The pottery of the post-medieval period
The precise definition of the end of the
medieval period and the beginning and duration of the post-medieval
and early modern periods are variable. Traditionally the medieval
period has been held to end c.1500 and the post-medieval
to cover the period c.1500 to c.1750, partially congruent
with the early modern period. The discussion in this paper will
cover the period c. 1450 – c. 1700 taking in
the latter part of the medieval period and the majority of the post-medieval
period, interpreted in their broadest terms. That this periodisation
will violate established institutional boundaries is not deemed
to be a problem as part of the purpose of the paper is to challenge
some aspects of the established frames of reference and to highlight
issues which have not been given the prominence that they deserve.
I have discussed the salient characteristics of the pottery of the
later medieval period elsewhere (Cumberpatch 1997, see also Hayfield
1988) and the distinctive character of those types which can be
considered as post-medieval will become apparent in the course of
this discussion.
Any consideration of post-medieval pottery must start with the papers
recently published by Gaimster, Nenk and Barton (Barton 1992, Gaimster
1994, Gaimster and Nenk 1997). A broader perspective has been provided
by Joan Thirsk in her discussion of the management of the Tudor
economy (1978).
Gaimster (1994) has divided the period 1450 – 1750 into three
shorter phases, each of one hundred years duration (1450 –
1550, 1550-1650 and 1650-1750). His emphasis, notwithstanding the
title of the paper, is on developments in London and the south-east,
with the remainder of the country deemed to follow London at a slower
pace with some regional and, in the case of Scotland, national,
variations.
Gaimster has suggested that during the later 15th and early 16th
centuries wealth became increasingly concentrated in towns with
the rise of an urban mercantile and artisan elite who sought to
represent their status through the conspicuous display of consumable
goods, including metal, glassware, clothing and furnishings. Amongst
these goods were ceramic vessels of European and local manufacture
which moved ‘up-market’ to compete with the traditionally
more expensive metal wares and glassware. Individual ceramic drinking
vessels replaced wooden vessels. Amongst these items were imported
stoneware mugs and locally produced whitewares (Border wares) and
the darker Cistercian wares and Blackwares. The early 16th century
saw a greater formality in dining, with individual place settings
marked by individual vessels and utensils. Decorated ceramic vessels,
cheaper than pewter vessels, allowed the lower middle classes to
emulate the upper middle classes and it is emulation which Gaimster
sees as the critical impulse prompting these changes. The popularity
of Tin Glazed Earthenware is deemed to be one example of this process
together with the increasing scale of imports of Low Countries redwares,
and the appearance of local copies, which may indicate a parallel
demand for utilitarian wares emulating more expensive metal cooking
vessels. It is this period which has been dubbed the Post-Medieval
Ceramic Revolution and which Gaimster has sought to describe and
explain (1994, Gaimster and Nenk 1997).
The later 16th century saw further urban growth and improvements
in living standards. There are indications that a wider range of
tablewares were available, including foreign and imported glassware
and Chinese porcelain. The import of Rhenish stonewares seems to
have increased and by the early 17th century attempts to produce
stoneware in London had begun. There are also indications that a
greater range of vessels was available, relating to distinctions
between vessels used for food preparation and those used in consumption
(cf. Yentsch 1991). Local developments in southern England include
the broadening of the range of Border wares to include more open
forms (notably flanged dishes) and the establishment of the English
Tin Glazed Earthenware industry. Slip trailed wares offered a distinctive
option for those unable to afford the more expensive types. Gaimster
suggests that the production of these vessels was stimulated by
the import of slip trailed and sgraffitto earthenwares from northern
Europe.
Gaimster’s final phase (1650-1750) is of less direct concern
in the context of the present paper, but probate inventories suggest
that the ownership of commodities increased and that from the early
18th century there was a significant rise in the quantities of tablewares
and other domestic utensil items. The rise of white salt glazed
stonewares, other 18th century wares and the massive increase in
the volumes of Chinese wares available following the opening up
of the port of Canton in 1715 represents a further development which
lies outside the scope of this paper. Similarly the rise of tea
and coffee drinking was part of wider changes in social practice
which have been dealt with by other writers (e.g. Kowaleski-Wallace
1997).
Gaimster and Nenk (1997) have emphasised the importance of European
pottery in the transformation of the English ceramic industry between
1450 and 1550 and have attempted to highlight what they see as the
chief characteristics of the period:
... the expanding role for ceramics in
English homes cannot be explained by permissive factors alone,
such as advances in manufacturing techniques or modes of production.
Rather a full understanding of the transformation of the English
ceramic market after c. 1450 must be sought in the changing social
pressures and motivations of the period (1997:171-2)
The preferred explanation for this ‘transformation’
again leans heavily on the influence of imported pottery and on
the impulse amongst the socially ambitious mercantile and artisan
classes to emulate the practices of the aristocracy, using ceramic
substitutes for expensive metal and glass objects.
To some extent this is a useful discussion and makes a good deal
of sense. Processes of emulation, imitation and a growth in the
consumption of luxuries are already well established as topics of
importance in relation to social changes in the 18th century (Brewer
and Porter 1993, Berg and Clifford 1999). When looked at in greater
detail, however, a number of problems emerge with extending this
approach back into the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly when
considering the situation in the north midlands and the north of
England. I shall return to these points below.
In partial contrast to Gaimster’s concentration
on the import of European goods as evidence of cosmopolitanism and
increasing sophistication, Joan Thirsk (1978) has drawn attention
to the extent to which the import of luxury goods was considered
an economic problem by the ruling class of the early 16th century.
She has described the economic problems caused by the drain of bullion
from England to the continent to pay for consumer goods. The imbalance
of trade was the cause of considerable concern to those who managed
the affairs of the Tudor state and resulted in semi-official support
for a wide range of manufacturing projects concerned with the production
and marketing of goods such as knitted stockings and caps, felt
hats, iron cooking pots and pans, knives, pins, needles, gloves,
pottery and copper wares as well as the production of raw materials
and agricultural products. Although in time projects and projectors
came to be associated with the questionable activities of confidence
tricksters and the selling of ‘get-rich-quick’ schemes
to the unwary, it seems that for much of the middle and later 16th
century such projects were an important part of national economic
policy and were supported by those who saw them as a way of both
strengthening the domestic economy, limiting the outflow of bullion
and providing employment for those affected by the economic problems
affecting the major towns. Although textiles (the New Draperies)
and related products (notably dyes and their constituents) play
an important part in Thirsk’s account, she does not neglect
other goods and is particularly concerned to stress the very wide
range of consumer goods which were being imported from Europe and
which were subsequently replaced by locally manufactured goods.
In spite of problems on the legal margins of the projects, the development
of the indigenous manufacture of consumer goods appears to have
been successful and a growing export trade developed between 1660
and 1700.
From the point of view of ceramics, Thirsk’s account is both
interesting and frustrating; potters are mentioned only in passing,
although they were in an excellent position to turn to the imitation
of continental prototypes and the provision of new styles and types
of vessels. As Gaimster’s accounts show, this appears to have
happened in London and the south-east and the eventual development
of Tin Glazed Earthenwares and English Stonewares in the later 16th
and 17th centuries respectively shows that attempts to produce the
more technically complex wares were eventually successful.
Like Gaimster and Nenk, Kenneth Barton (1992), has noted the appearance
of cups and cup-like vessels and the fact that they have counterparts
in Europe. Barton’s discussion is somewhat more wide ranging
than Gaimster’s and opens up the possibility of regional diversity
within the broader tradition, with Tudor Greenwares dominant in
the south and Tudor Brownwares (Cistercian and Blackware) more common
in the north of England. He concludes:
This sudden influx of small wide mouthed vessels, whether as imports
from Raeren, Langewehe, Siegburg, Schinveld, Beauvais, Surrey or
Coventry is not by accident of trade or due to the vagaries of fashion.
There is substantial evidence for complete change in domestic habits
throughout Europe from the end of the 13th century. In the field
of pottery studies this is most apparent in England in the increase
in the use of bunghole-pitchers where they become commonplace in
the meanest of dwellings by the end of the 13th century. They appeared
in the south-east of England at this time and in the North in the
late 15th century (1992:254)
The subsequent suggestion that change in vessel type was related
to efforts to reduce contamination in drinking water and cross-infection
between individuals are somewhat too functionalist in character
to be entirely credible and fail to take account of theories regarding
the transmission of disease current at the time. Gaimster’s
more general explanation of a wider change in domestic habits and
the greater emphasis on individuality is perhaps more economical
in its applicability, but, as noted above, has its own problems.
Taken together, these accounts appear to give a picture of a transformation
of the pottery traditions of medieval England driven by an increasing
desire on the part of smaller merchants, ambitious yeomen and skilled
craftsmen to emulate the upper classes by obtaining goods which
would allow them to eat and drink according to the new fashions
which originated in London and, from there, spread out over the
whole country. At first glance this would seem to fit in with the
general transformation of medieval England and the genealogical
origins of the later Georgian Order (Johnson 1996).
In terms of the perception and consumption of ceramics, cups and
similar ceramic tablewares seem to represent a new item in the material
culture repertoire; items designed to replace vessels previously
made of wood or other perishable substances. Whether these vessels
represented the beginnings of a style of dining with the emphasis
on the individual is perhaps less clear than it might appear. Unlike
forks, which did not come into common use before the end of the
17th century (Gaimster 1994:299-300), Cistercian ware cups, beakers
and other small vessels are commonly found on archaeological sites
of all types within the study area from the later 15th century onwards,
along with other variants such a lobed cups, produced in traditional
fabrics and colours, suggesting that the habit of drinking from
ceramic vessels spread relatively rapidly throughout society during
the last decades of the 15th century and the first few years of
the 16th century. The multiple handles on both Cistercian ware and
Blackware vessels can be seen as well adapted to the practice of
passing cups from person to person and thus to a maintenance of
the traditional dining practices (Barker pers. comm.). The new ceramic
tradition continued into the later 17th century; the shapes of the
vessels changed and the technical characteristics altered, but the
typological distinctions between, for example, Cistercian and Blackwares
are relatively minor. In the early 18th century the whole tradition
was swept away with the rise of the Georgian Order; in ceramic terms
the appearance of white salt-glazed stonewares and exotic porcelain
and the rise of the formalised drinking of tea and coffee in both
public and private contexts.
The problem with the traditional account is that the archaeological
evidence from the north Midlands and northern England points to
a significantly earlier transformation of pottery styles than is
apparent in other aspects of material culture. Equally significantly
it is earlier than the 'civilising process' of the 16th century
discussed by Norbert Elias and echoed by Gaimster and others. In
his wide ranging survey, Johnson (1996) has drawn attention to the
transformation of English society and the ways in which material
culture was centrally involved in this process. Close scrutiny of
the examples discussed by Johnson shows that he is dealing principally
with the mid to late 16th and 17th centuries and that his discussion
of ceramics draws principally on that of Gaimster (1994). Thus,
although he provides a sophisticated theoretical framework for considering
post-medieval society and social change, there remain methodological
problems of chronology and chronological priority, particularly
where the pottery is concerned. This problem is not by any means
limited to Johnson’s work. A brief survey of the historical
literature dealing with the early modern period shows that the focus
of attention is on the later 17th and 18th centuries, with consideration
of the late 15th and 16th centuries seemingly concerned principally
with the debate over the evidence for crises in the towns and the
problems affecting the traditional industries such as textiles.
I am not about to assert that all such work is fundamentally flawed
because it neglects one part of the archaeological record and there
are important exceptions to this picture, notably Dyer’s discussion
of the antecedents of later economic changes in the ‘long’
13th century, c. 1180 – 1310 (1997:62-3) and Courtney’s
review of the medieval – post-medieval transition (1997).
On the other hand, the established account cannot be fully accepted
if it fails to explain the archaeological evidence. There is a need
to examine the later medieval and post-medieval periods on their
own terms, before notions of emulation and the spread of a ‘civilising’
tradition from Europe can be fully accepted.
Before examining the archaeological data in detail, two other general
explanations for the changes in ceramics must be considered. These
are technological change and changes in fashion.
Technological change
The later medieval period was certainly one
in which technological change took place. The use of multi-flued
kilns enabled potters to increase firing temperatures, to build
larger kilns (and thus increase their output) and perhaps to increase
the use of coal as a fuel (McCarthy and Brooks 1988:80, Musty 1974;
although coal was already in use in the medieval period in some
potteries such as Burley Hill near Derby; (Hughes 1957). The documentation
of these changes does not, however, explain why they took
place or whether they actually had any effect on the colour or style
of the vessels manufactured. Indeed, as regards the latter point,
some of these developments had already occurred by the later medieval
period without any corresponding changes in ware types. Multi-flued
kilns were certainly employed to produce Cistercian and Blackwares
at Wrenthorpe (Moorhouse and Roberts 1992:Figures 20, 21, 23, 26),
but similar types of kiln were already in use in the earlier 15th
century at Holme-upon-Spalding Moor where they were used to manufacture
traditional types of Humberware (Mayes and Hayfield 1980:Figure
2.). At Toynton All Saints five kilns dating to between the late
13th and 16th centuries were all of the multi-flued type and were
used to fire medieval style wares throughout this period (Healey
1994, Watkins 1987). In his discussion of the distribution of the
various kiln types, Musty has characterised such kilns as a Yorkshire
type the use of which spread throughout the Midlands (1974:50).
Although based on a survey carried out nearly thirty years ago,
this implies that, while potters were able to exploit the multi-flued
kiln design as an aid to the production of Cistercian, Yellow and
Black wares (through the use of saggars in the case of Cistercian
and Blackware for example), the kiln technology was well established
and did not, in itself, have any significant effect on the types
of pots which were being manufactured. Rather, the potters were
able to use the technology to obtain the outcomes which they desired,
as they had been able to do for the previous few centuries (Cumberpatch
1997). Kiln design and technology generally, while significant,
was essentially permissive rather than deterministic in its effect
on pottery styles (Gaimster and Nenk 1997:171-2).
The most significant technological change is the use of saggars
which, while they permitted the production of vessels such as the
Cistercian and Blackware cups and tygs, must also have limited the
capacity of kilns by taking up far more space than demanded by the
vessel which they contained. This might imply that the value of
the vessels was greater or that the kilns were substantially larger.
Even if the latter was the case, the consumption of fuel would still
represent an increased cost for the potter. Given the very low value
of pottery in the medieval period, it seems unlikely that such increased
costs could have been born without an increase in the value of the
product.
Excavated kilns of later 15th and 16th century date are rare in
Yorkshire. The Humberware kiln at Holme upon Spalding Moor appears
to have measured approximately 2m in diameter (Mayes and Hayfield
1980; 99-100) and is compared in the report with the West Cowick
kilns (2.7 and 2.85m). In contrast a kiln at Wrenthorpe is reported
to have measured only 1.65m in diameter. The three kilns found at
Site 2, Wrenthorpe measured between 2.00m and 2.40m in diameter
(Moorhouse and Roberts 1992:Table 7). Although such measurements
may be a poor guide to the actual capacity of the kilns, there does
not seem to have been any great difference in either size or structure
between those kilns used for firing traditional medieval style vessels
and those used for firing small vessels contained either in saggars
or larger vessels.
Fashion
Fashion, as an explanation for change, is
a more complex argument to refute than that of technological determinism,
principally because it is so often invoked as a kind of commonsense
explanation for stylistic change in material culture. The very concept
of fashion is a curious one. Lying astride the domains of consumption,
habitus and of the constitution and presentation of the self,
the concept alone is not one with any explanatory power per se,
but rather one which must be analysed in the context of wider historical
changes in society and the economic structures of societies at particular
moments (where economic structures are defined in the terms which
I have set out elsewhere; Cumberpatch 1998a). It is clear that presentation
of the self through the medium of material culture was of great
significance in later medieval and early post-medieval society (Banner
1992, Johnson 1996, Cumberpatch 1997, Entwistle 2000) and the evidence
of sumptuary laws points to the great seriousness with which such
issues were viewed (Hunt 1996, Cumberpatch 1997:127). In
the contemporary world those concerned with fashion have noted how,
even in a socio-economic context dominated by the power of international
capital, changes in clothing fashions and body adornment may arise
outside the structures dominated by major textile and clothing manufacturers,
even while these commercial forces may swiftly appropriate the material,
and even the metaphors, of such movements (cf. Polhemus 1994, Polhemus
and Randall 1994:58-61, Steele 1996, Sahlins 1976:chapter 4). Given
the historical and contextual contingency of fashion statements
and the complexity of practices of consumption, it is inadequate
simply to say, as some have done, that a particular change in material
culture style is explicable as ‘fashion’. The term itself
must be rendered problematical and contextually situated interpretations
of the observed ‘fashionable’ phenomena sought. In the
case of late medieval and early post-medieval society we must ask
why there appears to have been a wholesale change in the ceramic
repertoire, not simply in terms of vessel form, but, as will be
demonstrated below, of the form, colour and texture of pottery vessels.
The medieval tradition was replaced by one which was not only radically
different, but also had its own internal structures and practical
logic. If the term 'fashion' is to be applied with any rigour then
it must be defined and justified in ways which take account of the
complexities of the situation in late 15th and 16th century society,
rather than simply being invoked as an explanation in its own right.
Unfortunately the discussion of changes in material culture and
the significance of fashion, emulation, imitation and novelty has
tended to focus primarily on the later 17th and 18th centuries (e.g.
Brewer and Porter 1993, Bermingham and Porter 1995, Berg and Clifford
1999), at the expense of the later 15th and 16th centuries. This
concentration on the early modern period appears to have distracted
attention from the equally radical transformations of the later
medieval and post-medieval period, making the interpretation of
change in one relatively minor aspect (pottery) difficult.
Pottery in Yorkshire c1450 - 1700
Around 1400 the material culture repertoire
of households in Yorkshire (and northern England generally) is recognisable
to archaeologists as medieval in character. The ceramic assemblages
are dominated by green glazed table wares (particularly jugs, but
also pipkins, dripping pans, curfews, candlesticks and other vessels)
and gritty ware utilitarian vessels, including cooking and storage
pots, cisterns and jars. The demand for ceramic cooking pots was
apparently declining rapidly, apparently in the face of an increased
availability of metal vessels (Moorhouse 1978, Le Patourel 1979,
Watkins 1987, Hayfield 1988, Cumberpatch 1997).
During the later 15th century and into the 16th century a number
of changes took place within the ceramic assemblages and it is these
which form the probably earlier northern component of Gaimster’s
ceramic revolution and which require interpretation in terms of
other, contemporary, changes in social practice. These changes have
been alluded to above and can be summarised as follows:
- The appearance and rise in popularity of dark (brown, purple
and black) glazed wares in the later 15th and 16th centuries.
- The appearance and rise in popularity of yellow glazed wares,
also in the later 15th and 16th centuries.
- The appearance of new vessel forms, in the wares listed above,
particularly single and multi-handled cups, mugs and beakers,
jars and bowls, but also vessels associated with food preparation
including pancheons and large open bowls.
- The apparent change in the use of glaze from a purely decorative
device to one with both utilitarian and decorative functions.
- The appearance and rise in popularity of decorated slipwares
(notably flatwares) in the 17th century.
In very general terms these changes can be correlated with those
in southern England described by Gaimster and Nenk (1997:178). Equally
they can be seen to relate in some way to the economic policies
described by Thirsk (1978). Crucially however, they predate the
period of state sponsored economic projects, implying that the economic
phenomena described by Thirsk actually followed an earlier change
in attitudes and practices which was, at least partially, manifested
in terms of material culture consumption and production. Such a
change was perhaps reflected in the increasing volume of imported
goods and in the production of new varieties of pottery. A similar
chronological problem besets Matthew Johnson’s account of
the period (1996). Moreover, neither Thirsk, Johnson or Gaimster
and Nenk actually explain the form of the changes seen in
post-medieval pottery. While Thirsk provides a socio-political context
for understanding changes in the pottery industry during the Tudor
period and Gaimster offers a contextual analysis of the situation
in south-east England (and specifically London), no concrete explanation
exists for the five changes in the pottery industry in the north
of England, listed above.
Gaimster’s invocation of the imitation of European forms follows
a long tradition in archaeology of seeing the emulation of the foreign
as an almost inevitable process. While there is some evidence of
imitation within the southern English Border Ware industry (Gaimster
and Nenk 1997:Figure 13.4, Pearce 1992:Plate 2), the situation in
northern England appears to be rather different with very few vessels
copying Rhenish forms. There is, at present, no definite evidence
to suggest that foreign potters were responsible for the transformation
of the products of the pottery industry in northern England. Indeed
certain technical traits, like patterns of glazing, methods of applying
handles and the shape of handle, strongly suggest continuity with
earlier methods of production, particularly of the larger utilitarian
vessels (Cumberpatch 1996:64, 2002). The attempt to link Cistercian
wares and Blackwares with the chronologically parallel, but phenomenologically
different, changes in the south-east (Gaimster and Nenk 1997) is
ultimately unconvincing largely because they have not attempted
to deal with the specific details of the case but have, as so often
in archaeology, seen the northern two-thirds of the country as dependent
upon the southeastern third (cf. Cumberpatch and Robbins 1995, Robbins
1999). A parallel suggestion, that the iron and steel trades of
Hallamshire were transformed by an influx of French, specifically
Huguenot, craftsmen, has been shown to be fallacious (Hey 1990)
and there seems no evidence to support assumptions that there was
any necessary European involvement in the transformation of either
craft traditions or domestic practice which had causal influences
on the pottery industry.
The rise of purple, brown and black glazed utilitarian wares
During the 15th century, while established medieval ceramic coarse
and utilitarian ware types persisted, new utilitarian wares, including
purple glazed wares began to make their appearance. Midlands Purple,
a generic term for a ware which was probably manufactured at a number
of centres (Cumberpatch 1996), has been found on sites in the central
Midlands from the latter part of the 14th century onwards (Ford
1992, 1995:21) but does not seem to have made an impact in North
Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire until the 15th century (e.g. Woodland
1993:40). A locally manufactured variant, Purple Glazed Humberware,
made its first appearance in Hull in the later 15th century (Watkins
1987). Although the dating of the South Yorkshire Gritty wares (manufactured
in the Lower Don Valley) is far from clear, it seems that a move
from white fabrics with green or yellow-green glaze (Coal Measures
White ware) to darker, reduced fabrics and purple glazes (Coal Measures
Purple ware) also occurred during the 15th century (Hayfield and
Buckland 1989). Although some green glazed wares remained in production
into the 17th and even the 18th century (Green Glazed Coarseware
for example; Watkins 1987:106), it seems that there was a general
tendency for the medieval types to be replaced by the Purple wares,
which themselves later gave way to Brown Glazed Coarsewares, (sometimes
known as redware), the ubiquitous utilitarian ware of the later
16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The vessel forms show considerable
continuity from the earlier period with storage jars, cisterns and
large jugs all common. The descendants of the later Brown Glazed
Coarseware types, like open bowls, cooking vessels and large pancheons,
may still be recognised amongst mass-produced kitchen wares today,
where they are designed to evoke an idealised domestic past.
The appearance of purple glazed pottery, frequently on reduced bodies,
despite being described in numerous pottery reports has rarely been
seen for what it is: a significant change in the phenomenological
character of domestic material culture. Its appearance has not been
widely recognised as a problem requiring theorisation and explanation.
The significance of its appearance is two-fold: firstly the increasing
popularity of the new type of pottery represents a major change
in a tradition which had persisted since the mid 11th century and,
secondly, this change in the character of utilitarian wares foreshadows
one aspect of the later changes in tablewares.
In terms of manufacturing technique, these vessels, together with
the slightly later Brown Glazed Coarsewares, are distinguished from
medieval types by their fabrics and glaze colours, but, as noted
above, other aspects show considerable continuity with earlier practices.
Comparison of the handles of early Brown Glazed Coarsewares with
those of Humberware jugs shows not only similarities in shape, but
also of the pattern of glazing (Cumberpatch 1996:64, 2002) which
might suggest that the potters were consciously adapting their techniques
to their customers' requirements, while retaining elements of their
traditional manufacturing methods. One effect of the common practice
in archaeology of having medieval pottery reports written by one
author and post-medieval reports written by another is that such
elements of continuity have been overlooked while the more obvious
distinctions have been emphasised.
Cistercian ware and Blackware
The emergence of Cistercian ware in the latter
part of the 15th century represents one of the most significant
developments in the use of pottery vessels since the emergence of
the medieval tradition in the 11th century. Cistercian wares were
manufactured at a number of centres, notably Wrenthorpe in West
Yorkshire and Ticknall in Derbyshire but also elsewhere, and typically
have a fine dark red to purple fabric with thick brown to near-black
glaze internally and externally (Moorhouse and Slowikowski 1992:91).
The evidence suggests that both Cistercian wares and the later Blackwares
were fired in saggars (initially often larger vessels such as cisterns)
in multi-flued kilns. A proportion of the earlier Cistercian wares
were decorated with white pipeclay elements, normally abstract,
but including stags heads and other naturalistic motifs. This appears
to have ceased during the 16th century and Blackwares, at least
from Wrenthorpe, are undecorated.
Regarding the origin of the new style, Peter Brears has pointed
out that:
Little is known regarding their origins
since they appeared suddenly in a fully established form, having
little in common with either the native English tradition or those
of contemporary continental countries (Brears 1983:215).
Elsewhere he has noted that the tradition
has no known antecedents and appears, north of a line running from
London to Bristol, in a fully formed state (Brears 1971:18).
A small number of copies of German stoneware vessels have been recorded
from Wrenthorpe (Moorhouse and Slowikowski 1992:85, Figure 58:136),
but these are insignificant in relation to the much larger numbers
of unique local forms which pursue their own individual line of
development from small rounded cups, often with flared rims, to
tall cups and tygs, some of them of considerable size. There is
no evidence that either the inception or the subsequent development
of Cistercian wares and Blackwares owes anything of significance
to European prototypes and the examples referred to seem to be more
curiosities than a significant part of the potter's repertoire.
In a technical sense Cistercian wares represent an increase in complexity
from medieval practices in terms of the use of very fine clays and
of saggars. In terms of form and colour they represent a complete
break with the medieval tradition in the area. With the exception
of the so-called Skipton-on-Swale or Humberware drinking jugs, a
form which is, in fact, of undetermined function and wholly different
in character to the Cistercian wares (Jennings 1994), ceramic drinking
vessels are rare within the medieval tradition. Whereas traditional
medieval functional types such as jugs and pitchers are found in
the Purple Glazed fabrics together with later medieval forms such
as bung-hole cisterns and glazed jars, the Cistercian wares and
Blackwares may be representative of new drinking habits and, perhaps,
of new patterns of social behaviour.
When compared with Border wares, certain similarities can be seen
(the early small, round-bodied mugs for example), but equally other
types of vessel have no direct parallels, notably the tall cups
and large tygs which are a classic Blackware type and the Border
ware ‘drinking jugs’ (Pearce 1992). While similar general
trends might be detectable in both traditions, the specific responses
of the potters (presumably approved by their customers) vary, and
to suggest that the south-east should take priority over the north
Midlands is clearly an invalid supposition.
Yellow wares and Yellow Glazed Coarsewares
In a development which runs parallel to
that of the Cistercian and Blackwares, a range of vessels were manufactured
in off-white and buff fabrics with clear glaze giving the vessels
a bright lemon yellow colour. Although a distinction has been drawn
between Early Yellow and Yellow wares, the two can be difficult
to distinguish and they should be considered as essentially chronological
variants of the same type (as is also the case with Cistercian ware
and Blackware). We can, in addition, make a distinction between
‘true’ yellow wares, such as were excavated at Wrenthorpe
near Wakefield, and Yellow Glazed Coarsewares; vessels with somewhat
coarser fabrics, often red or orange in colour, which were given
a coating of white slip internally prior to glazing to produce a
bright yellow finish similar to the yellow wares. These seem to
be somewhat later in date then the Yellow wares and appear to be
the counterparts of the Brown Glazed Coarsewares of the later 16th
and 17th centuries (Cumberpatch 2002).
Unlike the dark coloured wares, the Early Yellow wares do not appear
to have been designed for use as drinking vessels or tableware.
Bowls are the commonest form found at both Wrenthorpe and at Pontefract
Castle, with jars, albarellos, chafing dishes and pipkins present
in smaller quantities. This range of forms is maintained into the
period of the Yellow wares, bowls and jars again being the commonest
forms with very small numbers of albarellos, lids, pipkins, bottles
and occasional cups being found at Wrenthorpe and Pontefract. The
typical Yellow Glazed Coarseware vessel is the wide pancheon, a
form also found in both locally made and imported Redware. The sizes
of these vessels vary and, to date, no attempt has yet been made
to assess whether there are size classes within assemblages which
might relate to different functions.
Overall, the various types of yellow ware appear to have been designed
for purposes other than those for which Cistercian and Blackwares
were designed, perhaps more related to the processing and preparation
of food. In this they would seem to have some connection with Redwares
and certain types of Brown Glazed Coarsewares
Redware
The term Redware is one which has been applied
to a variety of types of pottery, including the Brown Glazed Coarsewares
described above. It is used here to describe vessels manufactured
in light red or orange firing clays with clear slip giving a bright
orange finish. Pancheons and bowls were often given a coating of
a darker red slip externally. In South and West Yorkshire the Redwares
are distinguishable from Brown Glazed Coarsewares principally by
their fabrics, a distinction which is reinforced by the range of
forms produced; redwares being principally chiefly pancheons and
bowls with smaller numbers of jars (Cumberpatch 2002). The fabrics
are closely similar to the commonest type of 17th century Slipware,
type 1 as defined at Bawtry (Cumberpatch 1996:65), which is found
widely throughout South and West Yorkshire. The similarity of such
vessels to those manufactured in the Low Countries (Low Countries
Redware) has been commented on by a number of authors, including
Jennings (1981) and Ellison (1981), but the examples from the study
area are notable for the absence of such distinctively European
features as frying pan / skillet handles and forms such as the distinctive
double, loop-handled tripod cooking pots. This would seem to suggest
that, if the redwares were intended to evoke associations with imported
vessels, then the evocation was through the colour and texture rather
than through the specific form. In addition it should be noted that,
whereas imported cooking pots are common in ports such as Hull and
Newcastle, the quantities found on sites further inland are low,
paralleling the situation with regard to Rhenish stonewares and
other imported vessel types. The wider significance of this pattern,
both in terms of the perception and valuing of pottery and in terms
of the economic structures which produced it, requires further,
more detailed, work.
European pottery in northern England
In general terms the range of European wares
found on sites in northern England is similar to that in the south-east.
Ports such as Hull, Newcastle and Bawtry have produced a wide range
of European types dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods
and the surviving documents record the presence of European merchants
in these and other coastal towns, all of which played an important
role in the export of textiles, lead, coal and other products (Britnell1997).
Equally, pottery was exported from England to the continent, particularly
to Scandinavia during the medieval period (Reed 1994, Vince 1995).
The significance of the various imports as components of the ceramic
assemblages varies. Inland sites, such as Pontefract Castle, have
produced only small quantities of imported wares (see also Le Patourel
1973:99 for a discussion of moated sites), while at coastal sites,
principally ports, it appears that imported pottery made a substantial
contribution to the local ceramic repertoire. In Newcastle, for
example, tripod cooking pots in Low Countries Redware appear to
have replaced the local cooking pots by the beginning of the 15th
century (Ellison 1981:130). In partial contrast to this, sites in
Hull, while yielding substantial quantities of imported wares, also
produce large quantities of locally manufactured and other English
types, suggesting, perhaps, that there is no simple relationship
between access to imported material and its use.
The vessel and ware types which Gaimster has described as being
most influential on the southern English industries, Rhenish stonewares
and Tin Glazed Earthenwares, are certainly present in northern England
(Ellison 1981, Watkins 1987, 1993, Cumberpatch 1996, 2002) but,
as noted above, their distinctive forms seem to have had little
influence on the developments represented by locally produced wares,
as discussed above. At a more general level, the concentration of
imported wares in the ports and coastal towns seems to argue against
a widespread desire to obtain either original imports or local copies.
The inland market for imported pottery was clearly limited and it
seems unlikely, given the cheapness of pottery generally, that the
scarcity of such vessels was due to their price. If the originals
were in limited demand only, then there seems no reason for potters
to have sought to imitate them in terms of either colour or style.
In the light of this, and together with the absence of evidence
for large scale copying, the argument for significant continental
influence loses much of whatever power it once had. I would argue
that the evidence points to an essentially indigenous and locally
inspired shift in perceptions of what was significant about pottery,
a shift which resulted in the wholesale changes described above.
At present, the nature and source of this change in perceptions
remains obscure, hence the focus on critique in this paper, and
as such should constitute an important research goal for academic
studies of pottery in the future.
A phenomenological approach to post-medieval pottery
If European pottery was not the source of
inspiration for post-medieval pots, then questions arise concerning
the origin of the forms, the colours and the textures as well as
the reasons lying behind the rapid change from the medieval tradition
to the radically different post-medieval tradition. As described
above, there are considerable chronological problems involved in
linking the changes observable in the pottery with changes in other
aspects of society and the evidence available at present indicates
that the changes in pottery took place somewhat in advance of other
changes in society and material culture.
The following analysis of selected assemblages from South, West
and East Yorkshire draws on the approach used elsewhere to analyse
medieval assemblages (Cumberpatch 1997) and is intended to establish
the nature of the internal structures within post-medieval pottery
assemblages. It is proposed that this represents a more logical
starting point for the analysis of the social dimensions of change
within the ceramic repertoire than does the assumption of the centrality
of foreign influences on local production. It also seems necessary
to establish the nature and extent of change in material culture
more generally in the later 15th and 16th centuries as a preliminary
to re-evaluating the chronology and scope of changes in material
culture in the post-medieval period. Pottery, as the most abundant
surviving component of the range of domestic hardware, seems an
appropriate place to start.
Case study: Orgreave Hall, Rotherham, South Yorkshire
Orgreave Hall near Rotherham in South Yorkshire was the subject
of a limited excavation and structural recording in advance of its
demolition to make way for opencast coal mining (Cumberpatch 1998b,
Latham unpublished). The pottery assemblage consisted of post-medieval
and modern elements with only a scatter of medieval material. The
modern material (19th and 20th century in date) has been omitted
from this analysis in order to focus on the later 16th and 17th
century pottery. A few sherds of early 18th century wares suggested
that the assemblage had been created in the first quarter of the
18th century, perhaps as a result of the deliberate disposal of
wares no longer deemed socially acceptable (cf. Gooder 1984, Johnson
1996).
In Table 1 the post-medieval
material has been listed by vessel form with the unidentifiable
body sherds omitted. Although the numbers of identifiable vessels
are low, there appears to be some structuring visible within the
assemblage. 16th and 17th century cups and mugs are found only in
Cistercian ware and Blackware fabrics (the Manganese Mottled ware
and Stoneware vessels are of 18th century date) while jars, cisterns
and jars/jugs are found preferentially in Brown Glazed Coarsewares,
Midlands Purple wares and, in smaller numbers, in Redware. In contrast,
open vessels, like plates, bowls, pancheons and unidentified 'open
vessels', appear preferentially in Redware, Slipware and Yellow
ware fabrics.
Case study: Pontefract Castle
Full details of the pottery from Pontefract Castle can be found
elsewhere (Cumberpatch 2002, Archaeological Services WYAS 2002)
and the data presented in Table
2 are simply a summary of the vessel forms from post-medieval
contexts within the castle. None of these are later in date than
1649 and the majority were created when the castle was demolished
in May and June of that year, following the end of the Civil War.
The bulk of the pottery dates to the early to mid 17th century,
with small quantities of 16th century material apparently representing
vessels which had remained in use into the later period. The very
low quantities of identifiable imported vessels are an accurate
representation of the generally low quantities of these wares in
the castle as a whole.
Broadly speaking it seems that there is an association between black
and brown vessels and the storage, serving and consumption of liquids,
with the late Humberwares perhaps marking some sort of legacy from
medieval practices. The preparation and serving of food appears
to be linked with lighter coloured wares, like Redware, Yellow ware
and Slipware with some limited involvement of Brown Glazed Coarsewares.
A further degree of blurring in the categories is caused by the
vagueness of the category of jars which require further morphological
study before meaningful divisions can be distinguished. Were this
to be undertaken it seems probable that a more precise division
of the groups would distinguish Yellow and Redwares from Brown Glazed
Coarsewares and Blackwares.
Case study: Hull
Extensive excavations in Hull have produced large quantities of
post-medieval pottery, including locally manufactured wares, regional
imports and European wares. Selected material is presented in Tables
3 to 15. Inevitably there are problems with residuality and
these are reflected in the quantities of medieval types, including
Humberware 1, Orange ware and Shell Tempered ware. These medieval
types have not been omitted as they serve to highlight the contrast
between the structure of the medieval assemblages and those of the
post-medieval period (see Cumberpatch 1997 for further discussion).
The data are based upon the numbers of sherds identifiable to ware
type and form. Those types represented by unidentifiable body sherds
have been included under the category of "Other". The actual range
of types on each site was thus somewhat wider than is indicated
in the summary tables. Full details can be found in the reports
from which the data were taken (Watkins 1987, 1993).
The initial distinction visible in the tables is the apparent preference
for cooking vessels (frying pans, skillets and pipkins) in Low Countries
Red ware and a corresponding preference for cups and tygs in Cistercian
ware, which are somewhat commoner than the imported stoneware mugs.
Jars appear preferentially in Brown Glazed Coarseware, as do bowls
and dishes, although it is not clear to what extent these latter
vessels might be defined as redwares according the criteria used
at Pontefract Castle and Orgreave Hall. Late Humberwares, notably
type 4 (purple glazed) and 5 (Green Glazed Coarseware) seem to have
been preferred for jars, cisterns and, to some extent, jugs and
bowls. In this respect they may be seen as fulfilling some of the
roles of the Brown Glazed Coarsewares and the relationship between
the older, green glazed, tradition (represented by Humberware 5)
and the new (Purple Glazed Humberware and Brown Glazed Coarseware)
is one which requires further and more detailed investigation. The
presence of Saintonge ware jugs is also notable, as it was at the
inland port of Bawtry (Cumberpatch 1996). Tablewares, notably chafing
dishes, appear in a variety of fabrics and a closer study of such
categories of object, across a number of different types of site,
might prove of considerable interest. At present we lack the kind
of fine grained analysis required to understand the details of the
relationships between similar types of vessels from different sources.
Discussion
The figures from the three case studies are hardly conclusive, but
the indications of structures within the assemblages are regular
enough to indicate that they represent something more than chance.
As ever in archaeology, further work is required on large groups
of material before the finer details of the distinctions can be
resolved, but it is already clear that there is a change in everyday
social practice, reflected in the pottery, which requires close
attention if we are to interpret it convincingly. Greater standardisation
in terminology and definition, particularly within the Brown Glazed
Coarseware and Redware categories, is also required in order to
permit the drawing of effective comparisons between assemblages.
It will also be necessary to address issues of regional diversity
and distinction. The evidence presented in this paper demonstrates
that there are significant differences in the situation in the south-east
and in the north Midlands. It is unclear whether this distinction
masks other, finer differences between regions, or what the geographical
extent of such regions may be. Clearly it is impossible to accept
a mere statement of ‘regionalism’ as an explanation
without seeking the causes of such diversity.
Acknowledging these caveats, it is possible to suggest a number
of directions in which future analyses could move. These include:
- The significance of the changes in the colours used for pots
- The significance of the changes in vessel forms from the standardised
range typical of the medieval period
- The relationship between pottery and other classes of material
culture
- The relationship between social changes (at the levels of both
structure and practice) and changes in material culture
- The consideration of a longer timescale (c.1485 –
1750) within which a series of changes took place and which can
be considered as forming part of the genealogy of the Georgian
order which typifies the 18th century.
- The significance and source of regional variation in ceramics
and the extent of the broad north – south-east divide described
above
Once these issues have been tackled, we may be able to begin to
move towards a synthesis of archaeological and socio-economic historical
approaches to the later medieval to post-medieval period.
Conclusion
Writing of the situation between the mid
17th and early 19th centuries, Berg and Clifford have commented:
Questions of novelty, imitation, value
and taste arise in a preoccupation over the period with the middling
ranks. Was their response to the market, objects of possession
and display, fashion and luxury an emulation of a pre-existing
culture amongst the elites? We suspect, or in some cases even
know, that this was not the case. But we know very little about
the inducements to consumer culture among these variegated and
intensely status conscious groups. Our once fixed categories of
a resistant, customary plebeian culture have broken down. Assumptions
of an emulative bourgeois culture leading the way to modern mass
consumerism are no longer satisfactory (1999:2).
This suggestion that the explanations for
change popular amongst archaeologists working with data from the
later medieval and post-medieval periods are being questioned, albeit
in the context of somewhat later developments, raises a number of
important issues for archaeology, some of which have been outlined
above. The purpose of this article has been to focus attention on
the hitherto neglected subject of the transformation in tradition
which is represented by the appearance of post-medieval pottery
types in Yorkshire and elsewhere. The intention has been to define
the scope of the problem, to highlight the inadequacies of the existing
explanations and to indicate a possible way forward which involves
considering the phenomenological change in ceramics as a significant
aspect of wider social change. Above all it is clear that a broader
approach to ceramics, which situates them within the realm of material
culture generally and connects this with larger social structures,
is required if the reasons for the changes are to be interpreted
and adequately explained.
The recent flurry of work on consumption within historical studies
appears, as noted above, to have taken as its principle focus the
period from the early/mid 17th century onwards, with Joan Thirsk's
work (1978) being the principal exception. No doubt there are very
good reasons for this; the 17th century saw significant changes
in politics, society and the economy and was followed by major changes
in the ceramic repertoire and other changes in material culture
during the early 18th century (Brewer and Porter 1993, Berg and
Clifford 1999). As this review, together with others, cited above,
has pointed out, the later 15th and early 16th centuries also saw
significant changes in practice and in the material culture involved
in practice. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the greater richness
of the documentary record dating from the 17th and 18th centuries
has masked the importance of changes which took place somewhat earlier?
Certainly the archaeology of the of the 15th and 16th centuries
is rarely written in a way which is accessible to those trained
in expressing themselves in the discourses of documentary-based
history. Conversely, historical discourse rarely seems to address
the questions of practice, structure and agency which are the core
of an archaeological understanding of the practicalities of human
existence. Thus, while we have a considerable amount of information
about some aspects of 16th century society (towns, industry, fortifications
and so on) the archaeology of day-to-day practice appears far less
well understood, certainly in comparison to earlier and later periods.
Although American historical archaeology is often considered to
be conceptually more sophisticated than that practised in Britain,
it seems to have little to offer in this specific case. Anne Yentsch
(1991) has described the ceramic assemblages of the later 17th and
18th centuries as divided into earth-toned and white-toned categories,
related to male and female domains within and outside the household.
In common with the discussions of post-medieval and early modern
society referred to above, she has focussed on the later period
(later 17th and 18th centuries) and contrasts a set of generic 'medieval'
with early modern practices, effectively omitting the distinction
made in Britain between the medieval and the post-medieval. Specifically,
her ‘earth-toned’ vessel types are those which are of
post-medieval character (Redware, Brown Glazed Coarseware, Purple
Glazed wares) and which have been described above. Their persistence,
alongside the new white-toned wares of the 18th century, requires
analysis with reference to their history and genealogy as well as
with their more immediate contextual relationships. In addition,
Yentsch’s approach, linking the various classes of pottery
with male and female domains in a structuralist analysis which emphasises
a simple male-female duality, is perhaps of questionable value as
it seems likely that the majority of post-medieval pottery was connected
with the domain of the household and thus, perhaps, with female
labour, but also with shared space. The position of dark coloured
16th and 17th century tablewares (Cistercian ware, Black ware) is
omitted, with serious consequences for the argument as a whole,
at least as it is applied in an British context.
In contrast to this approach, I would argue that, from the later
15th century onwards, we can see a transformation in social practice
which marks the emergence of a distinctively post-medieval social
order, represented and naturalised by the use of a distinctive set
of non-medieval material symbols, including the pottery under discussion
here. The 18th century triumph of the Georgian order (Johnson 1996)
appears to have obscured this phase and to have led to a neglect
of the distinctive ceramic assemblages, in spite of their abundant
survival in Dissolution and Civil War siege and demolition deposits.
There are clearly a number of factors at work during the later medieval
period which were responsible for the appearance post-medieval pottery
and to try to identify a single one is probably a futile and misconceived
task. Rather we have to consider a number of factors which appear
to have come together and resulted in a radical change in day-to-day
practice. In addition to the recovery, analysis and full study of
post-medieval pottery assemblages being accorded the same priority
as that given to earlier periods, we also need to become far more
aware of the significance of the attributes of material culture
in relation to wider and deeper social structures and practices.
When we have both larger datasets and a range of more sophisticated
interpretative tools we will be able to contribute more effectively
to debates over the significance of material culture in relation
to both grand historical narratives and to investigate in detail
the transformations in tradition which preceded the emergence of
the European global empires, the modern world view and modern world
order.
Acknowledgements
The content and structure of this paper have
been substantially improved by the contributions of a number of
friends and colleagues. They include: Tim Allen, Paul Blinkhorn,
Deborah Ford, Neil Ewins, Marcus Milwright, Mary Ann Owoc, Helen
Wickstead and Hugh Willmott.The English Heritage sponsored training
course at Stoke-on-Trent Museum was of particular value in providing
an opportunity to examine material from Staffordshire and to discuss
issues arising from the study of post-medieval pottery.Earlier versions
of this paper were presented at the Theoretical Archaeology Group
and Medieval Pottery Research Group conferences and acknowledgements
are also made to those who commented on these occasions.Responsibility
for the content and the opinions offered remains with the author. |
Bibliography
Archaeological Services (WYAS) Pontefract
Castle Project Archive Unpublished pottery data tables.
Banner, L 1992. The fashionable sex 1100 – 1600. History
Today April 1992
Barton, K. 1992. Ceramic changes in the western European littoral
at the end of the middle ages. A personal view. In: D. Gaimster
and M. Redknap (Eds.) Everyday and exotic pottery from Europe.
Studies in honour of John G. Hurst. Oxbow Books.
Bennett, H.S. 1922 [1990]. The Pastons and their England; Studies
in an age of transition. Canto / Cambridge University Press
Berg, M. and Clifford, H. 1999. Consumers and luxury; consumer
culture in Europe 1650 – 1850. Manchester University Press
Bermingham, A. and Brewer, J. 1995. The consumption of culture
1600 – 1800: Image, object, text. Rouledge.
Brears, P.C.D. 1971. The English Country Pottery David Charles:
Newton Abbott.
Brears, P.C.D. 1983. Post-medieval pottery In: P. Mayes and L. Butler
(Ed.) Sandal Castle Excavations 1964 – 1973. Wakefield
Historical Publications
Brewer, J. and Porter, P. 1993. Consumption and the world of
goods. Routledge.
Britnell, R.H. 1997. The closing of the Middle Ages? England
1471 – 1529 Blackwell.
Courtney, P. 1997. The Tyranny of Constructs: some thoughts on periodisation
and culture change. In: D. Gaimster and P. Stamper (Eds.)
1997 The age of transition; the archaeology of English culture
1400 – 1600. Oxbow Monograph 98.
Cumberpatch, C.G. and Robbins, G. 1995. South Yorkshire and Wessex.
Unpublished paper delivered at the 1995 Theoretical Archaeology
Group conference.
Cumberpatch, C.G. 1996. The pottery. In: J.A. Dunkley and C.G. Cumberpatch
(Eds.) Excavations at 16 – 20 Church Street, Bawtry, South
Yorkshire. BAR British Series 248: 55 - 138. 1996.
Cumberpatch, C.G. 1997. Towards a phenomenological approach to the
study of medieval pottery. In: C.G. Cumberpatch and P.W. Blinkhorn
(Eds.) Not so much a pot, more a way of life Oxbow Monograph
83: 125 – 152.
Cumberpatch, C.G. 1998a. The concepts of economy and habitus in
the study of later medieval ceramic assemblages. Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 14:2, 9 – 22.
Cumberpatch, C.G. 1998b. The survey and excavation of Orgreave Hall,
Rotherham. In: C. Cumberpatch, J. McNeil and S. Whiteley (Eds.)
Archaeology in South Yorkshire 1995 - 1996. South Yorkshire
Archaeology Service, 30 - 35.
Cumberpatch, C.G. 2002. The pottery from Pontefract Castle In: I.Roberts
(Ed.) Pontefract Castle: Archaeological Excavations 1982 –
86. Yorkshire Archaeology 8. West Yorkshire Archaeology Service.
Dyer, C. 1997. Peasants and farmers: rural settlements and landscapes
in an age of transition. In: D. Gaimster and P. Stamper (Eds.) The
age of transition; the archaeology of English culture 1400 - 1600.
Oxbow monograph 98.
Egan, G. and Michael, R.L. 1999. Old and new worlds Oxbow
Books.
Ellison, M. 1981. An excavation in the castle ditch, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
1974-6 Archaeologia Aeliana 5th series vol. 11:95-114.
Entwistle, J. 2000. The fashioned body: Fashion, dress and modern
social theory Polity Press.
Ford, D. 1992. Stafford ware to Cistercian ware: pottery production
and distribution in Staffordshire from the 9th to 15th centuries.
Medieval Europe 1992. Pre-circulated papers 5; Exchange and
Trade, 105 - 111.
Ford, D. 1995 Medieval pottery in Staffordshire, AD800 - 1600:
A review. Staffordshire Archaeological Studies No. 7. City Museum
and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent.
Gaimster, D. 1994 The Archaeology of Post-Medieval Society, c 1450
- 1750: Material Culture Studies in Britain Since the War. In: B.
Vyner (Ed.) Building on the past. Royal Archaeological Institute:281
- 311.
Gaimster D. and Nenk, B. 1997. English households in transition
c. 1450 – 1550: the ceramic evidence. In: D. Gaimster and
P. Stamper (Eds.) The age of transition; the archaeology of English
culture 1400 – 1600. Oxbow Monograph 98: 171 – 195.
Gaimster, D and Stamper, P. (Eds.) 1997. The age
of transition; the archaeology of English culture 1400 – 1600.
Oxbow Monograph 98.
Glennie, P. 1995. Consumption within historical studies. In: D.
Miller (Ed.) Acknowledging consumption: 164 - 203. Routledge.
Gooder, E. 1984. The finds from the cellar of the Old Hall, Temple
Balsall, Warwickshire. Post-Medieval Archaeology 18, 149-249.
Hayfield, C. 1988. The popularity of medieval vessel forms in Humberside.
Medieval Ceramics 12:57-68.
Hayfield, C. and Buckland, P. 1989. Late medieval pottery wasters
from Firsby, South Yorkshire. Transactions of the Hunter Archaeological
Society 15:8-24.
Healey, R.H. 1994. Toynton All Saints, Lincolnshire; notes on
the kilns and products. Unpublished note.
Hey, D. 1990 The origins and early growth of the Hallamshire cutlery
and allied trades. In: J. Chartres and D. Hey (Eds.) English
rural society 1500 - 1800: 343 - 367. Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, R. 1957. Medieval pottery kiln site, Burley Hill, Duffield
Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeology and Natural History Society
77;57-60.
Hunt, A. 1996. The governance of consumption: sumptuary laws and
shifting forms of regulation Economy and Society 25, No.
3:410-427.
Jennings, S. 1981. Eighteen centuries of pottery from Norwich.
East Anglian Archaeology 13.
Jennings, S. 1994. Coin hoard pots, Humber ware drinking jugs and
the problem of nomenclature. Medieval Ceramics 18:82-3.
Johnson, M. 1996. An archaeology of capitalism Blackwell.
Kowaleski-Wallace, E. 1997. Consuming subjects: Women, shopping
and business in the eighteenth century. Columbia University
Press.
Latham, I.D. 1994. The results of a desktop archaeological and
cultural heritage study of a proposed opencast site at Orgreave,
South Yorkshire. Unpublished report. South Yorkshire Archaeology
Field and Research Unit.
Le Patourel, H.E.J. 1973. The moated sites of Yorkshire.
Society for Medieval Archaeology Monograph series No. 5.
Le Patourel, H.E.J. 1979. Pottery as evidence for social and economic
change In: P. Sawyer English medieval settlement. Edward
Arnold, 86 - 96
Mayes, P. and Hayfield, C. 1980. A late medieval pottery kiln at
Holme-upon-Spalding Moor. East Riding Archaeologist 6, 99
- 110.
McCarthy, M. and Brooks, C. 1988. Medieval
Pottery in Britain AD 900 - 1600. Leicester University Press:
Leicester.
Moorhouse, S. 1978. Documentary evidence for the uses of medieval
pottery; an interim statement. Medieval Ceramics 2, 3 - 21.
Moorhouse, S. and Roberts I. 1992. Wrenthorpe potteries.
Yorkshire Archaeology 2. West Yorkshire Archaeology Service
Moorhouse, S. and Slowikowski, A. 1992. The pottery In: Moorhouse,
S. and Roberts I. 1992 Wrenthorpe potteries. Yorkshire Archaeology
2. West Yorkshire Archaeology Service
Musty, J. 1974. Medieval pottery kilns In: V. Evison, H. Hodges
and J.G. Hurst (Eds.) Medieval pottery from excavations: Studies
presented to G.C. Dunning 41-65. John Baker: London.
Pearce, J. 1992. Border wares. Post-medieval pottery in London,
volume 1. Museum of London.
Polhemus, T. 1994. Street style. Thames and Hudson
Polhemus, T. and Randall, H. 1994. Rituals of love. Picador.
Reed, I. 1994. Late medieval ceramics in Norway. Medieval Ceramics
18, 59 - 66.
Robbins, G. 1999. Research and regionality: South Yorkshire as an
example In: B. Bevan (Ed.) Northern Exposure: interpretative
devolution and the Iron Ages in Britain. Leicester Archaeology
Monograph No. 4: 43-50.
Sahlins, M. 1978. Culture and practical reason. The University
of Chicago Press
Smail, J. 1992. Manufacturer or artisan? The relationship between
economic and cultural change in the early stages of eighteenth century
industrialisation Journal of Social History 25 (4), 791 -
814.
Steele, V. 1996. Fetish; sex, power and fashion. Oxford University
Press
Tarlow, S and West, S. 1999. The familiar past: Archaeologies
of later historical Britain. Routledge
Thirsk, J. 1978. Economic policy and projects Clarendon
Press
Vince, A. 1995. Trade in pottery around the North Sea; The eleventh
Gerald Dunning lecture. Medieval Ceramics 19, 3 - 10.
Watkins, J.G. 1987 The pottery. In: P. Armstrong and B. Ayres (Eds.)
Excavations in High Street and Blackfriargate. Hull Old Town
Report series no. 5. East Riding Archaeologist 8. 53-181.
Watkins, J.G. 1993 The pottery. In: Evans, D.H. (Ed.) Excavations
in Hull 1975 - 1976. East Riding Archaeologist 4. Hull Old Town
Report Series No. 2;75-144.
Woodland, R. 1993. Ceramics In: A.G. Kinsley (Ed.) Excavations on
the Saxo-Norman town defences at Slaughter Lane, Newark-on-Trent,
Nottinghamshire. Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottingham
97;33 – 47.
Yentsch, A. 1991. The symbolic divisions of pottery: sex-related
attributes of English and Anglo-American household pots In: R.H.
McGuire and R. Paynter (Eds.) The archaeology of inequality.
Blackwell |