The ICPS analyses of Table 17.5 were combined with previous analyses of material from sites in this part of south-western England, including Bedford Garage kiln wasters from Exeter and pottery from four sites in southern Somerset and eastern Devon: Donyatt and Castle Neroche (southern Somerset) and Hemyock and Haycroft Farm, in Membury (eastern Devon). Sixteen elements were used for Discriminant Analysis (indicated in online Table 17.6) and the results can be shown as a two-dimensional plot (Fig. 17.36). From the Fig. 17.36, it is immediately clear that the vessels from three southern Somerset/eastern Devon sites, namely Haycroft Farm, Castle Neroche and Donyatt, are chemically similar to each other.

The relationships between the fabric 40 and 42 sherds and these comparative groups are rather interesting but slightly unexpected. The fabric 42 sherds lie in the lower part of the Discriminant Analysis plot between the three southern Somerset sites, which are closely clustered, and the Bedford Garage kiln sherds. The bedrock geology within Exeter itself is Permian, though alluvial deposits cover extensive areas of the city, and were probably the source of the Bedford Garage material. The distinction

*Fig. 17.36 Discriminant Analysis of the ICPS data on Exeter fabric 40 and 42 sherds, and comparative material from other sites.The horizontal axis plots the first discriminant function (containing 54% of the difference between groups), and the vertical the second function (a further 32%). The dark numbered squares mark the centre of the distribution of each group. There are close chemical similarities between the pottery of the southern Somerset sites of Donyatt and Castle Neroche, as well as Haycroft Farm, in Devon (prepared by Michael Hughes)*

from the Bedford Garage material would suggest that the origin of fabric 42 is not in the immediate vicinity of Exeter. If the relatively close distance on this plot between the fabric 42 sherds and the southern Somerset sherds is taken as an indication of closer chemical similarity to the latter, a possible interpretation (not the only one) for this intermediate chemistry would be that the fabric 42 source is not in Exeter itself, but more in a direction towards southern Somerset. A caution to be noted is the current lack of data from comparative material made around Exeter and the Exe Valley; if samples from more sites in the area were analysed, any variation in local clay chemistry would be clearer, so the present interpretation remains a working hypothesis. However, the chemical differences between the fabric 42 sherds and Bedford Garage Ware are clear: the Exeter fabric 42 sherds have more aluminium, iron, magnesium and sodium but less strontium, so they are not closely related chemically.

The fabric 40 sherds were equally puzzling as a group. They are chemically distinct from the fabric 42 sherds, something that first emerged some time ago as two pairs of fabric 40 and 42 sherds were analysed by ICPS in the study of the pottery from Haycroft Farm, in Membury, where they separated clearly in a Discriminant Analysis plot (Hughes 2002, 69, fig. 4). The present Discriminant Analysis of the ICPS results places the fabric 40 sherds closest to the Hemyock group, though it is clear they are not overlapping in chemistry. The chemical difference between fabric 40 and the Bedford Garage sherds would argue for different geological deposits for the two, suggesting a source distinct from the volcanic outcrop in central Exeter which is probably responsible for much of the chemical signature of the Bedford Garage Wares.

The ICPS analysis shows the fabric 40 sherds to be chemically of a similar pattern to the Hemyock sherds, though that site is distant from Exeter. Hemyock lies on the slope below Upper Greensand deposits of the Blackdown Hills, from which its clay has weathered (BGS 2009). Less than 4 km north-east of Hemyock is Clayhidon, from which four clays were analysed by Vince (2010: analyses V0738–9 and V0741–2). The average of the samples from Clayhidon Wood on similar deposits to Hemyock (Table 17.5) shows similarities in the pattern of major and trace elements to the Hemyock average (including notably high potassium and iron), though distinguishable from the Hemyock average. Clay from Clayhidon churchyard, by contrast, lies on different deposits (BGS 2009: clay with flints) and differs in containing significantly more aluminium, titanium and rare earths but less potassium.

The same Upper Greensand geological formation at Hemyock and Clayhidon (the Blackdown facies) has, however, a westerly outlier forming the highest parts of the Haldon Hills just to the south-west of Exeter (BGS 1975, 67 (fig. 18), 70; BGS 2001). A larger outcrop lies around Great Haldon, with a smaller outcrop near Little Haldon. Clays derived from these deposits would, like the Hemyock and Clayhidon material, be rich in potassium and other characteristic elements. It is possible therefore that clays formed on the eastern down-slope below the Haldon Hills down to the Exe Estuary and towards Exeter (the slope lies on Permian deposits of granite debris), could have a similar type of chemistry to those formed at Hemyock below Upper Greensand deposits. Further investigation would be needed whether this hypothesis based on the ICPS analysis alone was supported by the

actual mineralogy described for Exeter fabric 40. Taylor (above) has noted that fabric 40 contains larger rounded quartz grains (*i.e.* traces of beach sand) which would be consistent with an origin in either the Teign or Exe Estuary; the distribution of finds of the fabric favours the latter (see below). An alternative source for the fabric 40 material in the region of Exeter could be Carboniferous deposits further north in the Exe Valley (BGS 1975, 676, fig. 18), different from the alluvial deposits on which Exeter itself lies.

## **Principal Components Analysis**

All the samples included in the Discriminant Analysis were subjected to a PCA using the same chemical elements. This showed, as expected, small 'spreads' for the individual types of pottery, while still maintaining a clear separation of Exeter fabric 40 and Hemyock sherds from all the rest. The Bedford Garage sherds intermingled with the fabric 42 samples. The principal components analysis mainly reflected the major element differences between the respective groups, whereas

*Fig. 17.37 Plot of the first two principal components in samples of Exeter fabric 42 and other comparative sites. Principal component 1 (containing 38% of the variation in all samples) had pottery richer in all elements except calcium and iron (towards the right of the plot).Principal component 2 (26% of the variation) had pottery which was richer in the elements magnesium, iron and calcium but lower amounts of zirconium (towards the top of the plot). The two sherds of fabric 42 from Exwell Barton are closest to the Donyatt/ Haycroft Farm samples (drawn by Michael Hughes)*

the discriminant analysis (looking for elements which distinguished between groups) tended to reflect specific trace elements.

Since the statistical tests on all the samples and comparative material showed a similarity between the fabric 40 sherds and the sherds from Hemyock, these samples alone were included in a second stage of PCA. This showed a chemical distinction between fabric 40 and the Hemyock samples, though they share some distinctive features compared with the other pottery, including significantly higher amounts of magnesium (3–4% average) and potassium (4–5%) (Fig. 17.37).

A third principal components test was carried out on all the samples not included in the second test, to see the relationship between the Exeter fabric 42 samples and the comparative material. In this test (Fig. 17.37) the Bedford Garage Wares plotted closest to the Exeter fabric 42 samples (mid to lower part of the right side of Fig. 17.37). Curiously, however, the two sherds from Exwell Barton plotted closest to the Donyatt and Haycroft Farm samples, though still on the fringes of the Exeter fabric 42 sherds. On this figure, the Donyatt, Haycroft Farm and Castle Neroche samples are distributed in approximately that order in a series of overlapping spreads running diagonally from left to upper right across the upper part of the plot, indicating a chemical similarity between these three sites all of which are on Lias clays.

## **Conclusions**

Exeter fabric 40 samples showed a consistent chemical composition in all the sherds of this type analysed so far by ICPS. The fabric has a chemical composition similar to the pottery analysed from Hemyock in the Blackdown Hills on the borders of Devon and Somerset, in the region of Upper Greensand deposits. There is, however, a westerly outlier of these same deposits not far from Exwell Barton on the west bank of the Exe Estuary, in the Haldon Hills. It appears a working hypothesis that clays derived ultimately from the area below the Haldon Hills may have been used to make the Exeter fabric 40 sherds. It would explain the chemical difference between the fabric 40 sherds and the local Exeter clay chemistry, as exemplified by the Bedford Garage Ware, which is chemically different from fabric 40 and very probably made of alluvial clays.

Exeter fabric 42 has a different but also consistent chemical composition in all the sherds of this type analysed so far by ICPS. Its chemical composition is similar to sherds of Bedford Garage Ware from Exeter, although not identical. The analyses might suggest that its place of production was somewhere between Exeter and the south Somerset production sites of which the nearest was Donyatt. Chemically it is more likely that the fabric 42 production site was located on a geologically similar clay to the Bedford Garage sherds, which would imply somewhere associated with Permian deposits rather than the Lias to the east of Exeter (*e.g.* Donyatt).

## Appendix 17.4

## Comment on the plasma spectrometry (ICP) analyses of 'Normandy' tiles from Devon in relation to tiles from Kilkenny

*Michael J. Hughes*

## **Introduction**

Three typical examples of the white ware floor-tiles from sites in South Devon were submitted for analysis in the EAPIT project. They came from Princesshay in Exeter (Site 156; sample 3.50), Ashburton church (sample 3.51, Marc Steinmetzer excavation) and West Alvington churchyard (sample 3.52, AC Archaeology watching brief), and were analysed though the University of Durham. All three were of the typical white ware fabric rather than the pink/ red clay which the tilery also used. A recent report on the analyses of two late medieval floor-tiles of the same sort from Kilkenny, Ireland, concluded that they were very probably of 'Normandy' origin (Hughes 2018); the Devon analyses used the same plasma spectrometry (ICP) technique, but with some additional chemical elements.

## **Results and discussion**

The results are given in online Table 17.8, which shows the Devon tiles with those from Kilkenny, alongside comparanda cited in the Kilkenny report. The additional chemical elements analysed in the Devon tiles but not in the Kilkenny tiles or comparanda are cited at the end. In the earlier report the results for the major elements were cited as the element, but here they have been converted into oxides (the normal format for citing data on geological materials, which has been adopted for analyses of archaeological ceramics too).

The overall chemical patterns of the three Devon tiles are very similar to each other, and to the two Kilkenny tiles, confirming the latter's identity with the medieval 'Normandy' tiles in the typical white ware fabric. Two of the Devon finds – those from Princesshay and West Alvington – are closer chemically to each other than the third, from Ashburton. The latter has slightly higher concentrations of almost all elements, both the major and minor/trace elements, including the extra elements cited at the foot of the table. These include many of the rare earth elements, and again the Princesshay and West Alvington tiles have comparable concentrations of these elements, while the Ashburton fragment shows slightly elevated levels of all of them. The first two Devon tiles are close to the analyses of the Kilkenny tiles, sharing their slightly lower concentrations of many elements. The alumina levels of the Devon tiles are low like those from Kilkenny, and the previous discussion relating this to probable high levels of diluting temper in the clay fabric applies here as well.

All the features of the Kilkenny tiles noted in the previous report are shared by the three Devon tiles, including the very low concentrations of almost all the major elements except aluminium, and with very characteristic and unusually low concentration of potassium. This pattern was cited in the previous report as very similar to analyses of northern French white wares including several examples of wasters from a kiln at La Londe in the Rouen *arrondissement* on the west bank of the Seine, which had potassium contents of 0.4–0.6% (Vince 2005). Analyses by Dufournier (1981, 86, tab. 4) of numerous clay samples collected across Normandy showed that Rouen lay at the centre of a wide region of silica-rich clays dominated by kaolinite, with potassium levels below 1%; one particular group of clays was prospected around La Londe and these are cited in online Table 17.8. Apart from having lower aluminium (and higher iron which could have come with addition of an impure sand), the Kilkenny and Devon tiles fit the pattern of the clays exactly, while the analyses of wasters from the La Londe kiln cited above fits even closer (Vince 2005).

## **Conclusions**

The analyses of the three late medieval 'Normandy' tiles from sites in Devon share the characteristics and unusual chemical pattern of the two floor-tiles from Kilkenny. It can therefore be concluded that the Kilkenny tiles are of the same 'Normandy' type and of the typical white ware fabric used by the tilery. The Devon tiles from Princesshay and West Alvington churchyard are closer chemically to each other and to the Kilkenny tiles than the third from Ashburton church. The latter has slightly higher concentrations of almost all elements and may lie in its fabric containing less diluting temper. This suggests slight differences in chemical profiles among these tiles, but the close similarity of the four samples from Kilkenny, Princesshay and West Alvington which belong to one specific chemical profile confirms production in a common source.

## The South European Pottery, AD 1250–1550

*Alejandra Gutiérrez and Hugo Blake, with contributions from Kamal Badreshany and Michael J. Hughes*

## **Introduction**

This chapter comprises four sections. The first is a discussion by Alejandra Gutiérrez of the Spanish and Portuguese ceramics found in Exeter, reviewing the city collection in the light of recent research on this subject. The second, by Hugo Blake, describes and discusses the examples of Italian and Low Countries tin-glazed pottery dating before 1550 excavated in the city. Both accounts are supported by reports on the programmes of ICP-AES and ICP-MS analysis which have formed part of the EAPIT project; Kamal Badreshany undertook the study of the Spanish and Portuguese ceramics, and Michael J. Hughes the Italian and Low Countries maiolica. Their reports form Appendices 18.1 and 18.2; detailed catalogue descriptions of individual sherds will be found online in Appendices 18.3 and 18.4.

## **Spanish and Portuguese ceramics found at Exeter**

## *by Alejandra Gutiérrez*

Pottery imports from southern Europe, with their distinctive colours and shapes, attracted the early attention of medieval researchers and archaeologists in Britain, such as Gerald Dunning (1961), but it was John Hurst who first published a complete corpus of British finds, later updated and complemented by those from the Netherlands (Hurst 1977; Hurst *et al*. 1986). Given the limited and in many cases non-existent data available in Spain and Portugal at the time, almost 50 years ago, this was a remarkable achievement. John Hurst was also the motor behind the beginnings of a major country-wide programme of fabric analysis, first by Neutron Activation Analysis at the British Museum, then by Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission (ICP–AE), which would help identify pottery not only in northern Europe, but also in the production areas

themselves. In Exeter imported ceramics have been systematically identified and recorded both from the city and the surrounding region by John Allan during the last few decades. His detailed catalogue published in 1984 is still an exemplary and invaluable companion which was completed and updated in 1995 in a regional survey of Spanish imports in South-West England (Allan 1984a, hereafter EAR 3; Allan 1995). The *Exeter: a Place in Time* project presented the opportunity to re-examine these finds and consider them in the light of more recent discoveries regarding production made both in Spain and Portugal.

The text presented here uses John Allan's catalogues as a starting point, although all the pottery has been visually re-examined by the author (excepting some of the scattered finds of Seville containers and Portuguese coarseware, and a few other sherds, which were not readily accessible in the collections), and some sherds have been analysed as part of this project (Appendix 18.1 and online Appendix 18.3). This fresh analysis of the assemblage has in some cases produced changes in the identification, form, date or drawing which are included below without cross-reference to earlier works. All the sherds examined have been numbered individually (ID number) in order to populate the database with unique finds entries, but they are ordered below according to source and date. All catalogued sherds are from Exeter.

## **Spain**

A wide range of Spanish pottery has been found in Exeter and Devon in general. A total of 203 different Spanish vessels (444 sherds) is recorded on the Exeter Archaeology inventories, which record more than 90% of the finds from excavations in the city (Allan and Langman 1997; Langman and Allan 1991; 1999b; listings for later sites). These can be divided broadly into glazed wares (35 vessels) and coarsewares (168 vessels); two wall tiles

*Fig. 18.1 Map of the main places mentioned in the text (drawn by Alejandra Gutiérrez)*

have also been recovered. Coarsewares are vessels that do not have a glazed surface and in this context the term has nothing to do with the quality or use of the pot. The vessels are listed below by production area (Fig. 18.1).

## *Málaga area*

Only tin-glazed pottery is thought to have been imported to England from the Málaga region of southern Spain. Most of these vessels are covered in a white glaze which served as a background for painted decoration, although this rarely survives. In fact, one of the characteristics of these early imports is their badly preserved glaze, and more often than not, the absence of any decoration. When decoration does survive it consists of motifs painted in gold colour, or in gold and blue. This type of decoration is termed 'lustreware' and those from the Málaga region are traditionally dated to the 13th and 14th centuries. When no decoration is preserved, vessels found in British excavations are generally assumed to have been lustrewares.

During the 13th and 14th centuries Málaga formed part of the Islamic Kingdom of Granada, the last area in Spain under Muslim control, until it was reconquered by Christians in 1487. The port city was famous for its lustrewares and contemporary sources refer to its production there (and in Murcia and Almería) in the middle of the 13th century (described by Ibn Said in 1240–1; Llubiá 1967, 93); Malagan pottery had 'no rival', according to Fedel Allah (in 1320; *ibid*., 96). More specifically, 14th-century sources claim that there was 'no lustreware like the one produced in Málaga', according to Ahmed Ben-Hayha in 1337; 'all countries competed to acquire the lustreware made in Málaga', according to Aben al-Jatib and the lustreware from Málaga was 'exported far away' according to Ibn Batuta in the middle of the 14th century (Osma 1912, 33–4). These exports in the late 13th and early 14th century are confirmed by written sources, such as taxes at Collioure recorded on the south-east coast of France, where Malagan pottery (*obra de terra de Malicha*) is documented in 1297 or 1316, according to various authors (Gual Camarena 1976, 167; López Elum 1986, 173).

Early exports are also recorded in England, where Malagan dishes and jugs (*discorum et picherorum terre de Malyk*) arrived at Sandwich in 1303 (Salzman 1931; Childs 1995, 27). In all these instances pottery from Málaga is recorded by name, but there is little doubt that the arrival of pottery 'of strange colours' (*olle terrene extranei coloris*) for Eleanor of Castile in 1289 must refer to lustrewares (Childs 1995, 26); the consignment arrived in Southampton and its look and colours were apparently so different from any other kind of pottery that the customs official did not have the vocabulary to describe it in his list. This is still the earliest reference to lustrewares recorded in England, and probably in northern Europe as a whole.

There has been some progress in recent years in documenting archaeologically the production of lustrewares in Málaga itself. Excavations prior to building development in the city have uncovered kilns of both medieval and later date, which produced pottery of different sorts, including lustrewares (Pineda 2004; Sabastro 2011). So far these discoveries do little more than confirm the local production of lustrewares, without helping to refine our understanding of forms, decoration or dating. Most of the material is still under study, and assemblages are mostly small and very fragmented, at least those published so far. Nevertheless, this is the first time that the well-known documentary references to local lustreware mentioned above can be matched by physical remains of workshops of the same date.

Recent research also suggests that lustreware production began in Spain much earlier than has previously been thought, and was manufactured at a wider range of centres. There are indications of 11th-century production in the south and even the centre of the country, with workshops now known in Murcia (Navarro Palazón 1990; Navarro Palazón and Jiménez 1995; Zozaya *et al.* 1995; Barceló and Heidenreich 2014). Although examples are found in the Mediterranean, for example in Italy, none of these earlier types seems to have reached northern Europe.

So far nothing has come to light to prove that lustrewares might have been manufactured nearby at Granada. Local production of lustreware-and-blue wall tiles has been documented there, but tiling was an itinerant job and does not imply that it co-existed with the manufacture of tablewares.

Strictly speaking, 'Málaga lustreware' refers in the UK to tin-glazed wares manufactured with fabrics containing schist inclusions, these appearing as dark red, shiny, hard, rounded grains. Variation in fabric colour (from orange to dark red, pink or greenish-grey) and occasional absence of inclusions might suggest that the group includes products from more than one centre or area in the region of Málaga, if not chronological disparities, but given the lack of well-characterised material at source, these differences are impossible to unravel at present; this is why some authors prefer to use the term 'Andalusian' or 'Málagatype' instead. Málaga lustreware forms quite a distinctive group among Spanish imports and can be told apart from lustrewares manufactured at other Spanish centres, such as Valencia or Seville. It is characterised by a thin white glaze that decays very easily, often retaining the appearance of a dull white slip rather than a shiny glaze. The glaze covers the vessel all over, and decoration is usually painted in both gold and blue colours, although the lustre is often lost due to deposition processes. It appears in contexts of the late 13th (rare) and 14th centuries (more frequently). Although production is suspected until the end of the 15th century, when the city fell to Christian troops, few lustrewares have been found that can be dated securely to the 15th century, either in Málaga itself or abroad. By this century, the city was already receiving lustrewares from Valencia (for example, Puertas Tricas 1992) and the extent and volume of local production is unclear.

Only six sherds have been found in Exeter (Fig. 18.2; Table 18.1). They are all small, and only two preserve any decoration. To confirm their identification, three were subjected to chemical analysis as part of EAPIT; the results do not produce a tight group, but they certainly place these sherds apart from other places of manufacture such as Valencia (Appendix 18.1).

Although the assemblage is small, it does include some of the earliest dated examples found in Britain. Two sherds from two different pits from Goldsmith Street have been dated by their associated pottery to the second half of the 13th century (ID6, ID151). A further vessel is securely stratified in a pre-Dissolution context of the early 16th century (ID7); not enough decoration survives to find parallels and confirm whether this might be a late example, or an earlier vessel retained for a long time, or a residual sherd.

*Fig. 18.2 Málaga lustreware (© Alejandra Gutiérrez)*

*Table 18.1 Málaga lustrewares found in Exeter (\* = sherds not drawn; E=early, L= late); for Site Numbers see Chapter 2 above*

## *Valencia area*

With the exception of a single vessel, all the ceramics arriving in Exeter from the Valencia area are lustrewares. They all have a fine, light orange fabric with buff margins (larger, thicker forms may have a darker, reddish, fabric) and rare visible inclusions; under the microscope small limestone grains, clay relics and tiny spots of mica (never as large as flecks) may be visible (Vince 1982; Gerrard and Gutiérrez 1991, 129). The tin glaze is white and applied to both surfaces, including under the base. In contrast to similar ceramics from Málaga, Valencian glaze usually survives well, even when the lustre decoration is faded or lost.

Valencia gives its name to both the port city and also the modern province in central eastern Spain. A number of centres of production have been identified in the region from both documentary and archaeological evidence. Manises and Paterna, just outside Valencia city, are the best known because of the early publication of documentary evidence (*e.g.* Osma 1906; 1912; 1923; González Martí 1944). Kiln remains in Valencia itself confirm that the city also produced pottery, including lustrewares (Serrano 1994), but given the proximity of all these workshops and the uniformity of the local geology, identifying exact locations of production is complex at the moment. This might not be too relevant when trying to understand major trends in trade and exchange in the medieval period across Europe. Results from chemical analyses of Valencian pottery have produced sub-groups which might represent spatial or chronological groupings within the Valencia area, but without more reference material from kiln sites it is impossible to fine-tune the results. More importantly, this evidence can be used to distinguish Valencian ceramics from those manufactured at other Spanish centres, especially contemporary lustrewares from the Málaga area and 16th-century lustrewares from Seville, both in the south of the country, which are also regularly found in northern Europe (Hughes 1995; and see Appendix 18.1). Chemical data are more problematic when attempting to differentiate products from Valencia and Muel (Zaragoza) as their signature seems to be similar. Muel only started to produce lustrewares in the 16th century, some 200 years later than Valencia, but some decorative motifs seem to be shared between both centres (and also with Catalonia) in the earliest phases of production. A wider range of samples needs to be compiled before the issue can be fully resolved through fabric analysis.

The general framework for dating decorative motifs on lustrewares, largely derived from art historians, remains applicable (Gutiérrez 2000, fig. 2.16). In very general terms, Valencian lustrewares can be divided by centuries so that 'early lustreware' was produced in the 14th century, 'classic lustreware' in the 15th, 'late' in the 16th, and 'overall lustreware' in the 17th, with some overlap between these. Identification and dating is, however, rarely a simple matter in the UK. The size of fragments can impede the identification of forms and decoration or both. Although blue survives well, lustre motifs – which sit on the glazed surface – can be lost due to deposition processes and any patterns are then rendered invisible; although the decoration can sometimes still be identified as a 'ghost', matt, outline on the shiny glazed surface. The 12 vessels found at Exeter are illustrated in Figs 18.3–18.4 and described and listed in Table 18.2.

There are no early examples in the 'Málaga style' (with minute painted motifs and light blue decoration), nor in the 'Pula style' (with radial motifs), both typical of the 14th century. The earliest vessel is a large dish decorated with crowns (ID157), typical of the late 14th or early 15th century. Most of the remaining assemblage dates to the 15th, and displays typical decoration of the period such as Gothic writing (IHS and Ave Maria; ID127 and 153), ferns and dotted flowers (ID161), thistles and criss-cross lines (ID171). Only three vessels are any later than this, dating to the 16th and 17th centuries (ID160, 290 and 373). The latest lustreware preserves little visible decoration (ID373).

*Fig. 18.3 Valencian lustrewares from Exeter. Line drawings at 1:4, with photographs at 1:2 except ID157 and (A–B) complete examples of dishes in museum collections illustrating the patterns of ID157 and ID161, not to scale (drawings: John Allan/Alejandra Gutiérrez; photos: Alejandra Gutiérrez except A: © Museo Nacional de Cerámica y Artes Suntuarias "González Martí", no. CE1/01554; B: © Lyon MBA, Photo Alain Basset)*

*Fig. 18.4 Valencian lustreware (© Alejandra Gutiérrez)*

One sherd (ID290) is of more interest, as it might have been manufactured at either Valencia or Muel (Zaragoza); the results of chemical analysis of this sherd were inconclusive (Appendix 18.1). It is decorated with the motif of split flowers and double-outlined lines, in a characteristic golden-brown colour. Both the colour and the motifs are typical of the lustrewares made at Muel. The production of lustrewares only started here at the beginning of the 16th century and seems to have been restricted mainly to dishes, lugged bowls and jugs. The decorative repertoire at Muel did share some motifs with Valencia and Catalonia during the 16th century (Almagro and Llubiá 1952; Álvaro 1981) as well as fine fabrics, so identification is sometimes difficult. Even surviving examples currently in museums can be ascribed to one or the other centre depending on who is describing the vessel. A wider reference collection of chemical signatures is needed before determining conclusively the provenance

*Table 18.2 Valencian wares found in Exeter; for Site Numbers see Chapter 2 above*

of this Exeter sherd, but the possibility that it could have been made at Muel is intriguing. Muel lustrewares had a wide regional distribution and have been recorded right across Aragón and Valencia, but while the occasional example has also appeared in the Americas (Straube 2017), so far only a single example has been identified from the UK (see below).

Remarkably, all the lustrewares found at Exeter are open forms, being exclusively dishes and bowls; no albarelos (*botes*) or jugs are present. Some fragments are residual in contexts of later date (ID160), but a couple were found in Dissolution debris of *c.* 1538 from the Greyfriars (ID127) and the nunnery at Polsloe (ID167). The rest appear mainly in pits about 50 or 70 years after they were manufactured (ID153, 157, 164, 171, 290).

One further fragment, not a lustreware, but also tinglazed and decorated solely with painted blue (ID284), was analysed by ICP. The result lies within the Valencia chemical signature, although the vessel is far from typical of the blue-decorated wares produced there. These vessels were only made during the 14th and 15th centuries and had characteristic profiles, including bases with foot-rings, and motifs (for an English summary see Gutiérrez 2000, 29, 32–3). The profile of the Exeter dish is closer to the wares made at Seville in the 16th century, with the raised concave base and freer hand-painted decoration. Whether the dish was made at Valencia, Seville or at a different centre near them, a wider range of chemical results is needed to investigate this fragment further and ascertain its provenance.

## *Seville area*

A wide range of the imported ceramics found in Exeter came from the Seville area in southern Spain. They include both glazed and unglazed vessels, those which were exported commercially and also rarer types of pottery which are found only occasionally in Britain. Ceramics from Seville make up the largest group of all the Spanish ceramics identified so far from medieval Exeter.

## *Tablewares*

Tin-glazed pottery from the Seville area only seems to arrive in northern Europe after the late 15th century and becomes more frequent during the following century, once production increases in order to supply the Spanish colonies in the New World. Tin-glazed ceramics manufactured during this time are still grouped under the term 'Morisco ware', a name first used by Goggin (1968). Whether the ceramics were made by *moriscos* (former Muslims converted to Christianity and living under Christian rule) or not, the term has been retained for its well-defined characteristics, which are quite distinctive and different from later phases of production.

*Fig. 18.5 Seville area: tin-glazed wares from Exeter (© Alejandra Gutiérrez)*

'Morisco wares' are characterised by a fine light-cream fabric with no visible inclusions, although under the microscope some mica, clay relics and elongated voids are sometimes seen; vessels are glazed all-over (except for jugs and jars), always in white tin glaze, except for a single case where green has been added to the glaze to produce an opaque, emerald green glaze (quite different from lead-glazed wares). This group is traditionally subdivided according to the range of colours and motifs used in the decoration, as this can carry significance for dating. They were produced between the late 15th and 17th centuries. The terminology used here is the English system devised with Seville colleagues to accommodate Spanish types and names, rather than the North American groupings named after sites of the former Spanish colonies in America, which have now been superseded by more recent finds at Seville city itself (Gerrard *et al*. 1995; Gutiérrez 2000, fig. 2.27).

Fourteen examples of Morisco ware are recorded from Exeter. They include four examples of *cuerda seca*, a technique that does not apply the glaze over the vessel, but is instead applied individually to patterns drawn out on the surface of the ceramic; these are outlined using manganese or grease, as the second function of the outline is to keep the glazes from running and keeping them confined within their pattern (Fig. 18.5; Table 18.3). The decoration is thus achieved by blocks of glazes of different colours, rather than being painted over a background (ID220). The technique, with Islamic roots in the 11th/12th centuries, was used in Seville during the second half of the 15th century but it does not seem to have survived beyond the early 16th century.

This group also includes lustrewares (Fig. 18.5). Their recognition in archaeological assemblages in the UK is quite recent; all 16th-century examples from northern European sites had previously been identified as Valencia products. Chemical analyses have been instrumental in helping reassign individual pieces, as these are visually similar and even share decorative motifs (Gutiérrez 2003). Four lustrewares were found during excavations at Exeter, all in well-dated contexts of the 16th century (Fig. 18.5). All the vessels found are dishes, some with badly preserved decoration; they all have the characteristic concentric lines on the back of the dish and plain rims. Some of the sherds listed below were analysed as part of a study into 16th-century lustrewares in Britain and their sources, which has helped to confirm their provenance from the Seville workshops (Gutiérrez 2009), while further examples were also analysed as part of the present study (Appendix 18.1). Exeter provides some good dating evidence for this type of product. The dish recovered from Polsloe Priory (ID173) was found in a pre-Dissolution context in the fill of a cistern infilled *c*. 1500. Seville seems to have produced lustrewares for a limited period only, during the 16th century; these well-stratified finds from Exeter help place production by *c*. 1500 already, especially those motifs of musical notes (*solfas*). These are very similar to those used on lustrewares made at Valencia from the end of the 15th century. Large dishes with broad brims where impressed decoration has been added do also appear in Dissolution contexts of the 1530s, such as ID174.

The Seville area also presents challenges when identifying its wares. Well-known types are traditionally said to come from 'Seville', but it is clear that similar-looking vessels were manufactured across the south of Spain and beyond. Wasters from Lebrija, for example, attest to the local production of tin-glazed wares similar to those from Seville, including plain and blue-decorated bowls (Galván and Sánchez 2005). Lebrija is some 60 km away from Seville and closer to the sea than the capital, but still inland. There is little doubt that main ports along the south coast might have also produced comparable pottery that could have been exported, as was the case with coarsewares (see below). similar-looking tin-glazed wares were also produced in Portugal, but here manufacture seems to have been limited to plain dishes and bowls in white, sometimes decorated with parallel concentric lines in blue (see below, ID204 and ID208).

## *Commercial containers*

Besides tin-glazed wares, commercial containers in the form of unglazed jars (only occasionally glazed on the interior) also arrived in Exeter (Fig. 18.6). Most of the ceramic commercial containers involved in shipping goods found in the UK are assumed to have been made at Seville, but large transport jars were made at all major ports around the coast from the medieval period onwards, including Valencia, Alicante and Barcelona, for example (Coll 1993; Saranova and Borrego 1993; Borrego and Saranova 1994; Beltrán de Heredia 2012). Their fine fabrics can make their identification and dating at consumption sites difficult if no diagnostic sherds are found.

The Valencia area produced fine, large jars with distinctive rims and necks, but their fine fabrics can go largely unrecognised and so far only a handful of examples are known from Britain (Gutiérrez 2000, 248 and fig. 5.10, no. 8). They have flat bases and thick rims, and were between *c.* 70 cm and 100 cm tall. They were used for transport and also for storage at home, with written records referring to their holding oil and wine, sometimes with their interior sealed with pitch, whereas archaeological finds confirm that they were also used to transport smaller ceramic vessels (López Elum 1984, 46, 69; Amigues and Mesquida 1987; Amigues *et al*. 1995, fig. 3).

Products from the south of Spain have more distinctive fabrics and profiles that changed in form between the 15th and 18th/19th centuries. The earlier types include what Hurst termed 'ribbed amphorae' (Hurst 1977, fig. 33) – sizeable jars with marked grooves and slightly convex bases; they appear only rarely in the UK and they seem to predate Spanish trade with the Americas. They do

*Table 18.3 Seville: Morisco wares found in Exeter*

appear in sites along the Spanish coast but their place of manufacture is still unconfirmed there. A single sherd from an early 15th-century context at Exe Bridge (Site 56) has been identified as an example of this early type (ID122). It was thin-sectioned by David Williams (1984a, 145), who commented: 'Similar to olive jars from Southampton. Fragments of quartz-mica schist, sandstone, quartzite and limestone, plus discrete grains of quartz, plagioclase and potash feldspar'. The vessel still preserves a black residue (pitch?) on the interior surface.

In 1503 Seville obtained the trade monopoly with the Spanish colonies in America and trade and transport of goods with the New World was greatly facilitated by the use of ceramic containers with a repetitive range of shapes which were later standardised according to their capacity and volume. These *botijas* were first identified on American sites and termed 'olive jars' there (Goggin 1968). Their shape changed through time and three broad groups exist between the late 15th and 18th centuries. The earliest ('early style') are small, spherical jars with two handles and a narrow rim; they gave way to globular or elongated containers with round bases in the 16th century ('middle style') (Fig. 18.6). Smaller, pointed jars only appear after the 18th century ('late style'). Although much discussion has been based around the shape of the rims, there is no definite proof to indicate that they are a reliable means to date the jars. They are sometimes glazed on the inside, either emerald green or light brown, and more rarely in white, but this does not seem to be directly related to the contents: most jars must have carried oil or wine, but most examples in Britain are unglazed. They are also known to have been identified with merchant marks, which were sometimes impressed on the rim before the jar was fired and sometimes painted or scratched on afterwards (Pleguezuelo 1993), but such marks are infrequent and rare among the examples recovered from the UK.

*Fig. 18.6 Seville: olive jars and* cuenca *tiles (© Alejandra Gutiérrez)*

The variety of fabrics seen in Britain must suggest the existence of different centres of production around and beyond the city of Seville, especially along the River Guadalquivir. In spite of Seville's trade monopoly, other ports at the mouth of the Guadalquivir, such as San Lúcar de Barrameda, and further south, such as Puerto de Santa María and Cádiz, formed part of its commercial and legal sphere (Ball 1977, 78) and no doubt must have also produced similar transport jars, although local manufacture is still not characterised.

Jars in the early style have characteristic thin walls and profiles and are easier to identify, but unless diagnostic sherds are found, it is difficult to differentiate between containers from the middle and late styles.

The assemblage of 'olive jars' found at Exeter totals 381 sherds, representing a minimum number of 168 vessels from 35 sites, although most are single sherds. I am grateful to John Allan for quantifying all the sherds; the data for the containers is in online Appendix 18.3, where descriptions of 41 vessels and a full listing of all the Exeter finds will also be found.

## *Tiles*

Besides pottery, Seville also produced wall and floor tiles (Fig. 18.6) and these are found only rarely in the UK and the rest of Europe, with a major group known from Bristol (Gutiérrez 2012). Two examples are known from Exeter (online Appendix 18.3); other finds identified in the South West are recorded in Allan 2009–10.

## **Portugal**

Considerable numbers of excavations over the past 20 years are slowly transforming medieval and later pottery studies in Portugal, with repercussions for the study of material culture abroad. From the point of view of ceramic studies, evidence for the production of pottery types which were first identified outside the country (for example, green-glazed vessels aboard the Armada shipwrecks: Martin 1979; Hurst *et al.* 1986) have now finally been documented in Portugal; the range and chronology of the former 'Merida-type wares' can also be fine-tuned with well-stratified Portuguese finds; and, more importantly, some wares which were thought to have been produced solely in southern Spain are also being documented in Portugal. Besides all these, whitewares covered in bright yellow or green glazes (not dissimilar in appearance to French examples), are thought to be a local manufacture at Coimbra. Data are still patchy both spatially and chronologically, and many questions remain, but we are starting to understand better the wares that were produced and exported from Portugal from the medieval period onwards.

Assemblages from consumption sites dominate the Portuguese literature (*e.g.* papers in Teixeira and Bettencourt 2012; Caessa *et al.* 2017) while remains associated with centres of production are still scarce and few, especially outside Lisbon. Apart from excavations, doctoral theses are contributing to our understanding of local production, although the field has been more thoroughly pursued for tin-glazed decorated wares, especially those of the early modern age. The lack of systematic and thorough application of scientific analyses poses a problem in that the identification of many different wares remains somewhat subjective, both for glazed and unglazed wares; so far analyses have not been used to characterise local productions but some encouraging results have already been published (*e.g.* Castro *et al.* 1997; Sousa *et al.* 2003; Vieira Ferreira *et al*. 2013a; 2013b; 2016).

The assemblage of Portuguese wares from Exeter totals 45 vessels (Fig. 18.7; Table 18.4) and it is clearly dominated by unglazed wares, although tin- and leadglazed vessels are also found. They are discussed below according to type.

## *Tin-glazed wares*

Portuguese colleagues are currently splitting the production of medieval and modern tin-glazed wares in Portugal into two distinctive groups: early production (*malegueira*, or 'in the Málaga style') of the second half of the 16th century, and later (*faiança*, or tin-glazed wares) from the 17th century onwards. This coincides broadly with the distinction observed in the Seville area between 'Morisco ware' and 'Seville ware', the latter being a more refined manufacture (both in technology and repertoire of forms) introduced by Italian potters arriving in Spain whose influence can be seen in workshops across the country (Pleguezuelo and Lapuente 1995, 240; Álvaro 1999). The use of saggars for firing pots, rather than cockspurs used in earlier phases, has been documented in Lisbon, and this suggests a change in technology that might also imply the arrival of foreign potters. Complete saggars with dishes still inside, all stuck together, have been recovered at Mouraria (Lisbon), for example (Castro *et al*. 2017).

Written records distinguish between potters who used glaze (*malagueiros*) and those who did not (*oleiros*), implying that the production of tin-glazed and lead-glazed wares was a specialist craft. This division appears in the middle of the 16th century (Carvalho 1918; Formigo 2014).

Later records do mention 'potters of white glaze', but this is only recorded in the 17th century (Dórdio *et al.* 2001, 146). By that date tin-glazed wares had started to be produced in quantities and at present three production centres have been located archaeologically: Lisbon, Coimbra and Vila Nova de Gaia (Porto) (Dordio *et al.* 2001, 139, 143). Researchers have tried to describe materials from each of these, but since the transport of clay between them is documented (Dórdio *et al.* 2001, 150; Leão 1999, 25), it may be challenging to distinguish between them macroscopically. Tin-glazed wares use white clays, mainly from the Lisbon area, but sometimes potters mixed these with local red clays, hence the variations in fabric

*Fig. 18.7 Portuguese wares from Exeter (© Alejandra Gutiérrez)*

528 *Alejandra Gutiérrez and Hugo Blake*

colour. White kaolinitic clay is available south of Lisbon in the Vale of Zebro (Viana 1989). All the fabrics are fine, sometimes with a little quartz sand and mica, generally cream, light pink or light orange in colour. As in other countries, the range of textures, colour hues, pigment density, etc. are not necessarily linked to specific places of manufacture, nor are there enough discriminatory factors to assign products to one workshop or another with any confidence (Sebastian 2011, 484), at least until such differences are confirmed by complementary methods, such as chemical analyses. Dating and classification of 17th-century tin-glazed wares is mainly based on the identification of decorative motifs through a traditional art historical approach (for example Casimiro 2013). This modern production falls outside the scope of this project and finds from Exeter have already been recorded (Allan 1984a; Casimiro 2011).

Pre-17th century phases of production are still poorly documented and unclear but they are of relevance here. References to the presence of *malagueiros* (or 'makers of Málaga work') in documents has been taken to mean the production of tin-glazed wares, although the term may be more complex and include lead-glazed wares (Sebastian 2011, 49–90). Nevertheless, wasters from this early phase have also started to be recovered and they are now known from both Lisbon and Coimbra. Rescue excavations of a huge waster dump by the river close to the workshops in Coimbra have produced coarsewares, lead-glazed and tin-glazed wares. This material is unstratified and the dating is not clear, however (I am grateful to Helena Moura, IGESPAR, for allowing me to see this material). For the moment the earliest documented reference to local manufacture of tin-glazed wares here is 1608 (Silva 2016).

The situation in Lisbon is rather confusing at present. The pottery kilns excavated at Mata de Machada, Barreiro, near Lisbon, have been dated to *c.* 1450 and 1530 based on coin evidence (Carmona and Santos 2005, 5). Among the infill of the kilns were plain tin-glazed wares (Torres 1990) similar looking to 'Morisco wares' from Seville, and these have been identified as a local product manufactured in that kiln in the early 16th century (Casimiro 2013, fig. 2). These items, however, are not wasters (Coelho and Texeira 2018), and so far there is no other evidence for the manufacture of tin-glazed wares at Lisbon before the end of the 16th century. Nevertheless, it seems now that any plain dish or bowl found locally is identified as Lisbon-made, even when it occurs alongside other Seville Morisco wares which were not made locally in Portugal (for example blue and purple).

Further research is needed to clarify the earliest phase of local tin-glazed production, although at the moment this seems to be firmly placed at the very end of the 16th century or early 17th century. Contemporary written documents refer to the manufacture in Lisbon of 'white earthenware of Talavera' (*louça branca de Talavera*) in 1572 (Fernandes 2012, app. B8); this is Talavera in Spain, which transported 'white pottery' over land to be sold in Lisbon (Brandão 1990, 50). The lack of a 'proper' local name in the documentation of the period must surely indicate that production was still a recent occurrence at this time in Lisbon.

The relevance of this phase of production for the UK is that the dishes and bowls being produced are very similar to the Morisco wares being manufactured in the Seville area, although so far only 'plain white' or sometimes 'linear blue' types with blue concentric lines seem to have been manufactured in Portugal. A couple of bowls in this linear blue style have been recovered from Exeter (ID204, ID208); although they look like Morisco wares, chemical analysis of their fabrics confirms that they were not produced in Spain, with signatures well outside the cluster of reference samples (Appendix 18.1). Most distinctive is the blue decoration, which is dull and greyish, rather than the typical bright cobalt blue used in southern Spain. The difference in colour seems to be due to the lack of arsenic in the cobalt used on Portuguese wares, which was extracted locally from the Alentejo area of central and southern Portugal, at least during these early phases of production (Vieira Ferreira *et al.* 2013a; 2013b). None of the sherds is well stratified, one being residual in a 19th to 20th century context, the other being unstratified.

## *Lead-glazed wares*

Recent discoveries of wasters, cockspurs and other kiln material make it now possible to confirm the production in Lisbon of lead-glazed wares, covered in green or in brown, which had only been known from documentary references dating to the end of the 16th century (Diogo and Trindade 2000, 204). Although only a few workshops have been located so far, production must have been extensive across the country and local manufacture is suspected at major towns. As with other types of ceramics, production was clearly concentrated on both sides of the Tagus mouth, in and around Lisbon. The *Livro dos Regimentos dos Oficiais Mecânicos da Mui Nobre* e *Sempre Leal Cidade de Lixboa* includes the potters guild and mentions the production of green-glazed wares (Correia 1926, 142–7; Fernandes 2012, app. B8).

In Lisbon itself, wasters and cockspurs have been found in the former Islamic quarter of the city; they have been dated to the 16th and 17th centuries and are mainly bowls (Nunes and Filipe 2012). The Lisbon fabrics, both for the city and the region, have been described as containing quartz, mica, clay relics, iron ore and small linear cracks (Silva *et al.* 2012, 81). Interestingly among the lead-glazed wares made here are the typical green-glazed *lebrillos* or pancheons produced in the Seville area in the 16th century; these are now thought to have also been produced in Lisbon, where the fabrics are mainly red, as opposed to the cream colours of Seville. At Lisbon production of bichrome lead glazes has also been recorded, with green on the exterior and light-brown on the interior (Silva *et al.* 2012, 81).

A kiln has been excavated in Santo António da Charneca (Setúbal) and it has been dated to the 15th and 16th centuries. It produced tablewares and sugar moulds. Worthy of note is the production not only of *arista* tiles similar to those made at Seville, but also of green-glazed pancheons, bowls and dishes (Barros *et al.* 2012).

Only three vessels were found at Exeter, two of them unstratified. The *melado* dish (ID224) is lead-glazed allover with a light brown lead glaze; this type of dish is a typical group within the Morisco wares from Seville, where the fine, cream fabrics are characteristic. The Exeter dish has a red fabric with visible inclusions and the chemical analysis confirms it was not manufactured in known Spanish centres.

## *Coarsewares*

Understanding of coarseware production is improving all the time as new evidence comes to light. Very few manufacturing sites have been excavated so far, however, although they must have been numerous across the country, all producing similar-looking vessels. At Santarém, for example, local production of red coarsewares is documented and is described as similar to those from other sites in the country, from Lisbon and Silves to Palmela (Mendes *et al.* 2002).

Excavations at Lisbon have produced some evidence for the manufacture of coarsewares, mainly in the form of discarded wasters (*e.g.* Marques *et al*. 2012). Local production is described as having a range of colours, from orangey-red to light orange and cream, often with surfaces of different colour (pink, light orange), many times including a surface wash (rather than a slip) in a different, darker colour to that of the fabric; surfaces are usually smoothed, and only open forms and large jugs are burnished. Forms produced at Lisbon are similar to those made not only in the region but also in the north (*e.g.* Aveiro: Marques *et al.* 2012, 128). The materials associated with the kiln from Mata da Machada, Barreiro, Lisbon, are not available for study at present (A. Teixeira, pers. comm.) although they have already been published (Torres 1990; Coelho and Teixeira 2018).

More recently kilns and wasters have been excavated in Tavira in 2017 in the south of the country (Moreno 2017), and in Aveiro (in the north), with both assemblages still under study. Aveiro seems to have been a major production site, favoured by being a port. The discovery and excavation of two shipwrecks full of pottery near the port has led to the identification of a range of wares being produced here, although so far most of the assemblages date to the late 16th and 17th centuries and earlier phases remain undocumented.

Most of the redwares produced in Portugal used local granitic clays and a similar range of forms. There are, however, different fabrics in existence, but variations seem to depend on a number of factors, not only on the place of manufacture; the date when vessels were made, and probably also the size and function of the pot must also influenced manufacture. The author has examined examples at Lisbon where a single vessel may have a virtually inclusion-free body together with coarse handles full of granitic temper.

## *Portuguese unglazed wares (formerly 'Merida wares')*

It was John Hurst who first identified these imports as a distinctive group in northern Europe and termed them 'Merida wares' at a time when the production was still unknown in Portugal itself; he subsequently corrected and explained the problem with this name (Hurst 1977a; Hurst *et al.* 1986, 69). British archaeologists have since battled to offer a range of alternative names, including 'red', 'Iberian', 'undecorated', etc. Although granitic fabrics extend well into the north and west of Spain, there is little doubt that this group of red/brown micaceous fabrics, in this range of forms, were produced in Portugal. Variation in colour, from black to cream, makes the use of 'red' redundant, and although unglazed, these vessels can be highly decorated with complicated moulded designs, inlays, etc. The term 'Portuguese unglazed wares' seems more appropriate and it is used here as an alternative to the former 'Merida wares'.

The assemblage from Exeter totals 83 different vessels, all wheel-thrown. The Exeter sherds have been divided into fabrics with the help of a microscope (x10). As a result, seven different fabrics have been identified (Fig. 18.8):

## *Fabric 1* (ICP: ID271 = Durham EX18271)

#### Orange throughout.

Well-sorted sand (quartz and black inclusions) with:

• occasional large grains of quartz <1 mm (white or transparent, rounded)

These vessels have distinctive very micaceous surfaces, greyish exterior surfaces, tool-smoothed vertically, without being a proper burnishing, and uneven sanded bases, mainly quartz and mica. One base seems to be stuck to surface, rather than cut off.

At least two glazed (ID 297, 299) and 12 unglazed vessels (ID217, 294, 296, 298, 300, 301, 304, 306, 308, 309, 320, 323) are present. They range in date from the early 16th century (ID271) to *c.* 1700 (ID298).

*Fig. 18.8 Portuguese unglazed wares: fabrics (© Alejandra Gutiérrez)*

## *Fabric 2 (Lisbon)* (ICP: ID267 = Durham EX18267)

Dark cream fabric with orange slip on interior and exterior surfaces.

Poorly sorted sand with:

Micaceous surfaces; thick covering of slip. Some vessels carefully potted.

At least five vessels, all unglazed, are represented (ID267, 270, 301, 314, 315), ranging in date from *c.* 1500 to the late 16th century. The recognisable forms are a bowl (ID267), a lid (ID270) and a jug (ID314).

*Fabric 3* (ICP: ID 268 = Durham 18268)

Light brown fabric with slip, brighter orange interior, reddish-brown thick slip on exterior. No smoothing, or burnishing seen.

Medium size sand of:

Matrix is sandy. Micaceous surfaces with a thick covering slip.

This is the most common fabric, represented by at least 15 vessels, all unglazed (ID268–9, 275, 303, 307, 310, 312–13, 317, 430–5). The contexts of the 11 dated examples range in date from *c.* 1500 to the 16th century; no later examples were recorded.

## *Fabric 4 ('pseudo terra sigillata')* (ICP: ID272 = Durham EX18272)

Similar to Fabric 3, but with additional black/grey round inclusions. Orange fabric with brown core.

Very fine orange slip that recalls the colour and texture of samian bowls and it is smoothed and burnished. Medium-size sand of:

• occasional round (balls) of cream ?clay relics, very soft • rare sandstone (x1).

Matrix is not sandy. Micaceous surfaces. Made on the wheel.

Five unglazed vessels were recognised (ID272, 277, 316, 319, 322). Two (ID272, 277) come from contexts of *c.* 1550–80; the others are from undated deposits. The recognisable forms are two *pucaros* (ID277, 319) and one jug (ID322).

## *Fabric 5* (ICP: ID305 = Durham EX18305)

Similar to Fabric 1, but much less sandy. Orange fabric with thin white slip (uneven) on exterior surface. Mediumsize sand of:

Matrix is not sandy. Micaceous surfaces (with visible flecks of mica on surfaces).

The fabric is represented by a single unglazed olive jar from an 18th-century context (ID305).

*Fabric 6* (ICP: ID 311 = Durham EX18311)

Greyish brown fabric. Medium-size sand of:

Micaceous surfaces (with visible flecks of mica). Sandy matrix.

Only one unglazed vessel in this fabric is present: an unstratified jug (ID311).

## *Fabric 7* (ICP ID276 = Durham EX18276)

Light grey core, orange margins and cream surfaces. With an orange wash over surfaces. Very fine, dense clay. Medium size sand of:

The fabric is represented by one vessel: a *pucaro* from an early 16th-century context (ID276).

Further work in Portugal will be needed before the provenance of these fabrics can be identified with any certainty, but it is clear that place of manufacture alone does not account for variation in fabrics. Specific forms and productions ('pseudo *terra sigillata'*, for example) requires a distinctive texture and colour, and variation in fabric through time also needs to be defined locally. The assemblage from Exeter is composed mainly of small and undiagnostic sherds, making the identification of forms difficult or even impossible.

## **Discussion**

For a city such as Exeter with so much archaeological excavation, imported pottery from Spain and Portugal is not common, accounting for 569 sherds from 273 vessels among about 76,000 sherds on the Exeter Archaeology database. Nor is it a common find among the recorded imports. The seven vessels of the period 1250–1450 represent less than 1% of the city's imported pottery of that period, almost all the other imports being French whitewares, mainly from the Saintonge (Allan 1984a, 22; above, Chapter 17). The numbers from the late 15th and 16th centuries are greater: the 28 vessels stratified in deposits of that date from excavations up to 1980, for example, form 8.6% of the imported vessels of that date by minimum vessel count. This total, however, amounts to little more than 1% of the total of at least 2164 vessels in those deposits, and less than 1% of sherds (Allan 1984a*,* 110, 115). Spanish and Portuguese ceramics, then, are few. They do include examples of all the major types of imported pottery seen on sites in Great Britain and Ireland, but there are no atypical finds, which are characteristic of international ports. This reflects the limited role that Exeter played in direct trade with the Mediterranean in the Late Middle Ages, with Dartmouth and Plymouth being the principal ports in the region involved in this trade at this time as attested in the material culture recovered there, especially at Plymouth (Allan 1995; Kowaleski 1995, 27). The city's involvement in trade with Spain and Portugal did grow, however, in the 16th and 17th centuries (Stevens 1958).

## *Malagan lustrewares*

Some of the finds from Exeter are strikingly early: the two Malagan lustrewares from contexts dated to the second half of the 13th century at Goldsmith Street are still among the earliest stratigraphically recorded not only in the UK but in northern Europe. They must have been broken, lost or discarded 'soon' after their arrival, within 20 years or so.

Eleanor of Castile was no doubt responsible for bringing white ceramics painted in gold and blue from Islamic Spain to northern Europe and to English tables. She married Edward I of England in 1254 and is renowned for having introduced many Spaniards to the English court, together with other aspects of her country's tastes and fashions. All of these were evidence of a Spanish culture, itself influenced by Islamic culture, which arrived in northern Europe now for the first time. The three finds from Goldsmith Street belong to this first wave of imports (ID6, 151, 152). The jug from 197 High Street (ID5) is in a late 14th/early 15th-century context which suggests that it was discarded within a generation or so. The single dish from Polsloe Priory (ID7), and the dish from Preston Street (ID293) are small sherds, most likely residual in early 16th-century contexts rather than having been kept safely for a period of time. Except for a single jug from the High Street, all the Malagan lustrewares are open forms, such as dishes and bowls, which had no parallel in the local ceramic repertoire in South-West England at this time. They might have been display pieces in themselves – rarities to be shown off and also vessels of beauty – but they could just as easily have been used at the table, perhaps to present delicacies or other imported foodstuffs (Gutiérrez 2012, 47–8).

This type of early lustreware is found at only 20 sites in Britain, with a greater density of finds close to London and Southampton. Its distribution is limited only to certain groups in society, and outside cities they appear only in monasteries, manor houses and castles. In Exeter it is rarely possible to link these finds to individuals or even to a very specific period of use of the tenements, but one vessel – the jug from 197 High Street – was certainly found on a site where well-to-do citizens resided. This tenement was the home of a series of prominent Exeter merchants in the 14th century, among them Thomas Forbour and John Bridlegh (Chapter 4 above).

## *Valencia*

Exports of lustreware from Málaga to northern Europe are rare, but by the 15th century lustrewares from Valencia had become very popular and are found across Europe in variable quantities. Of the 12 vessels from Exeter, most were made in the 15th century, at the peak of these exports, with just two later examples. Almost half of them were found in Goldsmith Street (Sites 37 and 39); there is a clear concentration here, not only of fine wares but also of later Seville commercial containers and Portuguese unglazed wares (Fig. 18.10). The proportion of Spanish and Portuguese pottery, however, is not unusually high in any of these groups; the large number of Iberian finds simply reflects the abundance of 16th-century groups on these sites.

At Exeter there are no examples of the early lustrewares of the 14th century made at Valencia, but these are rare and only a handful of sherds have been found in Britain. The 15th-century lustrewares are more common in Britain but are thinly distributed across the country, in more than 100 sites, including not only coastal but also inland ones (Gerrard *et al.* 1995, 286–7). It seems that this type of pottery arrived in some quantities and had little difficulty in finding a home away from ports. Two of the Exeter lustrewares come from religious houses: the bowls from Polsloe Priory (ID167) and at the Greyfriars (ID127). The latter has the motif of the 'IHS' on the base which stands for *Iesus Hominum Salvator* (Cope 1959, 41). The popularising of 'the name of Jesus' is traditionally linked to the work of Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444) and later his disciple Mateo de Agrigento in the middle of the 15th century, when he was known to have preached at Valencia (Arechaga and Manglano 1986). From this date onwards the trigram appears on Valencian ceramics and tiles as part of the decorative schemes used there. The meaning of the trigram was also known in England, where it gained widespread popularity from the mid 14th century and into the 15th century (Blake *et al.* 2003). Although the motif may convey a religious message, there is no obvious link between such decoration on imported pottery (Spanish lustrewares or Italian maiolica) and religious houses in Britain. Vessels with the motif have been found in urban contexts (such as at the High Street or the Woollen Hall in Southampton), whereas other imports found at monastic sites (for example, the abbeys at Romsey and Winchester, the priories at Christchurch and Selborne, or the friaries at Guildford, Salisbury and Southampton) have no explicit religious content (Gutiérrez 2000, 192). Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the bowl from the Greyfriars seems to have been kept safely for a while, as it was manufactured in the second half of the 15th century but was not discarded until the Dissolution of *c.* 1536. This vessel was one of the longest in circulation among the Exeter assemblage.

The other lustrewares are single vessels from Rack Street and Trichay Street, and four examples from Goldsmith Street. When intact, the dish found at Rack Street (ID157), at around 50 cm in diameter, would have been the largest lustreware from Exeter. It is decorated with the motif of the crown, which is typically surrounded by ferns and clovers, dotted flowers or early ivy leaves. Although this design combination does appear in smaller dishes and bowls (*e.g.* Villanueva *et al.* 2009), the large plates are rarer, and they generally have a large central motif, usually a coat of arms, in the centre of the base; the coat of arms indicates that they were made to order and kept for longer periods of time, with examples still seen at museums nowadays (*e.g.* Museum García Galdiano in Madrid: Martínez Caviró 2011, no. 110, 318). Sadly there is no surviving lustreware on the front of the Exeter dish, with only a ghost for the gold on the back is still visible – the typical fern in a circle. It is striking that this dish was recovered from Rack Street, an area of the city which is known to have housed the poor and suffered great poverty, although a few wealthier citizens are also recorded in this area (Chapter 8 above), and they seem more likely owners of the dish. The fragment was found in a minor and poorly dated 16th-century context. Given its small size and wear it may have been a residual sherd.

The dishes and bowls from Trichay Street, Goldsmith Street and Queen Street include popular patterns that were exported in numbers and are not uncommon on English sites, including the lattice decoration alternating

with thistles (ID171), the bryony (ID161), Gothic writing (ID153) and stylised ivy leaves (ID164) (*e.g.* Worcester and Southampton: Morris 1978, F41; Gutiérrez 2000). The shape of the partially glazed carinated bowl (ID170) is less common, although examples are also known from France (Carru 1995, 64, nos. 99–101).

After the 15th century the number of Valencia lustrewares arriving in England fell markedly, and just a handful of later sherds are known from Britain. Only two are from Exeter: a 16th-century dish found at Albany Road and a 17th-century fragment from Goldsmith Street. The identification of this type of later lustreware has had to be reassessed, as it is now clear that Seville was making almost identical-looking wares within the Morisco ware range. A re-examination and analysis of a selection of 16th-century lustrewares from English sites, including examples from Exeter, has allowed them to be re-identified as having been made at Seville, not Valencia. This means that earlier identifications of Late Valencia Lustrewares as defined by Hurst (1977) need revising across the country and numbers and distribution are likely to change.

## *Muel?*

A single 16th-century lustreware decorated with split flowers (ID290) is intriguing, as it was not made at Seville and might not have been made at Valencia either. Both visual identification and chemical analysis suggest tentatively that it came from Muel (Zaragoza), where lustreware was produced only in the 16th century and until *c.*1610 when the *moriscos* were expelled from the country (Almagro and Llubiá 1952). Production must have been considerable, with 24 potters working there by 1575 (Álvaro 1981, 122), supplying the local area in north-east Spain. Although Muel is far from the Spanish coast and it is not known to have exported internationally, a similar lustreware bowl was also found in Cook Street, in Southampton, and another decorated in blue came from excavations at Upper Bugle Street, also in Southampton (Gutiérrez 2000, 241, fig. 5.20, no. 5); further away, another lustreware bowl has also been found at Jamestown, its provenance confirmed by Neutron Activation Analysis (Straube 2017, fig. 13). These are likely to be personal acquisitions or gifts and although the first vessel from Southampton was found in a rubbish pit with refuse derived from within the walled town, the second is firmly linked to the house that Roger Machado occupied between 1486 and 1497 (Kaye 1976, 290). This was a high-status dwelling; among other posts, Machado acted as ambassador to the courts of Naples, Spain and France (Bochaca 2012; Watson 2013). Judging from the ceramics and glass (more than 100 Venetian vessels) found during excavation, he must have collected items during his trips, including types which are rarely found on British sites (Gutiérrez 2000, 183). In contrast to this, the lustreware from Exeter was found in an unremarkable pit at Paul Street, with no other imports and it is more difficult to explain the context for its arrival.

## *Seville: Morisco wares*

By the 16th century the largest production of pottery in Spain was centred at Seville. With the discovery of the Americas and the establishment of colonies there, the needs of the new settlers were met by the city, which obtained a monopoly for such trade during the 16th century (Serrera 2008). Huge amounts of Morisco wares were produced for both the local populations and for the New World. Such demand seems to have had an impact on the types of pottery produced, and those with more complex decoration were sidelined in favour of simpler or plainer vessels which were quicker to produce.

One of the types that seems to have been abandoned is *cuerda seca*. There are only a handful of vessels known from Britain, including four from Exeter. Of these, that from Preston Street (ID218) is broken but quite complete; it was found in a pit of *c.*1500–50 and looks as if it was discarded within a generation. The same was the case for the dish from Rack Street (ID219) which is small and worn but from an early 16th-century context. The third vessel, from Magdalen Street (ID220), is also a dish. This was found in an 18th-century context, but interestingly the sherd seems to have been cut into a triangular shape, and it might have survived for longer as a colourful counter or game piece fashioned from a discarded broken sherd.

*Cuerda seca* wares seem to predate the increase in ceramic output and mass production at Seville; with so few examples having been found locally in Seville as well as in northern Europe, the arrival of this type of ceramic in Britain might either represent very small numbers coming as part of other consignments, special gifts or personal belongings of Spaniards or other merchants travelling to and from the south of Spain.

Within the group of Morisco wares from Exeter are also lustrewares from the first half of the 16th century; dishes with blue and purple decoration which were produced until around the middle of the 16th century; and also plain 16th-century white-glazed wares. It was traditionally thought that, given the low numbers found in northern Europe and their concentration around ports, these vessels might have arrived through direct contact with Spaniards (Hurst 1991, 48). Nevertheless, there is some evidence to confirm that small amounts of pottery did arrive, perhaps as part of an opportunistic trade, involving quantities and an exchange mechanism that was clearly in sharp contrast to those established between Seville and the Americas (Gutiérrez 2003, 35). The finds are widely, if thinly, distributed across Exeter, appearing in all quarters of the city, in sharp contrast to the distribution of the Valencian products from the previous century (Fig. 18.9). Three of the four Seville lustrewares are from religious sites: a large (*c.* 35 cm diameter) dish from St Nicholas Priory (ID174) is in a post-Dissolution context of *c.* 1536–50 and must have been used as a serving dish given its size. Here it should be noted, however, that the finds from this context may represent rubbish from neighbouring tenements rather than from the priory itself. The other two dishes were found together in a fill at the Benedictine nunnery of Polsloe Priory, just before the Dissolution (*c.* 1536) and they must have been discarded very soon after arrival (ID173 and ID234); they are dishes of small size (*c*. 22cm diameter) that would have been used for individual consumption of food. Similar examples are also known from other monastic sites across Britain, for example Mount Grace Priory, in North Yorkshire, where a set of a dish and a bowl, this time undecorated and also from Seville, was found (Hurst 1987). Mount Grace belonged to the Carthusian order, whose monks lived in individual cells and had their own belongings. The Benedictine order ate together at the table so that the finds from the priories at Exeter could have simply been used as smaller serving dishes and shared at the table, unless they belonged to a visitor, lay or religious, passing through Exeter who either left them behind or broke them and discarded them there.

The only Seville lustreware not from a religious site was found in Paul Street (ID175), also in a context of the first half of the 16th century. This is a large serving dish, and interestingly a matching set of undecorated dish (ID225) and bowl (ID226), both almost complete, were also recovered from the same site. The large group of early 16th-century glass from the same context may show that this was the tenement of a shopkeeper selling glass and other goods.

## *Seville: commercial containers*

There is something of an overlap between the distribution of the Morisco wares and the Sevillian commercial containers across Exeter. These containers appear in greater numbers than any of the previously discussed decorated wares. A single sherd with a ribbed wall (ID122) came from an early 15th-century context, predating the mass-produced types of the 16th century onwards. Thinsectioning of this sherd has confirmed that it came from the south of Spain and had a fabric very similar to the later types (Williams 1984). Without any diagnostic features, wall sherds such as these are difficult to date, but at Exeter there is a good group of 33 jars of middle style (16th–18th centuries), 11 of them stratified in 16th-century contexts and 9 in 17th-century contexts.

As already mentioned above, these jars were used as containers for products exported from the south of Spain. They were preferred given their versatility; they could carry almost anything, liquid or solid, from oil, wine and olives to chickpeas, turpentine and lead shot (James 1988; Pleguezuelo 1993; Sánchez Cortegana 1996). A residue analysis of one of the jars from Exeter confirmed that it had once contained olive oil (ID23; Evans and Elbeih 1984). John Allan (1995, 317) has already remarked on the importance that olive oil had

*Fig. 18.9 Distribution of Spanish pottery on sites in Exeter (drawn by David Gould)*

in the woollen industry, a major industry at Exeter. Oil (or butter or grease) had to be used to replace the natural oils lost through the scouring of the wool and in order to protect it from damage during carding, spinning, warping and weaving. Quantities required must have been impressive: documents specify the use of one gallon (4.5 litres) of oil for every 32 pounds (14.5 kg) of wool (Munro 1987; weight for a single fl eece in the medieval period is around 2 pounds: Bischoff 1983).

## *Portugal: coarsewares and glazed wares*

At fi rst glance the distribution of Portuguese ceramics is not dissimilar to that of the Spanish commercial containers, and they are also of similar dates (Fig. 18.10). The understanding of this pottery is still ongoing, with much debate about sources and identifi cations which will not be resolved until further discoveries, studies and analyses are completed in the country. Nevertheless, the assemblage from Exeter allows us to note some interesting points.

*Fig. 18.10 Distribution of Portuguese pottery on sites in Exeter (drawn by David Gould)*

As Allan (1995) has already noted, there are no Portuguese ceramics at Exeter before the 16th century, although fi nds from the 14th century onwards are recorded from other sites in Britain. Finds from the city are also scarce after the 17th century, with just three coarsewares among those which are well stratifi ed.

Some of the glazed sherds of the 16th century are identifi ed in Britain here for the fi rst time. They include Portuguese *melado* dishes which are traditionally identifi ed only as one of the sub-groups within the Morisco wares made at Seville; the diversity of fabrics observed within this group across the sites indicates the existence of a range of different centres of production, and they are likely to be both near Seville and in Portugal, where dishes of similar shape have been found. Those made at Portugal have orange or brown fabrics (rather than cream), with visible mica inclusions. The chemical analysis carried out as part of EAPIT places this dish (ID224) from Exeter as an outlier from the Seville examples, and a suspected Portuguese product, although more data and reference samples are needed to confi rm this (Appendix 18.1). This has implications for vessels identifi ed in the past across Britain.

The two early tin-glazed wares with blue concentric lines of the late 16th century were made in Portugal, perhaps at Lisbon or Coimbra, where the earliest phases of tin-glazed production are still under study. Given the number of coarsewares also arriving in Exeter at this date, they might have arrived together. The dull tone of the blue used on these vessels might be related to the lack of arsenic in the cobalt mined locally in Portugal, in contrast to that mined at Spain and Germany (Vieira Ferreira 2013a). Nevertheless, further research is needed in this area, as it has already been demonstrated that the composition of cobalt used on pottery may vary within a workshop, within a period of production, and also across time (Coll 2009; Pérez Arantegui *et al.* 2009).

Two green-glazed vessels (ID297, 299) are similar to examples found onboard the Armada ships of 1588, which were provisioned with ceramics from Seville and Lisbon. The fabric of these glazed vessels, sometimes with white slip under the glaze, was already identifi ed by David Williams as possibly Portuguese, given the similar fabric composition to the unglazed wares (Williams 1979; Hurst *et al.* 1986, 69). More parallels are now known from Portugal itself.

Most of the Portuguese pottery in Exeter is unglazed. It arrived mainly in the 16th century. Since most vessels are represented only by one or two fragments, it is diffi cult to assess the range of forms in the assemblage (some have been reconstructed with parallels from Lisbon or Aveiro: Fig. 18.7), but among them are three dishes and two pancheons, nine possible standing costrels, three lids, fi ve jugs, fi ve small drinking jugs or *pucaros* and one olive jar. They are mostly domestic vessels. The olive jar was used in commercial exchanges and is rare both in Portugal and in Britain, with only 18 known from

Poole, eight from Southampton, and single examples from Winchester, Wareham and Romsey, Totnes and Topsham (Horsey 1992, 78, 82, 126; Gutiérrez 2000; Allan pers. comm). The standing costrel might have had a range of functions and might have arrived empty, have been used as a container for a different product to be traded, or have been used aboard the ship in which it travelled across the Atlantic (Gutiérrez 2012).

## *Portugal: sugar moulds*

The principal exception to the sharp decline in imports of Portuguese coarsewares after 1600 is the very large collection of sugar moulds from Goldsmith Street (Site 37), which are probably of Portuguese origin (Allan 1984a, 138–41: *c*. 25 kg from at least 85 vessels; thin-sectioning by D. Williams). They fall outside the date-range of the present study. Ceramic sugar cones were essential to process the semi-refined sugar arriving from the Caribbean colonies in the 17th century. Although local potteries met with demand in England, it is clear that, when needed, moulds would be acquired wherever they were available. The importation of the ceramic moulds is already noted at Plymouth in 1594 (1,060 moulds) and in 1600 (Willan 1959, 315). Further references include the transport of 300 moulds from London to Exeter in 1673, again without specifying their provenance (London, Low Countries or Portugal perhaps); a few years later the moulds are arriving from Rotterdam (Allan 1984a, 139). At Southampton a group of at least 100 Portuguese sugar moulds were found in the quay, broken while they were waiting to be sold off or transported to the refinery (Gutiérrez 2007). This assemblage is of interest as it demonstrates that the arrival of Portuguese coarseware included a mixed range of forms; all this pottery (all 6,961 sherds) has a very similar fabric and it probably came from the same workshop in a single consignment.

Sugar moulds were produced in Portugal in several places, including Lisbon and Aveiro (Torres 1990; Morgado *et al.* 2012). In the late 16th and 17th century there is a well-organised trade in ceramic moulds with large volumes being exported from the Aveiro region through the port there. The industry in the area of Aveiro-Ovar seems to have been fuelled by the need to supply moulds to the colonies, especially Madeira, the Azores, Brazil and occasionally also to the Spanish Canary Islands. Ceramic exports were well organised, with boats exclusively filled with pots for export; a couple of such examples have been excavated, providing a glimpse at the range of forms being exported together (Alves *et al.* 1998; 2001; Bettencourt and Carvalho 2007; Carvalho and Bettencourt 2012).

## **Conclusion**

In the Late Middle Ages Exeter played little part in commerce with the Iberian Peninsula, and relied instead on coastal trade with Dartmouth, Plymouth – the main Devon ports involved in this trade – and Southampton (Kowaleski 1995, 27). Its location 6 km from the port of Topsham will also have been an important factor affecting the quantity and range of imports, since the volume of imported pottery declines sharply outside of ports. Pottery assemblages from ports are characterised not only by high numbers of imports, but also by a wider variety of sources, forms and vessel types; the distance these travelled once they had been landed was usually very short. Among the atypical finds from Devon is a chafing dish found at Plymouth (Allan 1995, no. 95). It was made at Seville and is best paralleled by that painted by Velázquez in *An old woman frying eggs.* These are utilitarian small portable stoves to cook or heat up individual pots, of identical function to those made at this date in Somerset and in France, for example. The French examples were exported regularly, whereas the example from Seville is not known to have travelled except for this Plymouth example.

The assemblage from Exeter is not dissimilar to the range of Spanish and Portugese finds from other sites in Devon, which include Barnstaple, Cheriton Fitzpaine, Chudleigh, Chittlehampton, Dartington, Dunkeswell, Newton Abbot and Totnes (Hurst 1977, 93; Allan 1995). Pottery from these sites includes Valencian lustrewares, Morisco wares, olive jars and Portuguese coarsewares. The Devon finds include a near-complete Seville lustreware dish, found in the 1930s in Bideford (unpublished: Museum of Barnstaple and North Devon). The decorated finds are clearly concentrated in the 15th and 16th centuries, whereas the coarseware reach into later periods. The only exceptional find from the county is a sherd of an albarello of Malagan lustreware found at the Bishop's Palace at Chudleigh (Gutiérrez 2006). Although similar in fabric to the examples found at Exeter, this belongs to a type of vessel which is not only earlier but also rare, with a very limited distribution in the country, perhaps reflecting its exotic contents. The way in which rarer types of pot were acquired does seem to depend on other circumstances other than proximity to international ports (Gutiérrez 2006).

## **Italian and Italian-influenced maiolica found in Exeter**

## *by Hugo Blake1*

## *Introduction*

In total, eight Italian vessels and 21 examples of Italo-Netherlandish maiolica dating before 1550 have been recorded from excavations in Exeter. These finds belong entirely to the period *c.* 1480–1550; there are no examples of the preceding types of medieval Mediterranean Maiolica, which are now known from more than 36 sites in the British Isles (Hurst 1991, 213; Blake and Hughes 2015, 149–51; 2019; Blake forthcoming a). They fall into four groups: the more numerous Italo-Netherlandish Maiolica (INM), so-called because the type was made in both Italy and the Low Countries; South Netherlands Maiolica (SNM) which are undoubted Low Countries products; a single example of early Ligurian Maiolica; and seven from Montelupo in Tuscany. They were all covered with a tin-opacified lead glaze decorated with designs developed in northern Italy, whose manufacture was introduced to North-West Europe by 'Venetian' emigrant potters in the early 16th century. Our understanding of this transmission has been advanced significantly by finding out where examples found in Great Britain were made. For this reason, the chemistry of 22 tin-glazed pottery fragments of presumed Italian or Low Countries origin excavated in Exeter was determined by ICPS as part of EAPIT (Appendix 18.2).

Detailed descriptions of each vessel sampled, presented in the order of their ICP Laboratory number (prefix **DF**), will be found in online Appendix 18.4. All the Italian and South Netherlands maiolica from Exeter analysed by ICPS – which also include the earlier analyses distinguished by their Laboratory prefix **V** – are listed in Table 18.8 in Appendix 18.2 with the sites where they were found and their likely place of manufacture. This section of this chapter discusses the characteristics and chronology of the types, and the relative significance of the vessels in this country and their likely function.

## *Italo-Netherlandish Maiolica*

The INM excavated in Exeter form one of the four largest collections of this type of pottery in the British Isles, smaller than the major collections from Southampton and London, the major ports of the Italian trade in the Late Middle Ages, but the same number as that from Winchester (Figs 18.11–13; Hurst 1999, 92, 99; 2002, 315, 325). The 21 vessels are scattered among 13 different sites, an indication that they circulated widely in urban communities. Three were excavated from each of the same sites in Goldsmith Street, Preston Street and Queen Street.

Early Netherlands Maiolica was first defined by Bernard Rackham almost a century ago as the first tinglazed ware made in the Low Countries in an Italian Renaissance style but on closed shapes then unparalleled in Italy (Rackham 1926, 29–31, 96–7, 101–3).2 In the post-War period John Hurst called the many he identified from archaeological excavations South Netherlands Maiolica (SNM; Hurst *et al.* 1986, 117). Laboratory analyses undertaken in the 1990s established that some examples found in Buckinghamshire, London and Southampton have a chemical signature similar to pottery from the Lower Arno Valley. In the proceedings of the British Museum colloquium on 16th-century tin-glazed pottery in North-West Europe where the analyses had been presented, Rackham's term 'Netherlandish' was revived to refer to the [late] 15th and 16th-century products of 'the Italian influenced maiolica industry operating in the Low Countries' (Gaimster 1999a, vi; cf. Rackham 1926, 15–17). In that publication some called the type Italo-Netherlandish Maiolica (INM; Gutiérrez and Brown 1999;

*Fig. 18.11 Italo-Netherlandish Maiolica: samples attributed to Montelupo (V7, V10–V12) (graphic John Allan/David Gould, © RAMM)*

Gutiérrez 1999; followed by Blake and Hughes 2015, 151; *pace* Hurst 1999, 98). As SNM includes types made later in the 16th century in shapes derived from German stoneware and with decoration which is easier to distinguish from the Italian prototypes, it would be appropriate to limit the term INM to the characteristic early forms produced before about 1540 (Hurst 1970, 362; Hurst *et al.* 1986, 117–18).3

Since the revelatory analyses 20 years ago, research commissioned by John Allan has shown that other items of this ware from South Wales, Somerset and Devon are also of Tuscan origin (Blake and Hughes 2015, 151–3). The EAPIT project has provided the opportunity to examine nearly all the remaining Exeter INM listed in the 1999 catalogue (Allan 1999b, 160–1).<sup>4</sup> In contrast with the five already analysed and shown to be Tuscan, the 15 now investigated were made in Antwerp. The analyses from Exeter and elsewhere in South-West Britain now exceed the number of INM examined in the 1990s for the British Museum colloquium (Gaimster 1999a). Then 14 – to which should be added two identified later – were found to be Tuscan and 13 from the Low Countries.5 The more recent work has identified another ten as Tuscan and 18 (or 22, if the blue-glazed bodysherds – some of which could be from Malling mugs (see below) – are included) as Antwerp products.6 The enlarged sample provides an opportunity to reconsider whether those produced in Italy can be distinguished from the ones made in the Low Countries and when they were made.

The best-known – if not the most common – shape is the double-ring-handled mug (Hurst 1999, 92).<sup>7</sup> 'Jugs' with a round mouth were also used in the 16th century for drinking (Gaimster 1997, 118). Because jugs with a pinched spout seem more suited for pouring into another vessel than into a human mouth, I suggested in the first report that they may be Tuscan (Blake 1999, 28,

*Fig. 18.12 Italo-Netherlandish Maiolica: samples attributed to Antwerp subgroup 1 (DF2, DF4, DF5, DF10, DF12, DF14, DF15) (graphic John Allan/David Gould, © RAMM)*

*Fig. 18.13 Italo-Netherlandish Maiolica: samples attributed to Antwerp subgroup 2 (DF1, DF3, DF9, DF11, DF13) (graphic John Allan/David Gould, © RAMM)*

n. 159); but DF14 shows that this small shape was also made in the Low Countries. The wide-bodied fragment DF10 appears to have been part of a much larger vessel, probably a Faenza-type jug, examples of which from London and Southampton were shown to be Tuscan, a provenance recently confirmed for another from Penhow (Blake 1999, CITG 7, CITG 16; Blake and Hughes 2015, 153, 176, Penhow 1). The earlier analyses, the larger jug's standard decorative frame and the absence of obviously religious motifs suggested that this form was imported from Italy. However, DF10 demonstrates that it – despite being much larger than any other INM shape – was also made in the Low Countries. The only forms which may still be exclusively Italian in manufacture are the handleless vases and the mugs with a pair of pinched lower handle terminals (Blake 1999, 24, types 4, 5b). Ten or 11 of the Exeter samples are classic INM shape or decoration (V7?, V10–V12, DF1–DF2, DF4–DF5, DF9, DF11–DF13), three or four jugs decorated with a ladder medallion (DF3, DF10?, DF14, DF15), and two or three blue-glazed (DF6–DF8–DF7 Malling mug? (see DF16 below)).

In 1997 Belgian colleagues observed that the dull glazes on some Exeter samples are typical of 'SNM' (Allan 1999b, 160, no. 9). Allan then described four of them as dull, all of which have now been confirmed by the EAPIT analyses as made in the Low Countries (DF1, DF3, DF11, DF13).<sup>8</sup> The external glaze of three which have recently been shown to be Tuscan were considered glossy or very glossy (V7, V10–V11), but so were two that we now know were made in the Low Countries (DF2, DF15). As well, part of dull DF13 is glossy. Glossiness was it seems caused by covering the tin glaze with a thinner lead glaze. As some painted colours are more soluble in a lead glaze, the blurring on V10–V11, DF2 and DF5 may be additional evidence of this extra layer (Blake 1999, 27, nos. 110–15). It may be significant that all those noted as having a dull glaze belong to SNM subgroup 2, whereas as all the glossy and blur-decorated items made in the North fall into subgroup 1, suggesting that this characteristic may distinguish different workshops in Antwerp or different production periods of the same workshop (Appendix 18.2).

Unsurprisingly the decorative parallels cited at the end of the Appendix 18.4 descriptions of the analysed EAPIT items show analogies with other Low Countries or Tuscan items found in London, some even to both sources. It is noteworthy that DF2, DF10 and DF15 are as well executed as the Italian prototypes and include orange elements. The less well-executed ladder medallion of DF14 encloses fine details. All these lie in SNM subgroup 1.

One reason why it was observed in 1999 that no distinction could be seen between Italian and Low Countries products was because it was then assumed that the few ring-handled mugs found in Italy were made there.<sup>9</sup> An item sold in Florence was attributed to Tuscany and the analysis of a close match found in London revealed it had been made in Antwerp (Blake 1999, 25, 32, 24, no. 48, 137, fig. 2.4 bottom right; Hurst 1999, 94, cf. fig. <IP_ADDRESS>; Hughes and Gaimster 2002, 233, no. 123; Blake and Hughes 2003, 449, fig. 13 left). However, it was later established that the item sold in Florence had been acquired in London. The large published colour illustrations show that it shares with DF1, DF11 and DF13 the application of a paler blue to fill, or to flank, the main roundel surround and the circles within the corners of the frame (Wilson and Sani 2007, 308, illus. on 301–3). Two INM from Glastonbury are similar but decorated with a dot within the circle or with an unfilled circle and a paler band around the roundel (Allan *et al.* 2015, 268–70, fig. 8.18, nos. 202–3; colour images kindly supplied by John Allan). All of these Exeter and Glastonbury items were made in the Low Countries. The disk in a similar position on a Tuscan ring-handle mug is solid, but a paler blue was used alongside dark blue on six of those shown to be Italian in 1999 and on one in Southampton (Blake 1999, 24, fig. 2.3.1; Blake and Hughes 2015, 177, Southampton 8; Brown 2002, pl. 6.369). However, Exeter V12 of Tuscan clay has within the frame of its lower corner a blue ring filled with moderate orange yellow and there is a circle in a similar position on an Italian fragment in London (Allan, 1999b, fig. 12.1.6; Blake 1999, 44, CITG 13, fig. 2.4.13; Blake and Hughes 2015, 173, Exeter 4). The Low Countries ring-handled mugs lack the fine lines and dots on the ground between the roundel and the frame evident on some Tuscan examples (V10; Blake 1999, figs 2.3.1, 2.4.13). The paler blue bands applied around the roundel of DF13 are slapdash and the pointed end of its darker vertical bands touching the lower frame also shows haste.

Despite similarities and overlaps, the Exeter INM samples suggest that the SNM subgroup 2 items – with which the Glastonbury INM items 'overlap' (Hughes below) – with larger pale blue-filled circles dominating the corner spaces and with broader paler bands associated with the main roundels on a dull glaze can be distinguished from Italian products.

As some INM were made in Italy apparently for export to North-West Europe, it is likely that the Italian items preceded those produced in the Low Countries. Because the Spanish prototype is represented in a Book of Hours executed between 1477 and 1490, the style of the INM decoration was current in north-central Italy from towards the end of the 15th century, and the earliest known Italian workshop in Antwerp was already operating in 1508, *c*. 1490 may mark the start of Italian INM and *c*. 1500 the threshold between the imports and the Low Countries products, with the immigrants and those they trained still painting in the 1530s motifs which by then may have been out of date in Italy (Dumortier 1987, 166; 2002, 22, 164–5; Blake 1999, 27, 37, 41, nos. 168, 232; Hurst 1999, 95). As it is likely that in the early phase the immigrants' products would resemble closely those they made in their homeland and only later would their pottery become more distinctive and less well executed, it could be that the INM attributed to SNM subgroup 2 is later. However, as we will see below, the better-quality South Netherlands Maiolica jug DF18 also belongs to this subgroup and is in a style and shape associated with the first Italians to emigrate to Antwerp. It reached Exeter by the beginning of the 16th century.

Of the five Tuscan vessels in this style excavated in Exeter, four are INM, one from a context datable to *c.* 1500, two 1500–50, and the other 1550–1600 (Blake and Hughes 2015, 173; Allan 1999b, 159). Most of the 15 EAPIT items from Antwerp may have been deposited in the first half of the 16th century, two of these *c.* 1538 and *c.* 1536–50. The contexts of the others are later or not datable. As for the contexts of the Antwerp subgroups, DF2 of SNM subgroup 1 is *c.* 1500–50 and the earliest SNM subgroup 2 item DF9 is *c.* 1538. Although only two instances they would appear to confirm the proposed subgroup sequence and would seem to preclude that SNM subgroup 2 was only made later.10 Only one Tuscan item (V7 from a *c.* 1500 context) fits the hypothetical overall chronology; but a blue-glazed fragment – which is also Tuscan – from Bridgwater, in Somerset, was found with late 15th-century pottery and may thus be the earliest context so far identified in Britain for INM (Blake forthcoming b).11 But we have to bear in mind that archaeological dating is usually imprecise and at best indicates the moment of discard, which in the case of relatively high-quality exotic products may be many years after their acquisition.

## *South Netherlands Maiolica*

The fine and remarkable restored jug DF18, which was excavated in Paul Street, belongs to Antwerp subgroup 2 (Fig. 18.14; online Appendix 18.4). Because three similar vessels are painted with the names of syrups within a cartouche, it may have been used to contain a wet drug. Similar ornament occurs also on cylindrical jars with a slightly concave body and a constricted neck and foot, which are often called by their Italian name *albarelli*. These complete pots now in museums or private collections in North-West Europe presumably came from pharmacies in the Low Countries (Drey 1978, 116–7, pl. 59A; Dumortier 2002, 216–17, 219–20, jugs: cat. 85, 87–8; jars: cat. 79–80). They have been dated on analogy with similarly decorated tile pavements at The Vyne, in Hampshire, and from Herkenrode abbey, in Belgium. The Tudor house at the former 'must have been substantially completed between 1515 … and 1526' and the inscriptions on some of its tiles are in Middle Dutch (Rackham 1926, 65–6; Howard 1998, 44; cf. Blanchett 2000, 6, 8–9, 14–6, designs H1a–b, SS1a, H2a, Ra-g, k; Dumortier 2002, 162). In 1532 tiles were ordered for the Belgian abbey from an Italian resident in Antwerp (Dumortier 2002, 16, 163–5,

253, cat. 2; cf. figs 26, 38). In the 1960s an *albarello* wall fragment painted with a 'rosette' and a hexagonal tile decorated also with a profile 'flower' were excavated on the site of Whitehall Palace, in London. The drug jar came from a pit sealed by the Palace's construction in 1532 and the tile either from 'Cardinal Wolsey's 1520s lodgings or Henry VIII's rebuild of 1532' (Gaimster and Nenk 1997, 176; Hurst 1999, 94, fig. 4.4.7; Hurst and Le Patourel 1999, 181, fig. 17.1 centre). Analysis of the tile showed 'similar chemical features' to one examined from Herkenrode (Gaimster and Hughes 1999, 176, table 1). A syrup jar dated '1546' may provide a *terminus ante quem*. It appears to be executed in a different palette of paler blue and includes a purple-brown band and fill. The scrolls are simpler and the stems with sessile lanceolate leaves are unlike those on DF18 and its parallels (Dumortier, 2002, 220, cat. 87). If indeed the Exeter drug jug was 'deposited…at the very beginning of the 16th century', it would be the earliest known example of SNM (Willmott 2015, 325).

The main motif enclosed by the running scroll on the body of DF18 is called in Italy a 'Persian palmette', in the Exeter case seen in flower in profile and from above (the 'rosette'), rather than in the canonical 'pinecone' form. All three versions appear on floor tiles in a Bologna church. One pavement tile bears the date '1487' and another an image of a man painting a tile, identified on a notice tied to the column by his chair as 'Petrus Andrea de favencia'. Although most of the illustrated Persian-palmette tiles and pottery found in Faenza are painted in dark blue with elements filled in orange brown, some also feature green fill, and fewer yellow too. However, both the pinecone and flowering variants on a ground of small curls and spirals were painted on a plate, whose reverse is covered with an *alla porcellana* design and bears the date '1524'. A blue spout with an invected lower border occurs on a Faentine jug fragment decorated in this latter style (Bojani 1997, **1**, 71, pl. 26.291; **2**, 32–33, 103, pls 29.56/3, 78; Ravanelli Guidotti 1998, 15–6, 169–90, 206–7, 269, fig. 23; 2004, 89, 124–6, pls 3–4, cat. 4).

The North-West European tiles and similarly decorated jars are considered to have been made by the 'Venetian' Guido Andries – the best-documented early Italian potter in Antwerp who was working there by 1508, because before 1524 he was commissioned by the Bishop of Utrecht, the Duke of Burgundy's half-brother, to supply a pavement and because in 1540 he had to recover pottery in Paris (Dumortier 1987, 166, 168, 170; cf. 2002, 226). A 1532 document mentions a Venetian 'maker of apothecary pots' at a house identified as that bought by Guido in 1520 (Gaullieur 1876, 125; Dumortier 2002, 165, 167–8). Some of the pavements attributed to his workshop were painted in various designs, ascribed to 'many hands of unequal quality'. 'Hybrid' combinations are known on pots. For example, a two-handled Italian jug is decorated under its tubular spout with the lion of St Mark enclosed

*Fig. 18.14 South Netherlands Maiolica: jug attributed to Antwerp subgroup 2 (DF18). (graphic: Sandy Morris: photographs © RAMM)*

by a flower-and-fruit wreath on a ground of Persianpalmette type (Alverà Bortolotto 1981, pl. 81; Morazzoni 1955, pl. 49). However, the northern version of the latter design is 'often coarser in execution' than the others and the Italian prototypes, and thus unmistakably South Netherlands Maiolica (Alverà Bortolotto and Dumortier 1990, 94). Perhaps Guido Andries employed local painters or shared his commissions with other workshops. Apart from the exceptionally early context of DF18, it is striking that the only other early SMN drug jar I know in England came from Cardinal Wolsey's residence in London, an indication of the outstanding quality of the Exeter find.

The variety of coloured glazes on the small fragment DF16 from St Nicholas Priory is typical of 'Malling' mugs which have a globular or ovoid body and a cylindrical neck. They are named after an example once in a church in Kent. The early British Museum analyses confirmed that they were produced in Antwerp, where an order was made in 1549 for 20,000 'marbled pots' from five potters. English silver mounts and a Danish pewter lid show that they were in use between 1548 and 1618 (Hurst *et al.* 1986, 126–7; Hurst 1999, 96–7; Hughes and Gaimster 1999, 61; Dumortier 2002, 32, 96, 136, 209, 247, fig. 29). As 'jars and jugs with a monochrome or mottled blue or purple surface' were reported from one excavation in Antwerp and a plain blue-glazed one from Glastonbury has 'a wide upright neck…favour[ing] identification as a Malling jug', it is possible that a blue-glazed fragment could belong to this type rather than to an INM vessel (Dumortier and Veeckman 1994, 195; Oost and Veeckman 2002, 54; Allan *et al.* 2012, 8, no. 208; also Honey 1962, 35; cf. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. no. A 3431). However, because the analysed Malling mugs fall in the SNM subgroup 2, it is likely that a blue-glazed fragment belonging to subgroup 1 is INM. If so, DF6 and DF8 are INM, whereas DF7, Newton Abbot 1008 and Totnes RN8 could be either INM or Malling (Appendix 18.2). Malling mugs have been found at 34 or more sites in Britain, but many of these may have been made after 1550 (Hurst 1999, 100; 2002, 323). However, the context of DF16 is earlier and thus falls within the scope of the EAPIT project. Like the INM mugs, it was made for drinking (Wilson *et al.* 1988, 399).

## *Ligurian Maiolica*

Fragments of the fine and remarkable dish DF19 were recovered from a mid 16th-century pit in Goldsmith Street (Fig. 18.15). Chemical analysis shows that it was made in Genoa (Appendix 18.2). It is an example of *berettino* (greyish-blue) glazed *maiolica ligure* (Ligurian Maiolica) with *calligrafico a rabesche* (calligraphic arabesque) decoration.

Many examples of this design were found amongst production waste in a 16th-century clay quarry in via San Vincenzo, Genoa (Farris and Ferrarese 1969, 27–36, pls 1.1, 6–8, 9.7–8, 11.2; Mannoni 1969, 80–2; Marzinot 1979, 174, figs 180, 188, 205; cf. elsewhere in Genoa, *e.g.* Pessa and Ramagli 2010, 78, no. 86). The type was present in a 1544 demolition layer in Savona, where it formed 5.3% of the Ligurian Maiolica (Lavagna 1992, 135–6, fig. 10; 2011, 33–4, no. 15). An identical dish was excavated from a mid 16th-century context in Middelburg in the Netherlands (Jaspers 2011, 17, fig. 11).

The '*rabesche*' design was illustrated by Piccolpasso in *c.* 1557, which he described as 'more in use at Venice and Genoa than elsewhere' (Farris and Ferrarese 1969, 15–8, pl. 1.1; Piccolpasso 1980, vol. 1, xxi–xxiv, 66; vol. 2, 111). By 1528 Francesco da Camerino and Francesco da Pesaro (both 'from' towns in the Marche in north-east Italy) had established pottery workshops in Genoa. In 1532 Tommaso Pesaro agreed to supply 25 dozen cups 'worked *alla venetiana*' (Milanese 1980, 338). Some dishes in *alla porcellana* style recording the unions of Nuremberg and Augsburg families were made between 1515 and 1525 presumably in Venice, where the best-documented workshop of Jacomo da Pesaro was active between 1507 and 1546 (Alverà Bortolotto 1981, pls 46–7; 1988, 17; Wilson 1987, 185; Leonardi 2002, 62; Thornton and Wilson 2009,

*Fig. 18.15 Ligurian Maiolica: sample attributed to Genoa (DF19). (graphic John Allan/David Gould)*

90–1).12 However, although DF19's rim ornament and the schematic branching spiral scroll on its reverse resemble those on a pale *berettino* example of this 'Venetian' type, arabesques as the principal ornament occur on a dish dated 1543 (Alverà Bortolotto 1981, pl. 47d, 48e; Sani 2012, pl. 75). So, the link between the maiolica production in the two metropolitan city ports and their relative priority are at the moment unclear.

Ligurian Maiolica was the first distinctive Renaissance type of tin-glazed pottery made in Liguria. Established in the second quarter of the 16th century as a ware to rival Turkish fritware and Chinese porcelain, it and the related blue on white *alla porcellana* produced across north-central Italy introduced an aesthetic quite distinct from that of Italian polychrome maiolica and, along with the *bianchi* (white ware) of Faenza created by 1540, enjoyed a remarkable success elsewhere in Europe (Ravanelli Guidotti 1996, 6; Ostkamp 2006, 71–2; Thornton and Wilson 2009, 89–90, n. 8; Jaspers 2011, 20–4; Sani 2012, 61–4; Blake 2016, 79–80;). The quality of the excavated early Genoese products is exceptional in its potting, refined decoration – on the outside as well as within – and in the subtlety of its bluish-grey glaze. The commoner Ligurian *berettino* is more thickly potted and decorated with a broader brush on a darker blue ground, exemplified by a find from Totnes (Allan 1984c, 84–5, nos 7–8, fig. 2.7; Hurst 1991a, figs 10a–b).

Few others like DF19 have been found in Britain. One from Quilter's Vault in Southampton appears to be of the same arabesque design (Brown 2002, 87, fig. 34.371).13 Another from the High Street belongs to the *calligrafico a volute tipo A* (calligraphic spirals type A) variant, as do eleven or fewer dishes from Acton Court in Gloucestershire (Farris and Ferrarese 1969, 22; Mallet 1972, 254–5, figs 13 top, 14 photos; Platt and Coleman-Smith 1975, 179, no. 1360, fig. 210.1360 drawing; Hurst 1991a, 214, fig. 11a–b photos; Vince and England 2004, 308, fig. 9.9.221,224, pls 8–11).<sup>14</sup> This design is derived from the *tuğrakeş* spiral style of Iznik pottery, an example of which bears the date 1529, although to judge from a Ligurian drug jar bearing the date '1572' its Italian imitation was still made later (Morazzoni 1951, pl. 13; Atasoy and Raby 1989, 108–13, fig. 133; Carswell 1998, 47, fig. 25). Analysis of a fragment from Acton Court shows that it – like DF19 – was made in Genoa (Vince and England 2004, 308; Appendix 18.2).

The High Street find is from a pit whose other ceramic contents were almost all made about a century later (Platt and Coleman-Smith 1975, vol. 2, 32, 42). The 'exceptional' group 'in quantity and quality' including a 'staggering…range of imports' from Quilter's Vault has been interpreted as representing 'a single phase of activity' closed '*c.* 1490–1510' (Brown 2002, 80–7, 149–50). If so, the arabesque dish, the late Siegburg stoneware mug of *c*. 1550 and the Montelupo 'lozenge net design' datable to the second half of the 16th century are intrusive (Brown 2002, 85–6, nos 318, 359, figs 30, 35; Blake 2012, 31–2; forthcoming c, fig. 5). The pottery excavated at Acton Court is also considered 'exceptional'. It has been suggested that its set of Ligurian dishes – which were along with the other Italian wares 'undoubtedly…the most highly prized' – were acquired for a royal visit in 1535, for which the east range was built (Rodwell 2003, 160–6; Vince and England 2004, 302, 308, 329–30).

## *Montelupo maiolica*

Eight examples of Montelupo maiolica dating before *c.* 1550 have been recorded from the city. Seven are illustrated here (Fig. 18.16); a recent discovery of a plate with chequered decoration has been published elsewhere (Allan and Langman 2009, 169–72; Allan 2015, 133). The Exeter finds of this centre's products seem to show a similar pattern of rare 15th-century imports and a more significant presence *c.* 1500 and in the first half of the 16th century, evident elsewhere in the British Isles and in the Low Countries (Hurst 1991a, 213–14; Brown 2002, 40–1, 73, fig. 35; Blake 2012, 27–30; 2019, 272; Jarrett and Blackmore 2015, 105).

In Allan's recent review of Italian ceramics in South-West England the earliest type – but not necessarily the oldest item – of Tuscan maiolica excavated in Exeter is a basin fragment with a base diameter of about 200 mm from Goldsmith Street (Fig. 18.16.1; Allan 1984a, 217 fig. 123, no. 2725; 2015, 118, fig. 2.2). It may belong to Berti's *maiolica arcaica tricolore* (three-colour archaic maiolica) decorative type, the relevant variant of which he dates to the 1480s (Berti 1997, 160–1, subgroup 6.1.5, pl. 54).15

The earliest Renaissance maiolica are brimmed bowls. One related to Tuscan INM from a *c.* 1500 or earlier context in Polsloe Priory has painted on its brim – which terminates in an upright rim – Bernardine-type wavy sun rays and within the bowl cavity plant motifs, both comparable to those painted on north-east Italian items (Fig. 18.16.V8–V9; Berardi 1984, fig. 36b–c; Allan 1999b, 160, nos 2–3; 2015: 118, fig. 2.5–6; Blake and Hughes 2015, 154, 173, Exeter 2–3; cf. Ciaroni, 2004, fig. 144, pl. 32.3, 6, 13). The other from Goldsmith Street is decorated in a Montelupo style of *alla porcellana* called by Berti *motivi vegetali della 'famiglia bleu'* (blue family plant motifs; Fig. 18.16.2; Allan 2015, 118–19, fig. 2.7). It belongs to the variant characterized by the 'toothed half-moon' motif, the Exeter version of which may date to *c.* 1500–20, because a syrup jar with comparable ornament may have been ordered in 1507, a plate bears the coat of arms of a Florentine who was a cardinal from 1513 to 1531, and the form of the motif seems typologically early in its presumed development (Berti 1998, 135–41, 222, n. 39, type 40.1, pl. 142; jar: Marini in Wilson and Sani 2007, 46–51; motif development: Moore Valeri 1984b; cf. form and roundel frame: Vannini 1977, pl. 15). Similar vessels have been excavated in Holland at Alkmaar and Dordrecht from contexts datable to the second half of the

*Fig. 18.16 Polychrome maiolica: Montelupo types (7.1–2) and samples attributed to Montelupo (V8–9, DF20–3) (graphic John Allan/David Gould)*

16th century and between 1525 and 1575 (Ostkamp *et al.* 2002, 460, figs 20, 35).

DF20–DF23 may also have been made in the early 16th century. DF20 and DF21 from Paul Street are of the Montelupo form Aa 2.3.2, which was common in the 16th century (Fornaciari 2016, 82, 100–102, 198). The c*ontorno a ghirlanda* ([stylized] wreath border) decorative subtype 23.4.3 has been assigned by Fausto Berti to *c*. 1480–95 and 1480–90, because the type was found amongst kiln waste including a potter's mark, coat of arms and nickname datable around 1490, although within 1480–1520 is suggested by Fornaciari for type 23 (Berti 1998, 116, pls 53–4; 2008, 289, pl. 29i; Fornaciari 2016, 36–7, 112, 305). The small fragment DF22 from St Nicholas Priory probably came from a brimmed hemispherical bowl (Vannini 1977, pls 28, 30; Fornaciari 2016, 87, 225–9, form Bb 2). DF23 from the same site belongs to Berti's *fascia con 'bleu graffito'* (incised blue band) decorative type 34, assigned to *c.* 1510–20, because one is dated '1514' and another bears the papal insignia and the Medici coat of arms, which could, however, be of either Leo X (1513–21) or Clement VII (1523–34). According to Berti, the type only 'disappears in Montelupo kiln waste at the end of the 1530s' (Berti 1983, 212, n. 18; 1998, 131–3, pls 114–26; 2008, 304–6). There is no close parallel in the published illustrations, which are of finer items featuring figures, heraldic motifs, grotesque ornament and more elaborate concentric borders. A green band occurs on the rim of at least four and an incised anti-clockwise curl alternates with a crossed square on another (Vannini 1977, pl. 23; Berti 1983, 209; 1998, pls 121, 124–5; 2008, 304–5, pls 35b, d–e).

## *Concluding discussion*

Chemical analysis has been critical in enlarging our understanding of the diffusion of Italian maiolica in North-West Europe. By showing that the earliest – confirmed by the dates of a context in Exeter and another in Somerset – INM was made in Tuscany in a style not yet recognised in the Arno Valley and in forms rarely found in Italy, it indicated that the type was made for export before the emigration of Italian potters. The latest EAPIT analyses suggest that a possible second phase of Low Countries INM production can be distinguished by eye by its poorer quality. Strangely this poor quality INM belongs to the same Antwerp chemical subgroup as the higher quality SNM jug DF18 which was probably made by 'Venetian' immigrants and their descendants. The apparently earlier better-quality Low Countries INM was made in other workshop(s) perhaps run by different Italian migrants (Blake and Hughes 2003, 451–3). Until sufficient waste not only from Antwerp and Montelupo but also from a wider range of production sites in the Low Countries and the Arno Valley are examined by ICPS, we are unlikely to refine our knowledge further of where INM was made and how it spread. At the moment it is possible that DF4 and DF11 were made in a known Antwerp workshop and that early INM and related types were made in the Arno Valley (Appendix 18.2; Blake and Hughes 2015, 151–4, 156, 159, 163, 184). We are on surer ground with Montelupo maiolica, which is easily identifiable, found in copious quantities where it was produced, and has been extensively analysed by another method. However, it is possible that similar types may have been made in, and exported from, other centres nearby (Blake and Hughes 2015, 161). The EAPIT and Acton Court analyses indicate that two variants of the early refined type of Ligurian Maiolica were made in Genoa, presumably before the centre of production of that class shifted to Albisola and Savona. But, two analyses are too few to exclude that they were also made in the latter communities.

Maiolica production spread across the west Mediterranean from Islamic to Christian countries around AD 1200 (*Le vert & le brun* 1995). Two centuries later Spanish blue-decorated – with or without lustre – types, Chinese porcelain, and Italian textile designs inspired by oriental prototypes transformed tin-glazed production in northern Italy (Moore Valeri 1984a; 1984b; Berti 1997, types 10–13; 1998, 40–3, 45; Ravanelli Guidotti 1998, 118–27, 265–83). Within Italy Renaissance maiolica was spread by potters moving to bigger cities from in many cases the Marche region. In the early 16th century some potters from North-East Italy introduced the technique to Antwerp.16 Despite that, increasing numbers of South European products reached North-West Europe peaking around 1600 (Blake 2019, 272–3). The white surface of the tin-opacified lead glaze served as a ground for a new variety of bright colours (Gaimster 1999c, 1). Although metalware could be enamelled and similar effects could be reproduced in glass, maiolica cost less, glass is more fragile and the gold paint on the copper dishes 'wears off easily' (https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O129203/ dish-unknown/; Clarke 1974; Caselli 2011; Higgott 2014). As long as its rarity and the quality of its decoration assured its exclusivity, maiolica was a desirable category of tableware in its own right and not just because pottery is more likely to be discarded and to survive better in the ground. Two outstanding examples of prized items excavated in Exeter are the Antwerp jug DF18 and the Ligurian dish DF19.

As well as introducing a new aesthetic, the shapes of the three classes reflect various functions related to dining. Because of the high proportion of 'yhs' trigrams on INM mugs, I suggested that they were related to the cult of the Name of Jesus and may have been used in the feasts of Holy Name fraternities (Blake 1999, 29; Blake *et al.* 2003, 175–7, 186, 191–3). As expressions of a popular devotion, artefacts marked with the abbreviation of Christ's name come from both lay and 'religious' contexts (Allan 1999b, 159; Jarrett and Blackmore 2015, 96; Gutiérrez above). Both the INM ring handle DF9 and a Spanish lustreware bowl decorated with an 'ihs' ID127 were excavated in

Exeter's Greyfriars, where a Jesus Mass was celebrated (Blake *et al*. 2003, 196, n. 87, fig. 3.1; Gutiérrez above). Feasting may have occurred where many have been found; single finds may have served as devotional aids or talismans (Blake 1999, 29).

The three-colour archaic maiolica basin is called in Tuscany a cooler, in which filled glasses were kept in water on the buffet (Fig. 18.17). The small size of the Exeter example, however, suggests it may have been used to serve solid food (Degasperi 2016, 87–93, esp. 91, pl. 4.12), as may have the *alla porcellana* brimmed bowl (Allan 2015, 118–19, fig. 2.7; Fig. 18.16.2) and its analogue DF22. As the Montelupo plates DF20, DF21 and

*Fig. 18.17 Cooler on sideboard (detail of* Welcoming pilgrims *in fresco cycle of the* Works of mercy *by Domenico Ghirlandaio workshop, c.1480, in San Martino dei Buonomini oratory, Florence, Degasperi 2016, fig. 41)*

DF23 are too large to have served as a diner's own dish, they too may have been used to support food on the table or buffet or been displayed upright there.<sup>17</sup>

The early Ligurian Maiolica dishes found in North-West Europe are of the same shape and – except for those from Acton Court – of similar size,<sup>18</sup> whereas in Genoa closed forms decorated with calligraphic spirals type A are common (Grosso and Morazzoni 1939, pl. 12; Morazzoni 1951, pl. 13; Farris and Ferrarese 1969, 22; Atasoy and Raby 1989, 266–7, fig. 589; Pessa 2014, 67, 84–6, cat. Nos. 23–6).<sup>19</sup> In 1514 the Venetian Giovanni Bellini painted a larger version of a similarly shaped bowl – presumably Chinese porcelain – filled with fruit served at an informal *Feast of the Gods* (Spriggs 1964, 74, pl. 59a–b). In the 1599 edition of a Spanish-English dictionary published in London 'Porcellána' is defined as 'a kinde of earthen vessel painted, costly fruit dishes of fine earth painted' (Perciuale and Minsheu 1599, 193; for 16th-century fruit consumption in London: Forsyth 1999, 24)*.* Post-mortem inventories drawn up in the 1600s in Antwerp list porcelain, imitation porcelain and maiolica fruit bowls (Dumortier 2002, 96). The Genoese maiolica may too have been used as serving dishes, perhaps one provided to each group of diners, who at the royal feast at Acton Court would have been many (Rodwell 2003, 166)*.*

Although later Italian and Dutch paintings illustrate bowls and dishes containing an abundance of food – reflecting a new interest in representing 'Still Life' – a domestic scene datable to 1530 of a Haarleem patrician's family at table shows no ceramics or similar forms in other materials comparable to those featured in later Italian pictures of the *Supper at Emmaus* (Schneider 2003, 118; cf. Ravanelli Guidotti 2019, figs 1a, 2a). With the possible exception of the notable 'drug' jug DF18, the few vessels of Italian and Italian-influenced maiolica found in Exeter datable to the later 15th and to the first half of the 16th century may instead have been used on special occasions such as feasts.

## Appendix 18.1

## The ICP-AES and ICP-MS analysis of medieval Spanish and Portuguese ceramics from Exeter

## *Kamal Badreshany*

## **Introduction**