish Representative Clare McCutcheon

Ordinary Members Barbara HurmannJohn HudsonAnna Slowikowski

Page 64: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

News 57

Accounts for year ending 31 January 2005

receipts and payments account: General Fund

income 2005 2004

subscriptions

individuals £4045.00 £3472.43

institutions £861.00 £1214.23

publication sales1

journals £1382.66 £410.60

Minimum Standards sales £82.00 £49.00

A Guide to Ceramic Forms sales £437.05 £257.00

other £153.00 £23.00

Conference £6113.45.00 £545.00

investment income

bank interest £199.85 £98.73

other

donations £220.00 £792.00

grants £1480.00 £960.00

loan £0 £1000.00

John Hurst Fund £0 £50.00

reciprocal mailing £80.00 £75.00

total receipts £15054.46 £8946.99

expenditure

Conference 2003 £0 £115.00

Conference 2004 £5446.43 £500.00

journal publication £5140.15 £5,733.66

advertising (leaflet costs) £0 £495.15

postage £650.70 £54.57

travel expenses £0 £147.48

newsletter £736.71 £ 280.01

website £70.36 £107.39

guide costs £0 £69.56

loan repayment £0 £1,000.00

bank charges £0 £30.00

subscriptions £65.00 £63.00

Committee meetings expenses £90.00 £0

membership cancellation £40.00 £0

total expenditure £15054.46 £2862.16

payments accrued from 2002–03

made in 2003–04 £4700.26

net receipts for the year £2815.07 £1384.57

monetary assets

2005 2004

bank balances2 £6644.10 £4017.21

reserve fund3

(English Heritage Publication Grant) £8920.00 £8500.00

debtors

publication sales £112.00 £539.70

liabilities (General Fund)

publication costs £0 £2292.00

notes

1 Figure includes postal charges.

2 Royal Bank of Scotland current and deposit accounts, Euro and US

dollar accounts, Alliance & Leicester account.

3 In Royal Bank of Scotland deposit account.

Page 65: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

58

Regional Group Reports 2005

East Midlands Pottery Research Group

No meetings were held in 2005.

ContactJane YoungLindsey Archaeological Services25 West ParadeLincoln LN1 1NWtelephone (01522) 544 554

London Area Medieval Pottery Research Group

No meetings were held by the London Group in 2005.

ContactNigel JeffriesMuseum of London Specialist Services46 Eagle Wharf RoadLondon Nl 7EDtelephone (020) 7566 9312

North West Regional Medieval PotteryResearch Group

No meetings were held in 2005.

ContactJulie EdwardsChester Archaeology27 Grosvenor StreetChesterCH1 2DDe-mail [email protected]. uk

Scottish Group of Medieval Ceramicists

Derek Hall reports on several projects:

Redware sourcing

Historic Scotland commissioned this follow-on tothe pilot study of 1997, and project members havesubmitted the results of the ICPS analysis of brick,tile, pottery and clay samples, and produced a vesseltypology.

Perth High Street excavations

A seminar was held on the imported pottery from thesite in October 04, with several members of MPRGholding a round-table discussion on this importantassemblage. Research continues.

Monastic industrial sites

A Historic Scotland funded gazetteer of potentialmonastic industrial sites across Scotland hasconcentrated on locating industrial production centres,including tileworks, and this will hopefully aid thefuture location of pottery production sites, as it appearsto be possible that Scottish pottery manufacture startedwith the introduction of the major monastic orders inthe 12th century.

Ceres, Fife

A potential pottery production centre making ScottishWhite Gritty Ware has been identified near Ceres,following a geophysical survey and thin-sectioning ofsherds. Further fieldwork may take place later this year.

Reid’s Pottery, Newbigging, Musselburgh

George Haggerty has completed the catalogue of theproducts of this 19th century pottery, and has produceda visually illustrated catalogue of the assemblage formthe site which should be seen as the way forward asregards the archiving of industrial ceramics. The discis available from [email protected] at the priceof postage.

ContactDerek HallSUAT Ltd55 South Methven StreetPerthPH1 5NXtelephone (01738) 622 393e-mail [email protected]

Page 66: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

News 59

South East Midlands Pottery Research Group(SEMPER)

East Anglian Pottery Research Group

SEMPER is a thriving regional group, working closelywith the East Anglian group. We try to hold twomeetings a year, one of which is regularly held at theBuckinghamshire County Museum in Aylesbury andthe other at various venues in the region. One meetingwas held in 2004 and included talks on the medievalpottery of Hertfordshire; late medieval pottery kilnsat Higham Ferrers, Northants, and Italian imports toNarrow Street, London.

If anyone in the region (or outside!) has any ideasfor themes for meetings, or perhaps would like to hosta meeting, or would like to be put on the mailing list,please contact:

Anna SlowikowskiAlbion Archaeology,St Mary’s Church,St Mary’s Street,BedfordMK42 0AStelephone (01234) 294 005e-mail [email protected]

South Central Medieval Pottery Research Group

No meetings were held in 2005.

ContactLorraine MephamWessex ArchaeologyPortway House, Old Sarum ParkSalisburySP4 6EPtelephone (01722) 326 867

South West Region Medieval PotteryResearch Group

Mike Ponsford for the South-West group reports that theannual experimental kiln project at Bickley ran, as usual,in August, organised by Oliver Kent and David Dawson.The most important project for future workis the publication of the Barnstaple kilns and potteryand this has been selected as of the highest importance,nationally and internationally, in the RegionalFramework for the south-west.

ContactMike Ponsford12 Seymour Road, BishopstonBristolBS7 9HRtelephone (0117) 985 8109

Welsh Medieval Pottery Research Group

No meetings were held in 2005.

ContactSteve Sellc/o Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological TrustFerrybridge WarehouseBath Lane, SwanseaSA1 1RDor Mark RedknapDept Archaeology and Numismatics Natrional Museumand Gallery Cathays Park, CardiffCF1 3NPtelephone (02920) 573 223

Page 67: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

60

Information and notes for contributors

General points

1 The text should be of a length appropriate to itscontent (ie 3,000– 4,000 words on average, unlessgreater length can be justified by the material andsubject to peer review).

2 The paper must have an adequate summary of thecontents (approximately 100 words). This will betranslated into French and German.

3 Two copies of all initial texts must be submitted inhard copy, one to each editor. They should be printedon A4 paper, double-spaced and with a good left-handmargin (30 mm).

4 Texts may be submitted at any time, but must bereceived by 31st October for consideration for thenext volume.

5 If possible, send reduced copies of illustrations withthe initial text. Do not send original illustrations untilrequested to do so by the editors (see also note 10).

6 All papers intended as main articles, rather thannotes, will be submitted for peer review. The reviewerhas the right to remain anonymous if they choose, buttheir comments will be communicated to the author(s)for consideration and implementation.

7 The editors reserve the right to make minor changesof form/layout as required, but no fundamental changeswill be made without consultation with the author(s).

8 Following peer review, the editors will seek, whereappropriate, to guide contributors on matters ofcontent. However, each paper is the copyright of itsauthor, who alone is responsible for the statementspublished therein and for ensuring that permissionto reproduce any text or artwork that is the copyrightof another author has been obtained.

9 Final texts should, where possible, be submittedon disk – preferably as an RTF file in Word or WordPerfect. The disk must be accompanied by a hard copyof the text.

10 All authors will receive first page proofs for checkingand correcting (not rewriting). Major changes at thisstage will be charged to the contributor. Failure toreturn proofs by the required date may lead to theeditors returning their own proofs without furtherreference to the contributor.

11 Major papers will be accepted on merit, but where,for financial reasons, a choice has to be made between

two or more contributions, preference may be given tothose for which sponsorship has been or can be obtained,while other texts will be selected on a ‘first-in’ basis.

12 Authors of main papers will receive up to ten freeoff-prints on publication, depending on single/jointauthorship. Authors of notes will receive two freeoff-prints.

Text

To minimise editorial work, please ensure that the textconforms to the following instructions.

1 The title must be in upper and lower case, bold.

2 The author’s name must be in upper and lower case,with an asterisk referring to the author’s contact address(listed at the foot of the first page of the paper).

3 The summary must be in italics.

4 The paper must have a logical structure with anintroduction, sequential components and discussion/conclusion, followed by acknowledgements and references.

5 All first-level headings must be in capitals, bold.

6 All second-level headings must be in upper and lowercase, bold.

7 All third-level headings must be in upper and lowercase, italics.

8 In-text emphasis of fabrics or form types may also bein italics. Quotation marks, if used, should be ‘singular’,not “double”.

9 Abbreviations (shortened forms which do not end withthe last letter of the original word) are not followedby a full-stop (for example, Fig, No, Pl, pers comm, cf,eds). Do not use the ampersand (&) in text or inthe references.

10 References to figures within the text should be in theform, for example, ‘Figure 1.1’. References to figures inthe reference section should be in lower case, forexample, ‘Broadribb 1994, 600, fig 6, no1’.

11 For acronyms and other abbreviations using capitalletters, standard international units of measure with nofull-stop are used (for example, CBA, HMSO, HBMC;AD, BC, OD; m, mm, kg).

Page 68: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

News 61

12 Contractions (shortened forms which end with thelast letter of the original word) are not followed by afull-stop (for example, Mr, Dr, St).

13 All foreign language expressions, abbreviations andterminology must be in italics (for example, in situ,ibid, c, ie, eg, et al, etc)

14 Compass points must be given in full (for example,south-east), in lower case.

15 Numbers one to twenty and any number starting asentence should be written in full. Numbers over twentyshould be given in numerals, as should those followedby units of measure (for example, ‘5 miles’, ‘10 kg’),with a space should be inserted between the unit and itsmeasure.

Percentages should be given in numerals followed bythe % sign, not using words.

Context numbers must be given in square brackets(for example, ‘context [3]’).

16 Dates (for example, 13th to 14th centuries) usenormal and not superscript /subscript style, with theword ‘century’ not ‘C’.

Use a hyphen when a date is used as an adjective(for example, ‘of a mid 13th-century date’).

For other types of dates, use, for example,c 1450–1460, AD 1225, AD 1320–1350 (use keystroke‘alt/option -’.

17 Authors should note that their papers should contain‘References’ (not ‘Bibliography’). References shouldcontain only those that have been cited in the body ofthe paper, either in the main text, specialist reports orappendices. As a matter of course, before the paper issent to the Editorial Committee, the author shouldcheck that every text reference is included in theReferences and that every item listed in the Referencesis referred to in the text.

18 Books The name of the publisher and the place ofpublication should be given, for example:Cruden, S 1986, Scottish Medieval Churches, 34–5.John Donald, Edinburgh.

19 Chapters in books Spearman, R M 1988 ‘TheMedieval Townscape of Perth’, in Lynch, M, Spearman,M and Stell, G (eds) The Scottish Medieval Town, 42–59. John Donald, Edinburgh.

20 Theses Torrie, E P D 1988 The Guild in Fifteenthcentury Dunfermline, unpubl PhD thesis, University ofEdinburgh.

21 Articles Woolliscroft, D J 1993 ‘Signalling and thedesign of the Gask Ridge system’, Proc Soc AntiqScot, 123, 291–313.

MacAskill, N L 1987 ‘Ceramic building material’, inHoldsworth, P (ed) Excavations in the Medieval Burghof Perth 1979–81, 156–7. Edinburgh (= Soc Antiq ScotMonogr Ser, 5).

Hall, D W 1997 ‘The Pottery’, in Rains, M J and Hall,D W (eds) Excavations in St Andrews 1980–89, 26–30.Glenrothes (= Tayside Fife Archaeol CommitteeMonogr 1).

Hodgson, G W I 1983 ‘The animal remains frommedieval sites within three burghs on the easternScottish seaboard’, in Proudfoot, B (ed) Site,environment and economy, 3–32. Oxford (= BARInt Ser 173).

22 Titles of foreign journals should be given in full,but British and Irish journals can be abbreviated, forexample, ‘Medieval Archaeol’, ‘Tayside Fife Archaeol J ’.

23 Publication years for a journal should only beincluded after the journal title where the volume coversa split year, for example, ‘1971–72’.

24 Documentary sources should be given their fullarchive number and repository.

25 Maps should be identified by their full title in thereference list.

26 Footnotes should never be used and references shouldappear in the text as, for example, ‘Torrie 1988’ or ‘asTorrie has stated (1988, 54)’.

27 Histograms and other graphics should be listed asfigures.

28 Figures and Plates should be referred to in the text as,for example, ‘Figure 1 and ‘Plate 1’ (normal text). Allfigures and plates must have a caption, for example,‘Figure 1 Location map.’ If there is no scale in theillustration, a note of the scale at which the illustrationshave been reproduced should be included in the caption.If the artwork is not by the author, the illustrator orphotographer must be acknowledged, either in thecaption or in the acknowledgements (for example,‘referring to Figure 1.1–13’). Captions mustbe listed sequentially at the end of the contribution.

Page 69: Medieval Ceramics Volume 29 (2005)

62

Illustrations

1 The first impressions of a publication are often gainedfrom the illustrations. While the editors will decide finalpage layouts, they cannot undertake to redraw maps orfigures, and will reject artwork which is not of a suffici-ently high standard. For this reason, photocopies onlyof proposed illustrations should be submitted in thefirst instance.

2 Page layouts may be specified by the author, but theseshould bear in mind that half- or whole-page artwork(which may include two or more figures) are significant-ly cheaper than quarter-page inserts.

3 All pottery illustrations submitted for publicationmust be made according to standard archaeologicalconventions, with the section indicated on the left-handside of the vessel and the handle on the right (unlessthere is more than one handle). For wheelthrown vessels,the section should be filled in with black ink; for hand-made pots, a hatched section is permissible. Addedfeatures, such as spouts, secondary handles, or applieddecoration, should also be hatched or not filled in,to show that they are not part of the original vesselas formed.

4 All artwork must be designed to fit the MedievalCeramics page size (248 x 172 mm) or single columnwidth (82 mm). As a rule, pottery drawings should beprepared for reduction at 1:4 or 1:2, but decoratedsherds or unusual single vessels may be published at 1:1.

5 Pottery illustrations inked in at 1:1 for reduction to1:4 should not be drawn with a pen less that 0.5 mmfor outline, or 0.3 mm for detail. Spaces between linesshould be sufficient not to cause blacking-in whenthe drawings are reduced, particularly if sectionsare hatched.

6 Lettering and numbering should be of an appropriatescale and consistently placed; care should be taken toensure that labels are accurately aligned.

7 All maps and figures showing pottery should have anunobtrusive scale. Maps must have a north-point.

8 Final artwork should be submittedf as TIFF files at aresolution of 600 dpi (dots pore inch) for line drawings(including those with areas of tone) and 300 dpi forphotographs.

9 Authors must make sure that permission to reproduceillustrations has been granted in writingby the copyright holder.