Medieval Ceramics Volume 25 (2001)

7/22/2019 Medieval Ceramics Volume 25 (2001)

1/84

Medieval Ceramics

VOLUME 25, 2001

MedievalCeramics

VOLUME25,2001

JOURNAL OF THE MEDIEVAL POTTERY RESEARCH GROUP


2/84

Medieval

Ceramics


3/84

THIS JOURNAL was conceived to meet the need for an annualpublication devoted to all aspects of pottery studies from theEarly Saxon to the Post-Medieval period, including theoretical,methodological and analytical aspects of pottery research. Anannual conference is held (usually in May) and meetings ofregional groups take place at more frequent intervals. The

Medieval Pottery Research Group has many Continental memberswhose work overlaps with that of British members.Medieval

Ceramics welcomes offers of appropriate articles on all aspects ofceramic research for publication. Notes for contributors are givenoverleaf.

All general correspondence concerned with the Medieval PotteryResearch Group should be sent to The Secretary, MPRG, c/oMuseum of London Specialist Services, Mortimer Wheeler House,46 Eagle Wharf Road,London N1 7ED

MEMBERSHIPAll applications for membership, subscriptions and orders forMedieval Ceramics should be sent to The Treasurer, MPRG, at thesame address.

SUBSCRIPTION RATESIndividual 20Institutional 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 fromBeverley Nenk, Sarah Jennings, Julie Edwards, English Heritage,GUARD, Historic Scotland, MOLAS, the John Wheelwright Societyand the Marc Fitch Fund

The cover design by Graham Reed shows a Chinese export porcelaindish, early 17th century, with typical kraak border (Black, thisvolume).

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


4/84


5/84


6/84

Medieval Ceramics

Papers


7/84


8/84


9/84


10/84


11/84

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. Pinkwith 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


12/84


13/84


14/84


15/84


16/84


17/84


18/84


19/84


20/84


21/84


22/84


23/84


24/84


25/84

A medieval pottery clamp kiln, possible workshop and settlement at Eshott, NorthumberlandMEDIEVAL CERAMICS


26/84

3938

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


18. Fabric 1, type D.Wheel marks

evident. Traces of slip.Glaze spots.Kiln


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. Rimeroded. 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.Void16mm 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.


27/84


28/84


29/84

A l ti f INTRODUCTION


30/84

45

An evaluation ofgeochemicalfingerprinting for the

provenancing ofScottish 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 ofScottish 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 sampleswere 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


31/84


32/84


33/84


34/84


35/84


36/84


37/84


38/84


39/84


40/84


41/84


42/84


43/84


44/84


45/84


46/84


47/84


48/84


49/84


50/84


51/84


52/84


53/84


54/84


55/84


56/84


57/84


58/84


59/84


60/84


61/84


62/84


63/84


64/84


65/84


66/84


67/84


68/84


69/84


70/84

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

MEDIEVAL CERAMICS


71/84

122


72/84


73/84


74/84


75/84


76/84


77/84

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

b E li if i i l i d b h

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


78/84

134

above. Errata slips, even if conscientiously inserted by the

publisher, are notoriously liable to become mislaid, so it might behelpful 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

underGroup 62

, for 813 read 812.

p.239 column 2

in line 4, for 60 read 61;


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


p.263 column 1

under Group 28, for 488-9read 491-92.

J.M. Lewis


79/84


80/84


81/84


82/84


83/84


84/84

Documents

Medieval Ceramics Volume 25 (2001)