Early Post-Medieval Vessel Glass in England, c.1500-1670 190277129X, 9781902771298

Citation preview

EARLY POST-MEDIEVAL VESSEL GLASS IN ENGLAND, c 1500 –1670

by Hugh Willmott

EARLY POST-MEDIEVAL VESSEL GLASS IN ENGLAND, c 1500 –1670

by Hugh Willmott

CBA Research Report 132 Council for British Archaeology 2002

Published 2002 by the Council for British Archaeology, Bowes Morrell House, 111 Walmgate, York YO1 9WA Copyright © 2001 Authors and Council for British Archaeology British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue card for this book is available from the British Library ISSN 0589–9036 ISBN 1-902771-29-X The CBA acknowledges with gratitude a grant from English Heritage towards the publication of this volume. Typeset by Archetype Information Technology Ltd Printed by Pennine Printing Services Ltd

Front cover: 16th-century diamond engraved and gilt tazza, possibly attributable to Giacomo Verzelini (photo courtesy of the Museum of London) Back cover: a late 16th-century cylindrical beaker with thick-cut trailing and enamelled decoration (photo courtesy of H Willmott)

List of Contents

List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi List of plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv

1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The geographical scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The date range of the glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The material examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A note on window glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Previous studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2

The study of post-medieval glass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 The nature and decay of glass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Types of metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Potash glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Soda and mixed-alkali glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Lead-crystal glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Weathering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Quantification and classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Assessing assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Ordering and making sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chemical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Interpreting the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3

The production and importation of glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The production of glass in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Documentary evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The excavation of furnaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Potash furnaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Soda or mixed-alkali furnaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Production techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Vessel formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Decorative techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Early stage techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Late stage techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Post-formation techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The importation of glass into England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Documentary evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

v

European centres and their products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Venice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Antwerp and Low Country façon de Venise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4

The archaeological and social context of glass use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Glass in a contextual setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Monastic sites and the Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Urban sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The chronology of urban glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The context of urban glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 The range of urban glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Scale of deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Elite sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 The chronology and context of elite glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The range of elite glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Scale of deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Identifying contemporary attitudes to glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Glass styles in a wider context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Echoes of the familiar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 New perspectives in style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The changing role of vessel glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The conspicuous consumption of glass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The decline in glass use and the Puritan ethic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Glass on the eve of the lead-crystal revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5

A classification of vessel glass c 1500-1670 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Identifying glass in the classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 The distribution maps and illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Beakers and tankards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 1 Cylindrical beakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2 Barrel beakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3 Squat beakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4 Pedestal beakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 5 Fluted beakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 6 Applied-foot beakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 7 Roemers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 8 Cylindrical tankards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 9 Bellied tankards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Goblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 10 Knopped-stem goblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 11 Mould-blown stem goblets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 12 Compound-stem goblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 13 Pedestal-stem goblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 14 Applied-pedestal goblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 15 Rod and tubular-stemmed goblets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 16 Lids. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Jugs and possets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 17 Open-mouth jugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 18 Narrow-neck jugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 vi

19 Possets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Flasks, bottles, and phials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 20 Globular flasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 21 Oval flasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 22 Pedestal flasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 23 Decanter flasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 24 Conical flasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 25 Bottles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 26 Phials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Bowls and dishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 27 Pedestal bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 28 Hemispherical bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 29 Straight-sided bowls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 30 Dishes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 31 Cylindrical jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 32 Globular jars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Chemical and miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 33 Distillation equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 34 Urinals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 35 Hanging lamps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Summary of sites and published groups of glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Time charts and vessel reconstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

vii

List of figures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

General map of sites mentioned in the text The Kimmeridge furnace The Vauxhall Bridgefoot furnace Distribution of cylindrical beakers Plain cylindrical beakers Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown wrythen ribs Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown bosses Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown mesh Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown ribs and spiral-thread trail Cylindrical beakers with horizontal trails Cylindrical beaker with coloured trailing Cylindrical beakers with thick-cut trailing Cylindrical beaker with thin-cut trailing Cylindrical ice-glass beaker Cylindrical beaker with enamelled decoration Distribution of barrel beakers Trailed barrel beaker Prunted barrel beaker Distribution of squat beakers Plain squat beakers Squat beaker with optic-blown horizontal ribs Squat beaker with optic-blown bosses Squat beaker with optic-blown ribs and bosses Squat beaker with thin-cut trails Squat beaker with coloured trails Distribution of pedestal beakers Plain pedestal beakers Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs Pedestal beaker with optic-blown wrythen ribs Pedestal beaker with optic-blown bosses Pedestal beaker with optic-blown mesh Pedestal beaker with optic-blown roundels Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical and wrythen ribs Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs and mesh Pedestal beaker with horizontal trails Pedestal beaker with coloured trails Pedestal beakers with enamelled decoration Distribution of fluted beakers Cylindrical-fluted beaker Octagonal-fluted beaker Fluted beaker with horizontal and vertical trails Plain applied-foot beakers Distribution of roemers Roemer with pulled prunts Roemer with raspberry prunts Roemer with flattened prunts Roemers with a rod stem Plain cylindrical tankard Cylindrical tankard with a rigaree trail Plain bellied tankard Bellied tankards with coloured trails Goblet bowl forms Distribution of knopped stems Merese stem viii

ix 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Inverted-baluster stem Ribbed inverted-baluster stem Elongated inverted-baluster stem Round-knop stems Ribbed round-knop stems Optic-blown diamond-knop stem Multiple-knop stem Ribbed multiple-knop stem Lion-mask stem features Distribution of mould-blown stems Ladder stem variations Lion-mask stem Ladder stem Distribution of compound stems Wound-serpentine stem Scrolled-serpentine stem Coiled and winged-serpentine stem Twisted-cable stems Distribution of pedestal goblet stems Plain pedestal goblets Pedestal goblet with folded knops Pedestal goblets with optic-blown vertical ribs Pedestal goblet with optic-blown bosses Pedestal goblet with optic-blown roundels Pedestal goblet with horizontal trails Enamelled pedestal goblets Distribution of applied-pedestal goblets Plain applied-pedestal goblet Simple rod-stem goblet Cage-stem goblet Trick goblet Distribution of lids Plain lid Lid with coloured trails Distribution of jugs and possets Plain open-mouth jugs Narrow-neck jugs Narrow-neck jug with wrythen ribs Plain posset Distribution of globular flasks Plain globular flask Globular flask with optic-blown vertical ribs Globular flask with optic-blown wrythen ribs Kuttrolf Distribution of oval flasks Plain oval flask Oval flask with wrythen ribs Distribution of pedestal flasks Plain pedestal flasks Enamelled pedestal flask Double-necked cruet Plain decanter flask Decanter flask with optic-blown vertical ribs Plain conical flask Conical flask with optic-blown ribs Distribution of bottles Square case bottles Hexagonal case bottle Wine bottles Distribution of phials Globular phials Cylindrical phials

x 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 142 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

Sandglasses Distribution of pedestal bowls Plain pedestal bowls Pedestal bowl with optic-blown vertical ribs Opaque white pedestal bowls Plain hemispherical bowl Distribution of straight-sided bowls Plain straight-sided bowls Straight-sided bowl with optic-blown vertical ribs Distribution of dishes Plain dish Disk with optic-blown vertical ribs Distribution of cylindrical jars Plain cylindrical jars Cylindrical jar with optic-blown vertical ribs Cylindrical jar with optic-blown wrythen ribs Cylindrical jar with optic-blown mesh Square jar Distribution of globular jars Globular jars with optic-blown vertical ribs Globular jar with optic-blown wrythen ribs Globular jar with optic-blown bosses and vertical ribs Distribution of distillation equipment Alembic Cucurbit Funnel Distribution of urinals Urinal Distribution of hanging lamps Hanging lamps Gant chart of cylindrical beakers Reconstructions of cylindrical beakers Gant chart of barrel and squat beakers Reconstructions of barrel and squat beakers Gant chart of pedestal beakers Reconstructions of pedestal beakers Gant chart of fluted and applied-foot beakers, roemers, and tankards Reconstructions of fluted and applied-foot beakers, roemers, and tankards Gant chart of knopped-stem goblets Reconstructions of knopped-stem goblets Gant chart of compound and pedestal-stem goblets Reconstructions of compound and pedestal-stem goblets Gant chart of applied-foot and rod-stem goblets, lids, and jugs Reconstructions of applied-foot and rod-stem goblets, lids, and jugs Gant chart of globular, oval, and pedestal flasks Reconstructions of globular, oval, and pedestal flasks Gant chart of decanter and conical flasks, bottles, and phials Reconstructions of decanter and conical flasks, bottles, and phials Gant chart of bowls and dishes Reconstructions of bowls and dishes Gant chart of jars, chemical, and miscellaneous vessels Reconstructions of jars, chemical, and miscellaneous vessels

List of tables

1 2 3

Mansell’s prices for drinking glasses Frequency definitions Summary of site information

xi

List of Plates

Front cover: 16th-century diamond-engraved and gilt tazza, possibly attributable to Giacomo Verzelini. Found at Minster House, London. (Photo: Museum of London) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fragment of heavily corroded potash glass from Greyhound Yard, Dorchester. (Photo: H Willmott) Late 16th or early 17th-century lion-mask goblet stem. Façon de Venise or Venetian soda glass, found at Barnard Castle, Co Durham. (Photo: Univ of Durham) Mid 16th-century trumpet-shaped goblet bowl, decorated with opaque white vetro a fili trails and then inflated into bossed optic mould. Venetian soda glass, found at Coventry. (Photo: H Willmott) Mid 16th-century body fragment, decorated with opaque white vetro a retorti trails. Venetian soda glass, found at Coventry. (Photo: H Willmott) Two 17th-century coiled and winged-serpentine goblet stems. Probably Low Country soda glass, from the Gracechurch Street hoard, London. (Photo: H Willmott) Seventeenth-century cylindrical beaker with optic-blown ribs and overlaid trail. English mixed-alkali glass, from London. (Photo: H Willmott) Early 17th-century inverted-baluster stem goblet. English mixed-alkali glass, from the Gracechurch Street hoard, London. (Photo: H Willmott) Early 17th-century ladder-stem goblet, decorated with mould-blown guilloche pattern. English mixed-alkali glass, from Vauxhall Bridgefoot, London. (Photo: H Willmott) Late 16th-century English potash pedestal goblet, from the Gracechurch Street hoard, London. (Photo: H Willmott) Near complete shaft and globe wine bottle, with heavy surface patination. English potash glass c 1650-80, from Vauxhall Bridgefoot, London. (Photo: H Willmott)

Back cover: a late 16th-century cylindrical beaker with thick-cut trailing and enamelled decoration. Low Country mixed-alkali glass. (Photo: H Willmott)

xii

Acknowledgements

Beuningen, Rotterdam), Reno Liefkes (Victoria and Albert Museum), Arthur McGregor (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford), John Marrow (Norton Priory Museum Trust), Vivienne Metcalfe (Wood Hall Moated Manor Project), Martine Newby, Rachel Nunn (née Tyson), Jennifer Price (University of Durham), Gert Rauws (Dienst Stadsontwikkeling Utrecht), Hedvika Sedlácková (Památkový ústav v Olomouci), John Shepherd (Museum of London Specialist Services), Frans Verhaeghe (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Hubert Vreeken (Amsterdams Historisch Museum), Joanita Vroom (University of Leiden), and Kate Welham (University of Bournemouth). I would also like to thank Christopher Constable for his help with the maps and Linda Bosveld for drawing Figures 64 and 65, as well as the anonymous referees for their many comments. I am grateful to ARCUS for providing me with a workplace to finish this book, whilst Sarah Jennings and Pete Wilson (English Heritage) provided valuable support and observations on its production. Finally I am indebted to my family, and my father in particular to whose memory this book is dedicated.

The core of this research is based on a doctoral thesis (Willmott 1999) undertaken between 1995–9 at the Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, and funded by the AHRB, a University of Durham Postgraduate Award, The Rosemary Cramp Fund, and The Glass Association. Additional research, and the production of this book, would not have been possible without the funding and support of English Heritage. I am indebted to numerous individuals and organisations who allowed me access to the glass in their care, unpublished research materials, or simply provided sound advice. In particular I would like to thank Katey Banks (née Sheale), Peter Bitter (Dienst Stadsontwikkeling Alkmaar), Philippa Bradley (Museum of London Specialist Services), Colin Brain, Duncan Brown (Southampton Archaeology), Epko Bult (Dienst Stadsontwikkeling Delft), Geoffrey Cole (Surrey Heath Archaeological Trust), Paul Courtney, Cecily Cropper (Oxford Archaeological Unit), David Crossley, Julie Edwards (Chester Archaeology), Geoffrey Egan (Museum of London Specialist Services), Andrew Elkerton (Mary Rose Trust), Manela Almeida Ferreira, Hazel Forsyth (Museum of London), Les Good (Bristol City Museum), Pamela Graves (University of Durham), Caroline Jackson (University of Sheffield), Georg Haggrén (University of Helsinki), Matthew Johnson (University of Durham), Jaap Kottman (ROB Amersfoort), Cora Laan (Museum Boymans van

Hugh Willmott Archaeological Research and Consultancy ARCUS University of Sheffield November 2001

xiii

Summary

cussed and those techniques most suited to the study of glass are summarised. The more recent developments in scientific analytical techniques are outlined with their relevance and importance emphasised. Finally the social context and significance of the glass is addressed. Recent trends have emphasised the importance of a more contextualised study of material culture. The different patterns of disposal on urban and high-status sites are outlined, as are the temporal changes in glass use. Contemporary attitudes to glass are explored to explain the styles that evolved over the period. The changing appearance of vessel glass can also be linked to the role that it had in dining and how this was also reflected in the ways that it was used and discarded. This book is intended as a first step for the archaeologist, art historian, collector, and anyone interested in post-medieval vessel glass in England. It presents the material found and an interpretation of it; and will hopefully encourage more people to pursue an active interest in the topic.

Vessel glass is a frequent find on early postmedieval excavations of urban and high-status rural sites. During the last 40 years a surprising number of specialist reports have been published covering glass finds from these excavations, but there has been little attempt to produce a synthesis of the material. More general surveys have contained chapters on early post-medieval glass, but this book presents the first comprehensive classification for the period 1500–1670. All types of vessel glass are considered from conspicuous tableware such as goblets, beakers, and bowls to more utilitarian flasks, bottles, and distillation equipment. It is hoped that this book will prove to be a valuable reference tool for the identification of glass found in archaeological contexts. Not only does it aid in identification but also provides parallels from throughout England, allowing for the relative scarcity and importance of the glass to be calculated. It provides a wider cross-referencing of published and unpublished material. The processes by which assemblages are assessed and quantified are dis-

Zusammenfassung

Breitangelegte Querverweise mit veröffentlichtem und bis jetzt unveröffentlichtem Material werden dadurch ermöglicht. Der gesamte Prozess von Analyse bis Quantifizierung wird dargestellt und die Techniken, die für die Analyse von Glasmaterial am besten geeignet sind, zusammengefasst. Der aktuelle Forschungsstand von wissenschaftlichen Methoden wird beschrieben, wobei besonderer Wert auf deren Relevanz und Wichtigkeit gelegt wird. Der abschließende Teil wird dem sozialen Kontext und der Bedeutung von Glas gewidmet. Nach jüngsten Tendenzen wird die Bedeutung von kulturellen Zusammenhängen bei der Analyse Fundstücken mehr und mehr hervorgehoben. Die diversen Verteilungsmuster von Fundstücken in der Stadtarchäologie und bei Prestigestätten, sowie die zeitlichen Trends im Gebrauch von Glas werden beschrieben. Zeitgenössische Einstellungen gegenüber Glas werden untersucht, um die stilistischen Entwicklungen der Glaskultur zu verstehen. Die

Glasfunde werden in der Stadtarchäologie und ländlichen Prestigestätten häufig zu Tage gebracht. Obwohl es in den letzen 40 Jahren eine beispiellose Anzahl von Veröffentlichungen von Ausgrabungen mit Funden dieser Art gegeben hat, gab es bislang so gut wie keine Versuche eine Synthese dieses Materials zu produzieren. Allgemeine Synthesen beinhalten zwar oft ein Kapitel über den nachmittelalterlichen Zeitraum, aber dieses Buch verkörpert das erste umfassende Werk einer Klassifikation für die Zeit von 1500 bis 1670. Es umfasst alle Typen von Glasgefässen, von Kelchen, Bechern und Schalen bis zu Gebrauchswaren wie Glasbehälter, Trinkflaschen und Destillationsgeräten. Mit diesem Werk ist es hoffentlich gelungen einen umfassenden Katalog zur Identifikation von archäologischen Glassgefässen zusammenzustellen. Es soll nicht nur ein Hilfswerk zur Identifikation sein, sondern auch dazu beitragen Parallelen in ganz England zu ziehen, um den Seltenheitswert und die Bedeutung von Glas präziser einstufen zu können. xiv

xv Veränderungen im Stil von Glasgefässen kann auch mit der Rolle, die sie in der Essenskultur spielte, verknüpft werden und wie dies wiederum in deren Gebrauch und Verbrauch widergespiegelt wird. Dieses Buch ist als Einsteiger für Archäologen, Kunsthistoriker, Sammler und alle, die an Glas aus

dieser Periode interessiert sind, gedacht. Es beschreibt das Fundmaterial und gibt Anregung zu dessen Interpretation. Der Autor erhofft sich mit diesem Werk bei einem weiten Personenkreis das Interesse zu wecken, aktiv an diesem Thema zu forschen.

Sommaire

Le verre pour vaisselle et contenants est fréquemment découvert dans les fouilles de sites urbains et de sites ruraux riches. Au cours des 40 dernières années, un nombre surprenant de rapports spécialisés ont été publiés sur le verre découvert lors de ces fouilles mais il n’y a guère eu d’efforts pour produire une synthèse du matériel. Des études plus générales comportent quelques chapitres sur le verre du début de la période postmédiévale mais ce livre présente la première classification complète pour la période 1500 – 1670. Tous les types de verre sont pris en considération, de la vaisselle évidente comme les gobelets, les hanaps et les bols aux objets plus utilitaires comme les flacons, les bouteilles et le matériel destiné à la distillation. Nous espérons que ce livre se révélera être un précieux outil de référence pour l’identification du verre découvert dans des contextes archéologiques. Non seulement aide-t-il l’identification mais il fournit également des parallèles provenant de toute l’Angleterre, permettant de calculer la rareté et l’importance relative du verre. Il fournit des références à renvoyer plus étendues sur le matériel publié et non publié. Le livre traite des processus par lesquels sont évalués et quantifiés les ensembles et résume les

techniques convenant le mieux à l’étude du verre. Le livre présente les grandes lignes des développements les plus récents des techniques analytiques scientifiques et souligne leur pertinence et leur importance. Finalement, ce livre traite du contexte social et de la signification du verre. Les tendances récentes ont souligné l’importance d’une étude de la culture matérielle mieux placée dans son contexte. Il trace les grandes lignes des différents modèles de mise au rebut sur les sites urbains et les sites ruraux riches, ainsi que celles des changements dans le temps de l’utilisation du verre. Il explore les attitudes contemporaines envers le verre dans le but d’expliquer l’évolution des styles pendant cette période. Le changement d’aspect du verre pour vaisselle et contenants peut également être associé au rôle qu’il a eu dans les repas, et comment ceci a été reflété par la manière dont il était utilisé et jeté. Ce livre est conçu comme première étape pour l’archéologue, l’historien des arts, le collectionneur et tous ceux qu’intéresse le verre pour vaisseaux de la période post-médiévale en Angleterre. Il présente le matériel découvert et l’interprète; et nous espérons qu’il encouragera un plus grand nombre de personnes à poursuivre activement leur intérêt pour ce sujet.

1

Introduction

This book has been written as a guide for both the archaeologist and the layman interested in identifying vessel glass of the post-medieval period in England. Although the topic has been included in other more general works, this book presents for the first time an extensive classification of those vessels in use between 1500 and 1670. Whilst it is intended to be a general overview of the subject, it is by no means the last word. There is no substitution for the knowledge that can be gained by the personal examination and handling of material. The book covers the majority of forms used in England, but is not a complete gazetteer of all glass ever found; future research will almost certainly alter some of the identifications and interpretations presented here. This book should be used as a starting point for further research into what is still a largely understudied area. As well as outlining the typical forms found in England, this book also addresses broader questions concerning the study of post-medieval glass. Glass as a medium differs significantly from pottery, and this is reflected in the methods used to analyse and publish it. The composition, nature, decay, and archaeological weathering of glass are all considered, as are methods of quantification and classification. Likewise the methodologies and potential benefits of the chemical analysis of glass are briefly explored. Finally this book provides a tentative contextual background to the material. Although the identification of forms is important, it is only one aspect in the study of the glass. In the limited space afforded in this book it is only possible to explore some elements of the contextual basis of glass use. However, such an examination is important and hard to divorce from the material. An understanding of the cultural value of glass is crucial to an explanation of why certain types of glass were used, as the two are mutually inclusive. Glass vessels did not operate in a vacuum and neither should their study. This book examines aspects of the background behind the glass and its use, investigating topics pertinent to other areas of artefact studies and to archaeology more generally.

With the exception of a few small assemblages, glass occurs relatively infrequently in Scotland and Wales, although there is increasing evidence that this may not be the case in Ireland. Despite being concentrated on glass found in England, this book will also be of use to anyone examining material from other parts of Britain. Although the nature of the assemblages may vary, the majority of vessels found in other areas will be similar to types that occur here. Indeed this book will also be helpful in understanding some continental and North American groups, particularly those dating to the 17th century, when glass produced in this country was increasingly exported.

The date range of the glass The period covered by this book is c 1500–1670, a time that incorporated the majority of the Tudor and early Stuart reigns. Although this was an important era historically and archaeologically, it has been chosen here more specifically because of the glass in use. By the late 15th century, very little glass was being produced in England, with the exception of some more utilitarian vessels, and the demand for high-quality imported glass was considerably less than it had been in the preceeding two centuries. The start date has also been chosen in order to follow on from the recent survey of medieval vessel glass by Rachel Tyson (2000) which concentrated on the 13th to 15th centuries. An end date of 1670 has been taken for more specific reasons. During this and subsequent decades, fundamental changes took place in both the English industry and the vessels produced. This date marked the scientific development of the new ‘lead-crystal’ metal that was rapidly to become the preferred choice of glass consumers. In a relatively short time these technological developments had profound effects on the glass used in England. Not only was there a desire for this new type of glass, but the properties of the lead-glass medium meant that new styles had to be produced. This is not to say that many forms of soda and potash glass did not continue to be used, but the last three decades of the 17th century marked what can only be described as a revolution in the fine glass market. The innovation of lead-glass has attracted extensive scholarly attention. Some of the vessels produced have already been extensively classified (eg Barrington-Haynes 1959, Bickerton 1984) and the industry documented (eg Charleston 1984a, 109– 96). The innovation also coincides with an increase in the number of glasses that have survived intact from

The geographical scope This study concentrates on the glass found in England rather than the British Isles. This is for practical and archaeological, rather than cultural, reasons. The majority of evidence for glass use comes from England. This is partly due to excavation and publication biases in the past, but also due to a genuine concentration of the material in this area. 1

2 this period, and with the consequent interest from the collector and antique markets. Consequently, the introduction of lead-glass provides a convenient and logical endpoint for this study.

The material examined All the vessels included in this book are derived from archaeological excavation, the majority of which have been published in the last 30 years (Fig 1). Unpublished material largely has not been included, as the purpose of this book is to aid ready comparisons between vessel types and those already in print. There are certain exceptions to this, especially in the classification, when particularly complete or representative vessels have been included in the absence of better published ones. Seven important unpublished assemblages have been included. Glass from Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming), Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming), No 1 Poultry, London (Willmott forthcoming a), and Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) represent some of the most distinguished groups to be excavated in England and are all the subject of forthcoming publications. Two further crucial sites are also incorporated. The first is from Eccleshall Castle, the subject of a comprehensive and accomplished Masters dissertation (Sheale 1993), and Gracechurch Street, London. This last site, although dug in 1939, still remains unpublished, save for several brief notes (Oswald and Philips 1949; Willmott 2000b), despite being one of the most important assemblages in England. This book does not include material from historical collections. Although many of these vessels clearly are of importance, very few have any specific context that is helpful to the understanding of glass use in England. Antiquarian interests formed most of the larger collections, such as those at the Victoria and Albert and British Museums, and they often contain vessels that neither originated from nor were used in England. As a result many of these museums contain disproportionate numbers of certain types. It is not surprising that highly decorative and rare vetro a retorti or engraved glasses make up a significant proportion of these collections, whilst the more common types are often absent. Nevertheless, they are important in showing complete examples of vessels that are often rare and very fragmentary archaeologically. They are also useful tools in bringing historical glass to the forefront of public attention.

A note on window glass This book does not cover the topic of window glass, a separate subject in its own right. The 16th and 17th centuries saw a significant expansion in the use of both domestically produced and imported window glass. Two types of window glass occur. The first, crown glass, was made by blowing a spherical

paraison that was then attached to a pontil iron. The iron was spun whilst the opposing end was opened out with a tool. This resulted in a circular disc, or crown, that was cut up into individual quarries. The second method involved the blowing of a long tube or cylinder that was cut lengthways and opened out to produce a large sheet. Both processes were used throughout this period, although the cylinder glass became more common during the 17th century as it was able to make the larger panes that were becoming more popular (Godfrey 1975, 205). 16th and 17th-century window glass was largely unpainted, and can be hard to identify and date from the fragments alone. Medieval window glass was usually made from a poorer quality potash metal and is almost always heavily weathered and nearly opaque when found archaeologically. Later post-medieval windows were made from better quality potash glass that decayed less readily, and sometimes it is still possible to identify which side had originally faced outwards towards the elements due to the differential weathering. The most accurate way of dating post-medieval window glass is using the lead cames that held the glass in place. Prior to the 16th century these were handmade, but on the introduction of a milling machine a more uniform ‘H-shape’ was achieved. Some indication of the date of these leads can be gained by examining the intervals of the tooth marks produced by the machine on the inside of the came (Egan et al 1986; Knight 1986). The presence of more tooth marks broadly indicates a later date, although an over-reliance on this technique must be treated with caution as it does not allow for local variations or the possibility of the subsequent repair and re-leading of windows.

Previous studies The first comprehensive synthesis of glass from this period appeared in 1897 with Hartshorne’s Old English Glasses, reprinted in 1968 as Antique Drinking Glasses. This work included, in chapters 4– 9, a collection of historical documents relating to the English industry and its products during the 16th and 17th centuries. It also included a survey of surviving continental glasses of this period in museums and private collections, but made little reference to vessels produced or used in England. Hartshorne himself acknowledged the limitations of his work and the need for further research (Hartshorne 1968, ix). The next substantive survey of English material appeared with Thorpe’s English Glass in 1935 (3rd edn 1961). In the preface he states that ‘this book is intended to be a survey of taste in domestic and fancy glass’ (Thorpe 1961, vii). Two chapters were dedicated to the glass of the 16th and 17th centuries. Chapter 3 concentrated on the identification of ten glasses thought to be the product of the historically documented glassmaker Verzelini in the last quarter

3

Figure 1

General map of sites mentioned in the text.

1 Acton Court, 2 Alcester, 3 Baconsthorpe, 4 Bagshot, 5 Barnard Castle, 6 Basing House, 7 Battle Abbey, 8 Bedford, 9 Beeston Castle, 10 Berry Pomeroy Castle, 11 Bristol, 12 Camber Castle, 13 Cannons Ashby, 14 Canterbury, 15 Castle Rising, 16 Chelmsford, 17 Chester, 18 Chichester, 19 Christchurch, 20 Clarendon Palace, 21 Colchester, 22 Denny Abbey, 23 Durham, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 26 Guildford, 27 Hereford, 28 Hull, 29 Lincoln, 30 London, 31 Micheldever, 32 Montgomery Castle, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 35 Northampton, 36 Norton Priory, 37 Norwich, 38 Nottingham, 39 Oxford, 40 Plymouth, 41 Poole, 42 Portchester Castle, 43 Portsmouth, 44 Sandal Castle, 45 Southampton, 46 Staines, 47 Taunton, 48 Temple Balsall, 49 Usk, 50 Wearmouth, 51 West Bromwich, 52 Winchester, 53 Wood Hall

4 of the 16th century. Chapter 4 repeated many of the recorded monopolies, already listed by Hartshorne, granted to glassmakers in the first half of the 17th century. However, Thorpe also identified three goblet forms, often found during building work in London, to this period of manufacture, the first time archaeological material had been considered (Thorpe 1961, 128–31). He correctly suggested that the inverted baluster, elongated inverted baluster (or cigar) and ladder stems were all products of early 17th-century production. Little advance in the knowledge of English glass was made by the publication of the catalogue of the Victoria and Albert Museum’s glass collection, just after the end of the war (Honey 1946). It dealt with English glass in one short chapter consisting of fewer than 30 pages. The majority of the catalogue concentrated on 18th-century material as it was Honey’s view ‘that it [glass of the 16th and 17th centuries] shows no very wide range of achievement’ (Honey 1946, 95). This opinion still prevails in more recent art-historical literature on the subject. Tait’s main contributions to the period, The Golden Age of Venetian Glass and chapter five of 5000 Years of Glass, produced no new information on the glass used in England (Tait 1979; 1991). The former, although obviously concentrating on Venetian products, contributed little to the debate about façon de Venise work, whilst the latter devoted only two pages to glass produced outside Venice during the Renaissance (Tait 1991, 15–17). In 1968 the Masterpieces of Glass exhibition was organised by the British Museum. This and its subsequent publication contained 99 vessels dating from the late 15th to the early 19th centuries (Harden et al 1968, 127–92). Of these, the majority were assumed to be Venetian in origin, with some attention also paid to glass from the southern Low Countries and north Germany. Within the exhibition as a whole there was little reference to English glass, with only two vessels provenanced to Verzelini’s workshop (Harden et al 1968, 143, 231). Despite these criticisms it is important to remember that these syntheses were publications of their times and reflected the current collections of their museums. The value of archaeology in broadening this picture was first demonstrated in 1968, when the then Guildhall Museum organised a display of glasses that originated solely from excavations in London. A total of 79 vessels from a variety of dated 17th-century contexts, including 42 fragments from the Gracechurch Street hoard, were displayed and catalogued (Charleston 1968). This was the first time that the wider importance of archaeological material had been fully realised and that vessels produced and used in England could be identified. No similar exhibition has since been organised in this country. This is not the case in continental Europe. Between the years 1988–91 the exhibition and publication of three important collections of archaeological

glass dating to the medieval and post-medieval periods occurred in Germany, France, and the Netherlands (Baumgartner and Kreuger 1988; Foy and Sennequier 1989; Ruempol and van Dongen 1991). These, and the following Glas Zonder Glans publication in the Netherlands (Henkes 1994), demonstrated the importance of archaeological material in understanding the glass used during this period. They served to highlight the differences between the types of vessels that tend to survive in historical collections and those found archaeologically. These exhibitions also emphasised the variety of local manufacturing traditions, rather than concentrating on the dominance of Venetian products. Despite a lack of a similar exhibition in England in the last decade, these influences can be clearly seen in the present excellent glass display in the Victoria and Albert Museum. The most influential figure on all aspects of post-Roman glass studies in England was Robert Charleston. Whilst Keeper of the Department of Ceramics at the Victoria and Albert Museum he took an active interest in material that was being recovered archaeologically. He published numerous glass reports from excavations from the 1970s to the early 1990s. These significant groups include those from Basing House (Charleston 1971), Southampton (Charleston 1975), Chichester (Charleston 1981), Exeter (Charleston 1984b), Plymouth (Charleston 1986), Winchester (Charleston 1990), and Poole (Charleston 1992) amongst many others, and they have become classic type-sites for 16th and 17thcentury glass studies. In addition to these, Charleston also published a number of more general syntheses of glass (eg Charleston 1977–80; 1978), which culminated in 1984 with his book English Glass and the Glass Used in England. Although glass from the Tudor and Stuart periods only occupied one chapter, this work laid the way forward for further studies. Not only did he record the documented glass industry but also collated his knowledge gained from writing archaeological reports. The result was a brief but informative study of some of the vessel forms of the 16th and 17th centuries, although not a comprehensive classification of the material. Robert Charleston has not been alone in expanding knowledge of excavated English glass from this period. Comprehensive and informative reports have been produced on groups from Canterbury (Shepherd 1990), Norwich (Haslam 1993), Nottingham (Alvey 1973), Oxford (Hassall et al 1984), and Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984) to name but a few. Likewise more general works have included sections on 16th and 17th-century glass (eg Hurst-Vose 1980; Crossley 1990) and the economics and mechanics of the industry have been explored (eg Crossley 1972; 1998). The final areas that have seen intensive study in the last 30 years have been the chemical analysis of glass and the excavation of furnace sites, areas discussed in chapters 2 and 3.

2

The study of post-medieval glass

natural glass in the post-medieval period other ingredients had to be added to the batch. All artificially produced glass prior to the last century required three principal ingredients (Newton and Davison 1989, 4–7). The first was a network former that constituted the basic mass of the glass. This was always silica-based, using either pure sand or crushed and refined pebbles. The second was a network refiner or a flux, and this had the effect of altering the atomic structure of the silica matrix and thus crucially lowering the melting temperature of the batch. A variety of 16th and 17thcentury fluxes were used and these are discussed below. The final ingredient was a stabiliser that ensured that the glass hardened on cooling. The stabiliser used was a calcium carbonate in the form of natural lime. A number of further ingredients were also added to the basic recipe in much smaller quantities (Henderson 1985). Metal oxides such as iron, copper, and cobalt, which reacted differently to diverse furnace conditions, could be used to produce a variety of colours. More importantly during the 16th and 17th centuries manganese was used as a decolourant to remove the natural tint in higher quality soda or mixed-alkali glasses.

All excavations, particularly on urban sites, will recover a certain amount of post-medieval vessel glass. Much of this will be 19th-century or modern in date, and can usually be easily identified through the presence of industrially mould-pressed seams, lettering, or screw tops. However, many assemblages contain earlier post-medieval vessels and these can be harder to recognise. This chapter describes the general properties of 16th and 17th-century glass, such as its composition, appearance, and decay. These characteristics, combined with the typological features outlined in chapter 5, can lead to the positive identification of early post-medieval glass. The chapter also addresses the ways that glass from this period can be studied. Methodologies for the quantification and classification of assemblages are discussed, whilst the techniques and potential of chemical analysis are examined. These processes all lead to a greater understanding of the material and its archaeological context.

The nature and decay of glass The nature of glass and the way that it decays in the soil are important factors in the identification and study of post-medieval glass. The physical properties and constituents of glass as a material determine the way that it appears and can be recognised. Therefore a basic understanding of the chemical properties of 16th and 17th-century glass, which is an extremely complex material, is necessary for its study.

Types of metal Although the classical world produced and used a form of glass chemically similar to the modern material, by the 16th and 17th centuries there were several different varieties. The main differences between these are mainly in the choice of network modifier or flux used in the batch. These varied recipes of glass produced very different qualities and appearances in the metal of the vessel.

Composition Traditionally glass has been classed as a supercooled liquid although this is now realised to be incorrect (Newton and Davison 1989, 4). Now it can be viewed more as a fourth physical state of matter, having the atomic arrangement of a liquid whilst the changes in energy and volume that it experiences with pressure or temperature are characteristic of a solid (Paul 1990, 4). It is this strange mixture of states that gives glass both its translucent property and its incredible strength under compression. Glass in the form of fused silica occurs in the natural world in two states. The most frequently exploited by early societies was obsidian, a material formed from the fusion and quick cooling of volcanic rocks. Another form of natural glass, lechatelierite, occurs in desert areas and results from lightning striking the sand. However, the minimum temperature required to fuse silica is 1720ºC, and to replicate

Potash glass

Potash glass was produced in England from the 13th century onwards, at small-scale furnaces in wooded areas (eg Kenyon 1967). This glass used a flux derived from burnt twigs and branches, primarily from the beech tree and bracken (Newton and Davison 1989, 55). Potash glass is assumed to have developed when traditional sources of soda used by late classical societies were no longer freely available in north-western Europe. The production of potash glass at furnaces in forested areas meant that glassmakers not only had easy access to a ready source of fuel, but also to the source of their flux (Godfrey 1975, 157–8). The so-called forest tradition 5

6 produced a low-quality glass, easily recognised by its natural green tint and its tendency to degrade easily in soil conditions. It would appear that forest glass never had any colourants or decolourants added to the batch that was to be used to make vessel glass. The presence of coloured glass in crucibles and amongst working waste has been noted on some glassmaking sites, (eg Hurst-Vose 1994, 43), although the lack of coloured potash vessels in the archaeological record suggests that these remains related to window glass production. Although always heavily tinted, the quality of potash glass vessels did improve during the late 16th and 17th centuries. This was probably due to the introduction of new more efficient furnace designs by immigrant glassworkers as well as the adoption of coal as a fuel (see chapter 3). Potash glass was used to make all types of vessels from utilitarian to tablewares during this period, although by the second half of the 17th century it was mainly restricted to flasks, bottles, and jars.

Soda and mixed-alkali glass

A high-quality soda glass was first developed and successfully marketed by the Venetians in the 15th century. This clear glass, called cristallo after the rock crystal that it imitated, used a soda flux derived from sea plants of the genus Salicornia kali (Charleston 1984a, 43). By the 16th century, soda glass was being produced in many parts of Europe, although it is less clear where the more regional forms of soda flux were derived from. Soda glass is typified by the appearance of a hard resistant metal, which was made clear with the addition of a decolourant or decolourants, although the metal often has a slight grey tint, probably the result of natural contamination of the ingredients of the glass. Soda glass sometimes had colourants and opacifiers added, occasionally to colour the base metal of the vessel but more usually for use as applied decoration. Soda-based glasses are often very resistant to weathering when buried in archaeological contexts, but do form a surface iridescence. They are also occasionally prone to crizzling. Traditionally glass of this period has simply been classified between the two classes of potash and soda. However, more recent research has started to demonstrate that this is a simplistic division. A purely visual examination of soda glasses, particularly those found in England, demonstrates a variable quality in both the metal and colour of vessels. Chemical analysis of ‘soda’ vessels produced in the Low Countries has revealed that many contained high proportions of potash flux (eg de Raedt et al 1997), and this is probably the case in England as well. Whether there was an intentional mixing of fluxes in the batch, or if this was the result of contamination through recycling is unclear. The waste associated with the 17th-century glasshouse run by

Mansell in Broad Street, London, showed that both potash and soda-based vessels were made at the same furnace (Shepherd nd). Whatever the case may be, there is a distinct group of vessels that can neither be adequately classed as either soda or potash glass. Unfortunately in the absence of chemically testing every fragment these can only be differentiated through subjective observation.

Lead-crystal glass

Whilst lead-crystal glass does not appear in assemblages covered by this book, a brief description is required so that it can be differentiated from other metal types. Within the last fifteen years an early form of glass with a high lead content that can be dated to the 13th and 14th centuries has been identified in northern Europe (Baumgartner and Kreuger 1988, 161–75). Recent research has identified 29 such vessel from England, which have very high lead contents of between 64% and 74% (Tyson 1996, 338). The use of lead oxide in medieval glass seems to have been eclipsed by the production of high-quality soda metals and it was not until the 1670s that there was a revival in its use as a flux. This is usually credited to George Ravenscroft who by 1676 was using up to 30% lead oxide in his glasses (Newton and Davison 1989, 11). However, the use of lead must predate this as Antonio Neri’s L’Arte Vetraria, published in 1612 and translated into English in 1662, devotes a whole chapter to a discussion of lead oxides to produce imitation gemstones as well as drinking glasses (Charleston 1984a, 115). There is even some evidence that lead-glass was first developed on the continent and then adopted in England (Francis 2000). However it is hard to demonstrate whether any of these early continental vessels were exported to England and no fragments of a lead-glass predating the Ravenscroft era have yet been found in England. Lead-glass is surprisingly difficult to identify in an assemblage, particularly when fragmented. If an entire vessel is recovered the comparative differences in mass are more apparent and can easily be measured (eg Elville 1951, 256–60). However, small fragments are frequently mistaken for high-quality soda glass and there are only a few ways of differentiating them. The most obvious feature is the presence of ‘crizzling’, where very fine strain-cracks crisscross the surface of the vessel. Crizzling was a serious problem in the earliest lead-glasses and was caused by insufficient stabiliser in the form of lime in the batch (Newton and Davison 1989, 11). This was a difficulty that was resolved by the end of the 17th century and other features are more indicative of lead-glass. The main characteristic of vessels made in a lead-glass is the medium itself. Due to the greater viscosity of the glass, the vessels formed tend to have thicker rims and bodies than their soda-glass counterparts. Additionally lead-glass is prone to a thick, smooth, and black surface weathering in some

7 archaeological contexts, quite different from the shinier iridescence that forms on soda glass.

Weathering Weathering is the process by which the physical and chemical structure of glass is altered by its deposition in archaeological contexts. Even modern glass will lose significant mass if in constant contact with water (Pollard and Heron 1996, 146), and early post-medieval glass is more prone to decay. The process of chemical decay in glass is complex and varied, but chemical analysis of the surface layers reveals that the ground water and minerals present in the soil leach out most of the oxides in the glass leaving an unstable silica crust (Cox and Ford 1993). Almost every fragment of 16th and 17th-century glass recovered from an archaeological context will show some signs of weathering. The extent to which this varies is dependent on the soil conditions that it came from and the glass’ metal. Soils that are damper and more acidic tend to hasten the decay of glass, whilst dryer environments are less detrimental. Soda and mixed-alkali glasses, which have a stronger crystalline matrix, are less prone to heavy decay, although most fragments made in these metals can develop a light flaky iridescent sheen. Potash glass on the other hand can often experience severe weathering and ultimately complete devitrification, where the glass breaks down entirely into a crumbly silica powder. Although potash glasses also develop an iridescent surface, their weathering also appears as a deep disease-like pitting (Plate 1). Although the majority of excavated glass neither requires nor receives conservation, it is important to note that sudden changes in environment can radically affect vessels, even if they do not appear unduly weathered. Whilst it is inevitable that some of the surface weathering will flake off excavated glass, sometimes vessels can undergo rapid deterioration on being removed from the soil. It is a common misconception that glass should be packed in wet conditions once removed from an archaeological context. This is potentially the most destructive course of action unless the vessel has been recovered from a totally waterlogged context, as the sudden saturation of the glass can cause severe delamination of the surface. If in a potentially fragile state glass should be kept in an environment most similar to that it came from until it can receive specialist conservation (Newton and Davison 1989, 136).

Quantification and classification Once any artefact type has been recovered it must then be assessed and categorised, so that the material can be ordered and understood. The techniques for doing this vary for different types of finds and some of those best suited to 16th and 17th-century glass are outlined below.

Plate 1 Fragment of heavily corroded potash glass from Greyhound Yard, Dorchester. (Photo: H Willmott)

Assessing assemblages The first stage in assessing a glass assemblage addresses two questions. The first is concerned with identifying the vessels present, and chapter 5 of this book is designed for that purpose. The second concerns the quantification of the material – understanding the differing proportions of vessel types at an intra- and infra-site level. Theoretically the quantification of any assemblage is problematic, with many external factors affecting the relative artefact numbers, such as the vessel’s life span, patterns of rubbish disposal, and site formation processes. Within pottery studies four techniques have been developed for the quantification of assemblages (in-depth discussions of these can be found in Orton et al 1993, 166–81), and it is worth considering whether these are applicable to glass. The first is by using a basic sherd count, where individual types are counted together and their relative percentages compared (eg Ford 1962). The second method uses a sherd weight, or sometimes surface area, percentage ratio in a similar way to a sherd count to assess variable proportions of vessel types used on and between sites (eg Millet 1979). A third, more statistically based technique, uses vessel-equivalents. The proposition is that a sherd represents a certain proportion of a whole vessel, and these can be given scores

8 (Orton et al 1993, 21). A complete pot would register 1, and less complete sherds a lower score. In reality the method can only be undertaken on the distinctive portions of the pot, such as the rim, where the relative completeness can be assessed. The resulting vessel-equivalent scores are then used for comparison. The final method for assessing assemblages uses a minimum and maximum vessel number count. Those sherds that show sufficient variability, again such as rims, are distinguished. A minimum count establishes the least number of vessels that could account for the assemblage, whilst the maximum number count assumes that each distinctive portion (unless it joins another) represents a separate vessel. However, there are two fundamental differences between pottery and glass that alter the effectiveness of these techniques when applied to glass – the lack of a fabric and the far smaller quantities of glass that are generally found. Simple sherd counts do not work with fragments of glass. Due to the lack of an observable fabric glass can only be categorised by its general metal or colour type. Likewise an absence of a glass ‘fabric’ makes the use of vessel-equivalents impossible. In a highly fragmented assemblage the uniformity of the individual glass pieces does not provide enough definition to be able to work out their relative proportion to the whole vessels that they represent. Finally the use of weight counts as a quantitative method fails, as it does not take into account the greater diversity that occurs in vessel glass as opposed to pottery. For example a potash wine bottle may weigh ten to twenty times as much as a potash phial, so the presence of a single example will heavily influence and distort the quantification. Despite some problems of subjectivity, minimum and maximum vessel number counts remain the most effective method for the quantification of glass of this period. Whilst the reliance on distinctive vessel parts is an obstacle when dealing with large pottery assemblages, with the smaller groups of glass recovered these diminish. The other advantage this method has is that it provides a size range for an assemblage that can be narrowed, albeit subjectively, given the context of the deposit. If all the glass comes from a very confined and undisturbed context, such as a pit, the minimum vessel number is likely to be the most accurate, whilst if all the glass comes from dispersed contexts across the site the opposite is likely to be true. Occasionally it must be conceded that some assemblages will not sustain this level of detailed quantification. It is important that any attempt to do so by any technique must be followed by the usual caveats.

tinuously contested and refined. The classification argument has centred around two debates. The first considers that all artefact types contain empirical properties that are implicit within them and that these can be identified and used to naturally order the material (eg Spaulding 1953; Clarke 1968; Palm and Pind 1992). The second disputes this premise and argues that natural and universal categories within material culture do not exist but are the result of the observer’s own perceptions (eg Ford 1954; Brown 1985). Although this debate is more marginal to the context of this book, it does have important implications on how glass should be categorised and ordered. Whilst the validity of constructed typologies can be questioned, their importance has still not diminished. Even though few people would now argue that a classification is ‘natural’ and recognisable by the contemporary users of an item of material culture, they still remain important archaeological tools. The classification presented in this book is just one way the material might be ordered. It has been constructed for a specific purpose – the easy identification of material commonly found on English excavations. The way that the glass classification is presented in this book differs from the way that similar categorisations have previously been undertaken, particularly in excavation reports. As part of this book is an identification guide, the form, function, and decoration have been used as the primary elements of classification. In contrast, traditional specialist reports have initially divided the glass by metal type and then by date before form and decoration (eg Charleston 1975; 1990). Neither approach is invalid, indeed recent trends have seen a more integrated approach where artefacts of all media are reported on together by context rather than being fragmented into separate types (eg Thomas 1997). However glass assemblages are sorted and classified it must be for a defined purpose. Typologies are not a natural ordering, but important exploratory tools that should be used to answer specific research questions. No value lies in the classification of glass, or any other artefact type, just for its own sake.

Chemical analysis The last 30 years have seen the development of a number of scientific techniques that can be applied to the study of glass. It is important that anyone studying archaeological material is aware of these, for correctly used they have the potential to answer many important research questions.

Ordering and making sense Techniques Since the foundation of the concepts of typological classification in the late 19th century (eg Pitt-Rivers 1891; Montelius 1903), the process by which artefacts are ordered and categorised has been con-

There are a large number of analytical techniques that have been used to examine all aspects of glass. Early attempts were made to date glass through

9 counting the number of weathered layers (Brill and Hood 1961) or by the thickness of the surface leaching (Lanford 1977), but these have now been largely discredited. Today the majority of techniques focus on determining the trace elements present in the glass, as these will vary between manufacturing traditions and individual vessels. The specific scientific techniques differ with each researcher and the equipment that they use, and only a few more general processes are outlined here. Although the mechanics of each procedure are less important to the archaeologist there are a number of techniques, and these can be divided between non-destructive and destructive processes. Non-destructive processes are those where the surface or broken edges of the vessel can be examined without damaging the glass. X-ray fluorescence is commonly used on a variety of artefact types and can be applied to glass (Jenkins 1974). The fragment is bombarded with X-rays that it emits back in an altered form characteristic of the elements within the sample (Pollard and Heron 1996). Electron microprobe analysis works in a similar way, but instead a scanning electron microscope is used to emit radiation to excite a response (Reed 1993). Both these techniques have the advantage that the glass is superficially unharmed but they are not as accurate as more destructive processes. They will only analyse the surface of the vessel, which may have been chemically altered or leached during archaeological deposition. Electron microprobe analysis can be made a more accurate technique when used destructively. If the sample is mounted in resin and then polished a flat clean surface is exposed. This provides a less contaminated section of glass to be analysed. Consequently destructive processes have the advantage of sampling the entire cross-section of the fragment. With most of these techniques the sample is ground and then diluted. Emission spectrometry uses an electric current that is passed through the sample, and the resulting release of radiation can be studied for the constituent trace elements (eg Sayre and Smith 1974). A more complex and increasingly less common technique that uses a similar sample is atomic absorption spectroscopy. The sample is passed in front of a cathode discharge lamp that emits varying wavelengths of light dependent on the elements present (van Loon 1980). A simpler and more recent variation on this technique is inductively coupled plasma source spectrometry. Here the sample is sprayed into an argon plasma beam and the resulting elec-

tron transitions show which elements are present (Thompson and Walsh 1989).

Interpreting the results Some of the principal techniques employed to analyse glass for its trace elements have been discussed above. However, by themselves none of these processes are informative about the actual glass vessel unless the analysis is undertaken as part of a specific research agenda. The publication of tables of analytical data, either as appendices to artefact reports or in their own right, has been quite common in the past, a trend that still continues today (eg Hunter and Heyworth 1998). Knowing the composition of a glass vessel only has real value if it forms part of a comparative study that incorporates both scientific and archaeological research questions. An example of a particularly successful study, which is relevant to the content of this book, has been an integrated analysis of the composition of 16th and 17th-century vessel glass excavated in Antwerp (de Raedt et al 1997; 1998; 2000). The importance of the 16th-century glass industry in Antwerp has long been recognised (eg Denissen 1985) and the objective of that study was to attempt to differentiate between Venetian, Antwerp-produced façon de Venise glass, and other metal types. The trace elements of a large number of glass vessels were sampled using electron microprobe analysis and it was found that variations in the strontium/rubidium ratio, which occurred naturally in the local sand or other silica sources, could be used to sort the sample fragments into fairly well-defined groups (de Raedt et al 1997, 372). Archaeologically these results were interesting when compared with the typological differences between the sampled vessels. Not only could Antwerp façon de Venise glass be differentiated from that produced in Venice, but also regional differences could be seen between potash glass forms (de Raedt et al 1997, 373). This case study is just one example where scientific analysis can very successfully answer specific questions when tightly framed within an archaeological research project. In the future, scientific techniques have the potential to help answer many of the traditional arguments concerning the provenance and distribution of glass. This is of particular interest in the study of 16th and 17th-century vessels, where it is often difficult to identify regional differences and manufacturing traditions.

3

The production and importation of glass

Most assemblages of glass found in this country will contain a mixture of both domestically produced and imported vessels. There is considerable documentary and archaeological evidence for domestic production as well as imports from abroad. This chapter reviews this evidence and the way it is reflected in assemblages.

established a furnace at Crutched Friars, near the Tower of London, for the production of façon de Venise drinking glasses. Documentary evidence suggests that those employed were Flemish in origin, although in 1570 the Venetians Quiobyn Littery and Giacomo (Jacob) Verzelini were brought from Antwerp (Godfrey 1975, 19–22). On the death of Carré in 1572, Verzelini took control of the glassworks. He was an experienced glassmaker, having worked in Antwerp for twenty years. Within two years he had secured a 21-year monopoly on the production of façon de Venise drinking glasses, preventing the importation of similar vessels from abroad (Godfrey 1975, 28–30). He is known to have employed Muranese workers and the French engraver Anthony de Lysle (Charleston 1984a, 58). Giacomo Verzelini appeared to have successfully managed the monopoly for its duration, becoming naturalised and a well-known figure of the mercantile community. In the Jewell House of Art and Nature of 1594, Sir Hugh Platt recommends his services: ‘For glasses with broade skirts … I doe thinke there are inough to bee had if you can bee so gracious with master Jacob of the glashouse’ (Platt 1979, bk I, 3). His control of the English fineware market was lost only when his monopoly expired in 1595 (Godfrey 1975, 40). The influence of foreign workers was not only felt in the new fineware industry, but also in the established centres of forest glass production. The religious persecutions of the 1570s in France and the Low Countries resulted in the arrival of significant numbers of migrant glassworkers to England (Godfrey 1975, 34–5). Although their establishment of new furnaces was initially restricted to the south of England, by the 1590s they were documented as far north as Staffordshire (Godfrey 1975, 36). It is probable that the increased number of potash vessels and the wider range of styles during the late 16th century can be attributed to these new migrants. With the monopoly of Verzelini due to end in 1595, an Englishman, Sir Jerome Bowes, was granted in 1592 a revision of that granted to Verzelini, to come into force when the latter’s expired. This patent was initially issued for twelve years and later extended for a further 21. As soon as it became effective, Bowes financed the foundation of a furnace at Black Friars in London, probably staffed by Verzelini’s workmen and managed by William Robson (Godfrey 1975, 40). Bowes, a retired courtier, seems to have taken little active role in the running of the glass industry. However, the monopoly suffered serious setbacks, not least with the establishment of a rival glasshouse at Winchester House, Southwark, by Edward Salter in 1608 (Godfrey 1975, 45). It avoided Bowes’ mono-

The production of glass in England The evidence for glass production in England comes primarily from two sources. There has been extensive research into the documented movement of immigrant glassmakers into England during the 16th century and the period of English monopolies during the 17th century (eg Kenyon 1967; HurstVose 1980; Crossley 1990; although the most comprehensive is Godfrey 1975). In addition to these there has been the excavation of furnace sites, which together with the documentary sources combine to give a detailed picture of glass production during this period.

Documentary evidence The existence of a glass industry in medieval England has been comprehensively discussed (eg Kenyon 1967; Charleston 1984a). However, by the beginning of the 16th century there seem to have been few furnaces in operation, and these were limited to the production of simple potash vessels. The migration of foreign workers to England and the establishment of a fineware industry during the later 16th century has been described in great detail (Thorpe 1961; Godfrey 1975; Charleston 1984a). Nevertheless for the purpose of this book a brief résumé of the specific influences of these immigrant groups is required. The earliest reference to immigrant glassworkers comes in 1549, when eight Muranese were said to have established a furnace in London (Powell 1923, 27–9). However, this venture seems to have failed as within two years all but one had returned to Venice. It was to be a further eighteen years before a more successful attempt was made to found a fineware industry in London. In 1567 Jean Carré, a native of Arras, who seemingly spent most of his career as a glassworker in Antwerp, arrived in London (Godfrey 1975, 17). He obtained a licence to produce Venetian-style glasses and within a year had gained a patent, in conjunction with the Flemish merchant Anthony Becku, to be the sole producer of window glass (Godfrey 1975, 19). It was then that Carré 10

11 poly rights, which only covered Venetian-style drinking glasses, by producing cruets, trencher plates, salts, and tall-sided beakers. Factors other than the establishment of rival furnaces proved a greater threat to the glass industry in the first decades of the 17th century. There were growing concerns over the destruction of woodland for fuel by both the iron and glass industries. This provided a period of uncertainty for the glass monopolies until 1613, when all previous patents were suppressed by the Crown and the use of wood as a fuel outlawed (Godfrey 1975, 74). This situation clearly had been anticipated as early as 1615 when a company headed by Edward Zouche secured a patent to produce fineware drinking vessels using furnaces which had been successfully modified through experiment to use coal (the physical differences of these furnaces have been identified through excavation and are discussed below). Zouche’s company was quickly bought out by one of the directors, Sir Robert Mansell, who established a new furnace at Broad Street, London for the production of high-quality glasses (Godfrey 1975, 81). By 1616 there was an apparent scarcity of vessel glass, particularly the cheaper potash glass, probably brought on by the forced closure of the old wood-burning furnaces. In response to this situation Mansell opened new furnaces at Wollaton in 1616 and Kimmeridge in 1617, the latter apparently experimenting with oil shale as a fuel (Godfrey 1975, 95). Mansell’s position was further improved when during the subsequent year he was able to close down all forest glass competition, effectively dominating the entire market, and to establish further furnaces at St Catherine’s, London, and Newcastle (HurstVose 1980, 116). Over the next two decades he secured the complete domination of the English market; in 1623 his patent was re-issued, then again in 1635 to include Ireland as well (Hurst-Vose 1980, 116). Furthermore, in 1630, he gained a royal decree banning the importation of all foreign vessels. By 1635, despite being in its strongest position under Mansell, the English glass industry was about to suffer near collapse. The reasons for this were threefold. Firstly, the latest revision of Mansell’s monopoly resulted in far higher rents to the Crown, which in turn was reflected in higher retail prices (Hurst-Vose 1980, 117). Secondly, in 1640 the Scots invaded northern England, curtailing production at Newcastle and, more importantly, cutting off the supply of coal for Mansell’s furnaces in London (Godfrey 1975, 131). However, the final blow came at the onset of the Civil War in 1642, when Parliament abolished all patents relating to the glass industry (Godfrey 1975, 133). During the middle of the 17th century the industry in some other European centres was in decline. Certainly it was a period of marked stagnation in French glass production and the start of a well-recognised decline in the Venetian manufacturing tradition (Godfrey 1975, 134). However this was a time when the Low Country and Central European centres con-

tinued to flourish. Despite this, with the Restoration in 1660 there were fresh attempts to establish a native fineware industry. The same year the Duke of Buckingham founded a glasshouse at Charterhouse Yard and sought a patent from the King to exclude competition (Charleston 1984a, 98). The following year Martin Clifford, an associate of the Duke, was granted a fourteen year licence and patent to make ‘cristall glasse’ (Thorpe 1961, 139). In 1663 Buckingham’s patent was extended to include the manufacture of mirrors and within twelve months a proclamation was issued banning the importation of all mirror glass (Charleston 1984a, 99). To undertake this branch of glass production a new furnace was established at Vauxhall, to be managed by a John Bellingham, for the sole production of mirrors and this continued in use into the 18th century. The location of vessel glass production is less certain, but it is usually assumed that the ‘Italian Glasse-house at Greenewich, where was Glasse blowne of finer mettal, than that of Muran’ visited by John Evelyn in 1673 was controlled by the Duke of Buckingham (Charleston 1984a, 100). Despite this contemporary account, the size of native production is not likely to have been great. The Venetian ambassador was caused to note that in 1674: ‘The [English] glass trade also might revive, though it now suffers’ and that the glasses produced were ‘soft, fragile and extremely dear’ (Charleston 1984a, 108).

The excavation of furnaces Potash furnaces

During the last 40 years, there has been extensive excavation of English potash furnace sites. An early pioneer of these inquiries was the Revd Thomas Cooper. Cooper was a resident of Chiddingfold in Surrey and through his investigations as a local historian of parish records recognised the presence of glassmaking families. He started to look for evidence of the activities of glassmakers and between 1911 and 1918 excavated four sites with evidence of glass dating to the 16th century (Kenyon 1967, 5–11). Cooper’s work was expanded upon by Winbolt, who surveyed the parishes south of Chiddingfold and dug sections through a variety of furnace sites. His work culminated with the publication of ‘Wealden Glass’ outlining his recording of furnaces and some of the glass found from them (Winbolt 1933). This material dated from the 14th to the early 17th century and Winbolt was the first person to realise the extent of English glass manufacture in the Weald. However these early investigations provided little information on the nature of glass production during the 16th and early 17th centuries. It has only been in recent years that a more thorough identification and excavation of production sites within and beyond the Weald has been undertaken. The historical sources suggested that glass production was limited until

12 the arrival of foreign immigrants in the latter half of the 16th century and this has been confirmed archaeologically. Kenyon’s research in the Weald has revealed that the 40 identified sites can be divided into two clear periods – the early examples dating between 1330–1567 and the later ones from 1567–1618 (Kenyon 1967, 13–14). Excavations at the sites of Bagot’s Park, Staffordshire (Crossley 1967), dating to the 1530s, and Knightons, Surrey (Wood 1982), from the 1550s, have illustrated the classic form of the earlier furnace type. In both cases the furnace was of a similar rectangular shape to their medieval precursors. They had a central flue, with two siege benches on either side that held around six crucibles. Both sites had separate annealing ovens, of which only fragmentary remains survived. Bagot’s Park, in particular, produced remains of the furnace’s products. These consisted of simple forms in the medieval tradition, including flasks and urinals as well as typical plain early 16th-century beakers (Crossley 1967, 69). Excavation has revealed the changes in furnace design that took place during the second half of the 16th century, presumably introduced by immigrant workers, which enabled a more efficient and higher firing temperature (Crossley 1990, 228–9). Examples include Buckholt in the Weald (Kenyon 1967, 214–7), Bickerstaffe, Lancashire (Hurst-Vose 1995), and, most importantly, the two Yorkshire furnaces at Hutton and Rosedale (Crossley and Aberg 1972). All these furnaces had wedge-shaped ‘wing fans’ radiating from the end of the flue, which were stokeable from both ends, to help funnel wind through the furnace. With this greater control of the draught temperatures could be greatly increased, improving the quality of the melt. This was reflected in the quality of the glass produced, which was found in particularly large quantities at Rosedale (Charleston 1972a), the furnace of which was archaeomagnetically dated to between 1580–1600. The vessel glass was more durable and had a clearer colour than the glass produced in the Weald, suggesting a more efficient melting of the batch. There was a more diverse range of vessels produced, including pedestal and cylindrical beakers, pedestal goblets, flasks, and bowls. The glass recovered from Rosedale illustrates the problem of identifying products from finds on furnace sites. Several fragments, such as a kuttrolf neck, were clearly not made on the site but represent collected cullet (Charleston 1972a, 142, no CIII). However, the majority of the glass recovered from Rosedale was production wasters from the site. The final development of furnace design in this period can be directly linked to the banning of wood as a fuel in 1613 (Godfrey 1975, 74). Comprehensive excavation has been undertaken at two such sites, Haughton Green, Manchester (Hurst-Vose 1994), and Kimmeridge, Dorset (Crossley 1987). The latter of these sites was the one identified as having been established by Mansell in 1617, and subsequently taken over by Clavell, which was in operation until its demolition in 1623 (Godfrey 1975, 95). At Kimmer-

idge the basic design of the furnace remained the same (Fig 2), however the oil shale fuel was placed in the centre of the furnace, as opposed to at either end of the flues, and on a raised plinth (Crossley 1990, 133– 5). The flues also ran further beyond the radiating fans increasing the draught, and therefore allowing a greater heat to be achieved, as well as providing easier access to clear them of ash. The finds from Kimmeridge and Haughton Green (dated by documentary evidence to 1615) were in a higher quality potash glass. Fragments of beakers, flasks, bowls, and dishes were recovered from both sites in a durable often near clear metal, resulting from the higher heat generated by the use of coal (Crossley 1987, 355–67; Hurst-Vose 1994, 24–38). However, the excavations failed to reveal a further innovation that is supposed to have occurred in this period to the design of the crucibles. Whilst open pots were used in the earlier wood-burning furnaces, it had been thought that closed vessels were required to prevent contamination from soot in the coal or oil shale furnace. The crucibles from Kimmeridge were, however, open, although there is tentative evidence that some from Haughton Green might have had lids (Hurst-Vose 1994, 45–8). The earliest examples of true closed crucibles found so far in England came from the late 17th and early 18th-century furnace at Bolsterstone, South Yorkshire (Ashurst 1987, 184– 9). Fewer potash furnaces have been identified archaeologically after the Civil War period. That potash glass is increasingly less common on sites is likely to reflect a diminishing demand for it as a metal. This apparent lack of manufacture is probably a true reflection of the contemporary situation, although an exception to this is the documented production of bottles from the Interregnum onwards (Godfrey 1975, 134). This latter is a picture confirmed archaeologically, with the appearance of the wine bottle and the increasing number of small potash glass phials. However, the furnaces that these were produced at are less well known. It appears that a well-preserved late 17th-century furnace excavated at Vauxhall Bridgefoot London (Fig 3), was a centre for early wine bottle production (Willmott and Tyler forthcoming). The waste recovered from Mansell’s Broad Street furnace demonstrates that both potash and mixed-alkali glasses were being produced at the same London furnace as early as the first quarter of the 17th century (Shepherd nd), and the same is likely to be the case for later furnaces.

Soda or mixed-alkali furnaces

Whilst there is an abundance of information on English potash glass production deriving from excavation, the opposite is the case for soda or high-quality mixed-alkali furnaces. The reasons for this are twofold. First, as can be seen from the contemporary documentation, fewer high-quality glass furnaces were built

13

Figure 2

The Kimmeridge furnace

Figure 3

The Vauxhall Bridgefoot furnace

14 during the period of glass monopolies. There was either insufficient demand for higher quality products, or a shortage of skilled workmen to produce a greater quantity of vessels. Second, it seems that the majority of furnaces for high-quality glass were built at the heart of their primary market, London. As opposed to the rural location of most forest furnaces, those built in London, such as Crutched Friars, Black Friars, Winchester House, and Broad Street, were located in the middle of densely populated areas. Subsequent development on these sites has either destroyed them or prevented their archaeological investigation. No glasshouse from London has been properly reported to date, although a brief note on a 17thcentury furnace at Hopton Street has been published (Ridgeway 2000) and the Vauxhall glasshouse is to be the subject of a monograph (Willmott and Tyler forthcoming). Despite this there is limited evidence to suggest what vessels were being produced. During 1990, excavations in the Old Broad Street area of the city, close to the position of Mansell’s glasshouse of 1615, revealed not only dumps of broken glass but also production waste (Shepherd nd). The waste included moils, paraison ends, unworked lattimo canes and trimmings. The vessel fragments contained halffinished items, and those that could be identified were all goblets of the inverted baluster, cigar and ladder types, which had been previously suggested to be products of the Mansell period (Thorpe 1961, 128–31; Charleston 1984a, 68–9). Similar working debris has also been recovered from Bankside, Southwark, although it is not possible to identify any potential products for certain (Egan 2000). Although it is not possible to characterise the type of furnace in use in the City, it is probable, at least during the Mansell period, that they were of the radiating ‘wing-fan’ type identified at Rosedale, amongst other sites. Indeed the furnace at Winchester House was described as a ‘wind furnace’ in the contemporary documentation (Crossley 1990, 235), suggesting it was of a form which effectively funnelled draughts into the flues. After the Restoration the documentary evidence for fineware production under the control of the Duke of Buckingham suggests the presence of several furnaces in London. As yet there is no evidence for either the furnace at Charterhouse Yard or at Greenwich. The late 17th-century furnace at Vauxhall Bridgefoot, whilst primarily producing potash wine bottles also seems to have made soda vessels as well. This furnace did not have any ‘wing fan’ structures, but instead had a very long flue with shutters at either end to help regulate the air flow.

Production techniques Vessel formation From the first exploitation of glass in the mid 2nd millennium BC until the mid 1st century BC, vessels

were either made by core-forming or casting (for modern reconstructions of these processes see Gudenrath 1991). However, the invention of glassblowing around 50BC in the Syria/Palestine area revolutionised the glassmaking industry resulting in the first mass exploitation of it as a vessel medium. During the post-Roman period in western Europe almost all vessel glass was free-blown, a tradition that continued until the 19th century with the introduction of mechanised mould-blowing and pressing. The 16th and 17th centuries were no exception to this and all vessel glass was formed on the end of a blowpipe. Although the formative techniques used varied depending on what type of vessel was being produced, they generally shared similar characteristics that help identify glass from this period. Many vessels were made from a single paraison, or bubble of glass, and the whole of this was shaped to form the vessel. Initially the end of the hollow blowpipe was dipped in the crucible containing the glass and rotated to pick up a suitably sized gather. This was then marvered, or rolled on a flat surface, to produce an evenly shaped blob of glass before it was inflated to the approximate size of the vessel. The first part of the vessel to be shaped was usually the base, which was at the farthest end of the glass bubble from the blowpipe. This could be a simple push-in or a more complex folded base-ring, and was achieved by a combination of marvering and tooling the bubble. Once these processes had formed the base and the main body of the vessel, an iron pontil rod was attached to the base with a small disc of glass. The vessel was then removed from the blowpipe whilst being held by the pontil iron, by scoring around the edge and cracking it off with a sharp tap. The resulting open edge was then further tooled to the shape of the final rim and fire-rounded by rotating it in the furnace mouth to smooth the sharpness. More complex vessels produced from several paraisons of glass, such as many goblet types, were made in a similar way. Each paraison was formed on the blowpipe and attached to the other constituent parts of the vessel usually with a thin disc, or merese, of glass. Although, both elements could be effectively attached without a merese, it made it easier for the glassmaker to join the various parts in a more visually acceptable way. A vessel formed from several parts was generally constructed from the top down. With a three-piece goblet, for example, the bowl was blown first and left on the blowpipe. The stem was then attached to the bowl and finally the base. A pontil iron was attached to the base, the rim cracked away from the blowpipe and finished before the entire vessel was removed and allowed to cool. During the formation process the whole vessel had to be kept at a more or less consistent temperature, too hot and it would sag, too cold and it could not be shaped properly. Throughout the whole process the glassmaker had to constantly reheat the vessel in the furnace mouth to maintain the correct working temperature. Once finished the vessel had to be placed in

15 a special cooling, or annealing, furnace (sometimes known as a lehr) where the temperature was gradually lowered. This final stage was required to prevent differential cooling stresses developing within the vessel, which would lead to shattering had it been simply left in the outside air.

Decorative techniques There were numerous ways that a glassmaker could decorate and enhance a plain vessel. Any number of these could be used on the same glass, and can be categorised according to the stage of the manufacturing processes at which they were undertaken.

Further motifs seen on vessels consist of a moulded diamond or lozenge pattern, depressed roundels or hexagons, and raised bosses. With all these types, the pattern was often significantly distorted during the removal of the vessel from the mould and its subsequent manipulation. Very occasionally the paraison was blown into an optic mould twice to produce a compound decoration. A beaker fragment from St Peter’s Street, Northampton, was initially decorated with twisted wrythen ribbing and then reinflated into the vertically ribbed mould, producing a pressed wrythen design (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299 no. 68).

Optic-blowing and trailing Early stage techniques

Early stage decorative techniques were those which were undertaken whilst the vessel was still a paraison attached to the blowpipe. The paraison was decorated and then further inflated and manipulated to form the final vessel, usually stretching or distorting the decorative pattern.

The chequered-spiral design, produced primarily in the southern Low Countries but also in Germany and England, is a slight variation of the optic-blown decoration that occurs mainly on beakers (Tait 1967). In this technique a trail is wound around the paraison of glass before it is inserted into a vertically ribbed mould. On inflation the mould cut and flattened the trail, producing a distinct impressed pattern of raised rectangles. The vessel was then formed into the desired shape.

Optic-blowing

The most common early stage decorative technique was optic-blowing. The paraison of glass was inflated into a single-piece patterned mould. On removal the paraison was further inflated and manipulated to produce a vessel with the expanded design on its surface. The finished vessel might be completely covered with the optic decoration. However, in the areas of the greatest subsequent inflation, such as the body of a globular flask, the decoration might be stretched to a point where it was no longer visible. Likewise the area of glass closest to the blowpipe was often not inflated inside the mould, so this part, usually near the rim of the vessel, remained undecorated. Moulds were almost certainly made in soft workable stone (as was the case with the two examples discussed below), although it is not inconceivable that plaster or fired clay could have been used. The most common optic decoration was produced from a mould decorated with vertical ribs. Two examples of vertical-ribbed stone moulds have been found at Solling, in the Netherlands, and at Nassachtal, Germany (Henkes 1994, 129; Baumgartner and Kreuger 1988, 35–6). They are also present in one of the engravings which accompanied Agricola’s De Re Metallica (Agricola 1950). This type of mould was not only used to produce a vertically ribbed design but also the more common spiralribbed or wrythen pattern. In this latter design the paraison was twisted after it was removed from the mould. There were a variety of other decorative forms produced by optic-blowing, although no fragments of their moulds have yet been recovered.

Mould-blowing

Mould-blowing differs from optic-blowing in that the mould must be made in two or more pieces to enable the removal of the glass. Additionally, the mouldblown element is little altered subsequent to its removal. This technique was primarily used to make decorative knop stems for goblets (Plate 2). During the 16th and 17th centuries it is uncertain what was used to make the mould. Certain organic materials, such as wood, can be discounted due to their flammable nature. Likewise, fired clay would suffer heat degradation and probably would not have lasted a long time. Consequently it would seem that the mould was made from a metal alloy, which could not only be thin but also very resistant to the heat of the glass. The use of copper alloy in other periods, such as the 6th to 7th-century hexagonal mould from Samaria (Kenyon 1957, 451) and an Islamic mould in the David Collection, suggests that this was a perfectly suitable material (von Folsach and Whitehouse 1993, 150).

Ice glass

The final early stage technique involved a different process. A thick paraison of glass was blown and then repeatedly immersed in water as it was being formed. The sudden cooling to the outer surface caused the formation of small cracks that were expanded when the paraison was further inflated (Tait 1991, 70). The overall effect of the finished

16 rod. Trailing would only adhere to a surface of the vessel if it was still hot, so the trails were added before the annealing process. Trails were applied by pressing a hot gob of glass to the surface of the vessel and then pulling it in the required direction. Trails varied in thickness from fine threads to prominent ridges and were wound horizontally, spirally, or even vertically. Colourless trails were always left proud of the surface of the vessel. Some vessels, particularly those with a small number of larger trails, were impressed, probably with a rigaree wheel, to produce a milled pattern.

Trailing using prefabricated canes

Plate 2 Late 16th or early 17th-century lion-mask goblet stem. Façon de Venise or Venetian soda glass, found at Barnard Castle, Co Durham. (Photo: Univ of Durham) vessel was to produce a frosted and roughened surface appearance. On some examples of ice glass, it is also possible to see an optic-blown pattern that must have been impressed before the paraison was immersed in water.

Late stage techniques

Late stage techniques were those undertaken when the vessel was nearly completed but still hot, usually when attached to the pontil iron. These techniques were among the last modifications made to the vessel before it was removed and annealed.

Colourless trailing

For all trailing techniques the glass was in a finished state but remained attached to the blowpipe or pontil

Whilst the majority of trailing was the same colour as the base metal of the vessel, they could also be coloured. There were three basic decorative techniques involving coloured trails. They probably originated in Venice and are generally known by their Italian names: vetro a fili, vetro a retorti, and vetro a reticello. Although vessels with coloured trailing were produced throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, examples found in England tend to date to the former century, especially those decorated in vetro a retorti and vetro a reticello. The most common of these techniques was vetro a fili. This decoration consisted of evenly spaced parallel trails, usually in opaque white or blue. The trails were laid on the vessel surface in horizontal, vertical, or spiral rows and, in most cases, marvered flat (Plate 3). The breadth of these trails varied from very fine thread trails to broad areas of colour, wider than the intervening clear spaces (eg Tait 1979, 65, no 81). Although vetro a fili trailing originated in Italy, it was quickly adopted by the façon de Venise traditions throughout Europe. More complicated to manufacture was vetro a retorti glass (Plate 4). The decoration consisted of canes of glass formed from alternating rods of clear and opaque white glass which were twisted together to form a spiral effect. These canes were then applied to the surface of the vessel and either marvered flat or left slightly prominent. Some vessels were decorated with a mixture of vetro a fili and vetro a retorti creating a highly patterned surface. Vessels decorated in vetro a retorti were relatively uncommon and restricted to higher status sites and occurred only in Venetian or high-quality façon de Venise glass. The final coloured trail variation found in England was vetro a reticello. This decorative technique required an initial paraison of glass to be blown and decorated with fine prominent spiral vetro a fili trails. A second paraison decorated in the same way, but with spirals running in an opposing direction, was then inflated inside the first paraison. As the second paraison pressed against the first, the prominent trails crossed in a network pattern and trapped tiny air bubbles between them. This technique required great skill by the glassblower and, until further evidence to the contrary comes to light, it

17

Plate 3 Mid 16th-century trumpet-shaped goblet bowl, decorated with opaque white vetro a fili trails and then inflated into bossed optic mould. Venetian soda glass, found at Coventry. (Photo: H Willmott)

Plate 4 Mid 16th-century body fragment, decorated with opaque white vetro a retorti trails. Venetian soda glass, found at Coventry. (Photo: H Willmott) appears to have been practised only in Venice. Vessels decorated in this manner were correspondingly rare in England.

Prunts

The application of prunts also occurred at this stage of manufacture and often in conjunction with trailing. Prunts were small blobs of glass applied to the

vessel surface and then manipulated. They could be pulled to a point with a tool, flattened, or impressed with a design, one of the most complicated being a stamped frontal lion mask. Less complicated stamps were more commonly used to produce raised dots on the prunt. A possible 17th-century copper-alloy tool for this purpose survives from the Netherlands (Henkes 1994, 199), whilst several fired-clay stamps are known from Germany (Grimm 1984, 352). Occasionally, particularly on goblet bowls, prunts were

18 pulled to produce small handle-like wings, although these would have been too small and fragile to be functional.

Post-formation techniques

The most elaborate and complicated decorations took place after the vessel was completely finished. Enamelling, gilding, and engraving all occurred on vessels of this period, although they were comparatively rare and presumably expensive techniques (the front cover shows a 16th-century tazza with both engraving and gilding).

The importation of glass into England Whilst England had a plentiful supply of domestically produced glass, especially during the first half of the 17th century, there was always a demand for imported vessels. In part this was due to a failure of supply by the indigenous industry, particularly in the 16th and latter half of the 17th centuries, but it was chiefly due to the fact that even the best glass produced in England could not match the highest achievements of Venice and the other northern façon de Venise centres. As a consequence, and despite the unsuccessful attempts by the Crown to regulate its import, foreign glass was used in England throughout this period.

Enamelling

Enamelling required a high level of expertise. The decoration was painted on the surface and the vessel was reheated in the furnace (with the risk of it shattering) so that the decoration would fuse to the surface. Although opaque white decoration, often in simple rows of dots, was the most common pattern, many colours such as red, brown, blue, green, and yellow were also used. Floral and figurative patterns occur on some vessels, whilst others have banded letters, names, or phrases.

Gilding

Gilding was a skilled process similar to enamelling. Usually certain areas of the vessel, such as the rim or the stem were decorated with bands of gilt. This was probably done in one of two ways (Charleston 1972b). The first required gold leaf to be applied to the surface of the vessel, which was then fused to the surface with a low heat. The second used an amalgam of gold dust and mercury that was painted onto the surface of the vessel and heated until the mercury evaporated leaving a fixed film of gold. In some rare examples a sheet of gold leaf could be sandwiched between two layers of clear glass, providing a more durable version of the same decoration.

Engraving

The final cold working decorative technique was engraving. This involved the scoring of the vessel surface with a diamond-tipped instrument. A large number of small strokes were used to build up the design. The decorative subjects depicted varied from floral and figural motifs to banded lettering. However each design element always consisted of an encircling outline, hatched-in with a series of parallel strokes to provide texture and shading. Almost all engraved images were enclosed by decorative horizontal bands consisting of two sets of parallel lines encasing a running scrollwork pattern.

Documentary evidence Documentary evidence for the importation of glass into England can be found in a number of sources. Occasional references occur in household inventories that attest to its presence, such as the 20s paid in 1629 by the household of Lord Howard for ‘Venice glasses and French glasses’ (Hartshorne 1968, 467). However, these give little impression of the quantity and types of vessels that were entering England during the 16th and 17th centuries. Two forms of documentary source are more useful for this purpose. The first are the Books of Rates which were official lists issued to customs officials so that appropriate duties could be levied on imported goods. These books indicate the types of imports that were likely to be coming into England, but give no indication of their relative quantities. An early book of 1558 refers to ‘bottels of glasse’ of various sorts and undefined origin, whilst drinking glasses of ‘Venys making’ and ‘french making’ are more specifically attributed (Willan 1962). A later book dating to 1642 lists more diverse origins for the glass, with ‘Venice’, ‘Flanders’, ‘Scotch’, and ‘French’ drinking glasses being differentiated (Willan 1962). In general the Books of Rates are vague in the division of types of glass, usually only drinking glasses, hourglasses, bottles, looking glasses, and window glass are specified. Consequently, despite being a useful source for identifying the varied sources for imported glass, the Books of Rates give little impression of the true quantity or diversity of these products. Surviving Port Books from the period give a better indication of the quantity of imported glass. Port Books recorded the type and quantity of incoming goods, their value as well as their origin. In a similar way to the Book of Rates, the Port Books are rarely specific about the exact type of goods which were mainly classed as bottles, drinking glasses, or even sundries. They are also misleading in their identification of the place of manufacture, as the place of origin was defined as the port from which the ship had sailed. For instance at London in the year 1571/2 glass bottles were imported from Rouen, Flushing,

19 Emden, and Lübeck (cited in Godfrey 1975, 231), although it is unlikely that any of them had been manufactured at these places. The Port Books, whilst being vague and unspecific about the precise types of vessel and their origin, are able to supply a more accurate impression of the quantities of glass arriving in England. However, they are far from complete enough to build an accurate estimation of the precise quantities, but when coupled with the Books of Rates are a useful source. The final major documentary source on the importation glass to England is the surprising survival of eight letters written by John Greene to the Venetian Allesio Morelli between 1667 and 1672. Greene was a member of the Company of Glass Sellers, founded by Royal charter in 1664 (Thorpe 1961, 145). The Company established a tight control over manufacture goods and their retail, whilst attempting to maintain high standards in the quality of the metal of both native-produced and imported glass. Greene, and his partner Michael Measey, were partners in a retail business located in the Poultry, London (Thorpe 1961, 147). The correspondence between Greene and Morelli was extensively illustrated with over 400 scaled depictions of the vessels required (the transcripts of the letters are reproduced in Hartshorne 1968, 440–9; although the accompanying drawings have never received the full publication they deserve). These letters demonstrate the wide range and the quantities of vessels imported into England, and as such are a unique source. Whilst many of the vessels illustrated in the letters have yet to be found archaeologically in England, it is possible to find some equivalents in excavated assemblages (see chapter 5), thus demonstrating their potential value. One alternative source may be foreign accounts of glass exports to England, which may offer an alternative view of the glass trade, although the full potential of these documents has yet to be explored.

European centres and their products During the 16th and 17th centuries a number of centres for the production of high-quality glasswares were either established or consolidated. These added to the pre-existing potash furnaces that continued a tradition of manufacture established during the late-medieval period. This led to a situation where more vessel glass was being produced and circulated in Europe than in any period since the Roman Empire. Any consideration of the nature of English glass production and use must be viewed against this background. It is not possible to examine the manufacturing traditions and products of every country, but certain areas had a particular influence on England. This is not to say that other local industries were not important. During the early postmedieval period distinct and accomplished centres

were flourishing in Spain (Fothringham-Wilson 1963), Bohemia (Sedlácková 1997; 1998) and France (Foy and Sennequier 1989). There is growing evidence for high-quality glass production in other areas of northern Europe during the 17th century, especially in Finland (Haggrén 1997; 1999) and Denmark (Schlüter 1979) amongst others. However there were two centres whose influence on England stands out both in terms of their effect on manufacturing traditions and on the numbers of their products that can be found in this country.

Venice

Venice, or more accurately the island of Murano, has long been seen as the centre of innovation and the renewal of glass use in the west from the latemedieval period onwards. Not only is this the view of more recent scholarship (eg Tait 1979) but was also the contemporary perspective. This can be seen in the already discussed monopolies and patents issued by the Crown in England, which specifically name Venetian but not other nationalities of glass. It would seem that the term ‘Venetian’ quickly became established as a byword for high-quality glass, and this has remained true today. Whilst it would be hard to diminish the significance of Venice during this period, there are problems. Given the importance of Muranese glass production remarkably little is known archaeologically concerning the vessels that were produced there. The opportunities for excavation have been extremely limited, and often the few known finds have come from the lagoon (eg Pause 1996; 2000). One of the largest finds of ‘Venetian’ glass from the period came from the Gnalic wreck that sank off the Dalmatian coast (Petricioli 1973). It has been presumed that this was a Venetian merchantman taking goods to the East, but it contained a variety of European goods and it is far from certain in which direction it might have been sailing. With limited archaeological evidence the attribution given to Venetian glass is derived from arthistorical scholarship, and only probable forms can be identified. However, further complications arise when Venetian glass is examined in a more localised context. Recent research on glass from other areas of Italy during the late-medieval period has identified many localised centres of manufacture (eg Mendera 1989; Stiaffini 1995) and their products are very similar to those of Venice (eg Newby 2000). There is no reason to see a different pattern during the early post-medieval period. The importance of Venice cannot be underestimated, but it should be placed in context. The distinguishing of vessels produced there is not a simple process, and perhaps it would be better to identify an Italian, rather than specifically Venetian, tradition. More broadly, the provenancing of a vessel through style alone, without firm archaeological context, has many problems. A good example

20 is the illustration of a roemer in one of the Greene letters of the 1660s. This was a purchase order for a German style vessel to be produced in Venice for retail in London.

Antwerp and Low Countries façon de Venise

The late-medieval and post-medieval glass industry in the Low Countries has received significant attention (eg Chambon 1955; Henkes 1994). Prior to the mid 16th century the forms produced are less clear, although they probably followed many styles traditionally attributed to Germany, such as the maigelein, maigelbecher, ribbelbeker and early berkemeier. However, during the second half of the 16th century immigrant Italians had established a new façon de Venise industry, particularly in Antwerp, and succeeded in obtaining prohibitions on the import of other Venetian style glasses (Denissen 1985). By the late 16th century the Low Countries industry was producing high-quality vessels in imitation of Venetian forms as well as in new distinctive styles. Some forms of façon de Venise glass can be identified as being specific to the Low Countries. Large cylindrical beakers were a typical product, and although they were produced in Venice for the northern European market some forms were unique to northern Europe, such as the chequered spiral-

trail beaker (Tait 1967) and the comet beaker (Henkes 1989). The former of these forms was also produced in the Spessart region of Germany (Grimm 1984, 335), whilst the latter seems to have been genuinely restricted to the Low Countries. Identifying Low Countries façon de Venise from more traditional Venetian styles is harder. Vessels decorated with vetro a fili or vetro a retorti trailing were certainly made in the Antwerp region, and many vessels found in England with this decoration, usually assumed to be Venetian, probably originated in the Low Countries. Nevertheless, there are several features that appear on Low Countries glass that can be used to differentiate them from the similar Venetian styles. The presence of small raspberry prunts on the body of the vessel, or as small feet, is a typical Low Country feature, as is the extensive use of optic-blown bosses as decoration. The influence of glassmaking in the Low Countries on England is hard to underestimate. Many Dutch styles were popular in England and heavily influenced those natively produced (Willmott 2001b). The true extent of the importation of Low Countries glass into this country is still unclear, although future chemical analysis on material found in England may be able to match these vessels to chemical profiles already known for the Antwerp region (eg de Raedt et al 1997; 2000).

4

The archaeological and social context of glass use

The primary concern of this book is to aid in the identification and attribution of 16th and 17th-century vessel glass. However, an appreciation of the glass’s archaeological and social context is important when assessing and reporting assemblages. Certain vessels may differ in significance depending on the context in which they are found, and no group of glass can be studied or fully understood without some comprehension of its background. This chapter examines aspects of the archaeological deposits in which glass is found, and the contemporary attitudes held towards it. The range of glass styles and designs are viewed in a wider context and the use of glass as a medium for expressing important messages is explored.

comes from deposits dating to the late 15th or early 16th-century phases (Tyson 2000, 20). Although fragments of earlier 13th and 14th-century vessels are occasionally found, these are the exception. It has been suggested that this was due to an efficient system of off-site discard (Tyson 2000, 21), although this does not explain why these patterns of disposal suddenly changed in later monastic phases or why other ceramic vessels are commonly found. It would seem that the absence of vessel glass in the earlier phases of monasteries is a true reflection of the contemporary situation. Interestingly this contrasts with medieval monastic assemblages from southern Europe (eg Newby 2000), where large numbers of vessels are sometimes found. The glass vessels recovered from late 15th and early 16th-century contexts tend to be of rather restricted forms. Tablewares are rare – the majority of high-quality 16th-century drinking vessels found on monastic sites can be attributed to occupation on the site after the dissolution. For example both Cannons Ashby (Taylor 1974) and Norton Priory have deposits containing imported Venetian and façon de Venise wares, but these relate to the high-status dwellings built in the ruined ecclesiastical buildings. However, a number of monastic sites have produced significant assemblages of glass from late levels, most usually associated with distilling or chemical processes. A number of late 15th and early 16th-century glass alembics and cucurbits, as well as other industrial ceramic vessels, have been found in group deposits at Pontefract and Selbourne Priories (Moorhouse 1972), as have similar vessels from Kirkstall Abbey (Moorhouse 1987), and St Leonard’s, Stamford (Mahany 1977, 16–23). The presence of distillation equipment in late monastic contexts is of little surprise. Moorhouse (1993) has identified the importance of distilling and other industrial activities such as alchemy in the ecclesiastical environment. However, chemical wares in both glass and ceramics were not restricted to monasteries alone. A number of late 15th and early 16th-century high-status sites, such as Sandal Castle (Moorhouse 1983) and Bramber Castle (Moorhouse 1977), have produced the remains of distilling equipment. Other utilitarian forms are also known from late monastic sites. Potash urinals and flasks are quite frequently found in early 16th-century contexts, such as at Battle Abbey (Charleston 1985) and Bayham Abbey (Charleston 1983b). However, as has already been noted there appears to be a genuine absence of fine tablewares on early 16th-century ecclesiastical sites.

Glass in a contextual setting Glass from this period can be identified as broadly coming from two types of site – urban and elite. Whilst urban sites by their nature are easier to define, the term elite is more subjective. However, contemporary accounts can help differentiate the hierarchical structure of 16th and 17th-century society. For example in 1583 Sir Thomas Smith divided Tudor society into four tiers when discussing The Division of the Parts and Persons of the Common Wealth. These were gentlemen, citizens or burgesses, yeoman artificers, and labourers (Smith 1982, 64–77). Based upon this model the elite groups who were occupying palaces, castles, and manors are likely to have fallen into the ‘gentlemen’ group, whilst the urban assemblages may have derived from the citizens or burgesses. Although it is hard to make such simplistic divisions – Sir Thomas Smith subdivided gentlemen into four further categories ranging from noblitas major to esquires – it is likely that the elite groups detected archaeologically can all be classed as ‘gentlemen’. An exception to this division of glass between urban and elite sites can be found in assemblages associated with ecclesiastical institutions. Although normally considered ‘medieval’ in nature, monastic sites were in existence for most of the first half of the 16th century.

Monastic sites and the Dissolution By the start of the 16th century England’s monastic houses were generally at their greatest period of wealth and expansion, a factor that influenced the decision of Henry VIII to dissolve them in the 1540s. Most glass that has been found through excavation 21

22 Table 1

Mansell’s prices for drinking glasses

Type of Vessel

pre 1615

1621

1624

1635

Ordinary beer glasses

–

6s – 7s 4d

4s 6d

4s

Ordinary wine glasses

–

4s

2s 6d

2s 6d

Crystal beer glasses

–

18s

15s

9s

Crystal wine glasses

–

16s

12s

5s 6d – 7s

Venetian crystal beer glasses

20s – 24s

–

–

10s – 11s

Venetian crystal wine glasses

18s

–

–

7s – 8s

Prices per dozen (Adapted from Godfrey 1975, 216)

Urban sites The chronology of urban glass

Vessels dating from both the 16th and 17th centuries are found on the majority of urban sites. However, the majority of larger urban deposits tend to date to the 17th century, whilst 16th-century material occurs as more occasional finds. There are exceptions to this, but these tend to relate to higher status structures. For example an unpublished pit deposit at Abacus House, London, contained a varied range of mid 16th-century drinking vessels. However, this feature was associated with the guildhall of the Embroiderers, founded on the site in the 1520s (Schofield 1995, 188). Consequently this was not an ordinary domestic environment, being the centre of celebrations and feasting, so would be better regarded as an elite site. The reasons for smaller 16th-century urban deposits are probably linked to the availability and expense of glass. During the first two thirds of the 16th century the native glass industry was restricted to the limited production of low-quality potash vessels. The only high-quality vessels available were either imported or, latterly, the products from Verzelini’s glasshouse. As a consequence, highquality glassware would have been relatively more expensive during the 16th than the 17th century. This is confirmed by the cost of vessels quoted by Mansell, which shows a gradual fall in prices throughout the 17th century (Table 1). During the 16th century only the more wealthy could have afforded high-quality glass vessels in any quantity, which might explain why only occasional vessels occurred in more middle class urban contexts. However, by the second quarter of the 17th century, glass tablewares would have been considerably cheaper and more available to the ‘middling sort’ living in the urban environment.

The context of urban glass

It is important to consider the contexts from which urban assemblages of glass are recovered. Glass is found in most types of archaeological context, both as

occasional or intrusive finds and as larger group deposits. However, as a result of the more confined nature of urban life many deposits are found in very specific contained contexts. These are often small, open or lined pits as well as cellar fills. Recovered urban assemblages are more likely to reflect the actual patterns of glass use compared with more rural elite sites, where the discard of artefacts is more likely to be dispersed (see below). The nature of rubbish disposal has not been comprehensively addressed for the post-medieval period in England, particularly in urban contexts. It is generally assumed that rubbish was disposed of in the tenement or close to the dwelling, a situation that continued until the 19th century. Lined pits, whether brick, stone, or even buried barrels were probably intended for hygienic disposal of human and animal waste. The occurrence of artefacts within these contexts is probably a secondary function. The presence of earth-dug pits are harder to interpret. The hypothesis that these were dug to receive household rubbish makes little sense as the material removed to create the pit would need to be disposed of itself. It would seem that many of these pits were dug for a different purpose, such as the extraction of sands, and then filled with household rubbish to level them. What is clear is that there was no universal or standardised method of rubbish disposal. This contrasts strongly with other European countries, such as the Netherlands. There recent research on 176 cesspits from four towns has revealed a complex, yet structured, system of cesspit construction (Bartels 1999, 25–41). Household rubbish and cess was deposited, usually in large brick pits, until they became full, when they were either cleared out or more usually sealed and a new pit dug (Bult 1992, 54). If this were the case in England, then it would not be surprising that much of the glass from domestic contexts came from pits. Lined pits, such as one from Nottingham (Alvey 1973), were probably intended primarily for human faeces, although they also served as suitable repositories for other rubbish. In the case of more ephemeral pits, cut only into the natural soil, they were likely to have served other primary functions, but were also useful containers for household waste.

23 Deposits of glass from cellar fills further confirm this pattern of deposition. Two of the largest 17thcentury cellar fills, from Gracechurch Street and Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984), appear to result from large household clearances. Although Temple Balsall is a rural elite site, it demonstrates similar patterns of disposal to those seen in urban environments. The vessels were collectively deposited in a single action, whilst in the case of Gracechurch Street it was on two separate occasions. A disused cellar provided a convenient repository for rubbish, particularly in the larger quantities that would have quickly filled a pit. The reasons for mass clearance of glass are less clear. However, the cellar fill at Temple Balsall coincided with the move of the Evett family from their old home to a new residence in the early 18th century (Gooder 1984, 153). It is possible that other cellar deposits were similar purges of old artefacts to make way for new forms and styles.

The range of urban glass

Despite coming from different types of social setting there are many similarities between most urban glass assemblages. Most striking is the predominance of drinking vessels over other forms in all the assemblages. For example large 17th-century groups from Gracechurch Street, Guildford (Fryer and Shelley 1997), and Poole (Charleston 1992) amongst others, comprised primarily drinking vessels, although there are variations between the assemblages. At Guildford the glass had a higher proportion of goblets and small squat beakers, presumably for the consumption of wine. The opposite was the case at Poole, where beakers were more predominant, possibly reflecting a preference for beer. The Gracechurch Street assemblage contained large numbers of both beakers and goblets, indicating that glass was used for the consumption of both beer and wine. However, all these sites seem to have used very little glass for other table functions. This pattern exists at other domestic urban sites. In most smaller assemblages glass tablewares mainly appear to have been restricted to drinking vessels. Two smaller groups from Bristol mainly contained goblets and flasks (Barton 1964; Good 1987), and this pattern is reflected in other towns such as Lincoln (Henderson 1999), Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979), and Chester (Axworthy-Rutter 1990). There is no obvious explanation for this pattern, as jugs, bowls, and dishes were all being produced in the early 17th century, at the time these deposits were formed. However, in the domestic context this pattern might relate to the relative numbers of vessels found and the general scale of deposit.

Scale of deposit

It has already been observed that some of the largest 17th-century deposits are found in urban environ-

ments. It is perhaps no surprise that at least two of these sites are linked to inns of the period. An unpublished cellar fill at Bagshot is from a documented early 17th-century coaching inn, whilst the pit at 16 Tunsgate, Guildford, came from the property of the late 17th-century Tun Inn. The status of an inn is reflected in both the size and consistency of the Bagshot and Guildford deposits. A greater number of vessels of all materials would be required and the rate of breakage was presumably much higher within these contexts than in an ordinary household. The function of the establishments probably explains the predominance of drinking vessels at both sites, where glass was used for drinking and ceramics for the consumption of food. These inn deposits date to both the 17th century, when good-quality domestic glass vessels were available, and the end of the century when glass was increasingly being imported. In these two cases glass was available in sufficient quantities and at a reasonable enough price to furnish a high-quality drinking establishment. It is a distinct possibility that other assemblages were from similar inn contexts for which no documentary evidence survives. The deposit from Gracechurch Street was contemporary with that from Bagshot and contained an equally large number of goblets and other drinking vessels. Likewise the late 17th-century pit from Nottingham (Alvey 1973), contained a mix of goblets and squat beakers, similar to the Guildford deposit. The replication of forms is a further noticeable difference between these known, or possible, inn assemblages and more ordinary household deposits. Even large domestic urban assemblages, such as Canterbury (Charleston 1987), Norwich (Haslam 1993), and Oxford (Hassall et al 1984) usually contained a wide variety of drinking vessels, but with rarely more than a couple of examples of each type. There is nothing resembling matching ‘sets’ in these groups and the vessels used at the table appear to have been of diverse types and media. However, in the inn deposits there are multiple examples of some goblet and beaker forms. For example at Bagshot, where most of the drinking vessels were goblets, elongated inverted baluster and lion-mask stems form nearly the entire assemblage, whilst at Guildford the most common form was the squat beaker, with nineteen in total (Fryer and Shelley 1997, 192–3; Willmott forthcoming b). At the two other sites suggested as inns the situation is similar. In Nottingham, although a smaller deposit, the earlier soda drinking vessels consist of only two forms, goblets with round-ribbed knops and squat beakers (Alvey 1973, 68). The glass from Gracechurch Street is slightly more diverse. However, if the potash glass and the soda glass are considered as two different deposits, as suggested by the site stratigraphy, each of these deposits is more uniform. The first consists primarily of potash pedestal beakers and goblets, totalling 31 vessels. The second is larger, but again the range of forms is

24 quite restricted. All but three of the 32 beakers are cylindrical varieties, whilst the goblets are compound, mould-blown, or knopped stemmed, the majority of the latter type being elongated inverted balusters. It is not surprising that there is a large degree of vessel replication at inn sites but not at domestic sites. However, this is unlikely to be the result of a desire for a matching set, and there is no evidence that the drinker expected a ‘uniform’ size of vessel. More probably it is due to the way the glasses were bought. In the price lists of Mansell there is no reference to the different shapes of glass. Instead the prices of the vessels were divided into three categories, ‘ordinary,’ ‘crystal’ and ‘crystal imported from Venice’ (Table 1). The prices were always quoted per dozen, suggesting that this was the usual number purchased directly from the glasshouse. Therefore it is likely that the inn would only specify the quality and number of glasses required, rather than individual designs, and that the glasses delivered would consist of whatever stock was available at the time. The presence of several different forms at some sites could be evidence for a number of orders over a longer period of time. With the obvious exception of the inn deposits, the individual assemblages of urban glass are quite small. Even the apparently larger published groups from towns, such as Exeter (Charleston 1984b), Winchester (Charleston 1990), and Southampton (Charleston 1975), contain vessels from a number of different contexts. The overall numbers of vessel that are related to single households or properties are limited. Indeed many substantial urban deposits of the 17th century contain little or no vessel glass. For example, a pit in Plymouth dated to 1625–35 from a similar domestic context to those discussed in this chapter produced over 200 assorted ceramic vessels, but only four glass fragments (Allan and Barber 1992). Where households did have vessel glass, these tended to be in smaller quantities. This might account for the predominance of drinking vessels over other types of tableware in most assemblages. Goblets and beakers were the most visible form of glassware to be used at the table, so if only a limited investment was to be made in glass then it was most likely to be in these forms. This would also explain the diversity of types that existed within the drinking vessels. Vessels were perhaps bought on a limited or even individual basis, so that an assemblage of diverse forms accumulated. The final observation concerning these urban assemblages is the lower numbers of imported vessels at many sites. Most of the groups contain vessels that are English in origin, particularly the elongated inverted baluster and some lion-mask stemmed goblets as well as most of the potash pedestal beakers. This may in part be due to the early to mid 17th-century date of these groups. By the early 17th century the domestic industry was providing high-quality wares and there were heavy government restrictions on imported vessels,

through the enforcement of monopoly agreements (Godfrey 1975). Those deposits from the later 17th century contained greater quantities of imported glass, although this was probably the result of the lack in availability of domestically produced glass at this time. However, there are exceptions to this pattern, deposits from Exeter (Charleston 1984b), Poole (Charleston 1992) Plymouth (Charleston 1986), and Southampton (Charleston 1975), did contain significant numbers of imported vessels. Their occurrence at these sites might be explained by their geographical location. During the 17th century all these centres were important coastal trading centres and it is no surprise that their residents had greater access to imported foreign goods.

Summary

The glass assemblages from urban contexts can be broadly divided into two groups, those from domestic dwellings and those from inns. The former groups tended to be small in size and contained a variety of different forms, with few being replicated. Assemblages from inns offer a contrasting picture. The vessel numbers were greater and many of the individual vessel forms were present in large numbers, possibly resulting from the way glass was obtained. However, in both environments there are shared trends. The glass, with the exception of some storage vessels such as flasks, was almost exclusively restricted to drinking vessels. Few jugs, bowls, or dishes were present in any assemblages. In both inn and domestic contexts other media, such as pottery, were used to fulfil these roles, while the glass was reserved for the more conspicuous drinking vessels. The second similarity between most of these sites was the date of their deposit. With the exception of certain specific deposits, most assemblages date to the 17th century. Although glass does occur as occasional finds in the preceding century, it was not until the 17th century that large groups were being used and discarded.

Elite sites The definition of an elite site is more subjective than that of an urban one. In this book an elite site is taken to mean one of relatively high or exclusive status. Whilst in many cases this takes the form of a private residence, such as a manor, palace, or castle, other types of site will also fall within this category. Monastic and other ecclesiastical sites certainly had an exclusive status until the Reformation, whilst guildhalls continued to acted as fora for activities only open to a select few. Although elite sites show considerable variation amongst themselves, certain general trends of glass use can be seen. However, these can differ more widely than on urban sites.

25 Chronology and context of elite glass

The majority of elite sites dating to the 16th and 17th centuries contain some fragments of glass. However, unlike urban deposits, the chronology and the context of deposition are interlinked and can not be separated. Two general patterns of use and deposition emerge, although there is some degree of overlap between them. In contrast to the urban situation, where glass was primarily deposited in pits or cellar fills, the material at elite sites tended to be recovered from a greater diversity of contexts. This, in part, probably represents the diversity of the types of site. The pattern of rubbish disposal is inevitably different in elite contexts in the countryside when compared to the urban necessities of life. Despite this there is a surprising lack of uniformity in the patterns of discard on elite sites, although some similarities can be observed. Unlike urban contexts, examples of domestic dumping in confined contexts on elite sites are relatively rare. In some cases glass is found in a compact midden, such as in the old cloister areas of the manors at Norton Priory and Cannons Ashby (Taylor 1974). On other sites rubbish disposal was less organised and glass is found on the edges and confines of the site. For example, during the early 16th century at Wood Hall, West Yorkshire, four intact goblets were simply thrown out of the gatehouse window to land in the moat. Although less confined than an urban cesspit, middens, garderobes, and even moats acted as an efficient means of rubbish disposal. This pattern of organised dumping of material into compact contexts is not mirrored on all sites. At Acton Court some of the glass, as well as ceramics, was deposited in the moat as part of its infilling (Vince and Bell 1992, 102), but the majority occurred as fragmented pieces in contexts beneath the west range of the manor. Likewise the glass from Camber Castle is scattered throughout the northern domestic range, and at many sites there were no specific contexts chosen for the dumping of rubbish, which would appear to have accumulated as the result of gradual build ups. This difference, seen particularly clearly on the larger elite sites, suggests an alternative pattern of rubbish disposal, only part of which is being detected archaeologically. At these sites waste was not being dumped in large quantities within the vicinity of the main residence. Those vessels found appear to be residual finds, rather than part of the organised removal of waste, which was probably carried some distance off site and therefore not discovered during excavation. However, one feature that does connect most of these assemblages is their date. Where groups of glass are found in elite domestic contexts, they tend to date to the 16th century. Most of the largest groups of glass found on elite sites in England, such as at Acton Court, Camber Castle, and Nonsuch Palace see a hiatus in use towards the end of the 16th

century. This is a pattern that can also be observed in much smaller assemblages such as at Clarendon Palace (Charleston 1988). Whether this represents the period of glass use at these sites, or merely changing patterns of rubbish disposal is less clear. Nevertheless, the majority of assemblages from elite domestic contexts show greater quantities of glass during the 16th century. By way of contrast a number of significant elite assemblages have been found that come from very different contexts. The majority of these date to the 1640s and the Civil War. At Basing House (Charleston 1971) and Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994) large groups of glass have been found that relate to the destruction of the site either during or immediately after the conflict. At Eccleshall Castle the buildings were not slighted but the contents were cleared and dumped in the moat (Sheale 1993). These sites demonstrate patterns of glass disposal that were not the result of ordinary domestic practice. However, what these sites do provide is a more balanced view of the glass that was actually in use at the time of their destruction. The assemblages are more complete and less prone to dispersal by contemporary rubbish disposal. What they show is the surprisingly large-scale use of glass, not often visible on other elite sites, and they also display wider chronological variations. The glass from Montgomery Castle is primarily 16th-century in date, confirming trends already seen on domestic sites. However, Basing House contained a wider variety of vessels, including 16th-century bowls and dishes as well as goblets that date to the early 17th century. The huge assemblage from Eccleshall Castle, whilst containing a number of earlier vessels, primarily comprised forms from the first half of the 17th century. This pattern of larger dumps is not confined to Civil War sites. The majority of the assemblage from the manor house at West Bromwich can be dated to the first half of the 17th century (Cocroft 1993), whilst the cellar fill from Temple Balsall, although deposited at the beginning of the 18th century, contained a large number of vessels dating to the previous century.

Range of elite glass

It was observed earlier in this chapter that many of the glasses found in urban contexts were drinking vessels. A predominance of drinking vessels can also be noted in elite contexts, with beakers and goblets constituting the majority of the vessels found on most sites. As was the case with the urban assemblages, drinking vessels were the most conspicuous way of demonstrating the use of glass at the table. Indeed the presence of even more elaborate goblet types, such as a nef at Acton Court, a cage-stem glass at Nonsuch Palace and a trick glass at St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 157), suggest that drinking vessels were used for ornate display as well as functional use. However, in contrast to urban groups, elite sites

26 tend to produce a higher proportion of vessels associated with the serving and display of foodstuffs. Jugs are found at sites such as Nonsuch Palace and Acton Court in far higher numbers than their urban counterparts, where they are only occasional finds. Likewise most elite sites produce evidence for bowls or dishes and in some cases, such as at Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993) and West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993), these were found in large numbers. Similar patterns sometimes can be detected in contemporary inventories. Of the 132 itemised pieces of glassware in the 1588 inventory of Kenilworth Castle, 101 were bowls or dishes of various sorts (Hartshorne 1968, 466–7). These patterns indicate that glass held a more important role in the serving and presentation of food in the elite household than in the urban setting. There are a number of possible reasons for these differences. Firstly, the use of glass bowls and jugs at the elite level represented a further conspicuous expense in glass. It is likely that drinking vessels, being the most visible, would have been the first to have been acquired and other forms only bought if the owner had sufficient capital. Secondly, the presence of other tableware forms in glass on elite sites might be indicative of a more sophisticated dining culture. It is hard to assess from the archaeological evidence alone the extent of artefact use during the dining process. However, the presence of more luxury items at the elite table would not be an unexpected occurrence, explaining the larger numbers of jugs and bowls. A further possible explanation for this difference between elite and urban groups could be a result of chronological differences in their use and deposition. It has already been noted that the depositional dates of many elite groups are earlier than most urban ones. The presence of glass bowls, jugs, and flasks might represent the popularity of these forms in glass during the 16th century, which diminished in the subsequent century.

Scale of deposit

Although some elite sites, such as Eccleshall Castle or Acton Court, had relatively large assemblages, many contained only a few glass vessels. This may partly be due to the method of rubbish disposal on these sites, where evidence of the material culture is not as comprehensively recovered by excavation as in urban contexts. However, even given these factors it is surprising that more elite groups were not considerably larger than their urban counterparts, as might be expected if larger quantities of glass were consumed at richer elite sites. This seems to indicate that glass was only one of the elements used at the elite table, a pattern that would be further confirmed by a comprehensive analysis of all the tablewares from the sites. Another observation that can be made is that the elite contexts contain a far larger proportion of imported wares. This was partly due to the lack of a

high-quality English industry for most of the 16th century. If high-quality glasses were required they had to be imported, as was observed by Harrison (1994, 128) when he stated that the English ‘choose rather the Venice glasses, both for our wine and beer’. However, a number of the imported vessels found on English sites were clearly not produced in Venice. Forms such as a squat beaker at Castle Rising (Cool 1997, 105, no 6), a pedestal goblet from Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston forthcoming, no 129), and the cylindrical beakers with cut trailing from Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46), were all types produced in the Low Countries from the end of the 16th century. Whilst the high number of vetro a fili and vetro a retorti decorated vessels found at sites such as Acton Court and Montgomery Castle were typical Venetian products, the elite was choosing to buy imported vessels from other sources. Perhaps the presence of imported glass itself was more important than its actual provenance from Venice.

Summary The glass from elite sites reveals a pattern of use and disposal that differs markedly from that in the urban context, with glass being used as a medium for tablewares at an earlier date. As a result there were higher numbers of imported 16th-century vessels, caused by a lack of high-quality domestic production. However, the types of vessels used also varied. Whilst drinking vessels were still the most popular, including several examples of almost purely decorative types, other forms such as jugs and bowls were more common on the table. By the 17th century there was a diminishing amount of glass in use on some elite sites, suggesting a preference for other materials at this time. In contrast other sites still continued to produce large assemblages, suggesting that the patterns of glass consumption and disposal could vary greatly between different elite sites. Although in some cases, such as at Cannons Ashby and Norton Priory, the disposal of glass was in compact contexts containing other rubbish, similar to disposal patterns on the urban sites, this was not always the case. At Acton Court and Nonsuch Palace, glass accumulated as debris throughout the occupational ranges of the buildings, but in relatively small quantities. This suggests that the majority of waste was dumped off site. It is not surprising that there were variations in the patterned use of glass between urban and elite groups. The ways that the vessels were used and the meanings that they held would have changed not only between, but also within, these different groups.

Identifying contemporary attitudes to glass It is possible to ascertain some of the feelings held towards glass during the 16th and early 17th centu-

27 ries. References occur in many sources that are not merely descriptive but portray some of the more complex attitudes towards glass as a vessel medium. Various often conflicting feelings towards glass can be detected. Some, such as Montaigne in his 1588 essay On Experience, merely state a preference for it. In one manuscript version he says ‘earthenware and silver displease me compared with glass . . . I incline to choose glasses of a particular shape’ (Montaigne 1991, 1230). His apparent preference of glass is explained more fully in a different draft of the same essay when he explains ‘I dislike all metals compared with clear transparent materials. Let my eyes too taste it to the full’ (Montaigne 1991, 1231). Montaigne’s preference for glass arose out of the simple aesthetic quality of its transparency; glass provided a visual effect not achievable in metalwares. Perhaps this is why the cleanliness of the glass was seen to be so important. In Hollyband’s dialogue School and Schoolboys, dating from the latter part of the 16th century, the children are admonished for it; Set the glasses on the table. What meaneth this? Doest thou bring them so fowle? Cary them againe into the kitchen, that the maide may rubbe and make them cleane (Byrne 1930, 15). Harrison, writing in 1587, informs us that each time the glass was finished with at the table it was taken and cleaned before being returned to the cupboard (Harrison 1994, 127), whilst Montaigne observed that in Austria glasses were washed with white sand (Montaigne 1958, 911). Cleanliness was evidently an essential part of the appeal of glass. The fact that glass helped emphasise its contents may have appealed to some, such as Montaigne, but it could have also have helped make it unpopular with others. Drinking vessels, and sometimes glass in particular, were linked with undesirable activities. In Rabelais’ Pantagruel, when Pantagruel’s party arrives at the Oracle of the Bottle, they pass under a triumphal arch that is carved with an array of drinking vessels, that included ‘a hundred sorts of drinking glasses’, and these are described collectively as ‘Bacchic Artillery’ (Rabelais 1954, 391). This is a theme echoed in Locker’s 1497 version of Brant’s Ship of Fools: Some synge and revell as in Bacchus sacryfyce, and loke, whome this sort most ungoodly can fynde. He shall the brode have ruled by his mynde; he brastyth a glass or cup at every worde, so that the drynke overcometh all the borde (Pompen 1925, 250). Imagery of this kind is further stressed in 1580 by John Lyly in Euphues and his England when he says ‘the glasses wher-in you carouse your wine make you to be more wanton than Bacchus’ (Lyly 1902, 190). Drinking vessels were consequently stigmatised by some who saw them as instruments of drunkenness and depravity. Perhaps it is not surprising that glass might be particularly partial to criticism, given that

its transparency helped only to enhance the appeal of any alcoholic liquid that might be inside. Whilst some might have seen the use of glass vessels for the consumption of alcohol as depraved and ‘Bacchic’, this was not always the case. In 1518 Thomas More writes of his Utopians using glass: ‘While they eat and drink from earthenware and glassware of fine workmanship but of little value, from gold and silver they make chamber pots and all the humblest vessels for use everywhere’ (More 1965, 153). In the Utopian society the normal rules of value are inverted, gold becomes valueless, and basic items, such as pottery or glass, are much admired. Although this is a parody of his own times, More is nevertheless commenting on what was to become a growing occurrence during the 16th century. The traditional vessels made of gold and silver were, to a certain degree, being replaced by glass. William Harrison, writing in 1587, remarks on the growing popularity of glass. ‘It is a world to see in these our days, wherein gold and silver most aboundeth, how that our gentility as loathing those metals (because of the plenty) do now generally choose rather the Venice glasses, both for our wine and beer . . . such is the nature of man generally, that it most coveteth things difficult to be attained’ (Harrison 1994, 128). Additionally he notes that this extends further down the social scale, ‘and as this is seen in the gentility, so in the wealthy community the like desire of glass is not neglected . . . The poorest also will have glass if they may; but sith the Venetian is somewhat too deer for them, they content themselves with such that are made at home of fern and burned stone’ (Harrison 1994, 128). Whether gold and silver were really as plentiful as Harrison suggests is uncertain, but it does appear that the nobility were looking for real alternatives. Traditional metal vessels were being replaced in a number of households with high-quality glass. This was not restricted to the nobility alone, but to people with the wealth to buy it. He explains this in part by saying that glass was less widely available than gold and silver and thus its rarity gave it value. He also noted the universality of its appeal through the wealthy middle classes and even down to the poor, although the latter would not have had access to fine Venetian or even good-quality home products. The glass referred to by Harrison, as being of burnt fern and stone, was domestically produced potash or forest glass, not used in this period for the production of high-quality drinking vessels. This apparent universal appeal is confirmed in the archaeological record as glass of varying qualities appeared at a wide variety of social milieus for the first time in the late 16th and early 17th centuries (Charleston 1984a, 42). Harrison also indicates that glass appealed to the rich since the cost of the material was a demonstration of disposable wealth: ‘in time, all [glasses] go one way, that is, to shards at the last, so that our great

28 expenses in glasses . . . are worst of all bestowed in mine opinion, because their pieces do turn unto no profit’ (Harrison 1994, 128). Unlike gold, silver, and to a more limited extent pewter, glass had no real scrap value when it was broken. Damaged glass vessels were also almost impossible to repair. Consequently, when a glass was smashed or thought to be out of style it represented a large wasted expense. The use of glass at the table would have denoted a very visible conspicuous display of wealth, one that was completely lost if the vessels needed to be replaced. The fact that glass held no value when it was broken apparently influenced people’s reactions when it was needlessly smashed. In relating an incident where a group of glass platters were needlessly broken at the masque of James I, in 1618, the Venetian ambassador saw it as the culmination of a terrible evening. The vulgarity of the occasion seemed to shock him when he wrote of the incident: ‘The story ended two hours after midnight, and half disgusted and exhausted we returned home. If your Lordships are writhing to read or hear of this tediousness, you may believe how ill I feel at describing it’ (Orgel and Strong 1973, 284). The evening clearly did not please the ambassador and he doubtless included the seemingly small event of the breaking of the platters to give added emphasis to the vulgarity of the occasion. Similar disgust was shown towards the destruction of vessel glass, during the course of the Civil War. In 1643 the Royalist army lay siege to Brampton Castle, in Herefordshire. For several months there were substantial exchanges between the two parties, damaging both the castle and its contents. However, in the extensive eyewitness account from one of the defenders there was only a single specific mention of any possessions being damaged, despite the fact that the castle was nearly destroyed: ‘Thursday August 10th the enemy . . . gave us three shots out of the steeple which broke some Venice glasses, in a high tower, which had formerly entertained some of those capon-faced cowards’ (Bath 1904, 4). Obvious attention was paid to this glass, with it being the only household goods worthy of mention. It is interesting to contrast this impassioned description with that of the defenders’ first fatality, eight days later, when it was merely noted ‘our cook was shot in the arm with a poisoned bullet and died’ (Bath 1904, 25). Part of the emphasis laid on this incident might be the fact that the broken glasses had apparently been used to entertain the attackers before the conflict. Its ensuing destruction was not just a needless loss of high-quality tableware, it was an added insult to the previous hospitality of the castle.

Glass styles in a wider context There are always a variety of influences governing the form and decoration of a vessel in any medium. When examining these it is important to remember that

many aspects of style are dictated by technical considerations. The nature of glass and the way that it could be worked limited or dictated many of the designs produced. Furthermore the glassmakers would have followed the fashions and influences that they were familiar with. Nevertheless aspects other than these must have influenced the final appearance of vessels, and the growing popularity of glass tablewares from the 16th century onwards enabled the unhindered formation of new styles. No single type of object was used in isolation during dining or any other processes, so the presence of external influences should be expected. Most glass tablewares exhibit aspects of their form and decoration that can be traced to other media. In this way the general styles of vessel glass were able to convey a complex mixture of messages.

Echoes of the familiar The stemmed goblet was a traditional form of medieval drinking vessel in Northern Europe. Usually associated with the consumption of wine, it occurred quite frequently in glass during the late 13th and 14th centuries (Charleston 1984a, 20–1). These vessels, which closely paralleled their silver counterparts, seem to have been used in a similar symbolic way to communal cups, every person drinking from a single vessel. However by the end of the 15th century few, if any, glass goblets were in use in England. During the later 16th century, the majority of high-quality soda or mixed-alkali goblets consisted of three parts, the bowl, foot, and central stem. The shapes of the foot and the bowl were largely dictated by their function, to steady the vessel and hold liquid. Despite this some aspects of the goblet bowl form can be attributed to other media. The flat tazza shape, for example, was originally a silver form that continued to be produced in both silver and glass until the late 17th century. However, it is with the stem forms that the greatest influences not only from silver but also pewter can be observed. Charleston (1984, 68) noted the similarity between the glass cigar stem and the tall elongated stem of some silver goblets dating to the first quarter of the 17th century. It is clear that there was an interaction between silver and glass styles, indeed this type of stem also occurred in pewter (eg Michaelis 1955, pl 34). However, there are clearly cases where glass styles directly influenced metalwares – glass cigar stems with applied decorative wings were also copied in silver (eg Chong and Kloek 1999, 143; van Eck and Zijlstra-Zweens 1993, 50). In addition to the obvious stylistic similarities of the cigar stem with metalwares, other common glass stem forms can be seen in the traditional media, as round knop and ordinary inverted baluster stems were all current in metalwares. The round knop occurred in silver throughout the 16th and 17th centuries and the inverted baluster in pewter on a number of vessels dating to the early 17th century (Hornsby et al 1989, 109).

29 Likewise, some of the forms of soda and mixedalkali beakers had strong parallels in metalwares and pottery. Beakers were the one form of glass tableware to continue in use from the 15th to the 16th centuries. Occasional finds of imported Venetian glass beakers dating to the early 16th century are known from England, including twelve at Upper Bugle Street, Southampton (Charleston 1984a, 43). These early beakers were usually a small, plain, squat cylindrical type known as a miolo, and it is hard to find similar types in other media. Nevertheless, the majority of drinking vessels in the first half of the 16th century were not made of glass. As late as 1558 the Frenchman Stephen Perlin noted that the English ‘consume great quantities of beer, double and single, and do not drink it out of glasses, but from earthen pots’ (cited in Archer 1997, 5) However, as the 16th century progressed, tall cylindrical glass beakers with everted rims and base rings became more popular. These mirror forms produced in silver (Schroder 1987, 71) and pewter (Michaelis 1955, pl 36) throughout most of the 16th and 17th centuries. Again the influence of one beaker media upon another was not a one-way process. Gaimster (1997, 136) cites the example of a Siegburg stoneware beaker form that directly copies a late 16th century roemer type. Similarly it is possible that a number of English pedestal and waisted, pottery beaker forms (MPRG 1998, 6.1.1 and 6.1.3) were influenced by their glass counterparts, which were more numerous. Other more obvious influences on glass design during the 16th and 17th centuries can be identified. Glass bellied tankards were relatively uncommon in England, although occasional examples elaborated with gilt mounts, including two in the British Museum (Tait 1991, 169), are known. It has been observed that these forms probably derive from the more common Germanic stoneware forms (Glanville 1971; Gaimster 1997, 135). A similar influence of pottery on its glass counterpart can be seen in the cylindrical tankard, far more common in English pottery (MPRG 1998, 6.3.3) than glass. A further glass vessel type to imitate ceramic counterparts was the cylindrical jar, or albarello. Usually associated with the storage of drugs, this was a form produced in domestic Border wares (Pearce 1992, 73), Raeren stoneware (Gaimster 1997, 388), Italian maiolica (Rackham 1977, 34), and later in Delftware (Archer 1997, 381). Not only many of the forms of glass vessels but also their decoration imitated or was inspired by other media. The practice of diamond engraving glass during the 16th century had close parallels with the decorative traditions used on metalwares. Many of the motifs used on glass, such as scrollwork, foliage designs, cartouches, and figural patterns appear in contemporary English silver (eg Glanville 1990, 152, fig 70). This was also the case on pewter, where engraving was first mentioned in the Pewterers’ Company records in 1588 (Michaelis 1955, 87). It is therefore no surprise that Anthony de Lysle, the only

recorded glass engraver operating in 16th-century England, was described as a ‘graver in puter and glasse’ (Charleston 1984a, 58). If the same artisans were responsible for the decoration of different materials, it is not surprising that they employed the same decorative styles. There are many characteristic features shared between enamelled glass vessels and ceramics with coloured slip or glazed decoration, especially contemporary maiolica, although these techniques differed widely in their execution. The stylised flowers on the enamelled goblet from Wood Hall (Fig 81b) are remarkably similar to those found on some maiolica Deruta lustred wares (Rackham 1977, 250, no 757). Likewise the enamelled and gilt scale decoration found on the flask neck from Acton Court (Fig 105) can be found on the same type of maiolica dishes. In contrast to engraving it is unlikely that enamelling on glass directly copied ceramic styles. However, existing artistic traditions certainly seem to have influenced aspects of design and composition. Nevertheless in a few specific cases enamelled glasses can be demonstrated to be directly imitating ceramics. Clarke (1974, 52) has identified two examples of double-handled globular bottles in opaque white glass decorated with enamelled portraits and heraldry. The vessel form is identical to contemporary Dutch maiolica (Hurst 1971, 362). Similar, although less closely defined, were the opaque white bowls produced in the Low Countries (Henkes 1994, 230–1, see also Fig 120a), and it is possible that the use of lattimo glass was intended to be a copy of imported Chinese porcelain (eg Butler 1990, 97, no 52), although the enamelled designs that appear on Dutch examples show a closer parallel to the geometric designs of early Delftware and other tin-glazed earthenwares .

New perspectives in style Although many features of glassware in 16th- and 17th-century England were dictated by function and by traditional forms of decoration, distinct and unique styles also emerged. It is with the three-part goblet that a glassmaker was able to demonstrate the greatest virtuosity and variety. Not only were some forms entirely new, other types of unique surface decoration evolved. One of the advantages that glass had over other media was that it could be mould-blown, producing quick and finely detailed designs. The manufacture of the ladder and lion-mask stem in a two-piece fixed mould enabled the production of a design unique to glass. Although silver and pewter vessels had elements that were cast, they little resembled the mould-blown stem, which could still be further elaborated upon by the application of gilding. It is therefore not surprising that the stem type remained popular in England from the middle of the 16th century until the Civil War. Two-piece mould-blowing was not the only unique

30

Plate 5 Two 17th-century coiled and winged-serpentine goblet stems. Probably Low Country soda glass, from the Gracechurch Street hoard, London. (Photo: H Willmott) form of blown decoration achievable in glass. Opticblowing allowed the vessel, or parts of it, to be covered with fine ribbing, diamond, or roundel patterns in a way not possible on ceramics or metal vessels. Although Gaimster (1997, 136) has noted that the presence of diaper-carved ornament on some stonewares was similar to that on glassware, it is unlikely that this was the inspiration for it. However, the most elaborate of all goblet styles developed during the 17th century was the compound stem (Plate 5). Such stems were clearly considered different by their contemporary audience as they were referred to as ‘extraordinary fashions’ in the price list issued by Mansell. Charleston cites a glass in the Marston Hall inventory of 1605, which was described as ‘one great knotted glasse with a couer’ (Charleston 1984a, 70), and this could be a large version of a twisted compound stem, although no larger versions of the compound-stem have yet been found archaeologically. The unique style of the compound stem vessel remained popular until the middle of the 17th century; although in other parts of Europe, such as the Low Countries, compound-stem goblets continued to be produced until the 18th century (eg Vreeken 1998, 139–45). A further variation of a goblet made with a stem of several separate and elaborate pieces was the trickglass (Fig 86). Although very rare, this represented a further new form in glass. The use of a siphon to drain the liquid from the goblet bowl was a unique design in the 17th century and there are no direct parallels in other vessel media. Late-medieval

puzzle cups were similar, and possessed holes which made conventional drinking impossible (MPRG 1998, 6.29), whilst elaborate, silver, rose water fountains were occasional luxury table objects (Glanville 1990, 213). However, neither of these variants can be considered the inspiration for the trick-glass, which remained in use into the second half of the 17th century and was one of the glass varieties imported from Venice by John Greene in the late 1660s (Charleston 1984a, 104–5). Other forms, too, appear to have been virtually unique to glass. Whilst cylindrical beakers followed contemporary silver or pewter designs, the potash and soda pedestal varieties have no parallels. The presence of a folded foot made it a difficult shape for other media to follow, and would have been unnecessary to copy anyway. Likewise other beaker styles, particularly the Low Country fluted beakers and roemers were unique. Moreover, most of the pedestal and globular flask styles could not be achieved in ceramics or metalwares, whilst case bottles were only ever made in glass. Despite the originality of many vessel forms, there were few decorative techniques employed which were either not used on other media, or had distinct stylistic similarities. Perhaps the most common was the application of trailing to the vessel, although this was not dissimilar to horizontal incised or raised lines produced on a potter’s wheel. The most unusual forms of trailing, vetro a fili and vetro a retorti were visually different, although these were relatively rare and mainly restricted to the 16th century.

31 Possibly the only unique decorative form available in glass was ice glass. However, ice glass is extremely rare in England, especially when compared to the continent (eg the Low Countries, Henkes 1994, 167– 9). Although not strictly a decorative technique, the most obvious innovative aesthetic device that could be achieved in glassmaking was the transparency of the vessel itself. From the middle of the 15th century, clear or cristallo glass was the predominant type produced, initially in Venice and then across the rest of Europe (Charleston 1984a, 43). Glass was the only medium, apart from rock crystal, that allowed the container or vessel to display its contents visibly. Whilst glass was a relatively new commodity during the 16th and 17th centuries, many of its forms and decorative techniques either drew on traditional imagery or the decorative fashions of other media. Many of the basic forms of glass, such as some of the knopped stems, the cylindrical beakers, and the bellied tankards were already being produced in ceramics and metalwares. Likewise, various forms of decoration, such as engraving and enamelling, were emulating the designs that appeared on other types of vessels. The adoption by glassmakers of traditional and other contemporary forms can be partly attributed to functional reasons. Many of the ceramic and metalware shapes were defined by their utilitarian use, and glassware used similar designs for similar reasons. In most cases beakers, by virtue of their requirement to hold larger quantities of liquids, had to be more capacious, whilst goblets could be made to hold smaller volumes. However, this can account for only the most basic similarities between vessels in different media. The close mirroring of styles by glass of other media, and occasionally vice versa, suggests that there was an intentional adoption of pre-existing fashions. This is confirmed by the use of similar surface decorative techniques, which gave the vessel a more familiar form. The reasons for this apparent conservatism were probably twofold. Firstly, the adoption by glass of traditional forms and decorative techniques enabled established concepts of style and imagery to be displayed. Although the vessel was made from a different material, many familiar aspects of design were present, allowing its functional and symbolic purpose to be known. In this way, despite being a new luxury item, it was imbued with messages similar to those already carried by ceramics and metalwares. Secondly, by adopting many of the decorative techniques of traditionally valuable vessels, particularly engraving on silver, an element of emulation was achieved. A glass vessel by imitating a more expensive silver one could draw on some of the connotations of wealth and prestige that it possessed. However, glasswares of this period did not depend only on other media forms and decorations. A number of completely new types and innovative designs can be observed. The presence of forms, such

as the mould-blown or compound stem, which could never be achieved in ceramics or metalwares, demonstrate the desire for new patterns. Likewise new decorative techniques were able to produce vessels with a distinct look. With the evolution of new forms it was possible to express new evolving tastes and fashions, demonstrable by the presence of new kinds of artefacts at the table. However it was primarily the use of colourless glass that differentiated these vessels from other forms of tablewares. More than any other trait, its transparency made glass unique in the repertoire of artefacts associated with dining.

The changing role of vessel glass The conspicuous consumption of glass The patterned discard of glass on sites is as significant as its initial use and is more easily investigated archaeologically. By the examination of context further patterns of glass use and discard can be defined. The examination of the way that an artefact is deposited can indeed lead to a more detailed understanding of its use. The disposal of glass on both urban and elite sites has already been discussed. Varied patterns emerged from these two categories of site. Most of the glass from urban contexts was deposited in either pits or filled cellars. Glass in these contexts would seem to have been disposed of in relatively large quantities over a short period of time, if not in a single action. By contrast glass at elite sites showed a different pattern of disposal. At Acton Court and Nonsuch Palace for example, the glass came in a more fragmented state from less specific contexts. It seemed to have been disposed of after breakage and subsequently deposited with other general waste. However a further factor may influence these patterns of use and disposal – the use of glass as an item of conspicuous consumption. In recent years theoretical positions on the consumption of artefacts through their acquisition, use, and final deposition have been explored, and a good summary of these can be found in Courtney 1997. The notion of conspicuous consumption was first put forward in 1899 with the publication of Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class. He defined conspicuous consumption as the use of material culture to display wealth overtly with the failure to do so marking social inferiority. He further argued that material goods were not only functional objects but also displays of conspicuous waste (Veblen 1925, 69–101). Consequently, the visible expense of an object and the loss of wealth following its purchase were used to convey messages of rank and superiority. Bourdieu, in his assessment of taste in France, has drawn heavily on these concepts. He suggested that economic power ‘asserts itself by the destruction of riches, conspicuous consumption, squandering and every form of gratuitous luxury’ (Bourdieu 1984, 55).

32 At first sight the use of glass as the medium for conspicuous consumption seems unlikely. Glass was considerably cheaper than silver and would have been less visible than precious metals as a conspicuous display of wealth. A fine example is provided by the Armada service, the largest surviving set of late-Tudor parcel gilt dishes, consisting of 26 vessels (Thornton and Cowell 1996). This set was built up over a period of twenty years, and such a display of silver, weighing over 30lbs in total, would have demonstrated considerable wealth and status. The value of the silver differentiates the Armada service from a similar-sized collection of glass. The accumulation of a large collection of silver plate represented not just a display of wealth but also an economic investment. Accumulated family plate could always be sold or melted down in times of financial need (Thornton and Cowell 1996, 175). This was not possible with glass which, unlike silver and pewter, had no real scrap value when broken. The acquisition of glass represented the conspicuous waste of wealth for two reasons. Firstly, the fragility of the material meant that the vessel was unlikely to have a long life span. Despite some rare examples of glass vessels with contemporary repairs (Willmott 1997b; 2001a), these represent only a tiny proportion of the total numbers of vessels discarded. Once broken, the glass could only be thrown away and this clearly caused some concern with those responsible for their care, as Harrison recognised in 1587 when he noted: ‘that they [glasses] breed much strife towards such as have charge of them’ (Harrison 1994, 128). The second aspect of conspicuous consumption can be seen in the relatively rapid changing fashions of glass. Even if a glass survived undamaged it was still a wasted expense when it became unfashionable. The large-scale dumping particularly from inns, seen for example at Bagshot or Guildford, was the probable result of changing tastes resulting from evolving fashions. Any investment in glass, due both to its fragility and changing stylistic reasons, would be a clear statement of disposable wealth. Earlier in this chapter it was noted that there were differences in the patterns of disposal between elite and urban levels of society. Whilst the former group tended to favour glass earlier, its pattern of discard was suggestive of disposal due to breakage. The vessels were usually highly fragmented and disposed of along with other household rubbish. For the 16th-century elite, glass represented a restricted luxury item, through which wealth was visibly lost once it was broken. This contrasts with the pattern displayed among the urban groups from the first half of the 17th century. Clearly, glass was broken by accident, a factor attested by the fact that the repair of vessels has thus far only been found in towns (Willmott 2001a). However, the presence of large dumped groups, sometimes in contemporary deposits, suggests that glass vessels were often discarded as the result of changing fashions in design. To the urban population a conspicuous investment in

glass was stimulated more by competitive emulation within their own social group than with the elite, who by the 17th century tended to use other vessel media. The themes of competitive emulation and the ‘trickle down’ of fashion through the social classes were expanded upon by McKendrick in his study of 18th-century clothing (McKendrick et al 1982, 22). This simplistic view of style transfer, with social classes copying their superiors, has been criticised, particularly in the claim that it was an 18th-century phenomenon (eg Campbell 1987, 20–1). Certainly there was no apparent emulation of the elite by the urban population in terms of glass use, and the manner of glass disposal suggests that they had different meanings. However, there was an apparent element of emulation within the urban social group that resulted in both the discard of complete or useable vessels and the repair of others once broken. The full extent of change in fashion and social emulation within urban populations of the early 17th century remains unclear. There appears to have been an ever-developing market for new styles and media. It is probably no coincidence that this period saw the first appearance of new pottery forms such as early geometric Delftwares in urban contexts (eg Archer 1997, 43, no A42).

The decline in glass use and the Puritan ethic The emphasis in this section of the chapter has been on the use of decoration to encode a vessel with explicit meanings. The examination of a vessel’s form and decoration has helped to identify many of the metaphors imbued by design. However, these elaborate processes did not decorate the vast majority of vessels. Indeed the absence of ornamentation on a vessel could have been equally symbolic. This is a conclusion suggested by Brain’s (2000, 1) description of the cigar stem as a ‘plain functional Roundhead design’. It is probably no coincidence that the majority of more highly decorated vessels occurred in the 16th rather than the 17th centuries. In the former century enamelling, engraving, and the use of vetro a retorti and vetro a fili trailing were more prevalent. During the 17th century, with the exception of compoundstem goblets, the majority of vessels remained undecorated, or only had simple trailed or opticblown features. However, it would be erroneous to associate such changing patterns of design and taste with a growing Puritan ethic. This can be demonstrated by a comparison of Civil War deposits. For example, the glass recovered from the Royalist site at Basing House (Charleston 1971) hardly differs from that at Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993), held by the Parliamentarians. Both sites contain highquality mould-blown goblets and beakers, and no differentiation based upon the affiliation of the site’s occupants can be detected. The apparent cessation in production and use of

33 glass tablewares at the Civil War has previously been assumed to be due to the Puritan dislike of glass. Thorpe (1961, 135) stated that ‘many people regarded fine crystal as a relic of royalty’ whilst Charleston (1984, 97) comments that during the Interregnum ‘the demand for luxury glass was presumably not so great’. However there is no evidence for this, nor for the assumption that people ‘confused wine glasses with drunkenness’ (Thorpe 1961, 135). The real reason for the lack of production during the interregnum was due to the economic collapse of the industry. With the Civil War, Mansell’s patents were cancelled, and the industry was damaged through the disruption of both raw material supplies and the traditional markets (Godfrey 1975, 135). Insofar as it is possible to tell, the Puritan ethic and the Commonwealth government did not affect the access to, and demand for, glass. The presumption that drinking was against the Puritan ethic has been disputed by modern historians. Hill (1970, 198) quotes Cromwell saying that he thought it utterly absurd ‘to keep wine out of the country lest men should be drunk’. Indeed it was during this period that the wine bottle saw its genesis and first mass production (Charleston 1984a, 93–5), whilst it is clear that glass was still being imported in sufficient quantities to merit taxation (Buckley 1914, 18). The main reason for the general movement towards plainer glasses during the 17th century was the result of a longer ongoing process. By the middle of the 15th century the production of cristallo, with its supposed likeness to rock-crystal, had been perfected in Venice (Charleston 1984a, 43). Clear colourless glass was manufactured in all the major production areas of Europe by the end of the 16th century, and was the basis for Verzelini’s and Mansell’s industry in England. Throughout the Tudor and Stuart period in England, with the exception of occasional examples, all soda or mixed-alkali vessels were made in a colourless metal. It is clear that these were not intended to deceive the viewer into thinking the vessel was rock crystal, as glass vessels were in shapes and designs that could not be achieved in this medium. It is unlikely that most people, who would never have seen such rare vessels, would have understood these metaphors. The true reason for the popularity of colourless vessels probably lay in their role as receptacles for liquids, particularly wine and beer. When Montaigne (1991, 1231) explained his preference for glass it was because it displayed its contents. The glass acted as a vehicle for the display and presentation of the wine, and so was made colourless for this reason. Through its visual display, food and drink gained increased importance and status, leading to a gradual change in vessel style from the 16th to the 17th century (Willmott 1997a). As dining habits became ever more regulated and refined, so too did the importance of the presentation of food or drink. Therefore high-status vessels, and glass in particular, became increasingly important not only as objects to impress in their own right, but also as

vehicles of display. It is, thus, no surprise that tablewares become plainer and that ordinary utilitarian vessels, such as flasks and bottles, which were never designed for display, continued to be made in naturally coloured potash glass. Consequently, the attribution of plainer styles of tablewares, during the 17th century, to Puritan ethics and sentiments might be misleading, as the clarity of the goblet only helped to emphasise the wine that it contained.

Glass on the eve of the lead-crystal revolution Documentary evidence for glass production during the decade or so after the Restoration is still not matched by the archaeological evidence. None of Buckingham’s furnaces in London have been excavated and it is still unclear exactly what their products were. In other domestic archaeological contexts it is impossible to suggest definitively what vessels are of English, rather than foreign, origin. Part of the problem may be that they copied those known to have been produced and imported from abroad, and many of the Venetian glasses illustrated in the Greene letters probably have English counterparts. The invention of lead-crystal, credited to George Ravenscroft, has already been discussed, as have earlier forms of lead-glass and a possible continental origin for the metal. However, the intentional use of high levels of lead in glass was not particularly innovative. What was new was the scale at which it was used and the relatively rapid pace of its adoption. From the closing decades of the 17th century there are a number of surviving glasses in museum and private collections, and these are being complemented by an increasing number of archaeological examples. However, when considering the development of the new lead-crystal, it is easy to forget that not all vessel types were affected. Many forms continued to be produced or evolve from pre-Ravenscroft styles. Vessel types such as potash bottles, phials, and bowls, as well as some soda drinking glasses, continued to be produced into the 18th century. Likewise, many forms that are more commonly associated with lead-crystal, such as the posset, had earlier soda precursors. Nevertheless, the introduction of lead-crystal did lead to a variety of new forms, usually attributed to the refractory properties of the metal. Lead-crystal was able to achieve a depth of vision and sparkle through the way that light, and artificial light in particular, reacted to it – a striking difference to any soda-based glass. Whilst aesthetic qualities played an obvious part in the fashioning of new forms, they also had a less desirable effect. Many of the fine and delicate features that so typified the façon de Venise tradition were lost. Lead-crystal glasses had to be thicker and heavier. Finally it is important to consider why such a new and radically different medium was adopted with such speed and why traditional soda forms were displaced.

34 Firstly, lead-crystal represented, at least initially, a product that might have been an English innovation. Even if it was invented on the continent it was first effectively produced and marketed in England. New styles could thus be produced that were domestically made, and against which foreign competition was unable to compete. Secondly, lead-crystal was a medium and a symbol fitting for its time. The late 17th century was a period when England was starting to expand economically and territorially across the globe. Throughout the late 17th and the 18th centuries English products, with ceramics and glassware in particular, were being used throughout the world at a hitherto unknown scale. The large deposits of English

glass from many early colonial sites such as Williamsburg (Noel-Hume 1969) demonstrate its importance as a commodity. Indeed the fact that the residents of Jamestown build a glasshouse within a year of the settlement’s foundation in 1607, attests to the importance placed on glass within colonial life and trade (Harrington 1952). Not only were prestige items required for trade, but also they were important symbols of political identity; items such as these were able to embody national sentiments. Lead-crystal glass was radically different, it drew few influences from the façon de Venise traditions of Venice or other European centres. For the first time in English glassmaking a true façon d’Anglais had evolved.

5

A classification of vessel glass c 1500–1670

are colourless, unless stated otherwise. However, some mixed-alkali glasses have an observable grey or dark tint, although this can vary greatly from vessel to vessel, and these more specific and subtle ranges of colour difference can not be easily noted in a standardised classification. As a result a certain amount of variation must be expected when the terms ‘green-tinted’ or ‘colourless’ are encountered within the typological descriptions. Likewise definitions of frequency are very hard to quantify since they depend on obvious excavation biases; thus any indications of rarity are extremely subjective. However, it is important to give some suggestion of frequency so a definition is presented here based upon the relative numbers of each type found within all the excavated sites collated in the typology. It is essential that these figures are used cautiously as they will certainly change as further sites are dug and more research is undertaken. The terms used are defined in Table 2.

The classification is based primarily on published groups of glass from the period. Its purpose is to aid the speedy and reliable identification of vessel glass and to provide the best published examples for ready comparison. It is neither based upon, nor includes, every excavated fragment, although it fully represents the range of vessel glass used in England between c 1500 and 1670.

Identifying glass in the classification The classification has been designed to contain the basic information required for the identification of the vessels covered. The glass is broadly divided between seven broad categories; beakers, goblets, jugs and possets, flasks, bowls, jars, and chemical wares. General discussions of the forms are undertaken within these broader categories, considering questions of function, status, and contemporary references to the material. Within these categories the vessels are further divided by their identifiable features and decoration. A simple and consistent format has been adopted for each sub-form to enable the easy identification of the fragments. The type of metal, the colour, the date range, the provenance, and the frequency of the types are clearly laid out, and are followed by a brief description. The vessel is then illustrated and further examples listed. The majority of these examples are already published and referenced; where the vessel glass is awaiting publication the author is indicated. Occasional examples of unpublished material are included, as is the site name, or, in the case of material from the old Guildhall Museum collections in London (now held by the Museum of London), the MoL accession number. Within this classification, some categories must be treated with a degree of flexibility. This is particularly the case with the definition of colour, which is subjective at the best of times. In general almost all potash glasses are a light-tinted green in colour, although some examples can be much darker. Likewise the majority of soda and mixed-alkali metals Table 2

The distribution maps and illustrations The majority of the major forms have associated distribution maps. These are consistent in their numbering with the first distribution map (Fig 1), which contains all the sites mentioned in the text. However, the individual numbers are still explained in the captions to the maps. The illustrations are all redrawn from either published examples, indicated in the text of the type descriptions, or the author’s originals. They are all at the scale of 1:2 (unless indicated) and adapted to provide as uniform a style as possible. The decoration is usually self-evident from the type descriptions, although the use of dotted areas usually indicates opaque white coloration. More complex decoration is indicated in the illustration caption. The illustrations contain only those parts of the vessel present, no attempt has been made to reconstruct the missing elements as this could be potentially misleading. Full judicious reconstructions and time-lines for all the forms are included towards the back of the book (Figs 148–169).

Frequency definitions

Number of known

Frequency

0–2

Very rare

3–5

Rare

6–9

Uncommon

10–14

Quite common

15+

Very common

Beakers and tankards Beakers in both Roman (Millett 1979, 37) and medieval (MPRG 1998, 6.1) pottery studies are usually classified as vessels with a height that is greater than their maximum width. Whilst this is generally the case with glass beakers, some forms, such as the 35

36 squat beaker, can be wider than they are tall. In this classification beakers are defined by two characteristics. First, the majority of the vessel is used to hold a liquid. Although beakers can be supported on prunt feet, base-rings, and pedestals these usually do not exceed a fifth of the height of the vessel. Second, beakers can be defined by their function. They are always used for the direct consumption of a liquid, rather than for its serving or storage. Other terms have been used in both contemporary sources and modern literature to refer to these vessels. In 16th and 17th-century inventories and accounts the term ‘pot’ is frequently used and this seems to refer to a beaker form. Likewise, modern terms such as tumbler, can, or cup have been used, although the latter implies the presence of a handle. Beakers never have functional handles, although rare examples may have applied decorative wings that would have been too weak to lift the vessel with. Although beakers were always used for the consumption of liquids, these latter varied between the different forms; this is discussed in the individual type descriptions. Nevertheless the contents would generally have been some form of alcohol, either beer or distilled spirits, as water was rarely drunk by those who could afford not to, for justifiable health reasons. Tankards are a variation of the beaker form. As with beakers the majority of the vessel held the liquid and they were specifically for drinking from. In addition to these features the tankard had a single applied handle that was used for the lifting of the vessel. Although similar in form to jugs, they can be differentiated by the lack of an everted rim or pouring lip. Tankards are sometimes referred to as mugs or even cups in contemporary literature. Sixteenthand 17th-century sources reveal a number of other terms: the one-handled pots in the Henry VIII inventory are probably tankards (Hartshorne 1968, 464– 65), whilst terms such as flagon or semaise seem to refer to similar vessels. As with most beakers, tankards were probably used for the consumption of liquids in larger volumes, and beer in particular.

1

Cylindrical beakers

Cylindrical beakers are a simple form, being nearly straight-sided with vertical or slightly everted rims and a simple low pushed-in base (Plate 6). The height of the vessel is usually twice its maximum breadth and would have been used for larger quantities of liquid, most likely ale or beer. The size and function of a cylindrical beaker conforms to the general dimensions of a type of beer glass described by Sir Hugh Platt in 1594 as ‘of six or eight inches in height and being of one equall bignesse from the bottom to the top’ (Platt 1979, I, 80). During the 17th century depictions of cylindrical beakers containing beer are a frequent subject of Dutch still-life paintings. It may

Plate 6 Seventeenth-century cylindrical beaker with optic-blown ribs and overlaid trail. English mixed-alkali glass, from London. (Photo: H Willmott) be no coincidence that they predominate in breakfast scenes that also include herring and bread such as Pieter Claeaz’s 1636 Herring with a glass of beer and roll and Joseph de Bray’s 1656 Praise of pickled herring (Chong and Kloek 1999, 145, 235). The larger capacity of a cylindrical beaker would have been more suited to the weaker ‘small beer’ drunk in the morning. Cylindrical glass beakers mirrored forms already present in other media. Silver beakers of identical size and form are known from the 16th century (Schroder 1987, 71) and the same is true for surviving pewter of the early 17th century (Michaelis 1955, pl 36). Despite being a functional form, some beakers of this type found on the continent were too large for practical use. One cylindrical ice-glass beaker recovered from the Langestraat in Alkmaar, the Netherlands, is 355mm tall and has a capacity of over seven litres (Bitter 1997, 91). Such a vessel would more likely have been used for display, given its potential weight when full of liquid. Cylindrical beakers, being a common form, are distributed widely in England (Fig 4). Although prevalent throughout the second half of the 16th century and the majority of the 17th century, the greatest number and diversity of forms occurs in the first half 17th century. One feature that changes during this period is the presence or absence of a base-ring. All examples from the 16th and early 17th centuries have a solid applied base-ring, which was

37 Illustrated example: a) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, nos 101) b) London, Lambeth (Hinton 1988, 383, nos 178) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 100) Canterbury (Shepherd 1995, 1251, nos 535–36) Christchurch (Charleston 1983a, 72, no 7) Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 210, no 30) London, Aldgate (Charleston and Vince 1984, 89, no 11) London Gracechurch Street London, Abacus House Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, no 22) Newcastle (Ellison 1979, 170, nos 42a-b) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norton Priory Norwich (Haslam 1993, 107, no 678) Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 241, nos 4, 6) West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 24, nos 119, 146)

a

Figure 4

Distribution of cylindrical beakers

1 Acton Court, 4 Bagshot, 9 Beeston Castle, 12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 15 Castle Rising, 17 Chester, 19 Christchurch, 21 Colchester, 22 Denny Abbey, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 27 Hereford, 28 Hull, 30 London, 32 Montgomery Castle, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 35 Northampton, 36 Norton Priory, 37 Norwich, 39 Oxford, 40 Plymouth, 41 Poole, 47 Taunton, 51 West Bromwich, 52 Winchester, 53 Wood Hall

usually rigaree-patterned. This is a feature that disappears during the middle of the 17th century and is a useful guide in differentiating the dates of vessels that are often stylistically identical. Cylindrical beakers do not seem to have survived the introduction of lead glass and are not found after the 1670s.

b Figure 5

1.1

Plain cylindrical beakers

Plain cylindrical beaker (Fig 5)

Metal: Potash, mixed-alkali, and soda. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (others). Date range: Second half of the 16th century, and 17th century. Provenance: England, Venice, and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Very common, particularly during the first half of the 17th century. Description: The form is left completely plain on the surface. Examples from the late 16th and first half of the 17th centuries almost always have a solid applied base-ring that is usually rigaree-decorated (Fig 5a). Later vessels are often without a base-ring (Fig 5b).

1.2 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 6) Metal: Potash, mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), clear (others). Date range: Late 16th century to mid 17th century. Provenance: England, Venice, and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: Usually decorated over the whole body with broad vertical ribs. If only a portion of the vessel

38 survives it could be confused with a Type 1.7. Illustrated example: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, no 12) Other examples: Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993, 170, no 11) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, no 103) Hull (Henderson and Jackson 1993, 147, no 16) London, Gracechurch Street Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 38)

manufacture. Illustrated example: Oxford (Hassal et al 1984, 241, no 5) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 22) Chester (Anon 1939, 22, no 8) London, Abacus House

1.4 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown bosses (Fig 8)

Figure 6 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs 1.3 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown wrythen ribs (Fig 7) Metal: Potash and mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (mixed-alkali). Date range: Early to mid 17th century. Provenance: Primarily England, possibly façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Rare. Description: The whole body is normally covered with the wrythen ribbing. However, the subsequent inflation of the vessel can stretch the ribbing almost to obscurity on the wider portions of the body. Most wrythen-decorated cylindrical beakers do not have base-rings, suggesting a later date of

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries, possibly Venice. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: Cylindrical beakers decorated with optic-blown bosses are far more prevalent in the Low Countries where they were almost certainly produced (Henkes 1994, 137–38). The precise shape of the bosses can vary from well-defined diamonds to more amorphous blobs. Illustrated example: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, no 12b) Other examples: Canterbury (Shepherd 1985, 153, no 28) Canterbury (Shepherd 1995, 1251, no 534) London, Southwark (Hinton 1988, 383, no 185) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 105, no 663, 106, no 671) Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 241, no 3) Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 45, nos 32–33) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, nos 50–53)

Figure 8 bosses

Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown

1.5 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown mesh (Fig 9)

Figure 7 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown wrythen ribs

Metal: Potash and mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (mixed-alkali). Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England, Low Countries.

39 Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The optic decoration consists of a raised network of lines enclosing diamond-shaped insets. The decoration can become quite faint on the broader sections of the vessel. Illustrated example: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, no 97) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 65) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, no 12c) London, Gracechurch Street Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Taunton (Brown 1988, 137, no 4)

Figure 9 mesh

Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown

1.6 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown ribs and spiral-thread trail (Fig 10) Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The beaker is usually smaller than most cylindrical varieties and is initially blown into a vertically ribbed optic mould. Once the vessel is further inflated and finished, a fine spiral-thread trail is applied to the vessel. Not to be confused with Types 1.10 and 1.11 as the trail is added afterwards and is not cut by the optic-blowing. Although uncommon, a higher concentration of finds in London suggests an origin there. Illustrated example: London (Mol ER 5148)

Other examples: Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) London, Gracechurch Street Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, no 23) Norton Priory Winchester (Charleston 1990, 945, no 3306)

1.7 Cylindrical beaker with horizontal trails (Fig 11) Metal: Potash, mixed-alkali, and soda. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (others). Date range: Late 16th century to late 17th century. Provenance: England, Low Countries, and Venice. Frequency: Rare. Description: The form resembles Type 1.1, but a number of different styles of horizontal trailing are added to the body. As with the plain form, earlier examples have an applied base-ring (Fig 11a), whilst the later ones do not (Fig 11b). Some of these can be fine, thick, or even rigaree-cut. In this category the trails are always the same colour as the base metal. Illustrated examples: a) London (Mol ER 5150) b) Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 241, no 6) Other examples: Chester, Hunter Street London, Gracechurch Street London, Abacus House

a

b Figure 10 Cylindrical beaker with optic-blown ribs and spiral-thread trail

Figure 11 trails

Cylindrical beakers with horizontal

40 1.8 Cylindrical beaker with coloured trailing (Fig 12) Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless ground, trails usually white or blue. Date range: Second half of the 16th century to first half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries and Venice, although other façon de Venise centres possible. Frequency: Quite common. Description: The basic cylindrical beaker form is decorated with applied coloured trails. The most common are vetro a fili blue or white spirals which are marvered flat into the surface (Fig 12). More unusual are those with twisted vetro a retorti trailing. Beakers of this type can also be decorated with applied prunts, sometimes in the form of a lion mask. Although traditionally regarded as Venetian products, this form of beaker was a common product of the Low Countries (Henkes 1994, 170–72), and it is likely that most examples found in England originated there. Illustrated example: London, Gracechurch Street Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 69) Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Castle Rising (Cool 1997, 105, no 1) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, no 107) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, no 89) Hull (Henderson and Jackson 1993, 147, no 15) London, Abacus House London, Lambeth (Hinton 1988, 383, no 181) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 107, no 680)

Figure 12 trailing

Frequency: Quite common. Description: A cylindrical beaker form produced in Germany and the southern Low Countries, and the Antwerp area in particular (Tait 1967; Henkes 1994, 129–32). The decoration is produced by the wrapping of a trail around the initial paraison and then inflating it in a vertically ribbed mould. This produces a flattened cut or ‘spiral chequered’ design. Not be confused with Type 1.6 where the trail overlays the ribbing. A very rare variation of this beaker is further decorated with enamelled dots between the cut trails and a wavy line below the rim (see back cover). Enamelled examples have only been found in the southern Netherlands, suggesting a centre for manufacture there. Illustrated examples: a) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 106, no 668) b) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 106, no 670) Other examples: Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993, 170, no 11) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, nos 8–9a) Chester, Crook Street Colchester (Willmott 1995, 122) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, no 96) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 276, no 147) Hereford (Boulton 1985, 28, no 22) London, Gracechurch Street Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 301, no 76) Norton Priory

Cylindrical beaker with coloured a

1.9 Cylindrical beakers with thick-cut trailing (Fig 13) Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Late 16th century to mid 17th century. Provenance: Southern Low Countries, Germany.

b Figure 13 trailing

Cylindrical beakers with thick-cut

41 1.10 Cylindrical beaker with thin-cut trailing (Fig 14) Metal: Potash and low-quality mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (mixed-alkali). Date range: Late 16th century to mid 17th century. Provenance: England, Low Countries, and Germany. Frequency: Quite common. Description: This form was made in the same way as Type 1.9. However the spiral trails were finer and more closely spaced and often only flattened, rather than cut, by the optic mould. A further difference is in the quality of their metal. Whilst the thick-cut varieties are always in a good-quality mixed-alkali glass, those with thin-cut trails occur in potash or poorer quality mixed-alkali metals. The presence of fragments of this form of beaker at the furnace in Rosedale, North Yorkshire, suggests that they may have been produced in England as well as the Low Countries (Charleston 1972a, 132, nos 18–22). Illustrated example: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, no 99) Other examples: Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Canterbury (Shepherd 1985, 153, nos 26–27) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, nos 7, 9) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, nos 75–76) Hull (Henderson 1987, 194, no 33) London, Gracechurch Street London, Abacus House Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, no 21) Newcastle (Ellison 1983, 183, no 102) Norton Priory Norwich (Haslam 1993, 106, nos 665–69) Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 45, nos 5, 16, 18, 27) Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

1.11

Cylindrical ice-glass beaker (Fig 15)

Metal: High-quality mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless, although they can have gilding around the rim. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: Venice and the Low Countries. Frequency: Very rare. Description: Cylindrical beakers made from ice glass are very rare in England. The form was a relatively common Venetian and façon de Venise product and it is uncertain as to why they are virtually absent from England. Cylindrical ice-glass beakers can vary greatly in size on the continent, with an example from Alkmaar having a height of 335mm (Bitter 1997, 91). Further research will probably reveal other examples of this form in England. Illustrated example: London (MoL A27852) Other examples: None known.

Figure 15

Cylindrical ice-glass beaker

1.12 Cylindrical beaker with enamelled decoration (Fig 16)

Figure 14 trailing

Cylindrical beaker with thin-cut

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless ground, enamel colours can vary. Date range: Late 16th century? Provenance: Venice and Low Countries although other façon de Venise centres possible. Frequency: Very rare. Description: As with all glass of this period, cylindrical beakers

42 decorated with enamelling are extremely rare. Examples from the Low Countries and Venice usually have decorative floral, figurative, and lettering motifs (Henkes 1994, 183–83; Tait 1979). The un-illustrated example from Acton Court has roundels constructed from enamel spots in blue, white, and red against a base background of worn gilding. Illustrated example: Poole (Charleston 1992, 137. no 5) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming).

trailed barrel beaker (Hartshorne 1968, 464), although this is uncertain. Some forms of barrel beakers, particularly those dating to the 16th century and decorated with pulled prunts, are common in the Low Countries and Germany but not in England. Like other forms of ‘Germanic’ beaker, such as the roemer, they appear not to have appealed to the English taste. Given this, it is not surprising that their distribution in England lies almost entirely in the ports of the south coast (Fig 17). They perhaps represent the personal goods of foreign merchants rather than items imported for retail.

2.1

Figure 16 Cylindrical beaker with enamelled decoration 2

Barrel beakers

Barrel beakers have convex sides, low pushed-in bases and in-turned rims, causing them to resemble casks. Although not as capacious as the cylindrical beaker, the function of the barrel beaker was most likely to have been the consumption of beer. It is possible that the pot ‘with whopes (hoops)’ mentioned in the Henry VIII inventory of 1542 is a reference to a

Trailed barrel beaker (Fig 18)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: Germany or Low Countries. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This form of barrel beaker has simple convex sides and a low pushed-in base. The central portion of the body has a band of horizontal trails, sometimes with an impressed raspberry prunt. The form is known as a tonnetje in the Netherlands (Henkes 1994, 154), although they probably originated in Germany. Illustrated example: Poole (Charleston 1986, 137, no 226) Other examples: None known.

Figure 18

2.2

Figure 17

Distribution of barrel beakers

24 Eccleshall Castle, 40 Plymouth, 41 Poole, 45 Southampton

Trailed barrel beaker

Prunted barrel beaker (Fig 19)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Usually a quite dark green. Date range: Sixteenth century.

43 Provenance: Germany. Frequency: Rare. Description: Known variously as the Krautstrunk in Germany and the Koolstronk in the Low Countries, this form originated in the 15th century. The body is convex-sided with a curved, slightly in-turned rim. The body is decorated with prunts that are pulled to a point, causing it to resemble the ‘cabbage stalk’ of its continental names. Always made in a potash glass, this form, despite its popularity on mainland Europe, is rare in England. Illustrated example: Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 50 and 51) Other examples: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 51, no 125 Southampton (Charleston 1975, 222, no 1550) London, Fleet Valley

Figure 19

3

Morelli in Venice (Hartshorne 1968, pl 30). It is also possible that some squat beakers also were manufactured in England at this time. It is from the Greene letters that the clearest indication of the vessel’s function can be gained. Most are clearly too small to have been used for beer, leaving the possibility of wine and spirits. Both uses seem to be indicated by Greene in a letter dated 10 February 1670 (Hartshorne 1968, 232; Charleston 1984a, 105). In this he indicates two sizes of squat beaker, the larger for French claret and Spanish sack, the smaller for ‘brandj’. Unfortunately it is not possible to divide the archaeological examples into these two categories, or to know if these functions were the same in the first half of the 17th century. The popularity of squat beakers in the Low Countries throughout the 17th century may represent a greater Dutch fondness for spirits, and jenever in particular, one that did not develop in England until a later date. Squat beakers, despite being relatively uncommon, are distributed widely throughout England, although there is a slightly higher incidence of vessels in the south (Fig 20).

Prunted barrel beaker

Squat beakers

Squat beakers are a simple form, having short, straight bodies, vertical rims, and low pushed-in or even flat bases. The height of a squat beaker rarely exceeds its maximum breadth and they are sometimes referred to as tumblers. As a form they span the whole of the 17th century and were produced in the Low Countries, Venice and probably England. Despite their geographical and temporal uniformity they possess a number of additional features that allow more precise identification. Forms dating to the first half of the 17th century almost always have either a simple applied base-ring or more commonly three raspberry-prunt feet. The presence of raspberry-prunt feet is a feature indicative of a Low Country origin, as is the occasional appearance of similar applied prunts to their bodies. Squat beakers found in the second half of the 17th century in England usually lack base-rings and raspberry-prunt feet. Whilst they still may have been manufactured in the Low Countries, closer parallels can be seen in Venice. By the late 1660s John Greene was ordering squat beakers of this shape from

Figure 20

Distribution of squat beakers

5 Barnard Castle, 14 Canterbury, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 26 Guildford, 30 London, 28 Nottingham

3.1

Plain squat beaker (Fig 21)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda.

44 Colour: Colourless. Date range: Seventeenth century. Provenance: Low Countries and Venice. Frequency: Rare. Description: The body is left completely plain although in early 17th-century Low Country examples the vessel is often supported on three clear or blue raspberry-prunt feet. Occasionally some examples have a fine, coloured trail applied to the rim. Illustrated examples: a) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 49) b) Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 68, nos 16) Other examples: Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

a

b Figure 21

Figure 22 Squat beaker with optic-blown horizontal ribs 3.3

Squat beaker with optic-blown bosses (Fig 23)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Seventeenth century. Provenance: Low Countries and Venice. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: As with Type 3.1, this variety appears to be a Low Country and Venetian product. Bossed examples with prunt feet are common in the Netherlands in the first half of the 17th century (Henkes 1994, 138–9), whilst examples without feet are amongst the vessels illustrated in the 1670s by John Greene to the Venetian Morelli (Hartshorne 1968, pl 30). Illustrated example: Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 68, no 19) Other examples: Barnard Castle Castle Rising (Cool 1997, 105, no 6) London, Aldgate (Charleston and Vince 1984, 89, no 12) Portsmouth (Fox and Barton 1986, 229, no 2) Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

Plain squat beakers

3.2 Squat beaker with optic-blown horizontal ribs (Fig 22) Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Second half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries or Venice. Frequency: Rare. Description: This is a later variety of squat beaker dating to the second half of the 17th century. It is decorated with simple bands of horizontal ribs. This type of beaker has no base-ring or prunt feet. Rare in England, more examples are known from the Low Countries (eg Henkes 1994, 149). Illustrated example: Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 68, no 18) Other examples: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 241, no 17) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 42, no 90)

Figure 23

Squat beaker with optic-blown bosses

3.4 Squat beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs and bosses (Fig 24) Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Second half of the 17th century.

45 Provenance: Venetian or English? Frequency: Rare. Description: A later variety of squat beaker, that only occurs in the second half of the 17th century. Decorated with more complex alternating vertical ribs and diamond-shaped bosses. The presence of a fragment of this beaker form amongst the working waste found at Bankside, London, might suggest manufacture there. This form had neither a base-ring nor raspberry-prunt feet Illustrated example: Guildford, Tunsgate (Fryer and Shelley 1997, 194, no 44) Other examples: London, Cannon Street (Charleston 1984a, pl 21c) London, Bankside (Egan 2000, 49, G112)

Figure 24 bosses

3.6

Squat beaker with coloured trails (Fig 26)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless ground, trails are usually white or blue. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This form has fine vetro a fili spiral trails applied to the body and marvered flat into the surface. These are usually blue and the vessel is supported on three blue raspberry-prunt feet. Illustrated example: London (MoL ER1605) Other examples: None known.

Squat beaker with optic-blown ribs and Figure 26

3.5

Squat beaker with coloured trails

Squat beaker with thin-cut trails (Fig 25)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Second half of the 17th century. Provenance: England? Frequency: Very rare. Description: The beaker was decorated with fine horizontal trails and then blown into a vertically ribbed mould that cut or impressed the decoration. Although this decorative technique was established in the Low Countries for nearly a century before these squat beakers were made, it is probable that they are English in origin. Illustrated example: Guildford, Tunsgate (Fryer and Shelley 1997, 194, no 45) Other examples: None known.

Figure 25

Squat beaker with thin-cut trails

4

Pedestal beakers

Pedestal beakers are the most common drinking vessel found on English sites. The vessel was formed from a single paraison of glass, with the basal end folded upon itself to form a narrowed constriction and an enclosed base-ring. Pedestal beakers can be divided into two distinct categories, both chronologically and by their metal. The earliest, dating to the 16th century, are made in a clear mixed-alkali or soda glass. They have cylindrical bodies, vertical rims, and short pedestal feet. These vessels are rare in England and are sometimes decorated with elaborate enamelling. The second type of pedestal beaker is the more ubiquitous potash variety. This had a more convex body, slightly in-turned rim, and, usually, a more constricted pedestal foot. This vessel was exclusively an English product, which first appeared in the second half of the 16th century and continued in use until the middle of the next century. The remains of potash pedestal beakers are frequently found at forest-glass furnaces, including Hutton, Rosedale (Charleston 1972a, 146–8), Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 28–9) and Kimmeridge (Crossley 1987, 359). Whilst many were left plain, the majority were decorated with a variety of optic-blown designs. Despite being the most common English drinking vessel, there are no certain contemporary refer-

46 4.1

Figure 27

Distribution of pedestal beakers

1 Acton Court, 2 Alcester, 4 Bagshot, 6 Basing House, 7 Battle Abbey, 9 Beeston Castle, 11 Bristol, 12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 16 Chelmsford, 17 Chester, 18 Chichester, 19 Christchurch, 20 Clarendon Palace, 21 Colchester, 22 Denny Abbey, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 28 Hull, 30 London, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 35 Northampton, 36 Norton Priory, 37 Norwich, 39 Oxford, 40 Plymouth, 41 Poole, 47 Taunton, 48 Temple Balsall, 51 West Bromwich, 52 Winchester, 53 Wood Hall

Plain pedestal beaker (Fig 28)

Metal: Potash, mixed-alkali, and soda. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (others). Date range: Sixteenth century and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England, Venice, and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Soda examples very rare, potash very common. Description: The vessel is left completely plain with no decoration. The form of the soda glass varieties is quite cylindrical and dates to the first half of the 16th century (Fig 28a). Far more common is the later English potash type, with its characteristic convex body and in-turned rim (Fig 28b). It is possible that some potash fragments classed as plain – particularly bases – may actually belong to decorated vessels where the optic-blown patterns have become stretched to obscurity. Illustrated examples: a) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 32) b) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, nos 64, 126) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, nos 23–4) Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Battle Abbey (Charleston 1985, 142, nos 44–6) Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993, 170, nos 21–2) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 246, no 51) Chelmsford (Cunningham 1985, 61, no 2) Chichester (Charleston 1981, 225, nos 27–9, 31)

a ences to them and their function can only be inferred. It is possible that they are the ‘streight upright ones, like our long beere glasses’ referred to in 1594 by Sir Hugh Platt (1979, III, 36). However, this description is sufficiently vague and might equally refer to the English fluted beaker (Type 5.3), although these date to a decade or so after 1594. Nevertheless, given their capacity and size they are most likely to have been used to consume beer. This is confirmed by their strong presence on more ordinary urban, and even occasionally poorer rural, sites where wine is less likely to have been drunk (Fig 27). Whilst soda pedestal beakers are rare and seemingly restricted to the south of England, potash varieties are prolific in every area of the country. The English form seems not to have been widely produced or used in other parts of Europe, where other local styles predominate. There are some notable exceptions, such as at Évora in Portugal (Ferreira 2000, 371), but these remain in the minority.

b Figure 28

Plain pedestal beakers

47 Clarendon Palace (Charleston 1988, 195, no 2) Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 209, no 15) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 40, nos 63–76) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 276, no 148) Hull (Armstrong 1977, 62, nos 56–58) Hull (Henderson and Jackson 1993, 147, no 21) London, Abacus House London, Gracechurch Street Newcastle (Ellison 1983, 183, no 93) Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, no 57) Norton Priory Norwich (Haslam 1993, 105, no 654) Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 241, no 2) Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 47, no 104b) Taunton (Charleston 1984c, 137, nos 7–9) Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 228, no 50) Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

4.2 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 29) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Second half of the 16th century and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very common. Description: Of the same form as Type 4.1, but decorated with broadly spaced vertical ribs running the length of the body. Often these are quite indistinct around the folded pedestal foot. The top of the ribbing under the rim often terminates with a rounded end that can have a slight sideways twist, caused by the finishing and fire-rounding of the rim. Illustrated example: Norwich (Haslam 1993, 105, no 656) Other examples: Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65, no 23) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 246, no 44) Chelmsford (Cunningham 1985, 61, no 1) Chester, Crook Street

Figure 29 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs

Chester, Hunter Street Chichester (Charleston 1981, 225, no 30) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 40, nos 80, 82) London, Abacus House London, Aldgate (Charleston and Vince 1984, 89, no 19) Newcastle (Ellison 1981, 168, no 406) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, no 57) Norton Priory Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, no 4, 139, nos 30, 32) Winchester (Charleston 1990, 945, no 3308) Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

4.3 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown wrythen ribs (Fig 30) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Second half of the 16th century and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very common. Description: Pedestal beakers decorated with wrythen ribbing are one of the most readily identifiable products of the period. The wrythen ribbing is usually strongest on the upper body, but can become obscured lower down on the vessel by the folding of the foot. Illustrated example: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Other examples: Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993, 170, no 14) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 246, nos 46–9) Chelmsford (Cunningham 1985, 61, no 3) Chichester (Charleston 1981, 225, no 32) Christchurch (Charleston 1983a, 72, nos 8, 10) Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 209 nos 13–14) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 40, nos 83–92) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, no 79)

Figure 30 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown wrythen ribs

48 London, Abacus House London, Gracechurch Street Newcastle (Ellison 1981, 168, no 407) Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, nos 64–5) Norton Priory Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 47, no 98) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, nos 33, 36) West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 29, nos 75–8) Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

4.4 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown bosses (Fig 31) Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries? Frequency: Uncommon. Description: Always made from a better quality metal, this form of pedestal beaker differs from other varieties. The optic-blown bosses, which are quite heavy and well pronounced, are usually diamond-shaped but can become more amorphous where the vessel has been marvered and shaped. The style of the decoration and the metal suggest that these vessels were probably produced in the Low Countries. Illustrated example: Alcester (Booth 1983, 24, no 19) Other examples: Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993, 170, no 18) Canterbury (Shepherd 1995, 1251, no 537) Chester, Crook Street Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, no 91) London, Abacus House

4.5 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown mesh (Fig 32) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Second half of the 16th century and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: Exclusively an English potash form, the raised mesh decoration usually encloses diamond or lozenge shapes. However, this can become heavily distorted on the subsequent manipulation and forming of the vessel. Illustrated example: Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, no 58) Other examples: Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Chester, Hunter Street Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 209, nos 16–17, 210, no 29) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, nos 93–4) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 108, no 702) Norwich (Margeson 1985, 62, no 55)

Figure 32

Pedestal beaker with optic-blown mesh

4.6 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown roundels (Fig 33)

Figure 31

Pedestal beaker with optic-blown bosses

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Second half of the 16th century and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The decoration consists of small depressed roundels on the vessel’s surface. These are often indistinct and only occur

49 on the upper body of the beaker. Illustrated example: Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, no 59) Other examples: Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 246, no 50) Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 209, no 12) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, no 95) London, Gracechurch Street

Figure 33 roundels

Date range: Late 16th century? Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: The decorative technique required a single complex optic mould. The lower portion of the vessel is decorated with widely spaced and prominent vertical ribs that diverge into a well-defined hexagonal mesh. This then reverts back to vertical ribbing below the rim. Illustrated example: Colchester (Willmott 1995, 106, no 1) Other examples: Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

Pedestal beaker with optic-blown

4.7 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical and wrythen ribs (Fig 34) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Late 16th century? Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This pattern is achieved using a vertically ribbed optic mould twice. Initially the paraison is decorated with twisted wrythen ribbing and then inflated again in the mould so that the vertical ribs cut the wrythen ribbing. The resultant decoration has a ‘feathered’ appearance and a heavily impressed surface. Illustrated example: Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, no 68) Other examples: Chester, Crook Street.

Figure 35 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs and mesh 4.9

Pedestal beaker with horizontal trails (Fig 36)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Early 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: Occasionally pedestal beakers are decorated on the central and upper body with fine horizontal thread trails that are left prominent on the surface. These trails are always the same colour as the base metal. Illustrated example: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 51, no 109) Other examples: Chester (Anon 1939, 22, no 5)

Figure 34 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical and wrythen ribs

4.8 Pedestal beaker with optic-blown vertical ribs and mesh (Fig 35) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted.

Figure 36

Pedestal beaker with horizontal trails

50 4.10

Pedestal beaker with coloured trails (Fig 37)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless ground, trails usually white. Date range: First half of the 16th century. Provenance: Venice and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Very rare. Description: These vessel were always produced using a high-quality mixed-alkali or soda glass. The body of the vessel is more cylindrical than other potash pedestal beaker varieties. They are decorated with marvered spiral vetro a fili trailing, usually opaque white in colour. Illustrated example: Bristol (Good 1987, 104, no 12) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 16)

Figure 37

Pedestal beaker with coloured trails

4.11 Pedestal beaker with enamelled decoration (Fig 38)

5

Fluted beakers

Fluted beakers are one of the least common forms in England, and yet one of the varieties about which the most is known. They can be divided into two types. The first are those made in potash glass that is either round or octagonal in cross-section and decorated with a number of horizontal trails. These vessels were a common form during the late 16th and early 17th centuries in the Low Countries (Henkes 1994, 157–60), Germany (Baumgartner and Krueger 1988, 399–405), and Scandinavia (Schlüter 1979), although there is no evidence for their production in England. The second type are made in a poorer quality mixed-alkali glass. Unlike the other fluted varieties, it is decorated with a combination of prominent vertical and horizontal trails. The frequent appearance of fluted beakers in Dutch still-life paintings, such as Jan Jansz van de Velde’s 1653 Glasses, smoking implements and cards (Chong and Kloek 1999, 207), confirms their use for the consumption of beer. Furthermore in some cases they appear to have been used for drinking games as a poem engraved on an example in the Museum Für Angewandte Kunst, Vienna, demonstrates; To life. To the health of us all We will drink up to every mark However, he who cannot drink his measure Will have to keep drinking to the next mark Thus I will do my best

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless ground, enamels vary. Date range: First half of the 16th century. Provenance: Venice and other façon de Venise centres, particularly in Central Europe. Frequency: Very rare. Description: As with the plain and coloured, trailed, soda-glass, pedestal beakers this variety is both earlier in date and more straight-sided in form. On continental examples the decoration can take the form of figural or floral motifs. However, the examples thus far found in England seem to consist primarily of enamel-banded lettering. Illustrated examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 28) Other examples: Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, nos 6–10)

Figure 39 Figure 38 Pedestal beakers with enamelled decoration

Distribution of fluted beakers

4 Bagshot, 15 Castle Rising, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 34 Nonsuch, 40 Plymouth

51 To drink up to my mark Just as my neighbour has done I too will drink my share. To life. (Laan 1994, 99–100). Whether they were used for this purpose in England is unclear. The lack of suitable marked trails on the one variety of fluted beaker produced in England makes it unlikely. Fluted beakers of all varieties are rare in England and, with only a couple of exceptions, appear to only have been used in the south of the country (Fig 39).

5.1

Cylindrical-fluted beaker (Fig 40)

Metal: Potash, low-quality mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (mixed-alkali). Date range: Late 16th century to early 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries, Northern Germany, and Scandinavia. Frequency: Very rare.

Figure 40

Cylindrical-fluted beaker

Description: This is the simpler form of fluted beaker, having a cylindrical tapering body and applied foot. The body is usually decorated with several horizontal rigaree trails. Illustrated example: Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 273, no 110) Other examples: None known.

5.2

Octagonal-fluted beaker (Fig 41)

Metal: Potash or low-quality mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (mixed-alkali). Date range: Late 16th century and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries, Northern Germany, and Scandinavia. Frequency: Rare. Description: This fluted beaker takes a nearly identical form to the cylindrical variety. However, in the final stage of its production a former is pressed into the interior of the vessel producing the octagonal shape. A further difference is that the body of the vessel is often decorated with optic-blown horizontal ribbing. Like Type 5.1, this type usually has applied horizontal rigaree trails, usually in a blue glass. This form is usually known as a pasglas on the continent. Illustrated example: Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 52, no 52) Other examples: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 46, no 108) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001)

Figure 41

Octagonal-fluted beaker

52 5.3 Fluted beaker with horizontal and vertical trails (Fig 42) Metal: Low-quality mixed-alkali glass. Colour: Colourless, although often slightly tinted. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: This form of fluted beaker is similar in form to the cylindrical-fluted beaker, although it differs in the application of coloured trails. The lower half of the body has thick, prominent, opaque-white, vertical trails. These terminate below a horizontal band of two opaque-white trails enclosing a blue one. The greater numbers of this type of vessel found in England, coupled with their virtual absence on the continent, is suggestive of native manufacture. Illustrated example: London, Gracechurch Street Other examples: Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Castle Rising (Cool 1997, 105, no 2) London, St. Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 55, no 159)

6

Applied-foot beakers

Applied-foot beakers are smaller vessels with a tapering body and slightly everted rim that rests on an added flaring foot piece. Often the body of the vessel has a pair of attached decorative loop handles, and it is possible that these vessels were also made with lids. These are rare vessels that date to the second half of the 17th century and were made in several colours, with known examples occurring in opaque white, manganese purple or a mixture of the two. It is probable that they are sometimes misidentified when fragmentary, accounting for their low numbers. Footed beakers such as these can be seen in the illustrated letter of John Greene in 1668 (Hartshorne 1968, pl 32), and this confirms a probable Venetian origin for these vessels. Their function remains uncertain, although they were most probably used for wine or even spirits. However further research is required to identify more comprehensive features and distributions.

6.1

Plain applied-foot beakers (Fig 43)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless, opaque-white, and purple. Date range: Mid to late 17th century. Provenance: Venice? Frequency: Very rare. Description: The body is ‘tulip’-shaped with a slightly everted rim and rests on a separate applied flaring foot. Usually made in

a

b Figure 42 Fluted beaker with horizontal and vertical trails

Figure 43

Plain applied-foot beakers

53 both clear and coloured glass. They can be decorated with clear-glass handles with overlaid pinched trails. Illustrated examples: a) Guildford, Tunsgate (Fryer and Shelley 1997, 195, no 71) b) London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a) Other examples: None known.

7

Roemers

Roemers, or römers, have cylindrical bodies that lead to spherical bowls, whilst the vessel rests on either pinched or coiled base-rings. All roemers are decorated on the cylindrical section of the body with a variety of styles of applied prunts. Traditionally the earlier form of roemer, known as the berkemeier, is differentiated by a smaller and more everted bowl. However, it has been noted that such distinctions are not so clear-cut (Ruempol and van Dongen 1991, 185), and, given the scarcity of examples of either type in England, the vessels found here are all classified together by their surface prunts. Whilst roemers are one of the most common drinking vessels to be found on northern European sites, they remain rare in England. Their frequent appearance in continental art of the period and the numerous documentary references to them indicate that they were used for the consumption of white wine (eg van Dongen and Henkes 1994, 16–17). Indeed their prevalence in Dutch, and to a lesser

extent German, art suggests that they were important cultural icons. This probably accounts for their low numbers in England, where other forms of stemmed goblets for wine drinking were preferred. On the continent roemers can be accurately dated through iconographic studies (Brongers and Wijnman 1968) and archaeological context, and these dates can be applied to their appearance in England. Despite some evidence in the Greene letters that roemers were also copied by Venetian workshops (Hartshorne 1968, pl 30), all examples found in England originated from the Low Countries or Northern Germany. Although found in many areas of England, their greatest concentration thus far is in the south east (Fig 44).

7.1

Roemer with pulled prunts (Fig 45)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth and very early 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries and Northern Germany. Frequency: Rare. Description: This is the earliest form of roemer and has a cylindrical body and ovoid bowl. The base consists of either an applied base-ring that had been pulled at intervals to points, or in the later examples by a low applied coil. The cylindrical body is decorated with prunts pulled upwards to points. Illustrated example: London, St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 155, no 138) Other examples: London, Gracechurch Street

Figure 45 7.2

Figure 44

Distribution of roemers

14 Canterbury, 21 Colchester, 23 Durham, 30 London

Roemer with pulled prunts

Roemer with raspberry prunts (Fig 46)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Early 17th to 18th centuries. Provenance: Low Countries and Northern Germany. Frequency: Rare.

54 Description: This roemer also has a cylindrical body and ovoid bowl. The base is formed from a piled coil that generally grows taller through the 17th and 18th centuries. The cylindrical body is decorated with a series of flattened prunts, impressed with a tool to produce a spiked or raspberry pattern. Although this form is long-lived, all examples thus far found in England can be dated to the 17th century. Illustrated example: Durham (Ellison 1993, 104, no 11) Other examples: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 241, no 22) London, Southwark (Hinton 1988, 384, no 196)

Description: A more unusual form of roemer, it has a cylindrical body and a shorter slightly more everted bowl. The body is decorated with only three or four large, flattened prunts that occasionally have slight pulled points at their centres. The base consists of a low wound coil. Illustrated examples: a) Utrecht, Walsteeg b) Canterbury (Shepherd 1995, 1251, no 536) Other examples: Colchester (Willmott 1995, 101, no 12)

7.4 Roemer with a rod stem (Fig 48)

Figure 46

7.3

Roemer with raspberry prunts

Roemer with flattened prunts (Fig 47)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries and Northern Germany. Frequency: Very rare.

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: First half of the 16th century. Provenance: Low Countries and Northern Germany. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This is a more complex variant of the roemer. The body is more everted and changes into the bowl with little break. The body is decorated with small prunts pulled to sharp points and the lower edge of the body has an applied trail, which is pulled to points at intervals. However the whole body is supported by a solid rod which in turn is fixed to a foot that is made from either a coil or folded cagework. Rod-stemmed roemers are rare on both the continent and in England, and in fragmentary state could be easily misidentified as a pulled-prunt variety. Illustrated examples: Rotterdam (Henkes 1994, 91, no 22.3) London, Abacus House Other examples: None known.

a a

b Figure 47

Roemer with flattened prunts

b Figure 48

Roemers with a rod stem

55 8

Cylindrical tankards

Cylindrical tankards take their name from the rounded, slightly tapering form of their body, also having a vertical rim and low pushed-in base. They have a simple curved handle applied to close below the rim and extending the length of the body. Cylindrical tankards are always made in a potash glass and are seemingly rare in England. This may in part be due to possible misidentification when they are found in fragmentary state. Body and base fragments could be confused with cylindrical beakers, whilst the handles are very similar to those found on jugs. Indeed all the examples in this classification come from 17th-century contexts in either Chester or Newcastle. This may be due to their relative completeness or their proximity to the Haughton Green furnace (Hurst-Vose 1994), where they may have been a speciality product. Only further research will identify more examples and confirm any distribution patterns.

8.1

8.2

Cylindrical tankard with rigaree trail (Fig 50)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This is of an identical form to Type 8.1 but is decorated with one or more horizontal rigaree trails. Illustrated example: Chester, Hunter Street. Other examples: None known.

Plain cylindrical tankard (Fig 49)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: A simple form, with cylindrical body that tapers slightly to vertical rim. The handle is a simple loop with a lower up-turned rest. Illustrated example: Chester, Hunter Street. Other examples: Newcastle (Ellison 1981, 168, no 410)

Figure 49

Plain cylindrical tankard

Figure 50

9

Cylindrical tankard with a rigaree trail

Bellied tankards

Bellied tankards have a different form and wider chronology than the cylindrical varieties. They have vertical rims and necks that lead to a bulbous spherical body, resting on a folded pedestal foot. The most famous example is the complete Parr Pot, which has silver gilt mounts and is dated by them to 1546 (Glanville 1971). Unfortunately, although the mounts are authentic the glass itself is a later replacement, probably dating to the 18th century, as it contains significant levels of lead and has none of the characteristics of mid 16th-century manufacture (C Mortimer pers comm). Nevertheless there are two similar mounted vessels in the British Museum that probably are genuine (Tait 1991, 169, fig 215), and help illustrate the form of this vessel. It would seem that all these vessels, including both museum pieces and archaeological fragments, are made in a high-quality soda glass and decorated with marvered vetro a fili or vetro a retorti trails. The most likely centre for their production at this date is Venice, although the form is very much a northern European one occurring in Germanic stonewares (Gaimster 1997, 227) and other pottery fabrics (MPRG 1998, 6.3). Although apparently a mid 16th-century form,

56 examples of bellied tankards also occur in the mid to late 17th century. These usually have slightly more elaborate handles and can have fine trailing on their necks. The later bellied tankards are made in a clear or opaque white glass. Some confusion in the identification of bellied tankards can arise. Their bases in particular are often mistaken for a pedestal flask, and in a fragmentary state they are hard to differentiate. The function of bellied, and indeed cylindrical, tankards seems to have been for the consumption of beer. They may well be the ‘glasses like pottes with oone handle’ mentioned in the Henry VIII inventory of 1542, whilst in the same list a ‘glasse like a pott paintid and garnisshid aboute the bryme with silver and gilt with a cover’ is indicative of a vessel such as the Parr pot (Hartshorne 1968, 464).

9.1

Plain-bellied tankard (Fig 51)

9.2

Bellied tankard with coloured trails (Fig 52)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless ground, trails vary. Date range: Early to mid 16th century. Provenance: Venice? Frequency: Rare. Description: These tankards have the same form as the plain variety. However, examples in museum collections decorated with vetro a fili or vetro a retorti trails and elaborate silver gilt mounts are also known. Archaeologically these are rare. Illustrated example: a) Franks Collection, British Museum AF 3133 (dated 1548) b) London (MoL A12609) c) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 110, no 707) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 6) Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, no 2)

Metal: Mixed-alkali or soda. Colour: Colourless and opaque white. Date range: Mid to late 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare. Description: This form has a vertical, wide, neck and rim, with a convex, spherical body that rests on a short, folded pedestal foot. The upper handle is attached to the neck close to the rim and stretches down to the upper shoulder of the body. Some examples from the second half of the 17th century (such as those from Guildford) are in opaque white milk glass. Illustrated example: Guildford, Tunsgate (Fryer and Shelley 1997, 195, no 73) Other examples: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 228, no 45)

a

b

c Figure 51

Plain bellied tankard

Figure 52

Bellied tankards with coloured trails

57

Goblets Goblets are stemmed vessels that support a bowl, and, unlike beakers, the greater proportion of the vessel’s height is not used for the holding of the liquid. Although the term is sometimes used in medieval pottery studies to refer to a footed beaker (MPRG 1998, 6.1.1), it should not be confused with some of the beaker forms in this classification. Further complications with the term arise, as the French term gobletes is used for beakers (Foy and Sennequier 1989, 222). In the Low Countries there is no consistent terminology – goblets with knopped stems are referred to collectively as kelkglazen or glass chalices, whilst other forms are classified as voetbekers, or footed beakers (Henkes 1994, 96–9, 211–13). Although first used in England in the late 13th and 14th centuries (Tyson 2000, 50–3), it was not until the mid 16th century that goblets became more prevalent. No consistent terminology was used to describe them in contemporary literature. However, the interchangeable use of the terms ‘cup’ and

Figure 53

Goblet bowl forms

‘goblet’ by Harrison and other authors suggests that they were synonymous with each other (eg Harrison 1994, 127). Other terms for stemmed vessels include standing cup, talboy, and even wineglass; the latter is frequently used in modern literature, although avoided in this classification. Whilst it is probably the case that the consumption of wine was the primary function of goblets, the term is constrictive and negates other uses. It has been suggested that medieval goblets may have been used as chalices at Mass (Tyson 2000, 52). However, since numerous medieval church councils and synods in England and the rest of Europe frequently condemned the use of any chalice not made in silver or gold – with pewter the only acceptable alternative in cases of particular poverty (Hatcher and Barker 1974, 24–5), this is unlikely. There is no evidence of the use of glass chalices at Mass in the post-medieval centuries. Classifying goblets has further problems. With the exception of pedestal goblets all are made from several paraisons of glass. In the majority of cases a

58 goblet consists of separate foot, stem, and bowl pieces all joined together with mereses. It is impossible to classify all elements of a goblet separately, as styles of bowl and stem were frequently interchangeable. Consequently their stem type and shape are used to group the goblets in this classification. Sometimes a particular stem form is more likely to have a corresponding bowl type, and this is indicated in the individual descriptions. Despite considerable variability, the majority of goblet bowl shapes can be categorised (Fig 53). The most common was a deep U-shaped bowl (Fig 53a), which occurred on most 16th-century vessels, but was also popular in the following century. The bowl shape was made in all glass metal types. The second shape, a variation of the first (Fig 53b), was a broader and more everted bowl. Another type (Fig 53c), popular in both the 16th and 17th centuries, had a straight-sided bucket-shaped bowl. Further bowl variations were more prevalent during the 17th century. Tall fluted examples (Fig 53f), and everted or trumpet-shaped forms (Fig 53d), occurred on mixed-alkali and soda goblets. The next bowl form was more unusual and correspondingly rare. A large-bellied or thistle bowl (Fig 53e), is known from several vessels from both centuries (eg Tait 1979, 70, no 94). Such vessels would have been hard to drink from and may be regarded as display items or centrepieces for the table. Thistle bowls were only made in a soda glass. The final bowl form was the tazza (Fig 53g). Although impractical, and possibly more for display purposes, tazzas were a relatively common shape in the 16th century, diminishing in popularity during the 17th. The tazza bowl was restricted to high-quality soda-glass vessels.

10

Knopped-stem goblets

Goblets with knopped stems are the most common form. They are made from three separate free-blown paraisons that form the bowl, stem, and base respectively (Plate 7). All three pieces were joined with flattened solid disks or mereses whilst the paraisons were still hot. These hold the different elements of the vessel together securely, and disguise the join in an attractive manner. The bases are always a similar low-flaring form and knopped-stem goblets are classified by their central stem shape, as it is this portion of the vessel that shows the greatest variation in both date and design. Although goblets with knopped stems first occur in the late 15th century, it is during the 16th century that they became increasingly common. By the end of the next century they were almost the only goblet form to be used and this pattern continues to the present day. During the 16th century, knopped-stem goblets were always made in a mixed-alkali or soda glass and only occured on high-quality vessels. In the following century the quality of the metal sometimes became poorer,

Plate 7 Early 17th-century inverted-baluster stem goblet. English mixed-alkali glass, from the Gracechurch Street hoard, London. (Photo: H Willmott)

although at no point were they made in a low-quality potash glass. Knopped-stem goblets were made in virtually every glassmaking centre in Europe, although they probably originated in Venice. Whilst some stem styles were virtually universally produced, others show distinct national preferences. Goblets with knopped stems are found throughout England (Fig 54).

10.1

Merese stem (Fig 55)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Mid 17th century. Provenance: Venice, England? Frequency: Rare. Description: This is the shortest of the knopped-stem varieties, consisting of a simple compressed merese. The goblet bowl is usually a tapering trumpet shape. Illustrated example: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Other examples: Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65 nos 11–12) London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a)

59 Common. Description: The stem paraison resembles a reversed balastroid shape, broad at the top and tapering to a narrow end before the basal merese. These were one of the staple products of the Mansell monopoly and probably the Verzelini era too. The earlier 16th-century examples are generally smaller and more carefully formed, whilst later examples can be quite crudely made and asymmetrical. Inverted balusters were found amongst the production wasters at Broad Street, London (Shepherd nd). Illustrated example: Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 272, no 105) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 58) Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston forthcoming, nos 115– 16, 120–3) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Castle Rising (Cool 1997, 105, no 4) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 26, nos 8 , 12) Hull (Henderson 1987, 194, no 30) London, Gracechurch Street London, St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 155, no 140) London, Westminster (Huggins 1976, 74, no 10) Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, nos 9–11) Montgomery Castle (Lewis 1968, 142, no 1) Newcastle (Ellison 1979, 171, no 56) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 107, no 683)

Figure 54

Distribution of knopped stems

1 Acton Court,3 Baconsthorpe, 4 Bagshot, 11 Bristol, 12 Camber Castle, 13 Cannons Ashby, 14 Canterbury, 15 Castle Rising, 17 Chester, 23 Durham, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 28 Hull, 30 London, 31 Micheldever, 32 Montgomery Castle, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 36 Norton Priory, 37 Norwich, 38 Nottingham, 39 Oxford, 40 Plymouth, 41 Poole, 45 Southampton, 47 Taunton, 48 Temple Balsall

Figure 55

10.2

Merese stem

Inverted-baluster stem (Fig 56)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Late 16th to mid 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency:

Figure 56

10.3

Inverted-baluster stem

Ribbed inverted-baluster stem (Fig 57)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Late 16th to mid 17th century.

60 Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare. Description: The form is identical to the plain inverted baluster, although the initial paraison is blown into a vertically ribbed optic mould. With some examples, such as one from Poole, the stem is decorated further with gilding that often only survives in the hollows between the ribs. They appear to be contemporaneous with plain inverted balusters and were almost certainly made at the same furnaces. Illustrated example: Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, no 15) Other examples: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 107, no 684) Southampton (Charleston 1975, 224, no 1580)

Figure 57

10.4

Chester, Hunter Street Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 26, nos 5–6, 30, no 7) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, no 93, 272, no104, 273, nos 109, 124) London, Black Friars (Marsden 1971, 96, no 1) Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, nos 5–8) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norton Priory Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 241, no 8) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, nos 55, 57) Taunton (Brown 1988, 137, no 2)

Ribbed inverted-baluster stem

Elongated inverted-baluster stem (Fig 58)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Common. Description: Traditionally this form is referred to as a ‘cigar stem’, due to its long tapering appearance, although this terminology surely is outdated now. The stem is of a similar form to the inverted baluster, but has a height at least five times its breadth. Similar stem styles have been identified in English silverware dating to the first quarter of the 17th century (Charleston 1984a, 68). The glass examples seem to have originated at the same time, although they continued to be popular until the mid 17th century. Rightly considered a cliché of the Mansell era, halfformed, elongated inverted-baluster wasters were also found amongst the working debris at Broad Street, London (Shepherd nd). Illustrated example: London, Gracechurch Street. Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, nos 70–1) Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston forthcoming, nos 118– 19) Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Bristol (Barton 1964, 210, no 96) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Canterbury (Shepherd 1995, 1254, nos 550–51)

Figure 58 10.5

Elongated inverted-baluster stem

Round-knop stem (Fig 59)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Sixteenth and 17th centuries. Provenance: England, Low Countries, Venice, and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Quite common. Description: The round knop is the most simple stem knop, formed from a single, small, round paraison. The knop can become slightly compressed into an ovaloid shape when the bowl and foot are applied to it. They occur throughout the 16th and 17th centuries and on a number of different vessels. The most elaborate are those that form part of 16th-century goblets that are decorated with vetro a fili or

61 vetro a retorti trails (Fig 59a). Round knops also occur on English glasses throughout the 17th century (Fig 59b), and appear in a number of the Greene letters (Hartshorne 1968, 232–3). Illustrated examples: a) Canons Ashby (Taylor 1974, 63, no 3) b) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 42) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, nos 1, 109) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 241, no 14) Durham (Ellison 1993, 104, nos 1–2) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 30, no 11) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 273, nos 125–6) London, Gracechurch Street Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 108, nos 692–3) Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 68, no 13) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 44) Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 229, no 53)

a

b Figure 60 a

b Figure 59

10.6

Round-knop stems

Ribbed round-knop stem (Fig 60)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Second half 16th and 17th centuries. Provenance: England, Low Countries, Venice, and other façon de Venise centres

Ribbed round-knop stems

Frequency: Common. Description: Ribbed round knops are similar to plain examples, except that they are first inflated into a ribbed optic mould. They also had a long period of production and use throughout most of the 16th and 17th centuries. Earlier examples, (Fig 60a) are comparatively rare, although four of the so-called Verzelini glasses have this style of knop (Charleston 1984a, pl 12, b-d). These stems become more common during the 17th century and by the second half of that century are one of the most popular goblet forms. Later ribbed round knops (Fig 60b), usually associated with bucket-shaped bowls decorated with a lower rigaree trail, were almost certainly produced in England and are frequently illustrated in the Greene letters (Hartshorne 1968, 232–3). Illustrated examples: a) Newcastle (Vaughan 1994, 171, no 43) b) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 275, no 128) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 83) Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, no 1, 241, 15–16) Durham (Ellison 1993, 104, no 6) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 275,nos 129–31) Hull (Armstrong 1977, 62, no 69) London, Aldgate (Charleston and Vince 1984, 89, no 15) London, Gracechurch Street London, Southwark (Hinton 1988, 382, no 173) London, Staines (Wood 1976, 128, no 3)

62 London, St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 158, no 111) Micheldever (Sutermeister 1975, 132, no 3) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 108, nos 694–5) Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 68, nos 1–8) Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 241, no 13) Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 51, no 16)

10.7

Optic-blown diamond-knop stem (Fig 61)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: Venice? Frequency: Very rare. Description: This stems was formed by blowing the initial paraison into a mesh or diamond-decorated optic mould. The resultant stem is globular and quite compressed. This is a rare form that only occurs on 16th-century goblets with tapering trumpet-shaped bowls. The style and the quality of their metal is suggestive of a Venetian origin. Illustrated example: Southampton (Charleston 1975, 220, no 1525) Other examples: Southampton (Charleston 1975, 222, no 1554)

Frequency: Rare. Description: This is a stem formed from a tall tube pincered into a series of stacked inter-connecting round knops. These are always in a good soda glass and were probably manufactured in Venice throughout the 16th century. Illustrated example: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 26) Other examples: London, Westminster (V&A Acc No: C188v 1956) Newcastle (Ellison 1981, 168, no 411) Southampton (Charleston 1975, 224, no 1581)

Figure 62 10.9

Multiple-knop stem

Ribbed multiple-knop stem (Fig 63)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Late 16th century. Provenance: Venice? Frequency: Very rare. Description: These have the same form as the multiple-knop stem, but are decorated with optic-blown vertical ribs. Similarly they are very rare and seem to date to the second half of the 16th century. Illustrated example: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 30, no 26) Other examples: London, Aldgate (Charleston and Vince 1984, 89, no 14)

Figure 61 10.8

Optic-blown diamond-knop stem

Multiple-knop stem (Fig 62)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Mid to late 16th century. Provenance: Venice?

Figure 63

Ribbed multiple-knop stem

63 11

Mould-blown stems

Goblets with mould-blown stems are a more specialised variation of the knopped stem and are classified separately. Like the knopped stem they were made in three pieces joined with mereses. However, their knop is not free-blown, but formed in a fixed two-piece mould. The technique of mould-blowing has already been discussed in detail (chapter 3), but these stems are the only result of its application to be found on glasses in England. The use of mould-blown stems first occurred in the mid 16th century, initially in Venice but spreading to all façon de Venise centres of Europe. The most ubiquitous was the lion-mask stem, a form produced at all centres that employed the mould-blowing technique. The stem consists of two opposed frontal lion’s faces, with gadrooning above and below (Fig 64). The mould seams are usually decorated with raised bosses although heraldic style devices can also be used. Despite their uniformity, it has been possible to classify the different mould-groups and suggest English types (Willmott 2000b). From a study of 67 stems from a variety of London sites, 85% came from just 7 moulds. Of these, two were the most common and matched a large number of stems from outside of London. Given this quantification and their distribution (Fig 65) as well as the poorer quality of the metal of these stems, it was suggested that they might be of English origin. A similar study from Montbellard, France, has identified potential French varieties of lion-mask stem (Goetz 1990). Lion-mask stems remained popular until the mid 17th century in England and were always made in a mixed-alkali or soda glass. The second type of mould-blown stem found in England has four variations that have traditionally been classed as ladder stems. The earliest form, appearing in the second half of the 16th century, consists of vertical rows of raised bosses interspersed with plain vertical teardrops (Fig 66a). During the early 17th century, three more complex variations appeared. All have gadrooning on the upper stem,

Figure 65

3 Baconsthorpe, 4 Bagshot, 5 Barnard Castle, 6 Basing House, 9 Beeston Castle, 10 Berry Pomeroy Castle, 17 Chester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 32 Montgomery Castle, 34 Nonsuch, 36 Norton Priory, 39 Oxford, 40 Plymouth, 45 Southampton

but interspersed between the raised bosses are either panels of guilloche, rosettes, or fleur de lis (Fig 66b-d, Plate 8). Traditionally ladder stems have been viewed as exclusively English products (Thorpe 1961, 128–9), and there is no evidence to counter this (Willmott forthcoming e). The lion mask and ladder are the only two variations of the mould-blown stem so far found in England. On the continent further variations are known that have clustered or raspberry patterns (eg Sedlkov 1998, 12.1–4).

11.1

Figure 64

Lion-mask stem features (1:1)

Distribution of mould-blown stems

Lion-mask stem (Fig 67)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless, although the stem can occasionally be gilded. Date range: Mid 16th century to mid 17th century. Provenance: England, Low Countries, Venice, and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Common. Description: The lion mask is the most common variety of mould-blown stem in England and is known throughout Europe.

64

Figure 66

Ladder stem variations (1:1) Although they occur in England earlier, lion-mask stems were certainly produced here during the 17th century. It has also been possible to identify at least two specific English types (Willmott 2000a, 390). Illustrated example: Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Other examples: Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston in press, no 114) Barnard Castle Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65 nos 1–3, 10) Berry Pomeroy Castle (Allan 1996, 238, no 1) Chester, Crook Street Chester, Hunter Street Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 26, no 1) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 273, no 18) London, Gracechurch Street London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a) London, St. Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 156, no 74) Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, no 17) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Norton Priory Oxford (Leeds 1938, 159 A) Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 45, no 12)

11.2 Ladder stem (Fig 68)

Figure 67

Lion-mask stem

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless.

65

Figure 68

12

Plate 8 Early 17th-century ladder-stem goblet, decorated with mould-blown guilloche pattern. English mixed-alkali glass, from Vauxhall Bridgefoot, London. (Photo: H Willmott)

Date range: Late 16th to mid 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: This is a less common mould-blown stem that is almost unique to England. The decoration is more diverse that the lion mask and four different mould-groups can be identified (see above). Nevertheless, the ladder stem is always identifiable by the presence of a series of vertically running raised bosses. The earliest known example occurs on a so-called Verzelini glass dated to 1590; a half-finished waster found at Broad Street, London, confirms their manufacture there (Shepherd nd). Illustrated example: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Other examples: Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b) Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993, 170, no 1) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 26, no 2) London, Gracechurch Street London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a) London, Southwark (Hinton 1988, 382, no 172) London, St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 156, no 80) Southampton (Charleston 1975, 222, no 1565)

Ladder stem

Compound stems

Compound stems are amongst the hardest to classify comprehensively, by their very nature they are the most complex and show considerable variation. They follow the conventional three-piece formula, although their stem is made from a number of fused elements of twisted hollow tubes, solid rods, or coloured twisted cables. Compound stems originated in Venice at the end of the 16th century, although within a few decades their manufacture had spread to other façon de Venise centres, most notably Antwerp (Tait 1991, 174–5). Almost certainly some were produced in England, as in 1635 Mansell referred to a certain type of glass that he produced as being of ‘extraordinary fashions’ (Charleston 1984a, 67). Compound stems were always produced in a high-quality mixed-alkali or soda glass. Whilst surviving examples are not uncommon in many museum collections, they are rare archaeologically. This is partly the inevitable result of such complex glasses being retained rather than discarded. There are complications with the examination of museum pieces. Of all glass types, those with compound stems are the most likely to have been reproduced or even faked in succeeding centuries. Compound-stem goblets imitating 17th-century designs were part of the late 19th-century Venetian revival, most notably by Antonio Salviati (Dodsworth 1993, 182–3). These, and less scrupulous 20th-century fakes, make identification of museum pieces a complex task. Archaeologically, in England, the majority of compound stems found belong to the first half of the 17th century. In Italy and the Low Countries, production, particularly of the twisted, coloured, cable

66 forms, continued throughout the whole century, although these later designs seem never to have been popular in England. Despite being rare, compound stems are fairly evenly distributed throughout England (Fig 69).

Monkwearmouth (Willmott forthcoming c) Newcastle (Ellison 1979, 171, no 57) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 56)

Figure 70 12.2

Figure 69

Distribution of compound stems

17 Chester, 25 Exeter, 28 Hull, 30 London, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 35 Northampton, 40 Plymouth, 50 Wearmouth

12.1

Wound-serpentine stem (Fig 70)

Metal: Mixed-alkali and soda. Colour: Colourless ground, blue claws or beaks. Date range: Early 17th century. Provenance: England, possibly the Low Countries Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The stem is formed by a single, hollow, ribbed tube of glass that is manipulated into a lower ring or loop and then wound horizontally around the top several times in a wavy pattern. The stem is sometimes further decorated with an applied blue claw or beak further up the stem. Although rare, eleven have been found at Gracechurch Street and it is possible that they were produced in England. Illustrated example: Gracechurch Street, London. Other examples: Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, no 87 London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a)

Wound-serpentine stem

Scrolled-serpentine stem (Fig 71)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless, although usually quite tinted. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England or the Low Countries. Frequency: Very rare. Description: The stem is formed by a single oval ring of ribbed glass with two opposed columns of glass formed from a trail that is looped into a vertical scroll. This form is virtually unknown on the continent, although the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, contains a complete unprovenanced example with a fluted bowl (van Eck and Zijlstra-Zweens 1993, 51, no 60). The metal of these stems is heavily tinted, suggestive of manufacture in England or possibly the Low Countries, although the finding of further examples may alter this interpretation. Illustrated example: Gracechurch Street, London. Other examples: None known.

Figure 71

Scrolled-serpentine stem

67 12.3

Coiled and winged-serpentine stem (Fig 72)

Metal: Soda and mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless ground, blue wings and head. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: Low Countries, Venice, possibly other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Rare. Description: The lower stem is formed by a single loop of hollow, ribbed glass that is piled above in neat horizontal coils. The ribbed tubing terminates with an applied blue glass head and two wings, pulled to points, applied to the side of the stem. The zoomorphic appearance of this stem has led to it being referred to as a ‘dragon stem’. These stems are more common on the continent than in England, and were probably produced there. Illustrated example: London, Gracechurch Street Other examples: Chester, Hunter Street Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 46, no 45)

Illustrated example: a) Alkmaar, Langestraat (Bitter 1997, 113) b) Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 48) Other examples: Hull (Armstrong 1977, 62, no 70)

b

a Figure 73 13

Twisted-cable stems

Pedestal-stem goblets

Pedestal-stem goblets are formed from a single paraison of glass, marvered to produce a constricted stem and enclosed base-ring foot (Plate 9). Unlike the similar pedestal beaker, the bowl is usually shorter in height that the pedestal foot, although there is some inevitable overlap between the forms.

Figure 72

12.4

Coiled and winged-serpentine stem

Twisted-cable stem (Fig 73)

Metal: Soda and mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless ground, twisted cable colour varies. Date range: Mid 17th century onwards. Provenance: Venice, Low Countries? Frequency: Very rare. Description: The stem is formed from canes of clear glass covering twisted coloured cables. These can be in opaque white, blue, red, or yellow. The stem is formed from one or more canes looped in to figure of eight or other complex patterns. The stem can be further decorated with applied impressed wings, claws, and beaks. Whilst well known in museum collections and continental collections these vessels are very uncommon archaeologically in England. This may change with further research, although the problem of later reproductions and fakes will always hamper the study of the non-archaeological material.

Plate 9 Late 16th-century English potash pedestal goblet, from the Gracechurch Street hoard, London. (Photo: H Willmott)

68 Pedestal goblets were made in all metal types, varying in their date and form details. The earliest pedestal goblets originated in Venice during the very early 16th century. They generally have trumpet-shaped bowls and are made in a high-quality soda glass. Expensive and often highly decorated items, these are seldom found archaeologically in England. By the mid 16th century, if not before, this shape was being copied in the Low Countries (Henkes 1994, 96–9), but in a potash or very low-quality mixed-alkali glass. Likewise, similar forms were used, if not produced, in France, and probably in other glassmaking centres on the Continent (Foy and Sennequier 1989). By the late 16th century, fragments from potash pedestal goblets are known from English furnace sites, such as Hutton in Yorkshire (Charleston 1972a, 148), although the bowls on English examples tend to be bucket-shaped. By the beginning of the 17th century, the pedestal goblet seems to have ceased being produced at most glassmaking centres. Such a diverse and widely produced type can be provenanced and dated by the decorative forms employed, particularly on their bowls. Examples of all types are found widely in England, although some of the decorative forms are rare (Fig 74).

13.1

Plain pedestal goblet (Fig 75)

Metal: Some soda, mainly potash. Colour: Clear (soda), often quite a dark green (potash). Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: Venice, Low Countries, and England Frequency: Soda rare, potash common. Description: The plain pedestal goblet was formed from a single paraison of glass marvered to produce a bowl that rested on a narrow stem and folded enclosed base-ring. The earliest examples, dating to the early 16th century, are always in a good soda glass and almost certainly Venetian products (Fig 75a). By the middle of the century they were being produced in the Netherlands and later in England (Fig 75b). Illustrated examples: a) Southampton St Michael’s House (Willmott 1995, 32, no 602) b) Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, no 28) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 23) Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston forthcoming, no 112) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Canterbury (Shepherd 1995, 1251, no 546) Castle Rising (Cool 1997, 105, no 9) Chester (Axeworthy-Rutter 1990, 164, no 8)

a

Figure 74

Distribution of pedestal goblet stems

1 Acton Court, 3 Baconsthorpe, 10 Berry Pomeroy Castle, 11 Bristol, 12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 15 Castle Rising, 17 Chester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 28 Hull, 30 London, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 36 Norton Priory, 37 Norwich, 41 Poole, 45 Southampton, 52 Winchester, 53 Wood Hall

b Figure 75

Plain pedestal goblets

69 Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 36, no 43) London, Abacus House London, Gracechurch Street London, St. Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 161, no 71) Newcastle (Ellison 1981, 168, no 408) Norton Priory Norwich (Haslam 1993, 106, no 672) Southampton (Charleston 1975, 225, no 1596) Winchester (Charleston 1964, 148, no 6)

13.2

Pedestal goblet with folded knop (Fig 76)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted, some examples have a very heavy colouration. Date range: Mid to late 16th century? Provenance: England? Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The pedestal stem was formed in a similar way to the plain type, except that a small fold was added to the top of the stem to produce a knopped affect (Fig 76a). This form of pedestal goblet is usually smaller than other forms and appears to have a more vertical bowl (Fig 76b). The metal is usually potash and the vessels are often carelessly made. They are almost certainly English products. Illustrated examples: a) Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 77) b) London Gracechurch Street Other examples: Bristol (Barton 1964, 210. no 99) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 30. nos 24–5) London, Abacus House Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, no 27) Winchester (Charleston 1990, 945, no 3310)

13.3 Pedestal goblet with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 77) Metal: Potash and soda. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (soda). Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: Venice and Low Countries. Frequency: Rare. Description: These are formed by the initial blowing of the paraison into a vertically ribbed mould, before the final forming of the vessel. Like Type 13.1 this variety occurs in both early 16th-century Venetian soda (Fig 77a) and later Dutch potash glass (Fig 77b). Illustrated examples: a) Southampton, St. Michael’s House (Willmott 1995, 32, no 604) b) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Other examples: Hull (Armstrong 1977, 62. no 67)

Figure 77 Pedestal goblets with optic-blown vertical ribs 13.4 Pedestal goblet with optic-blown bosses (Fig 78)

a

b Figure 76

Pedestal goblet with folded knops

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Late 16th century. Provenance: Low Countries? Frequency: Very rare. Description: Blown into a bossed optic mould, this goblet is decorated with raised diamonds or more amorphous blobs. The style of the decoration and the metal is suggestive of a Low Country origin. This decoration does not seem to have been

70 reproduced in potash glass. Illustrated example: Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d) Other examples: Berry Pomeroy Castle (Allan 1996, 238 no 3)

Figure 78

Pedestal goblet with optic-blown bosses

Date range: Early to mid 16th century. Provenance: Low Countries, possibly France. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: This form of pedestal goblet is decorated with fine marvered trails below the rim. These are usually opaque white or occasionally a red/brown colour. The style of decoration, which is identical to numerous similar parallels in the Low Countries, suggest an origin there (eg Henkes 1994, 99–100). Illustrated example: a) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) b) Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Other examples: Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston forthcoming, no 129) Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, no 2) Chester, Crook Street Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 269, no 52) London, Abacus House London, Gracechurch Street Norwich (Haslam 1993, 108, no 697) Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, no 14)

13.5 Pedestal goblet with optic-blown roundels (Fig 79) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Mid 16th century. Provenance: Low Countries, possibly France. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This goblet is optic-blown with small circular depressions, usually only on the surface of the bowl. These are indistinct, and similarly decorated vessels may be misidentified as plain if in a fragmentary state. This decoration only seems to occur on potash pedestal goblets in the Dutch or possibly French style. Illustrated example: Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming) Other examples: None known.

a

b

Figure 79 roundels 13.6

Pedestal goblet with optic-blown

Pedestal goblet with horizontal trails (Fig 80)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted.

Figure 80 13.7

Pedestal goblets with horizontal trails

Enamelled pedestal goblet (Fig 81)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless ground, enamels vary. Date range: Early 16th century.

71

a

b

plan 1:1 white green red gilding Figure 81

Enamelled pedestal goblets

section 1:2

72 Provenance: Venice, Central Europe, and France. Frequency: Rare. Description: These are pedestal goblets with enamelled decoration to their bowls. This latter can take the form of floral, figural, and banded lettering, often combined with surface gilding. For example Figure 81b, has the motto IESUS MARIA as well as enamelled lilies and scrolls. Enamelling of this kind is a common form of decoration on continental glass from a wide range of centres, but is very rare in England. Illustrated examples: a) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 26, no 3) b) Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d) Other examples: Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston forthcoming, no 111) Poole? (Charleston 1992, 137, no 8), possibly a beaker.

14

Applied-pedestal goblets

The applied-pedestal goblet was formed from two paraisons of glass rather than the usual three. Instead of having a central knop the bowl was supported on a tall tapering inverted trumpet-shaped pedestal stem. This form of goblet was probably first produced during the late 15th or early 16th centuries in Venice, although it possesses similar features to earlier 13th and 14th-century antecedents. They were never produced in England, although some examples may originate in the Low Countries. They are relatively rare in England and do not

survive into the 17th century. Examples found are usually in a high-quality soda or mixed-alkali glass and are distributed fairly evenly throughout England (Fig 82).

14.1 Plain applied-pedestal goblet (Fig 83) Metal: Soda, mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: Venice, Low Countries? Frequency: Uncommon. Description: Plain applied-pedestal goblets receive no body decoration and are always in a clear glass that can have a grey tint to it. The bowls are usually broad and deep. Certainly manufactured in Venice they may have been produced in other façon de Venise centres. Illustrated example: Chester, Crook Street Other examples: Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 210, no 34); Lincoln (Henderson 1999, 145, no 5); Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001); Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, no 16); Norton Priory

Figure 83

15

Figure 82

Distribution of applied-pedestal goblets

17 Chester, 22 Denny Abbey, 29 Lincoln, 32 Montgomery Castle, 34 Nonsuch, 36 Norton Priory

Plain applied-pedestal goblet

Rod and tubular-stemmed goblets

These are the most diverse of all goblet types. Although they vary greatly in appearance their stems are all formed from one or more glass elements. In some cases these can form very complicated patterned designs whilst others consist of a single plain vertical rod. The simplest stems seem only to have been made in a potash glass, whilst the more complex examples are always in a mixed-alkali or soda metal. Special note is required of the most unusual form of tubular-stemmed goblet, the trick glass. These vessels were made as novelty and display pieces,

73 usually functioning as a table fountain or centrepiece. Whilst some examples are known in museum collections, such as the Victoria and Albert, the Louvre, and the Decorative Arts Museum in Prague (Shepherd 1996, 5) they are very rare archaeologically. They are hard to date, but their form suggests their manufacture some time during the 17th century. Two trick goblets are illustrated in the letters of John Greene (Hartshorne 1968, pl 32).

15.1 Simple rod-stem goblet (Fig 84) Metal: Potash. Colour: Usually quite a dark green. Date range: Late 16th century? Provenance: England? Frequency: Rare. Description: A very simple form of goblet with a solid cylindrical rod stem that has a slight swelling at its upper end to emulate a knop. Unfortunately all known examples have insecure dating, although the style of the glass suggests a late 16th-century date. Likewise their provenance is unclear, although the lack of any similar examples on the continent would suggest their manufacture in England. The presence of solid rods at forest-glass furnaces, normally suggested to be working waste, might actually be fragments of these vessels. Further research may produce other examples and confirm these conclusions. Illustrated example: London, Gracechurch Street Other examples: Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65, no 9); Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001)

Figure 84

Simple rod-stem goblet

Description: A complex stemmed goblet form. The bowl is supported on one or more tiers of S- shaped curved rods of glass as well as other possible applied elements. The nature of the design means that this form of stem is only likely to survive in fragmentary form, perhaps accounting for their low numbers on archaeological sites. Made in a soda or mixed-alkali glass, it is hard to find a direct parallel for this vessel, although they are probably Venetian in origin. Illustrated example: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Other examples: None known.

Figure 85

Cage-stem goblet

15.3 Trick goblet (Fig 86) Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Seventeenth century. Provenance: Uncertain, possibly Venice and the Netherlands. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This is a very complex vessel that will vary considerably between different examples. The stem is hollow with a variety of outlets and is connected to a curved siphon that rises into the goblet bowl. When liquid is poured into the bowl above the level of the tube it is siphoned through the stem and out of the spouts. A high-quality glass is always used and the complexity of manufacture suggests production in Venice. Illustrated example: St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 157, no79). Other examples: None known.

15.2 Cage-stem goblet (Fig 85)

16

Lids

Metal: Soda or mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Seventeenth century? Provenance: Uncertain, possibly Venice. Frequency: Very rare.

Although lids are not in themselves drinking vessels, they are classified separately here for two reasons. Firstly, it is often hard to identify which vessel in an assemblage they were made to fit, if the vessel survives at all. Secondly, lids demonstrate some variations that are worthy of separate classification. Whilst the vast majority belonged to goblets – hence their classification here – some later bowls also possessed them. However, the uniformity of their form

74 Lids are also depicted in numerous still-life paintings, such as Clara Peeters’ 1612 Cheeses with almonds and pretzels that shows a lidded goblet with a bucket-shaped bowl and lion-mask stem (Chong and Kloek 1999, 129). Compared with the total number of goblets found, lids are quite rare archaeologically. With a couple of exceptions, their distribution tends to be in the south of the country (Fig 87).

Figure 87

Figure 86

Trick goblet

means that a separate classification for those from goblets and those from bowls is not necessary. The diameter of the lid is the only feature that distinguishes the type of vessel that it sat upon. Lids found in England were only made in a high-quality mixed-alkali or soda glass and would have matched the same decorative patterns with which they were paired. The function of lids could be to prevent the fouling of the wine, but as only a few goblets had them, it was probably only a further decorative element. Lids were only made to fit the more expensive knopped-stem goblets and most occur in contexts from the second half of the 16th century. Some plainer examples also date to the 17th century. There are no direct references to lids by name in the contemporary sources. However the ‘two standing cuppes with covers’ mentioned in the Henry VIII inventory of 1542 and the ‘coverd clarett glasses’ ordered by Greene in 1669 are examples of goblets that clearly had lids (Hartshorne 1968, 442, 464).

Distribution of lids

1 Acton Court, 3 Baconsthorpe, 6 Basing House, 14 Canterbury, 21 Colchester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 32 Montgomery Castle, 34 Nonsuch, 42 Portchester Castle

16.1

Plain lid (Fig 88)

Metal: Soda, mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Mid 16th to mid 17th centuries. Provenance: Venice, Low Countries, and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: Plain lids are remarkably uniform in their design, with vertical edges, folded shoulders, and domed tops with an applied solid finial. They are always in a soda or high-quality, mixed-alkali glass and presumably are made to fit plain goblets. Illustrated example: Portchester Castle (Harden 1977, 210, no 113)

75 Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 105); Baconsthorpe Castle (Charleston forthcoming, nos 131–2); Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65, no 20); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 59, no 149); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 276, no 165); Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, no 14); Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001)

Figure 88 16.2

Plain lid

Lid with coloured trails (Fig 89)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless ground, trails usually white or blue. Date range: Mid to late 16th century. Provenance: Venice. Frequency: Rare. Description: These lids take the same form as Type 16.1, but are decorated with marvered vetro a fili or vetro a retorti trails that usually run vertically from the edge to the apex of the dome. Despite being trailed the lid finial is always in a clear glass. Trailed lids are made in a good-quality soda glass and presumably their decoration matched the vessel which they were made to cover. Illustrated example: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, no 4) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, nos 56, 108); Colchester (Willmott 1995, 117, no 149b); London, St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 169, no 114); Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001)

Figure 89

Lid with coloured trails

Jugs and possets Jugs are not a simple type to classify as they can overlap with other forms both functionally and typologically. Nevertheless several features can be used to broadly group them. In this classification jugs fulfil a functional role for the short-term holding and dispensing of liquids. If they have a wide rim there is usually a pinched pouring lip to facilitate this purpose, although this is not necessary on more narrow forms. Additionally all jugs have an applied handle to enable lifting, the primary feature that distinguishes them from flasks. Similar differen-

tiations between jugs and flasks have been made in medieval pottery (MPRG 1998, 3.1) and medieval glass (Tyson 2000, 112). Functionally jugs probably fulfilled similar roles to some, but not all, flask forms. Jugs were usually conspicuous vessels and undoubtedly served a role at the table. Their relatively low numbers in glass suggest that other vessel media were usually preferred, and examples in decorative silverware and ceramics such as maiolica probably predominated. A further confusion between jugs and flasks can arise from problems in the identification of their fragmented archaeological remains. Portions of neck, spherical body, or base of a jug can easily be misidentified as a flask, with the handle and rim being the only reliable typological determinant. This probably accounts for the relatively low numbers of jugs on English sites, although they were never as common as the more ubiquitous flask. Jugs were used primarily for two purposes – the pouring of liquids into drinking vessels and the washing of hands. The first can only be inferred by analogy with jugs in other media. For instance, Jan Steen’s 1661 Easy come, easy go clearly depicts a servant boy transferring wine from a storage bottle into a pewter jug, which was then to be taken to a table to fill the drinkers’ glasses. It is likely that glass jugs were used in the same way. The second function, the washing of hands, a practice crucial to the dining ritual of the medieval and later periods has been discussed extensively elsewhere (eg Verhaeghe 1991; Müller 1997). There is more direct evidence for the use of glass in this process. The term layer (derived from the French laver) is sometimes used in contemporary sources to describe glass jugs specifically for this purpose. For example, the Henry VIII inventory of 1542 lists ‘twelve other Basons and xiij Ewers and Layers of glasse’ (Hartshorne 1968, 464). Jugs were made in soda, mixed-alkali, and potash glass. The remains of their rims and handles found on a number of 16th and 17th-century furnace sites, such as Haughton Green, demonstrate their manufacture in England (Hurst-Vose 1994, 29, nos 64, 68– 9). Although relatively rare, jugs of all metal types are fairly evenly distributed throughout the country (Fig 90). Possets are a much more distinct group of vessels, both chronologically and functionally. They are classified here with jugs because they have lifting handles and a spout, although they were used for different purposes. Possets are characterised by a squat bucket-shaped body with a vertical side and rim. Attached to the body are two small looped handles and a single looped ‘swan-neck’ spout that is pulled up with a down-turned end. They first appear in the second half of the 17th century and continue to be produced into the 18th century, the later examples being amongst the first forms produced by Ravenscroft in the new lead-crystal glass. Similar problems in identification arise with possets as with more ordinary jugs. Fragments of their bodies may be mistaken for squat beakers,

76 17

Open-mouth jugs

Open-mouth jugs are those that have a wide rim diameter, a shorter neck, and a globular body. Their form derives from earlier medieval types (eg Tyson 2000, 114, fig 19), and they are often hard to distinguish from earlier antecedents. Open-mouth jugs usually have a large capacity and a pinched lip to aid the pouring of the liquid. During the 16th century they occur in all metal types, although by the 17th century they are more restricted to potash glass. At the present time their classification cannot be subdivided, although further research will probably identify more specific groupings.

17.1

Plain open-mouth jug (Fig 91)

Metal: Potash, soda. and mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), clear (others). Date range: Sixteenth and early 17th century.

Figure 90

Distribution of jugs and possets

6 Basing House, 7 Battle Abbey, 18 Chichester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 27 Hereford, 30 London, 37 Norwich, 39 Oxford, 45 Southampton, 48 Temple Balsall, 49 Usk

whilst their handles can appear to come from small jugs. Likewise, their applied looped spouts are very similar to those found on small jugs produced in Venice and the Low Countries (eg Henkes 1994, 226, no 49.3), although this form of jug does not appear to have been imported into England. Possets had a very specific function. Unlike jugs they were not used for the serving of liquids, but rather for their direct consumption. Posset was a hot drink made from spiced ale and curdled milk, and the liquid was sucked through the spout directly into the mouth. Although the description of silver ‘Posset-Cuppes carv’d with libberds faces and Lyons heads with spouts in their mouths, to let out the posset ale’ occurs in 1606 (Charleston 1984a, 119), glass was not used for another half century. Certainly by the 1660s and 1670s possets were amongst the items ordered by Greene from Morelli (Hartshorne 1968, pl 32). Archaeological finds of possets in England appear to be rare. They only occur in high-quality mixed-alkali and soda glass, suggesting import from abroad, although the virtual absence of this form from other European countries is possibly indicative of their native manufacture in England. Where they have been positively identified in England, their distribution had thus far been confined to the south, although this might well change with future research (Fig 90.

a

b Figure 91

Plain open-mouth jugs

77 Provenance: Venice, Low Countries, and England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: This is the only form of open-mouth jug so far identified. The vessel has a globular body, vertical neck, and wide rim that usually has a pinched pouring lip. The body is usually left undecorated, although fine trailing can be added. Soda examples, primarily dating from the 16th century, are well formed (Fig 91a). Potash ones, dating slightly later – to the early 17th century – are usually more uneven and may not have the pinched lip (Fig 91b). The presence of potash examples on a number of English production sites, such as Haughton Green, suggests their manufacture there, whilst better quality metal types are probably imports. Illustrated examples: a) Southampton (Charleston 1975, 222, no 1541); b) Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 31, no 69) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 20); Battle Abbey (Charleston 1985, no 37); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 111, no 714); Usk (Courtney 1994, 84, no 4)

no 601); b) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 275, no 141) Other examples: Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65, no 16); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 231, no 225); Southampton (Charleston 1975, 224, no 1590); Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 229, no 55)

a 18

Narrow-neck jugs

Narrow-neck jugs differ from the previous group in that they have a smaller spherical body, a taller narrow neck, and a fine everted rim that does not require a pouring lip. A further characteristic present on later examples is a handle attached to the central neck with a horizontal wavy collar. Their smaller capacity indicates that some of these vessels may have been used for the pouring of smaller quantities of liquids, such as vinegar, although it is hard to verify these for certain. Although examples occur in all metals, they all tend to be finely made. Most examples found date to the first half of the 17th century, and it is perhaps significant that this was the period when the use of open-mouth jugs, particularly in soda glass, was diminishing.

b Figure 92 18.2

18.1

Narrow-neck jugs

Narrow-neck jug with wrythen ribs (Fig 93)

Plain narrow-neck jug (Fig 92)

Metal: Potash and mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), clear (mixed-alkali). Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England? Frequency: Uncommon Description: This form is characterised by a long thin neck and everted rim that often does not require a pinched pouring lip. The body of the vessel is globular and has a simple pushed-in base. Although some examples are known from the 16th century (Fig 92a) the majority of both mixed-alkali and potash vessels date to the first half of the 17th century (Fig 92b). It is likely that many were produced in England. Illustrated examples: a) Southampton, St. Michael’s House (Willmott 1995, 32,

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Late 16th or early 17th centuries. Provenance: England Frequency: Very rare. Description: This form is a slight variation on Type 18.1 differing in the initial blowing of the paraison into a vertically ribbed mould. The subsequent vessel is twisted and further formed to produce the decoration. Although very rare so far, it is probable that other examples of this, and other, decorative patterns will emerge with future research. Illustrated example: Chichester (Charleston 1981, 225, no 24) Other examples: None known.

78 Other examples: Hereford (Boulton 1985, 27, no 28); Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 242, nos 8–9); Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, no 49)

Flasks, bottles, and phials

Figure 93 19

Narrow-neck jug with wrythen ribs

Possets

As previously discussed, possets are a very specific form of spouted vessel. As such they show little variation in their form, which is tailored to their function. Surprisingly no decorative variations are known in soda-glass possets, although early leadcrystal examples often have vertical ribbing or heavy gadrooning on their lower bases (eg Charleston 1984a, pl 22, a-c). 19.1

Plain posset (Fig 94)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Mid to late 17th century? Provenance: England and Venice. Frequency: Rare. Description: The plain posset has a deep bucket-shaped bowl with a flat base and vertical rim. The vessel has two simple applied handles on either side and a single swan-neck spout that rises to above the height of the rim. The plain posset was first made in a good-quality soda glass, but continued to be produced in early lead-crystal glass during the 1680s and 90s in an identical form. Illustrated example: London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a)

Figure 94

Plain posset

Flasks, bottles, and phials are grouped together as they are all for the temporary, or longer term, storage of liquids. Although they could have performed other functions, such as the serving of liquids, they do not share the same features that are seen on vessels specifically made for these purposes. Flasks, bottles, and phials are a broad and diverse group and many of their functional and typological features overlap. Nevertheless, it is still possible to divide the archaeological material between them. Flasks are vessels for the temporary storage and transfer of liquids. Their form, generally a capacious body with a tall narrow neck, reflects this function. They also have an everted rim that was suited to pouring, and in some situations they may have been used as serving vessels. However, they lack a lifting handle and are generally made in a more utilitarian potash glass, suggesting a more ordinary use. Certain exceptions to these are flasks that were highly decorated, such as those with enamelling, or that are complex in design, such the double-necked cruet. In these cases they were clearly made for display and use at the table, but are classified here due to their typological appearance. No glass stoppers were ever used in flasks during this period. There are several possible organic substances that could have been used, but none have so far survived. A wooden bung may have been used, although the lack of wear or scratch marks on the inside of the neck, as are found on Roman bottles sealed in this way (Price and Cottam 1998, 9), suggests these were not used. Additionally the thinness of the rim and necks of most flasks would not take the pressure of a heavy solid blockage. The other options include a cloth bung or waxed paper tied around the rim. Both these possibilities are speculative and evidence for them is unlikely to survive archaeologically. Flasks could be covered externally, presumably to protect the vessel from knocks or blows. The Southampton probate records include references to ‘botels of glasse coverid w’th bull rushes’ and ‘wicker botels’ (Roberts and Parker 1992, 13). A globular flask recovered from the Mary Rose, which sank in 1545, was entirely covered with intertwined wicker in a similar way to a modern Chianti bottle. Other material could apparently be used – in 1633 the household accounts of Lord William Howard show the payment of 18d for ‘one glasse bottell, covered with leather, to put orenge flower water in’ (Hartshorne 1968, 467). Further direct references to flasks are less common. The ‘thre Bottelles or Flagons of blew glasse partely gilte’ listed amongst the goods belonging to Henry VIII in 1542 are probably decorative flasks. Lower quality potash flasks are listed in probates – for instance in

79 1557 John Brodocke of Southampton had a number of ‘bottols’ in his shop that ranged in size from half a pint to two gallons (Roberts and Parker 1992, 290–306).

20

Globular flasks

Globular flasks are the most numerous of all varieties and almost always are made in potash glass. The majority continue to follow later medieval forms and patterns, indeed it is often only through their archaeological context and the quality of their metal that 16th and 17th-century examples can be differentiated from early ones. Almost all globular flasks found in England must have been produced domestically – they are one of the most common forms to be found on 16th-century furnace sites in the Weald (Kenyon 1967, 90), and the later 17th-century furnaces at Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 24–26) and Kimmeridge (Crossley 1987). However, by the middle of the 17th century their numbers diminish, probably as a result of the disruption of the native glass industry. The one exception to these patterns is the occurrence of the kuttrolf, a vessel with a complex arrangement of necks that was only produced in Germany. Nevertheless these are correspondingly rare in England.

Figure 95

Flasks could have been used to contain all types of liquids. One possible function, in the absence of the more specialised bottle, is for the temporary storage of wine from the cask before it was brought to the table. Some in Germany are known even to have been used as reliquaries to hold holy wine or oil (Baumgartner and Krueger 1998, 419, no 524), although this practice is unlikely to have survived the Reformation in England. Globular flasks, and potash types in particular, are very common and are found on all types of site, irrespective of geographical location and status (Fig 95).

20.1

Plain globular flask (Fig 96)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Quite common. Description: The plain globular flask has a form that continues to follow medieval antecedents. It has a simple spherical body with a pushed-in base, vertical neck, and everted rim. They were almost always made in a potash metal and they frequently occur on forest-glass furnace sites in England.

Distribution of globular flasks

4 Bagshot, 6 Basing House, 7 Battle Abbey, 11 Bristol, 12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 17 Chester, 18 Chichester, 19 Christchurch, 22 Denny Abbey, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 34 Nonsuch, 37 Norwich, 41 Poole, 45 Southampton, 51 West Bromwich

Figure 96

Plain globular flask

80 Illustrated example: Christchurch (Charleston 1987, 72, no 9) Other examples: Basing House (Charleston 1971, 67, no 30); Bristol (Good 1987, 105, nos 14 and 21); Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 244, nos 24–8 and 31); Chester (Anon 1939, 21, no 2); Chichester (Charleston 1981, 221, nos 20, 22); Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 210, no 18); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 66, nos 226–31); London, Gracechurch Street; Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 31); Southampton (Charleston 1975, 224, nos 1573–7); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 72, nos 46, 87)

20.2 Globular flask with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 97)

is decorated with twisted wrythen ribbing. The relative numbers of these vessels are probably underestimated due to the expansion of the wrythen ribbing on wider areas of the body, which can make it very unclear. Illustrated example: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Other examples: Bagshot (Willmott forthcoming b); Basing House (Charleston 1971, 67, nos 28–9); Battle Abbey (Charleston 1985, 143, no 32); Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 244, no 29); Canterbury (Shepherd 1990, 213, nos 241, 243); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 68, no 234); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 269 nos, 62, 66–7); London, Gracechurch Street; Norwich (Haslam 1993, 100, nos 613, 620); Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 41)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare. Description: This flask form is identical to Type 20.1 although the initial paraison is blown into a vertically ribbed optic mould before final inflation and forming. Illustrated example: Chichester (Charleston 1981, 221, no 11) Other examples: Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 100, nos 612, 623)

Figure 98 Globular flask with optic-blown wrythen ribs 20.4

Figure 97 ribs

Globular flask with optic-blown vertical

20.3 Globular flask with optic-blown wrythen ribs (Fig 98) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Quite common. Description: This is the second most common form of globular flask and

Kuttrolf (Fig 99)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: Germany. Frequency: Very rare. Description: The kuttrolf is a unique form of globular flask. Whilst its base is a simple push-in and its body spherical, the upper vessel is entirely different. It has at least two long intertwined necks, one to allow liquid out and the other air in. Kuttrolfs were produced in Germany from the late medieval period and continued into the 16th century (eg Henkes 1994, 115–16; Baumgartner and Krueger 1988, 422–3). Despite a fragment of kuttrolf neck from the furnace at

81 Rosedale, North Yorkshire (Charleston 1972a, 142, no CIII) that must represent collected cullet, they are very rare in England and were not produced domestically. Illustrated example: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 76, no 302) Other examples: None known.

Figure 100 Figure 99 21

Kuttrolf

12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 34 Nonsuch, 37 Norwich, 52 Winchester

Oval flasks

Oval flasks are less common than the globular varieties. They only appear to have been made in the 16th century and their remains have been found at the furnace sites at Hutton and Rosedale (Charleston 1972a, 132, nos 11–12, 145, nos 44, 57–60). Being quite small, they are not suited to the storage of capacious liquids such as beer or wine. The discovery of two oval flasks, dated to 1545, in the barber-surgeon’s chest on the Mary Rose, suggests they could have been used to hold medicines and lotions. Although relatively rare, the oval flask tends to be distributed in the south and east of the country (Fig 100).

21.1

Distribution of oval flasks

Illustrated example: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Other examples: Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming)

Plain oval flask (Fig 101)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: Plain oval flasks have a globular body, slightly flattened on two sides, a pushed-in base, and short neck with an everted rim. They receive no form of decoration.

Figure 101

Plain oval flask

82 21.2

Oval flask with wrythen ribs (Fig 102)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The form is the same as Type 21.1 but is decorated with twisted wrythen ribs. These are surprisingly thick and heavy, given the small size of the vessel and the limited subsequent inflation. The ribbing stops abruptly at the lower neck demonstrating the extent to which the initial paraison was inflated in the mould. Illustrated example: Norwich (Haslam 1993, 100, no 617)) Other examples: Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming); Canterbury (Shepherd 1990, 213, no 240); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 269, no 68); London, Gracechurch Street; London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a); Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001); Winchester (Charleston 1964, no 13)

ment of the 15th-century Italian Inghistera, a flask typified by a globular body and very tall thin neck (Charleston 1984a, 43–4). Although in Italy the Inghistera continued in use into the 17th century since Croyat observed the use of ‘Ingistera’es’ in 1611 (Croyat 1905, 425), they cease to be found in English contexts during the early years of the 16th century. Pedestal flasks were also made in a potash metal in England, perhaps in imitation of the Inghistera. They are found on a variety of domestic sites as well as at forest-glass furnace sites such as Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 31, nos 76–7). The potash pedestal flask was longer lived than its soda counterpart, occurring throughout the 16th century, although it appears to diminish in popularity during the 17th century. Soda pedestal flasks are mainly found only in the south of England, although potash examples are more widely distributed (Fig 103).

Figure 103 Figure 102

22

Oval flask with wrythen ribs

Pedestal flasks

Pedestal flasks are similar in form to globular flask but instead of a simple pushed-in base they sit on a low folded pedestal with an enclosed base-ring. The pedestal base in a fragmentary state can be easily distinguished from that of a pedestal beaker, which it otherwise resembles closely, due to its greater diameter. Pedestal flasks occur in both soda and potash glass. Those made from a soda metal date to the early 16th century. They are the last stages in the develop-

Distribution of pedestal flasks

1 Acton Court, 17 Chester, 18 Chichester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 40 Plymouth, 45 Southampton, 51 West Bromwich, 53 Wood Hall

22.1

Plain pedestal flask (Fig 104)

Metal: Potash and soda. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (soda). Date range: Sixteenth and early 17th century. Provenance: England.

83 Frequency: Quite common. Description: Plain pedestal flasks are similar in form to globular varieties, except that they have a wide folded foot instead of a basal push-in. Whilst some soda pedestal flasks from the very early 16th century are found (Fig 104a), the majority of plain pedestal flasks are made in a potash glass (Fig 104b). Illustrated examples: a) Southampton (Charleston 1975, 220, no 1522); b) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, no 81); Other examples: Chester, Hunter Street; Chichester (Charleston 1981, 221, nos 18–19); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 66, nos 215–24); London, Gracechurch Street; London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a); London, St Mary Spital (Brehm et al 1997, 156, no 76);

a Figure 104

Plain pedestal flasks

Newcastle (Ellison 1981, 168, no 402); Plymouth (Charleston 1986, ?46, no 51); Southampton (Charleston 1975, 220, nos 1531–2); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 29, no 84); Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

22.2

Enamelled pedestal flask (Fig 105)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless ground, enamels vary. Date range: Early 16th century. Provenance: Venice. Frequency: Very rare. Description: The enamelled pedestal flask is the same form as the plain Italian Inghistera but is further decorated with enamelled and gilt decoration. Usually these, as in the case of the Illustrated example, consist of red, white, and blue colours. Enamelled pedestal flasks, although primarily a 15th-century form, can date to the very early 16th century. Illustrated example: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 40) Other examples: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001)

b

84

Figure 105 22.3

Provenance: Italy, and Iberia? Frequency: Very rare. Description: Unlike other pedestal flasks, the double-necked cruet is made from several paraisons of glass. They have a flaring base and a central joining knop. The body is divided, each part leading to a curving neck, and formed by the joining of two separate paraisons. This design allowed two different liquids to be held and dispensed. The function of the cruet is unclear. It might have held oil and vinegar like its modern counterpart, although other liquids such as wine and water are possible. A cruet of this form is illustrated in one of the letters from Greene to Morelli in 1670, suggesting a Venetian origin (Hartshorne 1968, pl 31). However this form was also popular in Spain and Portugal in the 17th and following centuries (eg Barros 1989, 43), and were probably produced there as well. Illustrated example: a) Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 97) b) illustration from the Greene letter Other examples: London (Charleston 1984a, pl 21b)

Enamelled pedestal flask

Double-necked cruet (Fig 106)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Second half of the 17th century.

23

Decanter flasks are classified here because they have the general form of a flask. However they differ by having a wide everted mouth that would be less suited to taking a stopper or similar blockage. Another possible term that could be used to describe them is a carafe, although it is uncertain whether they were solely intended to hold wine at the table. Decanter flasks are very confined in both their form and chronology. They only occur in the second half of the 17th century and are always made from a soda or mixed-alkali glass. They are clearly illustrated in the Greene letters to Morelli (Hartshorne 1968, pl 31), suggesting their manufacture there, although an English provenance cannot be ruled out.

a

23.1

b Figure 106

Double-necked cruet

Decanter flasks

Plain decanter flask (Fig 107)

Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Second half of the 17th century. Provenance: Venice, possibly England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: The plain decanter flask has a roughly bi-conical form. The base is a low push-in leading to a wide lower body that tapers to a constricted neck. The neck has an applied horizontal wavy trail at its narrowest point and widens to a funnel-shaped mouth with an everted rim. Some examples of this form depicted in the Greene letters also have applied decorative handles (Hartshorne 1968, pl 31), and at West Bromwich Manor one was found with an applied prunt. Illustrated examples: Usk (Courtney 1994, 84, no 1)

85 Other examples: West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 29, nos 96–7)

Description: This form of decanter flask is similar to the plain version, although it is decorated with optic-blown vertical ribs that can become twisted near the base. Like the plain form it also has an applied horizontal trail at the narrowest point of the neck. This form is illustrated in the Greene letters (Hartshorne 1968, pl 31), although an English provenance cannot be ruled out. Illustrated example: Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 68, nos 15, 20) Other examples: None known.

24

Figure 107

Plain decanter flask

23.2 Decanter flask with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 108) Metal: Soda. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Second half of the 17th century. Provenance: Venice, maybe England. Frequency: Very rare.

Figure 108 Decanter flask with optic-blown vertical ribs

Conical flasks

Conical flasks are small vessels that do not exceed around 150mm in height and have a limited capacity. They are characterised by their tapering form without a discernible neck. Conical flasks could only have been used for the storage or transport of small quantities of liquid, although it is not possible to tell what these may have been. An alternative function that they may have been suited to is as a receiver of the distillates from an alembic (see Form 31.1). This may be confirmed by the presence of other distillation equipment from all the sites that conical flasks have been found at, although their relative numbers are so low that this might be a coincidence. Conical flasks are always made in a potash glass and the lack of evidence for this form on the continent suggests that they were only made in England. They appear to date to the 16th century.

24.1

Plain conical flask (Fig 109)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green. Date range: Sixteenth century. Provenance: England.

Figure 109

Plain conical flask

86 Frequency: Very rare. Description: The plain conical flask has a simple tapering form with a flat base that can have an applied angular horizontal trail just below the seared-off rim. Illustrated example: London, Gracechurch Street Other examples: None known.

24.2 Conical flask with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 110) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green. Date range: Sixteenth century? Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: The form is the same as the plain conical flask, except that it is decorated with optic-blown vertical ribs Illustrated example: Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 160, no 56) Other examples: None known.

Figure 110

25

something in it of 1669 shows a chest tightly packed with six square case bottles. One feature that distinguishes English case bottles from those produced on the continent is the way that the neck was sealed. Many case bottles found in the Low Countries, particularly those of a larger capacity, have a pewter threaded collar around the rim and a screw cap (eg Henkes 1984, 243, no 51.9). No case bottle with a screw cap in situ, or the evidence of one removed prior to disposal, has been found in England, and it would seem most likely that a wooden bung was used instead. Wine bottles are a study in themselves and only appear in the last twenty-five years of this book (Plate 10). They already have been classified extensively by their form and the stamped seals that are applied to them containing owner’s initials and sometimes dates (eg Noel-Hume 1961). One of the earliest examples in the Museum of London has a dated seal of 1650, although research on owner’s initials on a bottle from Chastleton House may suggest an even earlier date (Marshall 1996). Bottle seals appear to have become popular quite rapidly – in 1663 Pepys recalls in his diary that he saw five or six dozen ‘of my New bottles made with my Crest upon them, filled with wine’ (Pepys 1971, 364). Indeed glass seals were not the only thing that could be added to a wine bottle. Earlier that same year

Conical flask with optic-blown ribs

Bottles

Whilst flasks were probably only intended for short-term storage, other vessels clearly held liquids for longer periods of time. These can be divided into case and wine bottles. Case bottles are distinctive and so-called due to their square-section shape that could easily be packed tightly into crates and transported longer distances. By the 18th century numerous fragments of European case bottles were found on early colonial sites in Northern America. Despite this, case bottles seem to have been frequently used in domestic contexts in England and were probably used for a variety of functions. There are few direct contemporary references to them, although in 1625 James Howell mentions ‘the curious Sea-chest of glasses’ that he had been sent (Charleston 1984a, 91). Iconographic representations of case bottles are more forthcoming in the Low Countries. Claes Jansz’ etching As long as there is

Plate 10 Near complete shaft and globe wine bottle, with heavy surface patination. English potash glass c 1650-80, from Vauxhall Bridgefoot, London. (Photo: H Willmott)

87 Pepys observed on entering a cellar that, ‘upon several shelves there stood bottles of all sorts of wine, old and new, with labells pasted upon each bottle.’ (Pepys 1971, 18). It is generally accepted that wine bottles were first produced in England around the middle of the 17th century and within a few decades were exported world wide (Charleston 1984a, 93–5). Whilst this is largely the case it is important to look for national variations between wine bottles. Research in the Netherlands has identified styles that are subtly different to those found in England, a variation often being the thinner vessel wall (eg Henkes 1994, 286, nos 59.8, 59.9). It should not always be assumed that all wine bottles were English products. Wine bottles were suitably strong to have a cork driven flush into their neck and in 1681 ‘a steel worm’ or corkscrew is first mentioned (Charleston 1984a, 95). However, several unpublished wine bottles from Greyhound Yard, Dorchester dating to the first half of the 18th century had their corks preserved in situ. These projected above the rim, in a similar way to a modern sherry bottle, indicating that not all wine bottles were sealed with a flush cork. It has been suggested that one of the reasons the thick walled wine bottle was developed was to

Figure 111

Distribution of bottles

1 Acton Court, 6 Basing House, 8 Bedford, 12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 16 Chelmsford, 17 Chester, 21 Colchester, 22 Denny Abbey, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 32 Montgomery Castle, 33 Newcastle, 37 Norwich, 39 Oxford, 41 Poole, 43 Portsmouth, 44 Sandal Castle, 45 Southampton, 46 Staines, 47 Taunton, 48 Temple Balsall

prevent light penetrating and spoiling the contents (Charleston 1984a, 96). Whilst this would have been perhaps an unforeseen benefit, the most likely explanation would be to give added strength to the vessel. Wine bottles were robust items and this has lead to complications in their dating. Unlike their modern counterparts, wine bottles were made to be used and refilled numerous times. This coupled with their durability would lead to a long life span for the vessel. It is not unusual to find the remains of 17th-century bottles deposited over 50 years after their manufacture, more often than not intermixed with later wine bottles. Wine bottles are extremely common finds throughout England, particularly on urban sites (Fig 111).

25.1

Square case bottle (Fig 112)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted, sometimes quite dark. Date range: Late 16th and 17th centuries. Provenance: Mainly England, but also produced in Germany and the Low Countries Frequency: Common. Description: This form of case bottle has a square cross-section created by blowing the paraison into a mould to the level of the shoulder. The short neck and thick everted rim were finished by hand. Square case bottles can vary in size from as little as 100mm to over 300mm in height. Generally those belonging to the 16th century are at the smaller end of the scale, although there are some exceptions to this. Despite being produced on the continent, most square case bottles found in England were produced here. Illustrated example: a) Colchester (Willmott 1995, 103); b) Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 272, no 103) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 79); Basing House (Charleston 1971, nos 43–6, 53–4); Bedford (Baker et al 1979, 271, no 193); Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming); Canterbury (Shepherd 1990, 213, 251); Chester, Hunter Street; Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 68, nos 236–43); London, Gracechurch Street; Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 156, nos 35–9); Newcastle (Ellison 1979, 170, no 45); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 101, 624–6); Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 236, no 6); Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 35); Sandal Castle (Moorhouse 1983, 229, nos 60–4); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 27, 544–50)

25.2

Hexagonal case bottle (Fig 113)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted, sometimes quite dark.

88

b

Figure 112

a

Square case bottles

Date range: Late 16th and first half of 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Quite common. Description: This is a case bottle with a hexagonal cross-section formed by blowing the paraison into a shaped mould up to the level of the neck. The rest of the vessel is finished by hand. Hexagonal case bottles are less common that the square variety and do not seem to last into the second half of the 17th century. They are smaller in size and rarely exceed 200mm in height. Illustrated example: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 244, no 33) Other examples: Bedford (Baker et al 1979, 271, no 192); Chester, Hunter Street; Denny Abbey (Charleston 1980, 210, no 22); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 76, no 300); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 270, no 80); London, Gracechurch Street; Norwich (Haslam 1993, 101, nos 628–9); Oxford (Haslam 1975, 307, no 2); Sandal Castle (Moorhouse 1983, 229, nos 59, 76); Winchester (Charleston 1964, 148, no 11)

89

Figure 113

25.3

Hexagonal case bottle

Wine bottle (Fig 114)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Dark or olive green. Date range: c 1650 onwards. Provenance: England. Frequency: Common. Description: The genesis of the so-called English wine bottle has already been discussed. The only form to fall into the time period of this classification is the ‘shaft and globe’ variety. It has a short, squat, globular body, with a high basal kick, long tapering neck, and a crudely sheared rim with an applied string-course. As the bottle developed during the second half of the17th century, the neck gradually shortened, although it did not achieve the more familiar ‘bladder’ or ‘onion’ shape until late in the 17th century. A very rare variation has occasionally been found in London (Fig 114b). Although the form is identical to the wine bottle it is only around 100mm in height. Such smaller bottles clearly could not have been used for wine, but may have been novelty phials or even children’s toys. Illustrated example: a) Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 67, no 1); b) London (MoL P661) Other examples: Basing House (Charleston 1971, no 36); Canterbury (Shepherd 1985, 163, no 101); Canterbury (Shepherd 1995 1257, no 575); Chelmsford (Cunningham 1985, 61, no 9); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 277, no 174); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 113, nos 720–5); Portsmouth (Charleston 1986, 224, no 1); Southampton (Charleston 1975, 225, no 1609); Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 232, nos 62–63); Usk (Courtney 1994, 82, nos 6–7); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 26, nos 9–11)

a

b

Figure 114 26

Wine bottles

Phials

The phial is the final form vessel in this classification used for storing liquids. Phials are small vessels with an insufficient capacity to have held comestibles. Although some very small flasks occur during the 16th and early 17th centuries it is not until the second half of the 17th century that the more specialised phial develops. Their most likely function is to have held unguents, perfumes, or other precious liquids. An exception to this is the sandglass, which is also categorised here. The reason for its inclusion in this section is its typological similarity to other phial forms. In Mansell’s patent of 1623 for the production of coal-produced glass, the terms ‘violl’ or ‘vial’ were used collectively to describe not only medicine bottles and chemical containers, but also sand-

90 glasses (Thorpe 1961, 119). This was clearly a ‘specialised occupation’, as in 1637 hourglass makers claimed that they bought ‘hower glas vialles redye prepaired for their use’ (Godfrey 1975, 233). To function properly, before the phials were filled with sand and lashed together on top of each other, a small, pieced, copper-alloy disk was inserted between them to regulate the flow. Both phials were then inserted into a wooden frame. A near complete example of this form, including regulating disk and wooden frame, has been recovered from the Mary Rose, dating it to 1545. Fragments of sandglasses have been found on a number of forest-glass production sites, such as Kimmeridge (Crossley 1987, 359, nos 54–5) and Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 27, no 24), confirming their manufacture in and wide distribution around England (Fig 115).

Frequency: Quite common. Description: The globular phial has quite a wide cylindrical body and a height that is usually no more than three times its breadth. The base is pushed-in with a sharp, pointed kick and the vessel has a convex, rounded shoulder leading to a short, vertical neck and everted rim. Although prevalent during the second half of the 17th century, they do not seem to continue in use long into the next century. Illustrated examples: Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 275 no 142) Other examples: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 244, nos 34–7); Durham (Ellison 1993, 104, no 10); Hereford (Boulton 1985, 27, nos 8–9, 11); Newcastle (Nolan 1990, 115, no 37); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 101, nos 631–3); Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 239, nos 2–4); Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 48, no 125); Staines (Wood 1976, 128, nos 2, 4); Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 28, 33)

Figure 116 26.2

Figure 115

Distribution of phials

8 Bedford,14 Canterbury, 23 Durham, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 27 Hereford, 28 Hull, 30 London, 33 Newcastle, 37 Norwich, 39 Oxford, 40 Plymouth, 43 Portsmouth, 45 Southampton, 46 Staines, 47 Taunton, 48 Temple Balsall

26.1

Globular phial (Fig 116)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Second half 17th century. Provenance: England.

Globular phial

Cylindrical phial (Fig 117)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Second half of the 17th century and later. Provenance: England. Frequency: Quite common Description: This form of phial also has a cylindrical cross-section, and a more uniform diameter the entire height of the vessel. The height of the vessel is usually at least four to five times its maximum breadth and sometimes even greater. The base is pushed-in with a sharp kick, the neck is short and vertical with an out-turned rim. Although this form first occurred in the second half of the 17th century it continued to be produced in near identical form throughout the 18th century and was also later made in lead-glass. Illustrated examples: Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 276, nos 162–3) Other examples: Bedford (Baker et al 1979, 271, no 1198); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 76, nos 3–5, 9); Hereford (Boulton 1985, 27, no 10); Hull (Henderson and Jackson 1993, 147, no 22); London, Aldgate (Charleston and Vince 1984, 89, no 3);

91 Norwich (Haslam 1993, 102, nos 634–5); Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 238, nos 7–14, 18–21); Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 48, nos 140, 144, 147); Portsmouth (Fox and Barton 1986, 224, no 9); Staines (Wood 1976, 128, nos 13–14); Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 223–35, nos 1–27)

Other examples: Hereford (Boulton 1985, 27, nos 15–16, 18); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 103, nos 39–41); Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 42 no 113); Sandal Castle (Moorhouse 1983, 226, no 55); Southampton (Charleston 1975, 223, no 1597); Taunton (Charleston 1984c, 138, no 5)

a

a

b Figure 117

26.3

Cylindrical phials

Sandglass (Fig 118)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth and 17th centuries. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The sandglass phial has a teardrop-shaped tapering body with a pushed-in base. Unlike other phials it does not have a neck, and the tapered body leads directly to a flat out-turned rim. Originally made in pairs, they are often confused with phials, especially if in a fragmentary state. They are rarely found during the 16th century and most archaeological examples date to the 17th century. The form continued unchanged into the first half of the 18th century. Illustrated example: a) Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 238, no 16); b) London, Number One, Poultry (Willmott forthcoming a)

b Figure 118

Sandglasses

Bowls and Dishes Bowls are a difficult form to classify satisfactorily, and they are often identified negatively by eliminating functions that they could not perform. Bowls are larger open vessels that were primarily used for the temporary storage and serving of both liquids and solids at the table. However they could have been used, in conjunction with jugs, for handwashing prior to the meal. Bowls are generally of a larger capacity than other vessels and not suitable for drinking from. Although there are a number of varieties of bowl it is impossible to differentiate between form and specific function.

92 References to bowls occur quite frequently in contemporary sources. A number of ‘basons’ are listed in association with ‘layers’ or ‘ewers’ in the Henry VIII inventory of 1542, presumably for handwashing (Hartshorne 1968, 464). The same inventory also mentions several other ‘bolles of glasse’ and these probably were for holding comestible and other items at the table. The final reference in the inventory is to a ‘baskett of glasse with two ears of diaper work’ (Hartshorne 1968, 465). This might be a specific reference to a straight-sided bowl, which sometimes had applied flat handles, similar to a porringer. References in other inventories are sometimes more ambiguous, the two ‘bole glasses’ in the 1556 account book of William More of Loseley are probably bowls (Hartshorne 1968, 166). Likewise the ‘indented bole glasses for creame’, the ‘deep standing glasse’ and the fifteen glasses described as ‘brode brimmed and narrow bottoms’ belonging to the Earl of Leicester prior to his death in 1588 are probably all forms of bowl (Hartshorne 1968, 467). Despite their occurrence in contemporary sources, soda-glass bowls are quite rare archaeologically. This in part may be due to their larger and more fragile shape, which when fragmentary is harder to identify correctly. By contrast potash bowls quite often occur on English furnace sites, with examples known from Rosedale (Charleston 1972a, 139, no 38), Kimmeridge (Crossley 1987, 362, no 97), and Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 36, nos 13–14). Consequently, it is likely that the low number of bowls found on English sites is not an accurate reflection of their original frequency. Dishes are a distinct category from bowls and can be defined by two features. First, a dish is a very low or even flat vessel incapable of holding large volumes of liquid in its small central well. Second, a dish has a broad rim that is horizontal and flat, as opposed to the vertical or everted rim found on a bowl. Although some overlap between bowls and dishes may occur, they can usually be differentiated by these two features. The very form of the dish suggests that they were only used for the serving and consumption of solids at the table. Nevertheless, in 1594 Sir Hugh Platt advised his readers to place vinegar in ‘sawcers of glasse’ at the table, as they were resistant to the acidity (Platt 1979, Bk III, 35). Clearly a dish could have been used for a variety of functions. Dishes occur in other contemporary sources. The Henry VIII inventory includes a number of ‘spice plates of glasse’, ‘platers dishes and sawcers of glass’ as well as sixty ‘trenchers of glasse’ (Hartshorne 1968, 465). Although the precise form of these, and the trenchers in particular, cannot be directly compared to archaeological examples, these descriptions serve to demonstrate a distinct contemporary differentiation between bowls and dishes. By the 17th century, dishes occur more frequently in inventories. The household papers of Lord William Howard of Narworth mention thirteen glass plates in 1618, and two dozen glass trenchers in 1628 (Hartshorne 1968,

467). Later, in 1624, the papers of Sir William and Sir Thomas Fairfax include glass plates (Hartshorne 1968, 468). The general increase in the numbers of dishes referred to in contemporary sources during the 17th century mirrors the archaeological pattern. Whilst they are very rare in the 16th century they are increasingly found on sites during the first half of the 17th century. Whether this reflects the general increase in glass use during this period or a more specific demand for dishes is unclear.

27

Pedestal bowls

This form of bowl is supported on a raised foot or pedestal. These can either be formed from the same paraison as the body of the bowl or be a separate applied piece. Often the fragmentary remains of pedestal bases from bowls can be confused with those from beakers, perhaps accounting for their lower reported numbers, but their broader width and the flatness of the body of the bowl where it joins the foot distinguishes them. Pedestal bowls first occur during the 16th century, and are made in a good-quality soda glass, suggestive of import from Venice. However, by the beginning of the 17th century they were being produced in

Figure 119

Distribution of pedestal bowls

1 Acton Court, 6 Basing House, 14 Canterbury, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 28 Hull, 30 London, 37 Norwich, 38 Nottingham, 40 Plymouth, 41 Poole, 51 West Bromwich, 53 Wood Hall

93

Figure 120

Plain pedestal bowls

England in potash glass, although pedestal bowls of all metal types seem to diminish in popularity by the middle of that century. Pedestal bowls are distributed throughout England (Fig 119).

27.1

Plain pedestal bowl (Fig 120)

Metal: Potash, soda, and mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (others). Date range: Sixteenth and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: Venice, other façon de Venise centres, and England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The body of the bowl is usually deep and sometimes even spherical, with a vertical or slightly everted rim. The pedestal base is usually quite tall and flaring. The vessel receives no further decoration. Illustrated example: a) Hull (Henderson 1987, 194, no 27); b) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 56, nos 128) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 115); Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65, no 21); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 110, no 706); Nottingham (Alvey 1975, 68, no 21); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, nos, 108–111)

Date range: Sixteenth and 17th centuries. Provenance: Venice, England and other façon de Venise centres. Frequency: Rare. Description: This type has the same form as Type 27.1 although the body is decorated with optic-blown ribs that can become very faint and distorted on the wider parts of the body. In examples made from two paraisons, sometimes only one is decorated with ribbing. Illustrated example: London (MoL ER21841) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 9); Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 239, no 3); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 31. no 176)

Figure 121 Pedestal bowl with optic-blown vertical ribs

27.3 27.2 Pedestal bowl with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 121) Metal: Potash, soda, and mixed-alkali. Colour: Green (potash), colourless (others).

Opaque white pedestal bowl (Fig 122)

Metal: Soda? Colour: Opaque white ground. Date range: First half of the 17th century.

94 Provenance: Low Countries. Frequency: Rare. Description: This type of bowl varies markedly from the other pedestal types. It is usually shallower and has a very low base-ring and sharply shouldered body. The whole vessel is made in an opaque white or lattimo glass. These vessels were probably produced in the Low Countries where they are quite common, and usually have additional enamelled decoration (Henkes 1994, 230–2). The majority thus far found in England are plain (Fig 122a) whilst others can have coloured splashed or blobbed decoration (Fig 122b). Illustrated examples: a) London, Gracechurch Street; b) Plymouth (Charleston 1986, 46, no 47) Other examples: Oxford (Hassal et al 1984, 242, no 12); Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, no 18); Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

in a potash glass during the first half of the 17th century, and a nearly complete example recovered from the Haughton Green furnace suggests that they were an English product (Hurst-Vose 1994, 36, no 13).

28.1

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare? Description: The bowl has a simple spherical body, low base, and everted rim. The vessel receives no further decoration. Illustrated example: Norwich (Haslam 1993, 111, no 713) Other examples: West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 33, nos 65, 70)

29

Figure 122 28

Opaque white pedestal bowls

Hemispherical bowls

Hemispherical bowls are the largest in this category. They have a low base, spherical sides, and everted rim. Hemispherical bowls are probably underrepresented in this classification for several reasons. Their bodies are very plain and have few distinguishing features when fragmentary except for the wide everted rim. These rims themselves are easily mistaken for those from jars, and it is only when the vessel has a more complete profile that an accurate identification can be made. Hemispherical bowls only seem to have been made

Figure 123

Plain hemispherical bowl

Plain hemispherical bowl (Fig 123)

Straight-sided bowls

Straight-sided bowls are a more diverse category and can vary in size and shape. The defining characteristics shared by them all are near vertical rims and bodies, with a sharp lower edge leading to a near flat base. The height of the body can vary as can the nature of their decoration. In some cases they have one or two flat handles applied to the rim edge, perhaps in imitation of the porringer shape more prevalent in the ceramics (eg Pearce 1992, 15–17) and pewter (eg Michaelis 1955, 61) of the period. Straight-sided bowls may be more functionally specific than other varieties. The shape and the occasional presence of handles make them suited to eating from, particularly more liquid foodstuffs such as soup or stew. Nevertheless, there is no direct evidence for their use and other possibilities cannot be ruled out. Straight-sided bowls are usually made in a potash glass and were probably English products. They are

95 found throughout the 17th century and are quite widely distributed throughout England (Fig 124).

Illustrated examples: a) Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 56, no 127); b) Usk (Courtney 1994, 82, no 2) Other examples: Basing House (Charleston 1971, 67, no 26); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 110, no 709); Nottingham (Alvey 1975, 68, nos 26–8)

29.2 Straight-sided bowl with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 126) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Seventeenth century. Provenance: England? Frequency: Very rare. Description: Straight-sided bowls with optic-blown vertical ribs are less common than the plain variety, although they have the same basic form. Illustrated example: West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 31, no 160) Other examples: None known.

Figure 124

Distribution of straight-sided bowls

6 Basing House, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 37 Norwich, 38 Nottingham, 49 Usk, 51 West Bromwich 29.1

Plain straight-sided bowl (Fig 125)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Seventeenth century. Provenance: England? Frequency: Rare. Description: Plain straight-sided bowls have simple forms with no decorative embellishments on the main body of the vessel. The height of the body in proportion to its breadth can vary considerable and in occasional examples the rim is folded out to produced a tubular edge (eg Fig 125a).

Figure 126 Straight-sided bowl with optic-blown vertical ribs

30

Dishes

As noted above, dishes or plates occur in contemporary sources of the period, particularly during the 17th century, and they served as vessels for the consumption of solid foods. It is probable that their increasing frequency during the 17th century mirrors the decline in use of the traditional bread or wooden trencher, a pattern that can also be seen in ceramics (eg Pearce 1992, 9–11).

b

a Figure 125

Plain straight-sided bowls

96 Date range: Seventeenth century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The plain dish has a flat base and a body forming a low well. The brim is made from a broad flat flange with an edge that is folded out to form a fine hollow tubular rim. The vessel receives no further decoration. Illustrated example: Usk (Courtney 1994, 84, no 2) Other examples: Basing House (Charleston 1971, 65, no 18); Chelmsford (Cunningham 1985, 61, no 5); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 59, nos 144–7); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 273, no 119); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 110, nos 710–11); Sandal Castle (Moorhouse 1983, 229, no 75); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 33, no 169)

30.2

Figure 127

Distribution of dishes

6 Basing House, 16 Chelmsford, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 37 Norwich, 44 Sandal Castle, 49 Usk, 51 West Bromwich

The majority of dishes were first made in potash glass during the early 17th century and fragments from them are found at English furnace sites such as Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 37 no 9). However, as the century progressed they are increasingly found in a mixed-alkali glass, also suggestive of English manufacture. Dishes are fairly evenly distributed throughout England (Fig 127).

Dish with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 129)

Metal: Mixed-alkali. Colour: Colourless. Date range: Late 16th century? Provenance: Unknown. Frequency: Very rare. Description: A single example of a dish with broad optic-blown ribs can be identified. In this example the well of the vessel is deeper and more spherical, making the vessel more similar to a bowl. Illustrated example: Usk (Courtney 1994, 84, no 3) Other examples: None known.

Jars 30.1

Plain dish (Fig 128)

Metal: Potash or mixed-alkali. Colour: Green-tinted (potash), colourless (mixed-alkali).

Figure 128

Plain dish

Figure 129

Dish with optic-blown vertical ribs

A jar is a vessel with a wide everted rim and neck as well as a capacious body. The wide rim and neck make them suitable for the storage of solids or semi-solids rather than liquids. Whilst other purposes, such as cooking, can be suggested for vessels of

97 a similar form in medieval and post-medieval ceramics (MPRG 1988, 4.1), with glass jars this is less likely to be the case. The width of the jar rim makes it unlikely that a solid stopper was used to seal them. The everted lip and short constricted neck would be ideally suited to the use of cloth or waxed paper, which could be securely tied around with string. Jars are always made in potash glass and seem to be purely utilitarian vessels and not used at the table. Contemporary references to jars are rare. They occasionally occur in inventories – six small jars valued at 1d each were listed amongst the goods in shop of Southampton apothecary John Brodocke in 1571 (Roberts and Parker 1992, 290–306). In this case jars apparently were being used for the storage of medicines and drugs, a function they could also have performed in domestic contexts.

slightly concave in imitation of the tin-glazed earthenware albarello. The association of jars with apothecaries has already been mentioned, and the cylindrical form in particular is sometimes depicted in engravings of apothecaries and their shops (eg Charleston 1984a, pl 17b). Despite this association, cylindrical jars are also found in domestic contexts and were commonplace household vessels. Cylindrical jars are always made in potash glass and are found on a number of the later forest-glass furnace sites, such as Rosedale (Charleston 1972a, 132, nos 8–9) and Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 32, no 85). Their presence on these production sites and the wide distribution throughout England suggest their manufacture here (Fig 130).

31.1

31

Cylindrical jars

Cylindrical jars are the most common and recognisable form found in England, copying pottery forms of the same date (eg MPRG 1998, 4.1.3). Most have vertical sides, whilst in some examples the side is

Plain cylindrical jar (Fig 131)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Mid 16th to mid 17th centuries.

a

Figure 130

Distribution of cylindrical jars

1 Acton Court, 6 Basing House, 8 Bedford, 9 Beeston Castle, 11 Bristol, 12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 18 Chichester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 27 Hereford, 28 Hull, 30 London, 33 Newcastle, 34 Nonsuch, 35 Northampton, 37 Norwich, 38 Nottingham, 39 Oxford, 40 Plymouth, 41 Poole, 44 Sandal Castle, 48 Temple Balsall, 53 Wood Hall

b Figure 131

Plain cylindrical jars

98 Provenance: England. Frequency: Common. Description: The plain cylindrical jar has a flat base, vertical sides that are often slightly concave, a sharp shoulder, and a short neck with an out-turned rim. Plain cylindrical jars are the most common form found in England. Illustrated examples: a) Norwich (Haslam 1993, 102, no 646); b) Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, nos 87–8); Bedford (Baker et al 1979, 273, no 1267); Beeston Castle (Charleston 1993, 170, no 31); Bristol (Good 1987, 105, no 18); Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming); Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 244, no 41); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 76, no 303); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 272, no 111); London, Gracechurch Street; Newcastle (Nolan 1980, 115, no 36); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 102–3, nos 645, 647–8); Nottingham (Alvey 1973, 68, no 29); Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 238, no 24); Plymouth (Charleston 1986); Sandal Castle (Moorhouse 1983, 229, no 69); Wood Hall (Willmott forthcoming d)

vessel. Illustrated example: Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 239, no 24) Other examples: Hull (Armstrong 1977, 62, no 69); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 103, no 649); Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 227, no 37)

31.3 Cylindrical jar with optic-blown wrythen ribs (Fig 133) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Late 16th to first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare. Description: This jar has the same cylindrical form as Type 31.1 but is decorated with twisted wrythen ribbing. Illustrated example: Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 239, no 23) Other examples: Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 301, no 84); Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 227, no 36)

31.2 Cylindrical jar with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 132) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Late 16th and first half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare. Description: This jar has a similar form to the plain type, but is decorated with optic-blown vertical ribs the entire height of the

Figure 133 Cylindrical jar with optic-blown wrythen ribs

31.4 Cylindrical jar with optic-blown mesh (Fig 134)

Figure 132 Cylindrical jar with optic-blown vertical ribs

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Late 16th and first half of the 17th centuries. Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare.

99 Description: The cylindrical jar form is decorated with a raised optic-blown mesh design, which can become quite distorted with the subsequent inflation and forming of the vessel. Illustrated example: Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 238, no 27) Other examples: Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 244, no 40); Hereford (Boulton 1985, 28, nos 4–6)

Figure 134

31.5

Cylindrical jar with optic-blown mesh

Square jar (Fig 135)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Late 16th and early 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This form of jar varies from others in this category. Although its out-turned rim and constricted neck are similar to other cylindrical forms, the body is blown into a square mould up to the level of the shoulder. Illustrated example: Basing House (Charleston 1971, 69, no 65); Poole (Charleston 1992, 139, no 59) Other examples: None known.

32

Globular jars

These jars have a globular-shaped body similar to a flask with which they may easily be confused if in a fragmentary state. They are a different form of storage vessel, although the wide neck still suggests that they were used for solids. The out-turned flat rim is similar to the cylindrical jar and they were probably sealed with tied cloth. Unlike the cylindrical jar they are not depicted in scenes of apothecaries, and probably had a purely domestic function. Likewise, there are no clear contemporary references to this particular shape of jar. It is possible that globular jars could have served

Figure 135

Square jar

purposes other than storage, although these are impossible to define. Globular jars are comparatively rare and always made in potash glass. A possible fragment from a wrythen decorated jar was found on the furnace site at Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 29, no 57), suggesting their manufacture there. They are found fairly evenly distributed across England, although they are more common on the south and east coasts (Fig 136).

32.1 Globular jar with optic-blown vertical ribs (Fig 137) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: First half of the 17th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare. Description: This globular jar has a spherical body, vertical neck, and everted rim. It is decorated in heavy optic-blown vertical ribs on its body and neck.

100 Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This form of jar is decorated with optic-blown wrythen ribs, which can become quite heavily distorted. On some vessels the wrythen ribbing also appears quite broken. Illustrated example: Poole (Charleston 1992, 137, no 29) Other examples: Southampton (Charleston 1975, 222, no 1570)

Figure 136

Distribution of globular jars

25 Exeter, 27 Hereford, 30 London, 37 Norwich, 39 Oxford, 41 Poole, 45 Southampton, 48 Temple Balsall Illustrated example: a) London, Gracechurch Street; Other examples: Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 267, no 42, 276 nos 156–7); Hereford (Boulton 1985, 27, no 7); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 103, no 650) Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 228, no 42)

Figure 137 ribs

Figure 138 ribs

Globular jar with optic-blown wrythen

32.3 Globular jar with optic-blown bosses and vertical ribs (Fig 139) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Mid 17th century? Provenance: England. Frequency: Very rare. Description: This form of jar has a more complex optic-blown pattern consisting of interspersed vertical ribs and raised bosses. This vessel seems to date from the early to mid 17th century, although the decorative scheme used is more usually associated with late 17th-century squat beakers

Globular jar with optic-blown vertical

32.2 Globular jar with optic-blown wrythen ribs (Fig 138) Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: First half of the 17th century.

Figure 139 Globular jar with optic-blown bosses and vertical ribs

101 (Form 3.5) and they may belong to this later date. Illustrated example: Oxford (Hassall et al 1984, 236, no 18) Other examples: None known.

The final category of vessels in this classification is that used for chemical, medicinal, and purposes other than the consumption and storage of comestibles. Although a varied group, the vessels in this category share some common characteristics. All are made in a potash metal, emphasising their utilitarian and functional nature, rather than being intended for display and use at the table. The remains of all the vessels in this group can be found on native glass furnace sites, suggesting that they were all made in England. Finally the majority of forms are all types present during the late medieval period and represent the continuation of glassmaking traditions rather than the development of new styles.

detailed discussions concerning the equipment used (eg Moorhouse 1972). An important factor when considering the process of distillation is that vessels of different media were used together. In 1594 Sir Hugh Platt devoted nearly a whole book in his Jewell House of Art and Nature to ‘Divers Chemical Conclusions Concerning The Art of Distillation’ (Platt 1979, Bk III). He suggests that for different tasks certain vessel types and media were better suited than others. Distilling was important for production of medicinal solutes rather than alcoholic drinks, and glass was one of the more common media used in England until the late 17th century when new techniques using the copper alloy still worm were introduced (Haynes et al 1998, 38–9). The remains of alembics have been found on a number of production sites, such as at Haughton Green (Hurst-Vose 1994, 32, nos 87–90) and Kirdford in the Weald (Kenyon 1967, 174–5). It is likely that the fragments found on domestic sites in England were also produced in local forest-glass glasshouses (Fig 140).

33

33.1

Chemical and miscellaneous glass

Distillation equipment

Distillation was practised in England from the 15th century onwards and there have been several

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth and first half of the 17th century. Frequency: Uncommon. Description: The alembic is a convex-domed vessel with a lower collecting channel and spout. The evaporated distillates condense on the dome, run down the sides to the collecting channel and are then removed from the vessel through its long arm. This form first occurs in the late Middle Ages, but continued virtually unchanged until the mid 17th century. Illustrated example: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 83, no 333) Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 55); Chester (Anon 1939, pl 5, nos 1, 7); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 267, no 41); London, Gracechurch Street; Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 160, no 65); Newcastle (Ellison 1979, 171, nos 50–52

33.2

Figure 140

Distribution of distillation equipment

1 Acton Court, 17 Chester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 32 Montgomery Castle, 33 Newcastle, 48 Temple Balsall

Alembic (Fig 141)

Cucurbit (Fig 142)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth and first half of the 17th century. Frequency: Rare. Description: The cucurbit is a large conical vessel. The base is convex

102

Figure 141

Alembic

and thick, being similar to a urinal (Form 34), but considerably larger. The sides taper slightly to a vertical rim. When fragmented the rim, body, and even base might be confused with other forms. The cucurbit is used for the heating of the mixture to be distilled and like the alembic was a late medieval form that continued in use to the mid 17th century. Illustrated example: Chester (Anon 1939, pl 5, no 4) Other examples: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 83, nos 334–5); London, Southwark (Hinton 1988, 383, no 193); Montgomery Castle (Knight 1994, 161, nos 67–8); Newcastle (Ellison 1979, 170, no 49)

33.3

Funnel (Fig 143)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Seventeenth century? Frequency: Very rare. Description: Funnels have an everted tapering body and rim with a long lower tubular spout. They are very rare, but this might be due to problems with their identification when fragmented. More examples are known from the Low Countries (eg Henkes 1994, 325–6) and fragments of straight tubing, possibly from funnels, were found at the production site at Bagot’s Park (Crossley 1967, 69, nos 3, 6, 16). Funnels may have been used for a variety of chemical and domestic functions. Illustrated example: Temple Balsall (Gooder 1984, 228, no 44)

Figure 142

Cucurbit

103

Figure 143

Funnel

Tyson 2000, 149–52). Urinals occurred on English sites in a virtually unchanged form from the 13th to the 16th centuries. They had a thick convex base, with external pontil mark, thin convex sides, a vertical neck, and an everted or horizontal rim. Although always blown in potash glass, the thinness of the walls allowed unobscured vision of the contents. Despite their obvious primary function the suggestion that liquids other than urine could have been inspected in urinals is worthy of consideration. Urinals occur on earlier glasshouse sites dating to the 16th century, such as Hutton (Charleston 1972a, 146, no 63), but their production and use seems to have ceased by the 17th century. Urinals are distributed widely throughout the country (Fig 144).

Other examples: Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 87, nos 338, 340) 34.1

34

Urinals

The topic of uroscopy and glass vessels has received sufficient scholarly inspection to merit little further comment (eg Charleston 1984a, 32–3;

Figure 144

Urinal (Fig 145)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: Sixteenth century. Frequency: Common. Description: Urinals have thick convex bases with external pontil marks, very thin spherical bodies and vertical necks with an everted rim. The rim often has a slight up-turn on its edge. They are never decorated. Illustrated example: Nonsuch Palace (Charleston 2001)

Distribution of urinals

1 Acton Court, 6 Basing House, 7 Battle Abbey, 11 Bristol, 12 Camber Castle, 14 Canterbury, 18 Chichester, 24 Eccleshall Castle, 25 Exeter, 30 London, 34 Nonsuch, 35 Northampton, 39 Oxford, 44 Sandal Castle, 45 Southampton, 51 West Bromwich, 52 Winchester

Figure 145

Urinal

104 Other examples: Acton Court (Courtney forthcoming, no 33); Basing House (Charleston 1971, 67, nos 33–5); Battle Abbey (Charleston 1985, 140, nos 20–1); Bristol (Good 1987, 105, no 16); Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming); Canterbury (Charleston 1987, 244, no 42); Chichester (Charleston 1981, 221, no 8); Eccleshall Castle (Sheale 1993, 83, nos 319–32); Exeter (Charleston 1984b, 269, nos 63–4); London, Gracechurch Street; Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, nos 54–6); Oxford (Haslam 1975, 307, no 4); Sandal Castle (Moorhouse 1983, 228, nos 34–5); Southampton (Charleston 1975, 222, no 1555); West Bromwich Manor (Cocroft 1993, 33, nos 91, 199); Winchester (Charleston 1964, 148, nos 14–15)

35

Hanging lamps

The final form of vessel glass discussed in this category is the hanging lamp. Although primarily medieval vessels, they survived in use up to the mid 16th century. They are characterised by a tall, thick, stub base and a hemispherical bowl. Contemporary depictions show them to be suspended by three chains secured to their body by a metal band (eg Charleston 1984a, pl 8a), although the long stub base would have been suitable for placing in any holder that had an appropriate hole. The majority of the vessel was probably filled with water and then a layer of oil

floated on the top in which a wick was placed. Lamps are often associated with ecclesiastical buildings, but are also found in domestic contexts. They are always made in potash glass, and are quite widely distributed throughout England (Fig 146).

35.1

Hanging lamp (Fig 147)

Metal: Potash. Colour: Green-tinted. Date range: First half of the 16th century. Provenance: England. Frequency: Rare. Description: Lamps have a conical thick base with an external pontil mark that leads to a hemispherical bowl, usually with an everted rim. Illustrated example: Northampton (Oakley and Hunter 1979, 299, no 53) Other examples: Battle Abbey (Charleston 1985, 140, nos 1–9); Camber Castle (Cropper forthcoming); Durham (Ellison 1993, 104, no 5); Norwich (Haslam 1993, 117, no 739)

Figure 147

Hanging lamp

Summary of sites and published groups of glass

Figure 146

Distribution of hanging lamps

7 Battle Abbey, 12 Camber Castle, 23 Durham, 35 Northampton, 37 Norwich

Table 3 is a brief summary of the sites and their glass used in this classification. It contains details of the available publications, the type of site, the size of its assemblage, the date range of the glass and the types of vessels present. This is intended as a tool for researchers seeking sites and assemblages similar to their own. It is only the first step in such a process, but should provide some indication of the range of published and unpublished material in England.

Table 3 Site

Publication

Summary of site information

Type

Size

Date Range

Vessels

Elite

Large

Mainly mid 16th century

Goblets, beakers, jugs

Urban

Small

Early 17th century

Pedestal beaker

Baconsthorpe Castle

Elite

Medium

Sixteenth – early 17th century

Goblets, beakers

Bagshot

Urban

Large

First third of the 17th century

Cigar and lion-mask stem goblets

Barnard Castle

Elite

Medium

Sixteenth – early 17th century

Goblets, beakers, flasks, case bottles, urinals

Acton Court Alcester

Booth 1983

Basing House

Charleston 1971

Elite

Medium

First half 17th century

Knopped goblets, dishes, bowls, flasks, case bottles

Battle Abbey

Charleston 1985

Elite

Small

Late 16th century

Pedestal beakers, roemers

Bawtry

Courtney 1996

Urban

Small

Early 17th century

Beakers

Bedford

Baker et al 1979

Urban

Small

Late 17th century (and later)

Wine & case bottles, phials

Beeston Castle

Charleston 1993

Elite

Small

First half 17th century

Goblets, beakers, jar, case bottles

Berry Pomeroy Castle

Allan 1996

Elite

Small

Late 16th century

Goblets, flask

Bristol

Barton 1964 Good 1987

Urban Urban

Small Small

Early 17th century Late 16th century

Knopped-stem goblets, flask Goblets, flask, jar

Elite

Large

Mid 16th century

Goblets, beakers, flasks, urinals

Camber Castle Cannons Ashby

Taylor 1974

Elite

Small

Early 16th century

Goblets, beakers

Canterbury

Charleston 1987 Shepherd 1985 Shepherd 1990

Urban Urban Urban

Large Small Medium

Goblets, beakers, flasks, jars, phials Beakers Goblets, flasks, case bottles

Shepherd 1995

Urban

Medium

Late 16th & 17th centuries Early 17th century (and later) Sixteenth – 17th century (and later) Late 16th – early 17th century

Castle Rising

Cool 1997

Elite

Small

First half 17th century

Beakers, goblets

Chelmsford

Cunningham 1985

Urban

Small

Late 16th – early 17th century

Pedestal beakers, dish

Chester

Anon 1939 Axwothy Rutter 1990

Urban Elite

Small Small

First half 17th century Early to mid 16th century

Alembics, cucurbit, flasks, beakers Knopped goblet bowls, pedestal goblet

Chichester

Charleston 1981

Urban

Medium

Late 16th century

Flasks, pedestal beakers, jug

Christchurch

Charleston 1983a

Urban

Small

Late 16th century

Flask, beakers

Clarendon Palace

Charleston 1988

Elite

Small

Sixteenth century

Pedestal beakers

Urban

Large

Sixteenth – 17th century

Beakers, goblets, jars, flasks, urinals

105

Colchester

Beakers, goblets, flasks, wine bottles

106

Table 3 (cont.)

Summary of site information

Site

Publication

Type

Size

Date Range

Vessels

Denny Abbey

Charleston 1980

Elite

Small

Late 16th century

Pedestal beakers, flasks, pedestal goblet

Durham

Ellison 1993

Urban

Small

First half 17th century

Knopped goblets, roemer, phial

Eccleshall Castle

Sheale 1993

Elite

Large

Late 16th – early 17th century

Goblets, beakers, bowls, dishes, flasks, phials

Exeter

Charleston 1984b

Urban

Large

Sixteenth & 17th century

Beakers, goblets, flasks, jars, dishes, case bottles, phial

Guildford

Fryer & Shelley 1997

Urban

Large

Late 17th century

Squat beakers, tankard, wine bottles, phials

Hereford

Boulton 1985

Urban

Small

Late 17th century

Wine bottles, jars, sandglass, beaker

Hull

Armstrong 1977

Urban

Small

Mainly late 16th century

Henderson 1987 Henderson & Jackson 1993

Urban Urban

Medium Small

Late 16th & early 17th century Early 17th century

Pedestal beakers & goblets, knopped goblets Beakers, goblets, dish Beakers, phial

Charleston 1973 Henderson 1999

Urban Urban

Small Small

Early 17th century Late 16th century

Enamelled goblet bowl Goblets, pedestal beakers

Hinton 1988

Elite Urban Urban Urban Urban

Medium Small Small Large Medium

Mid–late 16th century Seventeenth century Early 17th century First third 17th century Seventeenth century

Beakers, goblets, flasks Goblets, beakers, jar, phials Knopped goblet Goblets, beakers, bowls, dishes, flasks, jars, distilling Beakers, goblets, phials, jar

Wood 1976 Brehm et al 1998 Huggins 1976

Urban Urban Elite Elite

Large Small Large Small

Sixteenth – late 17th century Seventeenth century Late 16th – 17th century Late 16th – early 17th century

Goblets, beakers, bowls, dishes, possets, flasks, jars Goblets, phials Goblets, beakers, case bottles, flasks Knopped goblets

Micheldever

Sutermeister 1975

Elite

Small

Sixteenth century

Goblet, flask

Montgomery Castle

Knight 1994

Elite

Large

Sixteenth – early 17th century

Goblets, beakers, tankards, bottles, phials, distilling

Lewis 1968

Elite

Small

Sixteenth – early 17th century

Goblet

Ellison 1979 Ellison 1981

Urban Urban

Small Small

Seventeenth century Early 17th century

Ellison 1983 Nolan 1990 Vaughan 1994

Urban Urban Urban

Small Small Small

Late 16th – 17th centuries Seventeenth century Late 16th century

Distilling, beakers, goblets, roemer Pedestal beakers, goblets, tankard, flasks Pedestal beakers, knopped goblets, flask Pedestal beaker, jar, phials Goblet, roemer, bowl, case bottle

Nonsuch Palace

Charleston 2001

Elite

Large

Mid 16th – mid 17th century

Goblets, beakers, jugs, bowls, dishes, flasks, urinals

Northampton

Oakley & Hunter 1979

Urban

Medium

Late 16th century

Pedestal & cylindrical beakers, lamp, urinal, jar

Lincoln London; Abacus House Aldgate Blackfriars Gracechurch St Southwark & Lambeth No 1, Poultry Staines St Mary Spital Westminster

Newcastle

Charleston & Vince 1984 Marsden 1971

Table 3 (cont.) Site

Publication

Norton Priory

Summary of site information

Type

Size

Date Range

Vessels

Elite

Medium

Sixteenth century

Goblets, beakers, flasks

Norwich

Haslam 1993 Margeson 1985 Hume 1958

Urban Urban Urban

Large Small Small

Sixteenth & 17th centuries Early 17th century Seventeenth century

Flasks, phials, jars, beakers, goblets, bowls, dishes Beakers, roemer Goblet, beaker, phial, wine bottles

Nottingham

Alvey 1973

Urban

Large

Late 17th century

Wine bottles, knopped goblets, squat beakers, jars

Oxford

Hassall et al 1984 Leeds 1938

Urban Urban

Large Medium

Seventeenth century (and later) Late 16th – 17th centuries

Bottles, phials, jars, beakers, goblets, bowls, possets Goblets, wine bottles, phials

Plymouth

Charleston 1986

Urban

Medium

Seventeenth century (and later)

Beakers, goblets, bowl, phials

Poole

Charleston 1992

Urban

Large

Sixteenth & 17th century

Beakers, goblets, jars, flasks

Portchester Castle

Harden 1977

Elite

Small

Early 16th century

Goblet lid

Portsmouth

Fox & Barton 1986

Urban

Small

Late 17th century (and later)

Wine bottles, phials

Sandal Castle

Moorhouse 1983

Elite

Small

Sixteenth & 17th centuries

Flasks, phials, goblet, jar, dish

Southampton

Charleston 1975

Urban

Large

Sixteenth & 17th centuries

Knopped & pedestal goblets, beakers, jugs, flasks

Taunton

Brown 1988 Charleston 1984c

Urban Urban

Small Small

First half 17th century Late 16th – 17th centuries

Beaker, cigar stem, lamp, urinal Pedestal & cylindrical beakers, goblet, sandglass

Temple Balsall

Gooder 1984

Elite

Large

Late 17th century (and later)

Phials, jars, tankards, beakers, posset, wine bottles

Usk

Courtney 1994

Elite

Small

Late 17th century

Bowls, dishes, decanter flask, jug, wine bottles

Elite

Small

Sixteenth century

Goblets, beakers, flasks

Wearmouth West Bromwich Manor

Cocroft 1993

Elite

Medium

Seventeenth century

Beakers, bowls, jars, dish, wine bottles

Winchester

Charleston 1964 Charleston 1990

Urban Urban

Small Medium

Mid to late 16th century Mainly 16th century

Urinals, flasks, pedestal goblet Beakers, goblets

Elite

Large

Early 16th – 17th century

Goblets, beakers, dishes, flasks, jars

Wood Hall

107

109

Time-lines and vessel reconstructions The following figures are summaries of the date ranges for all the vessels discussed in the typology and conjectural reconstructions of their forms. These have been compiled to aid the quick and easy identification of vessel types, which can then be looked up in greater detail in the typology. However, it is important that the information presented here is used with caution. The temporal ranges indicated in the gant charts are only approximate, and based upon the best information currently available. Undoubtedly with future research many of these will change or be refined. Similarly the reconstructions of vessels must be used with care. They have been created using features found on a variety of individual glasses and are drawn to provide the best possible picture of a complete vessel. In spite of this they must be used judiciously only as a general indication of form. Many variations may exist between individual vessels, and if only a small fragment is being identified it may come from a number of possible vessel forms. These reconstructions are intended to help narrow down the number of possible forms that a fragment might belong to, before a more detailed reference to the typology is made. All forms are reconstructed, with the exception of vessels decorated with enamelling where each design is unique to the individual vessel. Nevertheless their general shape will follow the illustrated plain form. All the reconstructed line drawings are relatively stylised and reproduced at approximately 1:4. However, as considerable variation can often be found within individual types they should only be used as a rough guide to the original size and form.

110

Figure 148

Gant chart of cylindrical beakers

Figure 149

Reconstructions of cylindrical beakers 111

112

Figure 150

Gant chart of barrel and squat beakers

Figure 151

Reconstructions of barrel and squat beakers

113

114

Figure 152

Gant chart of pedestal beakers

Figure 153

Reconstructions of pedestal beakers

115

116

Figure 154

Gant chart of fluted and applied-foot beakers, roemers, and tankards

Figure 155

Reconstructions of fluted and applied-foot beakers, roemers, and tankards 117

118

Figure 156

Gant chart of knopped-stem goblets

Reconstructions of knopped-stem goblets

119

Figure 157

120

Figure 158

Gant chart of compound and pedestal-stem goblets

Figure 159

Reconstructions of compound and pedestal-stem goblets 121

122

Figure 160

Gant chart of applied-foot and rod-stem goblets, lids, and jugs

Figure 161

Reconstructions of applied-foot and rod-stem goblets, lids, and jugs 123

124

Figure 162

Gant chart of globular, oval, and pedestal flasks

Figure 163

Reconstructions of globular, oval, and pedestal flasks 125

126

Figure 164

Gant chart of decanter and conical flasks, bottles, and phials

Reconstructions of decanter and conical flasks, bottles, and phials

127

Figure 165

128

Figure 166

Gant chart of bowls and dishes

Figure 167

Reconstructions of bowls and dishes

129

130

Figure 168

Gant chart of jars, chemical, and miscellaneous vessels

Reconstructions of jars, chemical, and miscellaneous vessels

131

Figure 169

132

Glossary Archaeomagnetic dating. The technique whereby samples taken from hearths or furnaces can be dated. Iron particles within the clay, when heated above a certain temperature, align with magnetic north. On comparison with the known historical location of magnetic north the sample can be given a date range for its last firing. Annealing. The process whereby the finished glass vessel is slowly cooled in a controlled way to prevent the build-up of internal stresses that could lead to the shattering of the vessel. Base-ring. A ring of solid glass applied to the base of the vessel, more often for decorative, rather than stability, purposes. It can be decorated with rigaree patterning. Batch. The mixture formed in the crucible when silica, alkali, and lime are fused in the furnace. Blowpipe. A tubular metal pipe with a wooden holding end for the inflation of glass. Came. An ‘H’-shaped lead strip used to hold individual flat quarries to form a window pane. Cane. A collection of thin glass rods which are fused together to produce a monochrome or polychrome rod. Cristallo. A form of high-quality soda glass, first developed in Venice during the 15th century using barilla as a flux. Crizzling. A glass disease that affected early lead-crystal and some forms of soda glass. The lack of lime in the batch caused small stress cracks to form in the vessel, which often lead to its crumbling and disintegration. Crown glass. A type of window glass formed by opening out and spinning a large paraison of glass into a circular sheet. This is then cut into individual quarries. Cylinder glass. A type of window glass made by the blowing and opening out of a large tube of glass. This produced a larger area of glass sheet than crown glass. Cullet. Scrap glass from old vessels collected by the glassmaker for recycling. Cullet also served to lower the melting temperature of the batch. Diamond engraving. The technique of scoring the surface of the vessel with fine incised lines to produce a pictorial representation. This engraving is thought to have been carried out by a diamond point, but flint could also have been used. Enamelling. A technique where the vessel is decorated by the application of ‘painted’ decorated that is then fused in the furnace. Façon de Venise. The traditional term used to describe the high-quality soda or mixed-alkali glass made in Northern Europe, thought to be in imitation of Venetian styles. Filigree. A decorative technique where numerous very fine, and usually opaque white, threads are trailed or marvered onto a vessel’s surface. Forest glass. A type of glass traditionally made in wooded areas, which uses potash derived from burnt

wood as its alkali. Green in colour, it weathers easily in archaeological contexts. Free blowing. The principle technique of fashioning a vessel by inflating a gather of glass on the end of a blowpipe. Gather. The portion of molten glass on the end of the blowpipe, which is subsequently inflated to form the vessel. Gilding. A decorative technique where gold leaf is applied to the surface and fused with a low heat. Kick. The convex point of the base which is pushed in by the pontil iron. Knop. A decorative bulge on the stem of a glass, which is either hollow or solid and of varying shapes and sizes. Ladder stem. A form of a fixed two-piece mouldblown stem. Its decoration consists of four sets of vertical rows of protruding quadrilateral bosses, the gaps between these resembling a ladder. Between these vertical ladder rows are panels of guilloche or other decorative devices. Latticinio. The generic term for glass decorated with opaque white canes. Lattimo. A type of glass originally developed in Italy. Derived from the Italian word for milk, it describes an opaque white glass that is often used as a base colour on a vessel. Lead-crystal. A type of glass developed in the 1670s using up to 30% lead oxide. Traditionally its development has been accredited to Ravenscroft, and the medium soon became the dominant metal for finewares of the 18th century. Lehr. An alternative glassworking name for an annealing oven. Lion mask. A form of a fixed two-piece mouldblown stem. The decoration consists of two frontal lion faces, one from each half of the mould, with gadrooning above and below. Marver. The process of rolling the paraison on a flat block, usually made of marble, to either shape the vessel or impress applied cane decoration. Merese. A disk of glass applied between the bowl or the foot and the stem of a goblet to provide a decorative join. Metal. A sometimes ambiguous term, but used here to refer to the consistency of the glass, much in the same way as the term ‘fabric’ is used in a pottery description. Usually used to differentiate between potash and soda glasses. Milk glass. See lattimo. Mould blowing. The inflation of a paraison into a fixed two-piece mould. The glass is pressed against the side of the mould assuming its shape and is only removed when it is cool enough to hold its new form. Nef. An elaborate vessel intended as a decorative table piece. It has a foot and stem similar to a goblet, but the bowl is pincered into the shape of a ship and has trailing applied to imitate masts and rigging. Optic blowing. The inflation of a paraison of glass into a one-piece mould so that the incised decoration of the mould is pressed into the glass. The paraison is removed and the further inflated and worked, so

133 that the final vessel is decorated with an expanded and altered variation of the original decoration. Paraison. The gather on the end of the blowpipe when it is already slightly inflated. Pontil iron. A metal rod that is applied to the base of a vessel with a blob of glass during manufacture, usually so it can be held to form the rim. When removed it leaves a slight scar on the glass. Potash glass. A green-tinted glass made with a potash alkali, often manufactured in woodland areas (see forest glass), but also produced in urban locations. Prunt. Decoration consisting of an applied blob of glass. These can be further manipulated by pulling or, in the case of roemers, stamping. Quarry. A small shaped pane of window glass, cut from either a crown or a cylinder and held together with lead cames. Raspberry prunt. A distinctive prunt, characteristic of the Low Countries. Usually impressed with a tool to form a ‘raspberry’ design and sometimes enhanced with an applied central blue bead. Rigaree. The milled design either on body trailing or base-rings, applied with a wheeled tool.

Siege. The bench inside the furnace on which the crucibles sit. Soda glass. A type of glass traditionally associated with the more specialised glassworks that used soda as its alkali. Trail. A thin strand of glass, circular in section, which is applied to the face of a vessel as decoration. Vetro a fili. The Italian term use to describe the application of solid coloured trails to the vessel, which are either marvered flat or left slightly proud of the surface. Vetro a reticello. The Italian term used to describe the inflation of one ribbed filigree paraison into another, creating a network pattern that captures the air bubbles in between. Vetro a retorti. The Italian term used to describe the application of twisted coloured canes of glass to the vessel surface. They are either marvered flat or left slightly proud of the surface. Wrythen. An optic-blown decorative technique, commonly used on English forest glass. The paraison is blown into a vertical-fluted optic mould and removed. As the paraison is inflated to form the vessel it is twisted to produce a characteristic spiral affect.

Bibliography

Agricola, G, 1950 De re metallica, (ed L Hoover). New York: Dover Press Allan, J, 1996 The excavated glass vessel fragments, in S Brown (ed), Berry Pomeroy Castle, Devon Archaeol Soc Proc, 54, 237–8 Allan, J, and Barber, J, 1992 A seventeenth century pottery group from Kitto Institute, Plymouth, in Gaimster and Redknap 1992, 225–45 Alvey, R, 1973 A cesspit excavation at 26–28 High Pavement, Nottingham, Trans Thoroton Soc Nottinghamshire, 77, 53–72 Anon, 1939 Vessels of glass, in Anon, Excavations on the site of the New Telephone Exchange, St John’s St, Chester, J Chester and North Wales Architectural, Archaeol & Hist Soc, NS 33, 20–3 Archer, M, 1997 Delftware. The tin-glazed earthenware of the British Isles. London: Victoria and Albert Museum Armstrong, P, 1977 Glass, in P Armstrong, Excavations in Sewer Lane, Hull 1974, E Riding Archaeol, 3, 61–3 Ashurst, D, 1987 Excavations at the 17th–18th century glasshouse at Bolsterstone and the 18th century Bolsterstone pothouse, Stocksbridge, Yorkshire, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 21, 147–226 Axworthy-Rutter, J, 1990 Glass vessels, in S Ward, Excavations at Chester; the Lesser Medieval Religious Houses, Sites Investigated 1964–83. Chester: Chester City Council, 164–5 Baker, D, Baker, E, Hassall, J, and Simco, A, 1979 Vessel glass, in Baker et al, Excavations in Bedford 1967–77, Bedfordshire Archaeol J, 13, 267–74 Barrington-Haynes, E, 1959 Glass through the ages. Harmondsworth: Penguin Barros, C, 1989 O Vidro em Portugal do século XV ao século XIX, in O Vidro em Portugal. Lisbon: Associação Portuguesa de Arqueologia Industrial Bartels, M, 1999 Steden in Scherven. Vondsten uit Beerputten in Deventer, Dordrecht, Nijmegen en Tiel (1250–1900), Vols 1 & 2. Zwolle: Stichting Promotie Archeologie en de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek Barton, K, 1964 Glass, in K Barton, Excavation of a medieval bastion at St. Nicholas’ Almshouses, Bristol, Medieval Archaeol, 8, 210–11 Bath, Marquis of, 1904 Calendar of the manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath, Vol, 1. London: Historical Manuscripts Commission Baumgartner, E, and Kreuger, I, 1988 Phönix aus Sand und Asche; Glas des Mittelalters. Munich: Klinkhardt & Biermann

Bickerton, L, 1984 English drinking glasses, 1675– 1825. Princes Risborough: Shire Publications Bitter, P, 1997 Wonen op Niveau. Catalogus van Keramiek en Glas. Alkmaar: Rapporten over de Alkmaarse Monumentenzorg en Archeologie 5A De Boe, G, and Verhaeghe, F, (eds), 1997 Material culture in medieval Europe, papers of the medieval Europe conference Brugge 1997 Vol 7. Brugge Booth, P, 1983 Glass, in P Booth, Excavations at 64 Bleachfield Street, Alcester, Warks 1981, Birmingham & Warwickshire Archaeol Soc, 93, 24 Boulton, M, 1985 Glass Objects, in R Shoesmith (ed), Hereford City excavations, vol 3. CBA Res Rep, 55, 24–8. York: Council for British Archaeology Bourdieu, P, 1984 Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge Brain, C, 2000 English stemmed drinking glasses 1642–1702. Finds Research Group 700–1700 datasheet 28 Brehm, P, Shepherd, J, and Thomas, C, 1997 The glass, in C Thomas (ed), Excavations at the Priory and Hospital of St. Mary Spital, London. MoLAS Monograph 1, 210–15. London: Museum of London Brill, R, and Hood, H, 1961 A new method of dating ancient glass, Nature, 189, 12–14 Brongers, J, and Wijnman, H, 1968 Chronological classification of roemers with the help of 17th century paintings in the Low Countries, in J Renaud (ed), Rotterdam Papers, Rotterdam: Coördinatze Commisze van Aduzes inzake archeologisch onderzoek Binnen het Ressort Rotterdam, 15–22 Brown, C, 1985 Mode of substance and folk biological taxonomy, Curr Anthropol, 26 (1), 43–64 Brown, I, 1988 Glass, in I Brown, Excavations at 5–8 Fore Street, Taunton 1979, Somerset Archaeol & Natur Hist, 132, 136–7 Buckley, F, 1914 The glass trade in England in the seventeenth century. London: E Benn Bult, E, 1992 IHE/Delft Bloeit op een Beerput. Archeologisch onderzoek tussen Oude Delft en Westvest. Delft: International Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic & Environmental Engineering Butler, M, 1990 Seventeenth century Chinese porcelain from the Butler family collection. Virginia: Art Services International Byrne, M St Clare (ed), 1930 The Elizabethan home, discovered in two dialogues by Claudius Hollyband and Peter Erondell, 2nd edn. London: Cobden-Sanderson 134

135 Campbell, C, 1987 The Romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. Oxford: Blackwell Chambon, R, 1955 L’histoire de la verrerie en Belgique du I ieme siècle à nos jours. Brussels: Le Librairie Encyclopédique Charleston, J, 1968 Handlist of glass, unpub guide for Guildhall Museum exhibition Charleston, R, 1964 Medieval and later glass, in B Cunliffe (ed), Winchester Excavations, 1949– 1960, vol 1. Winchester: City of Winchester Museums and Library Committee, 145–51 Charleston, R, 1971 Glass, in S Moorhouse, Finds from Basing House, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 5, 63–70 Charleston, R, 1972a The vessel glass from Rosedale and Hutton, in Crossley and Aberg 1972, 128–50 Charleston, R, 1972b Enamelling and gilding on glass, The Glass Circle, 1, 18–32 Charleston, R, 1973 Glass vessels from well, in F Thompson and J Whitwell, The gates of Roman Lincoln, Archaeologia, 104, 182–4 Charleston, R, 1975 The glass, in C Platt and R Coleman-Smith, Excavations in Medieval Southampton, vol II The Finds. Leicester; Leicester University Press, 204–26 Charleston, R, 1977–80 Sixteenth to seventeenth century English glass, Bulletin de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, 8, 77– 99 Charleston, R, 1978 Some aspects of seventeenth century glass found in England, Annales du 8e Congrès de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, 283–97 Charleston, R, 1980 Vessel Glass, in P Christie and J Coad, Excavations at Denny Abbey, Archaeol J, 137, 208–11 Charleston, R, 1981 Medieval and post-medieval glass from the north west quadrant, in A Down, Chichester Excavations, 5. Chichester: Phillimore, 222–7 Charleston, R, 1983a The glass, in K Jarvis, Excavations at Christchurch, 1969–80. Dorchester: Dorset Natur Hist & Archaeol Soc Monograph 5, 73 Charleston, R, 1983b Vessel glass, in A Streeten, Bayham Abbey. Lewes: Sussex Archaeol Soc Monograph 2, 112–16 Charleston, R, 1984a English glass and the glass used in England, circa 400–1940. London: Allen & Unwin Charleston, R, 1984b The glass, in J Allan, Medieval and Post-Medieval Finds from Exeter, 1971–80, Exeter Archaeol Rep, 3. Exeter: Exeter City Council, 258–78 Charleston, R, 1984c Post-medieval glass: Paul Street, in P Leach, The Archaeology of Taunton, Excavations and Fieldwork to 1980. Bristol: Western Archaeol Trust Monograph, 8, 136–8

Charleston, R, 1985 Vessel Glass, in J Hare, Battle Abbey. London: HMBCE Archaeol Rep, 139–46 Charleston, R, 1986 Glass from Plymouth, in C Gaskill-Brown, Plymouth Excavations. The Medieval Waterfront Woolster Street, Castle Street. Finds Catalogues. Plymouth, 36–52 Charleston, R, 1987 The post-medieval glass, in S Frere and P Bennett, Canterbury Excavations, Intra & Extra Mural Sites 1949–55, 1980–84, Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeol Trust, 232– 49 Charleston, R, 1988 Vessel glass, in T James and A Robinson (eds), Clarendon Palace. London: Res Comm Rep Soc Antiq, 45, 193–6 Charleston, R, 1990 Vessel glass of the late medieval to modern periods, in M Biddle (ed), Object and Economy in Medieval Winchester, vol II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 943–7 Charleston, R, 1992 The glass, in I Horsey, Excavations in Poole, 1973–83. Dorchester: Dorset Natur Hist & Archaeol Soc Monograph, 10, 134–45 Charleston, R, 1993 The seventeenth century glass, in P Ellis, Beeston Castle, Cheshire. London: English Heritage Archaeol Rep, 23, 170–2 Charleston, R, 2001 The Glass, in M Biddle, Nonsuch Palace, Vol 2: domestic material. Oxford: Oxbow Books Charleston, R, forthcoming Glass, in C Dallas and D Sherlock, Baconsthorpe Castle, excavations and finds, 1951–1972. Norwich: E Anglian Archaeol Rep Charleston, R, and Vince, A, 1984 The Glass, in A Thompson, F Grew, and J Schofield, Excavations at Aldgate, 1974, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 18, 84–91 Chong, A, and Kloek, W, 1999 Still-Life paintings from the Netherlands 1550–1720. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum Clarke, D, 1968 Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen & Co Clarke, T, 1974 Lattimo – a group of Venetian glass enamelled on an opaque-white ground, J Glass Studies, 16, 22–56 Cocroft, W, 1993 The post-medieval glass from West Bromwich Manor House, S Staffordshire Archaeol Hist Soc Trans, 33, 25–41 Cool, H, 1997 Vessel glass, in B Morley and D Gurney, Castle Rising, Norfolk. Norwich: E Anglian Archaeol Rep, 81, 104–6 Courtney, P, 1994 Medieval and later Usk, report on the excavations at Usk 1965–76. Cardiff: University of Wales Press Courtney, P, 1996 Vessel and bottle glass, in J Dunkley and C Cumberpatch (eds), Excavations at 16–22 Church Street, Bawtry, South Yorkshire, BAR, 248, 138–40. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Courtney, P, 1997 Ceramics and the history of consumption; pitfalls and prospects, Medieval Ceram, 21, 95–108

136 Courtney, P, forthcoming, Vessel glass, in R Bell and K Rodwell, Acton Court. The evolution of an early Tudor courtier house, English Heritage Cox, G, and Ford, B, 1993 The long-term corrosion of glass by ground-water, J Materials Science, 28, 5637–47 Cropper, C, (forthcoming) The glass from Camber Castle Crossley, D, 1967 Glassmaking in Bagot’s Park, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 1, 44–83 Crossley, D, 1972 The performance of the glass industry in sixteenth century England, Econ Hist Rev 2nd series, 25 no 3, 421–33 Crossley, D, 1987 Sir William Clavell’s glasshouse at Kimmeridge, Dorset; the excavations of 1980–81, Archaeol J, 144, 355–69 Crossley, D, 1990 Post-Medieval archaeology in Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press Crossley, D, 1998 The English glassmaker and his search for raw materials in the 16th and 17th centuries, in W Kingery and P McCray (eds), The prehistory and history of glassmaking technology. Westerville, Ohio: American Ceramic Society, 167–82 Crossley, D, and Aberg, A, 1972 Sixteenth century glassmaking in Yorkshire, excavations at the furnaces of Hutton and Rosedale, North Riding, 1968–71, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 6, 107–59 Croyat, T, 1905 Croyat’s Crudities, 1611. Glasgow: MacLehose & Sons Cunningham, C, 1985 Vessel and bottle glass, in C Cunningham and P Drury (eds), Post-medieval sites and their pottery, Moulsham Street, Chelmsford, Chelmsford: Chelmsford Archaeol Trust Rep, 5, 60–2 Denissen, S, 1995 Overzicht van de glasblazersfamilies te Antwerpen tijdens de 17de eeuw, Bulletin van de Antwerpse Vereniging voor Bodemen Grotonderzoek 5, 9– 19 Dodsworth, R, 1993 The nineteenth century, in D Klein and W Lloyd (eds) The history of glass. London: Little, Brown & Co van Dongen, A, and Henkes, H, 1994 Gebruiksglas in beeld en verbeelding. Rotterdam: Museum Boymans van Beuningen van Eck, P, and Zijlstra-Zweens, H, 1993 Glass in the Rijksmuseum, vol 1, Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers Egan, G, 2000 Glass production and glassworking evidence, in A Mackinder and S Blatherwick, Bankside. Excavations at Benbow House Southwark, London SE1, MoLAS Archaeol Studies, Ser 3, 43–51. London: Museum of London Egan, G, Hanna, S, and Knight, B, 1986 Marks on milled window leads, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 20, 303–9 Ellison, M, 1979 The glass, in M Ellison, The excavation of a 17th century pit at the Black Gate,

Newcastle-upon-Type, 1975, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 13, 167–74 Ellison, M, 1981 The glass, in M Ellison, An excavation in the castle ditch, Newcastle-upon-Tyne 1974–76, Archaeol Aeliana, 9, 164–9 Ellison, M, 1983 The glass, in An excavation of a seventeenth century bastion at Newcastle upon Tyne, Archaeol Aeliana, 11, 180–6 Ellison, M, 1993 An evaluation of the glass, in P Lowther, L Ebbatson, and M Millett (eds), Durham, An Archaeological Survey, Durham Archaeol J, 9, 104–5 Elville, E, 1951 English table glass. London: Country Life Ferreira, M, 2000 Verrerie et société a Évora (Portugal) du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle, in Annales du 14e Congrès de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, Italia Venezia-Milano 1998, 370–4 von Folsach, M, and Whitehouse, D, 1993 Three Islamic moulds, J Glass Studies, 35, 149–153 Ford, J, 1954 On the concept of types. The type concept revisited, American Anthropologist, 56, 42–54 Ford, J, 1962 A quantitative method for the deriving of cultural chronology, Pan American Union Technical Manual, 1, Washington Fothringham-Wilson, A, 1963 Spanish glass. London: Faber & Faber Fox, R, and Barton, K, 1986 The glass, in Excavations at Oyster Street, Portsmouth, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 20, 223–30 Foy, D, and Sennequier, G, 1989 A travers le verre, du Moyen Age à la Renaissance. Rouen: Musée et Monuments Departementaux de la Seine Maritime Francis, P, 2000 The development of lead glass: the European connections, Apollo, Feb 2000, 47–53 Fryer, K, and Shelley, A, 1997 Excavation of a pit at 16 Tunsgate, Guildford Surrey, 1991. Post-Medieval Archaeol, 31, 139–230 Gaimster, D, 1997 German stoneware, 1200–1900; archaeology and cultural history. London: British Museum Press Glanville, P, 1971 The Parr pot, Archaeol J, 127, 147–55 Glanville, P, 1990 Silver in Tudor and Early Stuart England. London: Victoria and Albert Museum Godfrey, E, 1975 The development of English glassmaking, 1560–1640. Oxford: Clarendon Press Goetz, B, 1990 Montbellard cabaret de l’Hotel de Ville. Verrerie du premier quart du XVIIème siècle, Verrerie de l’est de la France XIIe-XVIIIe Siècles, Fabrication Consommation, Dijon: Revue Archaeologique de l’est et du Centre-Est, 187–96 Good, L, 1987 The glass, in L Good, The excavation of two docks at Narrow Quay, Bristol 1978–79, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 21, 104–6

137 Gooder, E, 1984 The glass, in E Gooder, Finds from the cellar of the Old Hall Temple Balsall, Warwickshire, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 18, 221–35 Grimm, C, (ed) 1984 Glück und Glas, zur Kulturgeschichte des Spessartglases. München: Kunst & Antiquitäten Gudenrath, W, 1991 Techniques of glassmaking and decoration, in H Tait (ed), Five thousand years of glass. London: British Museum Press, 213–41 Haggrén, G, 1997 Recent glass finds and material culture in medieval Turku, Finland, in de Boe and Verhaeghe 1997, 353–60 Haggrén, G, 1999 Skl! Sirpaletta Keskiajalta. Turku: Aboa Vetrus & Ars Nova Harden, D, 1977 Glass, in B Cunliffe (ed), Excavations at Portchester Castle, vol 3. London: Soc Antiq Res Rep, 210–11 Harden, D, Painter, K, Pinder-Wilson, and Tait, H, 1968 Masterpieces of glass. London: British Museum Press Harrington, J, 1952 Glassmaking in Jamestown. Richmond: The Dietz Press Harrison, W, 1994 The description of England (ed G Edelen). New York: Dover Publications Hartshorne, A, 1968 Antique drinking glasses, a pictorial history of glass drinking vessels, 2nd edn. New York: Brussel & Brussel Haslam, J, 1975 Glass, in J Munby (ed), 126 High Street, Archaeology and History, Oxoniensia, 40, 306–7 Haslam, J, 1993 Glass vessels, in S Margeson (ed), Norwich households. Medieval and post-medieval finds from Norwich Survey excavations 1971–78. Norwich: E Anglian Archaeol Rep, 58, 97–117 Hassall, T, Halpin, C, and Mellor, M, 1984 Excavations at St. Ebbes, Oxford, 1967–76: Part II, post-medieval tenements and the post-Dissolution site of the Grey Friars, Oxoniensia, 49, 153–276 Haynes, M, Baker, F, and Tipping, R, 1998 A still worm from excavations at Carrick Castle, Argyll. Post-Medieval Archaeol, 32, 33–44 Hatcher, J, and Barker, T, 1974 A History of British pewter. London: Longman Henderson, J, 1985 The raw materials of glass production, Oxford J Archaeol, 4 (3), 267–91 Henderson, J, 1987 The glass, in P Armstrong and B Ayers (eds), Excavations in High Street and Black Friaridge, Hull, E Riding Archaeol, 8, 191–7 Henderson, J, 1999 Post-medieval glass, in M Jones (ed), The defences of the lower city. The archaeology of Lincoln, vol 7–2, CBA Res Rep, 114, 145–6. York: Council for British Archaeology Henderson, J, and Jackson, S, 1993 Objects of glass, in D Evans (ed), Excavations in Hull 1975–76, E Riding Archaeol, 4, 146–52 Henkes, H, 1989 Kometen bekers, Antiek, 23.6, 329–34

Henkes, H, 1994 Glas Zonder Glans Vij Eeuwen gebruiksglas uit de bodem van de Lage Landen, 1300–1800. Rotterdam Papers 9. Rotterdam: Coördinatze Commisze van Aduzes inzake archeologisch onderzoek Binnen het Ressort Rotterdam Hill, C, 1970 God’s Englishman. Oliver Cromwell and the English revolution. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson Hinton, P, 1988 Glass; post-medieval, in Excavations at Southwark 1973–6 and Lambeth 1973– 9. London: Museum of London, 378–84 Honey, W, 1946 Glass, a handbook and guide to the Museum collection. London: Victoria & Albert Museum Hornsby, P, Weinstein, R, and Homer, R, 1989 Pewter, a celebration of the craft 1200–1700. London: Museum of London Huggins, R, 1976 Pottery and glass, in H Green (ed), Excavations of the palace defences and abbey precinct wall at Abingdon Street, Westminster 1963, J Brit Archaeol Ass, 129, 72–5 Hunter, J, and Heyworth, M, 1998 The Hamwic glass, CBA Res Rep, 116. York: Council for British Archaeology Hurst, J, 1971 South Netherlands maiolica, in J Hurst, The Old Manor, Askett, Rec Buckinghamshire, 18, 362–4 Hurst-Vose, R, 1980 Glass. London: Collins Hurst-Vose, R, 1994 Excavations at the 17th century glasshouse at Haughton Green, Denton near Manchester, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 18, 20–42 Hurst-Vose, R, 1995 Excavations at the c1600 Bickerstaff Glasshouse, Lancashire. Merseyside Archaeol Soc J, 9, 1–24 Jenkins, R, 1974 An introduction to X-ray spectrometry. Chichester: John Wiley Kenyon, G, 1967 The glass industry of the Weald. Leicester: Leicester University Press Kenyon, K, 1957 Miscellaneous objects in metal, bone and stone, in J Crowfoot, Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London, 439–68 Knight, B, 1986 Window lead can be interesting! Conservation News, 29, March, 31–2 Knight, J, 1994 Glass vessels, in J Knight, Excavations at Montgomery Castle, Archaeol Cambrensis, 143, 155–61 Laan, C, 1994, The effervescent glass. The Pasglas in the 16th and 17th centuries, in R Kistemaker and V van Vilsteren (eds), Beer! The Story of Holland’s Favourite Drink. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw Lanford, W, 1977 Glass hydration: a method for dating glass objects, Science, 166, 975–6 Leeds, E, 1938 Glass vessels of the XVI century and later, from the site of the Bodleian extension, Oxoniensia, 3, 153–61 Lewis, J, 1968 List of stratified finds, in Excavations of the New Building at Montgomery Castle, Archaeol Cambrensis, 117, 141–2

138 van Loon, J, 1980 Analytical absorption spectroscopy: selected methods. New York: Academic Press Lyly, J, 1902 The complete works of John Lyly, vol 2, (ed R Warwick Bond). Oxford: Clarendon Press Mahany, C, 1977 St Leonard’s Priory. Lincoln: Lincolnshire Archaeological Unit Margeson, S, 1985 Excavations in Norwich 1971– 78. Norwich: E Anglian Archaeol, 26 Marsden, P, 1971 Dating evidence, in A seventeenth century boat found in London, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 5, 88–9 Marshall, G, 1996 From rubbish to unique artefact: an unusual archaeological hoard from Chastleton House, Oxoniensia, 61, 403–10 McKendrick, N, Brewer, J, and Plumb, J, 1982 The birth of a consumer society: the commercialisation of Eighteenth century England. London: Hutchinson & Co Mendera, M, 1989 La produzione di vetro nella Toscana Basso-Medievale: lo scavo della vetraria de Germagnana in Valdelsa. Firenze: Edizione Al’Insegna del Giglio Michaelis, R, 1955 Antique pewter of the British Isles. London: G Bell & Sons Miller, D, 1985 Artefacts as categories. A study of ceramic variability in Central India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Millet, M, 1979 How much pottery? in Millet, M (ed), Pottery and the archaeologist, Inst Archaeol Occas Pap, 1, 77–80 de Montaigne, M, 1958 Travel journal, in F Murdock, The complete works of Montaigne. London: H Hamilton, 861–1039 de Montaigne, M, 1991 The complete essays (ed M Screech). Harmondsworth: Penguin Montelius, O, 1903 Die typologische Methode. Stockholm Moorhouse, S, 1972 Medieval distilling apparatus of glass and pottery, Medieval Archaeol, 16, 79–121 Moorhouse, S, 1977 The glass, in K Barton and E Holden, Excavations at Bramber Castle, Sussex, 1966–67, Archaeol J, 134, 70–2 Moorhouse, S, 1983 Vessel glass, in P Mayes and L Butler (eds), Sandal Castle excavations 1964– 73. Wakefield: Wakefield Historical Publications, 225–30 Moorhouse, S, 1987 Medieval industrial glassware in the British Isles, Annales du 10e Congrès de l’Association Internationale pour l’Histoire du Verre Madrid-Segovie 1985, 361–72 Moorhouse, S, 1993 Pottery and glass in the medieval monastery, in R Gilchrist and H Mytum (eds), Advances in monastic archaeology, BAR, 227, 127–48. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports More, T, 1965 The Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More, vol 4, Utopiam (eds S Surtz and J Hexter). New Haven: Yale University Press

MPRG, 1998 A guide to the classification of medieval ceramic forms, Medieval Pottery Res Group Occas Pap, 1 Müller, U, 1997 Different shape, same function? Medieval hand-washing equipment in Europe, in de Boe and Verhaeghe 1997, 251–64 Newby, M, 2000 Some comparisons in the form and function of glass from medieval ecclesiastical and domestic sites in central Italy, Annales du 14e Congrès de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, Italia Venezia-Milano 1998, 258–64 Newton, R, and Davison, S, 1989 Conservation of glass. London: Butterwoth & Co Noel-Hume, I, 1958 Glass objects, in J Hurst and J Golson, Excavations at St Benedict’s Gates, Norwich 1951 and 1953, Norfolk Archaeol, 31, 87–90 Noel-Hume, I, 1961 The glass wine bottle in colonial Virginia, J Glass Studies, 3, 90–117 Noel-Hume, I, 1969 Glass in colonial Williamsburg’s archaeological collections. Williamsburg, Virginia. Nolan, J, 1990 Glass, in L Brown and J Nolan (eds), The Castle of Newcastle upon Tyne after 1600, Archaeol Aeliana, NS 5 17, 114–16 Oakley, G, and Hunter, J, 1979 The glass, in J Williams, St Peter’s Street Northampton. Excavations 1973–76. Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation, 296–302 Orgel, S, and Strong, R, 1973 Inigo Jones, the theatre of the Stuart court, vol 1. University of California Press. Orton, C, Tyres, P, and Vince, A, 1993 Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Oswald, A, and Philips, H, 1949 A Restoration glass hoard from Gracechurch Street, London, The Connoisseur September 1949, 30–6 Palm, M, and Pind, J, 1992 Anglian English women’s graves in the fifth to seventh centuries AD, a chronological analysis, in L Jørgensen, Chronological studies of Anglo-Saxon England, Lombard Italy and Vendel Period Sweden, Institute of Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology, University of Copenhagen, 50–80 Paul, A, 1990 Chemistry of glasses, 2nd edn. London: Chapman & Hall Pause, C, 1996 Spatmittelalterliche Glasfunde aus Venedig: ein archäologischer Beitrag zur deutsch-venezianischen Handelsgeschichte. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 28 Pause, C, 2000 Late medieval Venetian glass, Annales du 14e Congrès de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, Italia Venezia-Milano 1998, 321–5 Pearce, J, 1992 Border wares. Post-medieval pottery in London 1500–1700, vol 1. London: Museum of London Pepys, S, 1971 The diary of Samuel Pepys, vol IV,

139 (eds R Latham and W Matthews). London: Bell and Sons Petricioli, S, 1973 The Gnalic wreck: the glass, J Glass Studies, 15, 85–92 Pitt Rivers, A L F, 1891 Typological museums, J Society Arts, 40, 115–22 Platt, H, 1979 The jewell house of art and nature, 1594. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Pollard, M, and Heron, C, 1996 Archaeological chemistry. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry Pompen, A, 1925 The English versions of the ship of fools. London: Longmans, Green & Co Powell, H, 1923 Glassmaking in England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Price, J, and Cottam, S, 1998 Romano-British glass vessels: a handbook, CBA Practical Handbook in Archaeology, 14. York: Council for British Archaeology Rabelais, F, 1954 The Works of Mr. Francis Rabelais, vols 1 & 2, (ed T Urquhart). London: Navarre Society Rackham, B, 1977 Catalogue of Italian Maiolica, vols 1 & 2. London: Victoria and Albert Museum de Raedt, I, Janssens, K, Veeckman, J, and Adams, F, 1997 Composition of 15th to 17th century glass vessels excavated in Antwerp, Belgium, in De Boe and Verhaeghe 1997, 361–74 de Raedt, I, Janssens, K, Veeckman, J and Adams, F, 1998 Samenstelling van 15de tot 17de eeuwse glazen voorwerpen opgegraven in Antwerpen. Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg. Antwerp: Stad Antwerpen, 89–108 de Raedt, I, Janssens, K, Veeckman, J and Adams, F, 2000 Composition of façon de Venise glass from Antwerp and the southern Netherlands, Annales du 14e Congrès de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, Italia Venezia-Milano 1998, 346–50 Reed, S, 1993 Electron microprobe analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ridgeway, V, 2000 Post-medieval glass manufacture at Hopton Street in Southwark, London Archaeol, 9 (4), 102–9 Roberts, E, and Parker, K, 1992 Southampton probate inventories 1447–1575. Southampton: Southampton Record Ser, 34 Ruempol, A, and van Dongen, A, 1991 Pre-industrial utensils, 1150–1800. Rotterdam: de Bataafsche Leeuw Sayre, E, and Smith, R, 1974 Analytical studies of ancient Egyptian glass, in A Bishay (ed), Recent advances in science and technology of materials, vol 3. New York: Plenum Press, 47– 70 Schlüter, M, 1979 The reproduction of the octagonal pasglas found at a Danish glasshouse from about 1600, Annales du 8e Congrès

de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, 235–41 Schofield, J, 1995 Medieval London houses. London: Yale University Press Schroder, T, 1987 The Renaissance and mannerism, in C Blair (ed), The History of Silver. London: Macdonald & Co Sedlkov, H, 1997 Renesann Sklo, a Dal Archeologich Nlezy z Nymburka. Nymburka: Nakladatestv Vega-L Spol, Libice nad Cidlinou Sedlkov, H, 1998 Renesann Olomouc u Archeologickch Nlezech Sklo, Slavnostn Keramika a Kachle. Archeologick vzkumy Pamtkovho stavu v Olomouci 1973–1996. Olomouc: Pamtkoy m Olomouc Sheale, C, 1993 Excavated vessel glass from Eccleshall Castle, Staffordshire, unpub MA Dissertation, Univ Leicester Shepherd, J, 1985 The glass, in K Blockley (ed), Excavations at no 41, St. George’s Street, Canterbury, Archaeol Cantiana, 105, 150–63 Shepherd, J, 1990 Late medieval and post-medieval glass, in J C Driver, J Rady, and M Parks (eds), Excavations in the Cathedral precincts, 2, Linacre Garden, ‘Meister Omers’ & St. Gabriels Chapel, Archaeology of Canterbury IV, 208–14. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeol Trust Shepherd, J, 1995 The glass, iii medieval, iv post-medieval, in K Blockley (ed), Canterbury: Marlowe Car Park and Surrounding Area, Archaeology of Canterbury V, 1250–9. Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeol Trust Shepherd, J, 1996 Problem piece, Glass News 1, 5 Shepherd, J, nd The vessel and waste glass, Old Broad Street, unpub Museum of London Specialist Services Rep Smith, Sir Thomas, 1982 De Republica Anglorum (ed M Dewar). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Spaulding, A, 1953 Statistical techniques for the discovery of artifact types, American Antiquity, 18, no 4, 305–13 Stiaffini, D, 1995 I manufatti vitrei tra XIII e XV secolo: Frammenti, immagini, descrizioni 1: Le testimonianze archeologiche dal XIII al XV secolo, in S Ciappi (ed), Il Vetro in Toscana: strutture, prodotti, imagini, sec. XII-XX. Firenze: Poggibonsi, 45–9 Sutermeister, H, 1975 Bone and glass, in Excavations on the site of the Tudor manor house at Micheldever, Hants, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 9, 132–6 Tait, H, 1967 Glass with chequered spiral-trail decoration: a group made in the southern Netherlands in the sixteenth and seventeenth Centuries, J Glass Studies, 9, 94–112 Tait, H, 1979 The Golden Age of Venetian Glass. London: British Museum Press Tait, H (ed), 1991 Five Thousand Years of Glass. London: British Museum Press

140 Taylor, S, 1974 An excavation on the site of the Augustinian priory, Canons Ashby, Northants, Northamptonshire Archaeol, 9, 57–65 Thomas, C (ed), 1997 Excavations at the priory and hospital of St. Mary Spital, London, MoLAS Monograph 1. London: Museum of London Thompson, M, and Walsh, J, 1989 A handbook of ICP spectrometry, 2nd edn. Glasgow: Blackie Thornton, D, and Cowell, M, 1996 The Armada service; a set of late Tudor dining silver, Antiq J, 76, 153–80 Thorpe, W, 1961 English Glass, 3rd edn. London: Adam & Black Tyson, R, 1996 A survey of medieval glass vessels in England 1200–1500, Annales du 13e Congrès de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre Pays Bas, 333–42 Tyson, R, 2000 Medieval glass vessels found in England c. 1200–1500, CBA Res Rep, 121. York: Council for British Archaeology Vaughan, J, 1994 The glass, in Excavations on Westgate Road, Newcastle 1991, Archaeol Aeliana, NS 5, 22, 171–2 Veblen, T, 1925 The Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Allen & Unwin Verhaeghe, F, 1991 An aquamanile and some thoughts on ceramic competition with metal quality goods in the Middle Ages, in Custom and Ceramics. Essays Presented to Kenneth Barton, (ed E Lewis). Wickham: APE, 25–61 Vince, A, and Bell, R, 1992 Sixteenth-century pottery from Acton Court, Avon, in D Gaimster and M Redknap (eds), Everyday and exotic pottery from Europe. Studies in honour of John G. Hurst. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 101–12 Vreeken, H, 1998 Glas in het Amsterdams Historisch Museum en Museum Willet-Holthuysen. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgeverij Willan, T (ed), 1962 A Tudor book of rates. Manchester: Manchester University Press Willmott, H, 1995 Excavated sixteenth century vessel glass from five English towns, a preliminary study of status and the role of the glass in the dining ritual, unpub MA thesis, Univ Durham Willmott, H, 1997a English sixteenth and early seventeenth century vessel glass in the context

of dining, in De Boe and Verhaeghe 1997, 185– 90 Willmott, H, 1997b 17th Century Repaired Stems, Glass News, 3, 4 Willmott, H, 1999 Tudor and early Stuart vessel glass: an archaeological survey of forms and patterns of consumption in England 1500 to 1640, unpub PhD thesis, Univ Durham Willmott, H, 2000a The classification and mould grouping of lion mask stems from London, Annales du 14e Congrès de L’Association Internationale pour L’Histoire du Verre, Italia Venezia-Milano 1998, 389–95 Willmott, H, 2000b Recent research on the Gracechurch Street hoard, Glass Circle News, 83, 6–7 Willmott, H, 2000c Some unusual late 17th-century vessel glass from Number 1, Poultry, London, Glass News, 7/8, 3–4 Willmott, H, 2001a A group of 17th-century glass goblets with restored stems; considering the archaeology of repair, Post-Medieval Archaeol, 35, 96–105 Willmott, H, 2001b Anglo-Dutch drinking glasses, comparisons of early seventeenth century material culture, J Glass Assoc, 6, 7–20 Willmott, H, forthcoming a The vessel glass from Number One, Poultry, London Willmott, H, forthcoming b The glass from Bagshot Willmott, H, forthcoming c The glass from Monkwearmouth and Jarrow Willmott, H, forthcoming d The glass from Wood Hall Willmott, H, forthcoming e, Glass in London and England; forms and use, in Veeckman, J (ed), Maiolica and glass from Italy to Antwerp and beyond. Antwerp: Stad Antwerpen Willmott, H, and Tyler, K, forthcoming, The Vauxhall Bridgefoot glass furnace, Museum of London Archaeol Service Monograph Winbolt, S, 1933 Wealden glass. Hove: Corbridges Wood, E, 1982 A 16th century glasshouse at Knightons, Alford, Surrey, Surrey Archaeol Collect, 73 Wood, M, 1976 The glass, in The archaeology of Staines and the excavation of Elmsleigh House, Trans London Middlesex Archaeol Soc, 27, 127–9

Index

Abacus House, London 22 Acton Court glass 2, 25, 26, 29, 31 Agricola 15 albarello 29 alchemy 21 alcohol 27, 36 alembics 21, 101, 102, 130, 131 Alkmaar, Netherlands 36 annealing furnace 15 Antwerp, glass from 9, 20, 65 apothecaries 97 Armada service 32 atomic absorption spectroscopy 9 Austria 27

Buckingham, Duke of 11, 14, 33 Camber Castle glass 2, 25 ‘can’ 36 Cannons Ashby 21, 25, 26 Canterbury glass 4, 23 Carré‚ Jean 10 Castle Rising 26 cellar fills 22, 23, 31 cesspits 22 chalices 57 Charleston, Robert 4, 28, 30, 33 Charterhouse Yard glasshouse 11, 14 Chastleton House 86 Chester 23 Chichester glass 4 Civil War 28, 32, 33 Claeaz, Pieter 36 Clarendon Palace 25 Clarke, T. 29 Clavell, Sir William 12 Clifford, Martin 11 coal 11 Commonwealth Government 33 Company of Glass Sellers 19 Cooper, Revd 11 copper alloy 15 corkscrews 87 Courtney, Paul 31 Coventry 17 cristallo 6, 33 crown glass 2 Croyat, T. 82 crucibles 12 Crutched Friars furnace 10 cucurbits 21, 101–2, 130, 131 cullet 12 ‘cup’ 36, 57 cylinder glass 2

Baconsthorpe Castle 26 Bagot’s Park, Staffordshire 12 Bagshot 32 Bagshot glass 2, 23 Bankside, Southwark 14 Basing House glass 4, 25, 32 Battle Abbey 21 Bayham Abbey 21 beakers 12, 15, 23, 24, 29, 32, 35–53: applied foot 52–53, 116, 117 barrel 42–43, 112, 113 comet 20 cylindrical 20, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 36–42, 110, 111 fluted 30, 50–52 pedestal 23, 24, 45–50, 114, 115 roemer 20, 29, 30, 53–54, 116, 117 squat 23, 36, 43–45, 112, 113 Becku, Anthony 10 Beeston Castle 32 Bellingham, John 11 Bickerstaffe, Lancashire 12 Black Friars furnace 10 Bolsterstone, South Yorkshire 12 Books of Rates 18 Border wares 29 bottles 12, 14, 18, 78, 86–89, 125, 127: case 86, 87–88 globular 29 wine 33, 86, 87, 89 Bourdieu, P. 31 Bowes, Sir Jerome 10 bowls 12, 26, 29, 91, 92–95, 128, 129 Brain, C. 32 Bramber Castle 21 Brampton Castle 28 Bray, Joseph de 36 British Museum 2, 4 Broad Street furnace 11, 12 Brodocke, John 79 Buckholt in the Weald 12

David Collection 15 Delftware 29 dishes 26, 92, 95–96, 128, 129 distillation equipment 21, 101–3 domestic deposits 23, 24, 25 Dorchester: Greyhound Yard glass 7, 87 drugs, storage of 29 drunkenness 33 Eccleshall Castle 2, 25, 26 electron microprobe analysis 9 elite sites 21, 24–26, 31, 32: context of 25 dates 25, 26 definition 24 141

142 elite sites (cont.) range of glass 25–26 scale of deposit 26 Embroiderers 22 Emden 19 emission spectrometry 9 enamelling 18, 29, 32 engraving 18, 29, 32 European centres 19–20 Evelyn, John 11 Evett family 23 Exeter glass 4, 24 façon de Venise glass 9, 10, 16, 20, 33, 34, 65 Fairfax, Sir Thomas 92 Fairfax, Sir William 92 ‘flagon’ 36 flasks 12, 21, 26, 75, 78: conical 85–86, 126, 127 decanter 84–85, 126, 127 globular 15, 30, 79–81, 124, 125 oval 81–82, 124, 125 pedestal 30, 82–83, 124, 125 Flushing 18 forest glass 5–6, 10, 11, 90, 97 France, glass from 4, 11, 18, 63, 68 funnels 102, 130, 131 furnaces 11–14 Gaimster, David 29, 30 garderobes 25 Germany, glass in 4, 15, 17, 20, 50, 55, 79 gilding 18, 29 glass: archaeological material, importance of 4 assemblages, assessing 7–8 attitudes to 26–28 broken, valuelessness of 28, 32 casting 14 chemical analysis 8–9 classification of 8 cleanliness and 27 colourants 6 coloured 5, 6, 16, 35 colourlessness 33 composition 5, 9 conspicuous consumption and 31–32 contextural setting 21–26 crizzling 6 date range 1–2, 109–30 dating 8–9 decay of 5, 7, 7 decline in use of 32–33 decolourants 6 decorative techniques 15 discarding 21 display and 25, 26, 28, 31–32, 33, 58 disposal of 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 32 documentary evidence 10–11 English production 1, 10–14, 26: curtailed 11 decline in, 17th century 26

high-quality lacking, 15th century 26 excavated 4, 7 expense of 22, 26 flux 5, 6 foreign workers’ immigration 10, 12 identification 35 industry: in decline 11 economic collapse of 33 ingredients 5 lead-crystal 1, 6–7, 33–34 maps, distribution 35 metal, types of 5–7 metal vessels, replacing 27 mixed-alkali 6, 7, 12–14, 35 monopolies 10–11, 14, 19, 24 nature 5–7 network former 5 network refiner (flux) 5, 6 opacifiers 6 other media and 28–29, 30, 31, 36 patents 11, 29 pewter, styles and 28 physical state 5 potash 5–6, 7, 11–12, 14, 23, 35 production techniques 14–18 quantification of 7–8 repairs 32 role of, changing 31–34 silver, styles and 28 sites, map of 3 soda 6, 7, 12–14, 23, 33, 35 stabiliser 5, 6 studies of 2–4 styles 28–34 transparency 31 vessel formation 14–15 weathering 5, 7, 7 glass blowing: invention of 14 glass imports 22, 23, 24, 26, 33: ban on 11 documentary evidence 18–19 restrictions on 24 glass, window 2, 6, 10 Gnalic wreck 19 gobletes 57 goblets 12, 17, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32, 57–74: applied-pedestal 72, 122, 123 cigar stems 28, 32 clarity of 33 coiled stems 30 components of 28, 29, 58 compound stems 65–67, 120, 121 elongated inverted baluster stem 2, 14, 24, 50 inverted baluster stem 4, 14, 28, 58, 59 knop stems 15, 57, 58–62, 63, 74, 118, 119 ladder stem 4, 14, 29, 63, 64–65 lids 73–75 lion-mask stems 16, 24, 29, 53 nef 25 pedestal-stem 67–72, 120, 121 rod and tubular stemmed 72–73, 120, 121

143 goblets (cont.) syphon 30 trick-glass 30 winged-serpentine stems 30 gold 57 Gracechurch Street glass 2, 4, 23, 30 Greene, John: letters 19, 20, 30, 33, 43, 53, 74, 76, 84 Greenwich glasshouse 11, 14 Guildford glass 23, 32 Guildhall Museum 4, 35 guildhalls 24 hands, washing 75, 92 hanging lamps 104, 130, 131 Harden, D. 4 Harrison, W. 26 Harrison, William 27–28, 32, 57 Hartshorne, A. 2, 4 Haughton Green, Manchester 12, 45, 75, 79, 82, 90, 94, 97, 99 Henry VIII inventory 42, 56, 74, 75, 78, 92 Hill, C. 33 Hollyband, Claudius 27 Honey, W. 4 Hopton Street furnace 14 household inventories 18 Howard, Lord William 18, 78, 92 Hutton furnace, Yorkshire 12, 45, 68, 81 ice glass 15–16, 31, 36 Inghistera 82 inns, glass found in 23, 24 Interregnum 33 Italy, glass from 19 James I, King 28 Jamestown 34 Jansz, Claes 86 jars 96–101: cylindrical 29, 97–99, 130, 131 globular 99–101, 130, 131 square 99, 130, 131 jugs 26, 75, 76–77 kelkglazen 57 Kenilworth Castle 26 Kenyon, K. 12 Kimmeridge, Dorset 11, 12, 13, 45, 90 Kirkstall Abbey 21 Knightons, Surrey 12 kuttrolf 12, 79, 80–81 lamps, hanging 104, 130, 131 Langestraat, Netherlands 36 lattimo glass 29 lead cames 2 lead oxide 6 lead-crystal 1, 6–7, 33–34 lechatelierite 5 lehr 15 Leicester, Earl of 92

lids 73–75 lime 6 Lincoln glass 23 Littery, Quiobyn 10 London: furnaces in 14 Low Countries, glass in 4, 11, 20, 26, 30, 30, 43, 50, 68, 76, 86 Lübeck 19 Lyly, John 27 Lysle, Anthony de 10, 29 McKendrick et al 32 maiolica: Dutch 29 Italian 29 manganese 5 Mansell, Sir Robert 6, 11, 12, 14, 24, 30, 33, 65, 89 Marston Hall inventory 30 marvering 14 Mary Rose 81, 90 Measey, Michael 19 merese 14 middens 25 miolo beakers 29 mirror glass 11 moats 25 monastic sites 21, 24 Montaigne, Michel de 27, 33 Montbellard, France 63 Montgomery Castle 25, 26 Moorhouse, S. 21 More, Thomas 27 More, William 92 Morelli, Allesio 76, 84 mould blowing 14, 15, 29, 31, 63–65 ‘mugs’ 36 Murano, Island of 10, 19 Museum of London 35, 86 Nassachtal, Germany 15 Neri, Antonio 6 Netherlands 15, 17, 22, 87 see also Low Countries Newcastle furnace 11 Nonsuch Palace 25, 26, 31 Northampton, glass from 15, 23 Norton Priory 21, 25, 26 Norwich glass 4, 23 Nottingham 22, 23 obsidian 5 oil shale 11, 12 optic-blowing 15, 17, 20, 30, 37–39 Oxford glass 4, 23 paintings, Dutch 36, 50, 74, 75 paraison 14 Parr Pot 55, 56 Peeters, Clara 74 Pepys, Samuel 86, 87 Perlin, Stephen 29 pewter vessels 28, 29, 30, 36, 57

144 Pewterers’ Company 29 phials 12, 78, 89–91 pits 22, 31 plasma source spectrometry 9 Platt, Sir Hugh 10, 36, 46, 92, 101 Plymouth glass 4, 24 Ponteract Priory 21 pontil rod 14 Poole glass 4, 23, 24 Port Books 18–19 possets 33, 75–76, 78 ‘pot’ 36 pottery 7–8, 29 Poultry, London: glass 2 prunts 17–18, 20, 53, 54 Puritans 32–33 puzzle cups 30 Rabelais, François 27 Raeren stoneware 29 Ravenscroft, George 6, 33 Robson, William 10 roemer 20, 29, 30, 53–54 rose water fountains 30 Rosedale furnace, Yorkshire 12, 14, 45, 81, 92, 97 Rouen 18 rubbish disposal 22, 23, 25 St Catherine’s furnace, London 11 St Leonard’s, Stamford 21 St Mary Spital 25 St Peter’s Street, Northampton 15 Salicornia kali 6 Salter, Edward 10–11 Salviati, Antonio 65 Samaria 15 Sandal Castle 21 sandglasses 89-9o Scots, invasion of 11 Selborne Priory 21 ‘semaise’ 36 silver vessels 28, 29, 30, 32, 36, 57 sites summary 104–7 Smith, Sir Thomas 21 soda 5 Solling, Netherlands 15 Southampton 24, 29 Spessart, Germany 20 Steen, Jan 75

tankards 36, 116, 117: bellied 29, 31, 55–56 cylindrical 29, 55–56 tazza 58 Temple Balsall 4, 23 Thorpe, W. 2–4, 33 trailing 15, 16–17, 30–31 trenchers 95 ‘tumblers’ 36, 43 Tyson, Rachel 1 urban sites 21, 22–24, 26, 31, 32: context of 22–23 range of glass 23 scale of deposit 23–24 urinals 12, 21, 103–4, 130, 131 Vauxhall furnace 11, 12, 13, 14 Veblen, T. 31 Velde, Jan Jansz van de 50 Venice: cristallo glass 31, 33 glass industry, decline of 11 glass making in 11, 19–20, 65 glass workers 10 imports from 29, 30, 92 jugs 76 soda glass 6 trailing and 16 Verzelini, Giacomo 2–3, 4, 10, 22, 33 vessels, metal 27 vetro a fili 16, 17, 26, 30, 32 vetro a reticello 16 vetro a retorti 16, 17, 26, 30, 32 Victoria and Albert Museum 2, 4 voetbekers 57 wasters 12 Weald, the 11–12 West Bromwich manor house 25, 26 Williamsburg 34 Winbolt, S. 11 Winchester glass 4 Winchester House glasshouse, Southwark 10, 14 Wollaton furnace 11 wood, as fuel 11, 12: banning of 12 Wood Hall, West Yorkshire 25, 29 woodland, destruction of 11 X-ray fluorescence 9

tableware 21, 23, 25, 26, 28 Tait, H. 4

Zouche, Edward 11