PUBLIC-562CF9, PUBLIC-56C92E, PUBLIC-56D8E3, and PUBLIC-FE2AC1), are significant contributions to this number and potentially quite revealing. Within the Roborough hoard was an earlier *sestertius* of Gaius (AD 37–41), and it is interesting to note that a PAS find, a *sestertius* struck by Gaius for Agrippina the Elder, was found near Torquay (DEV-EEA7E1).6 If we consider the Claudian bronzes as any form of indication for early

*Fig. 16.21 Exeter (all coins) versus the Devon region of South Hams* (per mill)

*Fig. 16.22 Claudian* sestertii *recorded through the PAS, with a*  sestertius *of Agrippina (in red; DEV-EEA7E1) (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

*Fig. 16.23 PAS Claudian coins in Devon with key hoards and later military sites (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

military activity, the location of the Devon examples might point to military activity south of Exeter. It might be argued that as commander of *legio II Augusta*, the future emperor Vespasian or his successors advanced well beyond Exeter, south and east of Dartmoor, perhaps as far

as Plymouth or further still towards the (later) military emplacements at Calstock, Restormel and Nanstallon (Fig. 16.24). It is interesting to note that there are only three *sestertii* of Claudius found in Exeter (Kenyon 1988, 54-5, nos. 4, 14, and 18). Kenyon, in this volume (Chapter 15,

*Fig. 16.24 Putative direction of advance by* legio II Augusta in *the AD 40s as shown by Claudian and earlier coins, with later forts (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

above), differentiates between sites of earlier military activity in the Claudian period (*c*. AD 43–late 40s) and later military/civilian sites of the Claudian to Flavian periods (*c*. AD 53–75). With a high incidence of Claudian and earlier *sestertii,* South Devon very much fi ts into Kenyon's fi rst group, although as he states, Exeter falls into the second, later, group. This strengthens the case for Roman military activity well beyond Exeter in the early phases of the Claudian invasion, *c*. AD 43–late 40s, and appears to vindicate suggestions made by Neil Holbrook and Norman Shiel in their report on the Roborough hoard (Holbrook and Shiel 2002, 217). This advance probably involved both land and sea forces, such combined operations being used later in Scotland by Agricola (Tacitus, *Agricola,* 25, 28).

## *Neronian to Hadrianic periods, AD 54–138 (Reece Periods 3–6)*

By the Flavian period (AD 69–96; Reece Period 4), the distribution of coinage in Devon fi lls out with concentrations emerging in the Torbay area but notably nothing recorded west of Dartmoor. When considering the denomination breakdown of the coins (Fig. 16.25), it is striking how there are proportionally many more silver *denarii* found in Devon (*c*. 48%) than in Exeter (*c*. 3.4%). Given that soldiers were largely paid in silver, one would expect more silver from Exeter, although note the apparent Flavian *denarius* hoard of 40 coins found on Taphouse Road (see Table 16.3, no. 4). This might refl ect continued military activity south and west of Exeter and then into Cornwall. Restormel was likely in use and the archaeology of Nanstallon suggests it was functioning by this stage prior to being dismantled when the *legio II*

*Fig. 16.25 Denominational breakdown of coins comparing PAS Devon (45 coins) with Exeter (59 coins). Note that the data for the Exeter denominations in this part of the chapter come from the 1945–7 to 1997–2006 excavations (Fox 1952; Shiel 1979; 1991; forthcoming; see Table 16.1, Groups B–E), although the majority of 2nd-century AD coins from Exeter are in the pre-1942 coin list (Fox 1952a) which come from a wide variety of sources, making the specifi c information diffi cult to access*

*Augusta* departed for *Isca Augusta* (Caerleon) from *c*. AD 74 (Fox and Ravenhill 1970; 1972; Bidwell 1980, 12–14). The sole gold Roman coin on the PAS for the South-West Peninsula, an *aureus* of Nero dating to AD 66–67 from the Bodmin area in Cornwall (CORN-DE6541), belongs in this period. A second *aureus* of Nero was identifi ed near Hawkesdown Hill hillfort, near Axminster (Holbrook 1989), and other Neronian *aurei* are known from Devon (Bland and Loriot 2010: nos. 136–137). It is possible that the withdrawal of most of the legion from the fortress at Exeter, which started in *c*. AD 74, led to the complete drying up of a silver supply to Exeter, whereas existing coins continued to circulate in the rest of the region. The preponderance of *dupondii* and *asses* at Exeter do point towards a thriving local economy, dependant on small change.

A change occurs in the Trajanic (AD 98–117; Reece Period 5) and Hadrianic (AD 117–138; Reece Period 6) periods with the increasing dominance of the *sestertius* over the *denarius*, making up over 60% of the recorded coins in Devon. There is more of a parity with regards denominations between Exeter and the rest of Devon, although Exeter still has a higher proportion of *dupondii*  and *asses* suggesting a greater need for small change in an urban environment (Fig. 16.26).

## *The Antonine and early Severan periods (AD 138–222; Reece Periods 7–10)*

The overwhelming proportion of bronze coins appearing in the Antonine period in the South-West Peninsula marks a clear change in coin use patterns within the region. The *denarius* is almost non-existent, with the *sestertius* making up over three quarters of the fi nds

*Fig. 16.26 Denominational breakdown of coins in the Trajanic and Hadrianic periods: PAS Devon (64 coins) vs Exeter (17 coins)*

*Fig. 16.27 Antonine (AD 138–92; Reece Periods 7–9) coinage on the PAS database in Devon and Cornwall (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

(Fig. 16.28), suggesting that silver was simply not being used in any substantial quantity after the end of the Flavian period. This is also in contrast to the PAS data nationally, which shows more of a parity between *sestertii* and *denarii*. The highest proportions of coin fi nds are in East Devon and the South Hams and to a lesser extent Teignbridge, showing the coastal nature of coin distribution in this period (Fig. 16.27). In the South Hams, Stoke Gabriel is an important site overlooking the River Dart. The metal detected coin record from the site suggests activity throughout most of the Roman period, but has distinctive peaks in the Antonine period. It has one *denarius* and 22 *sestertii* from Reece Periods 7–9 (AD 138–92) (Fig. 16.29). Excavation, though, produced eight *nummi* of Constantinian date, *c*. AD 340s–50s (Masson Phillips 1965, 25).7 The peak in the Antonine period is duplicated in other fi nds like the Kingskerswell Hoard (2007 T134; IARCH-77C224) of 13 coins dating to the late Antonine period and the emperor Commodus (AD 180–192; Reece Period 9).

*Fig. 16.28 Denominational breakdown of coins for the Antonine Period: PAS National (15,959 coins) versus PAS Devon (126 coins)*

*Fig. 16.29 Coin profi le of the 33 PAS coins from Stoke Gabriel (this does not include the eight Reece Period 17* nummi *found on excavation)*

This phenomenon is quite unlike Exeter and the authors have noted from initial investigation that this Antonine peak is shared with the overall PAS data from the Isle of Wight.8 These fi nds do suggest access to South Devon, probably via the River Dart and the Salcombe Estuary rather than ingression via Exeter. It is also interesting to note that coin fi nds begin to appear around the northern and western fringes of Dartmoor, perhaps indicative of increased movement around the north of Dartmoor and then south towards Cornwall. A recent hoard of 412 bronze and 5 silver coins at Whiddon Down (DEV-F03C57; 2008 T168 and 2016 T324) dating to *c*. AD 198 (Reece Period 10) exemplifi es increasing monetarisation north of Dartmoor.

This distribution does engender discussion about the function of coinage in Devon during the Antonine period. It might refl ect an element of Roman control over the landscape possibly to extract minerals (notably tin) and agricultural produce, but the lack of silver coinage does suggest little or no military presence. Another interpretation might be that the Roman authorities controlled the territory, potentially as an imperial estate (*e.g.* Mattingly 2006, 262, fi g. 10), which could explain the predominance of base metal coinage.9

*Fig. 16.30 Roman radiates on the PAS in Devon and Cornwall, AD 260–96 (Reece Periods 13–14) (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

*Fig. 16.32 PAS* nummi *in Devon to AD 364 (Reece Periods 15–18) (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

*Fig. 16.31 Roman coin hoards from Devon by Reece Period* (tpq) (source: PAS:IARCH records for Devon)

## *The 'Radiate' period (AD 260–96; Reece Periods 13–14)*

Compared to earlier phases of activity, the radiate period of the later 3rd century AD (*c*. AD 260–96; Reece Periods 13–14) is quite poorly represented in the coin data from Devon. The emphasis is again along the coastline in the Torbay area south of Exeter, but less than 100 coins from these two periods combined is much lower than we might expect (Fig. 16.30). Exeter on the other hand demonstrates more substantial coin loss and this is perhaps to be expected, since Reece (1987, 94) highlights the preponderance of radiate coinage emergent in urban centres at precisely this time in contrast to a corresponding paucity within the rural landscape. To a degree, we can see this reflected in the hoarded assemblages within Devon. The late 3rd century AD witnesses the peak of hoarding in Roman Britain with almost 700 known hoards. While several small radiate hoards are known from Devon, for example the 43 coins dating to *c*. AD 274 from Aveton Gifford (DEV-A0BD4A; 2014 T331), they are very few and far between and there is not the corresponding spike in hoarding noted elsewhere within the province (Fig. 16.31). Coin use in the South-West Peninsula simply appears to have been hugely restricted at this time, or perhaps not needed for the daily transactions of Devon's indigenous with local population. It is remarkable, too, that there are only around nine coins of the usurpers Carausius (AD 286–93) and Allectus (AD 293–96) in Devon and Cornwall combined, suggesting there may have been other factors at work within this region during their reigns.

## *The 4th century to AD 364 (Reece Periods 15–18)*

The picture generally fills out in the 4th century AD, with coinage more common and again focussed on the eastern and southern coastlines (Fig. 16.32). Exeter and the South-West Peninsula share a general upward trend from Period 15 (AD 294–317) to Period 17 (330–48) with different places peaking at different times: East Devon peaks in Period 15 (AD 294–317), Mid Devon in Periods 16–17 (AD 317–30 and AD 330–348) and Exeter, South Hams and Teignbridge in Period 17 (AD 330–48). The greatest peak in coin loss within the county is in Period 17 (AD 330–48) and on the east coast in the Teignbridge District this almost matches the proportion of *nummi* found at Exeter. Hoarding is resurgent to a degree, for example with the more than 200 *nummi* to AD 324 from Plympton near Plymouth (DEV-8A5096; IARCH-463F35; 2011 T579) and reflects a general return to coin use within the rural landscape. It is interesting to note that site finds from Reece Period 16 (AD 317–30) are common at Dainton Elms Cross and Halberton, which might suggest an overall increase in supply to the region in this period.

## *The 4th century: AD 364–378 (Reece Period 19)*

There is a fairly uniform decline in coin-loss after AD 348, except in Teignbridge where there is a major peak in the Valentinianic period (Reece Period 19: AD 364– 78). Most Valentinian finds tend to be in coastal districts, notably at the two sites of Dainton Elms Cross and Denbury/Torbyran, which together have produced 58 of the 77 examples recorded in the entire county (Fig. 16.33). Indeed, if all the single finds of Valentinianic coinage combined are plotted with a schematic heatmap10 (Fig. 16.34), the concentrations in the Teignmouth area are glaringly obvious. To the single finds can also be added the hoard of 243 *nummi* from Newton Abbot, the majority of which date to between *c*. AD 364–78 (DEV-7B17D0; IARCH-928E3A; 2007T209). Exeter, although demonstrating a slight peak in the Valentinianic period (Reece Period 19), has a substantially lower proportion of coins than the Teignmouth region.

What we are possibly witnessing here is a shift in the use of the landscape reflected in the Roman coinage recorded in the region. Britain at this time was a key grain exporter to the Rhine and concentrations of Valentinianic *nummi* like this appear to be linked with the exploitation of the rural landscape by the Roman authorities within the province. This is more readily evident further north and east, for example around Ilchester (see above), and in regions like Wiltshire, around the Wash and north to East Yorkshire, where an emergence of fortified towns, like *Cunetio*, and a correlation with Late Roman military fittings, suggests high concentrations of Valentinianic *nummi* represent activity relating to the collection of the *annona militaris* (Moorhead 2001, 90–5; Moorhead and Stuttard 2012, 206–8, 226–7). It is highly plausible that the rural landscape of Devon was exploited in a similar fashion. Indeed, concentrations of coins from the Valentinian period along the rivers and coastlines of eastern Devon make a lot of sense in this regard. Raw materials (mineral and agricultural) could have been very easily shipped by boat to other parts of the province and the continent from here without the need for extensive overland movement of goods or people. It is plausible that the distribution of Valentinianic *nummi* along the coastline, in particular, perhaps reflects the authorities continuing to dip into the region with exchange and payment taking place in centres close to where any shipments would have occurred leading to Exeter being bypassed. This might well be the case in Cornwall, too, with concentrations of Valentinianic *nummi* from Hayle and Padstow (on the PAS database) and Trevelgue (Reece 1991b: site 79).

## *The end of Roman Britain, AD 378–402 (Reece Periods 20–21)*

The last stages of Roman coin use in Britain are poorly represented within Devon, with just a dozen coins recorded to date. Exeter, with only one coin in Reece Period 21, appears to have largely fallen out of the monetary sphere at this stage and it is again in the coastal

*Fig. 16.33 Valentinianic* nummi *on the PAS in Devon and Cornwall, AD 364–78 (Reece Period 19) (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

*Fig. 16.34 Heatmap highlighting the distribution of Reece Period 19 coinage in the South-West Peninsula (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

southern and eastern regions that most coins are to be found (Fig. 16.35). Most notable are peaks in coin loss in Teignbridge (Dainton Elms Cross has three coins) and the South Hams (which has nine coins). The low number of pieces in general reflects a trend within the province that sees the cessation of supply of base metal coinage by *c*. AD 402. Almost half of the coins in Devon are silver denominations, which is perhaps to be expected to a degree given that silver would have continued to circulate for some time after the Roman formal withdrawal in AD 409. It might well be that official interest was greater in the Teignbridge and South Hams regions in the

*Fig. 16.35 Theodosian coinage on the PAS in Devon and Cornwall (Reece Periods 20–21) (map data: © OpenStreetMap contributors)*

Late Roman period, rather than at Exeter and its northern and eastern hinterland. Access would have been gained via rivers such as the Teign, Dart and Avon, and via the Salcombe Estuary. Indeed, many Theodosian coin finds across the province, both from sites and hoards, are found in coastal and riverine regions (Moorhead and Walton 2014, 104–12). In this case, it could be argued that parts of Devon had contact with Roman officialdom until the collapse of Roman government in around AD 409.

## **Conclusion**

It is clear that the South-West Peninsula was not as heavily monetised as the regions beyond the Blackdown Hills to the north-east. Exeter, however, does share a tolerably similar profile to other urban centres except for its very high coin loss in the Claudian to Flavian periods (that can be accounted for by its origins as a legionary fortress) and its almost total collapse in the importation of new coinage after AD 378. Although more PAS data are required for the Devon regions to gain a more valid picture, it does seem that the currency pool in Devon was not necessarily dependent on, or very closely related to, that of Exeter. The evidence does not suggest that Exeter was a currency nodalpoint for the region, unlike other centres in the province such as *Verulamium* in Hertfordshire (Moorhead 2015, 157). The arrival of coin in the region does seem to have often been directly to coastal regions in East and South Devon, probably via rivers such as the Teign, Dart and Avon and up the Salcombe Estuary. This does question the administrative and economic role of Exeter in the region and might suggest that contact between Roman officials and traders with the local population was made at a more local level. Finally, the dearth of silver in 2nd-century AD Devon does suggest that Roman officialdom was not necessarily reinforced by a military presence.

## **Acknowledgements**

The authors would like to thank the finders the late Philip 'Jim' Wills and the late Dennis Hewings for reporting, and Danielle Wootton for recording, the initial finds of Roman coins from Ipplepen and for all of their subsequent help. We would also like to thank Stephen Rippon for all his support and patience during the writing of this piece.

## *Notes*

## The Local, Regional and Other North European Pottery, 900–1550

## *John Allan*

*with contributions by Michael Hughes and Roger T. Taylor*

## **Introduction**

The medieval pottery excavated in Exeter forms one of the most important collections of such material in the British Isles. At a regional level it is an especially valuable sequence, with a high proportion of securely stratified and relatively well-dated material, and its evidence is fundamental to the dating of many medieval sites in Devon and Cornwall, and thus to the archaeology of the two counties. It includes one of the major collections of imported pottery in the British Isles, the Saxo-Norman imports being an especially significant series, and is rich in evidence for regional trade.

About one tonne of post-Roman ceramics was published in the early 1980s, that included almost 20,000 sherds of Saxo-Norman pottery and more than 17,000 fragments dating from the years 1200–1550 (Allan 1984a: EAR [Exeter Archaeological Report] 3). In the period of about 35 years which has elapsed since that volume was published, there has been a steady accumulation of new finds including some important pieces, although the growth of the collections has been slower, especially for the Saxo-Norman pottery, since fewer opportunities have arisen for excavation in the city centre. Full inventories of most of the ceramics excavated since 1980 have been compiled (Langman and Allan 1991; 1999b covering all finds to 1990; individual archive listings for most subsequent sites). Quantification of selected classes of imported pottery using these lists suggests that whereas the volume of later medieval material has almost doubled since 1980, the Saxo-Norman collection has increased by only about 10–20%.

The picture has changed more fundamentally in the surrounding region. In the early 1980s Exeter was the only urban place in Devon and Cornwall which had seen a sustained programme of archaeological work. Since then, far more exploration has taken place in other Devon towns, notably Totnes, Exmouth, Newton Abbot, Crediton and Barnstaple, and there are now many more rural samples from the county. Although many gaps remain, the elements of regional patterns are now emerging, giving a wider context for the city collections.

The same period has also seen much publication outside the region, both in other parts of Great Britain and Ireland, and in continental Europe, providing the student with much more readily accessible information about many classes of finds. Equally important, fresh approaches have been developed to the study of material culture in the medieval and early modern eras, encouraging those engaged in the field to think about their material in new ways.

## *Aims of the project*

An initial purpose of this chapter is to offer a brief guide to current understanding of the principal classes of medieval pottery represented in the Exeter collection, providing descriptions and illustrations of the various wares and reference to some of the principal finds, with the intention of helping those working on comparable material.

In considering the most valuable ways in which fresh progress might be achieved in understanding the collection as part of EAPIT, we have given priority to petrological and chemical studies of selected classes of ceramics. Since the Saxo-Norman imported pottery is an especially significant aspect of the collections, we have invited Michael Hughes to undertake chemical analysis of about 50 examples of these wares from the city, using ICP-MS. We have also taken this opportunity to invite Hugo Blake and Alejandra Gutiérrez, the leading specialists in the fields of Italian and Iberian medieval ceramics respectively, to review the Exeter finds which fall within their fields of interest (see Chapter 18 below).

A particular reason for pursuing the petrology and chemistry of the local wares has been the recognition that the region around Exeter, with its varied and distinctive geology (see EAPIT 1, Chapter 2), is very suitable for these forms of study, and collaborative exercises with Roger T. Taylor and Michael Hughes, carried out over the last 20 years and more, have provided a body of comparative data from sites elsewhere in the South-West which help place the Exeter material in a regional context. We have not had the resources to tackle the full range of English ceramics in the collection, so have concentrated our attention on major classes of material whose definition or sources have been in doubt, notably Exeter fabrics 40 and 42, and on wares which seemed especially suitable for further petrological work, such as those relating to the Upper Greensand and the probable Breton sherds. Further chemical analyses on other classes of material would certainly be valuable in the future, such as the Saintonge pottery from the city, or on the range of 13th-century English redwares. Nevertheless, with about 125 vessels analysed, the programme will amount to one of the largest bodies of chemical analyses carried out on one of the ports of the British Isles.

## **Saxo-Norman pottery,** *c.* **900–1200**

## *English pottery*

## *Chronology and the ceramic sequence*

In 1984 it was proposed (EAR 3, 9–13) that most of the Saxo-Norman pottery of Exeter could be divided into three main chronological groupings, as follows:

A fourth grouping (Horizon C) was proposed in those instances where the presence of just a few Bedford Garage Ware sherds left uncertainty as to whether a context belonged to the period when this ware was in use.

The chronological succession of these horizons was evident, for example, from the sequence from 196–7 High Street (Site 43), where Phases 2–6 contained pottery of Horizon B, Phases 7 and 8 of Horizon C, Phases 8–9 of Horizon D, and Phases 12–13 of Horizon E (EAR 3, 42; the sequence of events is unchanged but the phase numbers are different in Chapter 7 above).

It remains possible that a few Late Saxon pit groups are earlier in date than Horizon B, but the evidence for this is not clear-cut. These contexts contain animal bone but either lack pottery entirely (perhaps indicating an aceramic phase, perhaps short-lived) or pottery types which could precede the use of UGSD (Bedford Garage Wares, or regional and foreign imports). Two pits on Trichay Street (Site 42, pits 66–8, described above in Chapter 5) contained large quantities of animal bone but no medieval pottery. An isolated pit at Queen Street (Site 68, pit 360) contained only an imported Hamwic fabric 127 vessel (10th/11th-century plain white ware jars with simple everted rims, made in the Lower Seine Valley) and animal bone. A small pottery group on the Valiant Soldier site outside the South Gate (Site 44, pit 199) contained Bedford Garage Wares, a possible import and ?limestone-tempered ware but not UGSD (EAR 3, 44–7, nos. 131–4).

It was hoped that the present project would submit animal bone samples from these potentially early contexts for radiocarbon dating, but none of the associated animal bone met the Historic England criteria for undertaking such analysis. The date of the earliest medieval occupation encountered in the excavations therefore remains as uncertain as it was 35 years ago. It seems clear, however, that pottery did not circulate in the early days of the *burh* in the quantities used in later centuries. Comparisons of the relative numbers of animal bones and pottery sherds show that the earliest contexts contain only about a quarter of the pottery used in the late 11th or 12th centuries (EAR 3, 12). The early *burh* may not have been completely aceramic but could be regarded as partially ceramic. The dating of Bedford Garage Ware and UGSD is discussed further below.

## *Bedford Garage Ware*

## Background

Bedford Garage Ware is a class of high-quality wheelthrown pottery, usually fired red or orange but sometimes orange/pink and rarely pale grey, not very different in appearance from the post-medieval flowerpot. A few rare vessels have patches of thick glaze, which can be either olive green or yellow (Fig. 17.1). A kiln producing this ware was discovered when the Bedford Garage (so named after the nearby town house of the Dukes of Bedford) was built in 1935 (Site 5; Montague 1935, 188); it was dug into the tail of the Roman rampart at the back of the city wall in the area which has since been renamed Princesshay. The find was re-excavated by Lady (Aileen) Fox in 1955 and published by Fox and Dunning (1957). So accomplished was the pottery that Dunning proposed a late medieval date; it was only with the excavation of stratified Late Saxon deposits in the 1970s that it became apparent that this was in fact a class of Late Saxon wheel-thrown pottery (Hurst 1977b, 77; EAR 3, 27–30).

*Fig. 17.1 Bedford Garage Ware (© RAMM, the line drawings from Allan 1984a)*

Forms

Most of the vessels are plain unglazed rounded jars with flat or sagging bases and simple everted rims, thrown in two main sizes (Fig. 17.1): small (bases with diameters of 80–100 mm) and medium-sized (most commonly with bases of *c.* 140–180 mm wide). A few other forms are also known: larger perforated jars, storage jars with applied strips (type 5), a plain wide-mouthed form (type 4), lamps and a ?jug (types 6 and 7). Perhaps the

most interesting are the large perforated jars (Fig. 17.1, nos. 656–8), which belong to a class of vessel discussed by Moorhouse, who has shown that they were used for a variety of purposes including the production of white lead, distillation and fermentation (Moorhouse 1972; 1981, 117; 1986, 112). Comparable finds, although of rather later date, are known from Glastonbury Abbey (Kent 2015). Vessels of this form have not been found outside the kiln.

## Petrological and chemical analyses

A petrological description of this fabric was published by Vince (1984b, 32) and need not be repeated here; his identification of small quantities of acid igneous rock fragments and even a rounded fragment of granite, alongside the more commonplace quartz, chert and sandstone, may be noted. No samples have previously been subjected to chemical analysis, so seven examples of Bedford Garage Ware from Exeter were analysed by ICPS as part of the present project and compared with two later medieval redwares whose origins are probably in the Exeter area. The results are presented below (see Hughes, Appendix 17.3 below, fabrics 40 and 42).

## Dating

The dating evidence from excavations prior to 1980 was presented in EAR 3, 27–8; the sequence from 196–7 High Street (Site 43), where Bedford Garage Ware was found in the first six stages of Saxo-Norman occupation, the sixth of which contained a coin of 1072–*c.* 1080, remains an important piece of evidence. No further dating evidence has been recovered since that time. At present, quite a long period of production and use seems likely (pre– *c.* 950 to *c*. 1100), and this would explain the numerous Saxo-Norman pit groups containing this fabric.

## Distribution

Although it is found commonly in Saxo-Norman deposits in the city, Bedford Garage Ware rarely makes up more than 10–15% of a group (by weight or sherd count). Although hundreds of vessels have been recovered from the city, it has proved very rare elsewhere in Devon, being known from just three places: the *burhs* of Totnes and Lydford, and Stockland (Fig. 17.2). At Totnes there are several vessels, at the other two sites just a single find (unpublished finds from 39 Fore Street, Totnes (1985) and King's Thatch, Stockland, all at RAMM; for Lydford: Allan 1981, 133, no. 1).

## Interpretation: an immigrant potter from Normandy?

The refined fabric, wheel-throwing, rich glazes and use of kiln technology mark Bedford Garage Ware out as pottery in a completely different tradition from the coarse, handmade, bonfire-fired and unglazed pottery seen throughout south-western England in the Late Saxon period. The potter(s) must have come from somewhere outside the region. Traditions of making high-quality wheel-thrown wares are features of the ceramics of northern France, the Low Countries and various centres in eastern and south-central England, the nearest of which is Winchester. In 1984 the writer proposed that an English source was as likely as a French one (EAR 3, 29–30), but this ignored the strong similarity of this material to northern French pottery. The close correspondence in form to the 10th/11th-century plain white ware jars with simple everted rims, made in the Lower Seine Valley (Adrian *et al.* 1999, nos. 187–8, which would be classified in Britain as Hamwic fabric 127) strongly suggests that this is the output of a potter from Normandy.

One example of a potter from Normandy has previously been postulated in south-western England: the vessel forms of some of the late 11th or early 12th-century pottery from Castle Neroche, in Somerset, are clearly northern French in origin, notably the jars with collared rims and the large storage jars with applied thumbed strips (Davison 1972). There is a major difference between the Exeter and Castle Neroche finds, however; whereas the Bedford Garage sherds correspond to northern French wares in all but their local red fabric, the Castle Neroche vessels are handmade coarsewares, tempered with inclusions from the Upper Greensand, and were presumably bonfire fired.

A much closer parallel to the Bedford Garage kiln is that found at Pound Lane, Canterbury, published with a full discussion by Cotter (1997). This too was a single-flue kiln making wheel-thrown wares in the northern French tradition, but at a slightly later date (*c.* 1145–75). Its products – plain jars and larger storage jars with thumbed strips – were broadly of the same vessel types, although its most distinctive products were jars with collared rims. The location of the kiln, dug into the back of the city rampart, was also precisely similar to that of the Bedford Garage kiln. The Canterbury kiln was published as the work of an immigrant potter, and this has now been widely accepted; precisely the same arguments apply at Exeter. The locations of these two kilns, immediately inside the city walls when most kilns were rural or suburban, raises the possibility that these were the operations of valued foreign craftsmen, offered protection by civic authorities.

## *Upper Greensand-Derived pottery (UGSD)*

All Late Saxon and Norman assemblages from the city consist mainly or entirely of a single fabric grouping, initially named Exeter fabric 20 (EAR 3, 3–12). This fabric continued in use into the early 14th century. Examples are shown in Figs 17.3 and 17.4. It was apparent by the 1970s and 1980s that this was a major class of Saxo-Norman ceramics, widely distributed across south-western England; for example, it was noted that some of the Exeter finds were very similar to examples excavated at Ilchester, in Somerset, published by Pearson (1982). Their source was not, however, established in a number of programmes of thin-sectioning undertaken at that time, since most of the inclusions in the fabric proved not to be diagnostic of a specific geology.

It was Roger Taylor's more detailed petrological study which distinguished a number of rare but much more indicative inclusions in this fabric group, derived from the Upper Greensand of the Blackdown Hills in eastern

*Fig. 17.2 The distribution of Bedford Garage Ware (drawn by David Gould)*

Devon and southern Somerset. His work was published as part of a general discussion of this class of material which also included ICP analysis of a range of samples from sites in Somerset (Allan, Hughes and Taylor 2010). Now known as 'Upper Greensand-Derived' (UGSD) ware, it is believed to represent a number of potteries using temper derived from deposits around the fringes of the Greensand.

## PetRology by RogeR t. tayloR

Following the examination of a large number of samples of this fabric from a range of sites in Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall (Taylor 2003a; 2010; 2014a, 69–70), nine samples from Exeter (Allan 1984a, nos. 303, 304, 306, 309, 311, 317, 321, 322, 330) were examined under the binocular microscope at x20 magnifi cation. Since these are clearly a single fabric group, an overall description is presented here. Inclusions are described in approximate descending order of frequency. Typically, the temper forms *c.* 5–10% of the fabric, a common percentage in this kind of pottery. Sample descriptions of individual vessels are available in online Appendix 17.1; an overall description is as follows:

• Quartz: translucent and transparent, colourless to white, frequently well-rounded and polished. Grains up to 1.5 mm.

*Fig. 17.3 Upper Greensand-Derived pottery from Exeter (© RAMM)*

These inclusions clearly derive from the Upper Greensand and correspond to other examples of this broad fabric grouping examined in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Dorset. The silicified shell seen in nos. 303 and 304 is a firm indicator of the Blackdown facies of the Upper Greensand, and probably of a fairly restricted area within it. The silicified sandstone seen in no. 309 is also a pointer to the Blackdown facies, but not conclusive evidence of this specific origin. The fabrics of six other samples (nos. 306, 311, 317, 330, 321, 322) are all very similar to these vessels (they all contain the polished quartz, black tourmaline, sparse white angular chert), but no silicified shell was seen in them.

Within the broad UGSD grouping are at least two sub-groupings: one calcareous, the other non-calcareous. The former grouping is well represented in Somerset, where the calcareous component is probably derived from Liassic clays forming the vessel body; the presence of fossil ammonite fragments in some specimens supports this conclusion (Taylor 2010, 171). Allan's testing of a large sample of Exeter sherds in the 1970s showed that more than 95% of them are non-calcareous. It is reasonable to conclude that all the samples examined are from the Blackdown facies, as are the other specimens analysed by the writer from Devon and Cornwall.

## Chemical analysis by Michael J. Hughes

Examples of this fabric (UGSD) from Exeter have been included in the recent programmes of ICP/ICPS analysis for Sherborne Old Castle in Dorset, and Calstock in Cornwall (Hughes 2003a; 2004c). In view of the considerable body of chemical analyses undertaken on this class of ceramics in recent years, no fresh sampling was undertaken in this research programme.

## Chronology

It is certain that this fabric has a long life and was still in production in the early 14th century. The start date, however, remains rather uncertain, since there are few closely dated contexts of the 9th and 10th centuries in the region. The Exeter evidence offers only a general indication of a start date: there are very few groups from the early life of the *burh* which appear to precede the use of this pottery (end 9th/early 10th century?) but it occurs in every pit on sites such as Trichay Street, Goldsmith Street and 196–7 High Street (Sites 39 and 42–3; see Chapters 5–7 above) which were probably occupied by the late 10th century (note the tree-ring dates from Goldsmith Street, for example: see Chapter 11 above).

*Fig. 17.4 Upper Greensand-Derived pottery from Exeter: decorated vessels characteristic of Horizon D, probably late 11th/early 12th century (from Allan 1984a)*

The best evidence for the start of this tradition comes from Somerset and has been discussed several times in the last few years (Allan, Dawson and Kent 2015, 254; 2018a, 132; 2018b). It seems probable that this fabric came into use *c*. 930/950, although two radiocarbon determinations from Hemyock, modelled to indicate a date of *c.* 900–30, may indicate a slightly earlier start of production (*eid.* 2018a, 132).

## DistRibution

The overall distribution of UGSD is shown in Fig. 17.5. This ware is now known from seven sites in eastern Cornwall, where it forms the bulk of 11th and 12th-century assemblages, alongside small quantities of gabbroic pottery from western Cornwall (Brown *et al.* 2006, 269–70, 283–4; Allan 2014). Its most westerly distribution points are Par, Lamanna at Looe, and Tintagel (O'Mahoney 1989; further fi nds will be published by Quinnell and Thorpe).

UGSD was almost the sole class of pottery used on many sites in Devon in the 11th and early 12th centuries. In the 1970s and 1980s the only examples known in West Devon and Cornwall were from high-status sites, notably the castles of Launceston, Okehampton and Lydford, whilst there were no sherds in this fabric from most of the Dartmoor longhouses. This raised the possibility that distribution was restricted to high-status sites. This idea is now untenable; the recovery of a small

*Fig. 17.5 The distribution of Upper Greensand-Derived pottery (drawn by David Gould)*

group of this material from AC Archaeology's excavation at Stourscombe on the fringe of Launceston, and the Duckpool find, show that its distribution is not restricted to high-status places. In fact the claim that much of the county was aceramic, or only partially ceramic, in the 11th and 12th centuries is slowly being eroded by finds on distant rural sites such as Braunton Burrows, Thurleston, Kentisbury, Combe Martin and Hound Tor. Nevertheless, no examples have yet been recorded over a large area of north-western Devon, even in the substantial programme of excavation at Roadford Reservoir.

This general fabric grouping also dominates assemblages on many sites in the southern parts of Somerset, forming a declining proportion of assemblages further north (Allan, Hughes and Taylor 2010; Allan, Dawson and Kent 2015). It seems to be very rare on, or to the north of, the Mendips, but a systematic search is needed to reassess some sites such as Cheddar. It should be noted here, however, that in contrast with the majority of finds in Devon, some of the Somerset wares in this general fabric grouping – in Taunton, for example – are calcareous, indicating that they do not come from the Blackdowns facies of the Greensand.

As a fine group from Sherborne Old Castle illustrates, UGSD was also the predominant fabric in northern Dorset in the years around 1200 (Allan 2003). The proportions for other sites in Dorset shown in Fig. 17.5 are taken from Spoerry's (1990, 8, figs 5, 6) study. It should be noted that these proportions are not directly comparable to those shown in the other counties, since they show UGSD as a percentage of all the ceramics on sites where occupation extended into the 13th and 14th centuries, when other local potteries supplied the market. Nevertheless, his figures do bring out the sharp decline in the market share taken by this fabric group in the eastern half of the county. On the eastern fringe of the distribution, he found that they made up only 3–4% of the sample which he examined from Christchurch, for example, but he also noted the presence of sherds of this type as far away as Salisbury and Southampton (*ibid*.).

Finally, it may be noted that very small quantities of UGSD have now been recognised in South Wales: petrological examination by Roger Taylor at the National Museum of Wales in 2016 confirmed the identification of two sherds from Castle Tower, Penmaen (for the collection: Talbot 1966). This raises the possibility that it may be found further along the southern Welsh coast, and even in Ireland.

## *Other Saxo-Norman coarsewares*

## Limestone-tempered wares, ?from Hampshire/ Dorset

A few limestone-tempered wares have been recovered in the earliest contexts from the *burh* (fabric 22); since they do not occur in later deposits it now seems more probable that they date from the late 9th/10th century rather than

the 10th/11th century as suggested in the past (EAR 3, 5). When they were published in the 1980s it was thought most likely that they came either from south-eastern Devon or from further east (Brown and Vince 1984, 33). Since no centre for the production of limestone-tempered pottery in eastern Devon has emerged, and no comparable finds have been made in that area, it now seems probable that these sherds are regional imports from central Wessex, where similar vessels – with their deeply sagging bases and vesicular fabrics – are known (cf. Hodges 1981, 6–7, Class 2).

## Wheel-thrown glazed wares

No examples of Late Saxon or Norman glazed wares of English origin have so far been recognised from Exeter, although examples have been identified elsewhere in the region: Winchester ware at Glastonbury, Ilchester, Bath and Beckery chapel, and Stamford ware at Launceston Castle (Allan, Dawson and Kent 2015, 255; for Beckery: Allan 2016; for Launceston: Brown *et al.* 2006, 278).

## **Saxo-Norman imported pottery, 900–1200** *Introduction*

The series of over 230 Saxo-Norman imported wares from Exeter is the only substantial collection of this sort in the region, and one of a small number of such series in the British Isles, others being at Southampton, London and Dublin. This material reflects the city's status among the leading six or seven towns of Late Saxon England, and as one of its two major south coast ports. The imports make up only about 1.5% of sherds in the major stratified contexts of this period (by sherd count: EAR 3, 8–17, Horizons A–D), a noticeably lower proportion of the total than at Southampton, where imports account for 6.7% of sherds in the sample of *c*. 1066–1250 which Brown (2002, 97) analysed. Some allowance should be made for the fact that his figures group the early 13th-century material with the Norman, and this will include a higher proportion of imports; nevertheless, Normandy gritty ware alone formed 4.5% of sherds in the entire Southampton assemblage of 1066–1250, a notably higher figure. The overall composition of the Exeter material, quantified by sherd counts and minimum numbers of vessels (which are close to actual numbers, since most individual pots are recognisable), is shown in Table 17.1.

## *Imported pottery from the Low Countries and the Rhineland*

## *Imports from the Low Countries*

The small collection of Saxo-Norman imports from the Low Countries was re-examined by Wolfram Giertz with John Hurst in 1995, and Giertz examined one further fragment in 2019. There are so few vessels that they may be described individually. Sherds from a yellow-glazed pitcher (EAR 3, no. 127; Fig. 17.6A), found in the robbing of the apse of 470 *John Allan*

*Table 17.1 Imported pottery from Exeter, 900–1200*

the Late Saxon minster (Site 40), were first discussed by Verhaeghe and Janssen (1984, 18–20). They believed them to be from a pitcher of Low Countries (probably Belgian) origin, although the kiln source was then unknown. This vessel can now be identified specifically as a late 11th/ early 12th-century Huy-type vessel from Middle Meuse Valley; the proposed date fits well with the site context date of 1089–1133. Giertz compared the fragments to a pitcher from Dowgate, London (Giertz 1996, 55).

Giertz confirmed the identification of a second yellow-glazed pitcher sherd, found in a late 12th/early 13th-century pit at Trichay Street (Site 42; EAR 3, no. 624; Fig. 17.6B), as Andenne Ware; he attributed it to Andenne Period IIB (late 12th/early 13th-century), the very hard sand-tempered fabric and rich iron-flecked glaze being typical features.

Two other sherds from different vessels, both excavated at Bartholomew Street East in 1980 (Site 73), were identified by Giertz as further examples of Huy-type ware from the Middle Meuse Valley, datable to the 11th century. He attributed one of them, an unstratified yellow-glazed body sherd (Fig. 17.6C), to the early 11th century; this is therefore the earliest piece of evidence for the importation of ceramics from the Low Countries in south-western England. He regarded the other (Fig. 17.6D), an untempered white ware with iron-blotched yellow glaze, as broadly of 11th-century date.

 Giertz did not think that a white ware pitcher which had been suggested as a possible Low Countries product (Fig. 17.7, no. 675) was from that area; the relation of the spout and rim is apparently different from that seen in Meuse Valley products.

## *Imports from the Rhineland*

Sherds from five *blau-grau* ladles have been recorded from the city including one complete profile from a mid to late 12th-century context (EAR 3, no. 649; Fig. 17.6E). Only one other find of this type is known to the author in the region: the example of early 13th-century 'pseudo-Pathrath' ware from Buckfast Abbey, in Devon (Allan 1988, 81, no. 1).

## *Imported pottery from northern France*

The publication of the imported Saxo-Norman pottery from excavations in the 1970s concluded that pottery from northern France, especially from Normandy, made up the bulk of the collection (Hodges and Mainman 1984). It was also pointed out, however, that the quantity of published material from northern France was limited, and hardly any medieval kiln waste was available from Normandy to compare with the imported wares being studied in England.

The principal type of imported pottery in the earliest of these contexts (10th and ?early 11th century) consists

*Fig. 17.6 Imported pottery from the Low Countries and the Rhineland,* c*. 1000–1200. (A, C–D) Huy-type ware from the Middle Meuse Valley; (B) Andenne-type ware; (E)* Blau-grau *ware (photos © RAMM; line drawing from Allan 1984a)*

of small unglazed wheel-thrown jars in sand-tempered white ware (Hamwic fabric 127; Fig. 17.7). In later Saxo-Norman contexts (post *c.* 1050?), Normandy gritty ware is the most common class of import, but there is also a range of glazed white ware and redware pitchers and jugs, some of which are hard to identify simply by visual examination and thin-sectioning.

Since Hodges' and Mainman's publication, there has been a modest increase in the Exeter finds (Table 17.1). This changes the picture only a little; the higher proportion of Normandy gritty wares in the new sample simply reflects the fact that few sites excavated since 1980 have encountered Late Saxon deposits. An initial project to explore the chemistry of this collection and compare it with material from Late Saxon Southampton was published about 20 years ago, but resources were limited and only six Exeter vessels were analysed (Hughes 2002–3). A key feature of the EAPIT programme has been the chemical analysis of a much larger sample of the Saxo-Norman pottery in the city collection, increasing the total number of analysed Saxo-Norman imports to 55 (Fig. 17.8). The results are presented in Appendix 17.2. This provides a much more reliable means of identifying the origins of the imported sherds. The programme confirms the conclusion of Hodges and Mainman that the bulk of the collection comes from northern France, especially from Normandy, but puts this key finding on a firmer footing. A key conclusion of the ICP study is that a high proportion of the imports sampled, including sherds with different fabric textures and colours and glaze colours, show strong chemical similarities with ceramics made close to Rouen; they appear to have been made in the Lower Seine Valley. It should also be noted that three different sources were distinguished among the Normandy gritty wares, suggesting that they were supplied from several sources.

## *Distribution of imported pottery in the region*

Figure 17.9 shows the distribution of imported pottery in south-western England in the period *c.* 900–1150. Exeter has the only substantial collection of this sort in the region. The only other place with several finds is Totnes, where about ten examples are now known, mainly unpublished (but see Rigold 1954, 242–9; Allan 2014c). With their predominance of French wares, including red-painted sherds, Normandy gritty wares and yellow-glazed white wares, these finds are very similar in overall character to the Exeter pieces. A recent find at Lympstone on the Exe Estuary by AC Archaeology in 2018 (unpublished) adds a third site on the South Devon coast to the pattern. Elsewhere, only about three further finds of the period have been recorded from the entire region, including a single find of Hamwic fabric 127 from Barnstaple and another from Padstow, in north Cornwall (Allan and Langman 2002–3). The virtual absence of continental imported ceramics of this period is particularly striking in Somerset, where there are major pottery collections of this date (mapped on Fig. 17.9). The interpretation of this material is discussed further in EAPIT 1, Chapter 7.

## **Pottery of the late 12th and early 13th centuries** *Local wares*

During the early or mid 12th century, local potteries began producing handmade glazed wares, principally tripod pitchers. There is no specific evidence for the date of this innovation at Exeter, or indeed elsewhere in the region until we reach Bristol, where dendrochronological dates indicate the introduction of local jug production before *c.* 1130 (Ponsford 1991, 95–8), or Winchester, where tripod pitchers were in use before the end of the 11th century (Biddle and Barclay 1974, 151–4). Tripod pitchers remained in circulation into the early 13th century in Exeter, and probably after 1250, some of the later examples being associated with Saintonge pottery (*e.g.* EAR 3, 70–6, although it is possible that the late finds are residual).

Analysis of a selection of these pitchers by Roger Taylor for this project has confirmed that the most common tripod pitcher fabric (fabric 60) has the same petrology as the Upper Greensand-Derived wares, and was therefore made in the pottery industry around the Blackdown Hills. Figure 17.10 shows a typical specimen.

## *Regional imports*

With the growing demand for glazed ceramic tableware in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, a range of wheelthrown jugs also supplied the Exeter market, and these mark the onset of the next ceramic phase (Horizon F). Some of them were certainly imported from Normandy and other places in northern France, but regional imports from London, South Dorset and north-eastern England were also identified in EAR 3. Examples of South Hampshire redwares and perhaps Southampton pottery can now be distinguished among this material, and it is probable that other sources of English jugs await identification. The English regional imports become much less common when potteries producing good-quality local jugs were established in the Exeter area in the mid 13th century.

## *Dorset and Hampshire*

The most significant source of ceramics in groups of this period at Exeter is Dorset and Hampshire. Scratch-marked pottery is very rare in Exeter, represented by a single substantial find (Fig. 17.11, no. 595) and a mere handful of other sherds, but it was marketed in other places in Devon, notably Totnes, where it is more common (Rigold 1954, 248; Allan 2014c, 3, 20).

The class of sand-tempered pale-bodied ceramics now named 'Wessex Coarsewares' (Mepham 2018, 17) is much more common (Fig. 17.11). Specimens of this

*Fig. 17.7 Imported pottery from northern France,* c*. 900–1200 (photos © RAMM; line drawings from Allan 1984a)*

*Fig. 17.8 Imported pottery from northern France: vessels analysed by ICP-MS. The bold numbers are the EAPIT sample numbers; those in italics are their drawing numbers in EAR 3 (photos © RAMM)*

*Fig. 17.9 The distribution of Saxo-Norman imported pottery in south-western England (drawn by David Gould)*

*Fig. 17.10 Tripod pitcher in Upper Greensand-Derived fabric (from Allan 1984a)*

type were attributed to south-eastern Dorset in EAR 3, but it was not then appreciated that they represent a signifi cant trade, or that there were further sources of this fabric, extending into Wiltshire. The earliest consist of handmade jugs, supplemented later by pitchers and jugs. Mepham has shown that this class of pottery was also produced in south-eastern Wiltshire and eastern Dorset, which are therefore possible sources of the Exeter fi nds, although less accessible than the Poole Harbour area of south-eastern Dorset.

I suggest that a number of Exeter fi nds in early and mid 13th-century deposits with fi ne red or pink sand-tempered bodies and blotchy orange-green glazes (named Exeter fabrics 44 and 45 in EAR 3) are South Hampshire redwares. Samples are illustrated in Fig. 17.12. A few examples of scale-decorated jugs similar to those produced in Southampton whiteware have also been found, but it is not certain that they are Southampton products (Fig. 17.12, no. 1611; also EAR 3, nos. 1073, 1124; for Southampton kiln fi nds see Brown 2002, 13–14; a selection of Exeter sherds of this type was inspected by Bob Thomson, who noted several possible examples but no defi nite one). Further similar fragments have been seen in other excavations in Devon, for example at Newton Abbot and Totnes; this class of ceramics needs more work, including chemical analysis.

*Fig. 17.11 Wessex coarsewares from Exeter (photos by Gary Young, © RAMM)*

*Fig. 17.12 (A-C) Proposed examples of Hampshire redwares; (D) possible Southampton jug from Exeter (photos by Gary Young, © RAMM)*

## *London*

The late 12th century also saw the emergence of a trade in London-type wares – both early rounded jugs (first identified in the Exeter collection by Alan Vince) and the readily recognisable vessels in 'north French style' including both Rouen copies and sgraffito-decorated wares (Pearce *et al.* 1985). Eighteen vessels of London ware were recorded in EAR 3; Fig. 17.13 shows the principal examples.

In the 1980s these Exeter finds formed an isolated grouping of London wares, separate from the main concentration of finds in the vicinity of the capital (Pearce *et al*. 1985, figs 4–5). In the last 30 years, however, there have been further single finds of this type in southern Devon, with examples extending along the coast into western Cornwall, forming a small spread of finds distant from those around London (Fig. 17.14, based on Pearce *et al.* 1985, figs 4–5). For the other published finds from South-West England see Allan and Langman (1998–9, 180–2; 2010, 162, no. 87). A second and larger group of London wares is present in Scotland, where it has been suggested that their presence may be related to the trade in fish to the capital (George Haggarty pers. comm.). Both in Scotland and the South-West Peninsula the bulk of the trade preceded the emergence of a local jug-making tradition.

## *Bristol*

Both in the early and late 13th century, a few Ham Green ware jugs circulated on the Exeter ceramics market, with seven examples recorded in 1984 (EAR 3, 22; Fig. 17.15). These wares are rare on inland sites in Devon; it seems likely that they came overland through Somerset, where Ham Green wares circulated extensively, rather than via north Devon, where I have not seen examples.

## *North-eastern England*

An unexpected feature of the Exeter pottery has been the identification of at least eight vessels from North-East England; they included two from Scarborough, two from Doncaster, two from Lincoln and one from Nottingham (EAR 3, 22; reports on the last two centres by Coppack (1984) and Hayfield (1984)). These finds lie far beyond the normal range of the north-eastern potteries, although Scarborough ware is known from Southampton (Brown 2002, 17). The principal examples are shown in Fig. 17.16.

## *Northern French imports*

## *Normandy*

The trade in green-glazed white ware jugs from Normandy was evidently well established when the earliest deposits

*Fig. 17.13 London-type wares from Exeter and Crediton (photos: Gary Young, © RAMM)*

*Fig. 17.14 The distribution of late 12th and 13th-century London-type ware in the British Isles (Pearce* et al*. 1985 with additions in Scotland (George Haggarty and Derek Hall pers. comm.), Ireland (McCutcheon 2006, 54, 56 and pers. comm.) and the South-West Peninsula. Sites in capitals outside South-East England have produced more than one vessel (drawn by David Gould)*

*Fig. 17.15 Ham Green and Bristol wares from Exeter (photos © RAMM)*

*Fig. 17.16 Pottery from north-eastern England from Exeter (photos: Gary Young, © RAMM)*

at Exe Bridge (Site 56) were laid on the riverbank at the start of the 13th century (EAR 3, 60–3), but Exeter offers no specific evidence regarding the emergence of this trade in the preceding period. These vessels are common in the city, with more than 300 vessels identified from the excavations to 1980 (EAR 3, 22). ICP-MS analysis shows that many of these wares have a chemistry consistent with products of the Lower Seine Valley (Appendix 17.2). Figure 17.17 illustrates the range of green-glazed white wares; Fig. 17.18A–B show examples of the Rouen-type jugs from the city, and Fig. 17.18D a rare yellow-glazed white ware costrel which was sampled in the ICP programme. The distribution of these wares in the region is shown in Fig. 17.19, where it will be evident that they are confined largely to the ports and high-status sites: castles and monastic sites.

## *Château de Bretagne*

Figure 17.18D shows the handsome jug with a white fabric tempered with fine quartz sand, its body with incised decoration and copper-green glaze, found in the fill of a wattle-lined pit at Trichay Street (Site 42; EAR 3, 70, pit 191, no. 888). For some time the origin of this vessel remained uncertain until a kiln producing pottery in this style was found at Château de Bretagne in the arrondissement of Rennes, northern France, where an isolated deposit of white clay outcrops (I am grateful to Francoise Labaune-Jean for information about this recent find).

This rare class of pottery is represented in south-western England by three other vessels from Exeter and a further find from Glastonbury Abbey, in Somerset (Allan, Dawson and Kent 2015, 259, no. 69). There is another from Southampton, but the finest series of such vessels in the British Isles is from Dublin, in Ireland (McCutcheon 2006, 99–102).

Here we may have a problem with dating: the nearcomplete example from Exeter was found in the fill of a pit which was constructed from timbers dated by dendrochronology to AD 1180, offering a *terminus post quem* for its deposition; a date around 1200 is probable (EAR 3, 70–1). This is at variance with the dating from Tours, where the vessel type is placed in the 11th century (Husi 2003, chronolo-typologie tabl. Tours 3, Pichet 9).

## *Brittany: sherds with metamorphic inclusions* Introduction

Fragments of 22 medieval vessels of probable Breton origin were recorded from the excavations of 1971–80. Eight of them formed a clear fabric grouping (fabric 103) with a highly distinctive pale yellow-cream fabric containing abundant white and golden mica, and with a characteristic glaze (typically blotchy yellow-green with black spots of iron bleeding) and decoration (either with applied scales covering most of the body or with impressed knife-stabbing). It seemed probable that they come from a single source.

*Fig. 17.17 Northern French highly decorated pottery from Exeter (Photo © RAMM; line drawings from Allan 1984a)*

*Fig. 17.18 Imported pottery of the late 12th and early 13th century. (A–B) Rouen jugs; (C) yellow-glazed costrel from the Lower Seine Valley; (D) jug matching kiln waste from Château de Bretagne; (E) an example of Exeter fabric 10 (with the feet and legs of an applied stick-man?), attributed to Brittany (photos © RAMM; line drawing from Allan 1984a)*

*Fig. 17.19 The distribution of northern French pottery of* c*. 1150–1250, with Caen stone,* c*. 1100–1300, in south-western England (drawn by David Gould)*

The 14 other vessels were seen as a second fabric grouping (fabric 104); these too are wheel-thrown wares, contrasting with the handmade south-western English products.

One example of fabric 103 and six of fabric 104 were thin-sectioned by David Williams, and a further vessel was thin-sectioned by Alan Vince (Williams 1984b, 37; EAR 3, 63, no. 807). Both Williams and Vince identifi ed metamorphic mica schists among the inclusions in these fabrics. Williams noted that the nearest large source of such rocks to Exeter is in Brittany, but pointed out that the possibility of a source in the South-West Peninsula could not be dismissed, since outcrops of mica schist can be found in the region, for example at Bolt Head on the South Devon coast and on the Lizard peninsula of south-western Cornwall (Williams 1984b, 37). In view of

their high quality, their early and mid 13th-century date preceding the emergence of local glazed jug production in South Devon, and their difference from all known Cornish and South Devon pottery, a Breton source has seemed much more probable. The petrology of the collection was therefore re-examined by Roger Taylor (below).

## the PetRology of the bReton waRes by RogeR t. tayloR

## **Fabric 103**

Four vessels were examined as part of EAPIT, and the writer's report on a further example from Exwell Barton, in Powderham has also been published recently (Taylor 2014a). Since they are all very similar to one another, a single overall fabric description is presented here:

*Table 17.2 The dating of Breton pottery at Exeter*

Abrasion 1–2; surface erosion 1; temper (larger grains) forms about *c*. 10% of the fabric. The body in almost all examples is fired to a pale creamy-buff to very pale pink.

The fabric is derived from a granitic or metamorphic terrain. Although it is difficult to be certain that this ware does not have a Cornish/Devon source, there is noticeable absence of the black tourmaline schorl, which is particularly characteristic of the granites of the South-West Peninsula. It is likely that the mineral content is entirely indigenous and not an added temper.

#### **Fabric 104**

Nine vessels from Exeter including EAR 3, nos. 807, 970, 1161, 1203, 1205, 1236 were re-examined. A single fabric description is offered here; detailed descriptions of individual sherds are available online in Appendix 17.5. The fabrics of all these vessels display a very consistent appearance and temper.

EAR 3, no. 807 (Exe Bridge 1976) Glazed, ribbed jug handle. Temper:

Comment: Rock fragments probably quartz-rich segregations from mica schist. Metamorphic derived grains with river sand.

#### **Provenance**

Fabrics 103 and 104 have similar petrological features and probably come from the same source. The abundance of mica and schistose rock fragments points to a metamorphic terrain. Areas in the South-West Peninsula previously considered as possible sources by Williams (1984b, 37), such as the Lizard and Start Point, are unlikely to provide such material. The area of schistose on the Lizard, located at the south-western tip, is extremely small; it consists of quartz-chlorite muscovite schist but with substantial areas of hornblende schist. Further east in Cornwall, the Dodman is largely sandstone and chlorite schist. These mineral associations are not represented in Fabric 103.

Although Jean Le Maho has suggested a probable source around Rouen (Brown 2002, 25), this is inconsistent with the petrology of the sherds. The Armorican metamorphic terrain of Brittany, where there are extensive tracts of metasedimentary schists, is much more probable. The fine grain size of quartz and mica, and the presence of metamorphic fragments, tend to preclude a greissenised granite source for the mica and quartz. The high proportion of muscovite in this fabric is unusual; local superficial kaolinisation of metasediments could account for this, and it could also account for the low iron content of the clay indicated by the pale-firing colour. It should also be noted that there is a noticeable absence of the black tourmaline schorl, which is particularly characteristic of the granites of the South-West Peninsula. It is likely that the mineral content is entirely indigenous and not an added temper.

## Discussion

The total quantity of fabrics 103 and 104 from Exeter has now increased to 60 sherds from 42 vessels and 14 sites. All the recognisable vessels are jugs; the typical features of blotchy iron-spotted green-yellow glaze, applied scales or bosses, and impressed knife-marks, have been noted above. An example is shown in Fig. 17.18E.

## Dating

These vessels first appear in groups containing tripod pitchers and UGSD sherds which probably belong to the late 12th century (no. 923), but are most common in contexts of the early and mid 13th century. They may extend into the period 1250–1350.

## Other finds of Breton pottery

Exeter is one of three south coast ports with small collections of medieval Breton wares. At Plymouth, four examples were published from Dung Quay (Taylor 2003b, 62–3), and finds of *céramique onctueuse* (a Breton coarseware tempered with talc) have been recorded from Woolster Street (Preston 1986, 26); there are probably unidentified sherds on other sites. Fabric 104 is present in Southampton, where an example from an early 13th-century context at the Wool House was published by Platt and Coleman-Smith (1975, vol. 2, 73, no. 337, 'sandy creambuff fabric'), and at least two jugs, one of them with the characteristic scale decoration, have been published by Brown (2002, 25, fabric 1711, 'North French micaceous whiteware'). An unpublished example from West Hall may also be noted (marked 70:2:33d).

Elsewhere in the South-West Peninsula a single find of fabric 103 has been recorded from Exwell Barton, in Powderham, not far from Exeter, and a Breton coarseware from the Althea Library, in Padstow, Cornwall, may also be noted (Allan and Langman 2002–3; Allan 2014b, 151, no. 2).

## **Pottery of the High Middle Ages,** *c.* **1250–1350**

## *The sequence of ceramic horizons*

The arrival of Saintonge pottery in the English ports, traditionally dated *c.* 1250, was adopted in EAR 3 in marking a key horizon in the Exeter sequence. In a number of instances the local jug fabrics appear in the same horizon, suggesting that they too came onto the Exeter market *c.* 1250. Two stages in the pottery sequence of this period are discernible (EAR 3, 8–10):

## *Local jug fabrics 40 and 42*

## *Introduction*

From the mid 13th century until the mid or late 15th, good-quality red earthenware jugs form the predominant general class of wheel-thrown pottery at Exeter (Fig. 17.20). Upon close visual examination, Allan (1984a) distinguished two main fabric groups within this material, named 40 and 42. The separation was made initially on the basis that the matrix of fabric 40 appeared finer-bodied, but with clay pellets, typically with fine glistening inclusions, later confirmed by petrological examination as muscovite (Brown and Vince 1984, 33).

Since these wares were a common feature of the city assemblages and there were few finds elsewhere, they were initially named 'Exeter jugs' or 'Exeter-type jugs'. An unexpected result of the programme of thin-sectioning undertaken in the early 1980s, however, was the observation that fabric 40 appeared to contain glauconite, and this appeared to preclude an origin in the Exeter area and suggested production at least 15 km to the east of the city on the Blackdown Hills (Brown and Vince 1984, 33).

Commenting on the general similarity of these two fabrics in thin section, Alan Vince suggested subsequently that the distinction between fabrics 40 and 42 was not entirely convincing and that this basic aspect of the Exeter classification needed reviewing (pers. comm. to John Allan *c.* 1997). The present account starts with that review, and consists of Roger Taylor's detailed petrological examination of a range of samples, followed by Michael Hughes' chemical analysis.

## *Petrological examination of Exeter fabrics 40 and 42 by Roger T. Taylor*

## Exeter fabric 40

This distinctive fine redware fabric was described in thin section by Brown and Vince (1984, 33). The most

*Fig. 17.20 Examples of local pottery. The five jugs on the right are of fabric 40, the roof finial in the centre a granite-derived vessel (© RAMM)*

abundant inclusions are angular to sub-angular quartz (up to 0.4 mm but mainly much smaller), but clay pellets and muscovite are also typical features. Twelve of the vessels from Exeter published in 1984 (EAR 3) were re-examined under the binocular microscope at x10, x20 and x40 magnification, alongside thin sections of the original type-samples. Since the collection of thin sections made in the early 1980s, then held in the Museum of London, cannot be found at present, new thin sections have been prepared.

#### **General fabric description**

A dozen examples from different Exeter excavations were examined, together with a number of finds from outside the city including Cleeve Abbey, in Somerset. All the vessels have a fine clay matrix, typically fired red or dark pink, although some sherds are reduced to dark grey. A summary fabric description based on a series of examples, with the inclusions listed in descending order of frequency, is as follows:

#### **Discussion**

Although vessels in this fabric show close similarities of potting, form and decoration, there is some variation in the inclusions present; the fine sands are a common factor, but the relative proportions of the components of the temper vary considerably from vessel to vessel. Very sparse, small, dark, crystalline grains, which appear to be igneous, are discernible in some samples. These rare inclusions tie this ware to the Exeter area, where there are potential source rocks for such material, particularly in the Permian Breccias in the hinterland of the Exe Estuary, or to the Teign Valley, where such minerals might also be found. Among the fine sand grains, many vessels also contain sparse inclusions of larger angular quartz sand (up to 0.5 mm) which have a polished surface, indicating an origin in a marine or beach sand such as one would expect on a coastal or estuarine site. The presence of shell fragments in some specimens could also be consistent with a source in an estuary, where estuarine molluscs would provide a source. Other vessels, however, contain coarse rounded quartz grains associated with the fine-grained sand, indicating a source higher up the estuary, where some coarse river-founded sand is present. Some caution may also be expressed, both about the identification of glauconite in the report of 1984, and about the conclusion that it indicates an origin well to the east of Exeter. This mineral can be hard to identify with certainty. No definite examples were found in the range of specimens examined here.

The overall implications are that, rather than being made in eastern Devon/southern Somerset, Exeter fabric 40 was produced in either the Teign Valley or the Exeter area, but not in the city itself. The distribution of this fabric on archaeological sites favours the latter source. The base clays could be Permian marls around the city, or possibly clays weathered from the Carboniferous shales, although there are no indications of residual sandstone fragments or of vein quartz which might be likely from the Carboniferous shales.

## Exeter fabric 42

Eight published vessels from Exeter were inspected which form a distinctive fabric type. The mix of temper in each sample is quite complex, with constituents derived from the Permian and Carboniferous sandstones. All the components can be found in the Permian rocks of the Exeter area, where the breccias contain Carboniferous fragments. A potential source area lies to the south-east of the city, where Permian Dawlish sandstone overlies Heavitree Breccia; an appropriate mix of ingredients could be found in the Mincinglake Valley, which runs within the city's eastern suburbs. The proposed origin in south-eastern Devon or southern Somerset (Brown and Vince 1984, 33) now seems unlikely.

#### **Sample descriptions**

1. EAR 3, no. 1431 (Fabric 42 type specimen)

Wheel-thrown jug from Queen Street (Site 68) pit 112, *c.* 1280–1320. Oxidised pink-red fabric, all-over external slip and copper-green glaze.

#### 2. EAR 3, no. 1409

Large wheel-thrown jug from Trichay Street (Site 42) pit 215, *c.* 1280–1350. Orange-pink body with vertical iron stripes alternating with bands of brushed white slip, the glaze speckled green-brown on the body. Temper forms *c*. 0.5–1% of the body.

#### **Correction to published identification**

Upon petrological examination, one of Allan's identifications of 1984 did not fall into the fabric group described above, and is described separately:

#### 3. EAR 3, no. 1406

Highly decorated globular jug with a red fabric.

Comment: Upper Greensand-Derived, as indicated by the beckite*, contra* EAR 3, 87.

## *ICP analysis of Exeter fabrics 40 and 42*

Michael Hughes' report on the chemical analysis of these fabrics forms Appendix 17.3. It concludes that fabrics 40 and 42 are indeed different fabrics.

## *Dating*

The dating evidence assembled by the early 1980s showed that fabrics 40 and 42 are first recorded in stratigraphic sequences in the horizon in which Saintonge green-glazed wares are first found, indicating that production started *c.* 1250. No further evidence has been brought to bear on this conclusion, other than the evidence from elsewhere (notably London) that the traditional estimate of *c.* 1250 for the first arrival of Saintonge jugs in Britain was indeed around 1250 (Vince 1985, 47–56).

Regarding the date at which production of this ware ceased, the only significant evidence to add to that in EAR 3 is Taylor's confirmation (in Steinmetzer *et al.* forthcoming) that several complete jugs in the large group from well 8685 at Princesshay (Site 156) are certainly in

this fabric. The group is probably of early 15th-century date. This confirms that Exeter fabric 40 still formed a significant component of assemblages in the city at that time, suggesting that production continued into the mid/ late 15th century.

## *Forms*

The most complete examples of fabrics 40 and 42 are assembled in Figs 17.21–2. The principal vessel form is the narrow baluster jug, typically decorated with vertical iron-rich stripes, sometimes with dot-and-circle decoration, but larger globular jugs are not uncommon (Fig. 17.22). The close similarities between many of the jugs are obvious. The rare forms include costrels (Fig. 17.22, no. 26), bottles and pans with handles (EAR 3, 5, forms 2–5).

## *Distribution*

Figure 17.23 shows the distribution of fabrics 40 and 42, revising the map published in 1984 (EAR 3, 6, fig. 5). Since the proportion of wheel-thrown jugs increases steadily through the period of 200 years or more when these fabrics were in circulation, variations in the proportions of assemblages made up by these wares may show either chronological changes or differences in marketing this class of pottery on broadly contemporary sites. Since much of the material outside the city is poorly dated, a map showing pie diagrams with precise percentages of wares at each site would be misleading; instead, a simpler presentation of the material is shown here. The picture in southern Devon has filled out since the last publication, especially in the area to the south-west of the city, where there have been substantial excavations both in towns and on rural sites. There has been less excavation in south-eastern Devon, where the picture is still poorly understood, and north and north-western Devon remain complete blanks despite the excavation of much new material. Examples remain rare at Plymouth (about 20 sherds among about 4400 late medieval sherds at Woolster Street, for example: Preston 1986, 26–7). The sherds which were thought to be of Exeter fabric 40 from Cleeve Abbey, in Somerset (Allan 1998, 46, 51, 57–8), have therefore appeared an isolated occurrence. Despite the fact that they appear very similar in fabric under the microscope, these should be regarded as doubtful examples of the Exeter fabrics.

Among the generally low totals from more distant sites, the finds from the castles of Okehampton, in western Devon, and Launceston, in Cornwall, stand out. Those from Okehampton (71 sherds from at least 13 vessels, forming 2.25% of the later medieval sherds) contrast with the near-complete absence of finds of these jugs from neighbouring farms and peasant hamlets, even those with large collections such as the 10,000 sherds from Okehampton Park (Allan 1978; cf. Allan and Perry 1982, 92). More striking is the quantity from

*Fig. 17.21 Exeter fabric 40 baluster jugs from Exeter and (P46) Launceston Castle (P46 redrawn from Brown* et al*. 2006; the others Allan 1984a)*

*Fig. 17.22 Exeter fabric 40: jugs and other forms (photo: © RAMM; drawings by John Allan and Sandy Morris)*

*Fig. 17.23 The distribution of Exeter fabrics 40 and 42 (drawn by David Gould)*

Launceston Castle, where at least 835 sherds of these two fabrics were identified, fabric 42 being rather more common; they formed about 5.8% of the later medieval sherds recorded (Brown *et al.* 2006, 274–5). At both castles the explanation for these finds may lie partly in the much stronger demand for decorative tableware on high-status sites, but these finds may also reflect the movement of goods in peripatetic aristocratic households. Okehampton was a castle of the Courtenays, whose more favoured household was Tiverton, nearer Exeter in the Exe Valley.

The most unexpected aspect of the new pattern is the evidence for distribution much further to the west than was known in the 1980s, with finds from Pydar Street in Truro (Allan and Langman 1998–9, 183, no. 7) and Tresco Channel on the Isles of Scilly (Allan *et al*. 2019).

## *Other wares*

## *North Devon coarseware*

By the late 13th century, North Devon Medieval Coarseware, a handmade, unglazed fabric tempered with angular clear quartz inclusions, dominated the ceramics market throughout mid and north Devon, often being the only class of pottery seen on a rural medieval site in that part of the county (Fig. 17.24). A striking feature of these wares is the sharp boundary of the area in which they were marketed. On a number of sites about 25 km from the city this is the main or only class of medieval pottery. At Crediton, only *c.* 14 km from the city, they made up something like 40% of the later medieval pottery. In the city they form only 1% of the total later medieval assemblage (Allan and Langman 2010, 154; EAR 3, 128).

## *Granite-derived wares including Totnes-type ware*

The late 13th century saw the emergence of a pottery at Bridgetown Pomeroy, the new town on the River Dart opposite Totnes, where pottery production continued into the early 18th century (Allan 1984c, 79–80). Its products are highly distinctive, being tempered with sands washed down from Dartmoor, rich in micas and other granite-derived minerals. A second documented South Devon pottery at Dodbrooke near Kingsbridge, and other potteries at Plympton and Bere Ferrers whose products are known only in the post-medieval period, probably made very similar wares, but there is currently no medieval archaeological evidence for these sites (details in Allan *et al.* 2018b, 82–3). Like their North Devon competitors, these potteries enjoyed very limited success in the Exeter market, despite the possibilities of coastal transport (Fig. 17.25). Sherds from Seaton show that a few of these products also travelled further east along the South Devon coast.

*Fig. 17.24 The distribution of North Devon pottery in south-western England,* c*. 1200–1500 (drawn by David Gould)*

## *Regional imports*

It has been noted that the trades in pottery from other English centres declined after the mid 13th century. No later 13th-century or later wares from the London area have been recognised. We have yet to see a defi nite example of a Laverstock (Salisbury area) jug from Exeter, and the splendid Poole-type white ware jugs of the late 13th and 14th centuries are also unknown here, although they are represented in several excavations in Plymouth. There are a few examples of wheel-thrown Bristol (Redcliff) pottery at Exeter (Fig. 17.15, no. 1602 is one example which was not recognised in EAR 3), but they are generally scarce.

## *Saintonge imports*

In total, at least 424 Saintonge vessels were recorded from the excavations up to 1980, and a further 320 French green-glazed white ware vessels were deemed too fragmentary for fi rm attribution (EAR 3, 22). I have not thought it profi table to count every sherd found since then, but it can be estimated that somewhere between 600 and 1000 Saintonge vessels are represented in the Exeter collection. Nearly all of them are jugs; there is just one horn, with one mortar and about fi ve *pégaux* (large three-handled pitchers). The Exeter puzzle jug (Fig. 17.26A–C) remains a unique object. A wide range of other decorative types is represented: polychrome (23

vessels in 1980), all-over-green (17 examples in the same sample), sgraffi to (three) and mottled green-glazed jugs with combing, applied vertical thumbed strips, rouletted horizontal bands, and applied bosses (Figs 17.26–7).

Saintonge wares formed between 7% and 11% of the assemblages of *c.* 1250–1350 on a range of city sites, without obvious signs that they were used in greater numbers on richer sites. Saintonge polychrome pottery is even recorded in the groups of ceramics from the small houses of Rack Street (EAPIT 2, Chapter 8) that must surely have been homes of the poor.

## DistRibution in the Region

Exeter is one of three ports in the south-western region with substantial collections of Saintonge pottery, the others being at Plymouth and Poole. Finds of this type are most frequent in the Plymouth assemblages, where Saintonge wares commonly make up about a quarter of stratifi ed groups by sherd count, and individual groups sometimes contain more than 40% Saintonge wares (detailed fi gures in Allan 1994). We do not have much statistical information for Poole, but Saintonge wares formed about 5% of a sample of more than 4000 sherds examined there in the 1980s (also by sherd count: Allan 1983b, 196). All these collections, of course, are dwarfed by that at Southampton. It has been noted that not only the proportion but the types of Saintonge vessels represented

*Fig. 17.25 The distribution of South Devon granite-derived pottery in south-western England (drawn by David Gould)*

in these collections varies. The Plymouth material consists almost entirely of green-glazed white ware jugs; the Southampton fi nds include a wider range of vessel types, such as redwares, mortars, costrels, lids and gritty wares (Brown 2002, 26–8).

An attempt to map all the fi ndspots of Saintonge pottery in the region is shown as Fig. 17.28. Coverage is likely to more complete in Devon and Cornwall than in Somerset and Dorset. Despite the map's imperfections, it is likely to be accurate in showing that occurrences are much more common on or near the south coast, with concentrations of fi nds around the ports of Exeter, Dartmouth and Plymouth, with a probable group of sites emerging around the Fal Estuary. The other big concentration of fi nds is on the Isles of Scilly, where Saintonge wares made up about 10% of sherds on a range of sites on land but a much higher fraction of pottery in the assemblages from offshore sites (Allan *et al.* 2019; Allan and Stevens forthcoming). In Somerset, fi nds are restricted mainly to the port of Bridgwater and high-status inland sites like Glastonbury Abbey and Wells Cathedral Close (Allan, Dawson and Kent 2015; Dawson *et al.* 2015). The inland towns have few imports; the fi ve examples from Taunton form a minor part of a large sample.

## **The Late Middle Ages,** *c.* **1350–1550**

## *The sequence of ceramic horizons*

After the period of highly decorated wares the quantity of pottery available for study declines markedly with the disappearance of urban rubbish pits and cesspits, a phenomenon evident across southern England (see Chapters 5–7 above). Four ceramic horizons are now distinguished in the city, introducing one subdivision of those proposed in the 1980s (EAR 3, 10):

*Fig. 17.26 Saintonge pottery from Exeter. (A–C) The Exeter puzzle jug; (D) polychrome jugs from Goldsmith Street pit 228 (Site 39); (E) green-glazed jugs from Smythen Street (Site 115); (F–G) later medieval bib-glazed jugs (photos © RAMM)*

459–61 and Queen Street well 350: EAR 3, 90–3; Allan 2019, 120–2); a very large group of jugs of very similar character has more recently been excavated at Princesshay (Site 156; Fig. 17.29A).

• *Horizon L:* groups in which the local wares typical of the early 16th century such as Donyatt Group 3 (Coleman-Smith and Pearson 1988, 80–1) are in circulation alongside many of the typical late 15th/early 16th-century imports such as Raeren stonewares and Beauvais earthenwares, but there are no bowls, which become universal after *c.* 1500. The group from Polsloe Priory (Site 59) contexts 1582–3, stratified below two early 16th-century pre-Dissolution deposits, remains the best example of this horizon (EAR 3, 91–3).

• *Horizon M*: groups with typical imports of the early 16th century, including groups from Dissolution deposits and contexts with numismatics, leather and glass of *c.* 1500–50 (*ibid*., 154–67).

*Fig. 17.27 Saintonge pottery from Exeter (drawn by Jane Reed and John Allan, © RAMM)*

## *Local pottery*

One uncertainty here is the point at which production of Exeter fabrics 40 and 42 ceased. These wares are present in Horizons J and K but had certainly disappeared by Horizon M; whether they were still in use in Horizon L is less clear, but an end date of *c.* 1450 is suggested on the present imprecise evidence.

The late medieval jug fabrics contain few inclusions and their sources can be hard to establish, even with petrological study. In the future it would be worthwhile to carry out a programme of ICP analysis to distinguish the sources represented, which probably include products of Donyatt in South Somerset (Coleman-Smith and Pearson 1988), Hemyock in eastern Devon (Smart 2018), and other related centres. Figure 17.29B shows a typical example of these late medieval jugs.

## *Low Countries and Rhenish stonewares*

A significant feature of the pottery of Exeter and other sites in Devon and Cornwall is the striking rarity of stonewares dating before *c.* 1450, notably those from Langerwehe and Siegburg, which are common in the east coast ports of England and Scotland (compare *e.g.* Vince 1985; Evans 2019; Haggarty 2019). It is only with the arrival of Raeren-type vessels in the late 15th century that the market in stoneware develops. At present the starting date for these wares at Exeter is derived from evidence of customs accounts showing that the importation of ʻstone cups' was underway here by the 1470s (EAR 3, 117). This seems to correspond well with the earliest reference to the importation of stonewares *(cruses)* in Southampton, dated 1470 (Brown 2002, 132).

*Fig. 17.28 The distribution of Saintonge pottery in south-western England (drawn by David Gould)*

*Fig. 17.29 Later medieval pottery at Exeter. (A) The Princesshay (Site 156) well group during conservation, probably early 15th century; (B) South Somerset jug from Friernhay Street (Site 75), mid or late 15th century (© RAMM)*

In the last quarter of the 15th century stonewares rapidly became the principal class of imported ceramics in the city. This was a trade conducted on a considerable scale; the evidence of the Exeter customs accounts can be used to calculate that more than one million stoneware pots arrived in the port of Exeter over the post-medieval period (Allan 1983a, 39–45; 1984a, 125–6). Fragments of more than 333 examples of early 16th-century imported stonewares were recovered by 1980, and every collection of household rubbish sampled from this period, both in rich and poor parts of the city, contains several such vessels. Stonewares form 64% of the imported pottery of that date (EAR 3, 103). They form an appreciably higher proportion of the Exeter imports than they do in contemporary deposits at Plymouth *(*Allan 1994, 48–9), and the proportion is somewhat higher than on other major collections in south-western England and southern Wales (cf. figures for Carmarthen, Penhow, Acton Court and Glastonbury Abbey in Allan and Wrathmell 2016, 61).

The principal type of imported ceramics at Exeter in the late 15th and early 16th century is Raeren stoneware (47% of all imported vessels in early 16th-century contexts) followed by products from Cologne (11%), Siegburg (2%), Langewehe (2%) and Beauvais (1%: figures in EAR 3, 113). Figures 17.30 and 17.31 show characteristic examples of the first three types.

The rich documentary evidence for the port of Exeter shows that the sudden rise in stoneware imports does not reflect a significant reorientation of the city's trading pattern with the development of shipping trade to the Low Countries but instead the development of an indirect trade via London; in the late 16th century fully 90% of the Rhenish stonewares arriving at Exeter had come by indirect trade through the capital (Allan 1983a, 37–40; 1984a, 113–26). This shows that that in the late 15th century Devon rapidly adopted the practice of using ceramic drinking equipment for storing and drinking at table. In this regard the county was old-fashioned; much of eastern England and the ports of Scotland had adopted these customs in the course of the 14th and 15th centuries.

## *Northern French imports*

In the late 15th century the potteries of northern France also took advantage of the region's novel demand for decorated tableware, and for specialist items such as albarelli (drug jars) and flasks. The principal classes of imported ceramics from this region have been described elsewhere: stonewares, monochrome-glazed and sgraffito-decorated earthenwares from the Beauvaisis, flasks from Martincamp, and white ware floor-tiles from Normandy (Hurst *et al.* 1986, 102–16; Allan, Hunt, Keen and Taylor 2016).

## *Beauvais wares*

At Exeter the Beauvais white ware drinking jugs with their brilliant yellow or green glazes are especially common, represented by at least 64 examples in Exeter (Fig. 17.32C–I; the yellow-glazed more common than

*Fig. 17.30 (A) Late 15th-century Siegburg jug with pewter lid from Goldsmith Street (Site 39). (B) Raeren stonewares from various Exeter sites (photos © RAMM)*

*17. The Local, Regional and Other North European Pottery, 900–1550* 497

*Fig. 17.31 (A) Three early 16th-century Cologne stonewares from Goldsmith Street pit 228 (Site 39): oak leaves and acorns, plain jug and rosettes. (B) Cologne* Bartmann *jugs of the mid 16th century (photos © RAMM)*

the green), compared with 15 sgraffito-decorated wares (mainly dishes and albarelli), two monochrome-glazed combed wares and 17 stonewares; the total minimum vessel count is currently 98. The predominance of drinking jugs over the better-known sgraffito wares is also evident at Southampton, and in Wales (Brown and Thomson 1996, 45; Papazian and Campbell 1992, 19–21). Beauvais wares are even more strongly represented at Plymouth, where 101 vessels have been recorded from a smaller sample of late 15th/early 16th-century ceramics (published examples from St Andrews Street, Woolster Street, Kitto Institute, Dung Quay, and many unpublished finds: Broady 1979, 7; Preston 1986, 28–30; Allan and Barber 1992; Allan 2000a; Allan and Langman 2003, 58–61). Elsewhere in the region there are also substantial finds at Barnstaple, Totnes and Poole (respectively 33, 20, and more than 14 vessels: many unpublished but see Allan 1984a; Barton and Thomson 1992). In total, 311 Beauvais vessels have been noted by the writer from sites in south-western England (Fig. 17.33). This seems a high figure, but Beauvais pottery is also well represented in Wales and Scotland, for example (Papazian and Campbell 1992; Haggarty 2019), and the entire south-western region could not match the 20 or so complete profiles or substantial fragments from Southampton (Brown and Thomson 1996).

 There are also interesting differences in marketing patterns within the region. The drinking jugs are generally the most common (at least 152 examples, cf. 97 sgraffito vessels, 50 stonewares and 12 comb-decorated dishes with monochrome glazes) but in Barnstaple, for example, sgraffito-decorated wares have proved consistently more common than the drinking jugs on several sites (27 vessels, cf. six of the latter).

## *Normandy floor-tiles*

## Introduction

EAR 3 published a distinctive class of late 15th and early 16th-century plain white ware floor-tiles (some with streaks of red clay, others in a pink fabric with white clay lumps or streaks), glazed either yellow or green, found on several sites in the city, which had also been recognised by Dr Christopher Norton at Winchester (Allan and Keen 1984, 240–2). It seemed probable that they were imports from Normandy, where Norton had noted comparable tiles at Rouen, and the publication related them to references in the Exeter customs accounts to the importation of tiles from Normandy (probably Rouen) in the period 1490–1540.

The evidence for the distribution of tiles of this type in the British Isles was brought together in a discussion of the floor of the chapel of Cotehele, in Cornwall, which seems to be the only intact pavement composed of such tiles surviving in Great Britain and Ireland (Allan, Hunt, Keen and Taylor 2016). Figure 17.34 reproduces the distribution map prepared for Cotehele, with the additional sites of Ottery St Mary, in Devon, and Kilkenny, in Ireland, found since 2016. It shows that the marketing pattern was strongly weighted to the south-west of England, and especially to south Devon, where there are numerous examples, both in churches and on secular sites (*ibid*.). They are now known from 16 sites in Exeter, and from several other sites around the Exe Estuary, including Kenton, Topsham, Exmouth and Withycombe Raleigh. By contrast, they are very rare in south-eastern England, where the rival products from the Low Countries, imported in their thousands, dominated the market.

An interesting point emerged from this mapping: the tiles have a quite different distribution pattern from the Beauvais wares. Beauvais imports circulated not just in southern England but up the east coast and in Scotland, whereas Normandy floor-tiles have a much more restricted distribution, being largely excluded from the markets of south-eastern England and the North Sea ports. This difference illustrates the snares of drawing conclusions about trading patterns based on single classes of artefact.

EAPIT offered a context for carrying out chemical analysis of some examples of these tiles, alongside other ceramics from Normandy (described above), and by chance the submission of these specimens coincided with the discovery of examples at Kilkenny, in Ireland, described by Michael Hughes (Appendix 17.4).

## *Saintonge wares*

Finally, Exeter offers some evidence for the decline in the importation of Saintonge pottery in the later Middle Ages. In two of the three principal deposits of Horizon K (probably early 15th century) there are only a few examples of Saintonge jugs (including Fig. 17.27, Princesshay (Site 156) context 8685), but in the third context, from Exe Bridge (Site 56), fragments from these jugs are just as common as they were in the late 13th and early 14th centuries (EAR 3, 90–1; Allan 2020, 119–22). A few examples of the bib-glazed jugs typical of the later Middle Ages have been recognised (Fig. 17.26G), and one unusual vessel with a pink fabric and applied grid-stamped pads may also be noted (Fig. 17.27, no. 1513, not recognised in EAR 3).

By the late 15th century, there had clearly been a decline in the importation of Saintonge jugs in Exeter, although there are a few unglazed vessels in early 16th-century contexts (EAR 3, no. 1784). A few Saintonge chafing dishes are also in the same deposits (*ibid*., 111–12), but all the late Saintonge types are much less common than at Plymouth and Southampton, and probably than at Poole (figures in Allan 1994).

*Fig. 17.32 Beauvais earthenwares from Exeter. (A and C) Yellow-glazed drinking jug from Fore Street; (B) albarello with double slip and sgraffito decoration; (D–I) other yellow- and green-glazed drinking jug fragments; (J–K) sgraffito dish and albarello, both with single brown slip (© RAMM, line drawings from Allan 1984a)*

*Fig. 17.33 The distribution of Beauvais wares in south-western England (drawn by David Gould)*

## **Acknowledgements**

My chief debt is to Graham Langman, who catalogued most of the pottery from Exeter Archaeology's excavations of 1981–2012. I am grateful to Henrietta Quinnell (Cornish pottery), George Haggarty and Derek Hall (Scotland), Clare McCutcheon and Joanna Bird (Ireland), Naomi Payne (recent fi nds by AC Archaeology), David Dawson and Mike Ponsford (Somerset and Bristol), and Lyn Blackmore (London). All the sherds have been examined by the writer.

*Fig. 17.34 The distribution of Normandy floor-tiles in Great Britain and Ireland (drawn by David Gould, from Allan, Hunt, Keen and Taylor 2016 with subsequent additions)*

## Appendix 17.2

## Plasma Spectrometry Analyses of North French Wares

## *Michael J. Hughes*

## **Introduction**

Inductively-coupled plasma spectrometry (ICPS) analysis, which examines the chemical elements in a sample, is currently one of the most widely used analytical techniques applied to pottery fabrics to determine their possible source. This report presents the results of ICPS analyses of a range of imported Saxo-Norman vessels found in Exeter which are believed to be of northern French origin. The project was specifically chosen to address lacunae in the analyses of several significant French pottery types. Part of the justification for analysing French imports is the relative scarcity of systematic data on many of the well-known types of such pottery, and the need to address this lack. Without a sufficient database of analyses of ceramics of approximately the same period from a range of possible sources, it is not possible to determine the source of a particular item of pottery.

Earlier analyses of northern French wares by ICPS have shown a range of different chemical patterns, which typically appear to represent the products of individual workshops or closely associated groups working the same or similar clay resource. However, the numbers analysed have been quite limited, and for some pottery types no analyses exist, which handicaps attempts to assign imported northern French wares to their source. While mostly older analyses of a few specific types of this pottery have existed for some time, they were carried out by other analysis techniques, principally X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and most often for a much restricted range of chemical elements compared to ICPS. There is value in attempting to make a comparison against these, where they have been published in sufficient detail, but often the numbers of elements analysed in common with ICPS are too few to make statistical comparison a possibility, although visual comparison of the data has proved of some limited value.

In recent years, a survey and summary of the principal ICPS investigations on French white wares was made by the late Alan Vince; his work forms a convenient starting point for understanding the range of chemical patterns found – in the present case for northern French wares (Vince 2011). Earlier analyses of northern French wares by other methods have included XRF of the local clays of the region (Dufournier 1981), northern French white wares from the Bryggen in Bergen (Deroeux *et al*. 1994), and highly decorated wares from a number of sites (Boivin *et al*. 1996). Most of these include analyses for only the major elements – aluminium, iron, titanium, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium – considerably fewer than ICPS analyses, which include these. Vince (2011) compared the Bryggen data against his analyses of early Rouen glazed wares, and found a close correlation between the samples from the kiln site at La Londe (the only kiln for which ICPS analyses exist of its products) and Rouen-style jugs found at Bergen (assigned by Deroeux *et al*. 1994 to their Groups 1 and 2). Further, comparing the Bergen analyses with those of a series of imports from sites in the British Isles analysed by ICPS seemed to indicate that in addition to the well-known highly decorated jugs, the Lower Seine Valley was also producing and exporting green-glazed jugs, unglazed jugs and glazed lobed cups (Vince 2011, 201).

## **Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry analysis**

Forty-nine vessels from Exeter, all believed to be northern French wares of 10th to 13th-century date, were selected for analysis. Sherds of each vessel were sampled by Kamal Badreshany at the University of Durham Archaeomaterials Research Centre (DARC). A powder sample of each vessel was obtained by drilling, then analysed using a

*Table 17.3 List of northern French imported ceramics from Exeter selected for analysis by plasma spectrometry (ICPS). For Site Numbers see Chapter 2 above*

*(Continued)*

*Table 17.3 List of northern French imported ceramics from Exeter selected for analysis by plasma spectrometry (ICPS). For Site Numbers see Chapter 2 above (Continued)*

combination of inductively-coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES) and -mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Both the techniques of analysis and the statistical processing were the same as those used for the other ICPS investigations on pottery from the EAPIT project, described below (see 'Exeter jugs') and in Chapter 18. The sherds analysed are listed in Table 17.3, and the results of analysis for a total of 39 chemical elements in online Table 17.4). Figures 17.7–17.9 illustrate the range of wares. Throughout the following text, vessels are referred to by the project sample numbers shown in Table 17.3, which are given in bold in the text).

## **Interpretation and discussion of the results using Principal Components Analysis**

While an initial examination of the data using plots of pairs of element concentrations can often differentiate between pottery groups with significantly different chemical patterns, the northern French wares analysed do not show major differences, so interpretation moved directly to the use of Principal Components Analysis (PCA), as in the other studies of EAPIT ceramics. As a multivariate statistical technique, this is much better able to cope with subtle inter-group chemical patterns.

## *PCA on the Exeter northern French wares against similar wares from Tresco Channel*

A relevant recent set of analyses to the Exeter study is an investigation of finds of northern French wares recovered from underwater sites in the Isles of Scilly in the vicinity of Tresco Channel (Hughes 2019). These included red-painted Normandy wares (seven samples), French green-glazed rouletted pottery (three samples), Bristol Pottery Type (BPT) 192 (six examples), and other suspected northern French wares. It was particularly valuable to see the chemical patterns for the first three of these groups, which complemented the vessels selected for the Exeter study.

The results from the Exeter samples were combined with those from the northern French wares from Tresco Channel and examined statistically using PCA. Both projects used ICPS atomic emission and mass spectrometry, so a large element dataset could be used for the statistical test. PCA simultaneously considers the concentrations of many elements in each sample and the results are conveniently displayed in graphical form.

The plot of the first two principal components showed that the first component did not differentiate sufficiently between the groups, but the plot of the second and third components did (Fig. 17.35). None of the Exeter sherds fell outside a general chemical pattern for the wares as a whole. Of the Tresco Channel sherds, one green-glazed rouletted ware appeared to have suffered a problem during analysis and one of the suspected northern French wares seemed from its analysis more likely to be a western French white ware; these two were excluded from the re-run statistical tests. Many of the Exeter pottery types formed consistent chemical groups, separated or closely related to each other, which indicates a range of clay compositions used for their manufacture, consistent within each group but differing (for the most part) between groups, and indicating typical clay chemistries for northern French white ware pottery. All the sherds discussed here from Tresco Channel and from the other sites on Scilly fall within a range of composition patterns of the Exeter samples.

Many sherds fall into a general cluster (Fig. 17.35), indicating very probably closely related origins. The French green-glazed rouletted wares from Tresco Channel form a particularly compact cluster on the second component, in the middle of the Fig. 7.35, suggesting the same production centre for this group.

There are some fairly dense clusters of points suggesting the use of some common clay resources. Two of the Tresco Channel type groups, however, are clearly chemically different from the Exeter samples. These are of the Bristol Pottery Type 192 and the green-glazed rouletted white ware; they form compact self-contained groups in the lower centre of Fig. 17.35 (*i.e.* low on the second principal component), close to each other but not overlapping, suggesting different workshops, clay sources or chronological periods. The finding of a series of quite similar chemical groups present among the products of a single centre or production area is quite common in ceramic provenancing such as London delftwares (Hughes

*Fig. 17.35 Principal Component Analysis of the ICPS results on northern French white wares from Exeter and Tresco Channel and other sites on Scilly: plot of the second and third components, with individual catalogue numbers as labels. Unnumbered samples are from Tresco Channel and other sites in the Isles of Scilly and will be marked in the relevant reports (drawn by Michael Hughes)*

2008) and tin-glazed wares produced at Antwerp (Hughes and Gaimster 1999).

Five of the Bristol Pottery Type 192 sherds form another group separated from the Exeter sherds, and just below the rouletted wares. The sixth example is further up and to the right, near three north or west French jugs from Exeter, though slightly separate from the central cluster of points and the Normandy Gritty wares from Exeter (on the right-hand side of Fig. 1). Vince (2011) also considered the analysis of Bristol Pottery Type (BPT) 192, known from sites in western England and Ireland, and examined ICPS analyses of four examples in relation to a possible south-western or western French origin. The four showed considerable variation in composition; factor analysis of the ICPS data against various groups of lower Seine valley, south-western French and western French origins found one pair closer in one test to the south-western French group but another test where the latter was omitted and a fuller element list used found the closest parallels in western France. A third example fitted with Rouen wares and a fourth was an outlier. By contrast, the BPT 192 sherds from Tresco seemed to have a consistent chemical pattern suggesting a common source.

Four of the Normandy gritty wares from Exeter, namely samples **16–19**, are also distinct, but in a different part of the PCA graph (Fig 17.35, lower right), while another (**31**) is more comparable to the three highly decorated wares on the left. It would appear that the general class of 'Normandy gritty' ware contains within it either quite distinct or geographically separate workshops, or at least three different clay resources.

The Exeter glazed white wares and redwares (samples **21–8** and **30**) form a major grouping on the upper right side of Fig. 17.35, suggesting a common workshop or workshops, intermixed with examples of the northern or western French jugs (**43** and **49**), an example of Hamwic fabric 127 (**1**) and two of the three Beauvais-type sandy wares (**2** and **3**). Also overlapping with the Exeter white ware group are all but two of the unglazed Normandy white wares (**6–12**, **14** and **15**). Two of the red-painted Normandy wares from Nut Rock, in the Isles of Scilly, are part of this same clay chemical pattern.

Three of the Rouen-type jugs from Exeter, which are thought to represent local production in the vicinity of Rouen, are also associated with this group, though four others form a separate but close chemical group to left of the main group. All those pottery types which fall into this central grouping seem to share a common origin; it seems a significant finding that so many types appear to be using the same clay resource. Although Dufournier (1981) carried out initial work on the clay resources of this area, we do not unfortunately have sufficient analyses to say whether the same clay chemical pattern exists over a small or wide area, that is whether a single clay source was used or there were multiple sources at different locations.

Apart from the two red-painted wares from Tresco that form part of the main chemical group, another five form a dense cluster to the lower left of it, partly overlapping the pair of French white wares also from Tresco Channel and one of the western or northern French jugs from Exeter (**44**). Three other Exeter jugs share a common clay pattern just below the centre of Fig. 17.35 (**42**, **45** and **47**); two others are part of the main group (**43** and **49**), while two others differ chemically from them and from each other (**46** and **48**). This selection of jugs therefore appears to include the products of several quite different locations/ workshops.

Separate from the main Exeter group, sherds in the upper left of Fig. 17.35 may represent another clay pattern and source, shared in common. All three highly decorated wares are in this group (**39–41**), together with four Rouentype wares (**35–8**): the other three form a small cluster in the main group (**32–4**). Two unglazed Normandy white wares also belong (**5** and **13**), while the rest are in the main group. Likewise two north or west French jugs are present (**46** and **48**), again with other examples having a different clay chemistry.

## *Comparison by PCA of the Exeter sherds, the northern French wares from Tresco Channel, and earlier ICPS analyses of such wares from other sites*

While the analyses of wares found on the Isles of Scilly have provided a significant database against which to compare the Exeter data, there exist analyses carried out previously by ICP-atomic emission only (*i.e.* not including a significant number of trace elements measurable only by ICP-mass spectrometry). Principal among these previous analyses have been those by the late Alan Vince on northern French white wares (summarised in Vince 2011), and those of the author arising from the find of a sherd of Hamwic fabric 127 from Padstow, in Cornwall (Hughes 2002–3), and small projects on pottery found in Scotland (Hughes 2015c).

The database of ICPS analyses on northern French white wares made by Alan Vince (2005; 2011; Hall *et al.* 2012) included: 'Rouen' early glazed wares (EGW: analyses V1289–1297 in the online ICPS database Vince 2010); wasters from the 8th-century kiln at La Londe, near Rouen (La Londe: analyses V2220–30); northern French unglazed wares and early Rouen wares from Perth, in Scotland (Hall *et al.* 2012; PERTH205–9, 218, 224 and 245); northern French white wares from Aberdeen, in Scotland (Hughes 2015c); and Normandy gritty ware from Leith, in Scotland (Vince and Jones 2005, LRW1–9).

In the Padstow project the following were analysed: three further examples of Hamwic fabric 127 from the South-West Peninsula (two from Exeter and one from Barnstaple; Hughes 2002–3, nos. 6–8); three Normandy gritty wares (nos. 10–12) and one red-painted sand-tempered vessel of Beauvais type (no. 13) from Exeter; and five examples of Late Saxon north French white ware from Southampton (nos, 1–5).

Whereas the initial principal components analysis on the Exeter sherds arose from both atomic emission and mass spectrometry ICPS, these comparative analyses by atomic emission reduced the statistical tests to 28 elements. PCA was applied, and the first principal component accounted for 36% of the variation in composition, correlated positively with most elements but negatively with titanium and to a lesser extent calcium and chromium. Such positive correlation is very common in archaeological ceramics studies, with the first principal component representing broad differences in clay chemistry caused by different proportions of diluting temper in the body fabric (natural or added, often quartz silt or sand). The second and third components contained a further 12% and 12% respectively of the chemical variation, so a cumulative 60% of the chemical variation in the pottery was summarised in just these three components.

While the plots of both the first and second components, and of the second and third, were examined to interpret the results, and the first two showed significant patterning in the various pottery groups represented, it was felt that the plot of the second and third components would provide a more realistic interpretation of the ICPS results since the 'temper dilution' effect was no longer a part of it. This again showed a main grouping of the Exeter samples, including the Exeter glazed white wares and redwares, and the unglazed Normandy white wares. The three additional Hamwic fabric 127 sherds formed a small group within this main group, close to the other example from Exeter (**1**), and also to two glazed white wares and redwares (**20** and **23**) and two northern or western French jugs (**48** and **49**).

There were some differences between the Exeter samples and some of the extra data added for this test, including the unglazed wares from the kiln at La Londe analysed by Alan Vince, which were distinctly higher on the second component. These overlapped with many of the Normandy gritty wares from Ronaldson's Wharf, in Leith, but were quite distinct from any Normandy gritty wares from Exeter. They also overlapped with seven of the eight examples on northern French imports analysed from Aberdeen (Hughes 2015c), and the northern French wares from Perth analysed by Vince (Hall *et al*. 2012). The Leith gritty wares fell into two chemical groups, the larger one containing 23–9% alumina, for which a suggested origin is in the area around the Cotentin Peninsula, where a kiln has been located, although no kiln samples have been analysed to confirm this suggestion. The smaller group from Leith contained over 30% alumina and were Normandy products, but it was concluded that they were not from Lower Seine Valley (Vince and Jones 2005). The Exeter Normandy gritty wares are significantly lower in alumina (15.0–17.9%), and among the other Exeter types only two exceed 20%: **41**, a highly decorated ware, and **46**, a northern or western French jug. The principal components plots of this combined dataset confirm that the Exeter Normandy gritty wares are not related chemically to the Leith examples.

The early glazed wares analysed by Vince (2011: ROUEN EGW), however, formed a chemical sub-group on the edge of the main group which also included some of the Exeter and Tresco groups, namely on the second and third components they overlapped with some of the redpainted wares from Tresco, one of the Normandy gritty wares from Exeter (**31**), two of the Normandy highly decorated wares (**39** and **40**), two of the unglazed Normandy (**5** and **8**), two of the northern or western French jugs (**42** and **46**) and two of the Rouen-type wares (**36** and **38**). These all appear to share a very similar clay chemistry.

## **Conclusions**

The ICPS analyses of the northern French pottery from sites in Exeter shows a general composition pattern consistent with production within a specific region but with separation into distinct groups by pottery type and chronology. Comparison of results with northern French wares found in Tresco Channel, and other sites in the Isles of Scilly, has complemented the Exeter samples, throwing further light on the chemical relationships between the many types of pottery produced in northern France.

Further comparison against earlier ICPS analyses of northern French pottery by several authors have added further chemical groups to the pattern. Among the groups which did show significant chemical differences from the rest of the northern French wares were Bristol Pottery Type 192 and the green-glazed rouletted white wares; they formed compact self-contained groups suggesting that these particular sherds each came from an individual source. Normandy gritty ware showed three composition groups, suggesting either quite distinct or geographically separate workshops, or at least three different clay sources. The glazed white wares and redwares from Exeter form a single composition group, to which also belong examples of the northern or western French jugs, the Hamwic 127 vessel and two of the three Beauvais-type red-painted wares. Including other examples of Hamwic 127 in the second statistical test showed that all the known analysed examples have a similar clay chemistry, corresponding to the main chemical group. Also part of the main group are all but two of the unglazed Normandy white wares, as were two of the red-painted Normandy wares from Nut Rock, in the Isles of Scilly. Three of the Rouen-type wares from Exeter are also included in this group, though four others form a close but separate chemical group. All those pottery types which fall into the main chemical group seem to share a common origin or clay resource. The early glazed wares analysed by Alan Vince formed a sub-group within the main group which also included most of the red-painted wares from Tresco, and of the Exeter sherds one Normandy gritty ware, two each of the highly decorated wares, unglazed Normandy wares, north or west French jugs, and Rouen-type wares.

Some other types are slightly different from this major chemical group: five red-painted wares from Tresco group together, but apart from the two from Nut Rock, partly overlapping a pair of French white wares from Tresco Channel. Three of the Exeter northern or western French jugs share a common clay pattern just separated from the main chemical group which includes two others; yet another two differ chemically from them and from each other. The Exeter samples of this type of jug appear to include the products of several quite different locations/ workshops. Also different from the Exeter samples were unglazed wares from the kiln at La Londe, a site close to the river Seine, about 25 km from Rouen. These were analysed by Alan Vince and overlapped chemically with many of the Normandy gritty wares from Ronaldson's Wharf, in Leith, but were quite distinct from any Normandy gritty wares from Exeter.

Some of the pottery types exhibited a single chemical profile (*e.g.* Hamwic 127, Rouen early glazed wares, highly decorated wares, and glazed white wares and redwares). While these appear to be products of a single kiln or group of kilns, it may be that examples from other consumer sites might differ, suggesting multiple kilns producing the same ware. Many types do show more than one chemical profile and may be examples of this: Normandy gritty wares, Rouen-type wares, red-painted Normandy wares, and unglazed Normandy white wares. There were also single chemical profiles for two types which fell slightly outside the main group and overlapped no others: Bristol Pottery Type 192, and the green-glazed rouletted wares.

It will be interesting to see, now that the chemical profiles of many types of northern French wares have been established in the course of this project, whether analyses of more examples of these import types from other sites conform to the present patterns or indicate new profiles (*i.e.* sources).

## Appendix 17.3

## Chemical characterisation of Exeter fabrics 40 and 42 by ICP

## *Michael J. Hughes*

## **Introduction**

Fabrics 40 and 42 were first distinguished as distinct wares in the large collections of medieval pottery from Exeter; they evidently represent a production centre or centres supplying the Exeter market (above). The two fabrics are described by Taylor (Chapter 17, above).

The three aims of this investigation were to see whether chemical analysis using Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometry (ICPS) would confirm or refute the proposal that these are separate fabric groupings; to establish whether the two fabrics were related; and to try to shed light on their place of production. The study forms one of a series of ICPS projects undertaken by the writer on the medieval ceramics of South-West England (Hughes 1998; 2002; 2003a; 2005; 2010a; 2014a; 2015b; 2019).

Sixteen samples of these two fabrics (ten of fabric 40, six of 42) were selected for ICPS analysis, together with four samples found at Exwell Barton, in Powderham (Allan 2014) and a single fragment of a jug from Launceston Castle, in Cornwall, which was chosen to check the reliability of the identification of one of the more distant points in the distribution of these wares (Brown *et al.* 2006, 288, fig. 9.6, P46). One further sample of fabric 40 (EAR 3, no. 1402) had been analysed previously as a comparative sample in the report on pottery from Haycroft Farm, in Membury (Hughes 2002). The methodology employed was that described in EAPIT 2, Appendix 17.2.

A possible indicator of production in Exeter itself might be similarity to the Late Saxon pottery made in the Bedford Garage kiln in the city, and seven samples were analysed as comparative samples. Thin-sectioning of Bedford Garage Ware by Brown and Vince (1984, 32) identified a small quantity of acid igneous rock fragments alongside quartz, chert and sandstone. The full list of samples analysed is given in Table 17.5 and their ICPS results in online Table 17.6. The average concentrations of elements in the Exeter fabric samples and comparative analyses are given in online Table 17.7.

## **Results of the ICPS chemical analyses**

The examples of fabrics 40 and 42 analysed from Exeter formed two entirely consistent and different composition groups, each group containing examples of only one fabric. The two fabric groups contained similar levels of iron, calcium, titanium, manganese and the trace elements chromium, lanthanum and cerium (online Table 17.6). However, they differed in that fabric 40 had significantly less aluminium, sodium and strontium than fabric 42, but more magnesium, potassium and the trace element zirconium (which occurs in the heavy mineral zircon). The differences support the contention that the two fabrics are distinct, although the chemical differences are such that fabric 42 does not appear to be simply a coarser version of fabric 40, since in that case the elements would usually all be systematically lower.

A notable feature of both Exeter fabrics is the relatively high concentration of potassium, highest in the fabric 40 sherds. The presence of mica has been noted in fabric 40 sherds, and this is probably the mineral responsible for the increased potassium content: the weathering of feldspar (present in many igneous rocks including granites) results in the formation of mica and clay minerals (Krauskopf and Bird 1995, 98). Ferromagnesian minerals are also significantly present in granites, contributing large amounts of iron and magnesium to the resulting clays. Both fabric 40 and 42 contain significant amounts of iron, and fabric 40 also has elevated levels of magnesium, supporting the suggestion that the clays from which it is made derive from the weathering of granite.

The four Exwell Barton sherds and the Launceston Castle sample match consistently in terms of chemical

*Appendix 17.3. Chemical characterisation of Exeter fabrics 40 and 42 by ICP* 509

*Table 17.5 Samples examined by ICPS. Samples are from Exeter unless stated otherwise*

composition with the respective sherds from Exeter in the two fabrics, so these sherds do appear to be typical examples of these fabrics, and not just apparently similar visually.

## **Interpretation of the ICP analyses using Principal Components Analysis and Discriminant Analysis**

To make more progress with understanding the relationships between fabrics 40 and 42, and to compare them with pottery made at known production centres, it was necessary to use multivariate statistics, which simultaneously considers the concentrations of many elements in each sample. For this investigation, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Discriminant Analysis (DA) were used (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007); descriptions of their application to archaeology have been given elsewhere (*e.g.* Baxter 1994; 2003; Shennan 1997). The statistical package SPSS Version 15 was used for this work (Pellant 2007). For interpreting the statistical plots produced in this project (Figs 17.36 and 17.37), each individual item analysed has been shown by a symbol for either the fabric group to which it belongs, or the site where it was found. The colour of the symbol denotes its fabric type or site. Such plots are effectively chemical 'maps' for the items analysed, and if the ceramics within

a group are made of the same clay, they will plot in the same part of the Figure.

## **Discriminant Analysis**