100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
2K Ansichten84 Seiten
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
•'Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire', by David Hall
•'Some late 12th or early 13th century great brick at Farnham Castle, Surrey', by Nicholas Riall
•'A medieval pottery clam-kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland', by Piers Dixon and Amanda Crowdy
•'An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish redware pottery', by Simon Chenery, Emrys Phillips and George Haggerty
•'Historically visible by archaeologically invisible? The Huguenots of Spitalfields', by Nigel Jeffries
•'From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 1570-1630', by John Black
•'Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use', by Marcus Millwright
•'Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece', by Athanasios K Vionis
•'PotWeb: museum documentation - a world vision', by Jeremy Haslam, Maureen Mellor and Jonathan Moffett
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
•'Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire', by David Hall
•'Some late 12th or early 13th century great brick at Farnham Castle, Surrey', by Nicholas Riall
•'A medieval pottery clam-kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland', by Piers Dixon and Amanda Crowdy
•'An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish redware pottery', by Simon Chenery, Emrys Phillips and George Haggerty
•'Historically visible by archaeologically invisible? The Huguenots of Spitalfields', by Nigel Jeffries
•'From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 1570-1630', by John Black
•'Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use', by Marcus Millwright
•'Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece', by Athanasios K Vionis
•'PotWeb: museum documentation - a world vision', by Jeremy Haslam, Maureen Mellor and Jonathan Moffett
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
•'Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire', by David Hall
•'Some late 12th or early 13th century great brick at Farnham Castle, Surrey', by Nicholas Riall
•'A medieval pottery clam-kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland', by Piers Dixon and Amanda Crowdy
•'An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish redware pottery', by Simon Chenery, Emrys Phillips and George Haggerty
•'Historically visible by archaeologically invisible? The Huguenots of Spitalfields', by Nigel Jeffries
•'From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 1570-1630', by John Black
•'Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use', by Marcus Millwright
•'Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece', by Athanasios K Vionis
•'PotWeb: museum documentation - a world vision', by Jeremy Haslam, Maureen Mellor and Jonathan Moffett
2 0 0 1 JOURNAL OF THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY RESEARCH GROUP Medieval Ceramics THIS JOURNAL was conceived to meet the need for an annual publication devoted to all aspects of pottery studies from the Early Saxon to the Post-Medieval period, including theoretical, methodological and analytical aspects of pottery research. An annual conference is held (usually in May) and meetings of regional groups take place at more frequent intervals. The Medieval Pottery Research Group has many Continental members whose work overlaps with that of British members. Medieval Ceramics welcomes offers of appropriate articles on all aspects of ceramic research for publication. Notes for contributors are given overleaf. All general correspondence concerned with the Medieval Pottery Research Group should be sent to The Secretary, MPRG, c/o Museum of London Specialist Services, Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED MEMBERSHIP All applications for membership, subscriptions and orders for Medieval Ceramics should be sent to The Treasurer, MPRG, at the same address. SUBSCRIPTION RATES Individual 20 Institutional 25 The MPRG is a registered charity, No. 1018513 Copyright Individual authors ISSN 1358-2496 The MPRG is grateful for financial support for this volume from Beverley Nenk, Sarah Jennings, Julie Edwards, English Heritage, GUARD, Historic Scotland, MOLAS, the John Wheelwright Society and the Marc Fitch Fund The cover design by Graham Reed shows a Chinese export porcelain dish, early 17th century, with typical kraak border (Black, this volume). Published by The Medieval Pottery Research Group Designed and typeset by Sue Cawood/MOLAS and printed by Short Run Press Ltd, Exeter. Medieval Ceramics VOLUME 25 2001 EDITORS Jacqueline Pearce and Lucy Whittingham Museum of London Specialist Services ASSISTANT EDITOR Jennie Stopford English Heritage Medieval Ceramics VOLUME 25, 2001 CONTENTS Editorial Jacqueline Pearce and Lucy Whittingham Papers Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire David Hall 2 Some late 12th or early 13th century great brick at Farnham Castle, Surrey Nicholas Riall 22 A medieval pottery kiln-clamp, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland Piers Dixon and Amanda Crowdy 27 An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish red ware pottery Simon Chenery, Emrys Phillips and George Haggarty 45 Historically visible but archaeologically invisible? The Huguenots of Spitalfields Nigel Jeffries 54 From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 15701630 John Black 65 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use Marcus Milwright 72 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece Athanasios K. Vionis 84 PotWeb: museum documentation a world vision Jeremy Haslam, Maureen Mellor and Jonathan Moffett 99 MPRG Annual Bibliography 2001 collated by L Pieksma, P. Davey and P. Tomlinson 108 Reviews Katherine Barclay Scientific Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics: A Handbook of Resources (Helen Hatcher) 125 Ian M Betts Medieval Westminster Floor Tiles (Paul Drury) 126 John Black British Tin-Glazed Earthenware and Anthony Ray, English Delftware (Clive Orton) 126 Mark Brisbane and David Gaimster Novgorod: the Archaeology of a Russian Medieval City and its Hinterland (Alan Vince) 127 Duncan H. Brown Pottery in Medieval Southampton c.1066-1510 (Lorraine Mepham) 128 Ivor Nol Hume If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2,000 Years of British Household Pottery (Merry Outlaw) 130 Jean Rosen La Faence en France du XIVe au XIX sicle. Histoire et Technique (Lyn Blackmore) 131 Corrigenda Medieval Tiles of Wales John Lewis 134 News Obituaries: John Evans 136 Peter Farmer 137 John Hurst 138 List of officers and council of the group 20012002 140 MPRG Accounts 20002001 141 Regional Group Reports 142 v Notes for Contributors Contributions can be submitted at any time, but main papers, which are subject to peer review, must be received by August 31st for consideration for the volume to be published the following year. Manuscripts should contain a brief summary (100-150 words) for translation into other languages. They should be typed or printed on good quality A4 paper, double-spaced and with a good left-hand margin (30mm). Authors are requested to follow the layout and conventions used in this journal (copies of the full Notes for Contributors will shortly be available on the website or on request from the Editors). Three copies of the manuscript with drafts of all artwork and tables should be sent to: The Editors, MPRG, c/o Museum of London Specialist Services, Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED. One set of proofs will be sent to all authors for checking (not re-writing). Failure to return the proofs by the required date will lead to the editors sending their own corrected proofs to the printer without further reference to the author. Ten free off-prints will be supplied to the authors on publication of a paper; two free off-prints will be sent to authors of shorter contributions. All statements and views published in Medieval Ceramics are those of the contributors, and are not the responsibility of the editors or the MPRG. iv vi EDITORIAL With volume 25 of Medieval Ceramics we are moving towards a new house style. For the first time colour plates are being included in the papers they illustrate, alongside the relevant text. Our thanks must go to Tracy Wellman, of the Museum of London Archaeology Service, for her expertise in design and her support in seeing these changes through to publication. This volume is very diverse in its contents, reflecting the wide interests and experience of MPRG members. We present papers on ceramics ranging geographically from the Islamic world and Greece to the Low Countries, Scotland and various locations in England; and chronologically from the 11th to the early 18th century. Two papers on post- medieval pottery serve to emphasise the continuity of ceramic studies across the so-called period of transition from the medieval to the early modern world, as represented by the study of material remains. As the journal of MPRG, Medieval Ceramics serves the interests of ceramicists, archaeologists and students of post-Roman Europe and beyond, and we hope that more papers on later pottery will be offered for publication in the future. Analytical scientific techniques that have been newly applied in Scotland are presented in a paper on Scottish red wares, while the pioneering work of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford in setting up PotWeb online is outlined in a wide- ranging consideration of the problems of museum documentation and accessibility. Ceramic building materials are covered by a paper on the great brick from Farnham Castle in Surrey, and in a review of Ian Betts publication on Westminster floor tiles. This appears along with several other reviews of new and recently published books that have been sent to the editors over the past year. The last year has seen a series of heavy blows to the world of medieval pottery studies with the deaths of three prominent and much admired members of the profession. We are very sad to include obituaries in this volume of Peter Farmer and John Evans. The tragic death of John Hurst is also marked by a brief obituary. However, in view of Johns undoubtedly seminal and profoundly influential role in the establishment of medieval ceramic studies, a full appreciation of his life and work will follow in volume 26 or 27. Medieval Ceramics published one of his most recent, if not his last contribution to pottery studies in volume 24, a survey of publications on ceramics imported from the Continent. In the same volume, John is pictured in a group photograph of past presidents of MPRG at the 25th Anniversary conference in Oxford in April 2000. Always kind and considerate, his last communication to us as editors was a letter, typed on his inimitable typewriter, thanking us for sending offprints. This is the last year in which the Annual Bibliography will be published in Medieval Ceramics. This invaluable research resource is now available online, and Council has therefore decided that additional printing costs are no longer justified. The Bibliography can be accessed through the MPRGs website at http://www.medievalpottery.org.uk. We are, as ever, most grateful for the considerable effort and unstinting work of the compilers and to all who contribute regularly to its production. Finally, we wish to thank Gwladys Monteil and Friederike Hammer for their translation of the summaries into French and German. Graham Reed has once again provided us with superlative cover artwork, and we are most grateful to him. Medieval Ceramics Papers 2 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire David Hall SUMMARY Excavations at Forehill, Ely, in 1996, by Mary Alexander for the Cambridge Archaeological Unit, produced a range of pottery used in the City during the 12th to 15th centuries. The main group consisted of a gritty fabrics identified as products of the medieval Ely pottery industry. The Ely forms have been classified and are illustrated along with other material. The distribution of Ely pottery has not yet been fully established, but the fabric has been recognized by the author in recently excavated material from Kings Lynn and at sites in Cambridge and nearby, and by Hilary Healey in South Lincolnshire and Andrew Rogerson in West Norfolk. THE ELY POTTERY INDUSTRY Evidence for 16th-century pottery production at Ely was discovered in the 1950s when wasters of a black-glazed red earthenware, of Cistercian type (Brears 1967), were discovered at a district called Babylon. This distinctive name has since been used to differentiate the fabric from authentic Yorkshire Cistercian ware. More waster sherds, as well as roof tiles used as kiln spacers were discovered when the marina near the Maltings, adjacent to Babylon, was developed in 1983 (Hall 1996, 38). More recently, excavations by the Cambridge Archaeological Unit in 2000 (Alexander et al forthcoming), have revealed a kiln site that produced Babylon ware, glazed red earthenwares, and an earthenware bichrome, as well as fine quality off-white fabrics (described in Hall 2002). In spite of watching briefs during the 1980s and various small commercial excavations beginning in the 1990s (Holton-Krayenbuhl 1989, Jones 1994; see also notes in Medieval Archaeology and Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society) the location of a medieval pottery industry was not revealed until 1995 (Robinson 1998). The site then examined was a waster dump and not a kiln, but the quantity and nature of the sherds made it certain that the material was waste from industrial production. The location laid just above the appropriately named Potters Lane, recorded as early as 1280 (Reaney 1943, 215). Many more sherds lie in profusion in the gardens of Cherry Hill, lying next to Potters Lane. Since 1995 three large-scale excavations have taken place at Ely. One at Broad Street in 1996 that revealed mainly medieval levels; a large site at West Fen Road where Middle, Late Saxon and early medieval features lay in profusion (Knight 2000; Regan, 2002), and the site at Broad Street, already mentioned, that produced medieval features as well as the 16th-century kiln. Hence, there is now a very large corpus of pottery made and used at Ely that gives a full view of the ceramic record. This report provides an analysis of the material from the first of the three large excavations, that made at Forehill during 1996. It gives for the first time a type series for Ely pottery as well as illustrating the medieval kiln products. A separate report describes in detail the excavation, the features discovered and their significance. (Alexander 2003). Description of the material The pottery from Forehill came from a site lying within the medieval city at TL 545 802. There were 8,213 sherds weighing 162.8kg. The total quantities are listed by fabric in Table 1, below. Each individual context is detailed in an archive spreadsheet that provides the number of every fabric type, an estimate of the context date, and the numbers of rims, bases, decorated sherds and any other significant item 3 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire of interest. In all 565 collections were studied, most of them being individual contexts. Excluding post-1740 wares, the number of sherds studied was 7,766. Weights of each fabric are given in the table below; hereafter the analysis will be quantified by sherd-number only, since the weights only duplicate the data. EVEs were not calculated for this data set. Table 1 Ely Forehill fabric types. A few residual Roman sherds (five) were recovered, probably deriving from one of the numerous Roman sites on the Isle of Ely. There were two abraded Middle Saxon sherds, likely to be strays from the large Middle Saxon site to the west of Ely. Saxo-Norman Wares of St Neots, Stamford and Thetford type were present in the ratio 42: 18: 34. The total was 94 sherds, representing 0.5%, 0.2% and 0.4% respectively of all sherds. St Neots shelly wares occur in lower quantity at Ely than in the south and west of Cambridgeshire, as would be expected with the nearness of Ely to Grimston, where a hard, sandy, Thetford-type of pottery was made. The main group of sherds dates from the 11th to 16th centuries. The dominant fabric is material from the nearby Ely kilns, which were active from the 12th to 15th centuries. Other identified medieval fabrics come from Grimston, Norfolk, and from various places in Essex, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. There were also northern European imports of mainly stonewares and a few finewares. The well-stratified series from Forehill provides a useful sample of the range of all pottery used in medieval Ely, as well as illustrating the products of the local kilns. Late post-medieval wares (after 1740) have had no further study beyond listing. Context 275, of early 19th- century date, consists of many nearly complete vessels of all types then in use, many of them finely decorated. It is, however, not a significant component of the study group, but may be useful in the future for comparison with other similar material from Ely. ELY FABRICS AND FORMS The principal sherds were Ely fabrics that dominate the collection, being 2,555 oxidized sherds (33%) and 1,977 reduced sherds (25%), or 4,532 in all (58%). There is considerable variation in the fabric, but no attempt has been made to classify the assemblage into a range of sub-types that would make the task unnecessarily complicated. Such a procedure would also be premature until the other two large excavations have been studied. The main attribute distinguishing medieval Ely fabrics from other East Anglian wares is the sand content and the presence of hard white quatzose grits. Two principal fabrics were identified visually (with aid of a times-10 hand lens) in the Forehill collection, one called oxidized and the other reduced, the difference probably only being the final oxygenation conditions in the kiln. Both fabrics are hard with a slight sand component and characteristically contain white quartzose grits evenly distributed throughout the fabric and visible on the surface. The grits are usually small, but can be up to 1.5 mm in diameter. Thin section analysis (below) has shown that some fabrics have a calcareous content also, but this is not normally very obvious from visual observation. The oxidized sherds have surfaces coloured buff, pink and occasionally red. The core is usually dark. The reduced fabric has grey or nearly black surfaces. It is often difficult to classify into one type or the other, because sherds occur with, say, a buff or pink surface on one side and grey or black on the other. Generally such sherds have been classified as oxidized. Early Ely fabrics (those occurring at the lowest levels mixed with Saxo-Norman sherds) are fairly good quality. They do not have many quartzose grits, and can be rather similar in appearance to St Neots Ware, except that they feel rough from the sand content. In levels later than the 12th century, the fabric has a lighter colour and the coarse quartzose grits are normally very obvious. A few sherds (51, 0.7%) are well made with few grits and reduced to a grey colour, very similar to Grimston material, probably deliberately imitating it. Many of the coarser wares, especially the bowls, are hand-made with limited wheel finishing. A major difference between Ely and Grimston Wares is the glazing. Grimston is always clear and green. Ely is almost always opaque, sometimes green and often has a muddy, opaque white colour with a rough pimply surface. Ely glaze is also often very thin and patchy. A sample of 528 sherds Fabric type Sherd number % of 7766 Sherd weight St Neots 42 0.5 672 Stamford 18 0.2 329 Thetford 34 0.4 537 Other 12-13th 10 0.1 161 Ely oxidized 2555 33 44304 Ely reduced 1977 25 35309 Grimston 601 8 8618 Ely Grimston 51 0.7 809 Reduced sandy 437 6 7092 Other medieval 324 4 5171 Essex reds 499 6 8662 Lyveden 38 0.5 704 Yorkshire 55 0.7 984 Stonewares 63 0.8 1063 Surrey 25 0.3 453 Red earthenwares 887 11 28987 Babylon 113 1 1736 Bourne D 37 0.5 1131 Post-1740 447 - 16090 Total 8213 162812 Medieval Ceramics 25, 221, 2001 (Table 2) from four contexts contained 109 pieces glazed or partly glazed (21%). Probably many vessels were glazed on the upper surfaces only, so that a higher percentage of whole pots had partial glazing than is indicated by analysis of individual sherds. Ely forms are typically thick-sided bowls, and rather squat jars and jugs. Rims from 165 vessels were studied and classified, of which 79 (48%) were bowls, 52 (31%) were jars (cooking pots), and 34 (21%) were jugs. This proportion is consistent with most of the vessels being hand-made and receiving only limited wheel finishing bowls being the easiest to fashion and jugs the most difficult. Of the bowls 30% were decorated, nearly always on the rim of bowl type B2 (Fig. 4) where it was 39%. The commonest types of rims were B2 and B3 (Figs 3-4). Jars seldom had decoration, amounting to only 12%. Jugs, apart from handles, were rarely decorated (a single vessel). Handles, mostly from jugs (a few handles were identifiable as belonging to large jars), were frequently decorated (42%). The most characteristic forms are single and multiple rows of slashing made with a knife. Sometimes round holes were made. Both these decorative elements were used on the bowls, which additionally often had wavy line motifs on the body. Wavy lines were also used on the bowl rims instead of slashes or holes. Details of Ely pottery forms Rims were sorted from all medieval levels and then classified into types, initially without reference to context or date. The following forms were identified. Some rims have intermediate forms that make their classification difficult, but those listed below seem to be the predominant forms. They are illustrated in Figs 2-9, with more description of individual pieces given in the catalogue below. 1. Bowls Forms vary from hollowed rims to flanged rims (the commonest), and there are types with thickened and sometimes everted rims, as well as simple straight-sided forms with only a slight thickening at the top. They have been classified into four main types, but there is much variation in rim forms, sometimes making it difficult to assign a form to a particular class. B1 Hollowed rims; 9 plus 2 decorated, Fig. 2. B2 Flanged; 26 plus 16 decorated, Figs 3-4. B3 Simple with eversion and sometimes an inner ridge; 14 plus 7 decorated, Fig. 5. B4 Straight sided with slight bulge at the top; 8 and 0 decorated, Fig. 6. 2. Jars (cooking pots) Four main forms were identified. CP1 Flat topped and hollowed, similar to some jug rims; 11, plus 4 decorated all having an applied thumbed strip. One vessel had additional decoration of impressed rosettes, Fig. 6. CP2 Plain flat top, occasionally squared or developed into a rib; 20, plus 2 decorated, Fig. 6. CP3 Everted with a hollow on the inner slope 14 (some may be jugs), Fig. 7. CP4 Everted or flanged rims; 4, of which 1 is decorated, Fig. 7. 3. Jugs Jugs are a less common form at Ely. Most fall into two types. J1 Simple neck type; 8, only 1 decorated, Fig. 7. J2 Neck with one horizontal ridge; 14, Fig. 7. Twelve small fragments were not classified, of them four had rounded rims, six were flat, and two hollowed. 4. Handles Eight types of handle were identified, being in four forms with a variety of decorated strap handles, Fig. 8. Most are likely to come from jugs, but some large jars also had handles. H1 Simple rod form; 7. H2 Rope twist; 2. H3 Plain strap; 10, 2 had glaze. H4 Strap handles with knife decoration of single stabs; 4, all glazed. H5 Strap decorated with round holes in single row; 2, 1 with additional thumbing. H6 Strap with multiple stabbing; 6. H7 Strap with thumbing, no stabbing; 2. H8 Straight handles; 3, 2 glazed. 5. Other forms Figure 9. Small quantities of curfews were found. They had decoration of wavy lines and thumbed-ribs. Holes were 1 cm wide. There were also ridge tiles with cox-comb decoration and basting dishes glazed internally. One cistern was recovered with a large spout 8 cm in length and 2 cm internal diameter (external 4.5 cm). 5 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 4 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Table 2 Sample sherd numbers of Ely fabric with glaze. Context Oxidized Reduced Total Glazed Total Glazed 632 214 42 (20%) 111 19 (17%) 642 30 9 (30%) 26 11 (42%) 650 26 10 (38%) 26 3 (21%) 681 76 8 (11%) 19 7 (37%) Total 346 69 (20%) 182 40 (22%) 6. Bases Figure 9. Most bases were plain, but a few had single or triple finger-impressions at spaced intervals. Occasionally decoration was made with knife slashes, either continuously or in intermittent groups of slashes. DATING OF THE ELY POTTERY INDUSTRY Ely fabrics seem to be identical with material previously known from Kings Lynn and published as Grimston Software ware (Clarke and Carter 1977, 186-91). It has subsequently been observed that Grimston is an unlikely source for this fabric, since it has not been found there in spite of numerous excavations (Little in Leah 1994, 86). The published Lynn forms, especially the stabbed handles, and the fabric descriptions (Clarke and Carter 1977, 197, fig 78), exactly match material from Ely. The Ely kilns continued production until the 15th century, but Grimston Software ware at Lynn was found mainly in Period I (1100-1250), declining in Period II (1250-1350). This is almost certainly explained by the rise of the glazed Grimston industry producing fine wares that would have eclipsed the poorer quality Ely material. Excavations at the White Hart, Ely in 1992 produced some Ely wares (called fabric B1, Jones 1994, 126-8; fig. 11 nos. 1-13). There was no internal dating evidence. No absolute dating was found with material from Forehill, so dates have to be deduced from stratified associations and context. The associated pottery types suggest that Ely pottery was in use from the 12th to the 15th century. It occurs in some of the earliest levels of the site, along with all three standard forms of Saxon-Norman sherds (but mainly St Neots). These are generally reckoned to cease by the end of the 12th century. This agrees with the evidence from Kings Lynn, mentioned above. The date is consistent with the reference to pottereslane at Ely in 1280, when the industry was presumably well established. The fabric continues with very little change until the 15th century. At the late date it occurs with Surrey Ware (Tudor Green), Raeren stonewares, and late Grimston wares. Ely rim forms were examined for chronologically useful changes. Every rim in each class (Bowls B1-B4 etc.) was listed on a data-base along with its estimated context date, and arranged in chronological order. The frequency of each type per century was examined. The analysis is summarized in Table 3 in terms of the date range and average date of each form. The average date is a measure of the validity of the date range; if the average fell at the higher end of the range, then more samples were of a later date, and possibly some of the few early samples have dates that should be reassessed or have little significance. It was found that the industry was very conservative and there were few changes in forms over nearly 400 years. The only significant changes were in the use of decoration. Thumbing, especially on applied strips, is early, mostly 13th century. On bowls, decoration is mainly a 15th century feature. Decoration occurs primarily as incised motifs, most notably as patterns on the bowl rims, frequently in some form of continuous wave or a band of stabbing. Stabbing also occurs as a decoration on jug handles where it reduces the likelihood of cracking during the production stages of drying and firing. Other fabrics Grimston Figure 10. Sherds from the kilns at Grimston, Norfolk (Jennings 1981, 50-60; Leah 1994), occur at Ely (51, 0.7%). Most of them are in the standard fine grey sandy fabric with highly translucent green glaze often containing flecks of brown. The fabric occurs less commonly in an oxidized buff or pink-red colour. Decoration consists of various arrangements of brown slip bands, some rouletted, as well as face jugs with very small handles (arms) around the top. Some of the material is rather poor quality; Ely is near enough to Grimston to receive seconds, especially in view of the rough character of the later material produced at Ely. Most of the Grimston sherds found at Ely seem to date from the floruit of production, in the 14th century, but there are some sherds of the 15th century with a denser glaze and yellow flower motifs. Table 3 Date range of Ely pottery forms. Form Plain Decorated Date range Average Comment date Bowls B1 9 12-15 1377 no change B2 23 13-late15 1328 no change B2 15 14-late 15 1410 mainly 15th B3 14 late 13-late 15 1383 no change B4 8 13-late 15 1429 no change Pots & jars CP1 13 13-late 15 1318 no change CP2 18 13-late 15 1316 no change CP3 15 13-15 1346 no change Jugs J I 7 late 13-15 1288 no change J 2 14 late 13-late 15 1373 no change Handles H1 7 late 13-15 1367 no change H3 10 late 13-15 1405 no change? H4-6 12 13-late 15 1375 mainly 14-15 Glazed Grimston ware first occurred at Castle Acre in the late 12th century (Milligan in Coad and Streeten 1982, 225-6). At Kings Lynn highly decorated Grimston wares occurred mainly during the 14th and 15th centuries (Clarke and Carter 1977, 206-8), and late Grimston vessels have dense glazing. Jars were not glazed until later (Clarke & Carter 1977, 233-5). The chronology is summarised by Little showing the change in forms from 1100-1530. Handles with multiple ridges and twisted rod form are late types. Applied white slip, often in the form of flowers, giving a yellow appearance are characteristic of the period after 1400 (Little in Leah 1994, 87-90). At Norwich, Grimston sherds were found only in small quantities in levels associated with a fire of 1507 (Little in Leah 1994, 91). Reduced sandy wares Figure 1, 8-12. Reduced sandy wares were fairly common at Ely (437 sherds, 6 %). The fabric is different from Grimston, having mainly sand in the ceramic matrix with very few or no white grits. The colour is frequently a reduced black, but sometimes brown or grey. It is very thin and hard, and always much thinner than Grimston. Sherds in this fabric were assigned a Grimston provenance in the 1977 Kings Lynn report, being called unglazed Grimston (Clarke and Carter 1977, 191-6). Excavations at Pot Row, Grimston, produced a similar material, described as Unglazed Grimston Ware (Little in Leah 1994, 80, 84). A Grimston provenance for much of the 1977 Lynn pottery was doubted by Little (ibid., 87, 89). The fabric is not very similar to the fine sandy (generally grey) fabric of glazed Grimston vessels, but more like the reduced sandy material known from Blackborough End, Middleton (Rogerson and Ashley 1985). This site is near to Grimston and a north-west Norfolk source is likely for the Ely material, since coarse wares of this type are unlikely to travel very far. The forms at Ely are almost entirely jars, and are closely paralleled from, Kings Lynn, Norwich and from sites excavated at Grimston. The fabric occurs in the earliest levels at Forehill. Essex red wares Fine quality red wares (jugs) come from a variety of Essex sources, most probably Hedingham (Huggins 1972) and Colchester (Cunningham 1982; Cotter 2000). With sgraffito and Mill Green Ware (four sherds, (Pearce et al. 1982)), the total was 499 sherds, or 6 %. Sgraffito ware, commonly called Cambridge sgraffito from the place of its first recognition (Bushnell and Hurst 1952) was represented. There is no evidence that it was made at Cambridge and it is has the fine Essex-type fabric. It has now been found throughout Cambridgeshire and north Essex. Many more decorations are known than those published and the fabric needs characterization by spectroscopy. Lyveden ware The deserted village site of Lyveden, Northants, produced a pink shelly fabric, often soapy with shells up to 2mm (Steane 1967; Bryant and Steane 1969). Sometimes the shells are leached out giving a corky surface. A grey reduced form of the fabric is known. Glazed jugs are decorated with a yellow slip of stripes and grill-stamped blobs, probably made at nearby Stanion (Bellamy 1983). The fabric produced at Stanion is similar to Lyveden, but with very fine oolitic grits. At Forehill, 38 Lyveden sherds were identified (0.5%). Toynton fabrics. Toynton, on the Lincolnshire northern fen-edge, produced jugs in a grey fabric with pink surfaces, often decorated with brown applied strips (Healey 1975; MacCarthy and Brooks 1988, 261). Only 12 sherds were recovered. Bourne wares Kilns at Bourne, Lincolnshire, produced a range of fabrics, the best known, called Bourne D has a pink-orange fabric with a very smooth finish and small white calcareous inclusions. Sherds sometimes have a light green to yellow and brown glaze (Healey 1969; 1975) and sometimes large thumb presses. The dates of this fabric at Kings Lynn were 15th to 16th century, where it occurs with stonewares (Clarke and Carter 1977, 237). At Forehill 37 sherds (0.5%) were identified, also in late levels. Yorkshire wares Fine jug-sherds of Scarborough ware from Yorkshire were found at Ely among the earlier levels (15). Two fabrics are known, both with a glaze that is normally a dark olive green. Phase 1, is a fine off-white, slightly pink ware, and Phase 2, has a silty white fabric. The date range is 13th to early 14th century (Farmer and Farmer 1982). Most sherds have the standard dark, olive-green glaze. Variant decorations and glazes were found in several contexts with a clear orange glaze over patterns of raised brown iron spots that are often slightly streaked. Vertical raised ribs of slip are another decorative feature. It is known that Scarborough pottery was exported into ports along all of Eastern England and Scotland from Aberdeen to Canterbury and farther round the English Channel, as well as across the North Sea to Norway (MacCarthy and Brooks 1988, 95). The Ely material would have come via Kings Lynn. Continental sherds Continental fine wares occurred in small quantities only. Identified sherds came from France (Picardy (1) and North French micaceous fabrics (1)), Flanders (green glazed over a slip (3)), and from Haffner, Germany (2). These compliment the imported sherds recently found at Kings Lynn, where many more fabrics have been identified. It is interesting that Flanders and Haffner fabrics found at Ely were not noticed at Lynn (Hall forthcoming), suggesting 7 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 6 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS that more types of imported sherds are yet to be identified at both places. Imported German stonewares, although not found in large amounts are important dating markers (63 sherds, 0.8%). Most of them are the early types from Siegburg, Langerwehe and Raeren, dating from the 15th and early 16th centuries (Hurst et al. 1986). Late fabrics Post-medieval sherds (16th and 17th century) consisted mainly of glazed red earthenwares (GRE), almost certainly of local origin (887, 11%). Additionally there were a few (10) of probable Dutch origin. These last are to be distinguished from local GREs in being slightly better made and having a lustrous glaze. One sherd of maiolica was found, a base with horizontal blue bands, possibly of Dutch origin. There were 25 sherds of green-glazed Surrey ware (Tudor Green, a white fabric with dense green glaze, 15th to 16th century). One in context [490] was from a ring-vase that was probably used for lighting (Fig. 12). Babylon ware (113 sherds, 1%) is the name given to a late Ely fabric (16th to 17th century), being named after a site near the Maltings, as explained above. It is a red earthenware often with a dark brown or black lustrous glaze, small cups and multi-handled tygs being a common form. CONCLUSIONS The Forehill site produced a large quantity of stratified sherds, that has enabled a type series to be established. It forms the first large undisturbed sequence ever excavated from Ely, dating primarily from the 12th to 16th centuries. It is dominated by material from the nearby production centre. Although no pottery kilns were discovered at the site, the assemblage is likely to represent the full range of material to have been produced at the Ely pottery kilns, and used by the nearby community. In this respect the site is more useful than study on say a single kiln, that would perhaps have produced only a limited type of pottery for a limited period and also yield unrepresentative one-off forms and overfired fabrics. The medieval kilns began production in the 12th century and continued until the 15th, when they were superseded by various types of red earthenware, some made elsewhere in Ely (at Babylon and near Broad Street). Although the quality of much of the material was not high, the pottery had a long life, presumably because of the political and economic dominance of Ely monastery and bishopric. Ely owned much of the Fenland and southern Cambridgeshire and was able to control what products went to its estates. It also controlled the Ouse, the chief southern Fenland waterway, and so had influence on what went to Cambridge from the north. Hence the distribution of Ely wares is greater than might be expected from the quality of the material. The fabric is found on all Fenland sites and at Cambridge and elsewhere in the south. North of Ely, it occurs at Kings Lynn, where it was called Grimston Software ware. Ely wares have been noted in southern Lincolnshire and west Norfolk (Hilary Healey and Andrew Rogerson, pers. comm. 1996). Further study will probably show that they only occur in these regions at the early dates, being subjected to the same Grimston competition as Kings Lynn. The evidence of the fine wares from Ely can be linked with data from Cambridge and Kings Lynn to study regional trade routes. The importance of Kings Lynn as a port is well known and illustrated by the occurrence of fine quality decorated jugs from Scarborough and northern Europe (Clarke and Carter 1977, 225-32). It is possible that fine red wares from Essex arrived at Lynn by sea via Colchester. However, from the regional pattern of recovery it can be shown that the route was landward to Cambridge and then by the Fenland waterways to Lynn. This is proved from the large quantities of Essex red wares that occur in Cambridge (36% at Benet Court, Edwards and Hall 1998, 156), with a smaller amount at Ely Forehill (6%) and yet smaller quantities at Lynn (1%; Hall forthcoming). Even allowing for any differences in the date range of the sites, and that the three sites compared are only single samples of each town, the differences are striking. Had the trade route been by sea and via the Fenland to Cambridge, then the amounts of sherds recovered would be the other way round, Lynn and Ely keeping more of the fine wares before the residue reached Cambridge. This assertion needs analysis of larger number of collections for verification. The reverse effect can be seen with the fine quality Scarborough wares. At Lynn they amount to 4%, falling to 0.7% at Ely, with none so far identified at Cambridge. Continental sherds found at Ely probably came via Lynn; they occur in small numbers, apart from stonewares. Lincolnshire vessels from Bourne and Toynton presumably came across the Fenland waterways. Apart from the few Lyveden sherds, material from the Midlands is absent, as has been found at other southern Fenland sites. Lyveden vessels probably came via the hithe at Yaxley, which traded into the Midlands. In conclusion, it can be seen that the Forehill site was occupied from the 12th century to the present, although the 1996 excavations produced only small quantities of post- medieval material, apart from one context. The medieval assemblage is dominated by local wares made at Ely, but has a significant number of imports from Yorkshire and the Continent that demonstrate the wide trading connections of Ely by way of the port at Kings Lynn. CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATED POTTERY Figure 1 9 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 8 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Saxo-Norman St Neots Ware Dark shelly fabric (Hurst 1956). 1. Everted, slightly hollowed jar rim from early ditch [1837], 12th century, (Hurst 1956, fig. 4 no. 32; fig. 8 no. 1). Other similar rims occurred in [632, abraded] [860], [1263], [1425], [975]; a simple jar rim [904]; bowls [1832], [1051]. Late St Neots pink ware bowl rim [632], and in [770] was a pink hollowed everted jar rim, slightly sandy. Thetford Ware Hard sandy fabric, grey and dark (Hurst 1957). 2. Jug or jar rim in hard grey ware with three rows of rouletted decoration from [1414]. 3. Rim of small jar, dark grey ware from [1414]. 4. Body sherd of large storage jar with thumbed lattice rib decoration, [1414]. Grey fabric with a few grits and a dark surface (Hurst 1957, fig. 8 no. 1). Stamford Ware Hard white-cream fabric with clear yellow-green glaze (Kilmurry 1980). 5-6. Two jug rims with light green external glazing, from [1832] and [1836]. Three sherds of Developed Stamford ware (13th century) were identified, having dark green copper gaze, [203], [890], [1831] a strap handle. Early medieval wares Lyveden 7. Bowl rim, thick handmade sherd, thumbed on upper surface, with large coarse shells, reduced fabric, from [1133]; similar sherds came from [681], [934] and [1051]. Lyveden glazed fine wares with a pink core, slightly reduced corky surface and multiple plain yellow slip strips came from [1051]. Grill- stamped blobs and stripes were found in [904], [1051], [1233], [1271]. Plain sherds were found in [780], [632], [624], [681], [1051]. Reduced sandy wares Black and dark grey sandy wares, all the 17 rims recovered were jars in a thin hard fabric, cf. Clarke and Carter (1977), figs. 82-3, called Grimston ware. The vessels illustrated below are all jars. 8. Roughly made vessel, dark grey inside. This is the commonest form, [268], (Clarke and Carter 1977, fig. 82 no. 4). Similar sherds came from contexts [217], [218], [234], [755], [860], [1004], [1051] (2), [1135], [1177], [1185] (2), [1221], [1279]. 9. A similar rim form to no. 8, with finger tip decoration on the upper surface, [234], cf Clarke and Carter (1977), fig. 82 nos. 2 & 11. 10. Dark fabric with a few oxidized patches, partly green glazed inside and out [1221]. 11. Dark coloured jar, [1454]. 12. Jar with rilled decoration, dark grey outer surface, [743]. Not drawn; two simple rounded slightly everted rim forms [1836]. Ely fabric Dark core with oxidized and dark surfaces revealing white quartzose grits. Fig. 1 Saxo-Norman and 13th century wares. Scale 1:4 Bowls. B1 Plain hollow-rim type (rough hand made) 13. The earliest form of Ely bowl, small, dark grey core inside, buff-grey outside with lightly incised grooves; coarse gritty fabric, [1414], 12th century. Occurs with a St Neots base and Thetford wares (nos. 3 & 4). 14. Buff-pink surfaces & dark core, outside slightly blackened. Fairly large white quartzose grits. Thin, patchy internal green glaze, [632]. 15. Very shallow unglazed bowl, less gritty, buff surfaces, [945]; similar [1265]. 16. Hollowed internally, but the rim section is rather square, buff and darkened, [1270]. Similar forms are from [632] pink; [1249] pink; [593] buff and darkened outside. 17. Rough finish, hollowed internally, but upper rim rather pointed in section; buff and darkened externally, [1229]. Similar [1071] outer surface buff, and pink internally. Note the forms 15-17 are probably not as shallow as depicted in the illustrations. Decorated forms of B1. 18. Square-rim type, with only slight hollowing; dark buff inner surface and pink-buff outer surface. Stabbed decoration on inner flange of rim. On outside two rows of zig-zag and one horizontal line below, [992]. 19. Rim form as no. 15 pink-buff; decoration of wavy line on upper rim surface, [382]. 20. Bowl rim with a hole in the side [made before firing?]. Fig. 2 Ely Ware bowls, form B1. Scale 1:4 B2 Flanged rims. Only a few have straight-forward nearly horizontal forms, most flanges being very sloping and devolved with an internal rib. This type is the commonest form. A few are hollowed. 21. Pink, slightly darkened outside, with a little internal glaze, [674]. Similar but dark grey, [902]. 22. Flanged rim with slight hollowing and pointed top. Pink with dark core, [428]. 23. Flanged with square finish. Pink with dark core, [460]. 24. Flanged rim with internal rib; dark grey core and internal surface, buff outside, [1059]; similar [946], [632], [632] buff-pink. 25. Internal rib with raised outer rim; coarse gritty fabric, pink-buff surfaces with darkened exterior, [222]; similar [267]. 26. Buff inside, darkened outside, internal green glaze on the base, [1229]; similar forms were found in [956], [978] pink buff throughout, [549], [632] buff. 27, 28. Two rims with a flange of triangular section, buff inside, darkened outside, both from [904]; similar [890], [597], [476]. 11 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 10 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 3 Ely Ware bowls, form B2. Scale 1:4 Decorated forms of B2 29. Round stab holes, dark core all surfaces buff, [1269]. Similar forms but with squarer rim sections from [632] (2), [675], slashed holes [1270], plus [730] that is rounded and decorated with slashed holes. 30. Pink buff surfaces, small holes, [755]. Similar decoration was found at Kings Lynn, called Grimston Software, mainly in Period I which finished in 1250, cf. Clarke and Carter (1977), fig. 70 no. 22; fig. 90 nos. 7, 8, 10. Variants of Ely forms came from [1130/2], [622], [383], [391]; also slashed holes from [1270], [280] pink surfaces. 31. Buff, [1071]; small hole type as no. 30. 32. Simple everted rim with round holes, [1464]; similar from [1452]. Wavy lines 33. Flanged rim bowl with wavy line decoration on upper part of the rim, hole made after firing [681]; similar from [534]. Fig. 4 Ely Ware bowls, form B2, decorated. Scale 1:4 B3 Simple bowl forms with slight thickening inside and out and sometimes an inner ridge. 34. Rim with lip inside and out; dark core, buff-pink surfaces, [281]. 35. Rim rounded outside with rounded inner lip. Fairly well made, dark core, pink inside and darkened outside, [632]. There are many variants, some with rim forms similar to no. 34, but all inward sloping. Colours vary from pink to grey and darkened; another from [632] looks similar to St Neots Ware until touched or looked at closely. Other rims from [632] 2, [564], [470], [1135], [549]. 36. Rim with a square section, darkened both sides, [632]. Variants are sometimes more rounded and have a more pronounced inner lip, [1270], [632], [632]. Decorated forms of B3. 37. Thumbed decoration on upper surface; dark core, grey inside, darkened outside, roughly finished, [1830]. Similar forms from [1051], [632]. 38. Square rim with upper thumbing, grey surfaces, not very gritty, [1135]. 39. Form with rib on the outside and thumbed inner lip. Buff inside, darkened outside, [1233]. 40. Bowl with squared outside flange and decorated with an internal wavy line, [863]. 13 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 12 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 5 Ely Ware bowls, form B3. Scale 1:4 B4 Straight sided bowl rims with simple upper bulge. 41. Simple thickened rim, dark core, buff with slight darkening on outside, [428]; similar [720], [428], two. 42. Shallow flat bowl or dish, pink inside, buff out, with patchy, muddy light green glaze on the bottom, [319]. Variants [782], [904] with green glaze outside, unusually transparent. Jars CP1 Flat topped and hollowed, similar to jugs 43. Large piece of a large jar with a strap handle. Flat topped rim with a hollow except near the handle. One vertical thumbed applied strip (presumably there were others) and three impressed rosettes. Two slight decorative rills were made before the strip was applied. Buff surfaces, outer flaked away on the lower parts. Patchy light green glaze on top outside and lower inside, [269]. Similar with applied strip and glaze [217]. 44. Larger version with applied strip and no glaze, darkened buff, [1114]; another near identical sherd from [549]. 45. Small jar rim with slight hollow. Dark buff inside and dark & sooted outside, [1004]. Similar variants, 191, 603, 632, 655, 681 (2), 696, 1185, 1221, 1229, 1454, 1629. CP2 Plain flat top, occasionally squared or developed into a rib 46. Slightly squared finish, both surfaces grey-buff, [1627]. 47. Internal rib, grey-buff, blackened outside, [1009], cf. Clarke and Carter (1977), fig. 79 no. 15, from early Period II, 1250-1350. Similar rims came from [467], [632], [904], [1133], [1135] (2), [904], [1135], [756], [1265]; [1464/1452] has finger presses on top and on the outer edge. 48. Simple flat top with small triangular stabbed decoration on the upper surface, buff-pink inside, blackened outside [904]. Similar, but without decoration, 632, 675, 1349, 1454. Fig. 6 Ely Ware bowls and jars, forms B4 (41-2), CP1 (43-5) and CP2 (46-8). Scale 1:4 CP3 Everted rim with a hollow on the inner slope. 49. Buff, very slight internal hollow, [681]; variants [1133]; [1134]. 50. Hollowed rim, well made on a wheel, pink surfaces, [881]. Similar (two may not be Ely fabric) [234], [881], [300], [355], [600], [645], [730], [766], [1027]. CP4 Everted or flanged rims 51. Squared flange, irregular external rilled decoration; buff and darkened, [904]. Similar in [905] with more developed flange and part of vertical applied thumbed strip. 52. Everted rim with finger tipped decoration on the outer edge, [100], another, [1138]. 52 a. Body and base sherd to illustrate the squat forms typical of Ely jars. Greyish fabric with small amount of green glaze on upper outer surface. Jugs Jugs are less common. Small fragments (12) were not classified, of them four had rounded tops [309], [905], [336], [393] and six flat, [905], [905], [632], [632], [632], [1132], two hollowed flat [544], [1146]. J1 Simple neck 53. Well developed rim with small holes of stabbed decoration on the upper surface (the only one decorated), [632]. Variants [607], [1146]. 54. Slightly-formed rim; others similar, [1130], [632], [330], [780], [549]. J2 A single horizontal ridge below the neck 55. Flat topped rim and jug lip, pink- buff outside, buff inside, patchy green glaze [1223]; variants, [313], [330], [1185], [1332], [1229], [602], [632], [1229], [440], [1350] plus two with flat tops slightly hollowed, [1185], [600]. 56. Slightly formed rim, pink-buff surfaces, partly leached like Lyveden, [1114]. 15 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 14 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 7 Ely Ware jars and jugs, forms CP3 (49-50), CP 4 (51-2), J1 (53-4) and J2 (55-6). Scale 1:4 Handles Compare similar forms and decorations from Kings Lynn (Clarke and Carter 1977, fig. 78). H1 Simple rod 57. Buff surface, [1004]. Similar in pink and buff colours, [026], [330], [281], [1234], 1051, [992]. H2 Rope twist 58. Pink-buff surface partly glazed, [1229]; another in [632]. H3 Plain strap 59. Pink buff surface with partial glazing [330]; similar in pink, grey and dark colours [045], [597], [860], [1113], [470], [905], [995], [255], [194]. H4 Strap with knife single stabbed decoration 60. Pink-buff, partly glazed dull muddy-green, [946]; similar [330], [632], [118]. H5 Strap with round holes in single row 61. Thumbing subsequently stabbed, [820]. H6 Strap with multiple stabbing 62. Buff, [234]; additional [632], [234], [465]. 63. Pink, partly glazed, two rows of central slashes with both edges thumbed, [330]. 64. Grey, central row of stabbed holes and a row of sideways slashes on both edges, [1831]. H7 Strap with thumbing and no slashes (none drawn). Dark central thumbing and two side rows [1830]; double row of thumbing each side on plain handle, also [1830]. H8 Straight handles 65. Buff and dark surface, with hooked end, [1629]. 66. Straight handle with one rib, dark fabric, glazed, [1234]; another in [632]. Fig. 8 Ely Ware handles. Scale 1:4 Other forms and decorations of Ely fabric 67. Ridge tile in coarse grey fabric with cocks comb decoration, [1135]. 68. Basting dish, blackened outside, glazed inside with thumbed rim, [734]; others with no thumbing were found in [681], [1195], [682], [632]. 69. Band of rouletted decoration below a cordon, [895]. 70. Base decorated with slashes, [1522]. Bases are usually plain; thumbing decoration is the most common, either continuously or in spaced groups of impressions. 71. Jug base in standard dark fabric, thick rills inside, dark and buff surfaces, [1312]. 72. Saggar or ridge tile, buff surfaces, [720]. 73. Part of curfew with wavy incised line decoration and thumbed rib over the top, blackened inside, buff-pink outside, [234]. Other similar pieces occurred in [1629],[755]. Irregular fragments with a hole 1 cm diameter are probably from curfews, [1202], [1203]. 74. Jug fragment with hole near the rim, [218]. 17 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 16 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 9 Ely Ware miscellaneous forms (75-80) and other. Scale 1:4 Grimston 75. Parts of face jug with plain strap handle and large panels of green and brown tear- drop decoration. The base is thumbed and the outside where not glazed is oxidized to a buff and pink- buff colour; [1629]. Similar to Jennings (1981), 52-3, figs 18-19. Small handles (arms) from other face-jugs were recovered. Another unglazed base with two isolated thumb-presses on the edge was found in [709]. 76. Part of a jug with vertical brown stripes with single rows of multiple green leaves (blobs) between, [632]. Compare Clarke and Carter (1977), fig. 91 no. 19, that has two rows of leaves. There were several sherds decorated with multiple brown stripes, as Jennings (1981), fig. 19 nos. 345, 346. Rim forms were standard, as published. 77. A handle fashioned like a horse- head, [1454]. Possibly an Ely copy of Grimston, since the fabric is rather gritty and there are no parallels in the Grimston sherds from Kings Lynn or Norwich. 78. Bowl with thick yellow internal glaze, [549]. This type of glaze occurs in Period III at Kings Lynn, 1350-1500. 79. Yellow flower petal with brown lines and brown petal edges, [330]. A late type, cf Clarke and Carter (1977), fig. 92 no. 2, 1350-1500; Jennings (1981), fig. 29 no. 360. 80. Part of a jug with scratched decoration, oxidized inside, [1252]. Other medieval wares 81. Fluted jug handle, complete with rim. Off white ware with green glaze, 13th-14th century, [1375]. 82. Scarborough ware. Off-white with some pink areas; rim and fluted rod handle, fairly dense green glaze, [716], cf. Clarke and Carter (1977), fig. 94 no. 11. Among the other sherds of this fabric were a chafing dish with internal green glaze on a pink fabric in [642]. Fig. 10 Grimston Wares (75-80) and other fabrics (81-2). Scale 1:4 Essex red wares The illustrated sherds are probably all from the Colchester region. 83. Almost complete large Colchester jug with groups of triple thumb presses around the base (four or five sets) and white-yellow fleur de lys decoration spaced between two horizontal bands. Fine orange ware. Patchy clear glaze, mostly on upper parts with a few tiny spots on base, [586]; cf. McCarthy and Brooks (1988), no. 2147, 15th century. Among other small undrawn sherds there are four frilly bases and five with white bands. 84. A complete small jug. Pink-red coarse fabric with a very few white grits, possibly from Essex. White slip on most of the top except under the handle, covered with a clear very light green glaze, only over the slip, mostly appearing yellow, [198]. 85. Body sherd of a large jug in fine red ware with white slip fleur de lys motifs, [312]. 86. Coarse plain red-ware jug rim, [980]. Five other jug rims were recovered. 87. Jug rim with patchy exterior glaze, [709]. 88. Sgraffito, fine red ware. Two fitting pieces with curved motifs cut through slip. This decoration is not noted in Bushnell and Hurst (1952). Thin clear glaze with occasional green speckles; small part of body without slip exposed, [624]. Not drawn; 12 sherds (two reduced other fine red wares) of micaceous Hedingham fabrics with a variety of green or orange glazes, yellow and brown slip bands, [217], [756], [995], [1091], [1027 (2)], [1135], [1223], [1229], [1375], [1529]. Mill Green fabrics, 5 sherds; red wares with blue core, all-over slip, strips of brown decorated with white dots, [607], [230 (2)], [1053 (2)]. Late sandy wares 89. Bowl in coarse red sandy fabric, blackened on the outside, [311]. 90. Dark grey coarse sandy ware bowl with everted flanged rim, 15th century, source unknown [880]. Other 15th- century flanged type reduced rims were recovered, all seem to be bowls. 19 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 18 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 11 Essex red fabrics (8388) and sandy wares (8990). Scale 1:4 91. Jar with cordon and incised line decorated with a triangle, 15th century? Sandy fabric with a few grits, blackened buff surfaces, [736] and fits [705]. 92. Fine grey sandy jug sherd with fir- tree decoration, 15th to 16th century, [465]. 93. Fine grey sandy ware indented cup, 15th century, [691], cf. Haslam 1978 fig. 19 no. 25. Bourne D 94. Large jug rim in standard fabric. Partly glazed with clear slightly green, glossy, [880]. 95. Jug with upper rim fluted, large thumb print decoration, [880]. Compare Clarke and Carter (1977), fig. 105 no. 23, 15th to 16th century. Other rims were found in [709], [650], both with some glaze; a plain hollowed rim occurred in [026]. Stoneware 96. Upper half of Langerwehe jug, [463]. Dark fabric with thin patchy iron glaze inside and out, dull finish. The inside is coated with hard water scale. Compare Hurst et al. (1986), fig. 91 no. 277, 15th century. Maiolica 97. Rather coarse cream earthenware base with three horizontal bands of underglaze blue, [314], cf. Jennings (1981), fig. 91 nos. 1451, 1454. Post-medieval wares 98. Handle in glazed red earthenware with clear glaze and green patches where handle is fixed, [123]. 99. Glazed red earthenware jar, external brown glaze [123]. Imported wares None drawn Flemish (formerly called Aardenburg). Three sherds with white slip and green glaze patches; [993] thin grey sandy ware, [194] red fabric, from [855] a flat piece of red fabric, cut into shape, sgraffito decoration, form & purpose unknown. French North French micaceous. Fine grey ware with some mica, similar to Hedingham fabric, glazed with a red strip, [1153]. Picardy. Fine white ware with very occasional small red flecks in fabric. Decoration of light brown slip strips, light clear green glaze over all, [904]. German Haffner, near Cologne. Rather coarse sandy off-white fabric, glazed green outside and yellow-green inside. Outside has incised parallel bands of decoration, 14th to 15th century. Two sherds probably from the same vessel, [440]. Fig. 12 Fifteenth century and later pottery. Scale 1:4 PETROGRAPHIC AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ELY FABRIC A full report by Alan Vince is held in archive. More samples have since been analysed (P. Spoerry, pers. comm.) and further material from other Ely sites is available. The following is therefore a summary of the first set of results. Samples of 21 sherds of medieval Ely fabric were analysed. The aims of the analysis were to provide an objective description of the petrological composition of the fabric, to establish whether or not there were internal variations in composition, and to test the hypothesis that these samples are representative of the Ely pottery industry, known through documentary sources. The samples were taken from three contexts: [650], 15th century, and [1830] and [1831], both 12th century. The pottery in contexts [1830] and [1831] is handmade, from unglazed jars whereas that from context [650] is glazed and includes jugs and jars as well as cooking pots. Only one vessel was definitely wheelthrown. Thin-section analysis distinguished two major fabrics. Fabric C (3 sherds), tempered with glauconitic sand (1/3 glauconite, 2/3 quartz). The other fabric was tempered with a mixed sand containing calcareous and quarztose inclusions. It was subdivided, mainly on the basis of grain size, into Fabric A (coarse grain, 10 samples) and Fabric B (fine grain, 7 samples). The samples were chemically analysed by spectroscopy for iron, calcium and minor elements. The three fabrics fell into clustered groups. The analyses suggested that the clays used for all three fabrics are Cretaceous. Fabric C clay is, however, different from that used in Fabrics A and B. The calcareous component of Fabrics A and B is likely to derive from Jurassic limestones. Since Ely has a complex geology, with outcrops of Kimmeridge Clay, and Cretaceous Greensand together with boulder clay and glacial sand, it is likely that all the components were locally available. A further programme of clay and sand sampling should establish clearly that the sampled groups were made at Ely. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Mary Alexander for provision of site data, Crane Begg and Andy Hall for the drawings, Norma Challands and assistants for pottery processing and Alan Vince for identification of imported wares, and for the spectrographic analyses of the Ely sherds. The Cambridge Archaeological Unit is grateful to English Heritage for funding the site analyses and for a grant towards the publication of this report. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, M. 2003, A medieval and post-medieval street frontage: investigations at Forehill Ely, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 92, 135-182. Alexander, M. et al., forthcoming, Ely Broad Street Excavation Report. Bellamy, B. 1983, Medieval pottery kilns at Stanion, Northamptonshire Archaeol 18, 153-61. Brears, P. C. D. 1967, Excavations at Potovens, near Wakefield, Post-Medieval Archaeol 1, 3-43. Bryant, G. F. and Steane J. M. 1969, Excavations at the deserted medieval settlement at Lyveden J Northampton Mus Art Gall 5, 3-50. Bushnell, G. H. S. and Hurst, J. G. 1952, Some further examples of sgraffito ware from Cambridge, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 46, 21-6. Clarke, H. and Carter A. 1977, Excavations in Kings Lynn 1963- 1970, Soc Med Archaeol Monogr 7. Coad J. G. and Streeten, A. D. F. 1982, Excavations at Castle Acre Castle, Norfolk, 1972-77, Archaeol J 139, 199-227. Cotter, J. P. 2000, Post-Roman Pottery from Excavations in Colchester 1971-85. Colchester Archaeol Rep 7. Cunningham, C. M. 1982, The medieval and post-medieval pottery in P. J. Drury, Aspects of the origins and development of Colchester Castle, Archaeol J 139, 358-80. Edwards, D and Hall, D. 1997, Medieval pottery from Cambridge Proc Camb Anti. Soc, 86, 153-168. Farmer, P. G. and Farmer, N. C. 1982, The dating of the Scarborough ware pottery industry, Medieval Ceram 6, 66-86. Hall, D. 1996, The Fenland Project 10: The Isle of Ely and Wisbech, East Anglian Archaeol 79. Hall, D. in Hall, A. 2002, A late 16th Century Pit Group from Pembroke College, Cambridge, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 91, 89-102. Hall, D. forthcoming, The pottery from Raynham House, Kings Lynn; report by P. Cope-Faulkner for Archaeological Project Services, Heckington, Lincs. Haslam, J. 1978, Medieval Pottery (Shire Publications). Healey, R. H. 1969, Bourne Ware Lincolnshire Hist Archaeol 4, 108-9. Healey, R. H. 1975, Medieval and Sub-Medieval Pottery in Lincolnshire, unpubl. M. Phil. thesis, University of Nottingham. Holton-Krayenbuhl, A. 1989,Excavations on the Paddock, Ely, Cambs, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 77, 120-3. Huggins, R. M. 1972, Monastic Grange and outer close excavations, Waltham Abbey, Essex, 1970-72, Essex Archaeol Hist 4, 30-127. Hurst, J. G. 1956, Saxo-Norman pottery in East Anglia: Part I St Neots Ware, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 49, 43-70. Hurst, J. G. 1957, Saxo-Norman pottery in East Anglia: Part II Thetford Ware, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 50, 29-60. Hurst, J. G., Neal, D. S. and van Beuningen, H. J. E. 1986, Pottery produced and traded in north-west Europe 1350-1650. 21 Medieval pottery from Forehill, Ely, Cambridgeshire 20 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Rotterdam Papers VI. Jennings, S. 1981, Eighteen centuries of pottery from Norwich, East Anglian Archaeol 13. Jones, A. 1994, Archaeological Excavations at the White Hart, Ely 1991-2, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 82, 113-37. Kilmurry, K. 1980, The pottery industry of Stamford, Lincs. c. AD850-1250, British Archaeol. Rep 84. Knight, M. 2000, Ely, West Fen Road, Proc Camb Antiq Soc 89, 93. Leah, M. 1994, The Late Saxon and Medieval Pottery Industry of Grimston, Norfolk: Excavations 1962-92, East Anglian Archaeol 64. MacCarthy, M. R. and Brooks, C. M. 1988, Medieval Pottery in Britain AD 900-1600 (Leicester UP). Pearce, J., Vince, A. G., and White, R., with Cunningham, C. M. 1982, A dated type series of London medieval pottery, Part I: Mill green ware, Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc 33, 266-98. Reaney, P. H. 1943, The Place-Names of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. Regan, R. 2002, Note in Proc Camb Antiq Soc 91, 143. Robinson, B. 1998, Note in Medieval Archaeol 42, 119. Rogerson, A. and Ashley, S. J. 1985, A medieval pottery production site at Blackborough End, Middleton, Norfolk Archaeol 39.2, 181-9. Steane, J. M. 1967, Excavations at Lyveden J Northampton Mus Art Gall 2, 1-37. David Hall, The Pinfold, Raunds Road, Hargrave, Wellingborough NN9 6BW Rsum Une srie de fouilles conduites par Mary Alexander pour Cambridge Archaeological Unit Forehill, Ely en 1996, a rvl un groupe de poteries utilises dans la ville du 12me au 15 me sicle. Cest la premire fois quun tel groupe de rfrence, originaire de la ville,est notre disposition. Le groupe majoritaire est constitu de ptes grossires, identifies comme provenant de lindustrie mdivale dEly. Les formes ont t catalogues et sont illustres. Ltendue de la distribution de la poterie dEly na pas encore t dtermine avec prcision, cependant la pte a t identifie dans du matriel fouill rcemment a Kings Lynn et sur des sites de Cambridge et ses environs. La pte a galement t reconnue par Hilary Healey dans le sud du Lincolnshire et par Andrew Rogerson dans louest du Norfolk. Zusammenfassung Ausgrabungen von Mary Alexander, Cambridge Archaeological Unit, im Jahre 1996 in Forehill, Ely, brachten eine Reihe Tpferwaren zutage, die in der Stadt vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert benutzt worden war. Dieses ist die erste fr verschiedene Tpfereiprodukte prototypische Sammlung von Scherben fr diese Stadt. Die Hauptgruppe besteht aus grobem Material und wurde als Produkt der mittelalterlichen Tpferindustrie in Ely identifiziert. Die Ely-Formen wurden bestimmt und zusammen mit anderem Material illustriert. Die Ware ist in Cambridgeshire, dem westlichen Norfolk und dem sdlichen Lincolnshire weit verbreitet. 22 Some late 12th- or early 13th-century great brick at Farnham Castle, Surrey Nicholas Riall SUMMARY The discovery of great bricks in the fabric of Farnham Castle, and dateable to before 1208, represents its first known use as a building material outside East Anglia in a context other than a tile kiln. INTRODUCTION The use of great brick as a building material is most often recognised as a feature of ecclesiastical buildings in Essex, with Coggeshall and Bradwell-juxta-Coggeshall amongst the best known (Drury 1981, 126; Ryan 1996, 22-9; Rodwell 1998, 59-114). Outside Essex, great brick is virtually unknown though this may have much to do with the similarity of this building material to Romano-British brick types and thus the potential for confusing the two materials. A further problem in Essex is that the rapid introduction of so-called Flemish bricks, manufactured either in Flanders or locally in East Anglia, has tended to obscure the part played by great brick in the early medieval use of ceramic building materials (Drury 1977, 83-86). The presence of great brick in ecclesiastical settings in Essex is generally dated to the second half of the 12th century although its use may 23 Some late 12th- or early 13th-century great brick at Farnham Castle, Surrey Fig. 1 Map of south east England and of Farnham, Surrey, showing the tile kilns and principal features of the medieval town. well have continued as late as c.1220 in the construction of the chapel of St Nicholas outside Coggeshall Abbey. Great brick is now also known to have been used in the construction of three roof tile kilns in West Surrey: the Borelli Yard and Farnham Park kilns at Farnham (Riall 1997 and Riall 2003 b) and the kiln at Guildford Castle-Palace (Riall forthcoming). Following the excavation of the Borelli Yard kiln it became possible to identify examples of great brick and roof tile used at Farnham Castle as products of that kiln. Farnham Castle was one of the principal manors of the bishops of Winchester throughout the medieval period. Here they built and maintained a substantial if relatively modest castle-cum-country house. The site has a number of interesting features including a motte surrounding a square keep which was demolished in c.1155. The earlier motte and keep were encased by a polygonal, five-towered, shell keep before the start of the 13th century (Thompson 1960a; Riall 2003a). It is from contexts within this shell keep that pieces of early brick and tile have been identified. Studies of the castle benefit from the survival of the manorial accounts, the pipe rolls of the bishops of Winchester. These documents, which survive with the occasional gap from the accounting year 1208/09 until late in the post-medieval period, record in detail the expenditure by the bishops and their servants on the castle and manor alongside the manorial income from agricultural produce, rents, fines and so on. From the first of these pipe rolls it is clear that ceramic roof tiles were in use on the castle roofs, although wooden shingles, thatch and lead, were also employed. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Fragments of Borelli-type roof tile and great brick is to be found scattered throughout the fabric of the towers of the shell-keep. The majority is in the internal walls of the East tower and they were also used in a hearth in the West Tower. These roof tiles were not, however, used as a roofing material on the shell keep. During the medieval period, these towers (more correctly termed turrets) seem always to have been roofed with shingles as shown by the following extracts from the pipe rolls, 1264/5 Wage of a mason working for two days (6d) and his helper (3d). Wage of a man cleaning the house(s) in the tower and a place where shall be put the new house for eleven and a half days by piece work (1s 8d). Nails for the gate of the tower (2d). Nails for repairs to the steps inside the tower, the boards bought for the room........ in the tower total (3 15s 5d), Wage of a carpenter making a room in the tower with beams and new repairs to the towers (turrets) by piece work (2 10s 3d). 4,250 shingles made for the work (12s 9d). Hooks and hinges (9d) for plastering the walls (6d). A century later shingles were still in use, 1355/6 2 towers (turrets) roofed with shingles (1s 6d). There was clearly a strong tradition for the production of shingles at Farnham. Details in the pipe rolls for 1208/9, 1209/10 and 1210/11 show quantities of timber and shingles being taken from Farnham to Winchester for the making of an inclaustrum (cloister). This may have been for the Cathedral but is as likely to refer to works at the nearby bishops palace at Wolvesey. By contrast, there were a number of buildings within the shell keep (these structures were always referred to in the pipe rolls as the houses of the castle) which were roofed with ceramic tiles, 1220 carriage of tiles for the repairs to the houses of the castle, 2d. The earliest reference to roof tiles occurs in the 1210/11 pipe roll when the expense of 8s 9d was recorded for the repair of the stables with tiles. Thereafter roof tiles, or the work of the tiler himself, are mentioned in most years. It is possible that an entry in the 1223/4 pipe roll for a John the Tiler, who Fig 2. Plan of the keep at Farnham Castle showing site of hearth in the West Turret. Medieval Ceramics 25, 2226, 2001 paid a fine of 6d for a piece of land, may be the tiler who operated the Borelli Yard tile kiln and carried out roofing work in the castle (Riall 1995a; Riall 2003b). He may have been a floor tiler but, at this period, there seems no reason to suppose this craft was being plied at Farnham as there is no documentary reference to clay floor tiles being laid at this date and certainly nothing in the archaeological record to suggest that they were being manufactured in the Farnham area. Earlier pipe rolls record, in 1215/16, the payment of a fine of 2s for land by the daughter of the tiler and, in 1216/17, a payment of 12d for the same reason by the son of the tiler. These may all relate to the same family and it may well be that by this date John the Tiler had been in business producing tiles and, perhaps occasionally, bricks from before 1208/9 (the date of the first episcopal pipe roll) and, furthermore, that this same man ran his business from the tilery at Borelli Yard. The original grant of land for the tilery is not recorded in the pipe rolls and it is presumed that this occurred before 1208. We may note, finally, a tantalising reference in the 1225/26 pipe roll to a chimney being made in the tower, that is within the shell keep, but we are offered no clue as to where this was located. THE BRICKS AND TILES Borelli Yard-type great bricks and tiles occur in four of the five shell keep turrets and in the rear-ward extension to the west turret where it was used in a fireplace. There does not seem to be any particular pattern to the use of this ceramic building material in the turrets other than as a leveling material within individual sections of the structure. One complete and one incomplete great brick occur in the entry tower in the north-west corner, beside a disused spiral stair. A further 45 pieces of brick and tile are to be found elsewhere in the shell keep apart from the material used in the fireplace. The East Turret has two forms of great brick and also flat roof tiles and ridge tiles incorporated into three internal wall faces along with pieces of great bricks used to form the draw-bar slot for the door. Great bricks and tiles again occur in the doorway and in the internal faces of the North Turret, with more in the internal face of the shell keep wall just to the west of the North Turret. The fireplace in the West Turret was set into the north wall and originally had coursed brick and tile on three sides. The hearth measures some 1.20 by 0.75 metres with the remaining fireback standing 0.40 metres high and up to 0.20 metres thick. The base of the fireplace was defined by stonework with a roll-moulding along the edge into which tile on-edge had been laid. Much of this hearth has now been lost and the principal remnant is the hearthback (Fig. 3). This consists of three courses of great brick with some tile and, above, eleven courses of roof tile. The tiles and great bricks used in this fireplace match those produced in the Borelli Yard kiln. Samples of both great bricks and tiles from Farnham Castle were examined microscopically and by disaggregation alongside material from the Borelli Yard kiln by the late Robert Foot, then with the Winchester Museums Service (Riall 2003b). He concluded that the fabric of the two sets of material were indistinguishable. The great bricks and tiles also physically match the material produced in the Borelli Yard kiln, a key feature being the treatment of the side faces of the great bricks. These were scored, or combed, with a toothed tool of some type - possibly a simple wooden comb - around all four faces producing a grooved appearance (Fig. 4). The grooves vary from 0.1 to 0.5mm in depth and sometimes show quite fine lines, 0.2-0.3mm wide, but can also be wider and coarser, up to 0.7mm wide. This is a characteristic feature of all the Borelli Yard great bricks and also of the voussoirs used in the kiln arches. The combing also occurs on some of the great bricks used in the Farnham Park kiln (Riall 1997) and on all the great bricks and voussoirs used in the kiln at Guildford castle royal 25 Some late 12th- or early 13th-century great brick at Farnham Castle, Surrey 24 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 3 Farnham Castle great bricks and tiles in the West Turret hearth. Scale 50cm. Fig. 4 Farnham Castle great brick detail of a combed face. palace (Riall forthcoming). The Essex material does not exhibit this combing. The need to apply this texturing to the faces of the great brick remains unknown. It may have been intended to provide a key to facilitate the application of plaster or rendering. There is some evidence to suggest that in their primary stages the oven structures of both the Borelli Yard and Guildford tile kilns were extensively rendered with a thin layer of clay. By the time of the final firings of the Borelli Yard kiln this practice had certainly ceased and the materials used in the oven structure were subjected to the full thermal blast of the kiln fires. The Surrey great bricks are a long and thin rectangular brick, that were made in a mould. The struck face is always slightly concave, or dished, while the lower face usually has a coarse texture resulting from sand derived from the moulding table being left on the bottom of the brick. The concave characteristic of the struck face appears to have been a deliberate design feature that allowed the kiln builders to bond bricks together using a clay mortar and leaving a joint no more than 3mm thick. The voussoirs in the Borelli Yard kiln were frequently so tightly bonded together that the joint was no more than paper-thick. In the hearth at Farnham Castle a lime mortar seems to have been used throughout. Two forms of great brick have been identified in the Borelli Yard assemblage: FBY-GB1 measuring 308-315mm long by 135-145 wide and 47-55mm thick and, FBY-GB2 which measure 320-330mm long by 140-145mm wide and 50- 55mm thick, based on a sample of more than 100 individual bricks. Table 1 Comparison of great bricks from sites in East Anglia and from the three Surrey kilns. type length mm width thickness East Anglian sites: Bradwell-juxta-Coggeshall most 330 160 50 some 360 190 60 Coggeshall 320-30 150-60 45-55 Pleshey Castle A 305 130 75 B c265 130-35 45-50 Rivenhall Church B 320 145 50 Shouldham Abbey 6 300 150 45 Surrey sites: Farnham - Borelli Yard GB-1 308-15 135-145 50-55 GB-2 320-30 140-45 50-55 Farnham - New Park GB 305-14 145-51 48-52 GB-V 320-40 195-205 49-54 (30-33) Guildford Castle Palace GB 340-50 170-75 52-58 A second type of great brick was also encountered in the Borelli Yard assemblage. This has been classified as large great brick (FBY-LGB). No complete examples were found at Borelli Yard. It was made of the same fabric as the other ceramic building materials and, like the great brick and voussoirs, had combing along the side faces. This form of brick, perhaps more accurately described as a ceramic slab, was at least 300mm long by 265-270mm wide and 38-45mm thick. Brick of this type was used in the East turret and in the wall alongside the North West turret. Brick of the FBY- LGB type are known only from Borelli Yard, none occur in the Farnham Park or Guildford assemblages. The tiles employed in the Farnham Castle hearth appears to match the dimensions of the Borelli Yard type 2 tiles (FBY-T2). The hearth is built up of tiles cut down their length or, possibly, of tiles that were actually manufactured as half-width tiles. The excavation of the Borelli Yard kiln produced peg tile (FBY-T3) that was manufactured as a half- width of the standard full sized FBY-T2 tiles. Both tile types were part-glazed and traces of this glaze appear on tiles in the hearth. FBY-T2 tiles were rectangular with two peg holes; the bottom third or so of the mould face was glazed, and they measured c.340 x c.205 x 14-16mm. Peg-and-nib tiles also occur in the Borelli Yard assemblage but are not thought to be represented in the hearth. It may be noted here that some FBY-T2 tiles were re-used on the roof of the brick entry tower, Foxs Tower, on the south front of the castle. This was built in 1470-75 by Bishop William Waynflete (Thompson 1960b) and may have been altered by Bishop Richard Fox in the early 16th century at the same time as the entry tower into the shell keep was remodelled. DISCUSSION Whilst some 16th and 17th-century brick is present in the East Turret and the entry tower, there is good reason to suppose that most, if not all, the brick and tile built into the shell keep turrets belongs to the original construction phases of this structure. Although the precise date of the construction of the shell keep remains unknown it is generally thought to be between 1190 and 1208, the date of the first episcopal pipe roll. We may with some confidence suggest that the ceramic building materials in the turrets belong to the main construction phase of the shell keep but dating the brick- and tile-built hearth is more problematic. Between 1208 and c.1280-1320 the space between the shell keep wall with its turrets and the earlier motte remained unfilled. The pipe rolls do not offer a dating for the leveling up of the keep interior but pottery and roof tile indicate a date of c.1280-1320 (Thompson 1960a, 86). Thompson suggests that the West Turret was extended at the same time as the keep interior was filled. All the brick and tile used in the hearth can have been produced only in the Borelli Yard kiln; there is nothing in the hearth that can be dated to the period when the keep interior was filled in. It is clearly possible for this material to be used and reused long after the date of its original manufacture but the absence of any later material should perhaps be taken to indicate an earlier date for the hearth and, therefore, for the construction of this part of the keep. The presence of great bricks and early tiles in the structure of Farnham Castle represents, in Surrey at least, their only known use outside of a tile kiln context. A date of 1235 +/- 15 years was obtained through the measurement of thermo- remnant magnetism of fourteen samples from various parts of the Borelli Yard kiln; this is supported by pottery spot- dating which suggests a date bracket of 1200-1230 (Riall 2003b). The presence of great bricks in contexts in the castle earlier than 1208/9 carries with it the implication that the Borelli Yard kiln was operating before this date which, prior to this discovery, it had not been possible to establish. The presence of great bricks in the castle also makes it clear that there was a strong relationship between the masons involved in the construction of the shell keep walls and the roof tilers and the tilery. This relationship is further emphasised by the use of much fine quality dressed stone in construction of the kiln walls of the Borelli Yard tile kiln. Fine quality stone was also employed in the construction of the Farnham Park kiln which is seen as the local successor to the Borelli Yard site. We may therefore conclude from this that the masons, roof tilers and tile kiln operators working on the castle, and perhaps also on the nearby parish church, were closely involved with one another. BIBLIOGRAPHY Drury, P. J. 1977, Brick and tile, in F Williams, Excavations at Pleshey Castle, BAR 42, 82-91. Drury, P. J. 1981, The production of brick and tile in medieval England in D W Crossley, (ed), Medieval Industry. CBA Res Rep 40,126-142 Riall, N. 1995a, Tilers, tile kilns and roof tile: Exploring a medieval industry in and around Farnham (Surrey), Farnham and Dist Museum Soc News 10.11, 214-22. Riall, N. 1997, A medieval tile kiln in Farnham Park, Surrey Archaeol Collect 84, 143-168. Riall, N. 2003a, The New Castles of Henry de Blois as Bishop of Winchester: the case against Farnham, Surrey, Med Archaeol 47, 115-129 Riall, N. 2003b, Excavations at Borelli Yard, Farnham: the tile kiln, Surrey Archaeol Collect. 90, 295-336 Riall, N. forthcoming, The tile kiln and The ceramic building materials in, R Poulton, ed, Guildford Castle and royal palace: archaeological investigations, Surrey Archaeol Soc Monogr. Ryan, P. 1996, Brick in Essex from the Roman Conquest to the Reformation. Chelmsford. Rodwell, W. 1998, Holy Trinity Church, Bradwell-juxta- Coggeshall: A survey of the fabric and an appraisal of the Norman brickwork, Essex Archaeol & History 29, 59-114. Thompson, M. W. 1960a, Recent excavations in the keep of Farnham Castle, Surrey, Med Archaeol 4, 81-94 Thompson, M. W. 1960b, The date of Foxs Tower, Farnham Castle, Surrey, in Surrey Archaeol Collect 57, 85-92 Nicholas Riall, Rock Cottage, High Street, Glynneath, Neath, West Glamorgan SA11 5AP. (01639-721699). (nicholas.riall@tesco.net). Rsum La dcouverte de grandes briques de type Farnham Castle date davant 1208, reprsente leur premire utilisation connue en tant que matriau de construction dans un autre contexte quun four tuiles et en dehors de lEast Anglia. Zusammenfassung Die Entdeckung groer Ziegel im Mauerwerk von Farnham Castle, das frher als 1208 datiert, bezeugt den erstbekannten Gebrauch dieser Ziegelart als Baumaterial auerhalb East Anglias in anderem Zusammenhang als dem Bau von Brennfen. 26 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS 27 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland Piers Dixon and Amanda Crowdy SUMMARY Emergency excavation and fieldwork in advance of the North Sea Gas Pipeline through Northumberland revealed a mid- to late 12th-century pottery kiln, a possible workshop and settlement. Rural medieval pottery kilns in north-east England are rare. The kiln is a clamp-kiln and its products include both glazed and unglazed vessels. The distribution of the products is local, but they are paralleled by types found elsewhere in north-east England. THE EXCAVATIONS by Piers Dixon INTRODUCTION During the construction of the 1.05 m North Sea Gas pipeline through north Northumberland, a dense scatter of 12th to 14th-century pottery and fragments of fired clay were recovered from the ground surface after soil stripping at Eshott (NGR NZ 195 981 and Figs. 1 and 2). This proved to be part of an extensive scatter of pottery, which stretched right across the field from east to west. The scatter extended along a low east-west ridge to the south of the Longdyke Burn, which marks the northern boundary of the medieval township of Eshott. At the eastern end of the ridge, some 600m from the area with the burnt clay fragments, lies the moated manor of Eshott, which was fortified in the 14th century (NGR NZ 200 986; NCH VII, 327ff). It was suspected that a pottery kiln and village settlement had been discovered, and an emergency excavation was carried out by members of the British Gas Archaeological Survey on the strip due to be used for the burial of the pipeline. DOCUMENTARY BACKGROUND The township of Eshott lies in the south-east of Felton parish and was originally held from the barony of Mitford by the lord of Whalton, but came into the hands of the Mauduit family at the turn of the 13th century. An entry in the Brinkburn Cartulary, dated 1209 (Page 1893, 57-9), describes a carucate of land in Eshott, Bokenfield and Over Felton, including 6 acres to the west of the mansion and south of the warren (vivaria), land in a cultivated field called the Toftes, and a toft in Eshott measuring three and a half perches in breadth and in length as far as the ditch. This would suggest a toft 70 feet across if a perch of 20 feet was in use, as recorded in a charter concerning land at Evenwood which was also in the barony of Felton (ibid., 24). This description bears some comparison with the topography revealed in fieldwork. The warren presumably lay south of the Longdyke Burn to the west of the moated manor, the very area in which the site was found (see Fig 2). Although the location of the field called Toftes is not stipulated, its very appellation suggests that it was an area of cultivated land that had previously been settled, then cleared, perhaps, to make way for the warren referred to in the earlier part of the charter. Whilst this suggestion cannot be proven, it is notable that the toft in the village of Eshott is described as defined by a ditch at the end, which did indeed prove to be the case. However, the breadth of the toft Medieval Ceramics 25, 2744, 2001 28 29 could not be determined in the narrow strip excavated and it is by no means certain that the toft described lay anywhere near that which was excavated. METHODOLOGY A strip measuring about 25 m by 10 m was cleared of disturbed topsoil, mostly by bulldozer. The site was very wet from recently melted snow, despite being criss-crossed by modern drains, and was cut by an engineers test-pit full of water. Outside the stripped area, some additional features were located using a proton-magnetometer, which picked up the presence of potsherds. Hoes were used to scrape the site and reveal the features, which, apart from the kiln features, were sampled to save time. Standard methods of recording were followed, with records of each context, a site-plan, sections of each feature sampled, and a colour photographic record. All pottery and fired clay were retained and charcoal for radiocarbon samples. No other artefacts were present. STRATIGRAPHY The site has been divided into three main phases: the kiln and its associated pits (Phase 1); the subsoil-cut features relating to the adjacent medieval settlement (Phase 2); and the post-occupation medieval plough-soil (Phase 3). The settlement area, or toft, was defined by ditches about 30m apart at the north and south ends of the site (Fig. 2); these were parallel to one another on the same alignment as that of the low ridge that crosses the site from east to west. It was noted that many of the features on the site obeyed this axis and may therefore be considered to belong to the same period of occupation. The kiln and its associated pits lay at the south end of the toft. Immediately to the north was a group of intersecting gullies and some evidence for a building, whilst at the north end of the toft there were features indicative of another building, or possibly a workshop. There were no other archaeological features on the site apart from the ridge and furrow, which had truncated the subsoil-cut features and had removed any trace of a contemporary ground surface. Phase 1, the kiln and kiln waste pits (Figs 2 and 3) This phase (Fig. 3) comprised the kiln hearth [3] and two nearby waste pits [2] and [14]. Clay samples were taken from the kiln and waste pit [2] for firing experiments and X- Fig. 2 Site plan and topographical map. Fig. 1 Eshott: Location map. MEDIEVAL CERAMICS A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland Ray Diffraction. The kiln [3] was a shallow pit cut into the clay subsoil, less than 100mm in depth, with an upturned lip around the north and east arcs and a very slightly dished base. It was ovoid in plan and measured 1.20m by 0.85m; originally it may have been more elliptical, since it had been cut on its south-west side, probably by a plough furrow. An area of clay on this side appeared to be a truncated relic of the hearth-base (hached area on Fig. 3). If a stoke hole existed, no trace remained, but it is possible that an opening had once lain on the disturbed south-west side. The clay surface of the hearth had been burnt red and black by firing, but the pit was filled with a relatively clean grey sand, including fragments of daub and charcoal, which suggests that the kiln had been cleared out after firing. The two neighbouring pits had been filled with firing waste, but were probably dug to provide clay for the kiln structure. The pit to the east of the kiln was kidney- shaped on plan, 2.5 m in length, 0.70 m in breadth and up to 0.25 m in depth, with a U-shaped profile, and a base that sloped gently down from the north-east end. It was filled with daub (lumps of fired clay with grass impressions), wasters and charcoal in a varying matrix of brown or grey sandy-clay [10]. The pit to the south of the kiln was oblong in plan with a U-shaped profile up to 0.75 m in breadth and 0.3 m in depth, and it sloped down to the east from a butt-end on the west. The pit extended beyond the site at the east end, but at least 3 m of it was revealed. It was filled with grey sandy-clay containing some coal fragments and heat- reddened stones, but with a large concentration of charcoal, daub, and broken pottery at its shallow west end [14]. The pit was stratigraphically earlier than the south ditch of the toft [5], which cut into its south side, displacing some of the fill (Fig. 3). It was here that the only joins between sherds from different contexts were encountered, with sherds from two jugs spread between both the pit fills [7 and 8] and the infill of the toft ditch [6]. Fig. 4 Kiln-hearth [3] and waste-filled pit [2] in the background. Interpretation The hearth is best interpreted as the remains of a clamp kiln (Musty 1974), in which the pots and fuel were fired together, as suggested by the intermixed fill of the waste pits. Clamp kilns of this type were excavated at Donyatt in Somerset (Coleman-Smith and Pearson 1988), and Potovens (Bartlett 1972, 13-18), Staxton and Potter Brampton in Yorkshire (Brewster 1958), with dates ranging from the 12th to the mid-17th century. With the damage to the south and west sides of the hearth, it is possible that an opening for a vent lay in this arc, but it does not appear likely that there were two opposing vents, as at Donyatt. The walls of the kiln were presumably built from clay dug from the waste-filled pits and may account for some of the fired clay detritus found in them. The grass-impressed clay fragments, or daub, may have formed a covering for the clamp in conjunction with turves, presumably to retain the heat that was generated by the charcoal, which was also found in the waste pits. However, the limited amount of waste material on the site, both daub and wasters, does not suggest that there were many firings (see below, Ceramic Technology). The waste pits are of different forms, although both have similarities in their fills. The pit to the south [14] looks as if it was designed as a drain, with its sloping bottom, and would have had a necessary function in taking ground water away from the kiln during firing. The pit to the east [2] has a curious kidney shape that echoes that of the kiln-hearth and presumably the walls of the kiln. Its primary function in this position would be to provide clay for the kiln and only subsequently to take waste from the firing. Fig. 3 Detail of site plan showing the kiln hearth [3] and waste-filled pits [2] and [14] with a section across kiln-hearth [3]. Note the concave cut of the SW side. 31 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland 30 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Phase 2, a possible pottery workshop and settlement All the remaining subsoil-cut features on the site have been treated as one general phase. Although there is clear evidence for a recutting of the north toft ditch, it is not certain that this post-dates the settlement. Some support for this comes from the south toft boundary [5], which post-dates one of the kiln-waste pits, and may indicate a later enclosure of the toft by ditches. Only more extensive excavation could determine if the settlement features also display more than one phase. OCCUPATION AREA AT THE SOUTH END OF THE TOFT (Fig. 2) A series of shallow gullies, all but one on the same alignment occupied the area immediately north of the kiln features. The largest of these was a shallow ditch [4], 0.15 min depth and 0.5 m in breadth, about 1.5 m north of the kiln, which was aligned on the main site axis, from east to west, and turned a right-angle to the north at its west end. Three other shallow ditches [17, 19 and 20] ran up to meet it from the west, two of which post-dated the kiln [19 and 20]. North-east of these gullies, two parallel gullies may mark the traces of a small building. The first of these lay about 1 m north of the right-angled gully [4], and was contained within it. The gully [15] measured 5 m in length and 0.5 m in breadth, with a maximum depth of 0.11 m. It was matched by a second gully [22], parallel to it, of similar size about 5 m to the north. They both obeyed the dominant east-west axis of the site. Finally there was a single gully at right angles to the rest [34]. This lay to the north of the modern test-pit and hints at the presence of an additional structure to the west of the excavated strip. Interpretation The gullies may be indirect evidence for structural activity, serving as eaves-drip gullies for an east-west building constructed either with clay walls, or a timber frame set on ground sills. The two parallel gullies [15 and 22] define an area, measuring about 5 m square, which may have contained a building. The closeness of the building to the kiln might suggest a drying-shed, although at some risk of fire damage if not closely watched. The sequence of the gullies to the west suggests that there may have been more than one phase of building. WORKSHOP/OCCUPATION AREA AT THE NORTH END OF THE TOFT (Fig. 2) This part of the site, immediately south of the north ditch of the toft [24/43], was only partially examined. The following features were uncovered. A beam slot [31], 0.20 m wide and up to 0.12 m deep, lay about 4.5 m south of the ditch on the same axis. Unfortunately, only a metre of its length came within the area of the excavation, but about 1m west of its butt end was a post hole [30], which held a post about 0.15 m in diameter in a hole, 0.16 m deep and 0.25 m across, with a packing stone in its north side. To the west of this there was a round pit [28], 0.8 m in diameter and 0.16 m in depth, with a flat bottom, in the centre of which was a flat stone. The pit was filled with a grey clay, a few medium-sized stones and some broken pottery, and exuded an odour from the lens of grey clay at its base, suggestive of decayed vegetable matter. A broad shallow gully of unknown function [35], 1 m in breadth and 0.1 m in depth, and filled with a dark grey sandy clay, lay parallel to the beam-slot a short distance to the south of the building. Interpretation This area may have housed the pottery workshops. The beam-slot and post-hole indicate the wall of a timber- framed building, the full extent of which can only be guessed at. There is just room for a building between this wall and the edge of the ditch, especially in the primary phase when the ditch was narrower (see below). The flat-bottomed pit was initially thought to be a latrine, but it is too shallow for that purpose and it is more likely that the flat stone was a pivot for a throwing-wheel, as suggested by Richard Coleman-Smith (pers. comm.). A third possibility is that it was a clay storage pit. THE TOFT DITCHES (Fig. 2) The ditch at the north end of the site [24] was a shallow recut of an earlier, narrower ditch [43], which had been truncated in the recutting. The earlier ditch measured 0.5 m in breadth as it survived, but, assuming a rough V-shape for its sides, must have been originally about 1 m across at subsoil level and 0.55 m in depth. The recut was shallower and broader, at 2.3 m in breadth and 0.35 m in depth. The ditch at the south end of the site [5]) was c. 0.75m in breadth and up to 0.35m in depth, being slightly deeper at the west end of the excavated area. This compares rather better with the primary cut of the north ditch than the secondary cut. It is therefore tentatively suggested that the recut ditch at the north end post-dates the original enclosure of the settlement. Interpretation If, as suggested by the form of the ditches, the recutting of the north ditch post-dated the layout of the toft, it may post-date the settlement altogether. However, it is not possible to say which of the structures within the toft are contemporaneous with each other or the kiln. However it was noted that there were no joins between any of the sherds in the kiln waste pits and the settlement features in the toft, nor any wasters, which may suggest that the kiln was not fired while the settlement was occupied. If so, the suggested interpretation of the buildings as workshops and the flat- bottomed pit as either a clay-pit or a pivot for a throwing- wheel, may need to be reconsidered. On balance, the interpretation of the buildings as workshops is preferred. There cannot have been many firings, because of the limited quantity of waste, unless it was dumped further away. In any case, the settlement may have been abandoned soon afterwards, limiting the opportunities for spreading wasters across the site. Another possible explanation for the paucity of wasters is firing efficiency as suggested at Rattray in Aberdeenshire (Murray and Murray 1993). Phase 3, post-occupation activity MEDIEVAL PLOUGH-SOIL Overlying and sealing the occupation remains and the kiln was an extensive spread of grey soil [27], containing much medieval pottery, but no significantly later material. This layer appears to be the base of a cultivation-ridge. It was spread between the furrows, which cut diagonally across the site from north to south, between 6m and 8m apart. The furrows [39, 40, and 42]) cut through several features, including the kiln-hearth. Interpretation It appears that the site was abandoned shortly after the kiln was fired and never reoccupied. The grey soil contained pottery, which at its latest was 14th-century in date (see below). The grey soil is probably formed as a result of the build-up of a plough ridge in a poorly draining clay soil, leaving the core of the ridge untouched by the plough, and less well aerated, once the ridge had become sufficiently high-backed. Fieldwalking evidence A further 1543 sherds of medieval pottery were collected from field-walking around the site, the extent of which is mapped on the topographical map (Fig. 2). To the east, the scatter ran north-east in the direction of the moated site and to the west, roughly west-south-west, parallel to the field- boundary and the axis of the toft boundaries. This suggests that the toft alignment is retained in the plough ridges that replaced it and latterly were used to define the line of the field-boundary at enclosure. The pottery recovered in this way was analysed and compared with that retrieved during the excavation (see Unstratified Material, below). Scientific dating determinations Three methods of scientific dating were used on the site. The thermoluminescence survey from the kiln-waste pit [2] gave a date of AD 1220+150 (DurTL 15-4AS). Charcoal from the other waste pit [14] produced a radiocarbon date of AD 1130 (820+70 bp, HAR-4463). The archaeomagnetic dating from the kiln-hearth [3] was mid to late 12th century (Hammo Yassi 1981). Since none of these dates are mutually exclusive, a date in the mid- to late 12th century would appear to be most appropriate. GEOLOGY by Amanda Crowdy The site of the Eshott kiln lies to the east of the Longdike burn, a post-glacial feature composed of glacial drainage channels and alluvium. The solid geology of this area is Millstone Grit and Coal Measures, there being a progressive rise in the sequence from the earliest Cementstone and Fell Sandstone groups in the north-west to the Coal Measures along the coastal belt (HMSO 1936). Eshott lies on the Millstone Grit, a predominantly coarse-grained sediment, but the surrounding area bears little relation to its geological structure, as most of the topography is of glacial origin: alluvium and boulder clay. The boulder clay when fully developed is in two divisions, parted by sand and gravel. The upper clay, representing glacial detritus melted out in situ, is occasionally reddish, but often brownish and prismatic, generally free from all but small stones, and has been used in the locality for roofing and drainage tiles. The most extensive spread of sand and gravel lies in the general area around Felton, north of Eshott, where it appears to lie between the boulder clay levels, as interbedded deposits. The resources needed for the production of pottery: clay, temper, water and fuel are all available locally, making it an economically viable operation. Lead ore for galena glazing is also found in several localities amongst the Lower Carboniferous rocks within the Rothbury area; strings of lead ore have also been found along the faults in the local Coal Measures. THE POTTERY by Amanda Crowdy Methodology In all, 1016 sherds (6809 g) of pottery were recovered from the excavations. The fabric groupings were organised macroscopically and with the aid of thin section analysis. Recording was carried out on pottery analysis sheets, each context was recorded separately. Quantification was by sherd count, weight, to the nearest gram, and the minimum number of vessels, which were counted by using rim, base and handle sherds, and only in their absence, body sherds. 33 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland 32 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Joins were sought between all layers, and all the rims were drawn to show the range within the assemblage. Sherds recovered by field-walking were sorted by fabric, and form characteristics were also noted, but generally in less detail than the kiln material. All daub and wasters recovered from the site were also recorded separately and are discussed later in this paper. The pottery was sorted into four fabrics. As each was recognised it was assigned a fabric number. The numeration system, therefore, has no significance beyond this. The inclusions were identified using the Key to Identification of Common Inclusions in Pottery (Blake and Davey 1983). Inclusion size is as follows, very fine, 0.1 mm; fine, 0.1-0.25 mm; medium, 0.25-0.5 mm; coarse, 0.51-1.0 mm; very coarse, 1.0 mm. The method of describing the fabrics is based on that used in the Museum of London (Orton 1978). Colour is described by using the Munsell system (Munsell 1975), but this is no more than a general guide since it only refers to the colours which predominate in each fabric type. The fabrics are unglazed unless stated otherwise. All fabrics have a similar matrix, despite enormous variation in the frequency of inclusions. After microscopic examination (x20) and thin-sectioning, the provenance of the clay source was taken to be boulder clay, indicated by the mixture of metamorphic and sedimentary rock, and the wide range of mineral and rock fragment sizes. Variation in the clay can be considerable, even from one deposit (pers. comm.: T Flintham, Engineering Dept, Leics. University) and caution was taken not to subdivide the pottery into meaningless topological classes. Indeed, the use of thin- sectioning and other scientific analyses on pottery assemblages on both sides of the border have showed a similar variability in the characteristics of the boulder clay used to make the pottery, e.g. West Whelpington, Northumberland (Evans and Jarrett 1987, 263-269 and fiche), Colstoun, East Lothian (Brooks 1980, 394-401), Eyemouth, Berwickshire (Crowdy 1986), and Kelso Abbey, Roxburghsire (Cox et al. 1984, 386-395). THIN-SECTIONS All the thin-sections were taken from the vessel rims (total 24). In addition to the inclusions mentioned above, the following minerals were noted in all sections: Muscovite mica, very fine - moderate; plagioclase feldspar, very fine - sparse. The presence of these types is a further indication that the clay source is boulder clay. The thin-section examination emphasised the wide range of quartz size and the varying concentration. The shape of the quartz shows variation, some is rounded, while others still retain their angular appearance - this is a characteristic of boulder clay; the angularity appears to be more common in the medium to coarse sizes. While it is probable that the quartz occurs naturally in the clay, the possibility of added filler in Fabric 2 (see below) is suggested, as at Colstoun (Brooks 1980, 366). Quartz is more frequent in the larger size in this fabric, suggesting that quartz sand had been added to temper the clay, originally low in quartz. Eshott fabric descriptions The assemblage was divided into three broad categories: 1, standard; 2, coarse; 3, fine. FABRIC 1 Fabric 1 (757 sherds, 5420g, 75%), which is the standard fabric, is by far the most frequent fabric on the site. It is wheel thrown, 5-10mm thick, and has a fairly hard to hard texture with a rough feel and a finely irregular to irregular fracture. The inclusions are abundant sub-angular to sub- rounded, very fine to coarse quartz; with occasional very coarse fragments of quartz; moderate amounts of rounded, very fine to fine red iron oxide; sparse, very fine mica; and occasional fragments of very coarse quartz sandstone (3mm). There are white clay streaks evident on the pink surfaces (5YR 7/6 RY to 7.5YR 7/4) and occasional glaze spots. Although it is an oxidised fabric, its core ranges from a grey (5YR 5/1), with insufficient oxidation, to a reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/8). Fabric 1 predominates in all forms by sherd count (Table 2). Two main forms have been identified, cooking pot or storage jars and jugs. The former had been divided into two sub-groups, clubbed rim forms and everted or flanged rim forms. Although most forms suggest a rounded profile to the body, some are straight-sided or at least approximately so, especially amongst the everted rim forms (e.g. Cat. nos. 1, 3, 7, 24). Fabric 1 has all but one of the full range of cooking pot or storage jar forms, as follows: A A variant of the clubbed rim form with lid-seating. An upright box profile, and a sharp angle, giving the pot its rounded shape. Diameter 300mm. Cat. nos. 27, 31. B Similar to type A, but with upper and lower cordon on the rim. Diameters 180mm and 280mm. Cat. nos. 28, 29. C Crescent shaped variant of the clubbed rim form, but the rounded appearance and body angle are similar to type A. Diameter 280mm. Cat. nos. 30, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44. D An umbrella group for a class of small cooking pot/storage jar with everted rims. Glaze spots on the rim. Only a small amount of the rim sections were found and little could be discerned as to their full shape and function. Diameters 100mm and 140mm. Cat. nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 46, 47. E An upright, flanged rim with characteristic thumbing gives this rim a thicker width in profile, which can be misleading when comparing its shape to type F. Diameter 200mm to 280mm. Cat. nos. 1, 2, 3. F Everted flange with an indented profile produced by a groove. The body angle is less acute that the clubbed-rim forms. This is recorded under Laings Scottish Medieval Cooking Pot form as number 18 (Laing 1973). Diameters 180mm to 280mm. Cat. nos. 7, 9, 10. G Everted, lid-seated, crescent rim profile. Diameters 200mm to 240mm. Cat. nos. 8, 21. H Simple, everted rim with lid seating. Diameter 200mm. Cat. nos. 11, 12, 13, 14. J A small everted rim, round in profile with thin walls. Diameter 140mm. Cat. no. 20. K A very coarse, upright flange. Diameter indeterminate. Cat. no. 23. L Upright, simple flanged rim and straight side. Diameter 240mm. Cat. no. 24. M Rounded, everted rim. Diameter 160mm. Cat. no. 51. N Upright, lid-seated rim with clubbed shape. Similar to type B, but narrower. Diameter 100mm. Cat. no. 49. Due to the accidents of survival, the only two cooking pot bases found in the assemblage of cooking pot or storage jars were both Fabric 1. Both are sagging bases with diameters of 160mm and 180mm respectively. Both show evidence of knife-trimming just above the basal angle, and one has been finished upside down on a wheel from the circular orientation of the drag marks (Cat. no. 4). One has internal glaze drips (Cat. no. 5), suggesting intentional glazing, while the other shows internal sooting (Cat. no. 4). These bases are suggestive of the rounded shape of body common to the cooking pots found in this region. It was difficult to build up an informative typology of the jug forms, due to the lack of diagnostic sherds. Fabric 1 has the majority of the jug forms and there is a possible example of kiln furniture amongst the type E jug forms. Most of the handles recovered in the excavation are in Fabric 1 and include both strap and rod types. Handles appear to have been attached to the neck of the jug, although the absence of the rim of many of the rod handles makes this difficult to ascertain. Thumb pressing has been used to attach the handle to the body, upper and lower. Both types of handle show similar decorative techniques; characteristic are the grooves, starting with a rounded, thumb like impression at the end, forming long, vertical incised lines. There is far less complexity shown in the strap-handle type. A section of a small jug handle from the fill of one of the kiln-waste pits [2] is the only variant on the rod and strap handled jug types (not illustrated). Glaze is of a light green colour, indicative of the earlier Medieval Period. Decoration includes horizontal rouletting and incised lines, incised dots on a jug neck, a wheat-ear motif, which only appears on a sherd from unstratified material, and most unusually an impressed lion-like motif between two cordons (type D jug form, Cat. no. 64). Jug forms: A Jug rim with rod handles. Diameter 140mm. Cat. no. 62. D Jug with unique impressed lion-motif between two cordons. No handle present. Diameter 140mm. Cat. no. 64. E Jug rim. However, Cat. no. 68 is thick walled vessel, c.10mm, with no trace of any handle scar, and may have been a kiln stand. Diameters 80mm and 100mm. Cat. nos. 54, 68. F Decorated with horizontal rouletting. Diameter 100mm. Cat. no. 70. G Slightly interned rim with handle scar. Diameter 100mm. Cat. no. 66. Strapped handles. Cat. nos. 57, 58, 63, 82. Rod handles. Cat. nos. 56, 62, 79, 80, 81. One type of jug base which was found in one of the waste pits [2] shows crude construction techniques and internal thumbing on the body angle of the base (Cat. no. 59). The other shows a finer finish and more efficient construction and is externally thumbed for decorative effect (Cat. no. 60). FABRIC 2 Fabric 2 (157 sherds, 871g, 15%), which is coarser than Fabric 1, is also wheel thrown, measuring 5-8mm in thickness. It has a fairly hard to hard texture and a harsh to rough feel, with an irregular to hackly fracture. While moderate amounts of sub-rounded to sub-angular, very fine quartz are present; there is abundant coarse quartz, which, it is suggested, may be the result of the addition of a sand filler. Moderate amounts of rounded, fine to medium sized red iron oxide are also evident, and occasional very fine mica. The surfaces are an oxidised reddish yellow (5YR 6/6 YR), but there is insufficient carbonisation in the core which is grey (5YR 5/1). Fabric 2 has a larger number of rounded as opposed to other cooking pot or storage jar forms, although one form (type O, Cat. no. 36), at least, has straight sides. Surface abrasion makes it impossible to determine if the pots were slipped. Fabric 2 has only one everted rim form; the majority is clubbed. A Variant of the clubbed rim form with lid-seating. An upright box profile, and a sharp angle, giving the pot its rounded shape. Diameters 280mm to 300mm. Cat. nos. 26, 32, 34. B Similar to type A, but with upper and lower cordon on the rim. Diameters 280mm to 320mm. Cat. nos. 25, 35. C Crescent shaped variant of the clubbed rim form, but the rounded appearance and body angle are similar to type A. Diameters 160mm to 320mm. Cat. nos. 33, 38, 50. H Simple everted rim with lid seating. Cat. no. 19 shows a thinner wall than Cat. no. 22. Diameters 160mm and 260mm. O A clubbed rim form variant with straight sides. Diameter 260mm. Cat. no. 36. Two jug forms in this fabric were recorded, and strapped and rod handles similar in style to those in Fabric 1, but the jug form assemblage is very small in quantity and range in Fabric 2. The jug forms comprise the following: B Jug form with strap handles. Diameter 80mm. Cat. no. 63. 35 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland 34 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS H Jug form with slightly everted rim, no handles evident. Diameter 120mm. Cat. no. 45. Strapped handle. Cat. no. 82. Rod handle. Cat. no. 62. FABRIC 3 Fabric 3 (92 sherds, 454g, 9%) is a much finer fabric than the other two; it is 5-8mm thick, wheel thrown and has a fairly hard texture with a smooth feel and fracture. The inclusions are moderate to abundant amounts of sub- angular to sub-rounded, very fine to fine quartz; moderate amounts of medium quartz; occasional coarse fragments of quartz; moderate amounts of fine to medium iron oxide; and occasional very fine mica. Fabric 3 is notable for its lack of coarse temper, and most of the forms are jugs. This suggests that the amount of temper in the clay may have been a factor in the selection of forms. Fabric 3 shows more diversity in the jug forms and finer technological detail; the forms are slipped and glazed and of a smoother fabric. Bearing in mind the concentration of Fabric 3 in Phases 2 (the site occupation) and 3 (post-occupation), it is feasible that this fabric is also later than the kiln material. In the sorting of the unstratified material, a high percentage of Fabric 3 was also noted. Only one club-rimmed and two everted forms were present amongst the cooking pot or storage jars in Fabric 3, but this includes one well-finished, everted form with pastry-style thumbed decoration to the rim. Three cooking pot or storage jars forms are represented here as follows: C Crescent shaped variant of the clubbed rim form, but the rounded appearance and body angle are similar to type A. Diameters 200m to 280mm. Cat. nos. 37, 42. D Cooking pot/storage jar with everted rim. Diameter 100mm. Cat. no. 48. E An upright, flanged rim with characteristic thumbing gives this rim a thicker width in profile. Diameter 240mm. Cat. no. 6. Most of the Fabric 3 forms are jugs, but they include one thick-walled vessel, which may have been a kiln stand (type E below). One of the jug bases with external decorative thumbing shows Scarborough ware type 1 affinities, including glazing technique, which would support a later date (Cat. no. 61). One jug form with a pinched spout in this fabric was found in the overlying medieval plough-soil [27]. The jug forms are as follows: C. Jug with a pinched spout. Diameter 120mm. Cat. no. 67. E. This sherd is from a thick walled vessel, c.10mm, with no trace of any handle scar, and may have been a kiln stand rather than a jug. Diameter 100mm. Cat. no. 65. F. Simple upright rim. Diameter 100mm. Cat. no. 69. Sherd decorated with horizontal rouletting. Cat. no. 74. Flat base, thumbed externally. Cat. no. 61. Simple, straight base. Not illustrated. NEWCASTLE BUFF WHITE WARE (NBW) This creamy fabric was identified as Newcastle Buff White Ware (Ellison 1981, 102-7), dating to the 13th and 14th centuries. The 10 sherds of Buff White ware (64g, 1%), likely to be from Newcastle upon Tyne (pers. comm. S. Mills), are dated to the 13th to 14th centuries. The impressed decoration is unique (Cat. nos. 76 and 77), but the fabric is very similar to Newcastle Buff White ware, and no other regional fabric could be paralleled with it. It was only found in Phase 3 within the medieval plough-soil [27] so it may have arrived on the site after its abandonment. Table 1 Total Pottery in all Contexts by Sherd Count, Weight and Minimum Number of Vessels. Fabric Count % Weight % MNV % 1 757 75 5420 80 81 64 2 157 15 871 13 23 18 3 92 9 454 6 21 17 NBW 10 1 64 1 1 1 Totals 1016 6809 126 Table 2 Relationship between Fabric and Form (CP = Cooking Pot). Form Fabric 1 Fabric 2 Fabric 3 Total Club-rimmed CP 13 6 1 20 Everted CPs 26 4 2 32 Other CPs 12 5 0 17 CP Totals 51 (74%) 15 (22%) 3 (4%) 69 Jug rims 7 2 4 13 Other Jugs 6 4 2 12 Handles 11 2 0 13 Bases 3 0 4 7 Jug Totals 27 (60%) 8 (18%) 10 (22%) 45 Unidentified 3 0 8 11 Grand Totals 81 23 21 12 Table 3 Decorated Sherds (CP/SJ = Cooking Pot/Storage Jar). Fabric Form Decoration Count Phase Cat. no. NBW Jug Impressed motif 7 3 76,77 1 CP/SJ type E Thumbed rim 3 1 1,2,3 3 CP/SJ type E Thumbed rim 1 2 6 1 Jug type D Impressed motif 1 1 64 1 Jug Thumbed base, external 1 2 60 3 Jug Thumbed base, external 1 3 61 1 Jug Incised lines, horizontal 1 1 78 1 Jug type F Horizontal rouletting 5 2, 3, US 70,71,73, 74,75 1 Jug Wheat ear 1 US 72 1 Jug Incised dots on jug neck 1 3 Not illustrated Parallels The kiln products are typically everted or flanged rim cooking pots and storage jars of rounded form, and glazed jugs. Only one clubbed rim form was recovered from the kiln phase (Cat. no. 39, Fabric 1, Type C). However, the frequency of the clubbed rims elsewhere on the site (Phases 2, 3 and U/S) suggests that they were probably contemporary with the everted forms produced here. Indeed jars with both everted and clubbed rims were contemporary products of the Dog Bank kiln in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which also dates to the second half of the 12th century (Bown 1989). There are also strong similarities in the everted-rim cooking pots with these forms from West Whelpington and Shillmoor (Jarrett and Edwards 1963 and 1970), although their fabrics are dissimilar. The club rimmed cooking pot/storage jar is widespread in the north of England and southern Scotland and has long been a recognised form in this area. The ubiquity of this form has not led to an accurate picture of its dating or regional distribution. Until the Eshott and Dog Bank kiln excavations, the only sealed and dated context was at Knaresborough (Waterman 1953) which was dated to the 12th to 13th centuries (a 12th-century occupation layer sealed by a 13th-century layer). Many of the early reports have paid scant attention to the fabric description and a rather limited coarse gritty ware label was applied. The Carlisle report (Jope and Hodges 1953) was one of the earliest reports to correlate the information on the clubbed rim form; the form was divided into three types showing the range of variation, while a cursory attempt was made to plot their regional distribution. The club rimmed form is undeniably widespread, but it does however show notable variation in fabric; it seems likely that the club rimmed form is a widespread 12th to 13th-century phenomenon with local potters copying the form and technological details in their local clays. Two of the jug forms (type A, Fabric 1, and type B, Fabric 2) compare with regional types known at West Whelpington and Finchale Priory and are dated to the 12th to 13th centuries (Jarrett and Edwards 1961, 1963, 1970). The light green glazing, indicative of this period, is common on the jug forms. The Scarborough type glaze and base (Fabric 3, Cat. no. 61) differs from the rest of the assemblage in having a dark green glaze, but this sherd comes from the medieval plough-soil (Phase 3) and might not be a kiln product. The possible use of local clays to make this copy may still place it in the 13th century, as early Scarborough-type Ware dates as late as AD 1225 (Farmer 1979). Rim thumbing appears as a regional characteristic at Colstoun, West Whelpington and Shillmoor (Brooks 1980, Jarrett and Edwards 1963 and 1970). The most common form of jug decoration, horizontal rouletting, also shows strong regional affinities, for example, at Finchale Priory, Shillmoor and West Whelpington (Jarrett and Edwards 1961, 1963 and 1970), as do the thumbed bases on the jugs, as at Eyemouth, Colstoun and West Whelpington (Crowdy 1986, Brooks 1980, Jarrett and Edwards 1970). The wheat-ear decoration is also seen regionally at Colstoun and West Whelpington (Brooks ibid., Jarrett and Edwards 1970). However, the impressed lion-like motif between two cordons (type D jug form, Cat. no. 64) has not been paralleled, as yet, elsewhere in the region, nor has the impressed motif on the Newcastle Buff Ware. Ceramic technology The availability of oxygen within a clamp kiln would have been uneven and the high ratio of blackened cores in the assemblage suggests insufficient carbonisation of the organic material, indicative of a clamp kiln (A Woods, pers. comm.). Firing experiments were undertaken with clay samples from the site, and although the evidence was inconclusive, the firing range was likely to be between 450 o and 900 o C. Fabrics 1 and 2 are coarse sand-tempered wares, designed for domestic use. A number of techniques are common to both. A high proportion of the rims show the use of a wet slip, or more probably, a wet slurry of clay and water, applied before firing. During re-firing experiments, sherds of pottery were re-fired at 800 o C and body sherds showed traces of a white slip, which is common to all forms in Fabric 1 and 2. The clubbed rim forms are all slipped with the exception of two, which are of Fabric 2, but it is possible that these may have undergone post- depositional erosion. Similar white slips were applied to the Red Wares from Perth in the 13th and 14th centuries (D. Hall, pers. comm.). However, it should be noted that pink and red slips were occasionally visible (e.g. Cat. nos. 5, 7 and 16). Clamp kilns have not always been thought likely to fire glazed pots, but experimental firing at Leicester University has disproved this opinion, showing that temperatures below 900 o C and open firing may be considered as a feasible medium for glazing (A Woods, Experimental Kiln Firing Group, Leics. Univ.). Fabrics 1 and 2 have coarser fabrics well equipped to withstand thermal shock, either in cooking or during clamp firing. A rounded pot with a sagging base, which is characteristic of the Eshott assemblage, complements the use of coarser fabrics, affording maximum resistance to thermal shock. This suggests that the type and degree of temper were related to the size, form and function of the vessel. The cooking pots and storage jars like other pots would have suffered from shrinkage during drying and firing, and the addition of a filler should help to control this, by opening up the body of the vessel, increasing porosity and reducing the effects of thermal shock. The walls of the cooking pot/storage jars, which are relatively thin (less than 10 mm), would also have reduced the likelihood of thermal shock. Two of the forms with everted rims (Cat. nos. 6 and 24) 37 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland 36 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS show the glaze running down the interior from the rim. It has been suggested that this would have been as a result of glaze application by dripping at West Whelpington, and, while not resulting in complete coverage, would often result in it running down to the base (Evans and Jarrett 1987, fiche). The galena pitting observed here, has been attributed to the application of galena by dusting Hodges (1976), but this may be due to the glaze suffering from shrinkage and pitting during firing (Evans and Jarrett 1987, fiche). It is also feasible that some of the pots were splashed as a result of being stacked under glaze-covered vessels during firing (e.g. type D everted rims, Cat. nos. 16 and 18). Wasters A waster is here defined as a sherd that is either grossly mis-shapen, fired on the break, or has blown. The latter have large cavities as a result of badly wedged clay, or the generation of steam in the body (Hodges 1976, 41). Two hundred and forty seven sherds were found in one of the kiln waste pits [2] from a jug, which most likely blew in firing. It is obviously important that wasters are noted and furthermore that they are found in all fabric types. Apart from the fill of the waste pit, the other wasters were found in the mixed layers. However, most wasters belonged to Fabric 1, one to Fabric 2 and none in Fabric 3. This casts doubt on Fabric 3 originating from this kiln. Table 4 Presence of Wasters. Fabric Phase Count Form Description 1 1 1 CP/SJ type E Body sherd glazed over break 1 1 247 Jug Blown body sherd/glaze vitrified 1 3 1 CP/SJ Base, glaze over edge 2 3 1 CP/SJ Unclassified body sherd 1 3 1 Jug type C Spawl, Cat. no. 67 Kiln Furniture by Piers Dixon Although examples of kiln furniture were not identified initially, it is possible that some of the jug rim forms (see type E below) are in fact kiln stands, for example, Catalogue nos. 65 and 68 (Fig. 9). Both of these vessels have thick- walled sides (c.10 mm) and have everted angles that would be likely to lead to spillage in a storage vessel, but could, however, provide a stable base. A similar process of the initial identification of kiln stands as rim forms was observed by Derek Hall (pers. comm.) in his secondary analysis of the pottery assemblages from the kiln-sites at Colstoun and Stenhouse in Stirlingshire (Brooks 1980, Laing and Robertson 1973). Daub The presence of daub strongly suggests that this was used in the construction of the kiln. A total of 299 g of separate daub fragments was recovered from the site, while fired clay deposits were also found in the kiln waste pits (Phase 1, contexts [2] and [14]). Table 5 Presence of Daub. Phase Context Weight (g) Count 1 waste pit 22 1 1 kiln 9 1 2 south end 109 9 2 north end 6 1 3 43 7 US 110 Total 299 Unstratified Material Limited analysis was undertaken on the unstratified material. The total amount was weighed and counted, while no further fabric division appeared necessary. The rims were separated into the three main divisions of club rimmed forms (types A, B, C) and any others were collectively grouped together. As in the stratified material there was a noticeably better finish on the club-rimmed form: the type A forms were few in number but more developed in form than the stratified examples. Overall, 57% of the cooking- pot/storage jar forms, by sherd count, were club-rimmed forms in the unstratified material compared to 43% in the stratified. The handles were also counted to see if the ratio between strapped and rod were noticeably different but it again showed the high frequency of rod handles. Some pinched spouts were also noted. Table 6 Quantification for Unstratified Material. Fabric Form 1 2 3 Total Weight (kg) % Club-rimmed CPs 126 10 - 136 2030 Other CP/SJ 98 7 - 105 997 Total 224 17 - 241 3027 23% Strap 8 1 9 1119 Rod 32 2 1 35 155 Total 40 2 2 44 1274 10% Body Sherds 1256 71 25 1352 8369 65% Daub 110 1% Total 1520 90 27 1637 12760 1. Fabric 1, type E. Soot deposit on interior. Uniform wheel marks present on top surface of rim, thumbing marks most probably made when clay still wet, slip traces. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 2. Fabric 1, type E. Two glaze spots on the rim. Wheel throwing marks shown on top surface, thumbing similar to no. 1. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 3. Fabric 1, type E. Wet slip probably applied during final stages of pot construction and thumbing made when rim still wet. Wheel throwing marks on interior and exterior. Two rows of stronger lines noted as decoration. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 4. Fabric 1, sagging base. Calcium deposit interior and evidence of smoothing. Base shows broadly circular orientation of grits, drag marks and voids up to 12mm as body has been revolved. At base body angle, evidence of surface trimming. Glaze drips on base. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 5. Fabric 1, sagging base. Grit drag marks and voids. Red slip traces on base. Glaze drips on interior and exterior. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 6. Fabric 3, type E. Wet slip applied, smooth finish, glaze drips running down interior. Wheel throwing marks visible on both interior and exterior. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 7. Fabric 1, type F. Quite badly eroded. Trace of red slip on rim. Grass voids. Large quartz inclusion, 6mm width in rim. Kiln waste, Context [8], Phase 1. 8. Fabric 1, type G. Badly eroded. Context [29], Phase 2. 9. Fabric 1, type F. Slipped interior. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 10. Fabric 1, type F. Kiln waste, Context [8], Phase 1. CATALOGUE OF ILLUSTRATED POTTERY The pottery is catalogued by form. The catalogue number is followed by the fabric type, the form type, further information, context and phase number. Fig. 5 Cooking Pot/Storage Jars with Everted or Flanged Rims and Sagging Bases. 39 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland 38 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS 11. Fabric 1, type H. Wheel throwing marks on interior and exterior. Probably wet slip. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 12. Fabric 1, type H. Badly eroded. Kiln waste, Context [8], Phase 1. 13. Fabric 1, type H. Badly eroded. Unidentifiable deposit under rim. Context [29], Phase 2. 14. Fabric 1, type H. Slip applied, well finished. One glaze spot. Context [25], Phase 2. 15. Fabric 1, type D. Badly eroded. Ditch fill, Context [25], Phase 2. 16. Fabric 1, type D. Light red slip evident on exterior. One glaze spot. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 17. Fabric 1, type D. Badly eroded. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 18. Fabric 1, type D. Wheel marks evident. Traces of slip. Glaze spots. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 19. Fabric 2, type H. Slip well covered. Sooting on rim. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 20. Fabric 1, type J. Wet slip applied, wheel throwing marks well defined. Context [13], Phase 2. 21. Fabric 1, type G. Wet slip. Context [29], Phase 2. 22. Fabric 2, type H. Badly eroded. Context [18], Phase 2. 23. Fabric 1, type K. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 24. Fabric 1, type L. Glaze and slip on interior. Wheel throwing marks apparent on interior and exterior. Rim eroded. Quartzite inclusion 10 mm width exterior. Kiln waste, Context[[10], Phase 1. Fig. 6 Cooking Pots/Storage Jars with Everted Rims. 25. Fabric 2, type B. Badly eroded. Ditch fill, Context [25], Phase 2. 26. Fabric 2, type A. Slip finish and glaze spots on rim. Context [29], Phase 2. 27. Fabric 1, type A. Badly eroded. Unstratified. 28. Fabric 1, type B. Slip finish. Unstratified. 29. Fabric 1, type C. Slip, well finished. Unstratified. 30. Fabric 1, type C. Slip finish. Ditch fill, Context [25], Phase 2. 31. Fabric 1, type A. Slip finish. Context [29], Phase 2. 32. Fabric 2, type A. Badly eroded. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 33. Fabric 2, type C. Eroded. Unstratified. 34. Fabric 2, type A. Hard fired. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 35. Fabric 2, type B. Eroded. Void 16mm width. Context [18], Phase 2. 36. Fabric 2, type O. Concretion under rim. Slip on rim and interior. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 37. Fabric 3, type C. Slip finish. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 38. Fabric 2, type C. Badly eroded. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 39. Fabric 1, type C. Slip, well finished. Kiln waste, Context [8], Phase 1. Fig. 7 Cooking Pot/Storage Jars with Clubbed Rims. 41 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland 40 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS 40. Fabric 1, type C. Slip. Well finished. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 41. Fabric 1, type C. Context [29], Phase 2. 42. Fabric 3, type C. Slip. Well finished. Unstratified. 43. Fabric 1, type C. Slip. Well finished. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 44. Fabric 1, type C. Badly eroded. Unstratified. 45. Fabric 2, Jug Type H. Context [38], Phase 2. 46. Fabric 1, Cooking pot/Storage jar type D. Exterior slip. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 47. Fabric 1, Cooking pot/Storage jar type D. Slip. Ditch fill, Context [25], Phase 2. 48. Fabric 3, Cooking pot/Storage jar type D. Slip over exterior and interior. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 49. Fabric 1, Clubbed rim, Cooking pot/Storage jar type N. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 50. Fabric 2, Clubbed rim, Cooking pot/Storage jar type C. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 51. Fabric 1, Cooking pot/Storage jar with everted rim type M. Eroded. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 52. Fabric 1, Clubbed rim, Cooking pot/Storage jar type C. Waster. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 53. Fabric 1, Cooking pot/Storage jar type D. Eroded. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 54. Fabric 1, Jug type E. Slip. Well fired. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 55. Fabric 3, Unclassified. Badly eroded. Dark green glaze. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. Fig. 8 Cooking Pot/Storage Jars with Clubbed and Other Rim Forms, and Jug Forms. 56. Fabric 1, Rod. Green glaze. Wet slip. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 57. Fabric 1, Strap. Slip and thumbed at lower end. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 58. Fabric 1, Strap. Light green glaze. Slip. Disturbed topsoil, Context [1]. 59. Fabric 1, flat base type 1. Base body angle thumbed. Slipped interior. Base very rough and eroded. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 60. Fabric 1, flat base type 2. Thumbed on base and body angle. Context [13], Phase 2. 61. Fabric 3, flat base type 2. Slip and traces of dark green glaze. Thumbed on body at base. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 62. Fabric 1, type A with rod handle. Slip. Glazed on handle. Thumbed at join. Ditch fill, Context [6], Phase 2. 63. Fabric 2, type B with strap handle. Badly eroded. Thumbed at join. Context [29], Phase 2. 64. Fabric 1, type D. Decoration between two cordons. Kiln waste, Context [8], Phase 1. 65. Fabric 3, type E. Possible kiln furniture. Eroded. Medieval plough- soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 66. Fabric 1, type G. Trace of glaze. Thumbed section. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 67. Fabric 3, type C. Pinched spout. Splashed green glaze on exterior. Wet slip on interior and exterior. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 68. Fabric 1, type E. Possible kiln furniture. Eroded. Context [29], Phase 2. 69. Fabric 3, type F. Context [35], Phase 2. Fig. 9 Jug Forms: Handles, Bases and Rims. 43 A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, Northumberland 42 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS 70. Fabric 1, Jug type F. Slip and rectangular rouletted decoration. Light green glaze on decoration. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 71. Fabric 1, Jug (body). Slip. Rectangular rouletting. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 72. Fabric 1, Jug (body). Wheatear decoration. Light green decoration externally. Unstratified. 73. Fabric 1, Jug (body). Rectangular rouletting. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 74. Fabric 3, Jug (body). Rectangular rouletting. Light green glaze. Unstratified. 75. Fabric 1, Jug (body). Rectangular rouletting. Light orange glaze. Eroded. Context [35], Phase 2. 76. Newcastle Buff White ware, Jug (body). Interior slip. Well glazed. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 77. Newcastle Buff White ware, Jug (body). Probably same vessel as no. 76. Wet slip. Thumb prints present. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 78. Fabric 1, Jug (body). Slip, light reddish brown, visible on exterior and traces of it on interior. Internal olive green glaze, and incised horizontal decoration. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 79. Fabric 1, Rod. Slip and dark olive green glaze. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 80. Fabric 1, Rod. Slip, light olive green glaze. Well defined ribs. Context [29], Phase 2. 81. Fabric 1, Rod. Slip and light green glaze but vitrified. Kiln waste, Context [10], Phase 1. 82. Fabric 2, Strap. Very badly eroded, burnt, light olive green patches of glaze, vitrified. Context [38], Phase 2. 83. Fabric 1, Rod. Slipped, light olive green glaze patches. Medieval plough- soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 84. Fabric unknown, Rod. Ribbed, dark olive green glaze. Unstratified. 85. Fabric 1, Rod. Slip. Light olive green glaze. Medieval plough-soil, Context [27], Phase 3. 86. Fabric 1, Rod. Light green glaze patches. Eroded. Kiln waste, Context [8], Phase 1. Fig. 10 Jug Forms: Decoration and Handles. CONCLUSIONS The Eshott site is the first example of a medieval pottery kiln to be found in a rural context in the north-east of England and is therefore sufficient to demand attention. The site appears to demonstrate a local production of pottery, the form and fabric of which both show similarity to the regional types of the 12th to 13th centuries, although this one appears to belong firmly to the mid-to-late 12th century. The kiln-hearth bears comparison with the kiln-hearths at Donyatt in Somerset, which were clamp-fired, except that no opening for a vent was apparent here. The use of a clamp firing to produce glazed vessels is rare and indicates the technical possibilities of such a method. The Eshott pottery may be one of many small rural kilns that have yet to be discovered, which met local needs. The other features on the site suggest this may be a pottery workshop. These include the adjacent waste-filled pits, one of which may have served as a drain [14] and the other as a source of clay for the kiln [2], the nearby building, which may have been a drying shed, and the flat-bottomed pit [28], which was either a clay storage pit, or a base for a throwing-wheel. These meet some of Moorhouses requirements for a pottery workshop (Moorhouse 1981, 100-5), although a note of caution should be registered because of the limited extent of the excavation. The nearby moated manor of Eshott, the alignment of the settlement boundaries, the documentation and the dating of the site suggest the lay-out of a planned village to serve the new Anglo-Norman masters of Eshott, but one that was just as readily removed. The pottery and kiln is one example of the spread of new technologies both rural and industrial that followed in the wake of the Norman aristocracy. Whilst, the date of the desertion makes this a rare example of an early medieval abandonment. The Brinkburn charter hints at hunting as the possible reason for its desertion, the settlement having been displaced to make room for a park or warren to serve the hunting interests of the lords of the manor. The abandonment of the site and its use for agriculture since the 13th to 14th centuries has caused considerable disruption to the site, imposing a lot of difficulties in its interpretation. The pottery, in consequence, shows quite considerable fragmentation, making reconstruction difficult. With no complete profile recovered, forms are sometimes difficult to reconstruct; not helped by the post-depositional erosion of the surfaces of many of the sherds. Thus the present appearance of the pots may be misleading as suggested by the firing experiments which revealed traces of a white slip. This suggests that the intention was to produce a white coloured product, not unlike the ubiquitous East Coast White Gritty Wares of Scotland, and similar, it would seem, to the white-slipped Red Wares at Perth (Derek Hall, pers. comm.). Acknowledgements This excavation was funded by British Gas and the author wishes to thank Phil Catherall and all those members of the British Gas Archaeological Survey who took part in the excavation. The pottery report is an edited version of Amanda Crowdys dissertation for her Postgraduate Diploma in Post Excavation Studies awarded by the Department of Archaeology of Leicester University under the supervision of Deirdre OSullivan. The author also wishes to thank Colm OBrien for providing space in the offices of the North East Archaeology Unit to allow me to carry out the preliminary analysis of the pottery, Terry Pearson, Richard Colman-Smith and Derek Hall for their helpful comments on the interpretation of the site, and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland for preparing some of the images for publication. The excavation archives, the pottery and thin-sections have been deposited with the Museum of Antiquities at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartlett, K. S. 1972, Excavations at Potovens, near Wakefield 1968 Post-medieval Archaeol 5 (1971), 1-34. Blake, H. and Davey, P. 1983, Guidelines for the Processing and Publication of Medieval Pottery from Excavations. Bown, L. 1985, The Pottery in D. M. OSullivan, An Excavation in Holy Island Village 1977 Archaeol Aeliana 5th Series XIII, 47-80. Bown, L. 1989, The Pottery in OBrien C., et al. The Origins of Newcastle Quayside, Excavations at Queen Street and Dog Bank (Soc. of Antiq Newcastle-upon-Tyne Monogr 3, 41-77. Brewster, T.C.M. 1958, Staxton ware - an interim report, Yorkshire Archaeol J 39, 445-6. Brooks, C. 1980, Medieval pottery from the kiln site at Colstoun, E Lothian, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 110 (1978-80), 365-403. Colman-Smith, R. and Pearson, T. 1988, Excavations in the Donyatt Potteries, Chichester Cox, E., Haggarty, G. and Hurst, J. G. 1984, Ceramic Material in Tabraham, C. Excavations at Kelso Abbey Proc Soc Antiq Scot 114, 381-398. Crowdy, A. 1986, The Pottery in Dixon, P. Excavations in the Fishing Town of Eyemouth, Borders Burghs Archaeology Project Monograph Series No. 1, Borders Architects Group, Edinburgh, 38-55. Crowdy, A. forthcoming, The Pottery in Dixon, P. J. Excavations at the Deserted Medieval Village of Alnhamsheles, Northumberland, 1979-1983 forthcoming. Ellison, M. 1981, The Pottery in Harbottle, B and Ellison, M. An excavation in the Castle Ditch, Newcastle, 1974-76, Archaeol Aeliana 5th Series IX, 95-164. 44 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Evans, D. H. & Jarrett, M. G. 1987, The Deserted Village of West Whelpington, Northumberland Archaeol Aeliana 5th Series, XV, 263-269 and fiche. Farmer, P. 1979, An Introduction to Scarborough Ware and a Re- assessment of Knight Jugs, Hove. Hammo Yassi N. 1981, Archaeomagnetic dating of Eshott Site - Alnwick, unpublished report, Dept. of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. HMSO 1936, The Geology of the Country around Rothbury, Amble and Ashington. Geological Survey of Great Britain, HMSO. Hodges, H. 1976, Artefacts: and Introduction to Early Materials and Technology, London. Jarrett, M. G. and Edwards, B. J. N. 1961, Medieval and other Pottery from Finchale Priory, Co. Durham, Archaeol Aeliana 4th Series, XXXIX, 229-78. Jarrett, M. G. and Edwards, B. J. N. 1963, Medieval pottery in the Possession of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeol Aeliana 4th Series XXXXI, 85-106. Jarrett, M. G. and Edwards, B. J. N. 1970, Medieval and other pottery from West Whelpington, Archaeol Aeliana 4th Series XXXXVIII, 258-272. Jope, E. M. and Hodges, H. W.M. 1955, Medieval pottery from Castle Street in Hogg, R. Excavations in Carlisle, 1953 Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc 55, 79-107. Laing, L. R. 1973, The Origins of the Scottish medieval pottery industry Archaeol J 130, 183-216. Laing, L. R and Robertson, W N. 1973, Notes on Scottish medieval pottery Proc Soc Antiq Scot 102, 1969-70 146-54. Moorhouse, S. A. 1981, The medieval pottery industry and its markets in Crossley, D. W. (ed) Medieval Industry, CBA Research Report 40, London. Munsell, 1975, Munsell Soil Color Charts, 1975 Edition, Maryland. Murray, H. K. and Murray, J. C. 1993, Rattray, Aberdeenshire. A Scottish deserted burgh in Medieval Archaeol 37, 109-219. Musty, J. 1974, Medieval pottery kilns in Evison, V. I., Hodges, H. & Hurst, J. G. (eds). Medieval Pottery from Excavations: Studies Presented to Gerald Clough Dunning, London, 41-66. NCH 1893-1940, A History of Northumberland, Northumberland County History Committee 15 Volumes. Newcastle-upon- Tyne. Orton, C. R. 1978, Museum of London Pottery Archiver Users Handbook, London. Page, W. 1893, The Cartulary of Brinkburn Priory, Surtees Society Vol. XC. Waterman, D. 1953, A group of twelfth-century pottery and other finds from Knaresborough Castle Antiq J, 33, 211-3. Piers Dixon, Leithen Mill Lodge, Leithen Crescent, Innerleithen, Peeblesshire EH44 6JL Amanda Crowdy, 46 Hutton Road, Ash Vale, Surrey GU12 5HA Rsum Les fouilles de sauvetage et les sondages organiss en aval de la construction du pipeline North Sea Gas travers le Northumberland ont mis jour un four de potier, dat entre le milieu et la fin du 12 me sicle, un ventuel atelier ainsi que des habitations. Les fours de potiers en milieu rural sont rares dans le nord-est de lAngleterre. Le four est du type ciel ouvert et les productions incluent de la vaisselle vernie et non-vernie. La distribution du matriel est locale, mais ces produits sont proches de types trouvs ailleurs dans le nord-est de lAngleterre. Zusammenfassung Rettungsgrabungen und Ausgrabungen vor dem Bau der Nordsee Gas Pipeline durch Northumberland brachten einen Tpferofen, mglicherweise eine Werkstatt und eine Siedlung aus dem mittleren bis spten 12. Jahrhundert zutage. Lndliche mittelalterliche Tpferfen sind selten im Nordosten von England. Dieser Ofen ist ein clamp-kiln, in dem sowohl glasierte wie unglasierte Gefe gebrannt wurden. Die Verbreitung der Produkte beschrnkt sich auf die nhere Umgebung, obwohl hnliche Typen auch anderswo im Nordosten Englands gefunden 45 An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish red ware pottery Simon Chenery, Emrys Phillips and George Haggarty SUMMARY A geochemical study was undertaken to evaluate whether it was possible to accurately fingerprint Scottish, Post-Medieval and later red ware pottery sherds. The primary objective was to establish a set of criteria to distinguish between the pottery sherds, on both a site and regional basis, as an aid to provenancing. These preliminary investigations also utilised the British Geological Surveys national geochemical database of stream sediment analyses as an aid to predicting the potential clay source regions. The results of this study clearly demonstrate the potential power of this combined geochemical and statistical approach, and its application to archaeological site investigations. INTRODUCTION Establishing the provenance or source of clay for pottery manufacture is a recurrent problem for many archaeological studies. Over the last few decades a number of observational techniques, i.e. thin section optical microscopy and instrumental techniques, including the geochemical characterisation of pottery sherds, have been applied to this problem. Previously, one of the most common and techniques was instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), in studies such as that on Tating Ware (Stilke et al. 1996) or Inscker and Tate, 1991 on Scottish medieval pottery. However, during the 1990s, the closure of many nuclear reactor facilities necessary for INAA has led to the use of other analytical techniques with some success, for example inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) (Bruno et al. 2000). This paper describes the results of a geochemical study of Scottish Post Medieval red ware pottery, which was undertaken to evaluate whether it was possible to accurately fingerprint pottery sherds as an aid to provenancing. The study utilised ICP-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) which is a highly sensitive modern analytical technique and is compatible with the earlier used INAA. For a more detailed comparison between INAA and ICP-MS analytical techniques the reader is referred to Holmes (1997). The suite of pottery sherds provided for analysis were selected from eleven archaeological sites, located within five geographical regions across Scotland (Fig. 1). These samples were divided into two groups. The first provided a training Fig. 1 Location maps of red ware pottery sites sampled or discussed in this study. Medieval Ceramics 25, 4553, 2001 46 47 An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish red ware pottery set which were used to establish a set of criteria for the fingerprinting of each site and/or region. These characteristics could then be used to provenance the second test group, which were initially supplied blind without any site specific or regional location details. A number of statistical and graphical approaches have been applied to group the sherds on, in this case, the basis of their geochemical composition. To fully utilise the large amount of information generated by ICP-MS, emphasis has been placed on multi-variate techniques, such as factor analysis and discriminant analysis (Davis 1973; Adams 1995). The success of these statistical techniques for discriminating between pottery sherds from different localities was evaluated by applying them to the test samples. The degree of success could then be ascertained by the number of samples correctly assigned to a provenance or region. The data were also compared with the British Geological Surveys national geochemical database to ascertain whether pottery production was from local or imported source materials. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT AND SAMPLE SELECTION This multidisciplinary project involved Scottish Medieval archaeologists and ceramic historians (Medieval Archaeological Research Group), and analytical scientists at the British Geological Survey. The primary archaeological objectives of the project were: (a) to see if it were possible to differentiate between the iron-rich clays sourced from different major river systems in Scotland; and (b) to discriminate between a number of individual production sites within a single area. If the results of the pilot study were found to be favourable, MARG intended to design a much larger project on Scottish red ware pottery. The pottery sherds were selected from five principal areas; Group 1, Forth Basin - In the 17th and 18th centuries the Forth basin was the location of a number of large industrial potteries, brick and tile works. These industries started to utilise, on a large-scale, the abundant carseland clays present within the basin. Prior to this, pottery production was limited to a few small-scale potters working the local clay. During this period, the potters began to move from the vicinity of the larger towns, such as Stirling and Edinburgh, which were rapidly expanding beyond their medieval boundaries. For example, marriage documents from the first half of the 17th century give us the names of at least seven potters working in Potterrow just outside Edinburghs city walls. However, by 1660 only a few clay pipe makers were still working in this area. The Forth basin satisfies one of the main objectives of the collaborative project, as it contains a number of individual ceramic production sites including West Pans [NT 371 736], Throsk [NS 903 868], Stenhouse [NS 880 824] and Fife Sinclairtown [NT 304 931]. These sites have been the subject of a number of recent archaeological excavations, as well as an ongoing documentary research program being undertaken by G. Haggarty (unpublished work-in-progress). West Pans (WP - six training and three test samples) is a very complex and long lived ceramic manufacturing site. Production commenced in c. 1738 when an Edinburgh potter called Robert Pate petitioned the Council of Musselburgh for 20 guineas (which he received) prior to moving into the area. Slip decorated-type wares were being made using the local clay from at least c. 1748. West Pans was also the site of an 18th-century porcelain factory, as well as a number of 18th and 19th-century industrial pottery manufacturers which used both imported white and the local red clay. Throsk (Th - six training and three test samples) is a very important 17th and 18th-century Scottish pottery production site. The potteries utilised the local estuarine clays and may have distributed their wares across Scotland. Substantial archaeological and documentary research on this ceramic industry has been published Caldwell & Dean (1992) and Harrison (2002). Stenhouse (St - six training and three test samples) is an extensive pottery production site, containing evidence for large number of kilns that were excavated by the late Miss D Hunter (Hall & Hunter 2001). These authors concluded that the site is 15th or early 16th century in date and used the local red firing clay. The distribution area of Stenhouse pottery is unknown. However, one sherd with a distinctive Stenhouse-type facemask was recovered at Ravenscraig Castle in a post-1562 context (Laing & Robertson 1970). Fife Sinclairtown (Fi - two training samples) is a small, recently excavated 19th and early 20th century pottery production site owned by J Buist & Sons. This site appears to have specialised in the production of Rockingham glazed teapots using both imported white Devon and local red clay (James et al. 1991). The source of the local clay was a number of pits located to the east of the pottery. Group 2, Moray Firth Two sites from the Moray Firth (Fig. 1), Elgin [NJ 2161 6289] and Spynie Palace [NJ 203 658], have been included in the present study. At Elgin (El - three training and three test samples) there is very good evidence, as yet unpublished, for post-medieval pottery production within the town. This includes a few wasters as well as a good assemblage of post-medieval kiln furniture (B Lindsay pers. comm.). All the pottery used in this present study was excavated from features in the general area and believed to be post-medieval in date. The pottery samples from Spynie Palace (Sp - three training samples) are all from stratified levels of a major archaeological excavation of an apparently high status palace (Lewis & Pringle 2002). However, examination of the pottery showed it to be extremely crude and lacking in the relative sophistication of the nearby Elgin material. This suggests that the pottery was locally produced. Although few red ware kiln sites have been found in Scotland, it is possible that the pottery was not being transported far and there may be many more production sites to be discovered. Group 3, Tweed Basin All the pottery sherds (Be - five training and three test samples) included within this group are from Berwick-upon-Tweed [NU 995 526]. The production site was located at Tweedmouth (now in the grounds of the Tower craft pottery) and used local clay. No detailed archaeological or documentary investigation has taken place. However the current owners have presented surface finds to English Heritage. These sherds (178 in total) indicate a post-medieval to early industrial date, with at least some being possible late 17th- century slip decorated ware. The latter were excavated by the Borders Burgh Archaeological Project from the Kelso area and may have originated from this site. Cruickshank et al. (in press) concluded that the slipwares from Kelso are distinct from those found at other production sites, both in Scotland and abroad. Group 4, Tay Basin Pottery from two sites from the Tay basin (Fig., 1), Dundee [NO 404 306] and Perth [NO 120 231], have been examined during the present study. The pottery sherds from the Dundee site (Du - five training and three test samples) are probably late medieval and were taken from an archaeological excavation within the town. Laing (1974) interpreted the sherds as wasters and concluded that they provide proof of medieval ceramic production in Dundee town. However, the medieval ceramics held in the Dundee museum store have recently been reassessed and are now considered to be fragments of pipes associated with late industrial salt glazing (D Hall & G Haggarty pers. comm.). At Perth (Pe - three training and three test samples), the large amounts of kiln furniture recovered from an archaeological excavation around Canal Street provide clear evidence for the local production of late red ware pottery (Blanchard 1979). Subsequently a medieval red ware kiln stand has been found in a excavation on the north side of town (D Hall pers. comm.). Group 5, Clyde Basin Archaeological evidence suggests that there was a post medieval pottery industry in the area of the old Calton in Glasgow which utilised the same clay source as the later industrial potters (Fleming 1923). Unfortunately, none of this material could be obtained for use in the present study. The sample sherds used came from excavations at Glasgow Govan [NS 553 659] and Glasgow Cathedral [NS 603 656] (Fig. 1). The samples from Govan (GG - two training and two test samples) are from an archaeological excavation carried out on the site of the Moot Hill; a possible late prehistoric or early medieval meeting point. This artificial mound survived until the early 19th century when it was flattened to make way for a shipyard. The pottery (probably late-medieval) was recovered from the fill of the ditch circling the base of the mound. The red ware sherds from Glasgow Cathedral (GC - two training samples) were recovered during an archaeological excavation within the nave and crypt of the cathedral (Driscoll in press). The present cathedral dates to the 13th century but the sherds are probably late medieval in age. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY The initial stages of the sample preparation involved cutting a 5-10 mm strip out of the centre of a sherd. This was used to make a thin section for petrographical analysis (Phillips 1998). The remaining material (up to 5 g in weight) was prepared for geochemical analysis using ICP-mass spectrometry. To avoid problems with the variable concentration of trace elements within the glaze, the latter was carefully removed by paring off using a stainless steel chisel (the glaze was retained for use in a possible future study). The whole surface of the remaining sample was lightly ground with a pure alumina grinding head to remove any surface contamination or alteration. The sherd was then crushed, ground to less than 30 mm and homogenised in an agate mill. The solid pottery powder was accurately weighed into a PTFE test-tube and dissolved using a mixture of hydrofluoric, perchloric and nitric acids. The tube was heated until the sample was decomposed and the acids evaporated off. The dried material was then re-dissolved in a small amount of nitric acid and stored in a clean plastic bottle until required for analysis using ICP-mass spectrometry. For a more detailed account of the sample preparation methods for ICP analysis the reader is referred to Cook et al. (1997). The samples were analysed for 45 elements: Lithium (Li); Beryllium (Be); Scandium (Sc); Titanium (Ti); Vanadium (V); Chromium (Cr); Cobalt (Co); Nickel (Ni); Copper (Cu); Zinc (Zn); Gallium (Ga); Arsenic (As); Rubidium (Rb); Strontium (Sr); Yttrium (Y); Zirconium (Zr); Niobium (Nb); Molybdenum (Mo); Silver (Ag); Cadmium (Cd); Tin (Sn); Antimony (Sb); Caesium (Cs); Barium (Ba); Lanthanum (La); Cerium (Ce); Praseodymium (Pr); MEDIEVAL CERAMICS 49 An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish red ware pottery 48 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Neodymium (Nd); Samarium (Sm); Europium (Eu); Gadolinium (Gd); Terbium (Tb); Dysprosium (Dy); Holmium (Ho); Erbium (Er); Thulium (Tm); Ytterbium (Yb); Lutetium (Lu); Hafnium (Hf); Tantalum (Ta); Tungsten (W); Thallium (Tl); Lead (Pb); Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) using a VG Elemental Plasma Quad 2+ ICP- mass spectrometer. A complete list of the data obtained is available from the lead author on request. The instrument was calibrated with solutions traceable to internationally recognised chemical standards. The data was validated with an extensive range of quality control samples. Quality control (QC) samples (reference materials, duplicate analyses and blanks) were also analysed, providing statistical information on the analytical quality and batch rejection criteria. No pottery reference materials were available; consequently the internationally recognised SCo-1 (Shale- Cody) and SDO-1 (Shale - Devonian Ohio) reference materials were used, with compiled concentrations taken from Potts et al. (1992). All data-processing, graphical and statistical analysis were performed using commercial computer software packages (Excel, Microsoft; Unistat for Windows 3, Unistat, Ltd; Minitab 13, Minitab Inc). GRAPHICAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The geochemical data obtained for the Scottish red ware pottery sherds have been analysed using a number of statistical and graphical techniques, ranging from the simple methods to sophisticated multivariate analysis. Each technique was evaluated to determine whether it provided new or corroborative information, allowing discrimination between sherds from the different archaeological sites. Graphical analysis The simplest interpretative method used was the bivariate (x-y) plot, with the plots of barium (Ba) versus strontium (Sr) (Fig 2) and barium (Ba) versus rubidium (Rb) providing the best discrimination between site groups. For example the sherds from Berwick-upon-Tweed (Be) are clearly distinguished by their low Ba and Sr concentrations from the Elgin pottery (El), which have much higher concentrations of these elements (Fig. 2). The more sophisticated log-element ratio plots (Fig. 3) are also extremely useful as geochemical data is not normally distributed and such diagrams expand the lower data values. Using these graphical methods a clear discrimination is achieved between the geographical groups of the training samples (see Figs 2 and 3). These plots also allow provisional assignment of the test samples to a particular region. The samples BS1, BS2 and BS3 possess Ba and Rb concentrations (Ba > 1000 g g -1 , Rb > 160 g g -1 ) comparable to the known Elgin pottery sherds. The test samples BS7, BS8 and BS9 have Sr/Cr (log Sr/Cr -0.35) and Ba/Cr ratios (log Ba/Cr < 0.60) consistent with them forming part of the Berwick-upon-Tweed suite of pottery. However, samples BS16 to BS21 are more difficult to assign using these methods and may be derived from either the Dundee or Perth sites (see Fig. 2). Multivariate statistical analysis When performing multivariate statistics it is usual to normalise the data to ensure that elements with high concentrations and/or a large absolute variation, do not dominate the statistical processes. The conventional normalisation process of normal scoring z i = (a i -x i )/ i Fig. 2 Plot of Ba versus Sr concentration determined in Scottish red ware pottery coded for each of the eleven sites and the blind samples (BS). For full site codes see archaeological context. Plot demonstrates the discrimination, in particular, of samples from Berwick (Be) because of their low concentrations of these elements. has been used in this study, where z i = normal-score, a i = concentration for element i, x i = the mean of concentrations for training set and i = the standard deviation for the training set. Before conducting multivariate analysis the size of the data set (number of elements) was reduced to assist interpretation. Most multivariate methods aim to re-cast the data to maximise differences in order to highlight the underlying processes. Therefore, if variables (in this case the elements) are highly correlated in their statistical behaviour they will not aid in data processing. After inspection of a correlation matrix, one element (in bold): La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu and Y; Nb, Ti, Ta; Co, Ni; Rb, Cs; and Zr, Hf. was chosen to represent each group of highly correlated elements identified during the first stage of the multivariate statistical analysis. The rare earth elements (La-Y) are commonly used in geochemical interpretation of geological materials. However, in the present study these elements did not provide any useful discrimination. Some of the other elements were also discounted: Cd, because of its poor precision in the quality control; Ga due to Ba interference; As due to a possible Cl interference and Pb because of possible glaze contamination. These problems may have been specific to the pottery samples analysed during this study and should not be considered generic. The elements Li, Be, V, Cr, Co, Cu, Zn, Rb, Sr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ag, Sn, Sb, Ba, La, W, Tl, Th and U were found to be the most robust and, therefore, used as normal-scored data in the multivariate statistical analysis. Cluster analysis - There are many forms of cluster analysis, most of which fall into the category of unsupervised pattern recognition (i.e. no prior assumptions are made about grouping) and make use of the degree of similarity between objects. When using geochemical data this similarity is usually quantified as some measure of the distance between samples in multivariate space. The different forms of cluster analysis may produce different results. Therefore, there is no single correct result, with the success of the clustering process being dependent upon the information being sought (Adams 1995). Consequently, a number of forms of this type of analysis were tried. Hierarchical clustering, using the single linkage method and the Euclid distance as a measure of similarity proved to be the most successful, the graphical results are shown in Fig. 4. From this dendrogram it was possible to provisionally assign some of the test samples to Fig. 4 A dendrogram resulting from cluster analysis of Scottish redware pottery coded for each of the eleven sites and the blind samples (BS). For full site codes see archaeological context. The cluster analysis was performed using hierarchical clustering, the single linkage method and the Euclid distance as a measure of similarity. Fig. 3 Log plot of Ba/Cr versus Sr/Cr concentration ratios determined in Scottish red ware pottery, coded for each of the eleven sites and the blind samples (BS). For full site codes see archaeological context. This demonstrates the extra discrimination possible by this type of plot compared to simple two element concentration plots, in particular by region i.e. Berwick (Be); Spynie (Sp) and Elgin (El); Perth (Pe) and Dundee (Du). 51 An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish red ware pottery 50 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS particular regional groups, in particular: samples BS11 and BS12 to West Pans; samples BS13, BS14 and BS15 to Stenhouse; samples BS7 and BS8 to Berwick; and samples BS2 and BS3 to either Elgin or Spynie. The K-means algorithm was another cluster method used to analyse the data. In this technique, a certain amount of predefined information is given, including how many clusters are required (in this case the eleven sites), with one training sample being used to seed each cluster. This technique is, therefore, a form of supervised pattern recognition. The results of K-means clustering were, however, disappointing and led to significant mis-assignment, even of the samples belonging to the training set. Consequently, no useful information was obtained using the K-means cluster technique. A possible reason for the failure is the production of more clusters than sites due to chemical composition differences within sherds from a single site. This seems highly likely if pottery was produced over a period of time and from different batches of raw clay even from a single source. Factor analysis This method of data analysis is a form of unsupervised pattern recognition. The first stage in factor analysis is to decide how many factors are required to describe the data. The number of factors should not be confused with the number of sites, as the factors will reflect underlying causes of variation in the data. For example, the variation in the data may be caused by elements being absorbed onto the surface of clay minerals, or the presence of an accessory mineral phase which contains a large concentration of otherwise exotic element. The number of factors may be chosen by first performing a principal components analysis (PCA). This manipulates the data in such a way that a new series of variables (factors) are produced. The first will account for the maximum amount of variance in the data, the second the next most significant and so on. Using a scree plot (Adams 1995), five factors were found to be significant, with the amount of variance explained by the model being shown in Table 1. In particular, the percentage of the total explained by each factor and the cumulative total as each factor is added. The next stage of the factor analysis is the application of a Varimax rotation. This process aids meaningful interpretation as the new axes are rotated relative to the sample space. This is not the only form of rotation that might be considered, but is applied here as it frequently produces good results with geochemical data. The simplest way to represent the results of the factor analysis is to plot the factor scores against each other, as shown in Fig 5. The application of factor analysis to the Scottish red ware data allowed test samples BS1, BS2 and BS3 to be assigned to Elgin, samples BS20 and BS17 to Dundee, BS16, BS 18, BS19, BS20 to Perth and sample BS9 to the Berwick-upon-Tweed site. More importantly, the factor matrix also provides an indication of which elements are related to which factors; for example, Factor 1 was dominated by a positive correlation with Cr and strong negative correlations with Ba, Rb and Sr. These correlations indicate why these elements provided a clear discrimination between the Scottish red ware pottery sites on the bi-variate plots. Canonical Discriminant Analysis (CDA) - is probably the most powerful multivariate statistical technique for the assignment of test samples to known sites. This is primarily because the technique is a form of supervised pattern recognition using the a priori knowledge of all the training data set. Elements used in this modelling were the same as those used for the previous analytical methods. However, Ag and Sb were eliminated as factor analysis had shown that these elements did not significantly contribute to modelling. CDA is similar to factor analysis in that it relies on an underlying principle components analysis to create a new set of multivariate axes from normalised data. However, the aim of CDA is to maximise the separation between known groups and CDA was first performed on the training data set. The result was complete separation between the regional sites, with 93% of variance accounted for in the first 3 factors. The CDA coefficients were then applied to both the normalised training set and the normalised test data set to produce a set of scores. An example of a plot of CDA factors 1 versus 2 is shown in Fig 6. Factor 1 provided the best separation between the Table 1 The amount of variance explained by the factor analysis model. Specifically, the percentage of the total explained by each factor and the cumulative total as each factor is added. Fig. 5 A plot of Factor 1 versus Factor 2 sample scores from a five factor analysis using Varimax rotation, an unsupervised pattern recognition method. These factors demonstrated best discrimination between the Forth basin geographical group and the other regional groups. Elgin/Spynie and Glasgow sites. In contrast, Factor 2 clearly separated pottery sherds from the Berwick and Perth/Dundee sites. Both factors 1 and 2 proved to be successful in separating the Fife samples from the other regional sites. Factors 3 and 4 were useful in distinguishing between the Forth sites of Stenhouse, Throsk and West Pans. CDA was also applied to the test samples and resulted in the following assignments: BS1, BS2 and BS3 to Elgin; BS4, BS5, BS6 and BS11 to Throsk; BS7, BS8 and BS9 to Berwick- upon-Tweed; BS10 and BS12 to West Pans; BS13, BS14, BS15, BS22 and BS23 to Stenhouse; BS16, BS17, BS18 and BS20 to Dundee; and finally samples BS19 and BS21 to the Perth site. Although CDA is a powerful a priori statistical technique it is limited by the quality of the training data set. In the current study although the training set used well researched material, the sample size for each site was typically small (five) and in some cases extremely small (two). This small sample size may give rise to problems with the CDA statistical analysis and distort results (Baxter 1994 and Hope 1968). To minimise this possibility five samples per site should be considered the minimum in future studies and ten or more preferred if possible. RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCOTTISH POTTERY DATA To make the final assignment of the test samples to individual archaeological sites and geographical regions the results of all of the statistical techniques were collated into a single table (Table 2). The most weight was given to the results of Canonical Discriminant Analysis as this was a supervised pattern recognition technique, making full use of the multi-element data set by manipulating that data set to maximise the differences between sites. This process resulted in the correct assignment of nineteen out of twenty-three pottery samples to their true site of origin, with a further two more sherds being assigned to the correct geographical group. Only two samples were assigned to both the wrong site and regional group, having erroneously been assigned to Stenhouse (Forth) rather than Govan (Glasgow). This error may, at least in part, be due to the very small size of the Table 2 Summary of sites assigned to blind test samples (BS) by different statistical and graphical methods in comparison with actual site. Sample Bivariate Hierarchical K-means Factor Canonical Actual graphs cluster cluster analysis discriminant analysis analysis analysis BS1 Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin BS2 Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin or Spynie BS3 Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin Elgin or Spynie BS4 Throsk Throsk BS5 Throsk Throsk Throsk BS6 Throsk Throsk Throsk BS7 Berwick Berwick Berwick Berwick Berwick BS8 Berwick Berwick Berwick Berwick Berwick BS9 Berwick Berwick Berwick Berwick Berwick BS10 West Pans West Pans BS11 West Pans Throsk West Pans BS12 West Pans West Pans West Pans BS13 Stenhouse Stenhouse Stenhouse Stenhouse BS14 Stenhouse Stenhouse Stenhouse Stenhouse BS15 Stenhouse Stenhouse Stenhouse Stenhouse BS16 Dundee Perth Dundee Dundee or Perth BS17 Dundee Dundee Dundee Dundee Dundee or Perth BS18 Dundee Perth Dundee Dundee or Perth BS19 Dundee Perth Perth Perth Perth or Perth BS20 Dundee Dundee Dundee Dundee Perth or Perth BS21 Dundee Stenhouse Perth Perth Perth or Perth BS22 Stenhouse Stenhouse Govan BS23 Stenhouse Stenhouse Govan Factor Eigenvalue % total for factor Cumulative % 1 4.84 23.1 23.1 2 3.66 17.4 40.5 3 2.91 13.9 54.4 4 1.87 8.9 63.3 5 1.25 6.0 69.2 Fig. 6 A plot of Factor 1 versus Factor 2 sample scores from a canonical discriminant analysis (CDA), a supervised pattern recognition method. These factors demonstrated best discrimination between the Forth basin geographical group and the other regional groups. 53 An evaluation of geochemical fingerprinting for the provenancing of Scottish red ware pottery 52 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS training set provided for the Govan (two samples) and Clyde basin (four samples) sites. Furthermore, G. Haggarty and D. Hall (pers. comm.) have both suggested that these sherds may have indeed originated from the Stenhouse area. COMPARISON OF POTTERY COMPOSITION WITH BGS GEOCHEMICAL DATABASE Since the early 1970s the British Geological Survey has been conducting a national Geochemical Baseline Survey of the Environment (G-BASE). This survey measures the concentrations of a wide variety of elements in stream sediment, soil and water samples at a density of approximately one per square kilometre. For the sediments, the samples are of the finer fraction (less than 150 microns) and are internationally recognised as being representative of local geology and geochemistry. Of particular relevance to the current study, this fine fraction usually contains a high proportion of clay and minor mineral phases, which are likely to be included within the final manufactured pottery. Data for this area was produced using the analytical technique DC Arc - Atomic Emission Spectrometry. The BGS has a number of survey programs that continue over many years. To ensure comparability of data over time and advances in analytical techniques the laboratories have detailed quality assurance and quality control schemes. The Elgin, Spynie, Dundee and Perth sites are all located within the East Grampians region of the G-BASE. Data for this area is available in the form of maps created using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) (British Geological Survey 1991). Elemental concentrations for all G-BASE sites, within 5 km of the archaeological sites, were extracted from the master ORACLE database for use in the present study. The average concentrations of the elements Ba, Cr, Rb and Sr in pottery analysed from the Elgin, Spynie, Dundee and Perth sites were then compared with the range of concentrations of these elements in the G-BASE (Table 3). The Elgin and Spynie archaeological sites have been considered together as these geographically close sites can not be separated on the scale of the G-BASE data. The compositional variations within the pottery geochemical data are also recognisable in the G-BASE dataset and, therefore, are believed to reflect regional changes in source clay composition. In particular, there is a decrease in Ba concentrations from Elgin/Spynie through Dundee to Perth, with the pottery data falling within the recorded range of Ba for these areas in the G-BASE dataset. Furthermore, pottery from the Elgin/Spynie sites contain a higher Rb and lower Cr concentrations than sherds analysed from the Perth and Dundee sites (both of which have similar values), with a similar variation also being recognised in the G-BASE dataset. The broad similarity in Sr concentrations in pottery sherds from all three sites is also reflected in the stream sediment geochemical data. In detail, pottery from the Perth site does exhibit a slightly lower Sr content suggesting that the source clay may have been derived from a lower Sr region to the west of Perth recognised on the single element G-BASE map for this area. CONCLUSIONS The present study has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to geochemically fingerprint Scottish red ware pottery and predict, with a high degree of certainty, on both the geographical regional and the site specific level the origin of the pottery sherds. The division of the pottery samples into a training set (whose site of origin was known) and test group has proved a successful means of avoiding any bias in the assignment process. The pottery sherds were analysed using ICP-MS geochemical analytical technique, which is becoming increasingly widely available. A variety of graphical and statistical techniques were then applied to these data to provide a basis on which to assign the test samples to a regional site. Some techniques, such as log- element ratio plots, are perhaps more common in geochemistry than archaeology, but show the synergy of the two disciplines. The supervised pattern recognition method of canonical discriminant analysis proved to be the most successful technique. Errors in assigning the test samples are considered to result from the small size of the training set for a particular site, which should ideally contain at least five samples. Initial results suggest that the comparison of pottery chemical data with the British Geological Surveys national geochemical database (G-BASE) may provide a useful tool in the location of potential sources of raw clay materials. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the many Scottish archaeologists and museum staff who provided material for this collaborative study and, in particular, Derek Hall and Table 3 A comparison between the composition of Scottish red ware pottery from Spynie/Elgin, Dundee and Perth and geochemical survey (G-BASE) stream sediments from within 5 km of the archaeological sites. Location Ba (ppm) Cr (ppm) Rb (ppm) Sr (ppm) Elgin/Spynie pottery 971 64 181 194 Elgin/Spynie G-Base 1300-2000 32-80 100-300 268-376 Dundee pottery 822 107 118 192 Dundee G-Base 560-920 132-276 <41-72 268-435 Perth pottery 748 109 125 169 Perth G-Base <360-920 132-404 <41-72 268-435 David Caldwell for helping drive the project. We are indebted to Historic Scotland for funding this work and Olwyn Owen for believing in its success. We would also like to acknowledge the help of two former members of BGS, Phil Green for extracting the G-Base data and Nigel Ruckley for bringing together the Scottish pottery experts with the BGS geoscientists. This work is published with the permission of the Director, British Geological Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, UK. BIBLOGRAPHY Adams, M. J. 1995, Chemometrics in Analytical Spectroscopy. Royal Society of Chemistry Analytical Spectroscopy Monogr Cambridge 216. Blanchard, L. 1979, Perth Enters The Lists. Scottish Pottery Society Archive News 4, Edinburgh 75. British Geological Survey, 1991, Regional geochemistry of the East Grampians area, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. Bruno, P., Caselli, M., Curri, M. L., Genga, A., Striccoli, R. & Traini, A. 2000, Chemical characterisation of ancient pottery from south of Italy by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) statistical multivariate analysis of data. Analytica Chimica Acta 410, 193-202. Caldwell, D. and Dean, V. 1992, The pottery industry at Throsk, Stirlingshire, in the 17th and early 18th century. Post-Medieval Archaeol, 26, 1-46. Cook, J. M., Robinson, J. J., Chenery, S. R. N. & Miles, D. L. 1997, Determining cadmium in marine sediments by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry: Attacking the problems or the problems with the attack? Analyst, 122, 1207-1210. Cruichshank et al., (in press). Davis, J. C. 1973, Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. John Wiley and Sons. New York, 550. Driscoll, S.T. 2002, Excavations at Glasgow Cathedral 1988-97. Society for Medieval Archaeol Monogr 18. Fleming, J. A. 1923, Scottish Pottery. Glasgow. Hall, D.W. and Hunter, D. 2001, The Rescue Excavations of some Medieval Redware Pottery Kilns at Stenhousemuir, Falkirk between 1954 and 1978. Medieval Archaeol 45, 97-168. Harrison, J. G. in press, The Pottery at Throsk, Stirlingshire c1600 1800; Context Links And Survivals. Proc Soc Antiq Scot. Holmes, L. J. 1997, Application of Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) to the Chemical Analysis of Ancient Ceramics. unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester. Inscker, A. and Tate, J. 1991, Neutron Activation analysis of Scottish Medieval Pottery: A Grain Size Study. In P. Budd, B. Chapman, C. Jackson, R. Janaway and B. Ottway (eds.), Archaeological Sciences 1989, Oxbow Monogr 9, Oxford, 69-75. James, H., Turnbull, G. & Mechan, D. 1991, The Excavations at Sinclairtown Pottery Kirkcaldy. Kirkcaldy. Laing, L. & Robertson 1970, Notes on Scottish Medieval Pottery. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 102, (1969-70), 146-154. Laing, L. 1974, Medieval Pottery in Dundee Museum. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 103, (1970-1), 169-177. Lewis, J. & Pringle D. 2002, Spynie Palace and the Bishop of Moray History Architecture and Archaeology, Edinburgh Proc Soc Antiq Scot Monogr Ser 21. Phillips, E. R. 1998, The petrography and micromorphology of a suite of Scottish Medieval pottery sherds. British Geological Survey, Technical Report, WG/98/13. Potts, P. J., Tindle, A. G. & Webb, P.C. 1992, Geochemical Reference Material Compositions: Rocks, Minerals, Sediments, Soils, Carbonates, Refractories and Ores Used in Research and Industry. Whittles Publishing, Caithness, 313. Stilke, H., Hein, A. & Mommsen, H. 1996, Results of Neutron Activation Analysis on Tating Ware and the Mayen Industry. Medieval Ceram 20, 25-32. Simon Chenery, British Geological Survey, Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG, UK Emrys Phillips, British Geological Survey, Murchison House, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3LA, UK George Haggarty, 8 John Street, Portobello, Edinburgh EH15 2EE, UK Rsum Afin de dterminer sil etait possible de tracer prcisement lorigine des tessons post-mdivaux dEcosse, une tude go- chimique a t mise en uvre. Lobjectif premier tait dtablir une liste de critres pour distinguer lorigine des tessons la fois lchelle rgionale et sur un site particulier. Ces tudes prliminaires utilisent la base nationale de donnes go- chimiques des sdiments de rivires (British Geological Survey) permettant de prvoir lorigine de largile. Les rsultats de cette tude dmontrent le pouvoir potentiel de cette approche combinant la go-chimie et la statistique, et leur application dans ltude des sites archologiques. Zusammenfassung Eine geochemische Studie wurde erstellt, um festzustellen ob es mglich ist, schottische sptmittelalterliche und sptere Rotware- Keramikscherben genau zu bestimmen. Die Hauptaufgabe war, eine Reihe von Kriterien fr die Herkunftsbestimmung von Scherben sowohl auf lokaler als auf regionaler Ebene aufzustellen. Die Voruntersuchungen benutzten auch die nationale geochemische Datenbank fr Flusand-Sedimentanalyse des British Geological Survey als eine Hilfe, die mgliche Herkunft des Tones zu bestimmen. Die Resultate dieser Studie zeigen deutlich die potentielle Strke dieser kombinierten geochemischen und statistischen Annherung und deren Anwendung auf archologische Untersuchungen. Historically visible but archaeologically invisible? the Huguenots in 17th- century Spitalfields Nigel Jeffries SUMMARY Throughout all periods, the historical, archaeological and anthropological study of the material culture of distinctive ethnic groups has always been a topic of much research and debate. The emigration of Europeans (through colonialism) and Africans (by slavery) during the post- medieval period, notably to America and the Caribbean, has been widely studied. As a result, little comment has been made on those immigrant communities settling into Britain and their impact on the archaeological record. However, the recent excavations, on part of the post-medieval suburb of Spitalfields in East London, have given the opportunity partly to redress the balance by allowing the study of the pottery from an area settled by the Huguenots (Protestant refugees from France and the Low Countries). INTRODUCTION Historical records show that the Huguenots gradually settled in England throughout the 17th century, with immigration reaching a peak after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in October 1685 ended the religious tolerance of Protestants in France. It is estimated that this event displaced 40,000 to 50,000 Huguenots (Gywnn 1998). The first report of the French Committee founded in 1687 to oversee the distribution of funds raised by a nationwide collection, estimated that 13,050 Huguenots settled in London, with their communities centred on Spitalfields and Soho; the new inhabitants became the driving force behind the establishment of the silk weaving industry in this country (Molleson and Cox et al. 1993, 114). The extensive excavations undertaken since 1998 by the Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS), just to the north and the west of Spitalfields market (sitecode SRP98) affords important opportunities to undertake an integrated study of the material culture represented by waste discarded in a post-medieval London suburb, and examine the impact of the Huguenots on the assemblage found. The excavations between 1982 and 1991 around Norton Folgate and Spital Square, focusing mainly on the medieval Priory and hospital (Thomas, Sloane and Philpotts 1997), are not discussed (see Fig. 1). This paper is divided into two parts. The first considers the use of French pottery in post-medieval London. The second part draws on the historical and economic evidence to examine the context of Huguenot material culture during the height of their emigration within the wider debate surrounding the study of cultural identities in England during the (medieval and) post-medieval period. THE POTTERY ASSEMBLAGE FROM SPITALFIELDS The post-medieval pottery is purely domestic in its composition and reflects attributes of everyday life, from the plain earth-toned London-made redware and Surrey/Hampshire Border vessels to decorated tin-glazed ware and Chinese porcelain dinner service sets. Viewed as a whole, the Spitalfields assemblage may be seen as representative of the range of pottery in widespread, everyday use in London during the 17th and 18th centuries. Most of the pottery was found in sealed deposits, such as the cesspits that served tenements in the Old Artillery Ground to the west of the present market, or from those that served properties on the St John and Tillard estates on the south-east side of Spital Square, and the Wheler and Wilke estates to the north, on Lamb Street (for full details see Sheppard 1957). 54 The 16th and 17th-century French-made products include green and yellow-glazed pottery made near Beauvais, in western France, Saintonge wares from production centres in south-western France, and Martincamp-type stoneware costrels made in Normandy. Vessels worthy of note consist of a Beauvais chafing dish with anthropomorphic decoration, and a small medallion jug (see Hurst, et al. 1986, 106-108, figs 49: 152 and figs 50: 157), with a few Martincamp costrels and flasks (ibid., 103, figs 47: 142-143). However, from a total post-medieval assemblage of over 25,000 sherds, only 79 were identified as French products (less than 0.3% of the total sherd count). Even when found from within the closely dated pit groups that could be specifically linked to one property, French pottery did not occur in sufficient quantities that might indicate a Huguenot household. Examination of the other finds has identified only a few distinctly French-made and prepared artefacts; the only material evidence for the areas connection to the silk weaving industry was the blade from tailing shears (Thomas, Sloane and Philpotts 1998, 168) and a stamped bobbin (C.Thomas, pers. comm.). The current phase yielded just the one silk cloth seal (G.Egan, pers. comm.). So why, despite the presence of a large immigrant French population, is there so little evidence for French pottery, and why is their identity not reflected through artefacts used, or more appropriately, discarded? Comparisons: two domestic assemblages from London In medieval and post-medieval studies in England, imported pottery has often been used or discussed as a tool in identifying immigrant communities (Atkin, Carter and Evans 1985; Blackmore 1994; Brown 1997a and 1997b; Pearce 1998). Since Spitalfields yielded such a limited range and quantity of French pottery, it is important to compare this assemblage with contemporaneous groups from other sites that are not associated with immigrant communities, and to establish whether there are any significant differences in the amount of French, or any other imported pottery, found. Two sites on the north bank of the Thames are considered here, the Royal Mint (sitecode MIN86), near Tower Hill, and Aldgate High Street (sitecode AL74). The Royal Mint site is located to the north-east of the Tower of London and just north of St Katherines Dock. It was chosen for this study because it yielded a varied range of imported post-medieval pottery in London and because it was recovered from an area just north of the docks. The site functioned as a naval victualling yard from the early eighteenth century with a series of Managers quarters and Coopers shops occupying the site, together with stables, a pickle shed, a cutting house and a new slaughter house 55 Fig. 1 Site location plan Medieval Ceramics 25, 5464, 2001 Comparisons: Individual vessels of interest from Spitalfields and London There are individual vessels of interest (not all imported) that have significance for the study of immigrant groups in London. One of the most unusual examples of excavated French pottery from London is the pedestaled, tin-glazed ware of faience, strainer deposited in a well at Spelman Street, E1 (SPE95), alongside other pottery dated between 1740 and 1760. The vessel (see Fig. 2) is thought to have been made in Lille in north-east France (Jean Rosen, pers. comm. to R Stephenson) and is notable both for its decoration and in the location of the site itself. The decoration shows a Cardinals hat with tutalaced tassels surmounting a shield, which has been identified as the coat of arms serving the diocese of the Bishop of Tournai. The town (now in Belgium) captured in 1667 by Louis XIV who subsequently imposed a series of French bishops until the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (www.newadvent.org/cathen/14798a.htm). The function of the vessel is quite specialised examples of English tin- glazed wares in this form are very rare and so it is likely to have been well looked after. However, Spelman Street is just east of Brick Lane and therefore within the Spitalfields area. The question arises of how this vessel, with all its Catholic symbolism, was acquired and used within an area associated with the settlement of Protestant French refugees. Another vessel (see Fig. 3) of note is a London made tin- glazed plate found during the most recent phase of excavation at Spitalfields (SRP98); the contrast between the symbolism of its decoration and that of the Spelman Street strainer could not be greater. The decoration depicts an episode of the Popish plot of 1678 by Titus Oates, who swore to a magistrate that he knew of a Papist plot to assassinate Charles II and establish a Catholic ministry. This imagery is often found on tin-glazed tiles of the period, with the decorators taking their inspiration from a set of playing cards produced in 1679 (Britton 1986, 176). This is the first example of this decoration on tin-glazed ware from London (R Stephenson, pers. comm.). The plot was a hoax, but it caused near-hysteria in England, leading to the arrest, trial and execution of many leading Catholics, such was the underlying fear of Popery. The third vessel (see Fig. 4) discussed here was also recovered during the most recent phase of excavations at Spitalfields (SRP98). The substantial remains of a tin-glazed ware charger are decorated with the double royal portrait of William and Mary (who reigned together between 1689 and 1694), and although tin-glazed wares bearing royal portraits are not particularly unusual, this vessel stands out from the composition and date of the other pottery retrieved from this feature. An aspect of early 19th-century Spitalfields is the large-scale clearance of substantially complete pottery and other household objects discarded in cesspits during the second decade of the century. The charger came from one of these clearances, and was therefore over 100 years old when discarded, so could be an heirloom, well looked after and 57 Historically visible but archaeologically invisible? the Huguenots in 17th-century Spitalfields (Grainger, Falcini and Phillpotts in prep.). For the period between 1680 and 1785, excavation yielded a large group of imported wares of which 49 out of 668 sherds were identified as French, mostly from Beauvais (Blackmore in prep.). French pottery therefore accounts for 7.3% of the total imported sherd count and 1.27 EVES for this phase. A study (by using sherd count and ENV) of the chronological and geographical distribution of imported post-medieval pottery found in London and its immediate environs has demonstrated that the amount of French pottery found during this period is limited, with its importation peaking between 1550 and 1600 (Jeffries in prep.). French pottery however makes up just 2.4% of the total sherd count of all imported pottery found on London sites between 1650 and 1700 and only 0.7% between 1700 and 1750. Unfortunately, as there is no sherd count available for the domestic pottery found from the Royal Mint; it is therefore impossible to reflect what % the total imported pottery is within as a total of the overall assemblage. Aldgate High Street was part of an extra-mural suburb developed at the same time as the expansion of Spitalfields during the 1670s (Thompson, Grew and Schofield 1984). The site is located between Spitalfields to the north, and the Royal Mint to the south. It was predominantly inhabited by English lower class artisans (Grew ibid., 33) and allows comparison to be made with pottery used by English and French artisans of a similar class. The pottery from Aldgate was recorded in detail, using statistically viable groups recovered from cesspits (Orton and Pearce ibid., 61-62), but once again there are difficulties in using this assemblage. All imported wares have been grouped together and not only include foreign imports, but also Staffordshire wares and other redwares. It is hoped, however, that by focusing on the four groups deposited between 1650 and 1700, this should preclude the influence of the later 18th-century Staffordshire-type wares and include relatively few combed slipwares and mottled wares. The dating of these groups also corresponds with the main influx of Huguenots into Spitalfields. Stonewares at Aldgate were also grouped together for the statistical presentations, but products of the English stoneware industries were found only in minor quantities; the remainder are derived from the Rhenish industries (ibid., 61). The quantities of Continental and other non-British pottery found in these four groups are shown in Table 1. A number of trends become apparent when comparing the Royal Mint and Aldgate with Spitalfields. A total of 7.6% of the total post-medieval sherd count from Spitalfields came from imported sources, with just over half consisting of German stonewares, a common find in contemporaneous British ceramic assemblages and used across the social spectrum. Aldgate High Street reflects a slightly different pattern of imported pottery use for the period between 1650 and 1700, with the overall proportions of imported pottery from the chosen groups between 5% and 10% of the sherd count. In common with Spitalfields, around half this total consists of German stoneware. The same pattern is reflected in the Royal Mint assemblage, where approximately 75% of the material from period C2 comprises German stoneware (Blackmore in Grainger, Falcini and Phillpotts, in prep.). However, the French pottery from just one phase of the Royal Mint almost exceeds the sherd count of French pottery found from all phases at Spitalfields. No French products were found in the selected groups from Aldgate High Street, although a small quantity of Beauvais slipware came from contexts dating between 1500 and 1625. The Royal Mint assemblage is derived from what can be considered as an industrial docklands area whereas Aldgate High Street and Spitalfields functioned mainly as manufacturing suburbs. However, it is worth noting the Spitalfields excavation did include areas inhabited by wealthier merchants, as opposed to the main concentration of weavers, who probably lived further to the east. Neither Aldgate High Street nor the Royal Mint has a history of immigrant settlement, and the pottery found on these sites is probably representative of what the artisan class were using at the time. The majority of imports in London are therefore more likely to be found on sites in the developing dockyards to the east of the City, where the Spanish, Italian and German wares found are either imported or presumably brought back by sailors and merchants living in the area (Blackmore 1994, 30). The excavations at the Elizabethan/ Stuart dockyards at Victoria Wharf, Limehouse E14 (sitecode VIT96), support this interpretation. This site yielded a substantial quantity of imported pottery (23% of the total sherd count) and other finds drawn from all over the world, with the greater portion of imported wares derived from Spain and the Rhineland (Stephenson 2001). Comparison of the assemblages described above appears to demonstrate a pattern of pottery use during the 17th century; the quantity and range of imported wares is greater on dockland sites, the amount of French pottery found inland is negligible, and the most frequently found imports across all sites are Rhenish stonewares. No ethnic justification for this is required. The pattern is similar to the distribution of imported pottery in medieval London (Blackmore 1994, 40). More comparative work on a sample of both waterfront and hinterland sites is, however, is needed to confirm this interpretation. Four sites are not a large enough sample. The differences in pottery use between sites on the north bank of the River Thames and those in Southwark also need to be considered. 56 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Table 1 Relative proportions of imported pottery and stoneware from dated assemblage from Aldgate High Street (AL74; after Orton and Pearce 1984 , Fig 30, 62) Statistically Cesspit Other Well Cesspit reliable groups (1650-1675) (1650-1675) (1660-1680) (1670-1700) Imported wares 10% 5% 5% 5% Stoneware 1% 5% 6% 11% Fig. 3 London made tin-glazed ware decorated with Popish plot scene Fig. 4 London made tin-glazed ware with William and Mary portrait Fig. 2 French tin-glazed ware vessel decorated with Cardinals Hat Claus Van Werveken, who in writing to his wife in Antwerp in 1567, requested that she bring a dough trough, for there are none hereBuy two little wooden dishes to make up half pounds of butter: for all the Netherlanders and the Flemings make their own (Atkin et al. 1985, 201). Although he refers to wooden objects this suggests that even some wooden forms could not be acquired in local markets. Peter Hibou may have started producing distinctive slipwares in Canterbury to serve a demand created by the settlement of the Huguenots. The pottery was made in a decorative style to which he was accustomed, and which would have been one visible way of maintaining tradition in domestic life; these were cheaply made vessels used in mundane, everyday activities such as cooking and food preparation. In addition, depressions in cross-channel trade (see below) may have spurred the Huguenot potter in Canterbury to start producing Flemish- style slipwares shortly after many Huguenots had settled in the city and were looking to restock their households (although his motives could have been equally economic). The evidence from Norwich and Canterbury demonstrate the use of utilitarian pottery with which an immigrant would have been familiar. The occurrence of these groups of imported pottery is unlikely to be a sign of status, as newly arrived immigrants were often amongst the poorest members of society. However, a note of caution should be sounded since Norwich was one of Englands major trading centres during this period, with the Netherlands and Low Countries serving its principal source of supply, so the occurrence of such wares would not be unusual. More research is needed on the distribution of imported pottery during the post-medieval period and the relationship between London and its hinterland. Studies of this kind have been applied to imported medieval pottery from Southampton, Winchester (see Brown 1997a and 1997b), and Wessex as a whole (Gutierrez 1997), and the results are telling. Comparison between contemporaneous pottery assemblages (by sherd count) from Winchester and Southampton showed the tenement plot occupied by one of Winchesters most influential citizens, John de Tytynge, yielded only 0.4% imported wares (Brown 1997a, 101), whereas the assemblage from Bull Hall in Southampton belonging to a merchant of a similar class contained nearly 30% imports (Brown 1997b, 91). Brown interpreted the differences as a reflection of Southamptons status as a port; imported pottery could be seen in the context of being local and by living in a port the inhabitants had a wider choice of wares to purchase (ibid., 108). This afforded the merchant at Bull Hall the opportunity to acquire and use greater quantities of imported pottery than his counterpart of a similar class living in Winchester. Background: Economy and society in late 17th century England The comparative lack of French and other imports on non- dockland sites in the capital (with the notable exception of German pottery) during the 17th century requires explanation and appears to be related to economic, cultural, function and taste. One important reason why imported pottery is not found in any large quantities at Spitalfields and other London sites mentioned may be due to the difficulty in acquiring them from their source. The effects of the powerful Cromwellian Navigation Acts of 1651, their subsequent refinement by Charles II in 1660 and three Anglo-Dutch wars between 1652 and 1674 severely limited Channel and North Sea trade during the time of Huguenot settlement in Spitalfields. Shortly after 1685, augmentation duties of 25% were imposed by Parliament on all French commodities including wines and spirits so that it could raise revenues to aid the resettlement of the Huguenots (Smith 1974, 23). In addition, England was involved in two lengthy wars with France between 1689 and 1713, during which trade was suspended between the two countries. A celebrated case of the 1690s led to the refugee Etienne Seignoret and many others being impeached, convicted and fined by Parliament for the illegal trading of silk with France during wartime (Gwynn 1998, 36). The extent of smuggling can perhaps be judged by the number of convictions obtained, and the case shows how willing some Huguenots were to trade with France after it had expelled them. Lastly, after petitioning by London tin-glazed potters, a Royal Proclamation was passed in July 1672 prohibiting the imports of painted earthenware (or tin-glazed ware: Kilburn 1999, 134). This may account for the scarcity of French faience in London assemblages (fewer than ten sherds recovered since 1995). During the 1750s, the Society of Anti-Gallicans, a group of merchants and gentleman who championed British goods over French competition, serve as an additional reminder that the struggle with France was also economic. The second factor could lie in the overriding emotional force of the time: the inherent fear of Popery. The French were seen not only as traditional enemies but also as the representative of extreme Catholicism and this manifested itself in anti-French feeling in England at the time, as poignantly reflected by William Hogarth and other 18th century satirists. However, while the English middling sort and aristocracy considered French taste and fashion universally supreme, they also perceived France as a vortex of Popish evil (Swindlehurst 2001, 368). The Palissy-type tazza found in a stone-lined well in Blackfriars is representative of fashionable and high-status French pottery (Blackmore 1992, 371-379) but is so far unique. The overall occurrence of French ceramics in most post-medieval assemblages from London is very small, a phenomenon observed in contemporary assemblages from Exeter and the south-west (Allan 1981, 111 and Allan 1994) and Canterbury (J Cotter, pers. comm.). Most of the French pottery found in London during the late medieval period where from production centres around Saintonge, with its potters exploiting established trade links by exporting their wares alongside wine shipments. By the 17th century the market for the products of Saintonge industry had 59 Historically visible but archaeologically invisible? the Huguenots in 17th-century Spitalfields handed down through successive generations in honour of the philanthropy and royal support that William and Mary showed to the Huguenots. After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, William and Mary were responsible for the setting up of a Royal Bounty, offering gifts of money out of their own Royal revenues towards the resettlement of the Huguenots, and the Bounty was not removed from the Civil List until 1804 (Gwynn 1985, 58). A measure of Huguenot loyalty to the crown is highlighted in the functioning of the Societe des Enfants Des Nimes, the first French Friendly Society established in London in 1683. Its inaugural rules stipulated that the prosperity of the City of London, as well as the royal family, was to be toasted at its annual feast (Gwynn 1998, 50-51). The final vessel discussed here was the English delftware plate an inscription in Hebrew characters found in a cesspit at 12-14 Mitre Street in the City of London, alongside a large quantity of decorative tablewares, kitchen and sanitary wares dating to the 1740s (sitecode MIR84; see Pearce 1998, 95- 112). The inscription on this remarkable and unique vessel read chalav (milk), and it would have formed part of a set used for the separate serving of meat and dairy observed by orthodox Jews. The north-east part of the City was settled by Sephardi and Ashkenasi Jews from the late 17th century onwards (ibid., 105-107). The excavation where this unique plate was recovered from was, however, a watching brief and thus it was not possible to collect environmental samples and thereby examine diet more closely. CASE STUDIES: NORWICH AND CANTERBURY The evidence from London suggests that greater quantities of imported pottery are likely to be found on dockland sites and that their occurrence is not associated with immigrant settlement. It is also necessary to consider whether Huguenot influence can be detected in pottery assemblages from other English cities. Norwich and Canterbury were chosen for study, as like London, both were associated with European immigrant settlement during the early post- medieval period (Gwynn 1985). Canterbury During 1988, an excavation in the grounds of St Gregorys Priory, Northgate uncovered a number of waster and kiln furniture dumps, evidence of a kiln operating nearby. This finally linked what is termed Canterbury slipware to a production centre within the town itself (Cotter 1994, 12- 13). Yet, the slip-trailed decoration applied to these utilitarian and mundane red earthenwares was found to be directly copying Flemish styles. Cotters enquiries drew him two possible conclusions that the evidence is indicative of an English potter copying Continental styles, or that an immigrant potter was working in Canterbury. Consultation of historical documents showed that in 1709 a Peter Hibou or Hibon, recorded as a potter of Northgate, married one Jane Fremoult. The Overseers Accounts for the Parish of Holy Cross, Westgate, for the period between 1698 and 1707, also refer to the payment of the French potter (ibid., 15). This suggests that Peter Hibou, possibly a Huguenot immigrant or at least of Huguenot descent, may have been responsible for the production of Canterbury slipware, although more research is needed to confirm this (J Cotter, pers. comm.). Norwich Norwich reveals another example of probable immigrant pottery use. The excavations on sites at Botolph Street and Alms Lane, amongst others, revealed a number of cesspits and pits with an unusually high proportion of Low Countries pottery, while the tax records reveal that strangers had settled the areas in question (Atkin et al. 1985). This term was commonly used in contemporary records to describe refugees who had settled in England to escape religious persecution, and in this instance applies to the Walloons, Protestants from the southern Low Countries (now Belgium and northern France), who had been forced to flee during the 1560s and 1570s. It is estimated that these refugees made up a third of the population of Norwich by the 1570s (Gywnn 1985, 28). Although Low Countries pottery is recovered on other sites in Norwich, the quantities found in these areas were far greater, and the pots were therefore interpreted as the property of immigrant families who had moved directly into the area from the Continent (Atkin, et al. 1985, 201). Accepting this interpretation therefore suggests that these people either managed to bring over their pottery when they fled, or, more likely, they were able to specifically stock up on vessels that they had been when they settled in Norwich. DISCUSSION The evidence can be interpreted in many different ways, but although the Walloons of Norwich were using imported pottery, and the French potter in Canterbury was producing Flemish-style earthenwares, the Huguenots of London were not acquiring pottery from their homeland. It has been suggested that the importation of Dutch and Rhenish pottery was ethnically motivated and controlled (Gaimster 1999, 216), and the vast quantities of Low Countries pottery found from excavations in Norwich support this. Moreover, a consortium of London-based Dutch traders monopolised the trade in Rhenish stonewares or vessels of English taste into London between 1660 and 1665 (Gaimster 1997, 82-83). It is possible that the use of Low Countries pottery by the Walloons reflects their desire to use particular forms for cooking that were not yet made by local potters. This is reflected by a letter from 58 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS persecution, it is unlikely that any refugees would take with them bulky and cumbersome ceramics, but would want their exceptional belongings rather than mundane possessions. Historical records show that the fortunes of the immigrants varied considerably, with some managing to bring all or part of their wealth from France, whereas others became recipients of the French charities established in Britain to assist them (Molleson and Cox et al. 1993, 97). They may have taken particular heirlooms, which may have included ceramic pieces (such as the Spelman Street faience), but these are less likely to be found in the archaeological record as they were presumably treated with care and not put to everyday use. During his study of imported pottery in medieval Southampton, Brown makes the pragmatic argument that to the medieval consumer it may not have mattered where a pot was made, as cost and function would have been the overriding consideration (Brown 1997b, 95 and 101). Can such pragmatism be applied to the Huguenot, or any other immigrant population during the post-medieval period? How important would it have been to these newly displaced people to use a French-made and decorated dish, rather than an English-made dish? Had they desired French pottery it would have been difficult to acquire because of political and economic factors, and when it was imported to London, there seems little redistribution beyond the dockyards. The products of the French pottery industry were of little importance in English culture and society. As it appears that the Huguenots did not use French pottery, then Browns argument can be extended to the post-medieval period. For the Spitalfields Huguenots, economics and availability appear to have overriden culture and taste, and it would seem that the community reflected its cultural identity not through its possessions, but in other, more socially visible ways (such as language, religion, cuisine and dress). This is not to diminish the significance of the Spelman Street 61 Historically visible but archaeologically invisible? the Huguenots in 17th-century Spitalfields diminished and Martincamp-type stoneware costrels represent the most common type of French pottery found in London. The popularity of Martincamp-type ware during the 16th and 17th centuries can be explained by their durability and function (costrels are not made in English stoneware production). The relative scarcity of French imports in post-medieval London could also due in part to the beginning of what has been termed the English Ceramic Revolution around 1650 (Barker 1999, 271), with the strength of the English ceramic market determining choices in the purchasing of pottery. During the last quarter of the 17th century, the noted political factors, together with the beginning of the English bottle glass industry and production of John Dwights Fulham stoneware, puts pay to the importation of Frechen stoneware. During the later 17th century Chinese porcelain and English tin-glazed wares had the monopoly on quality table and display wares; French pottery does not seem to have figured at all. The equation of French goods with taste and fashion does not seem to apply to French-made ceramics. These factors must have had an effect on French ceramic exports to England, however minor the market may have been. London was a major port with an international catchment serving a burgeoning Empire, and it seems inconceivable that if French-made goods were freely available, that they were not brought and discarded, and thereby represented in the archaeological record. Conversely, excavations undertaken on 17th and 18th-century French colonial sites in Louisiana in the United States revealed that directly traded French-made pottery and faience was frequently found on many sites (www.southalabama.edu/archaeology). HUGUENOT IDENTITY IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD The second part of this paper applies these observations to the Huguenots of Spitalfields and considers the impact this may have had on the tortured phenomenological world of the artefact in its context (Johnson 1999, 17). It is the historian who provides the lead for the study of the Huguenots and their identity in post-medieval England and the volume of work published in the proceedings of the Huguenot Society is testament to this. The Huguenots of Spitalfields formed a discrete community and initially operated in isolation; they were effectively ostracised from French society some decades before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and those who settled in London faced a similar kind of isolation, based on culture and language rather then religious preference (Swindlehurst 2001, 169). Assimilation appeared to be slow; it is recorded that French was the language still spoken among the Huguenots some 60 to 70 years after their ancestors had left France, and in many of the streets of Spitalfields the Huguenot community was so numerous it was impossible to hear English spoken (Waller 2000, 271). Evidence from the nearby Christ Church crypt showed that 41.6% of the total named sample had French- sounding surnames (Molleson and Cox et al. 1993, 94). Manchee observed that French influence was still prevalent in Spitalfields during the second decade of the last century (Manchee 191214, 339-342). The Huguenots founded their own schools and churches (nine in Spitalfields alone by 1700), and were seen by many as upholding their traditions in an apparently honourable way. The editor of Stows Survey of London found that the Huguenots had found quiet and security, and settled themselves in their several trades and occupations; weavers especiallyand this benefits also to the neighbourhood, that these strangers may serve for patterns of thrift, honesty, and sobriety as well (www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/5399/silk.txt). The tone of this document reflects no obvious hostility toward the immigrants and the notion of the Huguenots as hard- working and spiritual people is reflected in Hogarths Noon (Fig. 5). Hogarths engraving shows the clear contrast, as delineated by the kennel (gutter) running down the middle of the street, between the pious, soberly dressed Huguenots leaving the French Church in Greek Street, Soho, on the right and the gluttonous and loose Londoners to the left. This engraving, produced in 1738, some 50 years after the arrival of most of the Huguenots in London, and finds them still dressed in a distinctive style. This contrasts with the evidence from the pottery at Canterbury, where, as successive generations inherited the Northgate pothouse, the style and appearance of the slipwares becomes increasingly English in appearance (Cotter 1994, 15). So, with the archaeological and historical evidence sending out conflicting signals, how is it possible to detect Huguenot culture in the Spitalfields excavation? HUGUENOT IDENTITY IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD The underlying contemporary political, economic and social climate must have made an impact on the first generation of Huguenots in Spitalfields and affected the acquisition and use of French-made items across all levels of society. What must be questioned is whether the Huguenots would have immediately sought French-made items upon their arrival in London. The results of war and successive Parliamentary Acts meant that cross-channel smuggling was rife, but the Huguenot smugglers impeached for illegally exporting silks from England to France, were paid in money, not in return contraband. I would tentatively suggest there was no immediate desire to acquire French-made goods. It is therefore worth considering the circumstances of their Huguenots departure from France. Whilst escaping 60 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 5 William Hogarth, The Four Times of Day: Noon, 1738. Hood Museum of Art, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire; purchased through the Guernsey Center Moore 1904 Memorial Fund. paper has been invaluable, and secondly, to my colleagues at Specialist Services for their comments and guidance throughout, especially Geoff Egan, Jacqui Pearce, Roy Stephenson and Lucy Whittingham. Special thanks are given to Stephen Massil, the librarian at the Huguenot Library, University College London, for the help he afforded in the research for this paper, to John Cotter of the Canterbury Archaeological Trust for the information on the French potter, Dr Catherine Swindlehurst at Cambridge University, and Dr Hugo Blake of Royal Holloway College. The photographs were taken by Andy Chopping of the Museum of London Archaeology Service. A version of this paper was originally given at the TAG 2000 conference under the session on Addressing Multicultural Heritage in Archaeology, chaired by Dan Hicks of the Department of Archaeology, University of Bristol. This paper is based on preliminary work (the pottery and other finds have been spot dated and assessed but not published), but draws upon many different disciplines, and as I am neither an economic or social historian, any errors are my own. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allan, J.P. 1984, Medieval and Post-Medieval finds from Exeter, 1971-1980. Exeter County Council. Allan, J.P. 1994, Imported Pottery in South-West England, c. 1350-1550, Medieval Ceram 18, 45-50. Atkin, M., Carter, A. and Evans, D.H. 1985, Excavations in Norwich 1971-78, East Anglian Archaeol 26. Barker, D. 1999, The Ceramic Revolution 1650-1850, in G. Egan and R.L Michaels (eds.) 226-234. Barrett, E. 2001, Factors working for and against Huguenot integration in late 17th- and 18th-century London: insights gained from a study of the records of the French Church of London and some relief agencies of the period in R. Vigne and C. Littleton (eds.), 375-383. Blackmore, L. 1992, A Palisy-type vessel from Blackfriars, London, in D. Gaimster and M. Redknap (eds.), 371-377. Blackmore, L. 1994, Pottery, the Port and the Populace: the Imported Pottery of London 1300-1600 (Part I), Medieval Ceram 18, 29-44. Blackmore, L. in prep, The imported pottery in I. Grainger, P. Falcini, and C. Phillpotts. Britton, F. 1987, London Delftware, London, Jonathan Horne. Brown, D. H. 1997a, Pots from houses, Medieval Ceram 21, 83-94. Brown, D. H. 1997b, The Social Significance of Imported Medieval Pottery in G. C. Cumberpatch and P. W. Blinkhorn (eds.), 95-112. Cotter, J. 1994, Potters and Pipe-Makers at Northgate the Huguenot Connection? The Friends of Canterbury Archaeological Trust Newsletter 32, Spring 1994, 11-16. Cumberpatch, G.C. and Blinkhorn, P.W. 1997, Not So Much A Pot, More a Way of Life, Exeter, Oxbow Mongr 83. Deegan, K. 1974, Sex, Status and Role in the Mestizaje of Spanish Colonial Florida, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthroplogy, University of Florida, Gainsville, Ann Arbor, Michigan. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI. Deegan K. 1983, Spanish St.Augustine: The Archaeology of a Colonial Creole Community. Academic Press, New York Egan, G. 1999, London - Axis of the Commonwealth? in G. Egan and R.L. Michael (eds.), 61-71. Egan, G. and Michael, R.L. 1999, Old and New Worlds, Historical/Post Medieval Archaeology Papers from the Societies joint conferences at Willamsburg and London 1997, Exeter, Oxbow Books. Gaimster, D. and Redknap, M. (eds) 1992, Everyday and exotic Pottery from Europe, studies in honour of John G. Hurst, Exeter, Oxbow Books. Gaimster, D. 1997, German Stoneware 1200-1900, London, British Museum Press. Gaimster, D. 1999, The Post Medieval Ceramic Revolution in Southern Britain c.1450-1850, in G. Egan and R.L. Michael (eds.), 214-225. Gaskell, E. 1853, Traits and Stories of the Huguenots. Grainger, I., Falcini, P. and Phillpotts, C. in prep, Excavations at the Royal Navy Victualling Yard, East Smithfield, London. Gwynn, R. D. 1985, Huguenot Heritage: The history and contribution of the Huguenots in Britain, London, Routledge and Kegan. Gwynn, R.D. 1998, The Huguenots of London, Brighton, Alpha Press. Hurst J.G., Neal D.S. and van Beuningen, J.E. 1986, Rotterdam papers VI: Pottery produced and Traded in north-west Europe 1350-1350. Johnson, M.H. 1999, The New Post medieval Archaeology in G. Egan and R.L. Michael (eds.), 17-22. Kilburn, R. 1999, The sale and distribution of Hermitage wares, in K. Tyler, 134-136. King, J.A. and Miller, H.M. 1987, The View from the Midden: An analysis of Midden Distribution and Composition at the Van Swerigan Site, St Marys City, Maryland, Historical Archaeol 21 (2), 37-59. Manachee, W. H. 1912-1914 Memories of Spitalfields, The proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 10, 276-345 Molleson, T. and Cox, M. et al. 1993, The Spitalfields Project Volume 2 The Anthropology, The Middling Sort, CBA Res Rep 86, CBA. Orton, C. and Pearce, J. 1984, The pottery in Excavations at Aldgate, 1974 Post-medieval Archaeology 18, 34-69. Pearce, J. 1998, A rare delftware Hebrew plate and associated assemblage from an excavation in Mitre Street, City of London, Post-medieval Archaeology 32, 95-112 Praetzellis, A. 1999, The Archaeology of Ethnicity: An Example from Sacramento, Californias Early Chinese District, in G. Egan and R.L. Michael (eds.), 127-135. Sheppard, F.H.W. 1957, Survey of London, Vol XXV11, Spitalfields and Mile End New Town: the parishes of Christ Church and All 63 Historically visible but archaeologically invisible? the Huguenots in 17th-century Spitalfields faience, the Popish plot plate and the William and Mary charger, all of which could have had symbolic value in Huguenot society. In studying the early Chinese district in Sacramento in California, Praetzellis showed that on a mundane level, whoever was in charge of purchasing supplies and where they were purchased from could have a big impact on the archaeological record (Praetzellis 1999, 129). After the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, such tasks were given to the Elders and deacons of the French Church in Threadneedle Street, which had developed into a highly organised relief charity. They divided the area in which its congregation lived into a number of quarters or districts, each supervised by an Elder and a deacon. The Elder dealt with the religious well-being of his district, leaving the deacon in charge of clothing, feeding, finding work and housing newly arrived immigrants. The church also maintained almshouses and rooms where clothes and movables were stored, and employed doctors, teachers and a surgeon (Gwynn 1985, 107). There is no evidence in the historical record to suggest that the deacons achieved resettlement by acquiring familiar goods from France. If we approach this pragmatically there is no reason why they should. The large quantities of fashionable late 17th-century English pottery found at Spitalfields the same object may have different uses and meanings for different individuals or groups may instead present a better reflection of how artefacts were used by the Huguenots. A WAY FORWARD? To understand the material culture from the post-medieval suburb of Spitalfields, because such is the scale of the excavation, it is essential to look at the finds from the cesspits and backyards in order to build up a picture of the households that they served. The Four shillings in the Pound aid assessment of 1693 shows groups of French householders in certain streets in Spitalfields, with most of those names recorded in the alleys and courts rather than on properties that had street frontages, and which were more expensive to rent (Swindlehurst 2001, 369). If the finds and environmental remains are recovered in sufficient quantities to make them statistically viable the next line of enquiry is to identify the occupants of these properties. It is hoped that combining these two lines of research may lead to the identification of individual Huguenot households and establish whether there is a type of artefact disposal. It is known that Spitalfields market sold weeds, such as burnet, chervil, and dandelion, which were habitually brought by the market-women for use by Huguenots to make the salads that formed one of their principal dishes (see Gaskell 1853); can this evidence be found in the archaeological record? Likewise, the historical references to the Huguenot invention and consumption of oxtail soup, their skills in flower and garden cultivation, together with their love of raising singing birds, offer clues to what might by found in the environmental remains. Perhaps only by looking carefully at finds other than pottery can we identify particular cultural traits; cuts of meat used and how they were butchered along with the floral remains environmental and food preparation equipment (including ceramics) may point to the consumption of a French-style diet. Kathleen Deegans work in Florida showed that the combination of these methods was successful in the detection of Creole households (that is, mixed Spanish and native Indian marriages) in colonial Spanish sites (Deegan 1974 and 1983). French culture may equally have affected what the Huguenot community consumed, and how they disposed of their waste. Ethnicity is stipulated as one of the reasons for the change in rubbish disposal patterns at the van Sweringen site in St Marys City, Maryland, upon the death of the Dutch owner and the inheritance of the property by his American-born son. Each appears to have disposed their rubbish in a different way, with Van Sweringen disposing of this rubbish to the front and side of the house, according to Dutch notions of space, whereas his son used the backyard area (King and Miller 1987, 42-46). The identification of the behaviour that led to rubbish disposal is sometimes as important as the quantity and quality of the finds themselves. CONCLUSION The excavations at Spitalfields allow for an integrated study of the material culture to assess whether or not specific a Huguenot identity can be identified. From an archaeological perspective, London lacks any real concerted focus on social and immigrant groups (Egan 1999, 69), with the exception of the Mitre Street Hebrew plate (Pearce 1998, 95-112). The study of material culture is often masked behind, admittedly necessary, explanations of provenance and chronology which in turn hides the fact that the material goods found were made, used, and discarded by people, not by a series of processes (see Johnson 1999, 17-18 for comments on this subject). The question of ethnic identity is a slippery concept because it is complex, multi-faceted and not fixed (see Barrett 2001, 375). This paper illuminates just a few of the many paths one can take in detecting such cultures, and in this particular case I am not sure ceramics is one of them. To conclude: without the historical evidence that Spitalfields was an area of Huguenot settlement, it is unlikely that this paper would have ever been written. Acknowledgments I am indebted to Chris Thomas, the project manager at MoLAS for the Spitalfields project; his support for this 62 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Saints and the liberties of Norton Folgate and the Old Artillery Ground, Althone Press Smith, R. 1974, Records of the Royal Bounty and connected funds, the Burn donation, and the Savoy Church in the Huguenot Library, University College, London. London, The Huguenot Society of London. Stephenson, R. 2001, The ceramic finds, in K. Tyler 77-82. Swindlehurst, C. 2001, An unruly and presumptuous rabble: the reaction of the Spitalfields weaving community to the settlement of the Huguenots, 1660-1690, in R. Vigne and C. Littleton (eds.), 366-374. Thomas, C., Sloane, B. and Philpotts, C. 1998, Excavations at the Priory and Hospital of St Mary Spital, London, MoLAS Monograph 1, Museum of London Archaeology Service Thompson, A., Grew, F. and Schofield, J. 1984, Excavations at Aldgate, 1974, Post-medieval Archaeology 18, 1-148. Tyler, K. 1999, The production of tin-glazed ware on the north bank of the Thames; excavations at the site of the Hermitage Pothouse, Wapping, Post-medieval Archaeology 33, 127-163. Tyler, K. 2001, The excavations of an Elizabethan/Stuart waterfront site on the north bank of the River Thames at Victoria Street, Limehouse, London, E14, Post-medieval Archaeology 35, 53-95. Vigne, R. and Littleton, C. (eds.) 2001, From Strangers to Citizens: The Integration of Immigrant Communities in Britain, Irelend and colonial America, 1550-1750, Brighton, Sussex Academic Press Waller, M. 2000, 1700, Scenes from London life, London, Hodder and Stoughton Nigel Jeffries, Museum of London Specialist Services, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London, NE1 7ED Rsum A travers toutes les poques, ltude historique, archologique et anthropologique de la culture matrielle de groupes ethniques distincts a toujours t au centre de nombreux dbats et recherches. Lmigration dEuropens (due aux mcanismes du colonialisme) et dAfricains (force par lesclavage) lpoque post-mdivale, et notamment celle destination de lAmrique et des Carabes, a t largement tudie. Cependant, peu de commentaires ont t faits quant limpact sur les dpts archologiques des communauts immigrantes arrivant en Angleterre. Des fouilles rcentes, sur une partie de la banlieue post-mdivale de Spitalfields dans lest de Londres, ont toutefois permis de redresser en partie la balance, engendrant ltude de la poterie associe aux habitations des Huguenots (rfugis protestants de France et des Pays Bas). Zusammenfassung Das historische, archologische und anthropologische Studium materieller Aspekte von Kulturen verschiedener Volksgruppen ist durch alle Perioden immer ein Thema von groem Interesse. Die Auswanderung der Europer (durch Kolonisation) und der Afrikaner (erzwungen durch Sklaverei) whrend des spten Mittelalters, besonders nach Amerika und auf die Karibischen Inseln, ist ausgiebig untersucht worden. Die Folge war, da die Auswirkungen, die Einwanderergruppen auf Grobritannien hatten, im archologischen Befund wenig kommentiert wurden. Die Ausgrabungen aber, die krzlich im sptmittelalterlichen Stadtteil Spitalfields in Ost-London stattfanden, erbrachten die Gelegenheit, wenigstens teilweise ein Gleichgewicht dadurch wieder herzustellen, da man Tpferware aus einer Gegend, in der Hugenotten siedelten, untersucht hat. 64 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 1570-1630 John Black SUMMARY English tin-glazed earthenware was introduced into this country by immigrant potters from the Netherlands who settled in Norwich in 1567 and moved to London three years later. Netherlands personnel, technology and decorative styles dominated English production till the second quarter of the 17th century. Facing competition from imports of oriental porcelain, tin-glaze potters in the Netherlands introduced a number of technological changes in an attempt to imitate porcelain, bringing about a transition from the traditional maiolica to the new delftware. These changes form the basis for an understanding of developments in England, and are discussed in this article. INTRODUCTION If we survey the history of ceramics in this country we cannot do better than to start with the distinguished book on English pottery by Rackham and Read (1924), published nearly 80 years ago, but still a classic. They pointed out very forcibly that before the arrival of tin-glazed earthenware in this country there was no tradition of painting on pots with ceramic pigments. They stated, quite bluntly, there was no tradition in the use of ceramic pigments in England (ibid., 46). This is not to deny the earlier use of clear glazes, tinted or otherwise, or of decoration with coloured slip. This is a consideration of absolutely fundamental importance in the understanding of the development of tin-glaze production in this country. Naturally, many pieces of painted ceramics had been seen here, as examples of Spanish and Italian tin- glaze maiolica had been landed for several centuries in ports along the south coast, also coming into London, whence they had penetrated the hinterland. But nothing comparable had been made in England (Hurst 1991, 220-46). THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIN-GLAZING IN NORTH-WEST EUROPE The particular purpose of incorporating tin into a standard lead glaze was to provide a white, opaque surface on which the decorator could work with coloured pigments. It was a very old technique, owing its origins to attempts in 9th- century Mesopotamia to imitate the white colour of Chinese porcelain (Lane 1947, 13), which had found its way to the Middle East along the old Silk Route and over the old maritime trading network. Interestingly, this was not the only time that attempts to imitate Chinese porcelain led to developments in the technology of tin-glazed earthenware production. The practice of tin glazing spread through Egypt to North Africa and Moorish Spain, and then Italy, and thence to the Netherlands. It reached Antwerp c. 1510, when three Italian potters arrived there, almost certainly from Northern Italy, (Dumortier 1991, 241; Wilson 1991, 7), and a thriving maiolica industry developed. It was not, however, allowed to develop in peace: like all economic activity in the southern Netherlands, it was disrupted later in the 16th century with the appalling religious and social oppression of the ruling Spaniards, with the consequent civil wars, insurrections and pillage. It was a time of terror and mass migrations. The northern Netherlands, shielded by the major river systems, remained more stable and the centre of economic activity moved from the largely catholic south to the more protestant north (for a full account of these times, see Israel 1995). The maiolica potters moved too, some to the north, 65 Medieval Ceramics 25, 6571, 2001 painters were the backbone of the London industry, and when English clay was used by their confreres in the Netherlands, telling one product from another is a tricky and often worthless task. This sums it up admirably. Frank Britton (1986, 97) pointed out that even during the 18th century, potters were being brought in from the Netherlands to supplement the shortages of skilled labour. This is not so much a situation where Netherlands work was influencing the development of English work, but more the continuation of one tradition in another country. The absence of a local tradition in England, the predominance of Netherlands potters and painters with their techniques and skills and the continuing close contact with the continent brought about a situation whereby the London pothouses were to all intents and purposes merely a branch of the Netherlands tin-glaze earthenware industry. The Netherlands industry had effectively extended its geographical reach to include London. Where the pottery was made is not so important: by tradition, techniques, style and personnel, pots made in this country were Netherlandish. Not till the second quarter of the 17th century did the English work begin to achieve an identity of its own. MAIOLICA AND DELFTWARE Having established the basis of the London scene it is appropriate to move on to the main topic of this article, the transition from maiolica to delftware. These two terms are widely misunderstood and indeed often misused, and the confusion thus created obscures the very real part that the transition from one type of ware to the other plays in the history of ceramics. The traditional tin-glazed earthenware of the Netherlands was maiolica, a continuation of the Italian production. For a comprehensive survey of this ware, see Korf (1981). It was made of coarse earthenware, heavily potted, with wide solid footrings of smallish diameter. It was predominantly decorated in polychrome (just 30% of the 700 pieces described by Korf are painted in blue only) and, importantly, had tin-glaze only on the obverse. The reverse side was given a lead glaze, possibly to save the expense of using tin, and consequently was never decorated. It was fired on trivets and when these were removed after firing some of the glaze came away, leaving three ugly marks in the middle of the design. The base of the trivet rested on the footring of the piece underneath and that footring was wiped clean of glaze for this purpose. (See Fig. 1). All these elements applied equally to the maiolica later made in London and in the Netherlands. As the maiolica potters moved northwards in the face of religious persecution and civil chaos they established three factories in Haarlem, two in Amsterdam and eight in Delft, in the 1570s, and others followed. (van Dam 1962, 6-10). For a time the industry flourished. By 1620 there were six pothouses in Haarlem, six in Amsterdam, six in Rotterdam and eight in Delft; at that time there were two in London. (Archer 1997, 560-3). However, from the middle of the 16th century examples of Chinese porcelain had been brought to Europe by the Portuguese (Pinto de Matos 1994, 13), and many pieces had reached the Netherlands. The historical event which was to change the situation was the annexation of Portugal by King Phillip II of Spain in 1580, which aligned Portugal on the Spanish side in the Spanish oppression of the Netherlands. In 1595 Phillip closed the port of Lisbon to Netherland ships and as a result, Portuguese carracks bringing cargoes from the Far East were attacked by the Dutch. Thus it was that captured cargoes of porcelain were brought in to Amsterdam and auctioned there; for instance, sixty tons of Chinese porcelain from the Catarina were sold in 1604 (Godden 1979, 19) and much more followed as the Netherlands took over from Portugal in exploiting the ceramic riches of the East with the development of the Dutch East India Company. The population of N. Europe rapidly developed a demand for oriental porcelain, so much so that by the 1620s and 30s the Netherlands ceramic industry was facing a crisis. In Amsterdam, mergers and liquidations led to a move from maiolica to tile production; similarly in Rotterdam, encouraged by changes in building regulations which outlawed wooden buildings. (van Dam 1982, 18). The industry in Haarlem was already seriously in decline, while in Delft most maiolica pothouses went over to tiles. Faced with the competition from oriental porcelain, the potters of the Netherlands tried to make it themselves, but as they did not have the secret of making porcelain, they had to compromise by making the best imitations they could. Thus began the development of what was eventually to become known as Delftware, though it was known at the time as Hollants porcelain. This development proceeded alongside the continuing production of old-style maiolica, which persisted, particularly in England and Friesland, well into the 67 From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 15701630 and some abroad. So it was that in 1567, Jasper Andries, a direct descendant of one of the original Italian potters, and Jacob Jansen left Antwerp and settled in Norwich. There were probably two reasons for the choice of Norwich, apart from the obvious proximity of East Anglia to the Netherlands. The first was the ever-present need of the tin-glaze potters for suitable clay. It has long been said that clay from Norfolk was used in admixture with local clay in the Netherlands, and hence could be relied on as suitable, though the earliest known record of clay being shipped abroad was of twenty tons going to Rotterdam in 1597 (Britton 1987, 26). The other reason for the choice of Norwich was probably social: by this time, the 1560s, the towns of East Anglia were full of refugees from religious persecution in the Low Countries. There were more than 4,000 in Norwich alone (Parker 1985, 119), comprising some 40% of the population of that city, so that the newly arrived potters could be sure of a welcome into a community in which they would feel at home. The two potters do not seem to have flourished in Norwich, as three years later, in 1570, they petitioned Queen Elizabeth for a waterside site in London, and a twenty year monopoly of tin-glazed earthenware production. This petition was not granted, possibly because of pre-existing patents, but in the same year Jacob Jansen moved to Aldgate where, joined by a number of potters from the Netherlands (Edwards 1974, 8), he set up a pottery which was to continue in production till 1615. This was the first tin-glaze pothouse in London. His erstwhile partner, Jasper Andries, soon moved to Colchester and, it is thought, set up in business as an importer and dealer. THE EARLIEST LONDON TIN-GLAZED WARE It is not known how many men were employed in the Aldgate pothouse, but the names of at least nine potters from the Netherlands who worked there are known (see Edwards 1974, 27). In the absence of any local tradition of tin-glaze pottery and painting it is to be expected that the skilled men all came from abroad and passed on their experience and techniques to locally recruited staff, who were likely to be employed initially on the more routine tasks. The methods of manufacture and the styles of decoration were of necessity those of the Netherlands, where the potters had learnt their craft. Consequently pottery from the Netherlands and from London of this period is visually indistinguishable, and can only be separated with certainty by micro chemical analysis of the body (Hughes and Gaimster 1999). It was not until the second quarter of the 17th century that English tin-glaze earthenware began to take on characteristics of its own. The Aldgate pothouse ran on till 1615 or so. Archer (1997, 570-1) has published a useful compilation of the working span of British tin-glaze pothouses. A famous maiolica piece made there is now in the Museum of London. The date is probably 1600, though this is a matter of dispute, as it may be read as 1602, and it is thought to depict the Tower of London. It has often been illustrated (see, for instance, Britton 1986, Plate B). The inscription is very interesting as it illustrates a habit common among pot painters of all ages of cutting the coat according to the cloth. The original verse ran The Rose is red the leaves are grene God save Elizabeth our noble Queene, but not having room for it all, the painter left out noble not a treasonable omission, perhaps, but a severely practical one. Hughes and Gaimster (1999, 70) confirm the London origin of this maiolica charger and, indeed, it must have been made in Aldgate because to the best of our knowledge this was the only tin-glaze pothouse then extant. That is, of course, if the date on it reflects the date of manufacture of that you can never be certain, but as Elizabeth was on the throne at that date it is likely to be correct. It is certainly the earliest dated piece of English tin- glazed earthenware. THE SOUTHWARK POTHOUSES The next two potteries to be established in London, and the only others to be founded before 1630, were both south of the river, on sites near the Thames. Nearly all tin-glaze pothouses were near the water, for sea or river borne supplies of clay and fuel coming in and finished ware going out. The first of these two was at Montague Close, where two London merchants were granted a patent in 1612 to make Earthenware in the manner of Fiansa, that is, in the style of Italian maiolica. It seems probable that on the demise of the Aldgate works in or around 1615, the Netherlands potter Jacob Prien moved to Montague Close, becoming manager there in 1625, thus continuing the Netherlands tradition (Edwards 1974, 10). The other pothouse was at Pickleherring Quay, in the parish of St. Olaves, Southwark. The owner was Christian Wilhelm who had come from the Palatinate, with his wife who was from Deventer in Gelderland (Tait 1960, 36). His intention was to make smalt, the basis of cobalt blue pigment, but in this he was frustrated by existing patents. By 1615 he seems to have switched to making tin-glazed earthenware, having been joined by two other potters from the Low Countries, John Rokensor from Middelburg and Christian Loest from Dollett (Britton 1986, 35) and, no doubt, by others whose names have not come down to us. It is not possible to over-emphasise the importance of the Netherlands contribution to the establishment of tin- glaze earthenware production in England. This is borne out by an examination of the wares produced in these early years. As Ivor Noel Hume (1997, 16) wrote In the first half of the 17th century, when the Netherlands potters and 66 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 1 Fragment of Netherlands dish, first quarter of 17th century, with heavy, broad footring, wiped clean of glaze to accommodate base of trivet. shows a few of the same period, for example Nos. 666, 714, 736 and 748; these are maiolica in all respects except in the manner of firing. The earliest English tin-glazed earthenware fired in saggars comes from the middle of the 17th century. The fourth technical improvement was probably the easiest to achieve, the use of tin- glaze on both the obverse and reverse surfaces. There are isolated examples of this in earlier years, and, indeed, the use of tin-glaze on both surfaces can be traced back to the 16th century on occasional pieces, and sporadically thereafter. In his study of some 700 pieces of Netherlands maiolica, Korf (1981) listed such pieces dated 1601 and 1626; two (undated) from the last quarter of the 16th century and six from the early years of the 17th, and a number of later pieces, all recognizably maiolica, sensu strictu, except for the tin-glaze on the reverse. With maiolica made in England, Lipski and Archer (1984, 17) listed a dated example of 1620. Otherwise, tin-glazed backs do not appear in any number until after the 1640s. The combination of tin-glaze on the reverse and firing on trivets did not occur at all frequently, presumably because the new style dishes had narrow, wide footrings which would not accommodate the base of the trivet. A most interesting sherd was described by Korf (1981, 190): it had the standard Bird on a Rock decoration, in blue, with a delftware-type footring with a tin-glazed back, but was fired on trivets. He dated it to the second quarter of the 17th century, adding that it must have been one of the first attempts of the Haarlem potters to make an imitation porcelain. In this type of work the transition from maiolica to delftware can be seen in process. While maiolica was traditionally decorated in polychrome, with restricted use of blue on its own, the imitation of porcelain involved decorating in monochrome blue. This is often thought of as the simplest method, with polychrome as a more advanced technique; but in historical terms in Europe, this is not so, and with the need to imitate Chinese export porcelain, polychrome decoration had to give place to monochrome blue. Similarly, older decorative styles and motives had to make way for Chinese elements such as Kraak motives and border patterns and Bird on a Rock type of decoration. While blue derived from cobalt had long been used in Europe, Korf (1968, 15) found that the Haarlem potters were developing a light blue similar to Ming blue in the 1640s. An interesting commentary on these changes arises out of a quarrel between two potters, father and son Verstraeten, in Haarlem (see Korf 1981, 86-90). They had entered into a legal agreement in 1642 that father would continue to make maiolica, the old way, and that son would make Netherlands porcelain using the new methods. However, father found he could not prosper with the traditional maiolica and sought to evade the agreement. In 1648 he began to make the new ware and his son took him to court. It was agreed that he could continue to make it, provided he did not decorate it in the Chinese style. This ruling confirms that the new ware was essentially associated with the imitation of Chinese 69 From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 15701630 18th century. Initially, standard maiolica forms and bodies were decorated in a Chinese style, for instance with the familiar Bird on a Rock motive, with a border copying that of a kraak original (1989, 106) for example see Rinaldi. Fig. 2 shows a typical example of a Chinese kraak export porcelain dish, of the early 17th century, (rim diameter 274 mm.) Fig. 3 shows a Netherlands maiolica dish of the same period (rim diameter 327 mm), one of the earliest attempts to copy Chinese porcelain in tin-glazed earthenware. It became increasingly obvious, though, that an acceptable substitute for oriental porcelain was not to be achieved in this way, and a number of far reaching technical changes were therefore embarked on (Korf 1981, 75). The whole body had to be thinner and much more finely potted; the heavy footring of maiolica had to be replaced by a thin, shallow one; both obverse and reverse had to receive a tin glaze; some way had to be found of removing the ugly marks left by the trivets; and finally the predominantly polychrome decoration had to make way for monochrome cobalt blue. The end product of all these changes put together is now known as Delftware. DISCUSSION These changes deserve to be examined in more detail. First, the body. Korf (1968, 10) pointed out that the body had to be reduced to about a third of its earlier thickness; examining wasters deposited in 1638 in a dyke at Haarlem, he noted that the body was a mixture of red and light coloured clay. It is interesting that pottery inventories from the Netherlands in the 1620s and 30s listed stocks of English clay, one of 56 tons or thereabouts (van Dam 1982, 83-4). This was presumably high calcium clay from East Anglia, but Papendrecht (1920, 9) refers also to white clay from the Isle of Wight, probably the same as the clay from Dorset which Dwight later records as being used in Delftware production in London (Weatherill and Edwards 1971, 165). The incorporation of quantities of a high calcium clay would be needed to add strength to the mixture so that thinner bodies could be made, to give a lighter coloured body more easily disguised by the tin glaze and to reduce crazing on firing. It is not suggested that this was the first use of English clay in the Netherlands and in any case similar clays were available from Tournai (Britton, 1987, 25). Second, the heavy footring, which was shaped with a hooked tool, one of which was found in the waste of a pottery at Deventer which closed in 1637 (de Beer 1985, 42) and which were also illustrated by Piccolpasso (1980, 38) were entirely unsuited to the new ware and were replaced by one with a maximum depth of about 5mm and of much greater diameter (Fig. 4). The elimination of trivet marks was a more intractable problem. As long as pieces were fired on trivets, some marks were inevitable. There were at least two types of trivet mark, as shown in Figs 5 and 6. In the first, as the trivet came away after firing, some of the glaze came away with it, exposing the body. In the second, some of the points of the trivet were left adhering to the surface. Where the trivet had been made of rough red clay (chamotte; Korf 1968, 11), these marks show up as red deposits. The first attempt to ameliorate them came with the use of glazed trivets (ibid., 11) and while these left less obvious marks, this was not enough. Eventually the whole method of firing was changed, with the use of saggars and triangular pins; to be sure, the pins left marks, but these were on the underside and were very much less obtrusive. Piccolpasso, writing in Italy in the mid16th century (1980, 39), referred to the use of saggars and pins, but their first use in the Netherlands was reported in Rotterdam in 1627 (van Dam 1982, 17). In 1647 the inventory of a pothouse in Delft listed over 2,500 saggars (ibid., 28), and in an excavated pottery in Leiden, which closed in the mid 1640s (Korf 1981, 25), there were piles of trivets and saggar pins on the same bench, suggesting that the change over was even then taking place. In the van Drecht collection in Amsterdam there are two saggar-fired dishes of the early 17th century, and Korf s (1981) survey 68 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 2 Chinese export porcelain dish, diameter 276 mm, early 17th century, with typical kraak border. Fig. 3 Netherlands maiolica dish, diameter 327 mm, second quarter of 17th century, imitating the Chinese Bird on a Rock design, with kraak border. Fig. 4 Reverse of Netherlands delftware dish, diameter 238 mm, third quarter of 17th century, showing new style of footring and marks left by saggar pins. Fig. 5 Fragment of Netherlands dish, first or second quarter of 17th century, with three pits in glaze caused by removal of trivets after firing. Fig. 6 Fragment of Netherlands dish, first quarter of 17th century, with three deposits of red clay left behind on removal of trivets after firing. Parker, G. 1985, The Dutch Revolt. London, Penguin Books. Piccolpasso, C. 1980,I tre Libri dellArte del Vasaio (trans. R. Lightbrown and A. Caiger-Smith). London, Scolar. Pinto de Matos, M.A. 1994,A Porcelana Chinesa: Referncia Essencial na Faianca Portugesa de Seiscentos, in A Influncia Oriental na Cermica Portuguesa do Sculo XVII. Lisboa, Electa. Rackham, B. and Read, H. 1924, English Pottery. London, Faber and Faber. Rinaldi, M. 1989, Kraak Porcelain. London, Bamboo. Tait, H. 1960, Southwark (alias Lambeth) Delftware and the Potter, Christian Wilhelm; I. The Connoisseur, Aug. 1960, 36-42. Weatherill, L. and Edwards, R. 1971, Pottery Making in London and Whitehaven in the late 17th Century, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 5, 160-181. Wilson, T. 1991, Italian Maiolica around 1500: some Considerations on the Background to Antwerp Maiolica in D. Gaimster, (ed.), Maiolica in the North. London, British Museum Occ Pap 122. Since preparing the text of this article, a most important book on this subject has been published. This is: Dumortier, C. 2002, Cramique de la Renaissance Anvers. De Venise Delft. Bruxelles, Racine. John Black, Paddock House, Pyrton, Watlington, Oxon OX49 5AP Rsum La poterie maille anglaise fut introduite dans ce pays par des potiers immigrants des Pays Bas installs dans un premier temps Norwich en 1567, avant de stablir Londres trois ans plus tard. Le personnel, les technologies ainsi que les styles dcoratifs hollandais ont domin la production anglaise jusquau deuxime quart du 17 me sicle. Devant faire face aux importations de porcelaine orientale, les potiers nerlandais introduisirent un certain nombre dinnovations technologiques afin dimiter la porcelaine, favorisant ainsi la transition du maiolica traditionnel la faence. Ces changements, essentiels la comprhension des dveloppements cramiques en Angleterre, sont discuts dans cet article. Zusammenfassung Zinnglasierte Tonware wurde von eingewanderten niederlndischen Tpfern nach England eingefhrt, die sich 1567 in Norwich niederlieen und drei Jahre spter nach London zogen. In der englischen Produktion herrschten Niederlndische Handwerker, Technologie und dekorative Stile noch im zweiten Viertel des 17. Jahrhunderts vor. Unter dem Druck orientalischer Porzellanimporte fhrten die niederlndischen Zinnglasurentpfer verschiedene technische Vernderungen ein, die Porzellan imitieren sollten, was zu einem bergang von der traditionellen Maiolica- zur neuen Delftware fhrte. Diese Vernderungen, die in dem Artikel behandelt werden, formen die Grundlage fr das Verstndnis der Entwicklung in England. 71 From maiolica to delftware: tin-glazed earthenware in London and the Low Countries, 15701630 porcelain, so that the substitution of other decoration removed the commercial competition. Clearly the important criterion was stylistic rather than technological, but the stylistic differentiation could only be achieved by the co-ordinated technical advances just described. The introduction of Chinese type decoration came, both in the Netherlands and in England, between 1625 and 1630. In England the first dated piece with the Bird on a Rock design is from 1628 (Lipski and Archer 1984, 310). The introduction of Chinese decoration is attributed to Christian Wilhelm of Pickleherring Quay, though he died in 1630, and the tradition was carried on by his colleagues. Under the impact of Chinese porcelain, many factories in the Netherlands merged, went bankrupt or went downmarket to manufacture rough kitchenware; others specialized in tile production. Only three in Haarlem, and, later, two in Delft made the transition to Netherlands porcelain, or Delftware. In fact, the pottery industry in Haarlem had been on the decline since 1610 or so, so that when the potter Verstraeten (the father) sought to set up there from Delft in 1625 he was made welcome, and was encouraged to make the new ware immediately (Korf 1981, 86). Similarly, the potter Dorpman founded a pottery in Deventer and in 1624 was granted the sole right of attempting the imitation of Chinese porcelain (de Beer 1985, 53). However, it should always be remembered that the origins of delftware are to be found not in Delft but in Haarlem. CONCLUSION When, in 1647, the importation of Chinese ware came to an abrupt halt, the way was open to the Netherlands and English potters to exploit the situation, and this they proceeded to do. By 1660 there were 30 factories employing 1000 workers in Delft alone, making porcelain, and taking advantage of a number of empty breweries to use as factories (van Dam 1982, 40). The concentration of production in Delft led to the town giving its name to the new ware. The number of factories in London also began to increase, till in 1680 there were eight (Archer 1997 560-3). Old style maiolica production in the Netherlands had largely died out by 1675, except in Friesland, where it continued into the 18th century. In this country, tin glazed earthenware in the form of maiolica was made from 1570 till about 1720; in the form of delftware, from 1630 till about 1840. Many ceramicists in this country fail to distinguish properly between maiolica and delftware. Clearly the groups cannot be described so exactly that problems of identification at the interface do not occur, but in general terms the transition between the heavily potted, traditionally decorated maiolica and the more delicate, Chinese porcelain inspired delftware came about in the second quarter of the 17th century. Thereafter, delftware developed under its own impetus, but that is a different though no less interesting story. The technological changes which underpinned this transition were worked out primarily in the Netherlands tin- glaze industry, of which the London factories effectively formed part. Acknowledgements My grateful thanks to Zitta Smith van der Hak for invaluable assistance in accessing the Dutch literature, and to Louise Pearl for preparing the copy. This paper is an edited version of a lecture to the Keele University Ceramics Summer School, 2001. BIBLIOGRAPHY Archer, M. 1997, Delftware, The Tin-glazed Pottery of the British Isles. London, The Stationery Office. Beer, H. de 1985, Cornelis Jansz. Dorpman van Delft majolicabakker te Deventer 1624-1637. Med. Ned.Ver.Vrienden Van de Ceramick 119/20, 7-13. Britton, F. 1986, London Delftware. London, Jonathan Horne. Britton, F. 1987, Some Sources of Delftware Clay, Trans Eng Ceramic Circle, 13 (1), 24-32. Dam, J.D. van 1982, Geleyersgoet en Hollands Porceleyn Ontwikkelingen in de Nederlandse Aardewerk-Industrie 1560-1660, Med Ned Ver Vrienden van de Ceramiek, 108, 1-87. Dumortier, C. 1991, Description dun Atelier de Majoliques Anvers au XVIime et Debut XVIIime Sicle, in T. Wilson, (ed) Italian Renaissance Pottery, 241-246. London, British Museum Press. Edwards, R. 1974, London Potters circa 1570-1710, Journ Cer Hist. 6, 1-141. Godden, G.A. 1979, Oriental Export Market Porcelain. London, Granada. Hughes M. and Gaimster D. 1999, Neutron Activation Analysis of Maiolica from London, Norwich, the Low Countries and Italy, in D. Gaimster, (ed.) Maiolica in the North. London, British Museum Occ Pap 122. Hurst, J.G. 1991, Italian Pottery Imported into Britain and Ireland, in T. Wilson, (ed.), Italian Renaissance Pottery, 212- 231. London, British Museum Press. Israel, J. 1995, The Dutch Republic. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Korf, D. 1968, Haarlemse Majolica-en Tegelbakkers. Haarlem. Korf, D. 1981, Nederlandse Majolica. Haarlem, de Haan. Lane, A. 1947, Early Islamic Pottery. London, Faber and Faber. Lipski, L.L. and Archer, M. 1984, Dated English Delftware. London, Sotheby. Noel Hume, I. 1977, Early English Delftware from London and Virginia. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Papendrecht, A.H. van 1920, De Rotterdamsche Plateel en Tegelbakkers. Rotterdam, Waesberge. 70 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS 72 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use Marcus Milwright SUMMARY This article presents evidence concerning the attitudes towards clays, the repair of broken vessels, and the secondary use of pottery in the Islamic world. The collection and analysis of primary written sources and archaeological information aims to illustrate the diversity of responses to ceramic in its various states from raw material to broken sherd. It is argued that, in order to come to a deeper understanding of the social roles performed by ceramics in a given context, it is necessary to attempt to integrate the information from archaeological investigations and primary textual sources. Ma taayya . tsh al fukhkhrkum d luh umr zay amrkum Do not weep over your [broken] pottery, for you have the same destiny (traditional Egyptian proverb cited in Henein 1992, 66). INTRODUCTION During his sojourn in Cairo, the city where he ended his life in 1310, the Iraqi oculist Shams al-Dn Ab Abdallh Mu . hammad ibn Dniyl composed a series of comic shadow plays which were performed in the Egyptian capital. The plays are full of complex language and allusions to events in the recent past, particularly the rule of the great Mamluk sultan Baybars (d. 1277). Much of the humour depends upon the subversion of traditional values and the mocking of figures of authority in the Mamluk political system. In the following example Ibn Dniyl has one of his characters, the secretary al-Tj Bbj, read out the edict of investiture (manshr) for Amr Wi . sl (intended as a satirical representation of the Caliph al-Mustan . sir Billh who had been installed by Sultan Baybars in 1262). Part of this edict reads: ... And we set him over the following provinces, namely: the province of Old Cairo with al-Sunbb, together with all the rotten parts of the walls. And the control of the buildings of the Pyramids, and all the hills and heaps of stones thereto appertaining - the revenues of the cemetery - the census of the dogs in the villages and markets - the assay of ashes - and the change of date stones and knuckles - the control of the measuring of sand and gravel and dust - the revenues of the institutions of brothels, and the safe-keeping of broken pieces of pottery, and the control of clods, and the colouring of oranges, beetroots and carrots (trans. in Kahle 1954, 110-11). In his reference to worthlessness of broken pottery Ibn Dniyl expresses an assumption which would not be unfamiliar to a modern archaeologist: namely, that, once broken, ceramic vessels cease to have any social function or commercial value. The work of the potter may be regarded as a form of everyday alchemy in which the base stuff of clay is transformed through a variety of technical processes into the gold of the finished vessel. This valued state lasts only as long as the vessel remains intact, however. Unlike glass or metal artefacts the component materials of a ceramic vessel cannot be readily recycled and, in any case, the raw clay and many of the other minerals of pottery manufacture tend to be both relatively cheap and readily available. It is this combination of factors which have established pottery as the foundation of much archaeological study; sherd assemblages, being the most common form of non- 73 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use degradable refuse, frequently represent the best record of human occupation on excavations and field surveys. Of course, this set of statements represents both a simplified and a distorted view of the analysis of archaeological pottery. While the general assumption that the active life of a pot ceases when it breaks (and is thus unable to perform the function for which it was designed) remains a reasonable one in most cases, archaeologists must remain sensitive to the possibility that uses might be found in certain contexts for broken pottery. Further, it should be noted that clays and other raw materials, far from being worthless in their raw state, might be invested with some perceived value by the society which made use of them. The role of anthropological and ethnographic research is obviously crucial in the comprehension of these issues. The ability to interview both living potters and the consumers of their work has broadened our perspectives concerning the potential social roles performed by ceramics. The archaeological record sometimes provides physical examples of reuse and repair which can be correlated with the types of first-hand observation provided by anthropological fieldwork. In comparison to the extensive exploitation by archaeologists of anthropological data from many contemporary situations, much less use has been made of historical sources for the understanding of the social roles of pottery in pre-modern societies (although there are studies concerning pottery in medieval and post-medieval contexts in Europe and America. For instance, see Le Patourel 1968; Moorhouse 1978 and 1983; Courtney 1997. Also contributions in Little 1992). In part this omission can be attributed to an unwillingness on the part of many archaeologists to engage with the analysis of written records (when they are available), but also it reflects some basic problems with the information contained in pre-modern texts. Looking at the textual sources from the pre-modern societies of the Islamic Middle East, it is apparent that both the writers and intended audience of most texts comprised members of the literate elite. Quite simply, for these socio- economic groups pottery was too cheap and ubiquitous to merit much consideration. When manufactured objects are mentioned at all they tend to be items directly associated with famous historical figures or objects in luxury media such as precious metals, rock crystal, glass, ornamented leather and so on. Further, the brief descriptions which can be gathered from such texts seldom furnish the researcher with information concerning either the appearance of objects or the ways in which those objects were understood by the contemporary audience. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for undertaking searches for references to material culture in contemporary chronicles, geographical and biographical dictionaries, works on religion and ethics, travellers accounts, endowment deeds, and commercial contracts. The analysis of such texts can help to provide insights into the functioning of material culture within a complex social and cultural environment of the pre-modern Islamic world. This information can be used by archaeologists to deepen their understanding of material from excavations and surveys. In this article I want to combine the available evidence from texts of the 10th to the early 20th century and excavated material to explore the attitudes expressed in the Islamic world to three somewhat neglected phases in the life- cycle of Islamic ceramics: the raw materials of pottery manufacture; the breaking and repair of pottery; and finally, the secondary use of potsherds and complete vessels. Some parallels are also sought in anthropological studies in the Islamic world. It should be noted that the evidence cited in this article is taken from a broad chronological and geographical range. This is not to imply however, that attitudes towards pottery are necessarily consistent or static from one region or period to another. Rather, the wide scope reflects the scarcity with which such issues are discussed in the written sources. Therefore, what is presented here is intended to illustrate some of the range of possible attitudes and responses to pottery which will have existed in the Islamic world (with a particular focus on the Middle East). CLAYS Clays have played a symbolic role in Muslim religious thought. The Qurn contains verses such as, We have created man from potters clay ( . sal . sl), of mud ground down (Sra XV, 26). Schnyder points to passages in Persian poetry which pick up on these themes. For example, A . t . tr (d. c.1230) writes, There is no earth that has not been pure man before. Therefore, beware how you place the goblet! You can never know: you place it into blood. Each tiny particle of dust is the body of the deceased, each drop is the life-blood of those that have passed away (trans. in Schnyder 1994, 167). At a more practical level, the selection and preparation of clays are obviously crucial aspects of the overall process of manufacturing pottery. The specific characteristics of the clay deposits available to an individual potter act as a significant constraint upon the nature of the pottery which can be produced. Of course, this is only one of a series of technological and cultural constraints which must be considered in the analysis of pottery production in a given locality (for a general discussion of these issues with a bibliography of relevant publications, see Sillar and Tite 2000). Anthropological studies in the Middle East and other regions of the Islamic world have focused considerable attention on the ways in which clay deposits are chosen by traditional potters and the methods by which the raw clays are transformed into the pastes used in the construction of vessels (see discussions in Rye and Evans 1976; Golvin, Thiriot and Zakariyya 1982; Mershen 1985). Studies of this kind illustrate the way in which the Medieval Ceramics 25, 7283, 2001 production process is assembled through a combination of habitual, conventional practices with conscious calculations. Hence, the location of a pottery workshop is likely to be in close proximity to both the principal sources for bulk raw materials (particularly the clay and fuel for firing the kilns) and the largest market for the products (or on the trade routes to these markets). Other more costly items, including mineral colorants, might be brought from greater distances (for instance, see the discussion of geographical location of valuable minerals in the 14th-century Persian treatise of Ab al-Qsim. Trans. in Allan 1973). Similar evidence can be gathered from the (few) discussions of pottery industries in written sources. In the 13th and 14th centuries in Cairo writers report that alluvial mud from the Nile and yellow clay ( . tn al-a . sfr) from the district of . . . . Habash were both employed in the manufacture of pottery (Milwright 1999a, 507-508). Other clays were given names by potters and a few of these are recorded in geographical texts. For instance, in the 13th century there was an earth known as the clay of wisdom ( . tn al- . hikma) from Aswn in southern Egypt (ibid., 506) although the original significance of this appellation is no longer apparent. Further examples of named earths are recorded from around Damascus at the end of the 19th century (al-Qsim 1960, 68). The sale of clay was also a separate craft in some areas. In books of market inspection ( . hisba) from the 13th and 14th centuries it is stated that a merchant is responsible for differentiating between the clay of the jug (gha . dr al-kz) and the clay of the oven (gha . dr al-tannr) (Ibn al- Ukhuwwa 1938, 223 [Arabic text]; Ibn Bassm 1968, 199). Mu . hammad al-Qsim provides a record of the clay gatherers (turrb) in Damascus although, interestingly, they did not appear to supply their product to potters. He writes: It [the craft] consists of the selling of the red earth (al- turrb al-a . hmr). And for it they go to the place of excavation and using spades (s. mi . hfar) designed [for that purpose] the red earth is removed from there. Then it is placed in a small container on [the backs of] donkeys, most of which are emaciated. Each load is sold for a qarsh (one piaster) or more. There is much demand for its quality and there is good business particularly during the days of winter. And it [the winter] is the season for coating roof terraces with clay and in the first part of the winter much of it is sold (trans. from 1960, 67). The practice of transporting clay is attested in other parts of the Islamic world. In Kharmathu in Pakistan a potter was capable of digging and transporting 300kg of clay per day. This load would be taken by donkey the 5km from the source to his workshop (Rye and Evans 1976, 39, 119). While kilns are usually located near to the main clay source, there are examples where special clays were transported over considerable distances. The geographer Yqt (d. 1229) reports that clay from Jabal Bishr, a mountain in the northeast of Syria, was sent to Aleppo (a distance of approximately 120 km) to be made into crucibles for iron foundries (1866-70: I, 631). Evidently this clay was unusual in being capable, when fired, of withstanding extremely high temperatures. Sand from the same area was transported to the coastal towns of Syria for glass manufacture. It is not merely such technical considerations which might cause a clay to be particularly valued by producers and consumers. A widespread phenomenon in the medieval and early modern Mediterranean was the belief that particular clays and earths possessed medicinal properties if ingested or applied to the skin (for a worldwide survey of the practice of geophagy, see Laufer 1930). Examples of medicinal clays in the Middle East are cited as coming from Egypt, Armenia, Homs in Syria, and Nishapur in Iran (Ibn al-Ward 1766, 186; Ibn al-Bay . tr 1874: III, 108-13). Perhaps the most famous of these, however, was the clay gathered from the Greek island of Lemnos. While the palliative and alexipharmic qualities of this product are attested in antique Greek and Roman sources, the annual ceremony of digging the clay pits was virtually unknown in the medieval period, being revived in the 15th century by the Ottoman sultans (Raby 1995). Not only was the clay formed into tablets - each stamped with an inscription to vouchsafe its authenticity - which could be grated onto food, but the clay was also fashioned into small fired jugs and cups (ibid., 333- 35, pls.II-IV). It was believed that these vessels would neutralise the effects of any poison contained within them. It is significant to note that these rather unassuming unglazed jugs retailed for higher prices in the mid-17th century than even the imported porcelains in the markets of Istanbul (ibid., 329-31). Chinese porcelain and celadon were also believed in the Islamic world and the medieval West to sweat or to change colour when brought in contact with poison. A manuscript entitled Libellus de notitia orbis dated 1402 contains the following passage: They [the Chinese] also make there vessels of clay and of such earth which is efficacious against poison ... In the Persian tongue [these] are called Chim and our people call them in Latin porcelain (porcellanum i.e. purslane) because they are the colour of that herb (trans. in Pelliot 1959-63: II, 808-809). Presumably this passage refers to celadon wares which are commonly green-glazed. The elevated status of the earth of Lemnos and other medicinal earths was established by reference to antique medical sources but there were additional means by which clays might come to be valued. An unnamed traveller to the Holy Land in the 12th century describes a field near Hebron: ... in Hebron is that field whose earth is red, which earth is dug up and eaten by its inhabitants, and is exported for sale, and bought as an exceeding precious drug, because it is said to be true that of this earth Adam, the first man was made (Anonymous Pilgrims 1894, 37). Another source adds that the earth was transported to 75 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use 74 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Arabia (Fretellus 1990, 9 [chapter 8]). It is not clear whether this earth was ever made into vessels although the 15th- century traveller Felix Fabri does note its suitability for that purpose (1893: II, 411-12). Earths associated with the tombs of revered religious figures were also collected by pilgrims. At the beginning of the 20th century the dust and soil was collected from the tombs of Muslim saints (s. wl) in Palestine. For instance, the earth from the shrine at Mal . ha was prepared into a paste with oil to cure sores on the head and that from the tomb (qabr) of al-R was dissolved in water and given to cattle in order to prevent disease. Palestinian pilgrims would also bring back pear-shaped objects (s. al-nuj . sa) made of the dried earth from around the Kaba in Mekka dipped in sacrificial blood (Canaan 1927, 99, 106, 110). Edward Lane, the great 19th-century orientalist writes that the same earth was also made into tablets stamped with the inscription, In the name of Allh. Dust of our land [mixed] with the saliva of some of us [i.e. the pilgrims]. These tablets would be carried in a leather case and functioned as amulets (1836: I, 323). Sun-dried clay tablets (in Persian: s. mohr) are still manufactured around the great Sh Muslim shrines at Mashhad and Kerbala. Usually they are stamped with schematic representations of shrines (Mashhad, Kerbala, the Kaba in Mekka, and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem) or of symbolic images such as the Hand of F . tima. Pilgrims bring these mementos back to their local mosques (Fig 1). The tablets are placed on the ground so that the worshipper may touch his forehead on it during prayer (and thus gain additional blessing). According to magical texts of the Islamic period earth from tombs might also be collected for more sinister purposes. In his Book of Poisons (Kitb al-summ) written in c. 950 Ibn Wa . hshiyya gives a detailed recipe for a clay, the sight of which causes death within nine or ten hours. The recipe requires the soil from three graves mixed in an earthenware pot with a wide variety of minerals and plants as well as diverse animal and human products including the blood of a cat, the urine of a (squinting) man with different coloured eyes, and ashes made by burning cabbage and cauliflower leaves together with a tortoise from the Tigris and the head of a cow! (1966, 33-34). Although the author and his brother claim to have prepared this poison, it seems likely that few of the readers of the text followed their example. REPAIRING POTS Although the vast majority of ceramic vessels were probably discarded after they were broken, there is evidence from both written sources and extant artefacts that various forms of repair might be contemplated. It seems reasonable to assume that repairs were only made to objects which were particularly valued by their owners (and usually where the cost of the repair was less than the cost of a new vessel). The reasons why an object might be particularly esteemed must be seen, however, in their specific cultural and economic context. For instance, in the Topkapi Saray collection of Chinese ceramics in Istanbul are examples of porcelain and celadon vessels with fractures repaired by means of drilling and wiring, or the addition of silver gilt decoration to cover cracks or missing elements (Krahl 1986: I, no.225; II, nos.603, 817, 854). In other cases, entirely new vessel forms, mules, were formed by the fixing together of broken sections of vases and bowls with collars of silver gilt (ibid., 1986: I, no.210; II, no.1032). Archive documents indicate that, when mending was not desirable, the broken vessels from the treasury might be boxed and sold on the open market (ibid., 1986: I, 36). This range of responses can be understood if one considers the way in which porcelain was perceived in medieval societies. Written sources of the Islamic period make clear the high value (both commercial and social) placed upon these types of imported pottery (Kahle 1956; Milwright 1999a, 513-16). The monetary value alone of imported porcelain would have made repair a viable proposition in many cases. In addition, the collection assembled by the Ottoman sultans comprised booty from campaigns against the Mamluk sultanate in Egypt and Syria and the Safavid empire in Iran. Many of the vessels were already of considerable antiquity (and thus irreplaceable) by the time they arrived in the royal treasury in Istanbul. A description of the collection of Chinese ceramics in the house of drink (bayt al-sharb) of Ayyubid treasury in Cairo specifies that some items were deemed especially precious - probably because of their age - and were not intended for general use (Qalqashand 1913-18: IV, 10. For similar attitudes towards older porcelain in the Ottoman treasury, see Krahl 1986: I, 42, 51-52). Less valuable ceramics might also be repaired. Treatises of market inspection ( . hisba) mention that traders should not mend cracks in pottery vessels and sell them as if they are sound (Ibn al-Ukhuwwa 1938, 222 [Arabic text]). Discussing Fig. 1 Modern ceramic pilgrim tokens with stamped designs. Great Mosque at Firdaws, Iran. Photograph: Marcus Milwright. the same issue Ibn Bassm writes: Arising from knowledge of these matters. Approach must be made to those who cheat the public by mending cracked vessels or vessels with holes and everything else and selling them with the remainder of the wares which are sold. And with fat (sha . hm), lime (jr) and egg white (m al-bay . d) they sell them as being flawless. When the chief (arf) finds among them a thing of this kind, it is necessary [for him] to break it, and forbid the return [to such practices]. And if they [the craftsmen] return to fraudulent activities, they will be disciplined and made notorious with the object of their knavery hung around their neck, so that they will be an example to the rest(1968, 158). The existence of such a prohibition does suggest, however, that such practices were well known in the markets of the Islamic world. The signs of different forms of repair can sometimes be identified on excavated pottery attested in Islamic occupation phases. Most commonly this takes the form of drill-holes meant for the attachment of wire or rivets. For instance, examples of this practice are attested from 11th-century contexts at Raqqa in northern Syria (Fig. 2) and from the 13th- or 14th-century contexts in Jordan at Karak (Milwright 1999b: II, 63, pl.38.4) and Pella (Stephen McPhillips, pers. comm.). In the cases of the material from Karak, the sherds came from decorated and undecorated lead-glazed bowls. While such wares were certainly not amongst the most expensive glazed vessels of the period, the evidence of the drill-holes does indicate that their owners believed them to be of sufficient value to warrant the expense and effort involved in repair. The pieces from Raqqa present more difficulties because they come from unglazed vessels which are likely to have been of less monetary value. In addition, the area in Raqqa from which they were recovered is an industrial site with numerous kilns producing ceramic wares of these very types. One can only speculate upon the motivations behind the decision to repair such items. At the bottom of the scale there are examples of unglazed wares with small holes and cracks (usually firing faults) which have been rendered functional by the addition of an application of plaster or tar. This type of quick repair appears to have been confined to relatively large unglazed storage jars. The mending of broken pottery (as well as glass and other fragile media) appears to have constituted a separate craft in some of the larger cities. The Ottoman traveller Evliya elebi writes that Istanbul contained one area with ten workshops and twenty-five craftsmen who made their living from the clamping and pinning of broken cups (1834- 50, 1/2, 212, no.420). The same craft is also reported in 17th- century Cairo by the traveller Jean Covel (cited in Krahl 1986: I, 52). The jurist Ibn Bassm devotes a section to the mending of pottery (shabn al-birm) in his treatise on market inspection. He states: Arising from knowledge of these matters: those involved in the practice of mending [pottery vessels] commit things which are not permitted by God - glorious and magnificent - because they take the blood of slaughtered animals (dam al-dhabih), then knead it with other bloods (dim), and stick [pots] together with it. It is necessary that they should swear that they will make a substitute for the blood which they make use of. And likewise they use cupped blood (dam al- . hijma), if they are wanting for the blood of sacrificed animals. But they may make use of the spleens ( . ti . hl) of sacrificed animals [such as] sheep, goats, camels and cows. And then they cook it, and they may grind it up into a fine powder and with it stick together the sherds of the pot. And similarly, when they knead bloods into some of the ground up, sifted, and mixed potsherds with the white of egg and they patch up the cracks with it, making them stick together. The same can be mixed with radish oil (zayt al- fujl) which will glue together the pot correctly and precisely. And one of them [i.e. the craftsmen] will supervise their activity, and he will find whoever is found to have transgressed (ma . h . zr). After warnings, he [the transgressor] is to be publicly disciplined (trans. from Ibn Bassm 1968, 159). Mu . hammad al-Qsim gives a detailed description of the craft of mending vessels (mukharris) in late 19th-century Damascus. He specifies that this activity involves the mending of al- . sn, al-mliq, and al-ballr. The first of ;these terms may be translated literally as china (i.e. porcelain) although it was also commonly used to denote all types of fine glazed pottery, both local and imported (Kahle 1956, 336-37). The second term is problematic: meaning literally shining things, it perhaps refers to some form of glass. The last term, al-ballr designates fine crystal 77 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use 76 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 2 Unglazed sherds with drill-holes. The lowest sherd was found with a corroded section of copper wire in the drill-hole. Probably 11th century. Raqqa Ancient Industries Project. glass. His account is as follows: ... It is the making good of that which is broken amongst vessels known as al- . sn, al-mliq and al-ballr. In previous times this craft was much in demand because of the rarity and high cost of vessels of these types in the country. And when they were broken they took them to the mukharris to repair them. And this could always be done when it [the vessel] was broken into two or three pieces, but if it was more then it could not be made better. And the work is thus: it was drilled by the mukharris first at the edge of it by means of a thin iron/steel ( . hadd) drill, and then the holes were pierced with a brass rivet (mismran minna nu . hs a . sfr), and the holes were mended with a solution of gypsum (al-ji . s . s). . Sin is mended in this way also and the price on each nail is 10 para. But at this time, as affluence increases the extent of trade, so the value of vessels of al-ballr and al- mliq decreases. It is clear that the prosecution of the trade is uneconomic, and few are now employed in it. It is a craft which brings forth little profit. God knows best (trans. from al-Qsim 1960, 422-23). The economic ramifications of repairing vessels can also be inferred from Ottoman legal documents. The Retail Price Code written in 1640 states that the cost of an item with one rivet was set at c. 53-63% of an intact example whilst the cost with two rivets was only c. 26-45.5% (Krahl 1986: I, 52). It is easy to see how it could become uneconomic (on the grounds of both the potential reduction in the value of the object and the cost of the labour and materials) to mend even an expensive object if it was broken in many places. Nevertheless, it seems likely that factors such as the age, rarity and sentimental value of a vessel might affect the decision made by the owner. Reading the accounts of Ibn Bassm in the 14th century and al-Qsim at the end of the 19th century, it is apparent that the same craft is being discussed from very different perspectives. The latter description is part of a much larger work in which the author sought to record the actual working methods of the craftsmen in Damascus. Thus, it is the technical and economic aspects of the craft which are emphasised. In contrast, the earlier description must be seen in the context of the tradition of market inspection ( . hisba). As with the discussions of other crafts and commercial activities in the writings of Ibn Bassm and other religious scholars, the concern here is to define acceptable and unacceptable practices in the light of the interpretation of Shara (canonical law), the Qurn, and . Hadth (the sayings of the Prophet). Hence, the discussion focuses upon the use of blood and the organs of animals, an issue which has obvious religious and ethical implications, rather than the use of wire and rivets (even though excavated sherds dating to this period show that this latter method of repair was employed). The testimony of Ibn Bassm is useful, however, because it illustrates both the use of organic glues (something which is unlikely to be recovered in the archaeological record) and the attitudes which informed such practices. SHERDS AND SECONDARY USE While it can be assumed that, in most cases, the active life of a ceramic vessel ceased at the point that it was unable to perform the task for which it had been designed (and, in the case of valuable items, was broken beyond repair), there are cases where a new function was assigned to potsherds. Complete vessels might also find secondary uses which are unrelated to their intended function. This phenomenon of reuse and reinvention is often related to the movement of objects across cultural or political boundaries. Again, one can look to both extant objects and written sources to see the variety of ways in which the active life of ceramic artefacts might be extended. This process encompasses a range of responses from casual and opportunistic reuse through to more conscious reinterpretation of the functional or social role performed by the ceramic artefact. Secondary utilisation of potsherds has been observed by anthropologists working in different regions (for a summary of these practices, see Rice 1987, 294, table 9.3). In modern Afghanistan potters either sell or make use of waster vessels and sherds: ... Pieces damaged during firing are sold as is if not too badly deformed, or repaired with a sort of cement. The potter himself uses broken pieces to close the mouth of the kiln. In some cases, he crushes sherds to add to the clay as a temper. In his workshop, damaged pieces or the bottoms of jars serve as receptacles for slip or other materials. Waste clay removed during vessel manufacture is put in the bottom of a broken bowl or base of a jug, which is then used as a mold. Other fragments are used as scrapers or polishers. In general, all artisans have fragments of jars or jugs in their workshops for storing the water they use in their work. In jewellers workshops, the base of the small hemispherical earthen furnace for smelting precious metals is a large fragment of a jug bottom. During the rainy season, the garden paths are covered with sherds reduced to the size of gravel. Gardeners employ jars with broken necks as watering cans. Fragments of pottery are even used for intimate purposes... (Demont and Centlivres 1967 cited in Rye and Evans 1976, 122-23). Some of these uses can be correlated with practices observed in other parts of the Islamic world (and in other periods). One common example is the employment of crushed sherds (grog) as a temper. The women involved in the production of hand-made ceramics in northern Jordan in the 1970s and 1980s paid particular attention to the type of potsherd used for making grog: In the area south of the Wd e . t- . Tayyibe-el- . Hu . sn line potters use grog as temper. The sherds (ghf) are generally collected from ancient sites. Not any sherds are considered suitable for this purpose. Most women claim that the sherds have to be antique, and that the sherds of recent ceramics - especially of their own production - cannot be used as temper. Among the ancient sherds those which are thin and smooth are preferred. The quality of the sherds is tested by striking the two sherds against each other. Good sherds have to produce a ringing sound (yukhashkhush). A potter from Sfna who also uses sherds of her own ceramic production exposes them to an artificial weathering process of one winters rain (Mershen 1985, 79. See also comments in Johns 1998, 78). The practice of adding grog as a temper is attested from the petrological analysis of excavated Islamic pottery (for instance, see Abu-Jaber and al Saad 2000: 182-83, table 1). The analysis of 9th- or 10th-century steel manufacture in Merv in Turkmenistan found that the ceramic of previous crucibles was added to the ceramic discs used to support new crucibles during the manufacturing process (Allan and Gilmour 2000, 50-51, fig. 3). In Raqqa recent excavations by the University of Nottingham revealed the remains of an oven for fritting glass (2000 season: unpublished). The walls of the oven were formed of clay mixed with potsherds. Broken pottery and complete vessels have been utilised as foundation materials for buildings and military earthworks (Milwright 1999a, 512, n.75). At the Ottoman workshops in Iznik potters made use of fragments of painted and glazed (but previously only biscuit-fired) pot to test the firing conditions within the kilns. These sherds were pierced and then mounted on a stand of red clay. The hole pierced in each sherd would allow the potter to hook them out of the kiln in order to assess the development of the firing (Atasoy and Raby 1989, 62 and fig. 44). Sherds were also employed in the markets as abrasives. Functions listed in the books of market inspection include the polishing of the copper frying pans in which almond tart (zulbiyya) was made and, in combination with potash (ushnn), the cleaning out of water pots (Ibn al-Ukhuwwa 1938, 112, 239 [Arabic text]). In Ottoman Istanbul there was a guild of dealers in broken porcelain and celadon (kenarciyan). These merchants probably sold rims of bowls, cups and jugs which could be used in the repair of vessels which were missing small sections (Krahl 1986: I, 52). Extant examples of repaired pots in the Topkapi Saray suggest that consumers were not greatly concerned whether the sherd used to replace the missing section actually matched the pattern on the remainder of the vessel. A more spontaneous utilisation of a broken vessel is to be found in a piece excavated from a probably 11th-century context at Raqqa (Fig. 3). Here someone has reused the broken base of an unglazed jug to mix a small quantity of plaster. Excavations of Islamic occupation levels in the Middle East also report a relatively common type of reuse: discs which have been shaped after firing from potsherds (Fig. 4). In some cases these discs have a hole pierced through the centre. The function or functions performed by these enigmatic artefacts have not been satisfactorily explained although popular suggestions include counters, weights, loom weights, and toys. This form of reuse is also attested in medieval Europe (Chris Cumberpatch, pers. comm.). Excavations of early Islamic occupation levels in the Middle East have recovered examples of ostraca; that is, unglazed potsherds carrying writing or images which have been applied after firing (Fig. 5). It is difficult to generalise 79 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use 78 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 4 Unglazed sherds reshaped into discs. Probably 11th century. Raqqa Ancient Industries Project. Fig. 3 Base of an unglazed closed vessel used for mixing plaster. Probably 11th century. Raqqa Ancient Industries Project, 2000 season. about this group of artefacts as they are only rarely found on excavations. The texts also vary in both extent and legibility. It is not always clear whether the text was written before or after the vessel had broken. In some cases this represents an opportunistic reuse of an available surface for writing (it should be remembered that paper, vellum and parchment would have been both expensive and difficult to obtain in the early Islamic period). At Qa . sr al- . Hayr East in northern Syria it was noted that all the examples came from large storage jars, perhaps indicating that the marks and words were related to the products contained within them (Grabar et al. 1978, 193 and pls.96-99). At Raqqa an entire pot covered in writing was unearthed by German excavators although no reading of the text is yet available (now exhibited in Raqqa Archaeological Museum). Another example of this type of inscribed jug was unearthed in an early Islamic context at Susa in Iran. The translation of this text, and that of other ostraca from the same site, revealed them to be pieces of correspondence (Koechlin 1928, 34-35, pl.V no.41A). Early Islamic ostraca from Fustat in Egypt carry simple texts including personal names and pious benefactions (Denoix 1986). Post-firing marks or inscriptions might also be added to complete vessels. The Topkapi Saray collection includes ownership marks made by drilling or engraving the underside of the bases of jars and bowls. Inscriptions written in ink on the bases of some porcelain bowls give some indication of the ways in which vessels were assigned new purposes on entry into the collection. One simply reads chicken kebab (tavuk kebabi), describing the dish which it was meant to contain. Another is known from archival documents to have been destined for the collection of spring rainwater (Nisan suyu) for an annual ceremony in the palace (Krahl 1986: I, 42, 133-35). A sherd recently excavated at Raqqa carried the image of an eye incised into the surface (Fig. 6a and b). Presumably this device of the evil eye was meant to function as a talisman. Magical uses of pottery are attested elsewhere in the Middle East. Verses taken from the Qurn were written in ink onto the interior surfaces of unglazed pottery bowls during the medieval period. The bowl was then filled with water and the mixture of ink and water was believed to provide protection against disease (Dols 1977, 126-27; Lane 1836: I, 328. And see Ebeid and Young 1974, 408). This practice is analogous to the so-called Aramaic incantation bowls, dating to both the centuries before and after the Islamic conquest, which contain pseudo-epigraphy and images drawn in ink or bitumen. These designs were believed to protect the owners against the malign influence of ancient God of the Underworld Nirgal/Saturn (al-Khamis 1990, 113-14, figs 4-5). A fragmentary text on the magical uses of letters of the alphabet from the Geniza archive, the collection of medieval Jewish documents found in Cairo, contains a further use of potsherds. The text concerning the use of the letter kf reads: The power and diagram of the letter kf are as follows: it [may be used] for turning plants from one state to another. Whoever wishes [to do] this, let him take the aforementioned [letter] and engrave it on an old potsherd and steam it until it is blackened. It will cause all of the blossoms to fall. ... (trans. in Ebeid and Young 1974, 405). Other spells should be written on a variety of media including brick, textile, marble, or a bowl of unspecified material. A further magical practice is recorded by Ibn Wa . . hshiyya. He describes the manufacture of a drum, the sound of which can kill mice. The drum must be constructed Fig. 5 Unglazed sherds with writing added after firing. Late 8th or early 9th century. Raqqa Ancient Industries Project. Figs 6a and b Photograph and drawing of an unglazed sherd with engraved eye added after firing. Late 8th or early 9th century. Raqqa Ancient Industries Project. of the skin of a dead tomcat stretched over an earthenware container. According to his instructions the container is made from a mixture of clay, crushed pottery from a kiln, and cat excrement baked on a fire (1966, 38-39). In addition to their use in magic, potsherds might also enjoy medical applications. Ibn al-Bay . tr describes the use of broken ceramic as a skin abrasive in the treatment of scrofula, ulcers and pustules (1874: II, 57-58). In ophthalmology, sherds with the glaze removed were pulverised and added to oil of squash or cotton, frankincense and licorice root to form an ointment to treat pterygium (Savage-Smith 1980, 174-75, 189). Porcelain sherds were ground up for use in the treatment of nosebleeds and in dental work (Kahle 1956, 343). Recent reports by archaeologists working in East Africa attest to the collection from excavation spoil heaps of broken sherds with a haemetite coating. Such sherds would be ground up as a dietary supplement for women, especially during pregnancy (Horton and Clark 1985). The 12th-century manual of agriculture and animal husbandry by Ibn al-Awwm includes the use of powdered potsherds in equine medicine (1864-67: II, Pt.2, 139). Both sherds and complete vessels might find a second life as a form of architectural ornament. A Crusader doorway from the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is decorated with mosaic incorporating roundels fashioned from sherds of glazed pottery (Rosen-Ayalon 1976). In other cases, complete or near complete bowls were also incorporated into the decoration of walls, vaults and domes. Perhaps the best known of these are the bacini which adorn the facades of medieval churches in Italy (Berti and Tongiorgi 1989), although the practice is also known in Greece (Carswell 1966, 79-80, figs 1-2). Examples are also attested in the Islamic world. Chinese and Islamic glazed bowls are found in the walls of some mosques in East Africa, reflecting the active trading relations enjoyed by these entrepts in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean (Chittick 1974: II, 306-308, pls.113a, 118a, 120, 122). Chinese and Persian ceramics dating from the 16th to the 20th century have been placed in the apex of the vaults of the Great Mosque at Nushabad in central Iran (Fig. 7). It is worth noting that glazed bowls might have been of considerable age before being incorporated in the architectural setting. For example, a late 14th- or 15th- century Chinese blue and white bowl was incorporated into the wall of the Great Mosque at Homs in Syria. The date at which the bowl was installed is given in the accompanying inscription as 1809-10 (Carswell 1970, pl.II:c). CONCLUSION The miscellany of textual and archaeological material presented in the previous sections does not provide a particularly coherent picture of the attitudes expressed towards clays, pottery repair, and reuse during the Islamic period. Given the chronological and geographical scope of the discussion, it would perhaps be surprising if the result had been different. The written accounts from the pre- modern period are drawn from diverse sources ranging from treasury archives and legal works through to popular magical texts. The divergent perceptions of ceramics voiced in such sources are predicated upon two main factors: the socio-cultural backgrounds of the writer and the intended audience on the one hand, and the nature of the text itself on the other. Clearly, a magical tract and a work of market inspection are going to express different views on pottery or any other aspect of material culture. The archaeological investigation of ceramic manufacture and consumption can provide different perspectives, although the interpretation of this body of information also presents difficulties. Pottery recovered from excavations sometimes exhibits signs of repair or reuse which can be correlated with written descriptions but such evidence is relatively scant in the archaeological record. The few examples given in the previous sections should not be seen as representative of the wider pottery corpus. Allowing for these important reservations, it is still possible to detect some common concerns being voiced in written accounts from different periods and regions. While it seems likely that functional considerations would remain paramount to the potter in his selection and preparation of a particular clay source, the evidence from the written record does suggest that other factors might sometimes have been important. We can only guess at the original reasons behind the names given to individual clay deposits but, in the case of the medicinal earths, we have more definite information. What is important is that there existed a widespread perception concerning the efficacy of a given earth to produce a specific result. The cultural processes which generated these beliefs vary, but important contributory factors include association of clays with sites of religious 81 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use 80 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 7 15th- or 16th-century blue and white bowl set into a dome in the north wn of the Great Mosque in Nushabad, Iran. Photograph: Marcus Milwright. veneration, or that the knowledge that the particular powers of the clay could be traced back to the authority of antique Greek and Roman medical texts. Many clays - such as those from Lemnos, Nishapur and from the vicinity of the shrines at Mekka, Kerbala and Mashhad - are, or have been, fashioned into tablets for various uses while the clay from Lemnos was also made into fired vessels. The written sources also provide evidence that, in the larger towns and cities, the ceramics industry was subdivided into smaller specialised crafts each dealing with different aspects ranging from the collection and transport of clay through to the mending of broken vessels. Each craft was subject to the rules established by the market inspector (mu . htsib), with his chosen deputies (s. arf) in each craft making sure that correct practices were observed. The fact that many cities appear to have contained groups of craftsmen engaged solely in the repair of broken vessels is a useful indicator of the value placed upon specific types of ceramic. Chinese porcelain and celadon was particularly valued in the pre-modern Islamic world and it seems that the bulk of the craft of mending vessels was concerned with the reconstruction of these expensive imported items. The economics of the craft are significant in this context: the decision to repair must involve a calculation of the value of the broken vessel (already significantly less than when intact) coupled with the cost of repair. The presence of drill-holes on much cheaper locally-produced glazed and unglazed sherds excavated in Jordan and Syria would suggest, however, that repairs themselves could be made relatively cheaply. The evidence concerning the reuse of complete pots and sherds is more diverse. Anthropological fieldwork in the modern Islamic world has revealed the wide variety of secondary uses which can be found for broken ceramics and it seems likely that this general picture would be mirrored in the practices of earlier Muslim societies. Pre-modern textual sources also describe the use of sherds in both medicine and commerce. Archaeological investigation of Islamic occupation levels in the Middle East has provided additional examples of secondary use of ceramics although it is not necessarily possible to reconstruct the cultural processes which informed them. For instance, we are unlikely ever to know with any certainty why somebody chose to engrave the image of an eye on a sherd at Raqqa or what reasons there were for setting decorated glazed bowls into the vaulting of a mosque at Nushabad. The discussion of the use of ceramics in magical and popular religious practices is instructive in this respect because it shows that values may be attributed to objects for reasons which are often unconnected to their physical attributes. The issues raised in this article may be regarded as somewhat peripheral to the archaeological study of Islamic pottery. It can be assumed that few clays were invested with magical or medical significance, most broken pots were not mended, and only a tiny proportion of the sherds recovered on excavations will have been utilised for any secondary function. While these statements are certainly correct, the textual and archaeological examples cited above do perhaps have a wider significance beyond merely illustrating the range of ways in which pottery was employed in the Islamic world. The practices involved in the production and consumption of pottery are informed by a complex network of cultural and economic factors. We can never hope to reconstruct completely the pattern of conscious thoughts and habitual actions which resulted in both the form of a physical object and the precise manner of its deposition, but it is possible to gain some valuable insights into these processes through the imaginative exploitation of written sources to supplement the analysis of excavated artefacts. The correlation of physical and textual evidence is one of the challenges confronting the archaeological investigation of all historical periods. Kuza Nma 59 Listen again. One evening at the Close Of Ramazn, ere the better Moon arose, In that old Potters Shop I stood alone With the clay Population round in Rows. 60 And, strange to tell among that Earthen Lot Some could articulate, while others could not: And suddenly one more impatient cried - Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot? 61 Then said another - Surely not in vain My Substance from the common Earth was taen; That He who subtly wrought me into Shape Should stamp me back to common Earth again. (Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. According to the translation of Edward Fitzgerald 1859 [1970]) Acknowledgements I am grateful to Professor Julian Henderson of the University of Nottingham for allowing me to publish photographs of pottery excavated during the Raqqa Ancient Industries Project, 1996, 1998 and 2000 seasons. I would like to thank Professor Charles Burnett for reading and revising some of my translations. The photographs of the finds from Raqqa used in this article were prepared by Irene de Luis de la Cruz. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abu-Jaber, N. and Z. al Saad 2000, Petrology of Middle Islamic pottery from Khirbat Faris, Jordan. Levant 32: 179-88. Allan, J. 1973, Abl-Qsims treatise on ceramics. Iran 11: 111-20. Allan, J. and Gilmour B. 2000, Persian Steel: The Tanavoli Collection. Oxford Studies in Islamic Art Vol. 15. Oxford University Press. Anonymous Pilgrims 1894, Anonymous Pilgrims I-VI. Trans. A. Stewart. Palestine Pilgrim Texts Society No.6. London. Atasoy, N. and Raby J. 1989, Iznik. The Pottery of Ottoman Turkey. Alexandria Press, London. Berti, G. and Tongiorgi L. 1989, I Bacini ceramici medievali della chiese di Pisa. Quaderni di cultura materiale 3. Bretschneider, Rome. Cahen, C. 1947-48, Une trait darmurerie compos pour Saladin, Bulletin dtudes orientales 12: 103-63. Canaan, T. 1927, Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine. Luzacs Oriental Religions Series Vol.5. Luzac and Co., London. Carswell, J. 1966, Pottery and tiles on Mount Athos. Ars Orientalis 6: 77-90. Carswell, J. 1970, Archaeology and the study of later Islamic pottery. In D. S. Richards (ed.), Islam and the Trade of Asia: a Colloquium. Bruno Cassirer, Oxford. Chittick, N. 1974, Kilwa. An Islamic Trading City on the East African Coast. The British Institute in Eastern Africa. Memoir No.5. Nairobi. Courtney, P. 1997, Ceramics and the history of consumption: pifalls and prospects. Medieval Ceram 21: 95-108. Demont, M. and Centlivres P. 1967, Poteries et potiers dAfghanistan. Muse et Institut dEthnographie de la Ville de Genve. Bulletin Annuel 10: 23-67. Denoix, S. 1986, Les Ostraca de Is . tabl Antar, 1985. Annales Islamologiques 22: 27-33. Dols, M. 1977, Black Death in the Middle Ages, Princeton University Press, New Jersey and London. Ebeid, R. and Young M. 1974, A fragment of a magic alphabet from the Cairo Geniza. Sudhoffs Archiv. Zeitschrift fr Wissenschaftgeschichte 58: 404-408. Evliya elebi (1834-50), Narrative of Travels in Europe, Asia and Africa in the Seventeenth Century. Trans. J. von Hammer. Oriental Translations Fund. London. Fabri, F. 1893, The Wanderings of Felix Fabri. Trans. A. Stewart. Palestine Pilgrim Texts Society Nos.7-10. London. Fretellus, R. 1990, Rorgo Fretellus. De Nazareth et sa description de la Terre Sainte. Histoire et edition du texte. Ed. with commentary P. Boeren. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Verhandelingen Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 105. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Oxford and New York. Golvin, L., Thiriot J. and Zakariyya M. 1982, Les Potiers actuels de Fus . t . t. Bibliothque dtude No.89. Institut Franais dArchologie Orientale, Cairo. Grabar, O. et al. 1978, City in the Desert: Qasr al-Hayr East. Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs Nos.23-24. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Henein N. 1992, Poteries et proverbes dgypte. Institut Franais dArchologie Orientale, Cairo. Horton, M. and Clark K. 1985, Letter in Current Archaeol 96 (Vol.IX, No.1), April 1985: 31. Ibn al-Awwm 1864-67, Le Livre dagriculture dIbn al-Awam, Kitab al-felahah. Trans. J. Clement-Mullet. Paris. Ibn Bassm, Mu . hammad b. A . hmad 1968, Nihyat al-rutba f . talab al- . hisba. Ed . . Husm al-Dn al-Smarr. Baghdad. Ibn al-Bay . tr, Abd Allh ibn A . hmad 1874, Kitb al-jmi f al- adwyat al-mufrada. Bulaq. Ibn al-Ukhuwwa, Diy al-Dn 1938, The Malim al-qurba f ahkm al- . hisba. Ed. R. Levy. E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series. New Series 12. London. Ibn Wa . hshiyya 1966, Medieval Arabic Toxicology: The Book of Poisons of Ibn Wa . hshya and its Relation to early Indian and Greek Texts. American Philsophical Society Transactions. New Series 56, Pt.VIII. Philadelphia. Ibn al-Ward, Sirj al-Dn Umar 1766, Excerptum geographorum de terra Syriae. Geographia historia naturali. Appended to Ab al-Fid, Tabulae Syriae. Ed. with Latin trans. B. Koechler and J. Reiske. Leipzig. Johns, J. 1998, The rise of Middle Islamic hand-made geometrically-painted ware in Bild al-Shm (11th-13th centuries A.D.). In R.-P. Gayraud (ed.), Colloque international darchologie islamique. Textes arabes et tudes islamiques 36. Institut Franais dArchologie Orientale, Cairo: 65-93. Kahle, P. 1954, The Arabic shadow play in medieval Egypt. Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society, April (1954): 85-115. Kahle, P. 1956, Chinese porcelain in the lands of Islam. Repr. with supplement in Opera Minora. E. J. Brill, Leiden: 326-61. al-Khamis U. 1990, The iconography of early Islamic lusterware from Mesopotamia: new considerations. Muqarnas 7: 109-118. Koechlin, R. 1928, Les Cramiques musulmanes de Suse au Muse du Louvre. Mmoires de la mission archologique de Perse. XIX. Librairie Ernest Leroux, Paris. Krahl, R. 1986, Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapi Saray Museum. Ed. J. Ayers. Sothebys, London. Lane, E. 1836, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. London. Laufer, B. 1930, Geophagy. Field Museum of Natural History Publication 280. Anthropological Series 18ii. Chicago. Le Patourel, J. 1968, Documentary evidence and the medieval pottery industry. Medieval Archaeol 12: 101-26. Little, B. (ed.) 1992, Text-aided Archaeology. CRC Publishers, Boca Raton Fla. Mershen, B. 1985, Recent hand-made pottery in northern Jordan. Berytus 33: 75-101. Milwright, M. 1999a, Pottery in written sources of the Ayyubid- Mamluk period (c. 567-923/1171-1517). Bull Sch Oriental and African Studies 62: 504-19. Milwright, M. 1999b, Trade and Patronage in Middle Islamic Jordan. The Ceramics from Karak Castle. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University. Moorhouse, S. 1978, Documentary evidence for the uses of medieval pottery. An interim report. Medieval Ceram 2: 3-21. Moorhouse, S. 1983, Documentary evidence and its potential for understanding the inland movement of medieval pottery. Medieval Ceram 7: 45-87. Omar Khayyam (1970), The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Trans. E. Fitzgerald. 1859 repr. Folio Society, London. Pelliot, P. 1959-63, Notes on Marco Polo. A. Maisoneuve, Paris. Qalqashand, A . hmad b. Al 1913-18, Kitb . sub . h al-ash. Cairo. Al-Qsim, Mu . hammad 1960, Dictionnaire des metiers damascains. Ed. Z. al-Qsim. Le Monde dOutre-Mer pass et prsent. Deuxime srie. Documents III. Mouton and Co., Paris. 83 Prologues and epilogues in Islamic ceramics: clays, repairs and secondary use 82 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Raby, J. 1995, Terra Lemnia and the potteries of the Golden Horn: an antique revival under Ottoman auspices. Byzantische Forschungen 21: 305-42. Rice, P. 1987, Pottery Analysis: a Sourcebook. Chicago. Rosen-Ayalon, M. 1976, Une Mosaique mdivale au Sainte- Sepulchre. Contribution lhistoire de lart. Revue Biblique 83: 237-53. Rye, O. and Evans C. 1976, Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No.21. Washington D.C. Savage-Smith, E. 1980, Ibn al-Nfss perfected book on ophthalmology and his treatment of trachoma and its sequelae. J Hist Arabic Science 4/1: 147-206. Schnyder, R. 1994, In search of the substance of light. In R. Hillenbrand (ed.), The Art of Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Edinburgh in 1982. Islamic Art and Architecture, vol.4: 165-69. Costa Mesa Ca.: Mazda Publishers. Sillar, B. and Tite M. 2000, The challenge of technological choices for materials science approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry 42, Pt.1, February: 2-20. Yqt, ibn Abd Allh al- . Hamaw 1866-70, Jacuts geographische Wrterbuch. Ed. F. Wstenfeld. Leipzig. Marcus Milwright, Department of History of Art, Fine Arts Complex, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700, Victoria, B.C., V8W 2Y2, Canada Rsum Cet article recense les donnes concernant les comportements envers les argiles, la rparation des vases casss et lutilisation secondaire de la poterie dans le monde islamique. La collecte ainsi que lanalyse de sources crites et de donnes archologiques tendent illustrer la diversit des rponses au mobilier cramique dans tous ses tats, du matriel brut aux tessons casss. Largumentation souhaite dmontrer, que pour mieux comprendre le rle social des cramiques dans un contexte donn, il est ncessaire de lier linformation fournie par larchologie aux sources crites de premire main. Zusammenfassung Dieser Artikel befat sich mit der Einstellung zu Tonerden, zum Ausbessern zerbrochener Gefe und zum Sekundrgebrauch von Tpferware in der islamischen Welt. Die Sammlung und Analyse von schriftlichen Quellen und archologischen Untersuchungen trachtet danach, die Unterschiedlichkeit der Reaktionen auf Keramik in seinen verschiedenen Stadien vom Rohmaterial bis zur zerbrochenen Scherbe zu illustrieren. Es wird argumentiert, da, um zu einem tieferen Verstndnis der sozialen Rolle der Keramik in einem bestimmten Kontext zu kommen, es ntig ist, die Informationen aus archologischer Forschung und aus schriftlichen Primrquellen der Zeit zu vereinen. Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece Athanasios K. Vionis SUMMARY In north-western Europe it has long been realised that potsherds should not be used exclusively as a dating tool but also as a means for examining aspects of socio- economic organisation, trade and exchange, dining and drinking habits. In contrast to methodological advances in Europe, medieval and post-medieval archaeology in Greece is still in its dawn. Remains of the post-Roman periods have just begun to be decently excavated and scientifically recorded. On the basis of older and recently published excavations in urban centres (Athens, Corinth and Thessaloniki) and surface surveys in the Greek countryside and other areas in the eastern Mediterranean, this paper offers an overall review of pottery forms and styles found in Greece. Case studies are also used from the late medieval and post-medieval Aegean islands of the Cyclades, examining some first results of the CY.RE.P. (Cyclades Research Project) survey research. Medieval pottery research in Greece is discussed in an attempt to examine socio-economic and cultural aspects of post- Roman ceramics in Greece in terms of trade and contacts between East and West, economic and social formation, cultural and/or symbolic meanings and domestic life. INTRODUCTION Ceramics of the medieval and post-medieval periods have started to gain the importance they deserve by archaeologists and material culture historians alike. Observing the social, economic or symbolic meaning of ceramics, one can obtain a wealth of information concerning pre-modern life-styles and social behaviour. As in traditional Aegean societies today, it seems that the average medieval and post-medieval Mediterranean household required two distinct types of pottery. (A) The porous unglazed wares for holding liquids such as water and wine (porous so that these liquids shall keep cool) and (B) glazed wares for food and drinking hot liquids such as coffee (Casson 1951). The most profitable area in which to examine changes in social and domestic life is the household itself, as Gaimster (1994, 286) has rightly argued. The purpose of this paper is to outline the main ceramic trends in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean world (Fig. 1) from the 11th to the late 17th centuries (the medieval and early post-medieval periods). Different pottery shapes, decorations and traditions will be considered, together with current views on manufacturing centres and economic trends in the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires respectively. Thus, different ceramic traditions will be placed in their historical context and will be examined as media for functional, social and symbolic expression. A number of systematic surface surveys on the Cycladic island of Keos (Cherry et al. 1991), on the Peloponnesian peninsula of Methana (Mee and Forbes 1997) and in the region of Boeotia in central Greece (Bintliff 2000) as well as excavations in urban centres such as Athens (Frantz 1938, 1942; Charitonidou 1982) and Corinth (Morgan 1942; Waage 1933, 1934; Sanders 1987, 2000) have shown that the Greek countryside changed after the end of the Dark Ages (early Byzantine period) and showed signs of economic recovery during the middle Byzantine period (9th to late 12th century). Archaeological research in Greece has also shown that stylistic changes in Greek medieval pottery became more evident in the late 11th century and continue, with slight changes, at least until the 17th century. This is particularly evident within the tradition of glazed wares. For this reason this paper will concentrate on the main glazed pottery styles of the 11th to 17th centuries. An attempt is made to view ceramics as an aspect of material culture from everyday life, which reflect the socio-economic changes in the organisation of society associated with political and structural changes of the period. The late medieval defended settlement site of Kephalos on the Aegean island of Paros will be used as a case study in the discussion-part of this paper. Kephalos was surveyed and studied by CY.RE.P. (Cyclades Research Project) as part of the authors research/fieldwork for the completion of his PhD thesis at Leiden University, the Netherlands (previously 84 at Durham University, UK) under the supervision of Prof. Dr. John L. Bintliff (Leiden University). CY.RE.P. is a project of the author in collaboration with the British School of Archaeology at Athens and its aims are the study of the built environment and domestic material culture in the medieval and post-medieval periods as well as the reconstruction of everyday life on the Aegean Islands of the Cyclades. A survey and study permit was granted to the Project through the British School at Athens by the 2nd Ephorate of Byzantine and the 21st Ephorate of Classical Antiquities, Ministry of Culture, Greece. HISTORICAL REVIEW AND POTTERY CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE Following the Arab expansion in the Aegean in the late 7th century, the Byzantine Aegean lands went through a period of unrest, continuous warfare and struggle between Constantinople (the capital of the Byzantine Empire) and the growing Arab power. After the final expulsion of the Arabs in 961 from the island of Crete, and during the period historically and archaeologically known as middle Byzantine the Byzantine Empire enjoyed a time of revival with a number of military, economic and political achievements. Byzantine rule in (present-day) mainland Greece, Asia Minor (present-day western Turkey) and the Aegean islands was maintained, while the system of themes (a governmental mechanism working since the 6th century) was replaced by a system of larger administrative units (Hatherington 2001). Byzantine interest in the rural provinces of Byzantium is testified by the presence of middle Byzantine ecclesiastical monuments in many regions of the Empire. The sack of Constantinople by the Latins of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 resulted in the replacement of the Byzantine-Greek Emperor by a Latin on the throne of the previously Byzantine capital. Mainland and insular Greece was subsequently divided amongst Western aristocratic families. Italian naval powers such as Genoa, Pisa and Venice replaced Byzantine maritime trade in most of the Aegean world. Genoese and Venetians remained rivals over trade and possessions in the Aegean, while the growing power of the Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor was becoming even more 85 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece Fig. 1 The Aegean region, Mainland Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey) with places mentioned in the text. Medieval Ceramics 25, 8498, 2001 under the light of Byzantine economic and social reforms (Sanders 2000, 153-4). POTTERY STYLES OF THE EARLY 11TH TO LATE 14TH CENTURIES Green and brown painted ware: Green and brown painted ware (Fig. 2) is a red-bodied ware, painted over a white slip and under a yellow clear lead-glaze in matt green and brown (Megaw 1968a). Samples of this ware from the Athenian Agora have been called Black and Green Painted Ware because the brown outline (filled with green) can also be dark brown or black (Waage 1933). On finer examples the outline is carefully drawn but the technique readily degenerates and the designs become splashes of green bearing very little relation to a wandering and uncertain black line (Frantz 1938). The decoration most often consists of concentric circles and lozenges, spiral and floral motifs, and wavy bands. The shape is usually a fairly deep bowl with a tall straight flat-topped rim. The footring base is low and medium. Green and brown painted ware made its appearance late in the 11th century. Wasters of this ware have been found at Corinth, where the source of its inspiration is suggested by the presence of fragments of an analogous Persian fabric. The Corinthian potters perhaps also sought to reproduce the effect of the Islamic lustre wares (Megaw 1968a). It is almost contemporary with the slip painted ware and the early sgraffito ware, as fragments from Sparta and Corinth indicate. From the time that sgraffito technique establishes itself, towards the end of the 11th century, its greater decorative possibilities led to the gradual displacement of painted wares, although these continued to co-exist for some time. Frantz (1938) has argued that by the end of the 12th century it is not uncommon to find deposits with no brown and green painted ware at all. Excavations at Corinth, where this group has been found in association with coins, suggest that brown and green painted ware and various subdivisions of it into different styles has been found in late 11th, 12th and early 13th century contexts (Sanders 2000). Armstrong (1989) dates this group mostly to the 12th century, with a lesser quantity to the 13th. Intensive surface surveys have identified this ware in rural sites in Keos (Cherry et al. 1991) and Phokis (Armstrong 1989) where it has been given a date between the late 11th and early 13th centuries. Fine sgraffito ware: Fine sgraffito or early sgraffito ware (Fig. 3) was preferred by Byzantine potters who applied a plain glaze of yellowish tint and the technique of incising through the white slip to expose the dark body of the clay (Megaw 1968a). Birds, imaginary animals, geometric patterns and human figures were the most common decorative motifs of this ware while shapes include rather wide bowls or shallow dishes of fine proportions. Worth introducing at this stage is the fashion of raised open forms on the table with an interesting parallel to medieval Europe and communal eating habits. Although, there has been no study of Greek medieval ceramics related to cooking traditions and table/dining habits, medieval material from north-western Europe may provide a suitable and stimulating suggestion. Studies on the history of food and cooking in medieval Britain have been related to archaeological finds and contemporary depictions of domestic life and have concluded that large, deep bowls for fish and meat were used communally by all diners sitting around the table; each diner used a knife and probably a 87 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece threatening, culminating in the eventual capture of Constantinople by their descendants, the Ottoman Turks. Constantinople continued to function as the capital city of a new State, the Ottoman Empire, after it fell into the hands of the Ottomans in 1453. Istanbul, which for more than ten centuries was the point of reference for the Eastern Christian world, continued to function as the centre of the Orthodox Church. Within a few years the rest of the old Byzantine lands, mainland Greece, Asia Minor and the islands was gradually incorporated into the Ottoman Empire and remained there until the Greek War of Independence and the establishment of the new Greek State in 1830. A chronological pottery sequence follows for those readers who have little or no specific contact with Greek medieval ceramics. The periods used are: Middle Byzantine Period (9th to late 12th century), Late Byzantine or Frankish Period ( early 13th to mid 15th century), Late Frankish to early Ottoman (14th to 16th century) and Ottoman (16th to 18th century). BRIEF HISTORY OF RESEARCH ON MEDIEVAL CERAMICS IN GREECE The first publication on Byzantine ceramics was made as early as 1910-11. Dawkins and Droop of the British School at Athens published the Byzantine finds from excavations at Sparta (1910-11). The pottery was found in numerous trial pits made on and around the Acropolis of Sparta and was classified into two distinct ware-groups: sgraffiato ware and painted ware. Talbot-Rices Byzantine Glazed Pottery (1930) was a first and serious attempt to classify and study Byzantine ceramics. He divided pottery into two main categories/groups of different types (faience and earthenware) laying the foundations for the study, analysis and dating of Byzantine pots. There followed the reports of Johns on the Medieval slip-ware from Pilgrims Castle Atlit (1934), especially on the blue-brown (enriched with yellow and red) painted glazed pottery and the publication of Waage on the Byzantine material recovered during the excavations of the American School of Archaeology at the ancient Agora of Athens (1933). Subsequently, the work of Frantz on the Middle Byzantine Pottery in Athens (1938) was a further study of Byzantine ceramics, which provided a few observations concerning pottery production. However, it seems that at that stage it was too early to infer which were the main centres of pottery production in the Byzantine world. What seems to have been the groundwork of all subsequent studies for a long time, however, was the review by Morgan in Corinth XI: The Byzantine Pottery (1942). Morgan published the glazed pottery from the excavations at Corinth and classified it into different decorative styles; glazed, engraved, painted, sgraffito and untreated. He analysed and discussed problems of medieval pottery dating and classification, but he confined himself in a four or five- century time-span on the basis that his finds dated between the 9th and 14th centuries. A further advance was made in 1947 with Stevensons publication of the glazed pottery from the excavations in The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors at Constantinople. This publication presented the results of four seasons (1935-8) of excavation in Istanbul carried out on behalf of the Walker Trust. Stevenson divided the ceramics from the south-west corner of the upper terrace of the Great Palace into pre-Byzantine and Byzantine glazed pottery. Seven thousand potsherds were divided into five chronological categories or stages, beginning with the 7th and ending with the 12th century. Stevensons publication was later used as the basis for the classic modern work of Hayes on Sarahane (1992) (see below). Megaw (1968a) made a first attempt at an overview of Byzantine glazed pottery in Charlestons edited volume, World Ceramics. Megaw explores the main glazed pottery types throughout the period of Byzantine history (white- ware, polychrome ware, slip painted, fine sgraffiato, gouged and coloured sgraffiato wares), discussing parallel techniques and possible influences from the Islamic Near East and proposing a Byzantine intermediary role for the revival of glazed pottery in Anglo Saxon Britain. So far, the study of medieval and post-medieval pottery had been limited to the finely decorated rather than more numerous coarse cooking wares. The noteworthy exceptions to this rule were more recent; Bakirtzis published research on medieval coarse-wares (1989) and Hayes publication of pottery from the Excavations at Sarahane, Istanbul (1992). Influenced by the rapid development in methods by New Archaeology, Bakirtzis laid the foundations for the study in Greece of undecorated utensils and containers used by the Byzantines, such as fireproof cooking pots, transport vessels and storage containers of the 9th to the 15th centuries (1989, 128). The chronological period of the assemblages from Istanbul studied by Hayes (1992) extends from the 5th century AD to the end of the Ottoman period, with the exception of the years 17001850 (which are weakly represented) and the late Byzantine or Frankish period 12251450), which is not represented at all (Francois 1994). Recent excavations at Corinth seem to have provided answers to most problems of pottery chronology and classification due to the unparalleled collection of stratified ceramics in association with coins. The main challenge of the excavations at Corinth has been the establishment of an accurate chronology for most pottery styles found, not only in Corinth itself, but also in other parts of present-day Greece. The pottery assemblage presents a more or less unbroken continuity until the early 14th century (after the Catalan intervention and the subsequent demise of the city). Moreover, the Corinthian ceramic material provides suitable evidence for the dramatic change in the appearance of medieval ceramics towards the end of the 11th century, 86 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 2 Rim and body fragments, brown and green painted ware (site TS5, Tanagra Project). Fig 3. Base fragment, fine sgraffito ware enriched with brown and green painted designs (site TS5, Tanagra Project). Zeuxippus ware: Zeuxippus ware (Fig. 5) is a lead-glazed sgraffito-decorated ware and is distinguished from all other medieval pottery styles by its better quality of firing and the glaze. It is the most finely made and the hardest fired of its contemporary wares. The most common shapes of Zeuxippus ware, quite different from earlier sgraffito wares, include small deeper hemispherical bowls and basins with steep walls. Sgraffito designs include concentric circles at the base, S shapes and mushroom-like patterns as well as some figurative subjects. The greenish or yellowish thick glaze covers the white slip on the inside, while the exterior is only partly covered with slip, applied in a simple pattern usually of vertical tongues or loops. It was initially believed to have originated in Constantinople (named after the place where it was first excavated - the Zeuxippus Baths in Constantinople). More recent excavations, however, in other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean have proved that it was also manufactured elsewhere, e.g. in Cyprus, Jerusalem, Corinth, and even Northern Italy. Pringle (1985) and Boas (1994) support the idea that Zeuxippus ware was developed in the Aegean area, but also manufactured elsewhere. Megaw (1968b; 1989) dates it in the last decades of the 12th and the first years of the 13th century. Boas (ibid.,) believes that the absence of this class amongst the published finds from the Pilgrims Castle at Atlit, where building commenced in 1217, indicates that the ware was no longer being manufactured by that time. Also worth noting is the use of tripod stands (to separate vessels while firing) in the manufacture of Zeuxippus Ware. These stands are considered to have arrived in the Mediterranean from the Far East by the beginning of the 13th century. Megaw (1989) views the distribution of Zeuxippus ware in various parts of the Byzantine world (from the Black Sea to Caesarea and the Levantine coast) as the result of enterprises of the Italian mercantile Republics. Excavations of the American School of Archaeology at Athens in Corinth has revealed Zeuxippus ware in contexts dated in the first half of the 13th century (Sanders 2000). Aegean ware: This coarse monochrome type of pottery (Fig. 5) includes shapes of bowls and plates with vertical thickened and turned up rims on straight or slightly curved walls and everted or rounded footring bases. Incised decorative patterns (hares, wavy lines and pictorial motifs) appear under a pale yellow/brown-green glaze with random green, brown and yellow splashes of paint. Aegean ware is rather thickly potted and seems to follow the tradition of the mid 12thcentury Byzantine sgraffito ware. A characteristic feature of this ware is that the inturned rim thickens before coming to a point. Megaw (1968b; 1989) dates this ware in the early 13th century on the basis of its existence in the destruction fills from the 1222 earthquake at Paphos, Cyprus. Evidence from Corinth suggests a similar date, c.12001260 (Sanders 2000, 159-61). The results of Boas Neutron Activation Analysis (1994) show with his that Aegean ware was produced in Cyprus at the end of the 12th century (after the Latin conquest of the island) and was exported to the Aegean areas (where it is not as abundant as elsewhere) and to Syro-Palestine. Armstrong (1991) notes that the variety in the type of site where Aegean ware has been found is interesting, as it is not limited to urban centres but it is also in rural sites. It travelled long distances and shipwrecks at Kastellorizo and Skopelos in the Aegean provide direct evidence for the transportation in bulk of Aegean wares. Brown and green sgraffito: Brown and green sgraffito, also known as Late Sgraffito Ware (Fig. 6), seems to have been the most common of all wares throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East since the late 13th century, in the Frankish period and continuing up to the 17th century. The finer incised technique declined, while the lines of decoration became heavier and careless. The characteristic of this type of pottery is the additional splashes of brown and green decoration under a yellow or colourless glaze (over a white slip). A change of shape is evidenced in the turned-out rims of plates and the turned-up rims of bowls with footring bases (Pringle 1985). The brown and green sgraffito examples found in Caesarea are imports from Cyprus, representing products of the 1222s onwards. Here the characteristic forms are flanged bowls or carinated bowls with concave rim and a high footring base. Fragments of bowls found during the 89 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece spoon, together with hard bread, instead of individual plates (Black 1985). Similar conclusions have been drawn (Bintliff pers. comm.) for the typical strong survival of glazed footring base fragments discovered during the course of fieldwalking surface collection at medieval sites in Boeotia (central Greece); communal bowls of open forms on the table possibly stressed the need for interior and highly visible ornament. It seems that fine sgraffito ware appeared in the early or mid 11th century. The style was already widely distributed over the whole Near East and this suggests that examples in the Byzantine world must have been inspired from the Islamic area, more specifically from Persia. This could be testified to by the use of Kufic or Pseudo-Kufic script to form a decorative border around the rim of the dish or bowl in the Aegean (Talbot-Rice 1968). Early excavations in the Athenian Agora (Frantz 1938) have provided no evidence for the existence of sgraffito in Athens before 10501075, but the incised technique followed not long after and this new method was established by the middle of the 12th century, both for principal and for accessory design. Fine sgraffito ware was indeed widely distributed in the Eastern Mediterranean world. Examples of mid 12thcentury Byzantine sgraffito were imported into the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Morgan (1942) dates it to the mid 12th century. He notes that the developed style never occurs in closed deposits later than the reign of Manuel I (1143-80) and seems not to have survived the end of the 12th century and the Latin conquest that immediately succeeded it (Boas 1994). The fact that fine sgraffito ware is an easily recognisable diagnostic type of pottery enables archaeologists to date contexts confidently where it is present in the ceramic assemblage. In 1994 Boas published the results of Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) on four pottery groups including mid 12thcentury Byzantine sgraffito and early 13thcentury Aegean ware. These results demonstrated that in the mid 12thcentury Cyprus exported its ware to various parts of the Byzantine world, such as Constantinople, Athens, Corinth, Thessaloniki and elsewhere. This does not exclude, however, the possibility that fine sgraffito could also have been produced locally in other parts of the Byzantine Empire and does not answer either the question of where the initiator manufacturing centre of this ware was located. Frantz (1938) notes that there is no evidence for the existence of potters workshops in the Athenian Agora before the Ottoman conquest. The similarity, according to Frantz (ibid.,), between the pottery of Athens and that of Corinth and Sparta indicates a common source for much of it and excavations in all these cities have produced material similar to that found in Constantinople. Thus, it would be logical to suppose that wares found in 12thcentury contexts in Greek urban areas were exported from a centre outside Greece to various places. Excavations and fieldwaking surface surveys have identified fine sgraffito in various regions in Greece; in rural sites in Keos (Cherry et al. 1991), eastern Phokis (Armstrong 1989), Pelagos island in the Sporadhes (Kritzas 1971) and urban sites such as Athens, Corinth, Sparta and Ephesos (Talbot-Rice 1968; Parman 1989). Slip-painted ware: There are two main types of slip-painted decoration. The most common is made by painting the designs in white slip against the natural clay and then covering them with a colourless, light yellow or greenish glaze. Morgan (1942) argues that in order to darken the ground colour, the inner surface of the pot was sometimes covered with a dark red- brown slip before the white was applied. Shapes include medium-sized deep and shallow bowls with footring bases, and vertical and in-turned rims offset from straight walls, thus, different in body shape to the vessel forms of the green and brown painted and fine sgraffito wares. This probably explains the coexistence of all three types of pottery in late 11th, 12th and early 13thcentury contexts, and in both rural and urban middle Byzantine sites from the Greek Mainland and the Aegean islands to Frankish coastal sites in Cyprus, Palestine and Syria (Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1981/2; Pringle 1985; Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1989; Armstrong 1989; Cherry et al. 1991; Tonghini 1995). Slip-painted ware (Fig. 4) is not commonly found in groups of middle and late Byzantine ceramics and has a long life span, making its dating even more difficult. The technique has been in use since the late 11th century (Morgan 1942) and is still practised today, for example in folk pottery of the Sporadhes (Skyros) and the Cyclades (Siphnos) in the Aegean (Korre-Zographou 1995). Armstrong (1989) notes that if a distinction is to be made between early and later examples of slip-painted wares, it would be on the type of glaze rather than the colour: the Byzantine green glaze is thin and matt, the later one thick and glossy. 88 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 4 Base fragment, slip painted ware (site TS5, Tanagra Project). Fig. 5 Base and body fragments, Zeuxippus and Aegean wares with champlev (gouged) and incised sgraffito designs (site TS5, Tanagra Project). manufactured from the late 12th century onwards in Apulia and were imported into southern Greece even before the Frankish conquest in the first decade of the 13th century. The most common type of proto-maiolica, Grid Iron Proto- Maiolica, is found not only in mainland Greece, but also in a number of sites in the eastern Mediterranean, such as Atlit, Khirbat-ad-Dair and at Caesaria. All examples of Grid Iron Proto-maiolica, both earlier and later types, date within the 13th century, while the RMR type, of which large quantities were excavated at Corinth, began to be imported only in the last decades of the century. RMR is a polychrome lead-glazed ware from Southern Italy and the initials R.M.R. stand for the colours of its decoration (in Italian); Ramina for green, Manganese for brown, Rosso for red). Archaic maiolica: Archaic maiolica was produced in North Italy from the 13th century. The Tuscan workshops produced almost exclusively closed forms and trade was limited to closed jugs, which accompanied the Savona archaic graffita functional types (such as basins and bowls), already flourishing in the 12th and 13th centuries. Benente (1993) suggested that this style of the Savona archaic graffita reflects imports from the Islamic and Byzantine world to Italy. Craftsmen, probably brought in from the Eastern Mediterranean, were responsible for the development of the archaic graffita ware in Italy. The production of archaic maiolica in Liguria and Savona, however, took off during the second half of the 14th century. It must have continued in use until the mid 16th century and probably continued after that on a reduced scale (Fig. 8). Milanese (1993) adds that early Iznik ware influenced the 16thcentury styles of the Savona archaic maiolica. These Ligurian Iznik-inspired- maiolica are called Berettino and the original Golden Horn ware imports have also been found in the area of Genoa. The jugs mentioned above were exported together with dishes and bowls and have been noted in Corsica, Sardinia (decorated in blue, yellow and green) and elsewhere in the Eastern and Western Mediterranean during the 16th century. Stratigraphic evidence from Genoa and Rome (Milanese 1993) suggests that blue-and- white Ligurian tin-glazed production started in the 16th and continued into the 17th century. Whitehouse (1993) argues that the whole ceramic industry began in the 14th century, while competition and demand for more costly and beautiful ceramic objects were the driving forces for the Italian potters to produce greater quantities of maiolica. This trend for more costly and elaborately decorated tableware for functional and display purposes did not leave the areas which imported such objects uninfluenced. Local workshops in Greece (Athens, Arta, and Crete) and the Balkans (especially Slovenia) were producing local variants of painted and sgraffito maiolica of the Italian manufacturing centres. Local maiolica: Italian blue-and-white maiolica imports influenced local Greek workshops of the Ottoman period. Frantz (1942) named the local Athenian imitations of Italian maiolica blue-and-white and dated them in the late 16th and early 17th centuries (for an example of local maiolica pottery see Korre-Zographou, K. 1995, fig. 84, 47). This ware is described as the most attractive of later wares and is decorated by painting the designs in blue outline (occasionally with some surfaces filled in, in red, yellow- brown or green) over a white slip. The commonest decorative motifs of the Athenian Agora collection are birds, rosettes and cross-hatchings. A floral border of varying degrees of decadence usually surrounds them. The most characteristic Attic shapes are (a) small bowls with low footring and plain rim, (b) medium to large plates with heavy footring, flat floor, curving sides and rim either plain or thickened and flattened on top and (c) the trefoil-mouth jugs with flat bottom, ribbon handle and short neck. The trefoil-mouth jug is the most common Italian jug and seems to have developed from a lengthy oval shape in Proto- maiolica and Archaic Maiolica into a more globular type in the 15th and 16th centuries. Another characteristic feature of the ware is the strap or oval to spherical section strap handle, which very often ends on the belly in a tail, a feature that appeared in the middle of the 14th century (Hahn 1991). The features of a group of 15th/16thcentury jugs from Western Crete have convinced Hahn (1991) that these were local Cretan products of the Khania workshops, very much influenced by the tin-glazed Italian imports of the period. One of the jugs, however, with an apple painted decoration, seems to be an import from Faenza. The Greek- Swedish excavations at Khania, Crete, have produced an assemblage of 15th to 16thcentury Italian maiolica, richly represented among the finer tableware, but also a local production of sgraffito ware with great resemblance to 91 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece excavation of a medieval house-kitchen in Cyprus, together with a coin of the Lusignan dynasty (of the period 1328- 1358 in Cyprus), help us date them in the 14th century (Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1988; Herrin 1973). This type of pottery, produced in Cyprus in the 13th century (Cypriote Sgraffito), was exported to other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean, such as Jerusalem, where it constitutes about 90% of the imported wares. It is very hard indeed to identify the centre where brown and green sgraffito originated. As mentioned earlier, it appears almost everywhere in the Aegean, the Middle East, the Balkans and Italy. Apart from Cyprus local workshops have been identified in Thessalonike (Vavylopoulou- Charitonidou 1989) and Serres in Northern Greece (Papanikola-Barirtzis et al. 1992), and one cannot exclude the possibility of other local workshops in other parts of the country. Whether it was Levantine potters who introduced brown and green sgraffito into Frankish Greece we do not know, although such a hypothesis seems the most probable. This polychrome glazed ware was also produced in Northern Italy, possibly from as early as the 13th century, whilst its apogee in Italy is in the 15th and 16th centuries (Vroom 1998). It seems that 13th-century Cypriote Sgraffito (and green and brown sgraffito subsequently) was influenced by Byzantine sgraffito and Port Saint Symeon ware. On the evidence of kiln wasters this last-named polychrome lead glazed ware is suggested to have been manufactured at al- Mina, the Crusader port Saint Symeon, near Antioch. It dates from the last decade of the 12th, or the early 14th century, until the end of Frankish rule in the area (1268) with the Mamluk conquest of the site. There is no evidence for the manufacture of this class elsewhere, and, although perhaps not manufactured by Frankish potters, occasional examples of Christian motifs leave no doubt that this class of ware was intended for the Frankish market, widely traded throughout the Crusader states. The wide diversity and variety of green and brown sgraffito decorative themes on pottery made for everyday use within the late Byzantine household is a new and innovative popular art, in contrast to its contemporary and conservative religious decorative art of icon-painting. Its popularity, development and distribution was so great, that green and brown sgraffito of workshops in Serres (Papanikola-Bakirtzis et al. 1992) and possibly Thessaloniki (Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1989), have been found in many parts of Macedonia (Northern Greece) and elsewhere. POTTERY STYLES OF THE EARLY 14TH LATE 17TH CENTURIES Proto-maiolica: Proto-maiolica (Fig. 7) is a polychrome tin-glazed pottery produced in southern Italy and Sicily from the end of the 12th century until the beginning of the 15th. It is very commonly found in 13th century Frankish settlements in the Levant and in many sites in Greece. Proto-maiolica is a distinctive type of ceramic since it is the earliest example of pottery from the central Mediterranean. It is decorated with a tin-glaze with over-glaze painting (Boas 1994). Tin-glaze makes an ideal white base for display of painted decoration (generally in manganese-brown and copper-green, or brown and cobalt-blue), which then requires a clear glaze to seal and protect the decoration. This ware consists of hemi- spherical or flanged-shaped bowls with a low footring base and either a ledge- or a flanged rim. The decoration is in blue, black, green and yellow over a white ground. Sanders (1989) notes that certain proto-maiolica was 90 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 7 Rim fragment, proto-maiolica ware (site of Kephalos, Paros Island, CY.RE.P.). Fig. 8 Neck and body fragment, Italian (from Faenza?) maiolica ware (site of Kephalos, Paros Island, CY.RE.P.). Fig. 6 Base fragment, brown and green sgraffito ware (site of Kephalos, Paros Island, CY.RE.P.). DISCUSSION Medieval Pottery Styles, their Origin and Chronology: In the catalogue of pottery above, I have described the most common ceramic styles of the middle Byzantine, Frankish, and Ottoman periods in Greece, the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. I have not included other glazed wares (e.g. polychrome ware, measles ware, glaze painted ware, znik or Ktahya imports from Anatolia, and other foreign fine-ware imports). Some shapes of Byzantine pottery have been associated with certain decorative types and certain periods, as Frantz (1938) has noted. The widely flaring bowls, for example, with sharply defined rims and usually flat around the top, are found almost exclusively in green and brown painted ware. Plates with an almost vertical rim, flaring sides and low footring are found in almost all periods and amongst all wares but they are found more commonly in the earlier periods. Towards the end of the reign of the Emperor Manuel I (1143-1180 AD) the sides begin to curve in and during the 13th century one of the most common shapes is a bowl with slightly in-curving sides and a widely flaring foot, frequently decorated with hares and other animals. In addition, the footring of the 13thcentury Cypriote Sgraffito Ware becomes higher and the bowls become steep-walled and deeper. Whether this was an indigenous development or a trend introduced by the Latin conquerors is not entirely certain. Introduced by Levantine potters or through other channels, sgraffito wares were also produced in Italy, mainly in the north, from as early as the 13th century while production reached its apogee in the 15th and 16th centuries (Vroom 1998, 526). Through commerce, especially with the Venetian-dominated areas in the Mediterranean, sgraffito seems to have influenced local pottery productions. The shapes of the open wares of local Greek workshops did not change dramatically. The introduction of the trefoil- mouthed jug (known in many parts of the Mediterranean) remained very much in fashion, reaching the tradition of early 19th-century Greek folk pottery. Researches in Italy (Pisa, Genoa, Venice, Pavia), however, which have addressed questions regarding the origin of ceramics present in the country between the 10th and 13th centuries, have shown an uninterrupted flow of supply (especially in Pisa from the second half of the 10th century) from Western Islamic countries (Berti and Gelichi 1992). Thus, it seems that influence came firstly to Italy in the second half of the 10th century, when local Italian wares developed glazed styles from imports out of Maghreb, Arab Spain and Sicily. Tin must have been too expensive for tin-glazed wares to be common utensils amongst the average medieval or post- medieval household furnishings. Tin-glaze, discovered by the Assyrians, flourished again during the Arab expansion in the 9th century. Based on the prohibition of the Koran, the everyday use of vessels made of precious metals, such as tin, may have been forbidden. The introduction of lustre wares probably provided a solution and explained the expansion of Arab/Iberian lustre-wares (Zbona-Trkman 1991). Hugo Blakes important study (1980, 3-12) has shown that the socio-economic status of a settlement can be predicted from the surface collection of potsherds. Tin- glazed wares became more common in Italian rural sites between 1350 and 1500 and subsequently, rural population was better off since they could acquire more expensive and luxury wares. Tin could be found only in a few places (or not at all) in the Mediterranean world (Blake 1980, 6), and since metal-wares were even more expensive for the peasantry to buy, shiny and good-quality tin-glazed pots were acquired in a desire to behave and live like the more wealthy social classes. One cannot avoid noticing that the fashion for acquiring more luxurious and good-quality tin- glazed wares coincides chronologically with (or is the result of) the spread of capitalism and the rise of the individual in Europe (Bintliff pers. comm.; Johnson 1996). A significant contribution to the identification of pottery production centres is Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), the results of which are discussed by Boas (1994). Boas concludes that mid 12thcentury Byzantine Sgraffito, early 13thcentury Aegean Ware, Zeuxippus Ware and 13thcentury Cypriote Sgraffito and Slip-Painted Ware were of Cypriote origin, thus, Cyprus had a virtual monopoly in the export of western ceramics. The only other fine-wares found in any quantity in the Crusader states were Port Saint Symeon Ware, manufactured within Crusader territory, and Proto-Maiolica, which may have been imported specifically for the use of the Italian merchant communities. This can indeed explain it all, since Cyprus was one of the first territories to have come under western rule. Italian naval powers such as Genoa and Pisa had already acquired trading privileges from the Byzantine Empire and were established at the Golden Horn with treaties dated in 1169 and 1170 (Megaw 1968b). Thus, Italian maritime market and trade was further established and goods flowed from Spain and Venice, to Constantinople, Cyprus and the Levantine coast. Nearly all of the studies dealing with Byzantine glazed pottery, its origin, development and distribution note that glazed pottery types developed much earlier in Islamic lands. Lane (1947) has argued that in the 9th century glazes fluxed with lead were more favoured in Mesopotamia to the alkaline glazes still being used in Syria and Egypt. The development of Islamic pottery in many of the Islamic lands of the Near East influenced to a great extent Byzantine potters, mainly in terms of its decoration techniques and inspirations (Megaw 1968a). Already in the 1950s and 1960s, researchers tried to link the revival of glazed pottery in North-Western Europe and Britain to contacts with and influences from Italy, Byzantium and the Near East (Megaw 1968a; Stevenson 1954). Originally, the imports of Chinese 93 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece contemporary Italian wares of this kind (Hahn 1989). Ceramics of a similar type to those of the local Athenian and Cretan workshops have been published by Vavylopoulou-Chatitonidou (1981/2). These finds have been identified as products of local workshops in Arta and have been dated in the 16th to18th centuries. The decoration technique used on the painted vessels is the same as examples from Athens, and Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou refers to them as pseudo-maiolica because of their similarities with the Italian maiolica products. The most characteristic shapes are the shallow plates and the trefoil- mouth jugs, although the group from Arta includes jugs with a taller neck and higher base than those from Athens and Crete. Perhaps this characteristic feature of maiolica from Arta helps us distinguish them from the relatively earlier jugs of the Athenian workshops. More ceramic finds, similar to those from Arta, have been identified in the Castle of Rogoi, Epirus (western Greece) and represent products of a different workshop (Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou 1986/7). The tradition of tin-glazed painted ceramics is not confined to Greek areas only. The excavations at four castles in north-west Slovenia have revealed a number of high- quality finds including painted wares of the blue-and-white tradition, which flourished during the second half of the 16th, 17th and early 18th century. The most common form is still the jug with round body, simple base, trefoil mouth and flat strap handle ending on the body with a tail. It is also polychrome painted in yellow (iron), green (copper), lilac-brown (manganese), blue (cobalt), while the decoration can be geometric or floral-vegetal. The catalogue published by Zbona-Trkman (1991) is indeed very enlightening, for it includes very good photos and drawings of the assemblages, which are very similar to examples from other regions, as noted above. The earliest examples from Slovenia date to the 15th century while the later continue into the 17th century, more or less contemporary with the Greek production centres of Athens and Arta. A later type of decoration in Veneto and Friuli is dated in the second half of the 16th and early 17th century. The style of decoration uses coloured spots and marbling, made by a sponge dipped in colour and dripped onto fresh slip. The result has almost the same visual effect as the examples of marbled ware from Greece. A quite distinguished find from Slovenia is a cup decorated with both spots and sgraffito. Late sgraffito ware: It is the most common of all Ottoman wares produced locally in Greece (Athens, Arta, Epirus, and Crete) and the Balkans (Slovenia). Waage (1933), Frantz (1942), Hahn (1989, 1991), Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou (1986/7) and Zbona-Trkman (1991) describe the ware in detail and date it in the 15th to 18th centuries, with only slight differences in shape and decoration (Fig. 9). The fabric is thinner and finer (open shapes), while the glaze is hard and glassy, with added brown or green or both. The deep, almost straight-sided bowl with plain rim is usually decorated with several grooves in and out. The decorative motifs vary from simple squiggles and wavy lines to stylised flowers and animals. The trefoil- mouth jug is still very much in use. The example of the group of 15th and 16th-century jugs from western Crete (Hahn 1991) is a very good example of early Ottoman tableware and a new pottery form, not very common in the Byzantine period. The distinctive feature of the Khania jugs is the neck-ring, also characteristic of the Italian jugs that continue to be in use into the 17th century. The shape of the Khania jugs suggests a metal prototype, perhaps from Islamic areas. The examples from Arta (shapes and sgraffito decoration) also suggest a metal (in copper or silver) prototype. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou (1981/2) notes the similarity of decoration in both ceramics and metal-ware from Arta, since both techniques applied the same incised technique of decoration. The metal industry of Epirus is one of the most flourishing of the Greek world during the 17th and 18th centuries. The earliest examples of sgraffito ware from the Slovenian assemblage date from the 15th century while the latest are from the 17th century. Vessel forms include plates, cups, and bowls that have typical Venetian features, such as the concave footring base. The decorative motifs are geometric, floral, zoomorphic, anthropomorphic, crosses, heraldic and mythological symbols. The most interesting of all decorative motifs, are the male/female figures in profile, with typical Renaissance clothes, which occur in many places and are dated in the second half of the 15th and 16th centuries. This tradition probably derived from the habit that engaged couples gave each other a pot decorated with symbols of love or human images. The same tradition existed in 14th and 15thcentury pottery from Cyprus, with scenes of twin-couples and other symbols of fertility. 92 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 9 Body fragment, late sgraffito ware with brown and green splashes (site of Kephalos, Paros Island, CY.RE.P.). It would be obvious that metal (silver and copper) utensils were commonly used in the Byzantine palace and that (probably in the beginning) glazed wares were confined to palace consumption (such as the early Constantinopolitan wares of the 8th to 10th centuries). It seems, however, that the sumptuous use of gold and silver plates at the Byzantine palace was now substituted by earthenware and ceramics. The Byzantine historiographer Nicephoros Gregoras (1290-1360) testifies to the drastic change in appearance of the imperial table after the fall of the Latin Empire (centred in Constantinople) in the second half of the 13th century (from his work Byzantinae historiae libri XV, 11, CSHB III, 1830, 788 in Piltz 1996, 6). Moreover, examples from the 13th century onwards show mass production of better-quality glazed wares (probably as a substitute for metal vessels), which in their turn could indicate the wider distribution of this new class of pottery to all classes of the social hierarchy. A case study from the late medieval site of Kephalos, Cyclades: CY.RE.P. has undertaken a topographical and surface survey on deserted late Medieval and post-medieval settlement sites in the Cyclades. One of these sites is the deserted, defended settlement-site of Kephalos on the eastern promontory of the island of Paros. This site has the typical layout of other castra settlements of the period in the Cyclades; there is an inner and outer defensive wall following the contours of the hill, while the two-storey houses are built on a line, one next to the other against the defensive walls. The top of the hill, where possibly the Latin Cathedral and the Lords residence once stood, is now occupied by the late 16th-century Monastery of Saint Anthony, built after the legendary destruction of the site by the Muslim corsair Khayr-ad-Din Barbarossa in 1537. Surface pottery from within the sites defensive walls suggests an earlier date of habitation within the inner wall around the end of the 13th and the beginning of the 14th century. Pottery from within the outer defensive wall, however, is predominantly late 14th to 16th century. Combining our material evidence with textual information, we conclude that the castro of Kephalos was extended around the middle of the 15th century, after Nicolo I Sommaripa transferred the administrative seat of the island from the older town of Paroikia to Kephalos (Miller 1901). The late 14th, 15th and early 16th centuries in the Venetian-dominated Aegean lands, in general and the Cycladic islands, in particular, have seen the emergence of a new era; a period of recovery and relative prosperity, attested to in the built environment and the material culture record. The defended settlements and the concentration of populations within them, always seen within the wider historical consequences in the Mediterranean and the regional shifts in the Aegean, do not seem to reflect a period of greater threat, instability and insecurity. Most of these defended settlements-castra were built in accessible land and close to the coast. The Venetian fleet, frequently present in the Aegean and the Venetian merchants involvement in trade at the same time, promoted the establishment of such posts along the island-coasts of the Aegean Archipelago. Moreover, the economic crisis of the Byzantine Empire in the mid 14th century, with the devaluation by nearly 50% of the Byzantine currency and its replacement by the Italian one in the international exchange market (Linner 1999) gave the Venetian outposts and colonies in the Aegean a new breath and a sign for recovery. Although demographic and economic growth in cities and within regions under direct Byzantine control seems to have lasted until the mid 14th century, regions under Venetian control seem to have benefited under foreign rule from the middle of the 14th to the 16th centuries. Different social groups, however, had different experiences; the period of relative prosperity we argued for above, was certainly a period of affluence for the late Medieval upper class, the imported-Venetian landlords, a class very small in size, compared to the base of society, the class of villani, the peasantry. Pottery, however, is a good indicator of changing technologies and life-styles (Blake 1980). The colourful sgraffito lead-glazed wares, a common find in the Kephalos- assemblage, probably indicates the greater availability of decorated ceramics for the lower classes, whose tastes and life-styles might have changed after the arrival of the Franks. The class of villani was given the opportunity to pass from 95 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece wares opened wider horizons to Muslim potters, who looked to China for the improvement of shape, glaze and the imitation of the manner of Tang prototypes (Philon 1980). It is generally accepted that China was the ultimate source of inspiration for the technological advances of glazed pottery developed in the Near East and later employed within Byzantine territories. Medieval pottery, economy, trade and exchange: It is clear that the distribution of the bulk of this pottery in different places during the Late Byzantine/Frankish periods is of great significance. It can provide useful information about long-distance trade as well as the social and economic standing of the inhabitants of all these sites. The large number of different types of pottery of this period could be viewed more generally as a reflection of changes in eating habits and diet. Glazed and unglazed kitchenware is well represented in all Late Byzantine/Frankish contexts, of which the commonest types are flat-bottomed frying pans and globular cooking pots with or without horizontal loop- handles. Such vessels were thinly potted and represent the normal kitchenware of Frankish sites in Syria, Palestine and Cyprus (Pringle 1985) from the end of the 12th through the 13th century. Hand-made painted wares of this period are of particular interest. We find them in sites of the eastern Mediterranean during the Crusader period. They are mostly decorated in the geometric style of painting or in a style deriving from it. Is there perhaps a correlation between the repertoire of 12th-century material culture and the socio-economic circumstances of the Crusader occupation on these sites? The finds from Caesarea (Pringle 1985), for example, are products of a home-based village industry and are commonly noted in rural sites occupied during the 12th and 13th centuries. However, they are rarely found in urban contexts. Where they do occur, e.g. at Arcas, it seems to be only after the Franks had abandoned these places in the later 13th century. The same conclusion can be drawn from the study of assemblages in excavations of the 14th-century Mamluk Palace at Kerak (Brown 1989), where the imported and local glazed wares are a sharp contrast to the socio- economic environment of the rural hinterland. Obviously, the Palace assemblage was not available to peasant populations that relied upon the local southern Levantine hand-made pottery. Another sharp distinction between the 12th-century Crusader garrison and the local Arab population is noted in the distinct ceramic vessels used by each group at the Southern Transjordan Crusader fortress. Such distinctive characteristics are not, however, found in the Aegean area. It would be logical to assume that there must have been variations in the economic level of each area of the Eastern Mediterranean, especially in a period such as that of the Crusades with the general political, social and economic changes they brought about. Similarly, in Ottoman times much local pottery in the Levant was handmade village wares. Research at Tinnik in Palestine (Ziadeh 1995) has revealed large numbers of handmade domestic pottery, made on or near the site and constitutes about 60% of the total assemblage. It seems that the age of prosperity (during the early Ottoman period) in the 15th and 16th centuries, which characterised Ottoman ruled provinces in Greece, the Balkans and Asia Minor, did not reach certain regions in the Near East. In the Near East local factors, such as depopulation and hostile attacks by neighbouring tribes, shaped a different picture of material culture and domestic life. Medieval pottery, table manners and everyday life: It has already been suggested that changes in pottery decorative styles and forms in the beginning of the 13th century could also imply that eating habits must have changed after the arrival of the Latins or Franks in the lands of the Byzantine Empire (Fig 10). As we have noted earlier, the monochrome sgraffito shallow bowls and plates of the middle Byzantine period went out of use in the 13th century, while more colourful fine-wares with new decorative techniques took their place. Whether this fashion of deep bowls and goblets with high footring bases imply that food preparation in Greece during the Frankish period showed a trend towards more watery dishes cooked in their own juices, as in north western Europe, or the reflection of increased use of metal utensils, still needs more research in both the textual and archaeological records. One may claim that, indeed, glazed ceramics of the middle Byzantine period (i.e. fine sgraffito wares, slip-painted wares) reflect the desire of consumers at the lower end of the hierarchy to emulate the living conditions of their betters (Gaimster 1994). Research on food and eating habits in medieval Britain (Black 1985; Brears 1985) has shown that group eating from a central bowl by diners sitting around the table was a common practise until the 15th to 16th century. By the end of the 15th century bowls became deeper, while contemporary depictions suggest a shift towards individual plates. Changes in cooking habits resulted in the form of deeper bowls and dishes in 16th-century Britain after the rise of more liquid dishes, such as stews (unpublished paper by Howard Coutts, presented in a Conference on the Archaeology of Food and Drink held at Durham University 1996). Presumably, the Franks introduced a different diet and cooking tradition to the Levant and the Byzantine world. The Byzantines considered the Franks as polluters and unclear, and their cooking dirty, mixing their suet and lard with oil (Lock 1995, 194). One of the central streets in Jerusalem was the venue for the purchase of ready-cooked food; in the 12th century the large number of pilgrims visiting the city purchased food in this street (Boas 1999, 25) probably food of a dirty and oily kind. In contrast to western eating habits, the Byzantine preferred more fruits, vegetables, salads and fish (Motsias 1998) thus, they were using more shallow and open pottery forms. 94 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 10 The Last Supper, 18th century. Monastery of St. John at Archilochos, Paros (A. Vionis, CY.RE.P.). Dawkins, R. M. and Droop, J. P. 1910-11, Byzantine Pottery from Sparta Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 17, 23-8. Francois, V. 1994, De la Ceramique en Contexte a Istanbul Journal of Roman Archaeology 7, 512-9. Frantz, A. M. 1938, Middle Byzantine Pottery in Athens Hesperia 7, 429-67. Frantz, A. M. 1942, Turkish Pottery from the Agora Hesperia 11, 1-28. Gaimster, D. 1994, The Archaeology of Post-Medieval Society, c.1450-1750: Material Culture Studies in Britain Since the War, in B. Vyner (ed.), 1994, Building on the Past: Papers Celebrating 150 Years of the Royal Archaeological Institute, 283- 312, London. Hahn, M. 1989, Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Pottery from the Greek-Swedish Excavations at Khania, Crete Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique 18, 227-32. Hahn, M. 1991, A Group of 15th/16th Century Jugs from Western Crete Acta Hyperborea 3, 311-20. Hayes, J. W. 1992, Excavations at Sarahane in Istanbul: the Pottery (vol. 2), Princeton University Press and Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Herrin, J. 1973, Kouklia 1972: the Medieval Pottery Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 199-201. Hetherington, P. 2001, The Greek Islands: Guide to the Byzantine and Medieval Buildings and their Art. Quiller Press, London. Johns, C. N. 1934, Medieval Slip-Ware from Pilgrims Castle Atlit (1930-1) The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 3, 137-44. Johnson, M. 1996, An Archaeology of Capitalism, Blackwell, Oxford. Korre-Zographou, K. 1995, The Ceramics of Greek Areas (in Greek), Melissa Publishing House, Athens. Kritzas, H. 1971, Byzantine Wreck at Pelagos Island (in Greek) Athens Annals of Archaeology 4, 176-85. Lane, A. 1947, Early Islamic Pottery, London. Linner, S. 1999, Bysantinsk Kulturhistoria (in Greek translated by Z. Psaltis title in English: History of Byzantine Culture), Govostis Publications, Athens. Lock, P. 1995, The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500. Longman, London and New York. MacKay, T. S. 1996, A group of Renaissance pottery from Heraklion, Crete: notes and questions in P. Lock and G. D. R. Sanders (eds.) The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, 127-35, Oxford. Mee, C. and Forbes, H. 1997, A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece. Liverpool. Megaw, A. H. S. 1968a, Byzantine Pottery (4th-14th century), in R. J. Charleston (ed.), 1968, World Ceramics: An Illustrated History, 100-106, Crescent Books, New York. Megaw, A. H. S. 1968b, Zeuxippus Ware Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 63, 67-88. Megaw, A. H. S. 1989, Zeuxippus Ware Again Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique 18, 259-66. Milanese, M. 1993, Italian Pottery Exported During the 15th and 16th Centuries Medieval Ceram 17, 25-33. Miller, W. 1901, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece 1204-1566, London. Morgan II, C. H. 1942, Corinth XI: The Byzantine Pottery, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Motsias, Ch. 1998, What the Byzantines Ate (in Greek). Kaktos Publications, Athens. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1988, Dated 14th Century Ceramics from Paphos (in Greek) Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 245-8. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D. 1989, Medieval Pottery from Enkomi, Famagusta Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique 18, 233-46. Papanikola-Bakirtzis, D., Dauterman Maguire, E. and Maguire, H. 1992, Ceramic Art from Byzantine Serres. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. Parman, E. 1989, The Pottery from St. Johns Basilica at Ephesos Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique 18, 277-89. Philon, H. 1980, Early Islamic Ceramics: Ninth to Late Twelfth Centuries, Benaki Museum Athens, London. Piltz, E. 1996, The Von Post Collection of Cypriote Late Byzantine Glazed Pottery. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CXIX, Paul Astroms Forlag, Jonsered. Pringle, D. 1985, Medieval Pottery from Caesarea: the Crusader Period Levant 17, 171-202. Sanders, G. D. R. 1987, An Assemblage of Frankish Pottery at Corinth Hesperia 56, 159-95. Sanders, G. D. R. 1989, Three Peloponnesian Churches and their Importance for the Chronology of Late 13th and Early 14th Century Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique 18, 189-99. Sanders, G. D. R. 2000, New Relative and Absolute Chronologies for 9th to 13th Century Glazed Wares at Corinth: Methodology and Social Conclusions in K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder and P. Soustal (eds.), Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten der Historischen Geographie des Ostlichen Mittelmeerraumes, Wien 2000, 153-73. Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Stevenson, R. B. K. 1947, Chapter II the pottery, 1936-7 in G. Brett, W. J. Macaulay and R. B. K. Stevenson (eds.), The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, London 1947, 31-63, Oxford University Press, Geoffrey Cumberlege. Stevenson, R. B. K. 1954, Medieval Lead-Glazed Pottery: Links Between East and West Cahiers Archologiques 7, 89-94. Talbot-Rice, D. 1930, Byzantine Glazed Pottery, Oxford. Talbot-Rice, D. 1968, Ceramics and Glass in D. Talbot-Rice (ed.), Byzantine Art, 1968, 500-12. Munich, Penguin Books. Tonghini, C. 1995, A New Islamic Pottery Phase in Syria: Tell Shahin Levant 27, 197-207. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1981/2, Pottery of the Ottoman-Turkish Period from Arta (in Greek) Ethnographika 3, 5-22. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1986/7, Post-Byzantine Pottery from the Castle of Rogon (in Greek) Epirotika Chronika 28, 37-42. Vavylopoulou-Charitonidou, A. 1989, Ceramique DOffrande Trouvee Dans Des Tombes Byzantines Tardives De LHippodrome De Thessalonique Bulletin de Correspondance 97 Post-Roman pottery unearthed: medieval ceramics and pottery research in Greece serfdom to the class of contadini (people who enjoyed free status), possibly as a result of agricultural prosperity by the end of the 15th century. Consequently, the island-peasantry possibly found themselves better off and tried to imitate their betters by acquiring ceramics resembling the high- quality import-wares of the same period. The imported feudal aristocracy, however, seems to have stuck to imports from their homeland. Considerable numbers of tin-glazed maiolica wares also appear in the archaeological record and were imported during the late 15th and 16th centuries. Whether these represent discards of Latin aristocratic households (MacKay 1996) introducing a western lifestyle to the Aegean lands and influencing the local pottery industry (Vroom 1998), is a matter of debate between pottery specialists. It is most possible that the annexation of the area by Venetian merchants, acting as middlemen between the Italian pottery-industry and the Aegean customer- communities, made the Aegean a hinterland of Italian- dominated markets. Imported high-quality goods begun to appear in the 15th and 16th centuries, changing the material culture record and introducing new life-styles. CONCLUSIONS Still further research needs to be done and more detailed excavation reports have to be published in order to reach definite conclusions concerning pottery chronology and manufacture, dining habits, ceramic fashions and aspects of everyday life throughout the Greek medieval and post- medieval ages. This paper comprises an overall review of ceramic trends and fashions and discusses different topics concerning the reflective relationship between decorated domestic pottery and the human factor. Developing modern technology can prove very useful to Greek Medieval Archaeology in establishing production centres and the development of pottery technology in Greece. Moreover, the further study, always with caution, of written documents of the period from the beginning of the Middle Ages to early modern times with the combination of pictorial evidence (Fig. 10) can provide new insights into aspects of pottery-use in everyday life, dining traditions and fashions. Acknowledgements I should like to thank my PhD supervisor Prof. John L. Bintliff (Leiden University, the Netherlands; previously at Durham University, UK) for reading the first version of this paper, making valuable comments and suggestions, and providing me with useful bibliography concerning cooking and eating habits in medieval Britain. Figures 1 and 6-10 are made by the author, as part of his PhD thesis (photo 6-10 by A. Vionis). The sherds in figures 2-5 come from the medieval surface ceramics collection of the Tanagra-City Survey Project in Boeotia, central Greece (directed by Prof. J.L. Bintliff), which the author is currently studying for publication (photos 2-5 are by P. Hazen). I should also like to thank Mrs. Jennifer Alifieri for correcting the English of the first version of this paper. BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, P. 1989, Some Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Settlements in Eastern Phokis Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 84, 1-47. Armstrong, P. 1991, A Group of Byzantine Bowls from Skopelos Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10, 335-47. Bakirtzis, C. 1989, Byzantine Tsoukalolagena: a contribution to the study of the names, shapes and uses of fireproof cooking pots, transport vessels and storage containers (in Greek with summary in English), Publications of the Archaiologikon Deltion 39, Athens. Benente, F., Gardini, A. and Sfrecola, S. 1993, Ligurian Tablewares of the 13th to 15th Centuries. New Archaeological and Thin Section Data Medieval Ceram 17, 13-23. Berti, G. and Gelichi, S. 1992, Mediterranean Ceramics in Late Medieval Italy in Medieval Europe 1992. Exchange and Trade. Pre-printed Papers 5, York 1992, 119-123. Bintliff, J. L. 2000, Reconstructing the Byzantine Countryside: New Approaches from Landscape Archaeology in K. Belke, F. Hild, J. Koder and P. Soustal (eds.), Byzanz als Raum. Zu Methoden und Inhalten der Historischen Geographie des Ostlichen Mittelmeerraumes, Wien 2000, 37-63. Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Black, M. 1985, Food and Cooking in Medieval Britain. History and Recipes. English Heritage, Birmingham. Blake, H. 1980, Technology, Supply or Demand? Medieval Ceram 4, 3-12. Boas, A. J. 1994, The Import of Western Ceramics to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem Israel Exploration Journal 44, 102-22. Boas, A. J. 1999, Crusader Archaeology. The Material Culture of the Latin East. Routledge, London and New York. Brears, P. 1985, Food and Cooking in 16th Century Britain. History and Recipes. English Heritage, Birmingham. Brown, R. M. 1989, Excavations in the 14th Century A.D. Mamluk Palace at Kerak ADAJ 33, 287-304. Casson, S. 1951, The Modern Pottery Trade in the Aegean: Further Notes Antiquity 25, 187-90. Charitonidou, A. 1982, Post-Byzantine Pottery from Athens (in Greek) Archaiologia 4, 60-4. Cherry, J. F., Davis, J. L. and Mantzourani E. with J. W. Hayes 1991, Introduction to the Archaeology of Post-Roman Keos in Cherry, J. F., Davis, J. L. and Mantzourani, E. (eds.), Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times, University of California, Los Angeles 1991, 351-64. 96 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Hellnique 18, 209-26. Vroom, J. 1997, Pots and Pans: New Perspectives on Medieval Ceramics in Greece in G. De Boe and F. Verhaeghe (eds.), Material Culture in Medieval Europe: Papers of the Medieval Europe Brugge 1997 Conference 7, 203-13. Vroom, J. 1998, Medieval and Post-Medieval Pottery from a Site in Boeotia: A Case Study Example of Post-Classical Archaeology in Greece Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 93, 513-46. Waage, F. O. 1933, The Roman and Byzantine Pottery Hesperia 2, 308-28. Waage, F. O. 1934, Preliminary Report on the Medieval Pottery from Corinth Hesperia 3, 129-39. Whitehouse, D. 1993, The Economic and Social History of Renaissance Maiolica Medieval Ceramics 17, 89-90. Zbona-Trkman, B. 1991, Grajska Zapuscina. Katalog ob Razstavi Keramike in Stekla 14-17 stol. (in Slovenian). Nova Goriza: Goriski Muzej. Ziadeh, G. 1995, Ottoman Ceramics from Tinnik, Palestine Levant 27, 209-245. Athanasios K.Vionis, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands Rsum Dans lEurope Occidentale, lutilisation du potentiel des tessons de cramiques, non pas seulement comme outil de datation, mais galement comme source de comprhension des aspects socio- economiques, de la diffusion et du commerce ainsi que des habitudes culinaires, est un fait tabli. Contrairement aux avances mthodologiques europennes, larchologie mdivale et post-mdivale de Grce est laube de sa carrire. Les restes de lpoque post-Romaine commencent juste tre fouills et catalogus scientifiquement. Bas sur des fouilles anciennes et rcentes dans des centres urbains (Athnes, Corinthe et Thessaloniki) et sur des prospections de surface dans la campagne grecque et dans dautres rgions de la Mediterrane orientale, cet article offre un bilan global des formes et styles cramiques de Grce. Les premiers rsultats du projet de recherche CY.REP (Cyclades Research Project) dans les les gennes des Cyclades seront aussi pris en considration. Les recherches sur la poterie mdivale en Grce sont tudies ici afin dexaminer le rle de la poterie post- Romaine dans les changes entre lEst et lOuest, dans la formation conomique et sociale, ainsi que sa signification culturelle et/ou symbolique et sa place dans la vie domestique. Zusammenfassung Im nordwestlichen Europa hat man lange begriffen, da man Tonscherben nicht ausschlielich als Datierungswerkszeug benutzten sollte, sondern auch als ein Mittel zur Untersuchung sozialwirtschaftlicher Organisation, von Handel und Tausch, und von Essens- und Trinkgewohnheiten. Im Gegensatz zum methodologischen Fortschritt in Europa steckt die mittelalterliche und nachmittelalterliche Archologie in Griechenland noch in den Anfngen. berreste nachmittelalterlicher Perioden hat man gerade erst angefangen, vernnftig auszugraben und wissenschaftlich zu dokumentieren. Auf der Basis von lteren und neueren publizierten stdtischen Ausgrabungen (in Athen, Corinth und Thessaloniki) und mit Hilfe von Untersuchungen an der Erdoberflche auf dem Lande und in verschiedenen Gegenden des stlichen Mittelmeers, bietet dieser Artikel einen generellen berblick ber Formen und Stile der Tpferware in Griechenland. Einige mittelalterliche und sptmittelalterliche Beispiele werden auch von den geischen Cycladen Inseln unter Verwendung erster Resultate der CY.RE.P. (Cyclades Research Project) angefhrt. Studien mittelalterlicher Tpferware in Griechenland werden unter sozialwirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Aspekten nachrmischer Keramik in Griechenland betrachtet. Dabei wird versucht, den Zusammenhang mit Handelskontakten zwischen Ost und West, wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Ausformungen, sowie kulturellen und symbolischen Bedeutungen und huslichem Leben darzustellen. 98 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS PotWeb: museum documentation - a world vision Jeremy Haslam, Maureen Mellor and Jonathan Moffett SUMMARY This paper demonstrates how an English museum is seeking to make its most abundant heritage resource pottery accessible world-wide, 24 hours a day. The project, code named PotWeb (www.PotWeb.org) is designed to benefit a wide range of enquirers and to encourage them to visit the collections in person. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESOURCE The City of Oxford, England, is a major tourist destination: 5,000,000 visitors explore its university, colleges and other attractions each year, some 300,000 visitors visit the Ashmolean Museum each year. Among them in March 2000 were members of the Medieval Pottery Research Group celebrating their 25th anniversary. They will remember the welcome extended by the director of the Ashmolean, Dr Christopher Brown, one evening. He introduced them to PotWeb for the first time (this was not in his briefing notes) and confirmed the museums committed support for the project. The Ashmolean and its world-class collections are a key attraction in Oxford. The museum is a department of the University, within which the collections are divided between three research departments, Antiquities, Eastern Art and Western Art, each with important ceramic collections. Keepers have professorial status within the university, and Assistant Keepers have lecturer status. The Assistant Keepers, in consultation with the respective keepers, manage most of the curatorial operations. Origin of the museum The Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology is Britains oldest public museum, established in 1683 to house Elias Ashmoles foundation collection (MacGregor 1983, 2001b). Located at the heart of a major tourist city, the museum provides the citizens of Oxford and their numerous visitors with access to collections of national and international importance, free of charge and with no direct or indirect cost to the local community. The founder, Elias Ashmole, studied at Oxford during the English Civil War (AD 1640s) alongside many distinguished scholars, including Robert Boyle and his assistants Robert Hooke and John Dwight, pioneering scientists of the 17th century; but Ashmole himself is chiefly remembered for not paying his college bills! His vision for the museum was to provide public access. This theme has been taken up in 21st century format by PotWeb, a project for museum documentation with a world vision. Before considering the methodology of the project, it may be helpful to summarise the intellectual content of what is now Ashmoles legacy. Ten millennia of ceramics Many of the museums ceramic collections are among the finest of their type in the world, designated as of outstanding importance by Englands Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. These wide-ranging but insufficiently appreciated collections include ceramics spanning some 10,000 years. This material, ubiquitous among the civilisations of the past, combines practical purpose and artistic expression. For the earlier civilisations, the museum houses the 99 Medieval Ceramics 25, 99107, 2001 excavated this material, as well as details of where the pots were found or located or otherwise acquired. The project design evolved within the Department of Antiquities to include a database to help manage the departments collections and Arthur MacGregor and Maureen Mellor explored a number of possible partnerships to help turn this concept into a reality. It was not until the appointment of Dr Christopher Brown in 1998 that the project was awarded a seed corn grant from the University, matched by one from the museum. These were then supplemented by a grant from the British Academy, local charitable trusts and private individuals. In May 2000, a small development group was appointed, each member reflecting a different audience: a business man with an interest in archaeology, a specialist in early English pottery and publisher, an Oxford College development officer and the director of a contemporary gallery and potter. A more formal fundraising mechanism was devised and a glossy leaflet on the project was printed and distributed within the museum, at conferences, in local public places and sent out in museum mailshots. The number of website hits began to be recorded each month and a steady growth can be seen throughout 2000 to 2003. Project structure OBJECT-BASED RESEARCH, LEARNING AND TEACHING RESOURCE The project builds upon the results of 150 years of historical and archaeological research in Oxford. To mobilise this extensive, intractable and, at present, largely inaccessible body of material a comprehensive computerised database is under development. It contains over 5,000 records of vessels or sherd families (Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993), ranging in date from the 1st century AD to studio pots of the 20th century. When completed the database will contain more than 20,000 complete vessels and thousands of sherd families. In 2003 a fabric reference collection was made available in the Museum: this ceramic resource for the post Roman period is curated by the Antiquities department and is available for consultation by scholars, students and the interested public. Project methodology MUSEUM DOCUMENTATION AND ACCESS The project establishes an authoritative data standard for museum documentation by examining paper archives; accessioning vessels; sorting sherds into sherd families; cataloguing and recording details on paper and carrying out literature search for published references and data logging. The ceramics database is enhanced with descriptive and contextual information for the benefit of generalists and specialists alike and feeds into the online Catalogue. In future it will be used to improve the management of the Museums collections. ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING - THE ONLINE CATALOGUE Building on the above tasks, PotWeb provides primary images which are held as photographic transparencies and presented on the website in JPEG digital format. In the project archive they are held as TIFF files. PotWebs photography One of the aims of the PotWeb project is to photograph ceramics from the Museum collections in such a way as to generate images which are suitable for presentation on the website. In order to achieve this, a photographic set-up or system has been developed which is both portable and flexible in use. This consists of two independently switched lighting units, each comprising a large aluminium reflector fixed to a standard portable table-lamp, fitted into the top of a tripod photographic stand. Each light provides illumination from a 500W photographic bulb of the correct colour balance for Fujichrome 64T transparency film. By this means the angle and intensity of lighting, from two different directions, can be easily adjusted and modified. The whole system is therefore ideally suited to being set up in temporary locations often in galleries when the museum is closed. The preferred background for many ceramic and glass objects is black flock paper. This absorbs rather than reflects or scatters unwanted light and eliminates shadows. It highlights and concentrates attention on the object itself in the final image. With this basic equipment it has been easy to set up a temporary photographic studio on a table, either in the galleries or behind the scenes in the storeroom. A camera and light tripod complete the ensemble. At an early stage in the project we chose between using conventional camera and film and using a digital camera. The digital camera would allow images to be downloaded straight to a computer and the website and would score in some ways for convenience. A conventional camera, however, offered many and some crucial advantages a) it could be achieved using available expertise and equipment. (a Nikon FM2 camera, Nikkor 28-50 zoom lens, and Nikkor micro lens); b) it would allow the greatest freedom in the choice of exposure and camera aperture, the choice of lens (standard, zoom or micro), and, importantly, the use of a polarising filter; c) it would also allow the use of a film type to suit a light source of the appropriate colour temperature both readily obtainable from photographic suppliers. The cost of acquiring digital equipment which could match these specifications would have been prohibitive at the time (2000) (probably around 5,000). A further consideration was that the amount of information (in grain size) on a normal high-resolution 35mm film (64 ASA) far exceeded 101 Potweb: museum documentation - a world vision original type series from which the ceramic chronology of Ancient Egypt was established by Flinders Petrie in the 19th century, including pots with delightful scenes from the River Nile (c. 4000 3000 BC) and the best collection of Nubian pottery in the world. A subsequent phase of collecting was by the archaeologist Arthur (later Sir Arthur) Evans, who resigned his directorship of the museum in 1908 in order to concentrate on excavating the Palace of Minos at Knossos. A superb Greek collection extends from the Neolithic to Hellenistic and Classical periods and is represented by a wide range of vessels for wine drinking, decorated with scenes of sporting and everyday life. Roman ceramics include Mediterranean fineware and Arretine and North African slipware, as well as local pottery from an important industry centred on Oxford itself. Post-Roman ceramics include a range of Anglo-Saxon burial urns from East Anglia and the Upper Thames Valley of the 5th to 7th centuries AD, with the occasional imported Frankish or Rhenish wares from the Continental Europe. Vessels from the most accomplished medieval ceramic industry of England, the Brill/Boarstall potteries in Buckinghamshire present a very powerful display in the Medieval and Later Gallery. These date from the 13th to the 16th century AD. The Ashmolean has an outstanding collection of the art of the European Renaissance potter, assembled by the Victorian scholar C D E Fortnum. The collection of English Delftware is one of its jewels, with decorative motifs often reflecting contemporary social history. Social drinking seems to have been the niche filled by the German stonewares which were imported in Britain in large quantities from the late 15th century. They made a big impact on Oxford taverns and inns, reflecting the rise in popularity of ale houses in the 17th and 18th centuries. From the Orient, the museum has one of the finest collections of Japanese export porcelain in Britain and one of only two collections of pre-export porcelain from the first half of the 17th century. The Chinese collection is particularly strong in the Greenwares, (the finest collection outside China) and other ceramics of the 3rd to 12th centuries AD, with an extensive collection of later porcelain. Reitlingers legacy to the Ashmolean of over 2000 pieces of pottery included a remarkable collection of Islamic pottery. His interest was stimulated by two expeditions to Iraq, sponsored by the University of Oxford in the 1930s. THE POTWEB PROJECT: ACCESSING A TREASURE-HOUSE OF DESIGN Public access is the most potent item on everyones agenda (MacGregor 2001a). Project aims The museums objectives in PotWeb (www.PotWeb.org) are threefold: to mobilise these ceramic collections (amounting to many tonnes of material) in a manner both dynamic and genuinely useful to transform the level of access to this important but currently somewhat exclusive body of material by presenting the salient features of every significant vessel on the projects website to provide an information gateway to individuals who might otherwise find the museum intimidating on cultural, racial or social grounds. The aim is to share the resource with the widest possible audience, including other museums, and we see the Internet as the most efficient and economic medium by which to achieve this. To this end, PotWeb is dedicated to broadening understanding of ceramics in the worlds of art and archaeology by the use of innovative methods. It makes the collection available to a worldwide audience and will develop to the full its educational and research potential. Project team PotWeb is directed by Arthur MacGregor, curator of the Medieval and Later collections. The projects co-ordinator (2000-2003) is Maureen Mellor, an independent ceramic consultant. Information technology expertise is provided by the museums Information Technology Manager, Jonathan Moffett. The project photographs have been specially commissioned from a freelance photographer, Jeremy Haslam, who has used traditional photographic media in order to record maximum detail and generate transparencies which will be available for further literature on ceramics. Project history The concept of PotWeb was born in the 1996 when the Department of Continuing Education was devising a new course to teach applied archaeology to students. These students had already completed several modules of study for the Certificate of British Archaeology. One of the authors, Maureen Mellor, started to look around for teaching aids to help the students fix information and write their assignments. Such students often lead busy lives during the day, do not necessarily have access to relevant libraries and do much of their research in the evenings and at weekends. There were few virtual collections online and none dedicated to ceramics. Near the department of Continuing Education lies the Ashmolean where Maureen Mellor was researching a handbook Pots and People, Ashmolean, 1997. In addition to the public displays, a rich resource lay hidden away in cupboards and basement stores, with the supporting paper archives often stored well away from the material culture. Amongst this documentation were gems of information about the people who had made, designed, collected or 100 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS module. By re-visiting early excavations and by addressing selected themes and employing up-to-date archaeological methodology, we plan to observe sites with fresh eyes, and to generate new information. PotWeb as an interactive visitor facility The final stage of the project will develop an interactive facility for Museum visitors and researchers. This will greatly enhance the experience derived from a visit to the collections, and will represent an important extension of the display capabilities of the Museum. HOW THE POTWEB SITE WORKS ONLINE The site can be explored via several different pathways. The chronological scope is illustrated under the heading of 2000 years of forms and shapes. This is currently being expanded backwards in time. People and their collections includes case studies of some of the collectors and excavators. The history of consumers and users can be explored through A vessel for everyman and his family. The potter and producer are highlighted in Fingerprints of the maker. A study module, The ABC of pottery in archaeology, is already online and more are to follow. A new element, Student presentations, allows students on short term placements to present themes based on the resource, which may be further developed after testing for browser feedback. PotWebs IT methodology For its website the museum uses a Sun Ultra 5 with Solaris 2.7 running Apache http Server 2. The database is run on a Windows 98 PC using MS Access 2000; Visual Basic Code produces HTML files which are FTP-ed to the web server. Macromedia Dreamweaver 3 software is used to develop themes for the study modules and to build the basic look of the catalogue page. Search engines for use throughout the whole museum website are currently under development. 103 Potweb: museum documentation - a world vision the resolution (in pixels) of an image which it is possible to obtain except with the most expensive digital equipment and/or the largest file sizes. The digital scanning of a transparency therefore allows more flexibility in image formation than the use of an image from a digital camera. It can create high resolution images, with little extra time involved and, ultimately, at great saving in equipment costs. It was found that the most efficient way to capture the final image for viewing on the PotWeb website was to scan the transparency to the final size and resolution required. A series of graduated image sizes was chosen to provide a proportional representation of the real sizes of the vessel as screen images. Once this was decided (partly through trial and error), it was comparatively easy to establish the final scanned image sizes from the heights (or widths, in the cases of flat vessels) of the vessels recorded on film. This process depends on the dimensions of each vessel being recorded on a list of the PotWeb identity numbers, with the museum reference numbers (accession numbers) and brief descriptions of the pots. This numbered master list is then used as a basic reference for the transparencies, so that each can be scanned to the appropriate size using this information. The thumb-nail images which appear in the pages of the site are then reduced from these larger images (Fig. 1). At present it is not planned to produce images larger than those appearing with the descriptions of individual pots. This could of course be done, although its would require the original transparencies to be re-scanned with the intended size in mind. The scanning and manipulation of the images for web presentation is an important aspect of the total process. Adobe Photoshop is used extensively to re-size and modify images and to eliminate unwanted elements such as dust specks, highlights, and supports used as props for sherds or incomplete pots. Prominent cracks in restored pots can easily be either blended with the background or eliminated not so much to create an illusion of completeness, but rather to tone down striking contrasts which might distract the eye from the overall image of the vessel. In this way it is possible to present images which give the maximum amount of information about the pots themselves, including colour and surface texture, while at the same time having optimum clarity and impact when viewed on the screen. The use of film means that the original transparency, rather than the scanned digital image, remains the most important secondary archive (the primary remains the artefact itself). Since the scanned images are small in both size and resolution (72 dpi TIFF format), the original transparency would be the source from which images suitable for paper publication would be derived for the lifetime of the photographic medium scanned at probably 300 dpi in CMYK mode. These digital images would then be used as source material for illustrations for books, cards or posters, or for CD presentation. PotWeb, the product The online catalogue will revolutionise the accessibility of the museums rich and varied collections, since they will be universally available through the internet. Many items from the reserve collections will be presented for the first time. The online catalogue creates a visual thesaurus, an invaluable guide for archaeologists, historians and collectors using it as a reference tool, for craftsmen and designers seeking inspiration and for an interested public. In addition to full details of the vessels themselves, PotWeb will provide information on the contexts in which they were produced, traded, utilised and collected, combining a valuable dimension of social history with the archaeological data. This will bring the museum to a world-wide audience. Eventually links with other museums will create a unique global resource. The website begins with a homepage and the online catalogue contains thumb-nail images (Fig. 1) with recommended name for the form, a standard image with the common name of the ware, its height and/or diameter, specific date and contextual information with references to publication and collection history (Figs 2ad and 3ad). Where appropriate, detailed images of decorative motifs (Figs 4, 4a d). PotWeb as an interactive educational package The online catalogue will be linked to a series of study modules which each represent some 15 to 30 minutes of study. This will develop the use of ceramics as a new way of understanding the past and will disseminate this knowledge to both scholars and lifelong learners in the world of higher education. Internet users will be encouraged to follow up online studies with a visit to the Museum, in order to gain first-hand experience of the collection. During August 2001 we produced our first draft study 102 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Fig. 1 Thumb nail images act as a visual thesaurus with recommended name for form (reduced from larger images). Figs 2 a d Standard images of the highly Decorated period with more detailed information in catalogue format (more fields of information are included on the database and could appear online too). ashmxx01.ashmol.ox.ac.uk. The top level domain uk identifies the computer as having a location in the United Kingdom; the second-level ac indicates that the computer is attached to the academic network; ox idenitifies Oxford University; ashmol signifies the computer is on the Ashmoleans network, and the final part is the computers name. However, not all IP addresses are quite so detailed, and unfortunately, not all computers have the second type of IP Address. Of the 1,036 sessions, 830 actually have useful IP addresses. We can use these to find out where, on the Internet, the computers are based. Table 1 shows the list of the 33 top-level domains represented (there are over 200 registered top level domains). However, five of these, com, net, edu, org, and gov are not strictly countries. The edu code is the USAs academic network (equivalent to ac.uk), while gov is the USAs government network (equivalent to gov.uk). Although the others may primarily represent the USA, this is not always the case, but we will assume they do. Consequently, we can say the majority of visitors come from the USA, with the UK coming second. This is what would be expected. Given that the largest number of computers connected to the Internet is in the USA. com.googlebot 95 com.alexa 37 com.aol 82 com.btopenworld 30 com.inktomisearch 72 com.ntl 29 uk.co 60 net.fastsearch 18 uk.ac 54 com.av 15 It is often quite interesting to look at the domains lower down the table. Thus, there were single visits from Sweden (se), Russia (ru), Ireland (ie), Croatia (hr), Switzerland (ch) and Austria (at). However, PotWebs international audience, is 105 Potweb: museum documentation - a world vision Access is free to anyone who surfs the web. The University of Oxford is committed to keeping the online catalogue and the interactive package accessible through its permanent website. WHO IS LOOKING AT POTWEB? The November 2002 Web statistics were: Total Requests (Hits): 42,072 Total Page Views: 14,096 Total Visits: 2,207 Total Sessions: 1,036 Where do all these hits come from? To answer this we have to examine PotWebs access log. Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are the unique identifying numbers given to a computer, the equivalent of a telephone number. There are two types. The first is as a series of four numbers, e.g. 163.1.112.1, unique to any computer connected to the Internet. The second is more explicit, e.g. 104 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Figs 3 a d Standard images of the Early Saxon period in catalogue format. com 458 nz 3 net 150 mt 3 uk 126 dk 3 edu 27 be 3 ca 12 tr 2 it 10 il 2 au 10 de 2 us 8 cz 2 es 8 ar 2 org 7 se 1 tw 6 ru 1 sg 6 ie 1 nl 6 hr 1 pl 5 gov 1 jp 4 ch 1 gr 4 at 1 fr 4 Table 1 The 33 top-level domains represented Table 2 2nd Level domains. Figs 4 and 4 a d Decorative motifs, showing details of manufacture and design of the Post Medieval period. Rsum Cet article illustre comment un muse anglais essaie de rendre sa collection la plus riche (la poterie) accessible au monde entier 24 heures sur 24. Le projet Potweb (http:www.potweb.org) a t cre pour incinter les personnes intresses venir visiter les collections. Zusammenfassung Dieser Artikel zeigt, wie ein englisches Museum versucht seine reichsten berkommenen Ressourcen, nmlich Tpferwaren, weltweit und 24 Stunden am Tag zugnglich zu machen. Das Projekt unter dem Schlsselwort PotWeb (http://www.potweb.org) ist so gestaltet, da es eine breite Palette von Fragen beantwortet und anreizen soll, die Sammlung persnlich zu besuchen. 107 Potweb: museum documentation - a world vision shown by two sessions from Argentina (ar), ten from Australia (au), three from New Zealand (nz) and six from Singapore (sg).It is possible to examine IP Addresses further by looking at the second-level domains (Table 2 [note: IP Addresses have been reversed]). The top three can be identified as the IP Addresses of search engines, and so most likely represent computers that are mechanically trawling through the Internet. Strictly speaking, these should be excluded as they do not really represent people, but they could also be copying the web pages to a local cache. This is a computer elsewhere on the internet which is used to store web pages closer to home so increasing the speed at which pages are transferred. For PotWeb, this has the disadvantage that any request to a local cache is unlikely to be registered in the PotWeb access log, reducing the real number of human visits. In order to balance the figures it is therefore reasonable to include requests made by search engines, although there is no ultimate method of determining how valid this is. 14 uk.ac.ox 1 uk.ac.surrart 7 uk.ac.soton 1 uk.ac.st-and 4 uk.ac.brookes 1 uk.ac.southampton- institute 3 uk.ac.dur 1 uk.ac.ram 3 uk.ac.bris 1 uk.ac.ncl 2 uk.ac.nottingham 1 uk.ac.mmu 2 uk.ac.nms 1 uk.ac.le 2 uk.ac.glam 1 uk.ac.hull 2 uk.ac.dundee 1 uk.ac.cf 1 uk.ac.york 1 uk.ac.cam 1 uk.ac.ucl 1 uk.ac.british-museum 1 uk.ac.swan 1 uk.ac.bham When looking at the 3rd level domains it pays to be more selective. Table 3 lists the ac.uk IP Addresses. It can be seen that 24 UK Academic institutions are represented, with Oxford University having the largest visitor figures. These exclude any IP Addresses that are on the Ashmoleans network, as these are automatically excluded from PotWeb statistics. CONCLUSION This pilot study has been an enormously valuable exercise in how to present ceramics to a wider audience and how to draw in new converts. We have put the user at the centre of our activities and continually solicit feedback by email, newsletter and telephone. We are still testing the market, compiling the number of hits and sessions to the website monthly and honing photographic techniques. How many people are interested in ceramics? In 2001 the project team was invited to give presentations at the headquarters of the British ceramic manufacturers in Stoke- on-Trent, Staffordshire and at Studio Pottery 2001 and 2002, the annual festival of the Craftsmen Potters Association. At the International Ceramics Fair in London the team met connoisseurs of earthenware and porcelain to test the appeal of the project. Feedback from America, Australia, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Netherlands and the British Isles has come from practising craftsmen as well as collectors and students and is invariably enthusiastic. PotWeb was recognised by the Millennium Commission with awards which allowed the project photographer and also a curator from The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery to be seconded to the project to share their own and PotWebs skills. The recognition seems singularly appropriate: PotWeb has already proved itself to be one of the most innovative developments in present-day ceramic studies, presenting a model that will recommend itself to other institutions holding large bodies of ceramic and other archaeological material whose range and complexity defies conventional museum presentation. BIBLIOGRAPHY MacGregor, A. 1983, Tradescants Rarities, Essays on the foundation of the Ashmolean Museum, 1683, Oxford: Clarendon Press. MacGregor, A. 2001a, A plethora of pots Oxford Today 13, 3, 44-45. MacGregor, A. 2001b, The Ashmolean Museum. A brief history of the institution and its Collections, Oxford: Ashmolean Museum and Jonathan Horne Publications. Orton, C. R., Tyers, P. and Vince, A. G. 1993, Pottery in archaeology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mellor, M. 1997, Pots and People: Ashmolean Museum. Mellor, M. 2000, PotWeb: Ceramics online @ The Ashmolean, The Ashmolean 39, 22 - 23. Mellor, M. 2002, Mobilising Collections PotWeb; Ceramics online in F. Niccolucci and Sorin Hermou (eds.) Multimedia Communication for Cultural Heritage, Budapest Figures are copyright PotWeb except where stated otherwise. Jeremy Haslam, Silver Street, Bradford on Avon BA15 1JZ Maureen Mellor, 12 Lake Street, Oxford OX1 4RN Jonathan Moffett, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford OX1 2PH Jonathan Moffett, the IT Manager of the PotWeb Project, can be emailed at PotWeb@ashmus.ox.ac.uk 106 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Table 3 ac.uk domain. Avon Bath, Beehive Yard, The Tramsheds, (ST 7512065230). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 128. EX CP KF WA MO PM Bath, Tramsheds, Beehive Yard, Walcot Street, (ST 7512065230). Medieval Archaeol 45 256-257. EX DO EM HD MC UK Blackford, The Grove, near Wedmore, (ST 41344784). ibid 257. EX DO EM HD UK Bristol, Burchill. R The Pottery in R Jackson Archaeological Excavations at Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol in 1973, 1976 and 1999. Bristol and Avon Archaeol 17 (2000) 77-91 (29-110). EX DO IM SC WE GU SS EM HD LM PM SN MN MU TO MA RE Bristol, 15-29 Union Street/Fiennes Court and Sterling House, Fairfax Street, (ST 59007321) Medieval Archaeol 45 259; Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 130-131. EX DO IM EM HD TO Bristol, 30-38 St Thomas Street, (ST 59157255). Medieval Archaeol 45 258-259; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 129-130. EX DO RF WA EM HD SN TO Bristol, 48-54 West Street, Old Market, (ST 5996373257). Medieval Archaeol 45 260; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 129. EX SC DO EM HD SN TO Bristol, King David Hotel, Upper Maudlin Street, (ST 58587332). Medieval Archaeol 45 257-258. EX DO FT EM HD MN Bristol, Temple. Jackson R Two groups of post-medieval pottery kiln waste from Temple Quay, Bristol, 1994 Bristol and Avon Archaeol 17 (2000) 111-118. EX WA OH GU 1694 MO PM ID MA RE Bristol, Temple Quay, (ST 5951372630). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 130. EX IL KF MO ID Bristol, Upper Maudlin Street, King David Hotel, (ST 58587332). ibid 131. EX DO FT HD MM Knowle West, Inns Court, (ST 58816921). Medieval Archaeol 45 260. EX DO MC MM Pucklechurch, (ST 69757675). Burchill R The pottery from Moat Farm Watching Brief in J Samuel Watching Brief excavations at Moat Farm, Pucklechurch, South Gloucestershire (2000). Bristol and Avon Archaeol 17 (2000) 15 (1-16). EX DO SC WE SS EM HD SN MM MA RE Berkshire Hungerford, Croft Road, Hungerford Health Centre, (SU 33496859). Medieval Archaeol 45 260. EX DO SN TO Hurley, Monks Garden, Mill Lane, (SU 82748396). ibid 260-261. EX DO EM MN Newbury, Trinity School, Shaw House, Church Road, (SU 47536830). ibid 261. FI DO OE MC UK Sonning, St Andrews Church Vicarage, (SU 75537558). ibid. EX DO AS CC Wraysbury, Waylands Nursery, Welley Road, (TQ 00157395). ibid. EX DO ES VI Buckinghamshire Ludgershall, Duck Lane, land adjoining Clovelley, (SP 66401778). Medieval Archaeol 45 262; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 131. EX DO WA LM VI ID Medmenham, Bockmer House, (SU 80718613). Medieval Archaeol 45 262. FI DO EM HD MM Stoke Goldington, Gorefields, (SP 815490). Ivens R J The pottery in D Mynard and R Ivens Excavation of Gorefields: A medieval nunnery and grange at Stoke Goldington, Buckinghamshire. Records of Bucks 42 (2002) 62-87 (19-101). EX CP DO IM RF SC WE GU SS US CS AR OH OO TY AS EM HD LM PM CC MM MN MU RE Cambridgeshire Ely, 3-5 Market Street/43 High Street, (TL 54228034). Medieval Archaeol 45 262. EX DO PM TO Fordham, Primary School, (TL 63367085). ibid 263. EX DO SN VI Fulbourn Manor, Estate Survey, (TL 5265653756). ibid. FI DO MC MM Huntingdon, 9-10 George Street, (TL 23657171). ibid. EX DO MC TO Isleham, Chalk Farm, (TL 634724). ibid. EX DO EM HD MM Melbourn, (TL 38344396). ibid. EX FU ES MS CM Peterborough, Botolph Bridge, Orton Longeville, (TL 171973). ibid 263-264. EX DO EM HD PM SN VI Soham, St Andrews House, (TL 593731). ibid 264. EX DO SN VI Sutton, Red Lion lane, (TL 44387865). ibid. EX DO EM HD SN VI Werrington, St John the Baptists Church, (TF 02680630). ibid. FI DO RF MC MS CC Wilburton, Mitchells Farm, School Lane, (TL 484748). ibid. EX DO EM HD FA Wilburton, Warren Lodge Farm, (TL 483748). ibid. EX DO EM HD UK Cheshire Chester, Amphitheatre, (SJ 408661). ibid 265. EX DO MC TO Chester, Bridge Street, (SJ 4057566230). ibid; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 134 EX DO EM HD PM SN TO Chester, Chester Cathedral, (SJ 40606649). Medieval Archaeol 45 265-266. EX DO FT AS MC CE MA RE Chester, Dee House, (SJ 408661). ibid 266. EX DO MC CC Cumbria Penrith, Brougham Castle, (NY 537290). Zant J M An excavation at Brougham Castle Trans Cumberland Westmoreland Antiq Arch Soc 1 31-37. EX CP SC OO SS US CS HD LM MO PM CN MU Dorset Bridport, 43 South Street, (SY 46629274). Loader E Other finds in D Godden, J Grove and R J C Smith Medieval and post- medieval Bridport: excavations at 43 South Street. Proc Dorset Nat Hist Archaeol Soc 122 (2000) 119 (111-123). EX CP CG PM TO MA RE Bridport, 43 South Street, (SY 46629274). Mepham L Pottery in ibid 115-119. EX DO IM SC WE GU CG TY EM HD LM PM TO MA RE 109 Annual Bibliography 2001 Annual Bibliography 2001 COLLATED BY Liz Pieksma, Peter Davey and Philippa Tomlinson The bibliography covers the British Isles and is divided into six sections: General, England, Ireland, Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. The individual sections start with general works, listed in alphabetical order by county and then by town or parish. The Greater London entries are grouped alphabetically by borough. Information about the content of each entry is provided using the codes that are listed in full at the end of the bibliography. The 2001 bibliography has been generated from computerised entries held in the MPRG National Bibliography database, which can be consulted online at http://dbweb.liv.ac.uk/mprg/. The database has been compiled using the old county structure and so this bibliography does not take account of recent boundary changes. For brevity, the full title of project summaries from Medieval Archaeology, volume 45, and Post-Medieval Archaeology, volume 35, have been omitted. Any site-specific entries from these volumes with pages in the ranges listed below are taken from the following compilations: Bradley J and Gaimster M (eds.) Medieval Britain and Ireland in 2000 Medieval Archaeology 45 (2001), 252-379 and Ponsford M (ed) Post-medieval Britain and Ireland in 2000 Post-Medieval Archaeology 35 (2001), 122-289. Unless otherwise stated the year of publication is 2001 in all cases. GENERAL Barton K J, Hodges R, Lewis J, McCarthy M, Orton C, and Verhaeghe F The Medieval Pottery Research Group at twenty- five: past, present and future Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 3- 11. SY Blake H The formation of the second generation: a documented version of the origin and early history of the MPRG ibid 12-22. SY Davey P J The Medieval Pottery Research Groups Bibliography The Recorder 57 (1998) 17. SY Edwards J Pottery studies in the North-West 1975-2000 Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 40-48. SY Fairclough O (Review) Eighteenth-century Ceramics: Products for a Civilized Society by Sarah Richards, Manchester University Press, 1999 Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 310. SY Goodwin J (Review) The Limehouse Porcelain Manufactury: Excavations at 108-116 Narrow Street, London, 1990 by Kieron Tyler and Roy Stephenson. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service, 2000 ibid 312-313. SY Higgins D, Davey P J, Tomlinson P and White S Annual Bibliography 2000 Medieval Ceramics 24 101-118. SY Hughes M J and Evans J Fabrics and food: 25 years of scientific analysis of medieval ceramics ibid 79-90. SY DO IM MC Hurman B and Nenk B The Gerald Dunning archive and the study of medieval ceramic roof furniture ibid 63-72. SY RF MC RE Hurst J G Imported ceramic studies in Britain ibid 23-30. SY IM Orton C Reinventing the sherd: 25 years of pottery statistics ibid 73-78. SY Richardson A (Review) The medieval tiles of Wales by J M Lewis, Cardiff: National Museum of Wales, 1999 and Medieval tiles by Hans van Lemmen, Princes Risborough: Shire Publications, 2000. Medieval Archaeol 45 (2002) 414-415. SY FT MC MO PM Straube B A Surrey-Hampshire border ware double dish in Virginia Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 93-95. EX DO SS TPQ PM Vince A Ceramic petrology and post-medieval pottery Post- medieval Archaeol 35 106-118. SY ENGLAND General Drury P Aspects of the production, evolution and use of ceramic building materials in the Middle Ages Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 56-62. EX FT OE RF HD SN Brown D H (Review) Alejandra Gutirrez Mediterranean pottery in Wessex households (13th to 17th centuries). BAR 306 (2000). 257 pp, 119 figs ibid 99-100. SY Hurst J G (Review) ibid Medieval Archaeol 45 422-423. SY IM EM HD LM PM 108 Medieval Ceramics 25, 108122, 2001 post-medieval manor houses and later Thames-side industrial sites ibid 93-131. EX DO FT RF SC WE OO CG TY EM PM ID VI Brent, Dollis Hill Reservoir, 92 Brook Road, (TQ 22358628). Medieval Archaeol 45 271. EX DO MC ID Camden, 6-10 Kirby Street and 119-124 Saffron Hill EC1, (TQ 31458081). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 140. EX CP DO PM TO Camden, City Literary Institute, Keeley House, Keeley Street, (TQ 30548123). Medieval Archaeol 45 272. EX DO MS UK City of London, 49-52a Bow Lane, (TQ 32408110). Medieval Archaeol 45 272; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 141. EX FI CP DO RF EM HD PM SN TO City of London, Athene Palace, 66-73 Shoe Lane and 22 St Andrew Street, (TQ 31458141). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 140. OT DO PM TO City of London, European House and Clements House, 25 Milk Street/14-18 Gresham Street, (TQ 32358132). Medieval Archaeol 45 272-273. EX DO EM HD SN TO City of London, Farringdon Street (Centre), North of Ludgate Circus, Leb Shaft, (TQ 31628126). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 141. OT CP MO PM TO City of London, Ibex House, The Minories, (TQ 337809). Medieval Archaeol 45 273. EX DO OE EM TO City of London, Paternoster Square, Area 4 and Paternoster Row, (TQ 31928132). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 141. EX DO PM TO City of London, St Helens Church, Bishopsgate, (TQ 33208128). Medieval Archaeol 45 274. EX DO FT EM HD CC City of London, St Pauls Churchyard, West End, (TQ 31948113). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 142. EX CP DO FT MO PM TO Croydon, 14-30 High Street, 40-45 Surrey Street, Middle Street, the former Grants Building, (TQ 32256549). ibid 142-143. EX CP DO MO PM TO Croydon, Lodge Lane, Addington. Bell C Excavation of multi- period sites at Lodge Lane Addington, Geoffrey Harris House and Lloyd Park, South Croydon Surrey Archaeol Col 88 235-265. EX DO RF SC WE OO CG TY EM PM SN FA MU VI Croydon, Pampisford Road, Haling Manor School Site, (TQ 31856321). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 143. EX CP DO MO TO Croydon, Queensway, Waddon Factory Estate, (TQ 31006410). ibid. EX DO PM UK Greenwich, 32 Courtyard, Eltham, (TQ 425742). Medieval Archaeol 45 275. EX OE MC CM Greenwich, Ye Old Pie House, 45 Greenwich South Street, (TQ 38267773). ibid. FI DO MC UK Hackney, 30-36 Upper Clapton Road, (TQ 34868635). ibid. EX DO EM HD SN UK Haringey, Tottenham, 628 High Road, (TQ 33989050). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 145. EX DO MO PM TO Harrow, Uxbridge Road, RAF Stanmore Park, (TQ 16609200). ibid. EX OE LM PM MM Hillingdon, 182 Bury Street, Ruislip, (TQ 08628857). Medieval Archaeol 45 276. EX DO EM SN UK Hillingdon, Hayes, Blyth Road, former EMI Factory, (TQ 09457950). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 146. EX DO OE MO UK Hounslow, Brentford Gasworks, Brentford High Street/Kew Bridge Road, (TQ 18407780). Medieval Archaeol 45 276. EX DO MC FA Hounslow, Brentford, 4-6 Brentford High Street, (TQ 18607780). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 146-147. EX DO MO ID Hounslow, Sleworth, The Limes, Park Road, (TQ 16797620). ibid 147. EX RF MC PM MN Islington, 21 Popham Street, (TQ 31958387). Medieval Archaeol 45 276; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 147. EX DO HD FA PM TO Islington, 43-51 Worship Street and 1 Paul Street, (TQ 32978212). ibid 148. EX DO MO PM TO Kensington and Chelsea, 2-4 Old Church Street SW1, (TQ 27087765). ibid. EX DO MO CC Kingston, Rotunda, Cromwell Road, (TQ 1838096450). Medieval Archaeol 45 276-277; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 148. EX CP DO WA EM HD PM TO SN ID Kingston-on-Thames, (TQ 18386945). Anon Bentalls Depository, Bus Garage, and Pineworld Surrey Archaeol Bul 355 (2002) 8. EX IL CG TY EM ID MU TO Kingston-on-Thames, Woodbines Avenue, (TQ 179686). Bishop B A multi-period site at Woodbines Avenue, Kingston ibid 350. EX DO TY ES HD MO PM TO Lambeth, 2-18 Albert Embankment, Queensborough House, (TQ 31537861). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 149. EX KF WA MO PM ID Lambeth, 9 Albert Embankment, (TQ 30567866). Anon 9 Albert Embankment, 5 Salamanca Place, 87 Black Prince Road Surrey Archaeol Bul 355 (2002) 8. EX IL TY MO ID TO Lewisham, Deptford Bridge, the Old Seager Distillery, (TQ 37407675). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 150. EX OE MO ID Merton, Furniture Land, (TQ 26307010). Anon Furniture Land, High Street, Merton Surrey Archaeol Bul 355 (2002) 8. EX IL RF TY LM ID VI Merton, Furnitureland, High Street, (TQ 23607010). Medieval Archaeol 45 277. EX WA LM ID Merton, Mitcham, 80 Morden Road, Mitcham Enterprise Park, former CMA site, (TQ 26906825). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 151. EX CP PM ID Mortlake, 77 High Street, (TQ 20777601). Anon 77 High Street, Mortlake Surrey Archaeol Bul 348. EX IL TY MO PM ID TO Old Malden, St Johns Vicarage, (TQ 21206615). Andrews P Excavation of a multi-period settlement at the former St Johns Vicarage, Old Malden, Kingston upon Thames Surrey Archaeol Col 88 161-224. EX DO IM RF SC WE OO CG TY EM HD SN VI Putney, 1 High Street, (TQ 24207558). Anon 1 High Street, Brewhouse Yard, ICL House, Putney Surrey Archaeol Bul 355 (2002) 10. EX CP DO RF TY MO PM VI Richmond, 77-91 Mortlake High Street, (TQ 20717599). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 152. EX KF WA MO TO Richmond, Hampton Wick, 1 High Street, The White Hart Public House, (TQ 17526943). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 152. EX DO MO PM TO Southwark, 135-137 Bermondsey Street, (TQ 33297965). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 153. EX DO PM MN Southwark, 151-153 Bermondsey Street, (TQ 3329079605). Medieval Archaeol 45 278; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 153-154. EX FT DO SN PM MN TO Southwark, 165 Rotherhithe Street, (TQ 35648026). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 156. EX CP KF WA PM ID 111 Annual Bibliography 2001 Bridport, South Street, (SY 46619270). Valentin J Bridport, South Street. ibid 166. EX DO CG TY EM HD TO MA RE Cranborne, Pennys Farm, (SU 059132). Mepham L Pottery in P S Bellamy Excavations at Pennys Farm, Cranborne. ibid 89- 93 (83-97). EX DO SC WE GU CG TY EM HD VI MA RE Portesham, Manor Farm, (SY 603859). Valentin J Portesham, Manor Farm ibid 163. EX DO CG TY HD SN MA RE Shaftesbury, Bell Street, (ST 86352311). Draper J Medieval and post-medieval pottery in J Valentin and S Robinson Archaeological excavation and recording of land between 28 and 30 Bell Street, Shaftesbury, Dorset. ibid 106-8 (99-109). EX DO WE PA CG TY EM HD PM TO MA RE Verwood, Potters Wheel, Manor Road, (SU 08690908). Whelan J Verwood, Potters Wheel ibid 164. EX WA CG TY MO ID MA RE Wareham, Bestwall Quarry, (SY 935883). Ladle L Bestwall Quarry excavations 2000- Interim Report ibid 160. EX DO CG TY EM MA RE Essex Hatfield Heath to Matching. Pieksma E Medieval pottery in E B A Guttmann Excavations on the Hatfield Heath to Matching Tye rising main, north-west Essex. Essex Archaeol Hist 31 25-26 (18- 32). EX DO SC WE GU US EM HD MU VI Pleshey and Writtle. Wickenden N P, Hughes M and Nenk B A medieval octagonal chimney stack: evidence from Pleshey and Writtle ibid 32 168-177. SY RF GU US LM MU RP Brentwood, Kings Road/Hart Street, (TQ 592932). Medieval Archaeol 45 267. EX DO EM HD TO Burnham-on-Crouch. Walker H An Ipswich-type ware vessel from Althorne Creek Essex Archaeol Hist 31 (2000) 243-244. CF DO US MS Castle Hedingham, Queen Street, Trinity Hall, (TL 78453535). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 137. EX OE AS PM VI Clavering, land to the west of the parish church, (TL 46983180). Medieval Archaeol 45 267-268. EX DO EM SN TO Colchester. Mellor M (Review) John P Cotter Post-Roman pottery from excavations in Colchester, 1971-1985 English Heritage Monograph, Colchester Archaeological Report 7 (2000), 398 pp 248 illus., 6 colour plates. Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 98-99. SY MU Colchester, (TM 01332468). Walker H A summary of the medieval and post-medieval pottery in H Brooks Excavations at 79 Hythe Hill, Colchester, 1994-5. Essex Archaeol Hist 31 (2000) 116-119 (112-124). EX DO IM SC WE US EM HD LM MO PM TO Colchester, High Woods, (TM 002267). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 137-138. FI CP DO IM PM TO MA RE Fingringhoe, land south of Fingringhoe Ballast Quarry, (TM 03101980). Medieval Archaeol 45 268. FI DO AS CM Foulness, Great Burwood Farm, (TR 009911). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 138. EX DO HD LM FA Harlow, (TL 472096). Walker H The medieval and post- medieval pottery in M Medlycott Prehistoric, Roman and post-medieval material from Harlow: investigations at Church Langley, 1989-1994. Essex Archaeol Hist 31 (2000) 70-75 (33-94). EX KF WA SC WE GU US HD PM ID MA RE Harlow, (TL 47330955). Walker H Medieval and later pottery in ibid 32. EX KF GU US LM PM ID MA RE Harlow, (TL 4755009310). Walker H The medieval and post- medieval pottery in ibid 77-78. EX KF WA SC WE US HD LM PM ID MA RE Hatfield Peverel, (TL 821108). Tyler S Saxon Pottery in K Reidy and D Maynard Possible Saxon burials at Hatfield Peverel: an evaluation at Smallands Farm, 1993. Essex Archaeol Hist 31 (2000) 283-284. EX DO SS MS CM MA RE Helions Bumpstead. Walker H The medieval and post-medieval pottery in T Ennis Helions Farm, Helions Bumpstead. ibid 32 162-165 (154-167). EX DO SC WE GU SS EM HD LM MO PM MM MA RE Leigh-on-Sea, High Street, Strand Wharf, (TQ 83898565). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 138. EX DO LM PM TO Newport, The White House, High Street, (TL 52103386). Medieval Archaeol 45 269. EX DO EM HD TO North Weald Bassett, A414 Dualling, (TL 47450765). ibid; Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 139. FI OT DO KF WA EM HD LM PM ID Stock. Tyler S Saxon pottery in M Germany Fieldwalking at Crondon Park, Stock. Essex Archaeol Hist 32 182 (178-188). FI DO SC US ES Stock. Walker H Medieval and post-medieval pottery in ibid 182- 184. FI DO IL EM HD LM MO PM Takeley, Thremhall Priory Farm, (TL 53002140). Medieval Archaeol 45 269. EX DO EM HD MM Wimbish. Walker H Medieval and post-medieval pottery in D Gadd Medieval remains at Parsonage Farm, Wimbish. Essex Archaeol Hist 31 (2000) 303-305. EX DO WE US EM HD LM MO PM FA MA RE Gloucestershire Churchdown, St Andrews Church, Station Road, (SO 88361981). Medieval Archaeol 45 270. EX DO SN CC Gloucester, (SO 83141836). Ferris I, Mynard D, Vince A Medieval and post-medieval pottery in I Ferris Excavations at Greyfriars, Gloucester in 1967 and 1974-75. Trans Bristol Glos Arch Soc 119 129-138 (94-146). EX DO SC GU SS EM HD LM PM SN MN MA RE Lechlade, Kent Place, Sherborne Street, (SP 21329968). Medieval Archaeol 45 270. EX DO ES MS SN TO Newland, The Vicarage, (SO 553094). ibid. FI DO HD CC Pucklechurch, Moat Farm, (ST 69647674). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 176-177. EX DO RF HD PM MM Greater London Barking and Dagenham, Abbey Retail Park, Unit 7, (TQ 43958380). Medieval Archaeol 45 271. EX DO MS SN MN Battersea, Althorpe Grove, (TQ 26867679). Blackmore L and Cowie R Saxon and medieval Battersea: Excavations at Althorpe Grove, 1975-8 Surrey Archaeol Col 88 67-92. EX DO SC WE OO CG TY EV OH HD MS PM SN VI Battersea, Battersea Flour Mills, (TQ 2683776909). Cooke N Excavations at Battersea Flour Mills, 1996-7: The medieval and 110 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Kent Cotter J Medieval shelly wares in Kent: a summary of recent research Canterburys Archaeology 1999-2000 24 (2002) 56-60. SY DO IM OH OO TY EM MS SN MA RE MU A2/M2 widening, Cobham to Junction 4, (TQ 567803). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 166. EX CP UK Canterbury, St Gregorys Priory. Cotter J The pottery in M Hicks and A Hicks St Gregorys Priory, Northgate, Canterbury, Excavations 1988-1991. The Archaeology of Canterbury New Series 2 231-266. EX DO IL IM SC EV OO SS CG AR 1084 WE MV EM HD LM SN MN MA RE Canterbury, St Gregorys Priory. Cotter J Ceramic building materials in ibid 221-223. EX IL RF MV OO SS CG AR 1084 HD LM MN MA RE Canterbury, Station Road West. Harrison L The brick from the clamp kiln at Sation Road West, Canterbury Canterburys Archaeology 1998-1999 23 65. EX WA SC OO SS OX HD LM PM ID MA RE Canterbury, Station Road West. Denton A and Willson J Medieval and post- medieval brick clamps found at Station Road West, Canterbury ibid 7-8. EX WA SC OO SS OX HD LM PM ID MA RE Cobham to Junction 4, TQ 567803/169700 -569443/169552, (TQ 5617). Medieval Archaeol 45 291. EX DO EM HD LM MO PM CO Gravesend, No. 17 and 67-76 High Street and Nos. 36-38 Princes Street. Cotter J Post-medieval pottery and clay pipes from Gravesend Canterburys Archaeology 1998-1999 23 65-69. EX CP DO IM KF WA MV OO CG US MO PM TO MA RE Iwade, Hillreed Homes, Site A, (TQ 900675). Medieval Archaeol 45 291. EX DO EM HD SN UK Iwade, Hillreed Homes, Site C, (TQ 90216740). ibid. EX DO EM HD LM SN UK Ramsgate, harbour approach road. Riddler I Anglo-Saxon ceramic weights from the Ramsgate harbour approach road Canterburys Archaeology 1998-1999 23 64-65. EX OE SC EV OO SS CG TY WE ES VI MA RE Rochester, Boley Hill. Cotter J Rare miniature teapot from Rochester Friends Canterbury Archaeol Soc Newsletter 49 (1999) 9-11. EX CP DO IM MV OO CG TY PM TO MA RE Rochester, Boley Hill. Horne J Discoveries in Kent (Rochester) in J Horne English pottery and related works of art 2002. Auction Catalogue (2002) 38. EX CP DO IM MV OO TY 1698 MO TO MA RE Sandwich, Castle Field, (TR 33555796). Cotter J The pottery and clay tobacco pipes in I J Stewart Archaeological investigations at Sandwich Castle. Archaeol Cantiana 120 (2000) 68-70 (51-75). EX CP DO IM RF WA SC WE OO SS 1297 EM HD LM MS PM CN MU MA RE Seasalter/ Whitstable/ Tankerton/ Swalecliffe, Oyster Coast. Allan T The Anglo-Saxon and later ceramics in T.Allan The origins of the Swale: an archaeological interpretation. ibid 176-78 (169- 186). FI DO IM SC OO US EM HD LM MS SN MU VI WR MA RE Teynham, Teynham Palace. Cotter J Teynham: pottery and tile report in P Wilkinson Field School News. Practical Archaeology (Kent Archaeological Field School) 5 (2002) 10-11 (10-15). EX DO FT RF WA OH OO SS TY HD SN CE MA RE Teynham, Teynham Palace and Church. Cotter J Pottery, floor tiles and pegtiles in P Wilkinson Further investigations at Teynham Palace in ibid 4 16-19. EX DO FT RF SC WE OO SS US TY EM ES HD LM PM CE MU MA RE Tonbridge, East Street, Lyons, (TQ 59204660). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 166. EX KF MO TO Lancashire Chipping, Wolfen Hall, off Fish House Lane, (SD 60674475). ibid 168. FI DO PM MM Whalley, Walley Abbey, The Sands, (SD 7311436004). Medieval Archaeol 45 292; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 170. EX FI DO FT LM MC MN Leicestershire Bringhurst, Bringhurst cemetery, (SP 841922). Pollard R Bringhurst Cemetery, Bringhurst, Leicester in Archaeology in Leicestershire and Rutland (2000). Trans Leicestershire Archaeol Hist Soc 75 136 (129-162). EX DO EM ES MN Burrough on the Hill, Burrough House, 16 Main Street, (SK 756104). Thomas J Somerby, Burrough House, 16 Main Street, Burrough on the Hill in Archaeology in Leicestershire and Rutland (2000) in ibid 154. EX DO SN VI MA RE Caldecott, Snelston DMV, (SP 8694). Pollard R Caldecott in ibid 157. EX DO EM VI Coalville, Donington le Heath Manor House, (SK 420126). Liddle P Coalville: Donington le Heath Manor House in ibid 142-143 (129-162). EX RF HD MM MA RE Edith Weston, Church Lane, (SK 927053). Rayner T Edith Weston, Church Lane in ibid 157. EX DO EM HD VI Empingham, Main Street, (SK 951087). Rayner T Empingham, Main Street in ibid. EX DO MC VI Garthorpe, St Marys Church, (SK 831209). Browning J Garthorpe, St Marys Church in ibid 143. EX DO EM HD CC MA RE Geeston, (SK 989042). Malone S Geeston, River Welland Bank in ibid 158. EX DO ES VI Glaston, Grange Farm, (SK 896005). Cooper L and Thomas J Glaston, Grange Farm in ibid 158-159. EX DO MC VI MA RE Kegworth, (SP 478284). Butler A, Coward C and Priest V Kegworth, Fulcrum site in ibid 147. EX DO MC VI MA RE Ketton, St Marys Church, (SK 981043). Medieval Archaeol 45 293. FI DO SN CC Leicester, (SK 587045). Derrick M 65 Market Place Leicester in Archaeology in Leicestershire and Rutland (2000). Trans Leicestershire Archaeol Hist Soc 75 132 (129-162). EX DO EM SN TO MA RE Leicester, Great Central Street, (SK 582473). Derrick M 61a Great Central Street, Leicester in ibid 130-131. EX MC PM SN TO MA RE Leicester, Leicester Abbey, (SK 5805). Buckley R and Butler S Leicester Abbey in ibid 129-130. EX DO FT ES LM MC PM 113 Annual Bibliography 2001 Southwark, 168 Tower Bridge Road, (TQ 33467962). Medieval Archaeol 45 278. EX DO MC TO Southwark, 20-22 New Globe Walk, (TQ 32228048). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 155. EX KF WA PM OY Southwark, Bear Wharf, Riverside House, (TQ 32268048). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 153. EX DO PM ID Southwark, Southwark Bridge Road, Southwark Business Village, (TQ 3232580230). ibid 156. EX DO PM UK Sutton, Grove Park Car Park, High Street, Carshalton, (TQ 24016451). Medieval Archaeol 45 279. EX DO EM MM Sutton, St Nicholas Way and junction with Crown Road, (TQ 25726472). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 157. EX DO MO UK Tower Hamlets, 38-40 Dock Street, (TQ 34148072). Medieval Archaeol 45 279; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 157. EX DO EM HD PM MO UK Tower Hamlets, A13 CCTV pits, (TQ 36158105). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 157. EX DO PM UK Tower Hamlets, Isle of Dogs, Winkleys Wharf, (TQ 37307880). ibid 157-158. EX KF WA MO PM OY Tower Hamlets, Victoria Wharf, Limehouse, (TQ 36348077). Stephenson R The ceramic finds in K Tyler The excavation of an Elizabethan/Stuart waterfront site on the north bank of the River Thames at Victoria Wharf, Narrow Street, Limehouse, London E14. ibid 77-82 (53-95). EX DO IM SS PM TO RE Wandsworth, 74-80 Upper Tooting Road, (TQ 27807215). Medieval Archaeol 45 279. EX DO EM HD LM PM UK Westminster, Covent Garden, 28-30 James Street, (TQ 30308100). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 160. EX DO OE PM TO Hampshire Alton, 18-20 High Street, (SU 71803944). Medieval Archaeol 45 281. EX DO EM HD SN UK Kings Somborne, Land adjoining Fromans, Cow Drove Hill, (SU 36023120). ibid. EX DO EM SN UK Old Basing, Bartons Lane, (SU 66375388). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 163-164. EX DO EM MO SN VI Sherborne St John, The Vyne, (SU 63605678). ibid 164. EX DO PM MM Southampton, 189 Priory Road, (SU 44351141). Medieval Archaeol 45 283. EX OE RF MC MN Southampton, 23-27 Bellevue Road, (SU 42181268). ibid 281. EX DO MS TO Southampton, 31-67 Hill Lane, (SU 41201265). ibid 282. EX DO MS VI Southampton, 57-58 High Street, (SU 42071118). ibid. EX WA EM HD TO Southampton, Andersons Road, (SU 42851140). ibid 281. EX DO IM MS TO Southampton, Andersons Road Lorry Park, (SU 42811152). ibid. EX DO MS TO Southampton, Castle Way, (SU 41941124). ibid 281-282. FI DO SN TO Southampton, Charlotte Place Car Park, (SU 42201250). ibid 282. EX DO MS TO Southampton, Cook Street, (SU 425116). Brown D H Pottery and Medieval pottery in M F Garner A middle Saxon cemetery at Cook Street, Southampton (SOU 823). Proc Hampshire Field Club Archaeol Soc 56 182 and 188 (170-191). EX DO IM SC WE GU SS CG TY HD LM MS CM TO MA RE Southampton, Hawkeswood Road Parts Centre, (SU 4328013292). Medieval Archaeol 45 282. EX DO ES TO Southampton, Houndwell Park, (SU 42161168). ibid. EX DO MS TO Southampton, St Mary Street Redevelopment, (SU 424120). ibid 284. EX DO MS TO Southampton, St Marys Church, Ascupart Street, (SU 42751210). ibid 283. EX DO MS TO Southampton, St Marys School, Footbridge, (SU 48211221). ibid. FI DO MS TO Southampton, St Marys Stadium, Britannia Road, Northam, (SU 429120). ibid 283-284. EX FU ES TO Southampton, Trimline, Paget Street, (SU 4287811519). ibid 285. EX DO IM MS TO Winchester, former Evans Halshaw Site, Hyde Street, (SU 48103000). ibid 286. EX DO LM TO Winchester, The Elizabethan, Jewry Street, (SU 48012970). ibid 285. FI DO PM TO Hereford & Worcester Fownhope, land adjacent to Fownhope House, (SO 79304460). ibid 287. FI DO EM HD SN VI Hereford. Vince A The Pottery in R Stone Archaeological excavations at 46 Commercial Street, Hereford. Trans Woolhope Nat Field Club 49: 2 (1998)192-203 (182-214). EX DO FT RF SC OH GU SS EM HD LM MO PM TO Hereford, County Hospital, (SO 50743974). Medieval Archaeol 45 287. EX RF MC MN Hereford, St Martins Street, (SO 50803930). ibid. EX DO RF EM HD TO Leominster, (SO 49605910). Ratkai S Pottery in J D Hurst, E A Pearson and S Ratkai Excavation at the Buttercross, Leominster, Herefordshire. Trans Woolhope Nat Field Club 49:2 (1998) 229- 244 (215-261). EX DO OH GU SS EM HD LM PM TO MA RE Leominster, The Old Priory, (SO 499593). Medieval Archaeol 45 287. EX FT MC MN Ross-on-Wye, 33 High Street, (SO 59922405). ibid 287-288. FI IL EM SN TO Hertfordshire Tyttenhanger, (TL 191044). ibid 288. EX DO C14 EM HD UK Humberside Grimsby, Abbey Road (North-East Lincolnshire UA), (TA 26700884). ibid 289. FI DO EM HD LM PM SN MN Grimsby, Garth Lane (North-East Lincolnshire UA), (TA 26950960). ibid. EX RF MC PM UK Stallingborough, Station Road (North-East Lincolnshire UA), (TA 19801135). ibid 290. FI DO MC VI Watton Priory, (TA 023499). ibid. EX FT MC MN 112 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS North Yorkshire Sherburn, Land adjacent to 52 St Hildas Street, (SE 96037722). Medieval Archaeol 45 336-337. EX DO MC UK York, Bootham Engineering Works, Lawrence Street, (SE 61705240). ibid 337. EX DO C14 LM OY York, Britannia Car Park, Heworth Green, (SE 60955251). ibid. EX DO EM LM SN OY Northamptonshire Rockingham Forest. Foard G Medieval woodland, agriculture and industry in Rockingham Forest, Northamptonshire ibid 41-95. SY MC ID Crick, Land off Main Road, (SP 590726). ibid 307. EX DO EM HD VI Fotheringhay. Blinkhorn P Pottery from Fotheringhay in G Johnston Excavation of an ossuary at Fotheringhay Church, Northamptonshire. Northamptonshire Archaeol 29 (2002) EX DO SC WE GU SS MV EM ES HD LM PM MO MS SN CC Marefair, Sol Central, (SP 750604). Medieval Archaeol 45 307-308. EX DO MS VI Northampton, Moat House Hotel, (SP 75266060). Blinkhorn P The Saxon and medieval pottery in A Chapman Excavation at the Moat House Hotel, Northampton 1998. Northamptonshire Archaeol 29 (2002) EX CP DO SC WE GU SS EM LM PM SN TO MA RE Southwick. Blinkhorn P Pottery from Southwick 1982 in A G Johnston, B Bellamy and P J Foster Excavations at Southwick, Northamptonshire 1996. ibid. EX DO SC WE GU SS EM HD LM PM SN ID Northumberland Berwick-upon-Tweed, Berwick Police Station, (NT 999529). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 173. EX DO PM TO Nottinghamshire Keighton, University Park, (SK 542383). Medieval Archaeol 45 308- 309. EX DO EM HD VI Nottingham, 14 Plumtre Street, (SK 57803972). ibid 309. EX DO EM SN Oxfordshire Banbury, 58-66 St George Street, (SP 45634047). ibid 310. EX DO HD SN UK Bicester, Chapel Street, (SP 58452230). ibid. EX DO ES MS TO Brighthampton, The Orchard, Standlake, (SP 38451355). ibid. FI DO EM HD SN VI Cassington, The Chequers, Church Lane, (SP 45391066). ibid. EX DO MC VI Childrey, Parsonage Farm, Sparsholt Road, (SU 36058760). ibid. EX DO SN UK Oxford, 20-26 Queen St/1-10 St Ebbes Street, (SP 512061). ibid 311- 312. EX DO MC TO Oxford, Oxford Science Park, Grenoble Road, (SP 5302). ibid 311. EX DO EM ES HD VI Shipton-Under-Wychwood, Church Street, (SP 27971790). ibid 312. FI DO EM HD LM UK Thame, 13 Bell Street, (SP 70550606). ibid. FI DO EM HD UK Wallingford, 21B and 22 St Marys Street, (SU 60738923). ibid. FI DO EM HD SN UK Wallingford, Land to the rear of Market Place, (SU 60668942). ibid. FI DO EM HD SN UK Weston-on-the-Green, Beecroft Yard, Church Road, (SP 53251870). ibid. EX DO ES UK Witney, Land to the east of Cogges Hill Road, (SP 36900970). ibid 312-313. EX DO MC MO PM UK Witney, Rear of 68-72 High Street, (SP 35760999). ibid 313. FI DO SN UK Shropshire Benthall, Bridge Road, (SJ 669025). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 175. EX CP DO KF WA MO PM ID Legges Hill, Broseley Wood, (SJ 670024). ibid 175-176. EX CP DO KF WA MO PM ID Ludlow, Corve Street, (SO 512750). Medieval Archaeol 45 313. EX DO EM TO Somerset Glastonbury, Glastonbury Abbey, (ST 501388). ibid 315. FI DO EM HD SN MN Glastonbury, Northload Hall, Northload Street, (ST 49753915). ibid. EX DO MC UK Hinton St George, St Georges Church, (ST 41851270). ibid 316. EX DO HD CC Ilchester, 6 West Street, (ST 52062254). ibid. EX DO MC TO Meare, St Marys Road, (ST 44874160). ibid. EX DO EM HD SN UK Middlezoy, Perhams Cottage, (ST 37683272). ibid. EX DO SN UK Stoke-sub-Hamdon, Castle Primary School, (ST 47521760). ibid 317. EX DO EM HD SN UK Wells, 52-54 High Street, (ST 548456). ibid. EX DO EM HD LM PM SN TO Westhay, Meare, (ST 43754125). ibid. FI DO EC MO PM VI Wookey, Court Farm, (ST 518456). ibid 318. EX DO FT MC CE South Yorkshire Barnby Dun, Church Lane, (SK 61300970). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 177. EX DO HD FA Denaby Main, Denaby Main Diversion, (SK 49349971). ibid. EX DO KF WA MO ID Rotherham, Rawmarsh, Top Pottery, (SK 437960). ibid 177-178. EX DO KF WA MO ID Shafton, Land off High Street, (SE 39151070). ibid 178. EX DO PM ID Staffordshire Burslem, School of Art, (SJ 86904970). ibid 179. EX WA LM PM ID 115 Annual Bibliography 2001 MN MU MA RE Leicester, St Margarets Baths, Vaughan Way, (SK 58400475). Medieval Archaeol 45 293. FI DO MC TO Leire, Little Lane, (SP 5289). Pollard R Leire: Little Lane in Archaeology in Leicestershire and Rutland (2000). Trans Leicestershire Archaeol Hist Soc 75 147(129-162). EX DO EM LM VI Loughborough, The Rushes, (SK 453319). Parsons Archaeology Loughborough, The Rushes in ibid 148. EX CP KF WA MO ID MA RE Saxby, (SK 822199). Thomas J Saxby, Saxby Village Drain in ibid 152-153. EX DO ES LM MC PM VI MA RE Sproxton, Church Farm, Saltby, (SK 845265). Coward J Sproxton, Saltby, Church Farm, Leicestershire in ibid 154. EX DO MC FA MA RE Walton, Old Forge Cottage, Hall Lane, (SP 595872). Derrick M and Warren S Walton, Old Forge Cottage, Hall Lane in ibid 156. EX DO EM HD LM VI MA RE Wymeswold, The Memorial Hall, Clay Street, (SK 600234). Clarke S Wymeswold, The Memorial Hall in ibid 156. EX DO EM HD LM SN VI MA RE Lincolnshire Billingborough, (TF 127332). Healy H Post-Iron Age pottery from later features and deposits in P Chowne, R M J Cleal, A P Fitzpatrick and P Andrews Excavations at Billingborough, Lincolnshire, 1975-8: A Bronze-Iron Age settlement and salt working site. East Anglian Archaeol 94 (2000) 56. EX DO SC SS US HD LM PM VI Boston, London Road, (TF 326434). Medieval Archaeol 45 293. EX DO RF EM HD TO Burgh Le Marsh, Hall Lane, (TF 500648). ibid 294. EX DO OE ES MS SN UK Coningsby, Silver Street, (TF 22305798). ibid. EX DO MC VI Culverthorpe-Kelby Pipeline, TF 003414 - TF022404, (TF 0241). ibid. FI DO MC UK Fleet, Conservation Area, (TF 389247). ibid. FI DO MS VI Grantham, Gonerby Hill Foot, (SK 899370). ibid 294-295. FI DO EM ES MS PM SN UK Lincoln, Brayford Wharf East Flats, former Hercocks Warehouse, (SK 97377112). ibid 296. EX DO FT MC TO Lincoln, Cornhill, Tourist Information Centre, (SK 97517105). ibid. EX DO IM PM CC Lincoln, Greestone Centre, Lindum Road, (SK 97907160). ibid. EX WA SN ID Lincoln, Newland, Northern Subsidiary Sewer, (SK 96857160). ibid 297. FI DO SN UK Lincoln, Spring Hill, (SK 97527163). ibid. FI KF EM FA Little Cawthorpe, Back Lane, (TF 35798383). ibid 298. FI DO SN VI Maltby-Le-Marsh, Main Road, (TF 468818). ibid. FI DO MC VI Millthorpe, Millthorpe Drove, (TF 11543096). ibid. FI DO SN VI Old Leake Commonside, Plots 2 and 3, Caleb Hill Lane, (TF 399524). ibid. EX DO HD ID Sleaford, The Castle, (TF 06454555). ibid. EX DO RF MC CN Spalding, Acres Mill, High Street, (TF 250225). ibid 299. EX DO MC TO Stamford, High School, Kettering Road, (TF 02810649). ibid. EX DO ES SN MN Swineshead, Market Place, (TF 23874023). ibid 300. FI DO LM PM TO Thorpe St Peter, St Peters Church, (TF 48506068). ibid. FI DO OE HD LM PM CC Toynton All Saints, Main Road, (TF 39286372). ibid. FI DO WA MC ID Welbourn, Castle Hill, (SK 968543). ibid. EX DO TAQ EM HD SN CN Merseyside Wallasey, 3 Clarendon Road, (SJ 319916). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 171. EX DO KF WA MO OY Norfolk Bowthorpe, St Michaels Church. Dallas C Pottery in O Beazley and B Ayers Two medieval churches in Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeol 96 90-91. EX SC PA SS EM HD MS PM SN CC MA RE Bowthorpe, St Michaels Church. Fryer V Brick and tile in ibid 91. EX OE SC SS HD LM PM CC MA RE Burgh Castle, SS Peter and Pauls Church, (TG 47630496). Medieval Archaeol 45 301-302. FI OE MC CC Great Yarmouth, 73-75 Howard Street South, (TG 52380756). ibid 302. EX DO IM EM HD SN TO North and South Creake, Sewer pipeline. Anderson S Post-Roman pottery in A Shelley Excavations at North and South Creake, 1997. Norfolk Archaeol 43:4 579-581 (566-588). EX DO SC WE OO SS EM HD MS PM SN MU VI MA RE Norwich, 10 White Lion Street, (TG 2303509435). Medieval Archaeol 45 305. FI DO MC TO Norwich, 12-14 Heigham Street, (TG 22470919). ibid. FI DO SN TO Norwich, St Martin-At-Palace Church. Huddle J Tile and Brick in O Beazley and B Ayers Two medieval churches in Norfolk. East Anglian Archaeol 96 43-44. EX OE RF SC PA SS HD LM PM CC MU MA RE Norwich, St Martin-At-Palace Church. Huddle J and Lentowicz I The pottery in ibid 42-43. EX DO SC OO SS EM HD LM MS SN CC MU MA RE South Walsham, St Lawrences Church, (TG 36591328). Medieval Archaeol 45 306. EX DO FT LM MC MS CC Thetford, Brunel Way, (TL 859842). Friedenson V and Friedenson S Early Saxon pottery in K Penn and P Andrews An early Saxon cemetery at Brunel Way, Thetford. Norfolk Archaeol 43:3 (2000) 425-434 (415-440). EX FU SC GU CG ES CM MA RE Thetford, St Lawrences Church, (TL 86708260). Medieval Archaeol 45 306-307. EX DO SN TO West Walton, Greenfields, Mill Road, (TF 47161456). ibid 307. FI DO MC VI Wymondham. Lentowicz I Pottery in H Wallis Excavations in Abbey Meadows and Westfields, Wymondham, 1992-93. Norfolk Archaeol 43:4 561 (545-565). EX DO SC OO SS EM HD LM PM SN MN MA RE 114 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Wiltshire Musty J Pottery, tile and brick in: P. Saunders (ed), Salisbury Museum Medieval Catalogue, Part 3, 132-212. SY DO IM RF EM HD LM MS SN Collingbourne Ducis, Cadley Road, (SU 244540). Medieval Archaeol 45 332. EX DO MC UK Collingbourne Ducis, Cadley Road, (SU 24455400). Timby J Pottery in J Pine The excavation of a Saxon settlement at Cadley Road, Collingbourne Ducis, Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeol Nat Hist Mag 94 96-102 (88-117). EX DO SC WE GU CG TY CD ES MS VI Devizes, land to the rear of Cromwell House and 33 Market Place, (SU 00406155). Medieval Archaeol 45 332. EX DO EM HD CN Heytesbury, Park Street Gates, (ST 93154265). ibid 333. EX DO SS MC MM Marlborough, Marlborough College Swimming Pool, (SU 18406885). ibid. FI DO EM HD SN TO Salisbury, 38-44 Endless Street, (SU 14503050). ibid 334. EX DO MC TO Seend Cleve, Seend Cleve Pipeline, Little Michels Farm, (ST 9361). ibid. FI DO EM HD VI Wilton, 3 Kingsbury Square, (SU 096313). ibid 334. EX DO MC TO Wilton, Kingsbury Square, (SU 09713117). Timby J Pottery in K Taylor The excavation of medieval and post-medieval features at 3 Kingsbury Square,Wilton. Wiltshire Archaeol Nat Hist Mag 94 70-74 (68-74). EX DO SC WE PA CG TY EM HD LM PM TO IRELAND General Comber M Trade and Communication Networks in Early Historic Ireland J Irish Archaeol X 73-92. SY DO SS ES Antrim Ballycarry, Templecorran, (J 44859367). Crothers N Rescue excavations at Templecorran, County Antrim Ulster J Archaeol 59 (2000) 29-46. EX DO SC SS EM HD MO PM CC MU MA RE Carrickfergus, First Presbyterian War Memorial Hall, (J 413874). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 186. EX DO LM PM TO Demesne Townland, (D 14955080). Wiggins K A rescue excavation on Rathlin Island, County Antrim Ulster J Archaeol 59 (2000) 47-70. EX DO SC SS EC CM MU RE Dunineny Castle, (D 114419). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 186-187. EX CP PM CN Armagh Armagh City, Loughgall Road, Mullynure, (H 87774722). Medieval Archaeol 45 338. EX DO MC UK Cork Cork City, 5 Barrack Street, (W 671717). ibid 339. EX DO EM HD SN TO Cork City, Red Abbey, (W 700711). ibid 340. EX IM HD MN Dunboy Castle. Breen C The Gaelic maritime lordship of OSullivan Beare J Cork Hist Archaeol Soc 106 21-36. OT DO SC PM CN Farrancoush, Sherkin Island. O Sullivan J The friary at Farrancoush, Sherkin Island, Co Cork ibid 37-52. EX DO SC EM MO MN Kinsale, Old Head. Cleary R M Old Head, Kinsale, County Cork ibid 1-20. EX DO RF SC SS MO PM CN Donegal Killybegs. Anon Killybegs Plantation evidence Archaeol Ireland 15: 4 7. EX DO PM VI Down Newry, (J 08732610). Crothers N Excavations at the site of Newry Abbey, County Down Ulster J Archaeol 59 (2000) 71-78. EX DO SC SS EM PM MN MU MA RE Strangford Loch, Mahee Island, (J 52626376). Medieval Archaeol 45 339. EX DO Dendro MS UK Dublin Dublin City, 46-50, 52-57 South Great Georges Street/ 58-67 Stephens Street Lower, (O 156338). ibid 341. EX DO MC TO Dublin City, St Jamess Hospital, Jamess Street, (O 136335). ibid. EX DO MC TO Jamestown, Pale Ditch, (O 211241). ibid. EX DO LM OY Laughanstown. Seaver M Digging on the doorsteps of the ancestors Archaeol Ireland 15: 1 8-10. EX DO EM HD MM Swords, Church Road, (O 182467). Medieval Archaeol 45 342. EX DO MC CC Fermanagh Aghavea, (H 37063883). ibid 339. EX DO MC CC Galway Tralee, The Abbey Car Park, (Q 836144). ibid 343. EX DO FT TPQ HD LM PM MN Kildare Ardree, (S 688924). ibid. EX DO EC TO Kildare, St Brigidis. Harbison P (2000) Some views of St Brigidis Cathedral, Kildare 1738-1836 J Co. Kildare Arch Soc 19:1 83-95. CO DO OH MO 117 Annual Bibliography 2001 Chartley, Chartley Hall, (SK 006285). ibid. EX IM PM MM Longport, Station Street, (SJ 85804960). ibid 179-180. EX WA MO ID Stafford, Baswich Lane, St Thomas Mill Farm, (SJ 950229). Medieval Archaeol 45 318; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 179. EX DO FT MC MO PM MN Suffolk Bromeswell, Tranmer House, (TM 2849). Medieval Archaeol 45 318. EX FU ES CM Bury St Edmunds, Andrews and Plumtons Yard, St Andrews Street South, (TL 8563). ibid 319. EX DO ES SN TO Carlton Colville, Bloodmoor Hill, (TM 5290). ibid 320-323. EX DO ES MS VI Freckenham, (TL 6672). ibid 323. FI DO ES UK Gisleham, Gisleham Manor, (TM 5187). ibid. FI DO LM PM MM Hadleigh, Aldham Mill Hill, (TM 0243). ibid 323-324. EX IM ES CM Hinderclay, St Marys Church, (TM 0276). ibid 324. FI FT HD LM CC Ipswich, 24 Lower Brook Street, (TM 1644). ibid 325. FI DO MS TO Ipswich, Cardinal Works Site, College Street, (TM 1644). ibid 324- 325. EX DO ES TO Lavenham, 50 High Street, (TL 9149). ibid 325. FI DO EM HD LM MO SN TO Lowestoft, John Wilde School, Wildes Score, (TM 5593). ibid. FI DO EC OY Orford, land at Castle Hill, (TM 4249). ibid 326. EX DO EM HD UK Snape, (TM 402593). Carnegie S Catalogue in W Filmer-Sankey and T Pestell Snape Anglo-Saxon cemetery: excavations and surveys 1824-1992. East Anglian Archaeol 95 17-192. EX FU MV PA GC TY ES CM MA RE Sutton, Anderson S A late medieval pottery production site at Sutton, Suffolk Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 91-93. FI KF RF WA LM ID Sutton, (TM 2849). Medieval Archaeol 45 328. FI WA LM PM ID Wherstead, Bourne Hill, (TM 158413). Wade K The Ipswich Ware in D Gill, J Plouviez, R P Symonds and C Tester Roman pottery manufacture at Bourne Hill Wherstead. East Anglian Archaeol Occ Pap 9 26. EX DO SC PA US MS MU VI MA RE Surrey Burgh Heath, Chapel Way, (TQ 23685805). Medieval Archaeol 45 328. EX DO HD ID Epsom, Waterloo House, (TQ 20636070). ibid. FI DO RF EM HD LM SN UK Ewell, London Road, Benhill Motors site, (TQ 223631). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 182. EX DO RF MO UK Guildford, 137-143 High Street, (SU 99784950). Andrews P A late 16th century timber-framed building at 137-143 High Street, Guildford Surrey Archaeol Col 88 267-288. EX DO RF OO CG TY EM OT TY Guildford, 9-11 Chertsey Street, (SU 99874969). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 182. EX DO MC PM TO Merstham, Heronswood Mere. Wilson T and Williams D An Italian maiolica albarello from Merstham, Surrey. ibid 119-121. CO IM SC PM OY Mitcham, Mitcham St Peter, 21 Church Road, (TQ 271686). Medieval Archaeol 45 329. FI DO SN UK Reigate, Cliftons Lane, (TQ 239514). Williams D A medieval site at Cliftons Lane, Reigate Surrey Archaeol Bul 356 (2002) 2. OT DO US TY HD FA Richmond, Richmond Palace, (TQ 17457492). Smith T P Building materials from Trumpeters House garden in R Cowie and J Cloake An archaeological survey of Richmond Palace, Surrey. Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 36-46 (3-52). SY FT RF PM RP Walton on Thames, 10-12 Bridge Street, The Rodds Site, (TQ 10106655). ibid 184. EX KF PM TO Sussex (E & W) Climping, Church Farm Cottage, Church Lane, (TQ 00350252). Medieval Archaeol 45 331-332. FI DO LM VI Hastings, 5 High Street, (TQ 827098). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 136-137. EX DO IM MO PM TO Warwickshire Alderminster, Goldicote, (SP 246513). Medieval Archaeol 45 328. EX DO EM HD VI Atherstone, Dolphin Inn, Long Street, (SP 311976). ibid. FI DO HD LM TO Kenilworth, (SP 28507215). Lisk S Roof and floor tile in S Palmer The excavations of medieval buildings at the Abbey of St Mary, Kenilworth, in 1989. Trans Birmingham and Warwickshire Arch Soc 104 (2000) 86-87 (75-91). EX FT RF SC HD MC MN Kenilworth, (SP 28507215). Ratkai S Pottery in ibid 84-86. EX DO SC GU EM HD MN Kings Norton, (SP 492787). Ratkai S The pottery in L Jones, S Ratkai and P Ellis Excavations at No.15, The Green, Kings Norton, 1992. Trans Birmingham Warwickshire Arch Soc 104 (2000) 112-118(101-121). EX DO SC EM HD LM PM VI Ladbroke, Old Post Office, Banbury Road, (SP 417588). Medieval Archaeol 45 330. FI DO HD VI Lea Marston, Blackgreaves Lane, (SP 198942). ibid. EX DO MC MM Rugby, Coton Park, (SP 517788). ibid. EX DO EM HD SN VI Warwick, (SP 284647). Palmer N Warwick Castle West Midlands Archaeol 43 (2000) 103-4. OT FT AR HD CN Warwick, Warwick Castle, (SP 285647). Medieval Archaeol 45 331. FI FT HD CN West Midlands Solihull, Church of St Mary, Temple Balsall, (SP 207760). ibid. FI DO LM PM CC West Yorkshire Pontefract, Pontefract Castle, (SE 461224). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 185. EX CP DO PM CN 116 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Highland Easter Raitts, (NH 777023). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 230. EX DO MO VI Urquhart Castle, (NH 530286). Medieval Archaeol 45 361. EX DO MC CN Lothian Cramond, Roman Fort, (NT 18997698). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 203. EX DO LM UK Dalmeny, Dalmeny Estate, (NT 18677702). ibid. EX RF MO FA Dunbar, 75-79 High Street, (NT 679788). Medieval Archaeol 45 356. EX DO MC TO Edinburgh, 42-50 Water Street, Leith, (NT 27107635). ibid 359. EX IM LM UK Edinburgh, Calton Road Gasworks, (NT 26367377). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 204. EX DO EM HD LM PM TO Edinburgh, Craiglockhart Hill, Edinburgh City Poorhouse midden, (NT 321701). ibid 206-207. EX DO MO OY Edinburgh, High Street, Sandeman House, (NT 26107370). ibid 210. EX DO MO TO Edinburgh, Holyrood North Plot J, (NT 26537379). ibid. EX DO LM TO Edinburgh, Holyrood North, Plot F, (NT 26537379). Medieval Archaeol 45 357-358. EX DO LM TO Edinburgh, Royal Edinburgh Hospital Orchard, (NT 236710). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 215. EX DO MO OY Edinburgh, St Patricks Church, Cowgate, (NT 260736). Medieval Archaeol 45 359. EX DO EM HD LM PM SN TO Humbie, Ewingston Farm, (NT 492648). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 197-198. EX RF MO FA Leith, 42-50 Water Street, (NT 27107635). ibid 218. EX IM LM TO Leith, 6-7 Mitchell Street, (NT 273763). ibid 217. EX DO PM TO Leith, Ronaldsons Whaft/Sandport Street, (NT 26937650). ibid 217- 218. EX OE LM ID North Berwick, St Andrews Blackadder Church, (NT 552852). ibid 198. EX DO MC MO CC Stenhousemuir, Stenhouse, (NS 88048314). Hall D W and Hunter D The rescue excavations of some medieval redware pottery kilns at Stenhousemuir, Falkirk between 1954 and 1978 Medieval Archaeol 45 97-168. EX DO FT KF WA LM ID MA RE Traprain Law, (NT 582746). ibid 356-357. EX DO MC UK Shetland Lerwick, 13 Charlotte Street, (HU 47534146). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 253. EX CP DO MO TO Strathclyde Argyll, Dunstaffnage Castle, (NM 882344). ibid 194. EX DO MO CN Bothwell, Fairyknowe, (NS 70555865). Medieval Archaeol 45 367. EX DO EM HD LM SN UK Bothwell, Fairyknowe, (NS 70555865). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 257-25. EX DO EM HD LM MO PM UK Cardross, Mains of Cardross, (NS 389758). ibid 265. EX CP MO MM Carmichael, Townfoot of Netherton, (NS 917415). ibid 258. FI CP DO HD LM MC MO PM UK Coatbridge, Summerlea Ironworks, (NS 729655). ibid 243. EX DO N/A ID Covington and Thankerton, Sherrifflats Farm, (NS 976380). ibid 258. FI CP DO HD MO PM FA Greengairs, Linnyate, (NS 77207105). ibid 243. EX DO PM OY Hamilton, Motherwell Road/Castle Street, (NS 726556). ibid 260. EX DO MC TO Hamilton, Muir Street, Low Parks, (NS 724559). ibid 260. EX IM OE PM TO Irvine, Seagate Castle, (NS 31923915). ibid 242-243. EX DO LM CN Lanark, 17-23 Bloomgate, (NS 88024366). Medieval Archaeol 45 367. EX DO EM HD LM MN Lanark, Coxs Garage, (NS 881437). ibid. EX DO EM HD SN MN Tayside Montrose, Chapel Works, (NO 71905770). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 193. EX DO MO UK Perth, Skinnergate, Skinnergate House, (NO 11932369). ibid 248. EX DO MC TO Western Isles Bornais, (NF 729302). Medieval Archaeol 45 368. EX DO MC UK Lochs, Shiant Islands, Mary Island, (NG 4398). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 267-268. EX DO MC MO FA South Uist, Airigh Mhuilinn, (NF 741269). ibid 269. EX DO MC MO FA South Uist, Eriskay Causeway, (NF 7811to7814). ibid 270. EX DO MO FA South Uist, Ormiclate Castle, (NF 73993180). ibid 271. EX DO MO CN South Uist, Rubha Ardvule Bothy, (NF 717298). ibid 271-272. EX CP DO MO VI Stornaway, Fishermans Mission, (NB 422327). ibid 272-273. EX CP PM CC Stornaway, Holm, (NB 444308). ibid 273. EX DO N/A UK Stornaway, Nether Holm, (NB 445307). ibid. EX DO MC MO PM UK Stornaway, Point Street, (NB 42193278). ibid 273-274. EX DO MO CC WALES Clwyd Buckley. Davey P J and Longworth C M The identification of Buckley pottery Archaeol in Wales 41 62-72. SY CP DO PM FA Valle Crucis Abbey, (SJ 204442). Courtney P The pottery in: B 119 Annual Bibliography 2001 Kilkenny Kilkenny City, 26-29 John Street Upper, (S 510562). Medieval Archaeol 45 344. EX DO EM HD TO Kilkenny City, Abbey Street/Abbey Square, (S 505560). ibid. EX FT TPQ EM HD MN Kilkenny City, St Marys Lane, (S 507560). ibid. EX DO EM HD TO Londonderry Derry City, 26-28 Bishops Street Within, (C 434165). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 187-189. EX CP DO PM TO Louth Ardee, Castle Guard Motte, Dawsons Demesne, (N 971905). Medieval Archaeol 45 345. EX DO EM HD CN Drogheda, Caffreys Monumental Works, Dyer Street, (O 089750). ibid 345-346. EX DO IM HD LM CC Whiterath, (O 041985). ibid 346-347. EX DO EC OY Meath Laytown, Ninch, (O 161721). ibid 347-348. EX IM EC VI Tyrone Drumquin, Lackagh Church, (H 31297423). ibid 339. EX DO EC CC Waterford Waterford City, Johns Lane, (S 610123). ibid 349. EX DO EM HD TO Waterford City, Lady Lane, (S 609118). ibid. EX DO EM HD SN TO Wexford Wexford, Junction between Cornmarket and Abbey Street, (T 046220). ibid. EX DO EM HD LM TO ISLE OF MAN Davey P J Identity and ethnicity: a ceramic case study from the Isle of Man Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 31-39. SY DO EM HD LM PM Davey P J Clay pipes in A M Cubbon, P J Davey and M Gelling (eds). Excavations on St Patricks Isle, Peel, Isle of Man, 1982-88, prehistoric, Viking, medieval and later by David Freke. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press (2002) 428-434. EX CP SC MV GU SS TPQ MO PM CN MA RE Davey P J Pottery in ibid 363-427. EX DO FT IM SC MV GU SS CS AR TPQ AR EM HD LM MO SN CN MA RE Davey P J At the crossroads of power and cultural influence: Manx archaeology in the High Middle Ages in P Davey and D Finlayson (eds). Mannin revisited: twelve essays on Manx culture and environment Edinburgh: The Scottish Society for Northern Studies (2002) 81-102. SY MU SCOTLAND General Hall D, Haggarty G and Murray C Scottish pottery studies: 25 years on Medieval Ceramics 24 (2000) 49-55. SY DO KF MC Central Clackmannan, Clackmannan Tower, (NS 90659195). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 195. EX DO PM OY Perth, Pullars/Kinnoull House, Mill Street/Curfew Row, (NO 116237). Medieval Archaeol 45 363-364. EX DO EM HD TO Dumfries & Galloway Botel, Buittle Castle Bailey, (NX 819616). ibid 353-354. EX DO IM EM HD CN Ingleston Motte, (NX 774579). ibid 355. EX DO EM CN Fife Cupar, Bonnygate/West Port, (NO 3714). ibid 359-360. EX DO MC UK Dundee City, former Next building, Panmure Street/Murraygate, (NO 40403055). ibid. EX DO MC TO Kirkcaldy, Linktown Pottery, (NT 27759064). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 222. EX DO OE MO ID Monimail, Monimail Tower, (NO 29841409). ibid 223. EX DO LM PM MM Moonzie Church, (NO 33861760). Medieval Archaeol 45 360. FI DO LM CM St Andrews, 101-103 Market Street, (NO 50861675). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 224. EX DO MC TO St Andrews, St Johns Court, 71 South Street, (NO 510166). ibid. EX CP DO MC PM TO Grampian Aberdeen, Robert Gordons College, (NJ 938064). ibid 189. EX CP DO MO PM CN Birnie, (NJ 210585). Medieval Archaeol 45 361. FI DO MC ID Dyke and Moy, Brodie Castle, South-West Tower, (NH 979577). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 240-241. EX DO PM CN Fetternear, Bishops Palace, (NJ 723170). Medieval Archaeol 45 350; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 191. EX RF MC CE Friars Dubbs, (NO 831727). Medieval Archaeol 45 350. EX DO EM HD LM MN Loch Davan, (NJ 447007). ibid. FI DO EM HD MM 118 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS MEDIEVAL POTTERY GROUP BIBLIOGRAPHY: ABBREVIATIONS The following codes have been used to collect information about each reference entered into the bibliography. The codes are shown here sub-divided into their respective sections. Each two letter code is unique so that the string of codes following each reference in the published bibliography can be related to one of these sections. 2. Type of report EX Excavation CO Collection FI Fieldwalking SY Synthesis CF Casual Find OT Other 3. Ceramic categories present DO Domestic KF Kiln Furniture OE Other IL Industrial WA Wasters RF Roof Furniture M Imports FT Floor Tiles CP Clay Pipes FU Funerary Urn 4. Ceramic descriptions: quantification & fabric SC Sherd Counts EV Estimated Vessel Equivalents WE Weight OH Other MV Minimum Vessels GU As Guidelines (Blake and Davey 1983) OO Other TS Thin Section PA Partial 5. Dating Period ES Early Saxon 400-650 MS Middle Saxon 650-850 SN Saxo-Norman 850-1150 EM Early medieval 1150-1250 HD Highly Decorated 1250-1400 LM Late medieval 1400-1500 PM Post-medieval 1500-1750 MO Modern 1750+ Broad period AS Anglo-Saxon (general) EC Early Christian (general) MC Medieval - Date uncertain Dating method SS Stratified sequence CG Closed groups US Unstratified CS Coin CH Coin hoard pot AR Architecture TY Typology etc. TPQ Terminus post quem TAQ Terminus ante quem CD C14 DE Dendrochronology TH Thermoluminescence OX Other analyses 6. Site MU Multi-site UK Unknown 7. Type of site MN Monastic CE Cathedrals & ecclesiastical palaces CC Churches & chapels CM Cremation RP Royal Palaces MM Moats/manors TO Towns VI Villages ID Industrial CN Castles & naval earthworks FA Farms CO Communications SP Sports & pastimes WR Wrecks OY Other 8. Location MA Material RE Records Reference Blake H and Davey P (eds.) 1983 Guidelines for the processing and publication of pottery from excavations, Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, Occasional Paper No 1. 121 Annual Bibliography 2001 Silvester, Archaeological works at Valle Crucis, Denbighshire. ibid 90 (87-92). EX DO RF HD MN Dyfed Haverfordwest, Perrots Road, (SM 951158). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 285. EX DO HD TO Pembroke. Compton J Pottery in M Lawler Investigation of the town wall and burgage plots at South Quay and Castle Terrace, Pembroke. Archaeol Cambrensis 147 177 (159-180). EX DO RF SC WE SS HD LM PM TO Glamorgan (W, M & S) Cardiff, Ely, Trelai New School, (ST 14437600). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 276. EX DO PM UK Margam, Eglwys Nunnyd Farm, (SS 80338480). ibid 282-283. EX DO MC FA Neath, Neath Abbey, (SS 737976). ibid 283-284. EX CP DO MO MM Rumney, Beili Bach, The Lodge, (ST 215792). ibid 276. EX DO PM UK Rumney, The Lodge, Beili Bach, (ST 215792). Medieval Archaeol 45 369. EX DO EM MC SN CC St Athan, Castleton Farm, (ST 02406838). ibid 379; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 289. FI DO MC PM FA UK Swansea, 61 Wind Street, (SS 65739294). Medieval Archaeol 45 379. FI DO EM HD TO Gwent Abergavenny, Cross Street. Clarke S H The Norman defences of Abergavenny: a watching brief at Cross Street Archaeol in Wales 41 78-81. EX DO EM TO Abergavenny, Lewis Chapel, (SO 301141). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 279. EX CP LM CC Abergavenny, St Marys Church, The Tithe Barn, (SO 301141). ibid 278-279. EX CP DO MC MO PM CC Caerleon, 12 Church Street, (ST 339907). ibid 284. FI DO PM TO Caerleon, 5 Uskside Cottages, (ST 343904). ibid. FI DO PM TO Caerleon, Isca Grange, (ST 348900). Clarke S H A medieval pottery kiln at Isca Grange, Caerleon Archaeol in Wales 41 81-83. EX DO WA EM HD ID Caerwent, Cherry Trees, (ST 471905). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 280. EX DO PM TO Caerwent, Vine Tree Cottage, (ST 469905). Medieval Archaeol 45 369; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 280. EX FI DO EM HD PM TO UK Grosmont, Town Farm, (SO 40402430). Medieval Archaeol 45 369; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 280. EX DO SN PM TO Llanfair Kilgeddin, St Marys Church, (SO 35660871). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 280. EX DO PM CC Magor, Dorset House, (ST 425872). Medieval Archaeol 45 371. FI DO MC UK Magor, Rose Cottage, (ST 424872). ibid; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 281. EX FI DO EC PM TO UK Michaelston, Y Fedw, St Michaels Church, (ST 241846). Post- Medieval Archaeol 35 284. FI DO RF MC PM CC Monmouth, 1-3 Monnow Bridge, (SO 50421251). Medieval Archaeol 45 372. EX DO HD UK Monmouth, Dixton Mound, (SO 51781475). ibid 371. FI DO EM SN CN Monmouth, Great Osbaston Farm, (SO 5014). ibid 372. FI DO MC CO Monmouth, Monmouth School, (SO 59091272). ibid. EX DO EM HD TO Monmouth, St James Garage, (SO 509129). ibid. FI DO SN UK Monmouth, Drybridge House, (SO 501124). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 281. EX DO MO PM TO Monmouth, St Jamess Garage, (SO 509129). ibid 281. FI DO PM TO Monmouth, The Punch House and the Bull Inn, (SO 508127). ibid. EX DO PM TO Portskewett, 7 Crick Road, (ST 498883). ibid 282. FI DO PM UK Portskewett, New School Development, (SO 498883). Medieval Archaeol 45 374; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 282. EX FI DO MC PM UK Skenfrith, The Bell Inn, (SO 458203). Medieval Archaeol 45 374; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 282. FI DO LM PM TO UK St Maughans, Church Farm, (SO 461172). Medieval Archaeol 45 374; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 282. EX DO EM HD PM FA UK Trelech, Chi-Rho, Greenway Lane, (SO 502056). Medieval Archaeol 45 375. FI DO MC UK Trelech, Church Field West, (SO 499054). Howell R Medieval buildings at Church Field West, Trelech: an interim report on excavations, Archaeol in Wales 41 34-41. EX DO EM HD LM PM TO Trelech, The Lion Inn, (SO 502055). Medieval Archaeol 45 375. EX DO EM HD TO Usk, 37 Mill Street, (SO 376008). ibid 377; Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 282. FI CP DO MC PM MO TO UK Gwynedd Ynys Enll (Bardsey Island), (SH 120222). Arnold C J Excavation of Ty Newydd Ynys Enll: (Bardsey Island), Gwynnedd Archaeol Cambrensis 147 (1998) 96-132. EX DO FT SC US HD MO CM FA MN Powys Abermule, Dolforwyn Castle, (SO 152950). Medieval Archaeol 45 378-379. EX DO MC CN Caersws to Machynlleth Gas Pipeline, (SH 870040). Post-Medieval Archaeol 35 286. EX DO PM UK Presteigne, Broad Street, The White House, (SO 31506440). ibid 287-288. EX DO MO TO Talgarth. Courtney P Medieval and later pottery in N Ludlow Excavation within medieval Talgarth, Powys. Brycheiniog 32 (2000) 24-28 (11-48). EX DO SC SS EM HD LM MO PM TO MA RE 120 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Acknowledgements As ever, we are very grateful to all the regional contributors who have searched their local journals for references to ceramics and without whom the wide coverage of this bibliography would not have been possible: S Anderson, D H Brown, R Burchill, J P Cotter, G J Dawson, J E C Edwards, C Fletcher, D P Hurl, B M Hurman, J D Hurst, T Hylton, J R Kenyon, R Meenan, L Mepham, D Sawday and H Walker. Liz Pieksma, 58 High Street, Sharnbrook, Beds, MK44 1PE Dr P J Davey, Reader in Archaeology, Department of Archaeology, University of Liverpool Dr P R Tomlinson, Centre for Manx Studies, Douglas 122 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Medieval Ceramics Reviews Katherine Barclay, Scientific Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics: A Handbook of Resources Oxbow Books, 2001. 64 pp, 1 fig, 3 tabs. ISBN 1842170317. Price: 4.95 paperback I greeted this handbook with enthusiasm. For years, working in a laboratory, I have been looking for a small, user-friendly book I can press into the hands of prospective clients. It would explain the underlying principles of the scientific techniques currently employed in archaeological ceramic research, and make it easier for both archaeologists and scientists to see how these techniques can be most usefully applied. Scientific analysis is expensive, not only because the equipment is expensive to buy and maintain, but because it requires specialised analysts to prepare the samples, perform the analysis and interpret the results, and their time is expensive. If the archaeologist can come to the laboratory with good background information about available techniques, much valuable time and energy to say nothing of money and samples can be saved. The introduction is good, with sections on planning, sampling, costing, combining techniques, evaluating and publishing results, suggestions for journals and useful web pages to consult for up-to-date information, and last but not least, sources of funding. Barclays emphasis is very much upon structuring the analytical programme to meet well- defined and realistic objectives. She issues caveats about falling into the trap of thinking that the cost of the testing is the cost of the analysis - A proper scientific report consists of analysis AND interpretation, and stresses the need for careful sampling, involving the analyst in the choice of suitable material. There is a list of questions (page 3) which the archaeologist might put to the analyst, and a brief discussion of the reasons for carrying out analytical work why are we doing it? - and some of the approaches and methods that might be considered appropriate. References to past projects drawn from both the archaeological and scientific press illustrate and enlarge on the points she is making; the bibliography constitutes almost a fifth of the booklet. The handbook then divides into seven sections, each dealing with some aspect of scientific investigation mineralogical, chemical, technological, dating, organic analysis, statistics and authentication. Each section starts with some background knowledge needed for the range of techniques to be discussed, and the subsections then introduce and explain individual techniques, with examples of projects undertaken. It was in these more technical sections I sensed a lack of good editing by a scientist. Although most of the necessary information is there, sometimes the ordering is odd and can lead to confusion the section on compositional analysis, for example, opens with definitions of major, minor and trace elements, and an explanation of what is meant by quantitative, semi-quantitative and qualitative analysis, and only explains what elements, isotopes, atomic weights and atomic numbers are in paragraph three. Paragraph four begins with a rather cryptic statement For some techniques, the range of elements detectable is given by reference to Z. (which we have just been told is the atomic number). I think this is a reference to the fact that some techniques are limited to analysing elements with atomic numbers above or below some critical Z, but it is not made clear. Similarly cryptic, AAS has a low detection limit, and so may be preferred for very small samples, when detection limit has not been explained. Table 2, which summarises the main features of different analytical methods in the same section, has several mistakes under sensitivity; it looks rather as if ICP-OES and OES have been confused, and the major elements (M) have been left out of the AAS column. Some of these slips and omissions are just irritating. Table 1 has a row labelled Accuracy and (sic) and a heading X-RD for a technique which a couple of pages later appears variously as XRD and X-R D. Page 21 has a reference to SEM (see below 4.5) but there is no section 4.5. Thermal ionisation mass spectrometry is usually abbreviated (for obvious reasons) to TIMS, but this does not appear in the main text or in the index of analytical techniques and their acronyms. Dates are missing from some of the bibliography entries. However, some of the shortcomings are more serious. On page 17 the definitions of accuracy and precision are reversed so that as they stand, each is a good definition of the other the observation that many people confuse the two terms is shown to be only too true. And Table 2 makes no distinction at all between the two; they are lumped together as Accuracy and precision high 2%, semi-quantitative, high 1-5% with nothing to explain whether the technique possesses high accuracy (i.e. produces results close to the true values) and/or high precision (repeat analyses of the same material will produce the same result). Archaeologists may not need to use these terms, but they do need to understand the implications; as Barclay observes, analytical results based on a series of measurements come with errors, and these may be important when, for example, pottery is being compared to similar pottery analysed by a different method, or dates obtained by C-14 are being used alongside dates from thermoluminescence and dendrochronology. The work has suffered for being several years in press. Five years is a long time in the scientific world; methods come and go. Neutron activation analysis is still a popular technique for provenance work in the States, but as reactors have closed in UK, it is no longer available here and is being replaced by other techniques. Laser ablation inductively coupled mass spectrometry could have done with a mention it was around, even in 1999. Personal computers now have increased capabilities to carry out statistical work and databases combining scientific and stylistic information can be relatively easily set up; a brief mention of suitable programs would have been useful. Was this the book of my dreams? Im afraid it wasnt, although I felt that with more careful editing, it could have been. I look forward to the revised edition. Helen Hatcher 125 Reviews REVIEWS 124 Katherine Barclay Scientific Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics: A Handbook of Resources Ian M Betts Medieval Westminster Floor Tiles John Black British Tin-Glazed Earthenware and Anthony Ray English Delftware Mark Brisbane and David Gaimster Novgorod: the Archaeology of a Russian Medieval City and its Hinterland Duncan H. Brown Pottery in Medieval Southampton c.1066-1510 Ivor Nol Hume If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2,000 Years of British Household Pottery Jean Rosen La Faence en France du XIVe au XIX sicle. Histoire et Technique with suggestions on how to take ones interest further. The bulk of Rays book consists of pairs of pages, one with a description and the other with a colour photograph of a single vessel (or a group of two or three related vessels), arranged in more-or-less chronological order. These are very informative and well referenced, quoting parallels in other collections, likely influences and possible attributions. There is a very short (four-page) Introduction, setting the historical scene from 9th- century Iraq to 18th- century England, which in passing makes it clear that the English of the books title simple reflects the fact that there are no pieces of certain Scottish or Irish origin in the collection. Black takes a more thematic approach, with sections headed Introduction, Manufacture and techniques, Decorative styles, Marks and inscriptions, Attribution, and A note for collectors, together with a short bibliography and suggestions for places to visit (including websites). This is more explicitly didactic than Ray, and certainly contains a lot more basic information. It is also possibly more confusing, as plates are chosen to illustrate particularly points made in the accompanying text, with the result that the earliest examples do not occur until halfway through the book. It has to be said that both books are, in the strict sense, biased, in that neither presents a representative view of the production of the British delftware industry. Ray makes a selection from a collection, and both authors are keen to show the wide range of shapes and decorative styles produced. Both remark that plain white undecorated vessels probably constituted over half the production, but only one example, a fuddling cup (and how common are they?) is illustrated (by Black). Incidentally, this information does not tally with my recollection of excavated collections, where the only common plain forms (chamber pots, ointment pots, and perhaps salts) seem to constitute far less than half of the total. Black, in particular has a penchant for open wares, especially plates, and neither has an illustration of an albarello, despite that forms abundance in 17th-century assemblages. Both books are well produced, with a quality of colour illustration that is amazing in books of this price, and which show just how much printing technology has developed in recent years. Black in particular would be a useful starting point for anyone just setting out to study this vast topic, while Ray is a good read of relaxed scholarship. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray, Anthony 1968, English Delftware Pottery in the Robert Hall Warren Collection, London. Clive Orton Mark Brisbane and David Gaimster, Novgorod: the Archaeology of a Russian Medieval City and its Hinterland The British Museum: Occasional Paper Number 141, 2001. 136pp, 122 figs, 4 full colour plates. ISBN 0 86159 141 0. Price: 25.00 paperback Until 1992 the only information available to non-Russian speakers about the archaeology of Novgorod came from a small book, edited by Michael Thompson, which drew on a series of Russian monographs documenting the archaeological investigations in the town, which had been carried out almost continuously since the 1930s (Thompson 1967). Even this slim source, however, was enough to show that the work at Novgorod was of major importance: both for the methodologies employed and for the range of wooden artefacts and structures found. Despite this, few western European archaeologists had first hand experience of Novgorod whilst the Russian archaeologists too were working in isolation from the west. The past ten years has seen this situation change beyond recognition. In 1992 the Society for Medieval Archaeology published a monograph in English but written by Russian archaeologists involved in the work and edited by Mark Brisbane (Brisbane 1992). Following on from that publication, collaboration between western European and Russian archaeologists at Novgorod has increased considerably, mainly through projects funded by the EU. The first of these examined environmental data (plant remains and animal bones) and ran from 1994 to 1997. The second, from 1998 to 2001, covered ceramics, the use of wood, wooden objects and dendrochronological data. The third, which started in 2001 and is scheduled to be completed in 2004 is examining craft production. The volume under review is the result of a seminar held at Bournemouth as part of the European Association of Archaeologists conference in 1999 and thus includes surveys of both work in progress and completed projects in advance of their full publication. All of these papers are of interest but I will concentrate here on those relating to medieval ceramics. The first of these is a Swedish contribution, by Torbjrn Brorsson with Hannelore Hkansson from Lund University. They report on a study of 21 samples of coarse- gritted pottery, two loom weights and seven samples of local clay from the site of Ryurik Gorodishche, the predecessor of Novgorod situated just its south. Scandinavian metalwork has been found at that site and documentary sources testify to the presence of Viking traders there. Despite this, the majority of the samples were definitely locally made, including vessels whose typology places them in Scandinavian and Finno-Ugrian groups. This attribution is based on Hkanssons study of the diatoms which shows that they are of freshwater origin. Two fabrics without diatoms were noted but in both of these some of the samples were typologically identified as of local origin. At the most, two of the samples could be Scandinavian imports (Nos 9 and 15) since they are typologically of Scandinavian type and 127 Reviews 126 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Ian M Betts, Medieval Westminster Floor Tiles MoLAS Monograph 11, 2002. pp. xii + 78, 49 figs, ISBN 1 901992 24 1. Price: 11.95 paperback This monograph is an important and comprehensive survey of the work of one of the earliest commercial producers of paving tiles in England, named after surviving pavements in Westminster Abbey. Ian Betts convincingly grounds the major production centre in Farringdon Road, just outside the walls of the city of London, and establishes the production period as spanning from the 1250s or 60s to around the end of the 13th century. This places Westminster tiles as early as any other known slip- decorated (rather than inlaid) tiles, alongside those of the Paris Basin (Norton 1986, 290). At such a date, a mosaic component of the repertoire is to be expected; stylistically, the mosaic tiles found at Merton Priory, Stratford Langthorne Abbey and Waltham Abbey need not predate the production period of the slip- decorated tiles. If they really do belong to the second quarter of the 13th century, as proposed by Betts (page 43), then it is somewhat misleading to include them within the Westminster appellation when, as he says, they are likely to have been produced at or for the monastic houses at which they have been found, albeit from the same basic raw materials. London mosaic might be more appropriate. However, the archaeological dating evidence cited (page 41) only establishes a terminus post quem of c.1230 for the mosaic fragments at Merton. There is a full description of the manufacturing process (page 6), based on close examination of the tiles, illuminated by documentary references. However, tiles are made by throwing clay into a wooden form on a sanded surface, not rolling the clay out like pastry, which tends to make the finished tiles curl up in firing. The idea that two colour tiles can be produced by using a wooden stamp dipped in white slip printing - was suggested by Lloyd Haberly in 1937. In the early 1970s, in response to the results of experimental work, he admitted that he could never make the method work (Drury and Pratt 1975, 139-40), but the myth persists. Slip decorated tiles can be produced by applying the slip either before or after applying the stamp. Where the pattern happens to remain below the finished surface of a tile, and the glaze is thin, one can tell which technique was used, according to whether the vertical edge of the design is devoid of slip or coated in it. Unusually for the products of a single workshop, both techniques have been observed by this reviewer on Westminster tiles from the London region, although most appear to have the slip applied after stamping, emphasising the derivation from the inlay technique. Betts is surely right that the Midlands group was made by tilers moving from London, taking their stamps with them. But any direct association between the tiles from Clifton House, Kings Lynn included here and the London and Midlands Westminster tiles is most unlikely. Rather, the Clifton House tiles appear to be part of an East Anglian tradition of tile making which originated with itinerant tilers whose mid-13th century products (made using the same stamps) have been found both at Waltham Abbey in Essex and Horsham St Faith Priory in Norfolk (Keen 1976). Subsequent regional developments are complex, but the commercial series to which the Clifton House designs belong occurs widely, if thinly, scattered across East Anglia (e.g. Binham, Bury St Edmunds, Campsea Ash, Castle Acre, Ely, Horsham St Faith, Langley, Norwich, Thetford) and probably dates to the late 13th-early 14th centuries. BIBLIOGRAPHY Deroux, D. (ed.) 1986, Terrres cuites architecturales au moyen ge, Mmoires de la Commission dpartmentale dHistoire et dArchologie de Pas-de-Calais, 22.2, Arras. Drury, P. and Pratt, G. D. 1975, A late 13th and early 14th- century tile factory at Danbury, Essex, Medieval Archaeol 19 (1975), 92-164. Keen, L. 1976, The Floor Tiles, in Sherlock, D, Discoveries at Horsham St Faith Priory, 1970-73, Norfolk Archaeol, 36.3 (1976), 202-23. Norton, C. 1986, The origins of two-colour tiles in France and England, in Deroux, D (ed.), 256-93. Paul Drury John Black, British Tin-Glazed Earthenware Shire Publications Ltd. Princes Risborough, 2001. 40 pp, many colour illus., bibliog. ISBN 07478 0512 1. Price: 4.50 paperback Anthony Ray, English Delftware Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 2000. 80 pp, 51 colour illus., bibliog. ISBN 1 85444 130 2. Price 11.95 hardback ISBN 1 85444 129 9. Price: 7.95 paperback These two small books, published within a year of each other, pose an interesting exercise in compare and contrast. Superficially, we have a hardback on English tin-glazed ware from the Ashmolean Museum (Ray) and a paperback on British tin-glazed ware from the publishers of a well-known series of pocket books on artefacts of all types (Black). The former is a selection of 51 vessels from the collections of the Ashmolean Museum (as the sub- title, not apparent on the cover, makes clear). It can perhaps be seen as a more popular version of Ray (1968), aimed at visitors looking for an attractive and durable memento of a visit. The latter is very much in the Shire mould of a short introduction to a wide-ranging subject, imposition of such an analytical system on a material type which is notorious for its variability might be considered debatable, it nevertheless has the benefit of being consistently and rigorously applied. The pottery was sorted between 1982 and 1986, and a type series of fabrics created (a total of 466 fabrics altogether). These are presented here in a three-tiered hierarchical system comprising fabric (referred to by number), ware and Ceramic Group, although the latter are rarely referred to in the text, being useful mainly as a classificatory tool during analysis. Wares that are quantitatively significant are defined as Major Wares (e.g. Southampton Whiteware). It would, perhaps, have been useful to see an introductory table listing all the wares (not just the Major Wares), and I have to admit to being confused as to why the codes given in the typology in Chapter 2 do not match those elsewhere in the volume (e.g. Table 1 in Chapter 3), and indeed why the list of Major Wares in Chapter 3 is not the same as that given in Appendix 1. These quibbles aside, Browns typology is nevertheless an invaluable framework within which to view the pottery from Southampton and its immediate environs. He carefully defines what is meant by local wares those whose characteristics conform to the pattern of the local drift geology, which were probably made within 20 miles of the medieval walled town (the limits of a days journey), and which, interestingly, are not distributed far beyond the town. Alongside the local wares are what might be described as regional wares, i.e. those originating from outside the immediate hinterland but whose presence within the town can be easily explained by the trade networks obtaining across central southern England, such as wares from Dorset and Wiltshire). Then there are other British wares, such as Ham Green wares from Bristol and Cornish wares, whose presence in Southampton is perhaps less easy to explain, but which may be associated with the growth of Southamptons commercial network during the high medieval period, the Cornish wares, for example, perhaps reflecting the traffic in slate. It is, however, with the continental wares, particularly the French wares, that Brown demonstrates a formidable amount of research. Southampton has produced one of Britains largest assemblages of medieval French wares, with an emphasis on those from the Saintonge area, and Brown, aided by the unrivalled experience of such luminaries as Bob Thomson and Ken Barton, has devoted much time and effort to unravelling the various types and sources represented in Southampton from the Anglo-Norman period onwards. The catalogue of fabrics and forms is followed by a number of thematic chapters. In the first of these, on Quantification, is a useful pottery matrix showing the percentage occurrence by weight of each Major ware with every other Major ware. In other words, this is a tool used to demonstrate the probable contemporaneity of wares, and forms the basis for the definition of the three ceramic periods used for discussion throughout the volume: Anglo- Norman, High Medieval and Late Medieval. The chapter on Technology explores the changing technological characteristics through time. This includes a convincing argument for the hierarchical organisation of the Saintonge industry the techniques visible on the Saintonge products in Southampton (poorly finished vessels, handles carelessly applied) show evidence for rapid manufacture perhaps using unskilled labour. Brown also shows how it is possible to identify local types on the basis of, for example, rim form and decoration, which gives an insight into the skill of the local pottery makers. The following chapter, on Production and Distribution, considers the mechanisms of distribution and Southamptons role as a market and as a port. In this respect the importance of Southampton as an international trading port cannot be overemphasised, since this was instrumental in the arrival of an imported assemblage of such size and variety. Brown has always been strong on the significance of traded wares within Southampton, and this theme has formed the basis of more than one previously published paper. The historical background is not ignored here, and Brown is adept at weaving the various strands of evidence together; ceramic, documentary and contextual, to pursue this theme. He argues, for example, that the Saintonge wares, in particular, could even be described as local wares within the context of Southampton, imported because there was a market for them there, and because they were easy to supply. They do not seem to have been imported for redistribution elsewhere, being rarely found outside Southampton and other ports along the south coast. In the late medieval period the ceramic evidence is augmented by that of the brokage and port books, which record goods coming into Southampton, and those leaving it by road. I have always been intrigued by the record of Italian pots travelling to Salisbury, since the evidence of 15 years of excavation there suggests that the city is singularly bereft of any sort of imported wares what happened to them? Just as important here, and indeed elsewhere within the volume, is a consideration of other materials within the medieval assemblage, such as pewter and glass, which, on the basis of the documentary evidence, were more highly valued than pottery. We should not be seduced into thinking that what we perceive as exotic in ceramic terms was necessarily valued in the same way by its consumers. In addition, some pots were apparently imported for their contents (e.g. mercury jars) rather than as objects in their own right; the port and brokage books demonstrate how frequently ceramic containers were used. However, it is only in the late medieval period that there is clear evidence of pots being imported specifically for redistribution. The chapter on Interpretation draws together the evidence of the preceding chapters, attempting to show how the ceramic and depositional information for each phase can be related to the settlement history of the town. Here there is an invaluable opportunity to relate ceramic assemblages to known tenements and hence to named occupiers. Brown 129 Reviews contain angular granitic sand in a diatom-free clay. However, even these two samples might be local copies. The next paper is by Peter Malygin and Clive Orton and looks at the grey coarsewares from Novgorod. The authors use Tyers and Ortons Pie-Slice package (here rebranded as the Psl package) as a means of investigating the material, looking for patterning. Data on context, fabric, form, rim diameter and decoration were included in the analysis and the preliminary results indicate associations between context and fabric, context and form and context and decoration. In all three cases the results make archaeological sense, confirming that the traditional fabric, form and decoration classifications and chronologies are based on real trends. They also confirm that there is little evidence for residuality or intrusion in the sequence. Perhaps of more potential interest, however, the authors found other patterns but as yet these deep patterns are difficult to describe or explain, but work on them continues. The final ceramic-based paper is by David Gaimster and examines the western European imports at Novgorod and Pskov (200 km to the west, on the Livonian border). These imports are small in number and mainly of 13th to 15th century date. The stonewares are mostly of Rhenish origin with a smaller quantity of Saxon stonewares. The lead-glazed earthenwares include definite examples of Rouen ware, Grimston ware and Low Countries redware but the majority have to be classed as Low Countries/Southern Baltic wares since there is so much visual similarity between the two, no doubt due to the influence of Flemish potters on the Scandinavian red earthenware industries and even the possibility of Flemish migrant potters. These imports are evidence for a Hanseatic presence at both cities but Gaimster points out an interesting difference between the two. Whereas at Pskov, as in most Baltic and Scandinavian towns, the western European wares are found throughout the town and indicate either that the town was solely occupied by Hanseatic merchants or the widespread adoption of their material culture in Novgorod these finds are clustered. This seems to indicate the presence of enclaves of foreign merchants amid a general population who rejected their culture. Further papers in the volume illuminate this situation further. Martin Comey surveys the widespread finds of wooden vessels, many of them stave-built whilst Jon Hather examines the wood turning technology used in the city. Given the level of preservation found at Novgorod it may be possible there, as in few other places, to study the interaction between pottery and treen use, both through time and spatially. A contrast with the Western European pottery is seen in Pokrovskayas study of the Finno-Ugrian jewellery from Novgorod. This study shows that there was a market for such jewellery from the 10th to the 14th centuries, although there does not appear to be any concentration of finds and there is some evidence for both, the development of new types based on Finno-Ugrian prototypes and the use of genuine imports in different ways from those seen in the Finno-Ugrian homelands. The papers in this volume show that Novgorod and its region has a huge potential for the study of medieval archaeology and that pottery studies are an important and exciting element in that study. Like many of the individual authors, I would like to thank and congratulate Mark Brisbane for this model of international cooperation. BIBLIOGRAPHY Mark Brisbane, 1992, The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia. Soc Medieval Archaeol Monogr Ser 13 Lincoln, Soc Medieval Archaeol. Thompson, M. W. 1967, Novgorod the Great. London Alan Vince Duncan H. Brown, Pottery in Medieval Southampton c.1066-1510 CBA Research Report 133, Southampton Archaeology Monograph 8, 2002. 220pp, 130 figs, full colour plate section. ISBN 1 902771 30 3. Price: 28 paperback The world of medieval ceramics has been waiting a long time for this volume, and it is to Duncan Browns enduring credit that he has continued to push for its publication despite all obstacles in his path. Moreover, he has benefited from the delay in being able to incorporate more recent data and research which would otherwise have been omitted, and which enhance the various themes pursued in the volume. It is perhaps invidious to compare this volume with John Cotters recently published Post-Roman pottery from excavations in Colchester, 1971-85 (Colchester Archaeological Report 7, 2000), another long-awaited publication of a substantial medieval urban assemblage. These are two very different publications, Cotters concentrating on a detailed typology of wares, with a relatively brief concluding discussion on the development and supply of pottery in Colchester, while Brown spends relatively little time on the typology, instead devoting most of his volume to the discussion of a number of themes arising from his analysis of the Southampton assemblage. We might have wanted more discussion from Cotter, and there may well be those who find Browns typologies of wares and vessel forms a little too brief, but both volumes succeed admirably in their own way. It is worth pointing out at the start that Browns volume is based on a relatively small overall assemblage around half a metric tonne (c.36,000 sherds). The nine sites which produced this total were chosen on the basis of having yielded significant quantities of pottery and/or the most coherent site records. The methods of analysis are set out in Chapter 1, and Brown is at pains to stress that while the 128 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS and, finally, a well-organized index. The book is enhanced by over 600 colour photographs, most of which were taken by British-born Gavin Ashworth. His colours are stunningly accurate, and his attention to detail is exceptional. Ashworth raises the standard for ceramic photography in this handsomely illustrated volume. Subsidized by the Chipstone Foundation, the value of this book far exceeds its price. The only shortcoming is its hefty size. Although beautifully printed and bound with two ribbon bookmarks, it is somewhat difficult to manage because of its weight. But happily, though it is hard to pick up, this highly engaging volume is even harder to put down! It belongs on the bookshelves or bedside tables of curators, archaeologists, collectors, ceramic historians, and material culture specialists alike. Merry A. Outlaw New Discoveries editor Ceramics in America J Rosen, La Faence en France du XIVe au XIX sicle. Histoire et Technique Editions Errance, 1995. 215 pp, numerous plates, some in colour. ISBN 2877721078. Price: 195Fr As stated on the back cover of this attractive volume, faience is an important testimony to changing technology, fashions, ideas, trade and exchange. Many French studies of the subject have, in the past, concentrated on one aspect of the subject to the detriment of others. In this case, however, the author is a doctor of art history and archaeology, who has excavated at the production centres of Dijon, Nevers and Meillonas. This well-presented volume thus rises admirably to the challenge of blending these interests with technical information and social context as evidenced by documentary sources. Here it might be appropriate to explain that in France there is no distinction between different forms of tin- glazed ware, all of which are referred to as faience. This bulk of the pottery illustrated in this volume, does, however, correspond with the understanding of the term faience in England and the Netherlands, being tin-glazed on both surfaces (Hurst et al., 1986, 120). The 18th-century faience fine, however, has nothing to do with the use of a tin glaze, but emulates cream ware. The volume is divided into two parts, each with a brief introduction, although the organisation is at first a little unclear (English readers may be somewhat confused by the fact that the index is at the end of the book). There is no glossary, no index or list of plates (indeed both these and the different chapters are unnumbered), nor is there an English or German summary, all of which would have been useful. For this reason this review outlines the content more fully than is perhaps usual. The bibliography, however, is extensive and the photographs are on the whole clear and attractive. A minor complaint is that the pottery plates lack scales and where these are included they lack numbers. Part 1 (pages 11-72) is concerned with matters technical. It commences with a summary of previous publications, both contemporary technical treatises from the 14th to the 19th century, and art-historical studies of the 19th and 20th centuries. Of these, the most important contribution is clearly that of Alexandre Brongniart (1770-1847), a multi- faceted scientist, not only professor of mineralogy at the National History Museum but also director of the Svres pottery from 1800-1847. Brongniart can be considered the founding father of modern ceramic studies in France, and his work is frequently quoted in the following sections. These commence with explanations of the characteristics of different clays and their preparation, production techniques (throwing and the use of moulds), biscuit ware, techniques of decoration (including painting and glazing), kilns, firing and wasters. Among the titbits of information we are told that it was common practice to store and transport the prepared clay in biscuit ware wasters, as these would allow the humidity to evaporate. If the clay has rested for less than three months following its preparation, the potter can expect a 75% failure rate, especially when making flatwares. The different stages of firing and the required temperatures are clearly explained (usually c. 800 o for the biscuit ware and c. 940-980 o for the glazed ware), as are the terms grand feu and petit feu, or au rverbre. The former involves applying the tin glaze to the biscuit ware, and decorating it with up to five colours (blue, purple, green, yellow and red) derived from metallic oxides. As the physical and chemical properties of the paints are compatible with those of the tin glaze or enamel, the decoration is completed in the second firing. Decoration by petit feu involves painting the decoration onto a plain white glaze that has already been fired, and refiring to a lower temperature in a special muffle kiln; this technique allows a wider range of colours to be used. It is stated that this section is not intended to be comprehensive, but it is certainly adequate and, most importantly, clear and easy for the non-specialist to follow. Most interesting to the archaeologist will be the discussions of kilns, firing and wasters as these include details of excavations and finds, some of which were, in 1995, unpublished. Examples of the different wares (e.g. biscuit ware, grand feu and petit feu) and paint effects such as cameu (painting in different tones of the same colour, usually monochrome) are presented in twelve colour plates. Twelve further plates, also in colour, show different styles of decoration (e.g. compendiario, Chinese style, stencilled designs). In both cases the images are arranged chronologically. Other illustrations show, inter alia, moulds, paint pots, test pieces, excavated kilns and kiln furniture, and examples of faults in firing and decoration. Part 2 outlines the history of faience production in France, in a series of chronological sections, although there is a certain amount of chronological overlap between them. The first section summarises the origins of the tradition in 131 Reviews uses this as the basis for an interesting exploration of cultural affinity. This is not entirely convincing, as illustrated by the almost complete absence of Italian pots from the 15th century West Hall, occupied almost throughout that century by Italians. However, as he concludes, surely the prime consideration for the inhabitants of Southampton would be whether the pottery they used fulfilled its function efficiently, in which case there would be no reason why Italians should choose to use Italian pots in preference to local wares. Instead, Brown concludes that what can be seen in Southampton are cultures of pottery use, which changed through time. Anglo-Norman pottery may have defined ethnicity, but was also the vehicle for change. Pottery in the high medieval period more clearly reflects trade patterns, while in the late medieval period pottery reflects scales of consumption and the importance of display. Brown rightly emphasises that however comprehensive this volume appears, it is, nevertheless, only an interim statement, a stepping-stone to improved analysis and theories. There is, of course, much more that could be done, and he highlights a few areas of potential future research. The type series itself represents a considerable resource, but could be enhanced by providing a regional context through matching fabrics with other locally identified wares. This is, indeed, something which is notably absent from this volume; Brown cites evidence from various local and regional sites, but resources have not allowed a detailed programme of comparative work. The Isle of Wight, for example, has produced a useful (and recently published) comparative assemblage from Carisbrooke Castle which it might prove profitable to re-examine in the light of this volume. More work could be done on relating vessel form to fabric, and indeed on the subject of vessel form and function generally, which is treated relatively briefly in Chapter 6. Nevertheless, this is an admirable first step, and one that is unlikely to be surpassed for some time. Buy it now! Lorraine Mepham Ivor Nol Hume, If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2,000 Years of British Household Pottery Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2001. 472 pp, 648 illus. (544 colour). ISBN 158465 161 X. Price: $75.00 Hardcover In the summer of 1949, Ivor Nol Hume began his archaeological career at the Guildhall Museum as a volunteer on post-war London construction sites under the tutelage of the keeper, Adrian Oswald. Later that year, Nol was hired by the museum, and soon, unexpectedly, found himself charged with the monumental task of salvaging Londons buried history. In early 1950, he acquired his first volunteer helper, Audrey Baines, a gifted graduate of Bristol University, and former student of famed archaeologist Sir Mortimer Wheeler. That fortuitous event led to their marriage later in the year, and to the beginning of their forty years of collecting British ceramics together. Spanning a period of 2,000 years, the objects in the Audrey and Ivor Nol Hume Collection are diverse and their manufacture is international. Each item in the assemblage relates to their forty years of archaeological work or historical research together, and each tells a story. After Audreys untimely death in 1993, officials from the Chipstone Foundation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin offered to house the collection and use it for teaching purposes, if Nol would write a book sharing the knowledge that binds it. The result If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2,000 Years of British Household Potteryis a Herculean production, remarkable for its impressive content, and immensely interesting because of Nols legendary prose. In Chapter one, Khnum Ptah, and the Clay of Life, Nol notes that, from his earliest days at the Guildhall, he was already was beginning to look past the pot to the people who had made, owned, used and broken it. Fortunately, Audrey shared his inquisitive nature, and the perfect partnership resulted. Their first discovery, the 20ft deep buried ruins of Roman Londonand the Romano-British pots withinprompted the Nol Humes to find out more about the who, what, when, why and where of them. Their search led them to the Roman kiln sites in the Upchurch Marshes in Kent, the major source of ceramics in the region at that time. As he describes their first humorous foray into the marshes, we find ourselves carefully stepping to avoid the foot-sucking quagmire. Amazingly, their first expedition linked not only to their quest for information about Romano-British ceramic vessels, but also to English brown stoneware, which became a later area of collecting. And so it goes, throughout the book Nol describes the vast and diverse ceramic collections he and Audrey owned, and their reasons why. He explains the complex, multi-layered associations of the assemblage to the worlds of their makers and their owners. He shares with us the principles that guided their professional work and their collecting habits from the Eureka! of finding to the more important joy of finding out. Through his absorbing narrative prose, the collection speaks to us as well. Included among the chapters are detailed discussions of Romano-British pottery, medieval and post medieval British coarse earthenware, Southwark delftware, Rhenish brown stoneware, Westerwald blue and grey stoneware, English brown stoneware, 18th-century English delftware and French faience, white saltglazed stoneware, creamware, pearlware, and English porcelain of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From chamberpots and hunt jugs to commemorative souvenirs and heraldic porcelains, the subjects of the thematic chapters are wide-ranging and are well thought-out. Also, the volume includes a useful 12-page glossary of terms, a list of measurements and inscriptions of illustrated objects, enlightening footnotes, a bibliography, 130 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS 133 Reviews the Near East to Spain and the first French products of the 13th and 14th centuries (pages 77-82). Brief mention is made of the archaeological finds from the 13th-century pottery complex at Marseille and various 14th-century tileries. The short-lived growth of the tradition in the 14th- century was fostered by royal and ecclesiastical patronage (notably the Ducs de Berry and the Pope). At the papal palace of Avignon green-and-brown wares were produced by Spanish potters brought in for specific commissions. The next chapter (pages 83-5) explains the various socio- economic problems that hindered the development of the tin-glazed tradition in 14th-century France, and considers the chronological development in 15th- and 16th-century Spain and Italy. This is followed by a consideration of the Renaissance revival in France. Although brief (pages 87-91), this section covers several key events. Arguably the first indication of 16th-century production is at Lyon, where, in 1512, the Florentine potter Angelo Benedetto was working, together with four others, possibly at the invitation of Franois I. This move led, indirectly, to the development and expansion of the later industry at Nevers. In 1527 the same king invited Girolama della Robbia, another Florentine potter, to decorate, on a scale greater than anything known in Italy, certain parts of a copy of the castle of Madrid that was being constructed in the Bois de Boulogne in Paris. This work, which lasted more than 25 years, was to influence the decorative arts of the late 16th century. Also considered in this section are the innovatory works known as St Porchaire and those produced by Bernard Palissy and Massot Abaquesne of Rouen, the pavement in the church at Brou (source unknown), and the late 16th-/17th-century maiolica production of the Langeudoc. The next section (pages 93-7) outlines the development of the industry in the first half of the 17th century, noting the decline of Lyons, the move of various Italian glassmakers and potters from Lyons to Nevers, and the rise of that factory. Of interest here are the political influences that influenced the course of the arts. A key event was the marriage of Louis de Gonzague, an Italian born in Mantua but brought up in the court of Franois I, and Henriette de Clves, heiress of the duchy of Nivers, which he acquired in 1652. Exponents of the Renaissance, this couple not only fostered the Italian arts, but also protected the Protestants. It was they who invited four glassmakers from the area of Albisola to Nevers, and these men were soon followed by Italian potters, initially coming from Albisola, but in 1584 also from Faenza; from c. 1600 the name Faenza became increasingly synonymous with tin-glazed pottery. Of the other contemporary potteries that are noted (e.g. Montpellier), Italian potters were present at Nantes, Cosne- sur-Loire and possibly at Orlans. During this period of revival, both documentary and archaeological evidence show that tin-glazed pottery became established as a luxury commodity, even if it was only hired for specific events (indeed, we are told that it was largely the rising prices that led to the downfall of the industry at Lyons). By the mid-17th century, the three main production centres were Nevers, Nantes and Rouen, with Montpellier supplying pharmaceutical wares. During the reign of Louis XIV (1638-1715), there was a move to cut down on imported goods and to promote not only French products but their export, and to establish France as a leader of European fashion (pages 99-101). Another factor was the need of the Treasury to compensate for the cost of various wars, which was solved by gathering in items of precious metal from a select nobility that could be melted down and recycled (pages 101-3). This contributed to an increasingly widespread use of tin-glazed pottery, and the development of armorial decoration. Together with royal commissions, these factors led to both the growth of the existing centres and the opening of new potteries (e.g. Toulouse and Quimper). The latter was aided by the head-hunting and dispersal of various potters working at established centres, and by the use of potters from the Low Countries (e.g. at Rouen and Lille). The increase of production (especially for tiles) to a quasi-industrial level is demonstrated by several examples, including the Trianon de porcelaine at Versailles in which tin-glazed tiles were used by the thousand. The production of armorial wares between c. 1680-1725 is seen as the final peak of the period in which faience was primarily the preserve of the aristocracy. In the following years, increasing diversity and personalisation of decoration and typology was matched by a subtle move towards the bourgeois market, and a functional emphasis on the serving of wine. The bulk of next two sections (pages 105-124) concentrate on the period 1720-1780, although divided by a block of twelve black and white plates (slightly on the dark side) that are intended illustrate form and function. The first outlines the economic situation and the general development and marketing of faience at this time. The second details various factories, the problems faced by them in the mid-18th century (such as inspections and maintaining adequate fuel supplies), and the recovery and growth seen in the latter part of the century. This is followed by a more lengthy consideration of the social background and factors that influenced the development of faience, such as the increasing use of porcelain (pages 125-34). As the latter took hold of the upper end of the market, so faience became the pottery used by the bourgeoisie and even the middle classes. The development of the petit feu technique, however, was intended to provide a product that could complete with porcelain for the market in luxury goods. Other developments, which mirror changing social customs and dietary habits, include the creation of a new body that could withstand heat (terre feu and faience brune), and thus be used for serving or drinking tea, coffee and chocolate. Other innovations were the use of pipeclay and the adoption of methods of production used at Stoke-on- Trent, specifically for cream ware. The French equivalent, known as faience fine, at first produced in a range of bodies, was made at numerous factories, but was ultimately overshadowed by imported English wares. 132 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS The remaining sections mainly consider the late 18th and 19th centuries. Entrepreneurs and clients are discussed on pages 135-139, while political factors such as the Treaty of Vergennes (1786) following the American war, and the French revolution, are considered on pages 141-145 and 146-152 respectively. The former led to the increase of English imports and a decline of faience production in France, which was sealed by the latter. The 19th century is discussed in two sections, divided somewhat uncomfortably by a block of black and white plates illustrate form and function, mostly of 18th-century pieces. The penultimate section (pages 175-183) covers the historiography of the subject, the first exhibitions, of which that at Svres was the first permanent display, and other matters such as fakes and private collectors. The last section (pages 185-193) presents the main avenues for further research, stressing that identification by decoration alone is unlikely to succeed, not least because, as already explained, there was a national trend towards uniformity in the 18th century and few kiln sites have been adequately excavated and studied (page 122). Furthermore, it is pointed out that at its peak the industry may have had up to 1000 industries, and even those that are known are poorly understood. There is a need, therefore, for more archival research, for archaeological excavation, and scientific analysis of the fabrics. The latter, one might be surprised to read, was attempted as early as the mid-19th century, but real progress only came in the late 1980s with work on material from Rouen and Meillonas. The techniques used are mainly NAA, XRF and optical spectrography, which are explained in outline, together with seven stages of questions to be asked of the material and the need for co-ordinated research that can build up a reference collection of analytical data. It would be interesting now to see how the new technique if ICPS has influenced this work; being rather cheaper it will hopefully overcome budgetary problems that in the past have resulted in only small numbers of samples being studied. The test of a good book is whether it stands the test of time. Despite the lapse between publication and this review, it can be said the book remains an important contribution to the subject, because it is a departure from the norm. Those seeking detailed typologies and discussion of form will be disappointed, but such studies can be found elsewhere. As stated in the title, the main emphasis of this book is on history and technology. The period covered spans the 14th to 19th centuries, but the main emphasis is on 18th and 19th centuries. It is not intended as a mere supplement, or counterpart, to more art-historical studies, although this is largely achieved. The overall aim is, overtly, to not to provide a definitive text, but to give a better understanding of the subject; behind this, however, other aims can be detected. Firstly, to give a wake-up call to alternative approaches and interests, both for the amateur and the professional student of ceramics. Secondly, to bring a relatively modern period, for the most part the domain of the collector and connoisseur, to the attention of the archaeological world, and show that this material has much to offer the study of earlier industries. Much of the text is quite simple, yet the content is scholarly and enhanced by numerous quotes used to support the argument in question. The narrative is balanced by the number and range of the illustrations, including photographs of pottery, 19th-century engravings of potters at work and their equipment and views of archaeological sites, which ensure that the publication will appeal to a wide audience. One of the most appealing photographs is of a dish from Nevers showing a pottery at work (page 104). Had this been a travel book, a map would have been provided. Given the number of other illustrations and that the book is aimed largely at the amateur market, who could be forgiven for not knowing where different industries were based, this oversight is both unfortunate and disappointing (especially for the foreign reader unfamiliar with the geography of France). In this reviewers opinion, this omission could be taken as the books weakest point. In other respects, however, it functions well as a guide. Signposts are offered, summary details of the possible destinations are supplied, mainly in manageable, bite-sized essays of no more than four sides, and these inspire further expeditions. It is up to the reader to make the journey to follow the road back from finished object to its origins, and to consider new avenues of research. The author may, therefore, be congratulated for presenting a holistic approach that can, and should, be applied not only to the study of faience, but any other major ceramic tradition. It is fitting to round off this review, as the author prefaces his own conclusions (page 194), by drawing attention to a plate of c. 1770-1780 from Moustiers which shows a figure (presumably a potter) holding a flag inscribed vive la fayence. Lyn Blackmore 134 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS CORRIGENDA J. M. Lewis, The Medieval Tiles of Wales (Cardiff 1999) Several minor mistakes that are likely to bewilder and irritate the close reader went undetected during the proof-reading of the above. Errata slips, even if conscientiously inserted by the publisher, are notoriously liable to become mislaid, so it might be helpful if they are published here, with accompanying apologies for the necessity of having to do so. ERRATA p.24 column 2 under Group 10, in lines 3-4: delete The Whitland example...........this group. p.41 column 1 in line 26: for 248, 250 read 248-49. in line 29: for 250 read 249. p.70 column 1 in line 5: for 458-60 read 461-63. p.71 column 1 in line 8: for 472 read 474; under Group 27: in line 2 for 474-81 read 478-84; in line 3 for 482-87 read 485-90. p.75 column 1 under no.504, for 501 read 503. column 2 in line 8, for 489 read 491-92. p.104 column 1 in line 16, for 812 read 815. p.233 column 2 under Group 24, for 394A read 394B. p.235 column 2 in line 15 and under Group 26, for 473 read 476. p.237 column 2 under Group 62, for 813 read 812. p.239 column 2 in line 4, for 60 read 61; under Group 21, for 318A read 318B. p.240 column 2 in line 9, for RCAM 1900 read RCAHM 1911. p.245 column 2 under Ungrouped tiles, for 498 read 501. p.246 column 2 under Group 27, for 474-87 read 477-90. p.248 column 2 under Group 62, for 812 read 815. p.259 column 2 under Group 26, for 465 read 467. p.260 column 1 under Group 24, for 394A read 394B. p.263 column 1 under Group 28, for 488-9 read 491-92. J. M. Lewis Medieval Ceramics News OBITUARIES John Evans 1940 2002 John Evans established a reputation as a chemist who studied organic residues found in archaeology. Such knowledge is hard-won and, when he first began contributing to this field, he was the recognised authority in the subject. Even today the numbers of archaeological scientists involved in chemical analysis of organic materials is relatively small compared to other areas of archaeological science. It is a difficult area to study because of the huge numbers of different organic compounds found in the natural world, the complexity of mixtures of organic compounds in a single natural material, and the effects of degradation that obscure and modify the original chemistry. Hence the interpretation of residues that are found at the present day on archaeological material require a sure grasp of organic chemistry. Among the materials he studied were food residues associated with pottery. He made numerous studies of this type, often of small numbers of samples, but studied chemically very carefully, and drew conclusions about the original materials from the results. He was pre-eminently a chemist of organic materials with a long and wise experience of such complex materials. Understanding very thoroughly the chemistry and having a vast knowledge of the subject involved enabled him to interpret the analysis results. Other scientists who worked with him commented that he had a great natural ability for tackling the chemical analysis of organic archaeological material. After an initial period of teaching in schools, he took up an appointment at West Ham Polytechnic in Stratford, East London; he remained there throughout his career, as the institution went though mergers to form first the North East London Polytechnic and then in 1992 the University of East London (UEL). He had a great natural ability and popularity as a teacher and lecturer. A constant stream of students came to see him for advice. Many of his former students remained in touch with him long after they had graduated. His lectures were always laced with humour and he would use well-directed questions to the students to drive the message home. He saw it as his role to build up students confidence in themselves, and he was immensely pleased and proud that the practical skills he passed on to his students through laboratory classes enabled many to go straight on to employment after graduating. Discoveries he and his students made in the laboratories often featured as news items in UEL newsletters, as they were invariably interesting or curious. He was a well- known and dedicated representative of UEL at higher education and history fairs, which he greatly enjoyed. For a time he was the Higher Education representative on the Council of the Royal Society of Chemistry, though committee work was not really to his taste. He used Museum visits to memorable educational effect (the tasks he set were invariably couched in jokey form, but with serious intent), but was careful to schedule the annual visit to the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons (to view evidence of disease left on bone) before lunch. The British Museum, with less stomach-turning displays, was explored in the afternoon. He was at home in the chemical laboratory he is pictured talking to students in his laboratory, with an X-Ray fluorescence spectrometer (used to analyse for inorganic elements) in the background. He would often have two or three scientific instruments simultaneously running his samples - a feature of his experimental approach was to use several techniques, organic and inorganic, to examine material. A practical example of this was the identification of residues on Chester ware pottery (Evans 1985) where a variety of organic and inorganic compounds was identified, leading to the conclusion that the residue resulted from a vegetable and meat (salted?) soup which had been thickened with flour. One of the approaches he used consistently (appearing in many of his published reports) was the selective dissolution of organic compounds from residues using a variety of chemical solvents. This separated the compounds into chemical classes and made for easier interpretation of the subsequent chromatography and spectroscopy tests on these separated fractions. He collaborated on projects with scientific research groups in Continental Europe and the USA, as well as with numerous archaeologists, museum curators and other researchers in the UK. He was an Associate Editor of the journal Archaeometry, recognised as the pre-eminent journal in the subject. He bore his illness with great strength, and followed the 136 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS progress of his students even when he had to retire from work shortly before his death. His friends in many countries are very glad to have known him. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Evans, J. 1985, Organic residue on a Chester Ware sherd, in D.J.P.Mason (ed.) Excavations at Chester, 24-42 Lower Bridge Street 1974-6: The Dark Age and Saxon periods, Appendix 4, 61. Mike Hughes Peter Farmer 1946 2002 Over the last twenty years Peter Farmer had the unfailing habit of bursting into my life unexpectedly. We would usually have an exceptionally good dinner then he would disappear the next day not to be seen again for several months. Peter was a man of many talents, he was a superb cabinetmaker, metalworker, and was a gilder of international repute. Above all he was a workaholic who was always on the move. One of his many important commissions in this area was for a 6 ft high iron pendant for the Ashmolean Museum, which he built, gilded and installed. He also gilded and oversaw the erection of the large Muses at the Barbican and constructed a 10ft diameter corona for the refurbishment of the medieval apartments at the Tower of London. His knowledge of early chandeliers was equal to that of anyone in the country. After the fire at Hampton Court, at the request of Historic Royal Palaces, he developed a waxcoated electric chandelier candle unit to comply with the UKs electrical regulations. He also constructed for the Kings Apartments, at Hampton, a set of 6 candelabra decorated with rock crystal following a 17th- century design. At another stage Peter dealt in antique furniture, was an expert on the etchings of Rembrandt and one way or another was involved in some of the most important renovations carried out in British stately homes over the last 20 years. However, Peter told me that the work that had given him the most satisfaction was the transformation that he accomplished for his good, friend Frank Chapman, at Norberry Park House. The first time I met Peter was on a horrible wet day in Yorkshire, where I had gone to visit a friend who was digging for Daniel Brewster. Later in the pub Peter and the rest of the diggers sat around a huge fire with steam rising in clouds as they tried to dry their wet cloths. Through this and the thick cigarette smoke, like some sort of apparition, Daniel Brewster kept popping up with warnings to be vigilant as the men from Special Branch were watching him and he did not want the diggers talking to them. Peter and the others would just smile or nod. Not surprisingly I declined to stay the night. I did not meet Peter again until the 1975 Chester Pottery Conference. There, if I remember correctly, we literally banged into each other as we crept out of a Lloyd Laing poetry recital. We fled to the pub where I got drunk and learned to my cost how fanatical Peter was on the subject of pottery, as I received a very long introduction to the pottery industry of Scarborough. I later learnt that Peter had already carried out a number of archaeological excavations in Scarborough and had published a number of articles, the most important of which was his 1976 paper, Scarborough Harbour and Borough from the 10th to the 16th centuries. It was shortly after this that many of us living in towns bordering the North Sea got to know Peter well, as we played host to him and his wife Nita, as they were by now spending all of their holidays travelling around examining shards of Scarborough ware and recording archaeological contexts. It was this research that led to the publishing, in 1979, of his privately printed Introduction to Scarborough Ware and A Re- assessment of Knight jugs. Peter soon became aware of the controversial nature of the dates and relationships that he had given to Scarborough fabrics I and II, when they were applied to the stratified pottery sequences then being excavated in ports like Aberdeen, Perth and Hull. It was with these difficulties in mind that he returned to the subject again. First he initiated the support of the late John Hurst and the predecessor of English Heritage in a program of thin-sectioning Scarborough type pottery at the Department of Archaeology, at the University of Southampton. This led to two important 137 Obituaries Saxon period, stimulated perhaps by the discovery of the Ipswich ware kilns at Cox Lane and the need to understand the ceramic landscape into which the late Saxon industries were introduced and the recognition of pre-Viking continental imports such as Badorf and Tating wares on sites in the British Isles. Having sketched out the main features of the locally produced pottery of mid and late Saxon pottery, Johns interests seem to have shifted towards the later medieval and post-medieval periods, and in particular the recognition and study of imported wares, unusual forms and English finewares. This interest is shown in print by 1963 with short notes on curfews, stoneware and lobed cups in the report on the Hangleton DMV, Sussex, and continued almost to the end of his life. John kept his records on index cards and a familiar site at MPRG meetings was to see John diligently recording these exotica. As information accumulated he would then publish synthetic accounts, such as his work on the later products of the Saintonge (Hurst 1974), Langerwehe stoneware (Hurst 1977a) and Spanish imports (Hurst 1977b). The landmark publication of the van Beuningen collection catalogue brought together and updated most of these strands of research, providing an accessible and lavishly produced, yet scholarly, work which is essential reading for anyone studying later medieval pottery in the field (1986). John was quick to recognise the value of scientific techniques for the study of medieval pottery, both for dating (such as the archaeomagnetic dating of kilns) and for characterisation. He was particularly excited by the possibilities of thin section and chemical analysis and took a major role in the selection of samples for the British Museums programme of Neutron Activation Analysis of Netherlandish and Italian maiolicas carried out by Mike Hughes. For those of us lucky enough to be taught by John, formally or informally, it is that aspect of his life which be most sorely missed. For many years he ran evening classes in medieval pottery at Goldsmiths College, attended by several members of the MPRG, and anyone who received a JGH site visit will know that he was generous to a fault with his knowledge, both face to face and through his inimitable typed letters in which ideas were so compressed that, as someone recently remarked, John could lay claim to have invented TXT shorthand long before the advent of the mobile phone. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Hurst, J. G. 1955 Saxo-Norman pottery in East Anglia: part I General discussion and St Neots ware. Proc Cambridge Antiq Soc 49, 43-70. Hurst, J. G. 1956 Saxo-Norman pottery in East Anglia: part II Thetford ware. Proc Cambridge Antiq Soc 50, 42-60. Hurst, J. G. 1957 Saxo-Norman pottery in East Anglia: part III Stamford ware. Proc Cambridge Antiq Soc 51, 37-65. Hurst, J. G. 1974 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century imported pottery from the Saintonge. in V. I. H. H. Evison and J. G. Hurst, (eds.) Medieval Pottery from Excavations: Studies presented to Gerald Clough Dunning, with a bibliography of his works, John Baker, London, 221-56. Hurst, J. G. 1977a Langerwehe Stoneware of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries in M. R. Gilyard-Beer and A. D. Saunders (eds.) Ancient Monuments and their Interpretation: Essays Presented to A J Taylor, Chichester , 219-38. Hurst, J. G. 1977b Spanish pottery imported into medieval Britain. Medieval Archaeol XXI, 68-105. Hurst, John G., Neal David S. and van Beuningen, H. J. E. 1986 Pottery Produced and Traded in North-West Europe 1350-1650. Rotterdam Papers VI Rotterdam, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen. Alan Vince John Hurst a personal tribute I first met the very shy and unassuming John Hurst back in the late 1970s when I was working on Scotlands first stratified group of 12th-century pottery. It was at the suggestion of the then assistant inspector of ancient monuments, Chris Tabraham, that we ask John, the well known pottery expert, to come to Scotland to view our material and identify the imports. That first encounter was memorable as John had asked Chris if he could see any other pottery that had been excavated over the last few years. I laid out what I could find in the store and followed him around with my note book as John filled out his white cards. To this day I remember being amazed that he could tell that a single sherd in a pile was French. It was from a Saintonge Chaffing Dish, which because of my ignorance John had to sketch. For the next two decades, or so, I would generally only meet John once or twice a year at conferences and this was often only to show him my problem sherds and exchange pleasantries. As years passed as I worked on more pottery like many others I would wrap up my small bags of ceramic imports and send them down to Johns office in London. Usually I would get them back a couple of weeks later with a badly typed and at times almost unreadable note. To one of the worlds worst spellers these notes were a source of pleasure as I thought if John can get to the top with spelling like that maybe there was hope for me. Slowly as the years passed and as I got to know John better I found that we could talk for longer and he seemed to be more comfortable in my company. Firstly with Steve Moorhouse and subsequently alone when he was in Scotland he would stay with my wife and myself and I soon learned that in the evening after a good meal John liked nothing better than for us to sit at the window talking about pottery while he watched the sea. In 2001, when we in Scotland began to survey all of our ceramic imports and I began to look at the French material, 139 Obituaries papers, written for a Symposium On Scarborough Ware, and published in Medieval Ceramics 6. These were The Dating of the Scarborough Ware Pottery Industry and The Summary and Conclusions, the articles in which Peter and Nita brought the results from all the other papers together and re-analysed them. It would be fair to say that despite all this work the inherent problems with the dating of Scarborough ware were never resolved, and today it is still a subject at the forefront of European medieval ceramic studies. It had always been Peters wish that he could find time to write up his unpublished work and carry out further research on the subject. When he found out that he was ill and that his time was limited he started to make plans. It was to check on the dating evidence from Ireland and to renew old acquaintances that he went to the Medieval Pottery Conference in Dublin, in 2002, a trip which he later said was one of the most enjoyable of his life. Sitting at Dublin Airport was the last time I spoke to Peter face to face. And it was there that he told me that as a child he had often wandered around Scarborough with his grandfather, who he said had been the most important influence on his upbringing. On these walks he had been encouraged to look into workmens trenches and from that simple beginning had sprung his desire to study the medieval ceramics of Scarborough, and without doubt it will be for his work on this hugely important medieval pottery industry that he will be best remembered. Only weeks before he died Ann Jenner circulated, on Peters behalf, an e-mail asking for information on any new Scarborough ware finds spots and any new dating evidence. Work on this paper must continue, as there could be no more fitting memorial to Peter, and nothing that he would have liked better than to have published, in his honour, a re-evaluation paper of the important medieval Scarborough pottery kilns which he did so much to elucidate. It was Peters wish that his ashes be interred on the small island in the centre of the Clowance Estate, in Cornwall. This was been done, with his ashes being placed in a copy of a Scarborough ware knight jug, superbly potted by John Hudson. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Farmer, P. 1976 Scarborough Harbour & Borough from the 10th to the 16th centuries. Scarborough Archaeol Hist Soc, Local History Booklet 1 Farmer, P. and N. Introduction to Scarborough Ware and A Re- assessment of Knight jugs. Hove. Farmer, P and N. The dating of the Scarborough Ware pottery industry and The Summary and Conclusions in Symposium on Scarborough Ware, Medieval Ceram 6, 66-119. George Haggarty John Hurst 1927 2003 John Hurst and the study of medieval pottery John Hurst, one of the founding members of the Medieval Pottery Research Group, died on 29th April 2003 having been the victim of an unprovoked attack at Great Casterton, Lincolnshire, where he had lived since his retirement from English Heritage. Johns role in the development of the discipline of Medieval Archaeology and the study of medieval settlements will be, for many, the lasting achievements of his career but for students of medieval ceramics it is the unrivalled and irreplaceable position he occupied in the study of medieval pottery for which we will remember him best and miss him most. John seems to have come to medieval pottery studies initially because of his interest in deserted medieval villages (he was a founding member of the Deserted Medieval Village Research Group in 1952) and the need to be able to date pottery in order to provide a framework for excavations (such as that at Northolt, Middlesex, which he started to excavate in his second undergraduate year at Cambridge). Within a couple of years, however, John had embarked on his survey of Saxo-Norman pottery in East Anglia which resulted in three papers in the Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society which set out a classification and chronology for these wares which was quickly accepted and form the basis for virtually all subsequent work on these wares (Hurst 1955, Hurst 1956 and Hurst 1957). Johns interests were also extending back to the middle 138 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS LIST OF OFFICERS AND COUNCIL OF THE GROUP 20012002 President Clive Orton Vice President David Barker* (i) Victoria Bryant* (ii) Secretary Lorraine Mepham Assistant Secretary Susan Anderson* Treasurer Robert Will Assistant Treasurer Alison Turner-Rugg* Editors Jacqueline Pearce* Lucy Whittingham* Assistant Editor Jennie Stopford* Regional Groups Officer Christopher Cumberpatch* Meetings Secretary Anne Jenner Ordinary Members Debbie Ford Alejandra Gutierrz Nigel Jeffries Sara Lunt (i) Liz Pieksma (ii) Co-opted members Clare McCutcheon Frans Verhaeghe (i) Until May 2001 (ii) From May 2001 * Denotes member of the Editorial Committee 141 Accounts for the year ending 31 January 2001 I found myself talking regularly to John on the phone and when he was out Stephen would answer and we would often chat. In 2002 Historic Scotland paid for John to come to Scotland for five days as part of our Survey and it was on one of these evenings as we talked, that John told me although I have been unwell I am happy, life is good to me, I am well looked after at home and I have two daughters that I am proud of. On the Friday when I saw him on to the train for the last time his last words to me where now that you have finished the French wares you must take on the German material, your work is for Scotland as important as John Allans is for England. That gave me a real lift as only the night before he had told me at some length how much he admired Johns work. It was only a few weeks later when I phoned, Stephen told me the terrible news. When my wife said I will send some flowers to your friend I realised she was right, after all these years that was just what the shy and modest man had become. The utter futility of Johns death came to me as it did to all his friends in the world of medieval ceramics as a great shock and he has left a void that will be very hard to fill. My one regret is that at Johns Funeral I never got to meet Stephen and thank him for keeping me informed about Johns condition during the long weeks that he was in hospital. George Haggarty 140 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Income Notes Year to 31.1.01 Year to 31.1.00 Subscriptions current 2466.95 2484.25 Late subscriptions (+) or Arrears written off (-) 230.00 202.15 Other debts written off (-) or liabilities cancelled (+) 1 0.00 0.00 Back number sales (+PCs) 1169.70 143.92 Guide Sales 2 1248.86 3111.50 Publication Grants 3 840.00 80.00 Donations 0.00 0.00 Advertising income 0.00 0.00 Conference Income 4 6758.25 4785.25 Training courses (including grants) 0.00 0.00 Bank Interest 302.94 217.10 Total Income 13016.70 11744.17 Expenditure Notes Year to 31.1.01 Year to 31.1.00 Current Journal (production, packaging and postage 5 8067.17 5891.37 Guide production 45.17 1850.62 Other publications 6 1600.00 0.00 General Costs (including newsletter and sales (p&p) 976.15 307.38 Conferences 4 7496.24 3737.43 Training Courses 0.00 0.00 Bank Charges 0.00 0.00 Postcards 7 754.00 0.00 Total Expenditure 18938.73 11786.90 +Surplus-Deficit for the year -5922.03 -42.73 Accumulated Fund Balance from previous year 13628.56 13671.29 Balance carried forward 7706.53 13628.56 (difference between AFB from previous year and deficit) Assets represented by Notes Year to 31.1.01 Year to 31.1.00 Balances at bank 6926.69 13828.56 Debtors and pre-payments 8 979.84 0.0 Other assets 9 -200.00 -200.00 Total assets Less current liabilities 0.00 Accumulated Fund 7706.53 13628.56 THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY RESEARCH GROUP Income and expenditure account for the year ending 31 January 2001 Balance Sheet for the year ending 31 January 2001 Scottish Group of Medieval Ceramicists Following the MPRG conference in Edinburgh the Scottish group have been working on producing a new review of medieval pottery imported into Scotland, as outlined in a recent Newsletter (No. 44, December 2002). Several group members took advantage of Duncan Browns invitation to view the remarkable collection of Italian maiolicas and olive jars from a shipwreck off Kinlochbervie in the Highlands. Imported pottery from 75 High Street, Perth Derek Hall and George Haggarty are trying to organise the laying out and viewing of all the imported pottery from the excavations at 75 High Street, Perth (aka Marks and Spencers, PHSE). It is their intention to organise this for October and contact has already been made with those specialists who they would like to invite. Unidentified greywares A group of greywares from Perth have been compared with material from Jutland, Northern England and East Anglia using ICPS. There is some correlation with sherds from Woodbastwick and Kirstead (both East Anglia). However some material remains unsourced and further sampling needs to be carried out, particularly involving further samples from Denmark. Contact: Derek Hall SUAT Ltd. 55 South Methven Street, Perth PH1 5NX Tel. 01738 622393 dhall@suat.demon.co.uk The South East Midlands Pottery Research Group 2001-02 SEMPER (South East Midlands Pottery Research Group) try to hold two meetings a year (although three were held in 2001-2), jointly with the East Anglia Pottery Group. The Autumn meeting is always at the Buckinghamshire County Museum in Aylesbury, and the Spring meeting venue varies depending on members current interests and willingness to host it. The Autumn meeting was held in Aylesbury in November, 2001, on a double theme of regional updates in the morning and a discussion of Ceramic Type Series in the afternoon. It seems many of us are trying to work towards the same ends, although all of us are facing the same problem of lack of funding. Our previously postponed Spring meeting was finally held at West Stow, on Saturday 27 April 2002. It was an excellent meeting, organised by Sue Anderson, on the theme of Anglo-Saxon pottery and attracted wide-ranging contributions from across the region and beyond. The venue was perfect and we had plenty of time to look around the village and museum. About thirty people attended, some of whom are not regular SEMPER members we hope to see them again at our next meeting. A third meeting was held on 26th October 2002 in Aylesbury to discuss pottery from urban contexts. Due to clashes with various other events on that day, far fewer people attended than usual, twelve in total. Nevertheless, we had a series of interesting talks and a lively discussion the advantage of small numbers! We also had plenty of time to look at all the pottery, which people had brought along. The first meeting for 2003 is planned for April 5th at Harlow Museum to look at pottery from Harlow and the surrounding area. Further details will be sent to all on the mailing list. To get your name on the list, contact Anna Slowikowski Albion Archaeology St Marys Church, St Marys Street Bedford MK42 0AS Telephone: 01234-294005 office@albion-arch.com The South-West Region Medieval Pottery Research Group The Bickley Kiln Project has continued with an unsuccessful experiment with coal-firing. Olly Kent and Dave Dawson have concluded that it could not be achieved without a specially designed firebox. The Dunster post-medieval kiln, thought to be the earliest standing in the country, has been written up for publication by David Dawson and Olly Kent. In Bristol the Bedminster pottery (c.1770-1851) has been excavated by Adrian Parry of Bristol and Region Archaeological Services. At Westbury-on-Trym, four miles from the centre of Bristol, Mike Ponsford evaluated a site in Henbury Road which produced quantities of waste thought to be from the 17th-century Westbury pottery. The products included sugar-cone moulds, syrup-collecting jars, chimney pots and horticultural wares, many of these being advertised for sale in local journals and probably used in the many sugar- processing sites in the city. The material from Cleeve Abbey has been published by John Allan in the Procedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society 2001. John Allan has also been working on a group of sites in east Devon centred on Hembury. The Barnstaple collection is being assessed for a publication programme by the Devon unit. The pottery from Launceston Castle, Cornwall, has been researched by Alan Vince and Duncan Brown. Contact: Mike Ponsford 12 Seymour Road Bishopston, Bristol BS7 9HR 143 Regional Group Reports 20012001 REGIONAL GROUP REPORTS 2001 2002 The London Area Medieval Pottery Research Group No meetings were held by the London Group in 2001 2002. Contact: Nigel Jeffries Museum of London Specialist Services 46 Eagle Wharf Road London N1 7ED Telephone: 0207 566 9312 njeffries@museumoflondon.org.uk The South Central Medieval Pottery Research Group No meetings were held by the South Central Group in 2001 2002. Contact: Lorraine Mepham Wessex Archaeology Portway House, Old Sarum Park Salisbury SP4 6EP The East Midlands Pottery Research Group A series of meetings were held during the year to discuss the possibility of setting up a fabric type series for Lincolnshire. Contact: Jane Young Lindsey Archaeological Services 25 West Parade, Lincoln LN1 1NW Telephone 01522 544554 The Welsh Medieval Pottery Research Group There have been some developments in Welsh medieval pottery studies over the last year, including the discovery of wasters at Llandaff, but the Welsh group has not met, although the possibility of a meeting is in prospect. Contacts: Steve Sell c/o Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust Ferrybridge Warehouse, Bath Lane, Swansea SA1 1RD or Mark Redknap Department of Archaeology and Numismatics National Museum and Gallery Cathays Park , Cardiff CF1 3NP 142 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS Accumulated fund balance carried forward: Signed Robert Will, Hon Treasurer, May 1997 present Auditors Report to Members of the Medieval Pottery Research Group I have audited the financial statements of the medieval pot- tery research grouping accordance with auditing standards. In my opinion it gives a true and far view of the state of the Groups affairs at 31st January 2001 Ann Gow Notes 1. 1,169.70 this unusually high sales figure includes sales on behalf of Oxbow Books Ltd at the conference and sales of postcards. 2. Guide sales down third year of publication. 3. Trondheim Redware 840 was spent this year. 4. 25th anniversary conference in Oxford was very well attended which lead to an increase in costs. 5. This years volume was a double volume resulting in increased production and postage costs. 6. Trondheim Redware grant carried over. 7. 25th anniversary postcards, the cost of producing the postcards falls into this financial year while the income received from them will come in over the next few years. 8. Expenditure on the conference is higher than the income due to VAT being added to the final invoice- to be claimed back and additional costs of photocopying etc. 9. This money has come in from sales of Cities in Sherds that have been ordered through MPRG, this money has still to be sent to Michael Bartels. North-West Regional Medieval Pottery Research Group The North West Region MPRG held one meeting in 2001. A very enjoyable day was spent at the Liverpool Museum stores examining pottery from the Buckley kilns. Christine Longworth and Peter Davey led the discussions and attendees contributed by bringing along pottery excavated from sites in the region. Although the group did not meet in 2002, a meeting has been planned for January 2003 to discuss the Regional Research Framework for Archaeology in the North West as well as recent work in the region. Plans are also in hand for further meetings in 2003. Those who would like to be kept informed of group meetings should contact: Julie Edwards c/o Chester Archaeology 27 Grosvenor Street Chester CH1 2DD j.edwards@chestercc.gov.uk The West Midlands Medieval Pottery Research Group The West Midlands group did not meet in 2001-2. Contact: Stephanie Ratkai 7 Pinehurts Drive Kings Norton Birmingham B38 8TH 144 MEDIEVAL CERAMICS
Pavani - Italian citizenship application- Found on http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.insieme.com.br%2Fimage%2Ffilasp280607.xls&ei=z3xmUuOAMNXJ4APT-oCoBA&usg=AFQjCNEzqBe9LF2qU_Klk5inGEEtOOyUVA&bvm=bv.55123115,d.dmg