Blue Bridge Lane
&
Fishergate House
Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).
Excavations at Blue Bridge Lane and Fishergate House revealed that in the later medieval period the domestic occupation, which had occupied the sites in the 12th and 13th century, ceased and in its place a pottery kiln was constructed on the Blue Bridge Lane site. A large quantity of Humberware was recovered from Blue Bridge Lane and a much smaller quantity from Fishergate House. Following assessment and archive recording of the pottery from both sites, the further study of the Humberware was identified as a major target for more detailed analysis. The aims of this analysis were to answer a series of questions raised by the assessment:
In order to investigate these issues, two studies were recommended, the first being the scientific characterisation of the Blue Bridge Lane Humberware and comparison with other Humberware produced in York (Walmgate) and elsewhere (West Cowick, Holme upon Spalding Moor and unknown sites in East Yorkshire), and the second being a typological study of the Blue Bridge Lane and Fishergate House Humberware.
Excavation at Blue Bridge Lane, Fishergate, York, revealed a medieval pottery kiln and a substantial quantity of waste. The products of this kiln were in the Humberware tradition (known in York as Walmgate ware, 1987) and are of later 14th century date.
In order to determine the raw materials used in the manufacture of this pottery and to determine whether or not the products could be characterised and, therefore, recognised on consumer sites, samples were taken for thin-section and chemical analyses.
Seven samples were thin-sectioned by Steve Caldwell at the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Manchester and stained using Dickson's method (Dickson 1965). The samples were chosen to include vessels which showed signs of waste but were not vitrified. They also included sherds with white slip, which seems to have been applied alongside the copper-mottled lead glaze. All the thin-sectioned samples came from jugs, by far the most common form produced on the site (Table 1).
A subsample of each sherd was prepared for analysis by Peter Hill, who mechanically removed all the sample surfaces, both original and breaks, in order to minimise post-burial contamination. These also included two vitrified wasters, including an unglazed drinking jug, V2581. The resulting lumps were then crushed to a fine powder and submitted to Royal Holloway College London, where they were analysed under the supervision of Dr J N Walsh, Department of Geology, using Inductively-Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy (ICP-AES).
| TSNO | Context | Ref No | cname | Form | Action | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V2579 | 1186 | 1213 | HUM | JUG | TS;ICPS | PULLED LIP |
| V2581 | 1537 | 1437 | HUM | DJ | ICPS | |
| V2585 | 1189 | 1209 | HUM | JUG | TS;ICPS | GLAZE WITH CU; KILN SCAR |
| V2580 | 1186 | 1213 | HUM | JUG | ICPS | BURNT GLAZE |
| V2577 | 1186 | 1213 | HUM | JUG | TS;ICPS | WHITE SLIP AND SPOTS OF BURNT GLAZE |
| V2584 | 1695 | 1538 | HUM | JUG | TS;ICPS | |
| V2583 | 1695 | 1538 | HUM | JUG | TS;ICPS | |
| V2582 | 1537 | 1464 | HUM | JUG | TS;ICPS | |
| V2578 | 1186 | 1213 | HUM | JUG | TS;ICPS | WHITE SLIP |
All seven sections have a similar appearance in thin section, apart from differences in firing which are probably due in part to the sherds coming from wasters. The following inclusion types were noted in the seven thin sections:
The groundmass consists of optically anisotropic baked clay minerals with abundant darker brown clay pellets rare angular quartz and muscovite laths up to 0.05mm long.
Where present in thin section, the glaze is partially crystallized. It contains abundant needles of an unidentified mineral but no quartz inclusions. The boundary between the glaze and the body usually has a dark, almost opaque interface and in places quartz inclusions in the body are standing proud of the surrounding surface into the glaze. Sparse rounded vesicles are present in the glaze.
Because of the fineness of the sand inclusions it is difficult to identify the source of any with any certainty. However, the fine-grained sandstone, the calcareous siltstone, limestones, and the mudstones all outcrop in the Jurassic outcrops of the Hambleton Hills and there are no inclusions present which could not originate in that area. The groundmass appears in the main to consist of weathered mudstone, recognisable because of the ill-defined dark clay pellets in the groundmass and the similarity in colour and texture of much of this clay to the mudstone inclusions. Of particular interest are the small chert fragments. None was sufficiently large for the positive identification as Rhaxella chert to be made, but the fragments are more similar to Jurassic cherts than to Carboniferous ones.
A range of major elements were measured as percent oxides (Appendix 1) while a range of minor and trace elements were measured as parts per million (Appendix 2). Silica was not measured directly but was estimated by subtracting the total major element count from 100%. Figure 1 shows the estimated silica content for other analysed samples of Humberware and indicates that the York ware has a lower mean silica value than those from Holme upon Spalding Moor and material from consumer sites at Barton upon Humber and Wawne (East Yorkshire), but overlaps with material from Cowick and West Cowick.
Figure 1.
Because of this variation in silica content, some of which is probably due to the deliberate tempering of the clays, the chemical data were normalised to aluminium. The resulting dataset was then analysed using factor analysis. This revealed six significant factors, of which two, Factors 4 and 6, clearly separated the York from the other data (Figure 2). Figure 2 also shows that the two other kiln waste groups, from West Cowick and Holme upon Spalding Moor were clearly separated from each other as well as from the York samples. The Barton and Wawne samples include some which have similar compositions to the West Cowick and Holme groups, and some samples which clearly have different compositions, indicating other, unlocated sources of Humberware supplying those two settlements. Neither site included any samples which might be York products. A single sherd of Humberware from a consumer site in York itself (Coppergate, sample V2395) can be seen in Figure 2 to have a similar composition to the Blue Bridge Lane samples but with a higher F6 score.
Figure 2.
The lead content of the two vitrified Blue Bridge Lane samples is lower than that of any other analysed Humberwares, some of which have clearly been contaminated with lead glaze since they contain higher lead contents than occur on unglazed wares found in the Vale of York area. Although this low lead content is partly due to the absence of lead glaze on the drinking jug, it is actually lower than that found in unglazed wares and probably indicates the removal of lead due to volatilisation. No other elements have similar depletion or corresponding enrichment in other elements and therefore it is likely that firing conditions are not a major factor in the chemical composition.
The Blue Bridge Lane Humberware analyses were then compared with other red earthenwares of known/suspected York origin (Figure 3). Again, six factors were found and two of these, F4 and F5, were the most successful in distinguishing the various groups. In Figure 3 the Holme upon Spalding Moor samples (HUM HOSM) and the West Cowick samples (HUM WC) have negative F4 scores, whilst the Humberware samples from Wawne (HUM WAWNE) and Barton (HUM BOH) have lower F4 scores than the remainder, as do two sherds of Tees Valley Ware (TVW).
The remaining samples have similar compositions. They include 12th century splashed wares in the Beverley ware tradition (BEVO1T, BEVO2T), a redware identified as a red-firing Brandsby-type ware (BRANRED), a sample of Roman Eboracum 1 ware (RPOT). However, a sample of what is taken to be genuine Beverley glazed ware from a site in York has a similar composition (BEVO2).
Samples of Anglo-Scandinavian York A ware (YORKA) and iron rich sandy ware (IRS), tempered with hammerscale, are clearly distinguished from the remainder by their F6 scores and are distinguished from each other by their F4 scores.
Figure 3.
In thin-section, the Blue Bridge Lane samples all have a similar appearance and this suggests that a single clay source, naturally tempered with a fine quartz sand, was used to produce the pottery. Without samples of the local boulder clay, it is not possible to say whether this clay was cleaned in any way to remove large inclusions, or whether naturally stone-free boulder clay is available in the York area. The sections also show that there is a strong similarity between the range of inclusions found in the Blue Bridge Lane samples and those found in Brandsby-type ware and that this suggests that a major source of the boulder clay in the York area is the Jurassic rocks of the Hambleton Hills and Howardian Hills area. This in turn suggests that some/all of the coarse-grained overgrown quartz grains present in this clay are possibly of Upper Jurassic sandstones rather than the Millstone Grit. This has some importance for the interpretation of ceramic thin-sections in the Vale of York area.
The chemical composition of the Blue Bridge Lane Humberware can be used to distinguish it from Humberwares produced elsewhere in Yorkshire and, possibly, northeast Lincolnshire. It also reveals slight but real differences from a sample from Coppergate and this holds out the possibility that the Blue Bridge Lane pottery might be distinguished from other York production sites making visually indistinguishable pottery (such as the waste found at Walmgate).
The chemical data also add to the tentative suggestion that some of the Beverley-type wares found in York are actually locally-made copies, although they are easy to distinguish from the Blue Bridge Lane fabric in thin-section and were clearly made using different clays.
As part of the archive record of the Blue Bridge Lane and Fishergate House pottery, all sherds of Humberware were separated into definite wasters and others, counted and weighed. This demonstrated that even in definite waste deposits, such as the backfill of the kiln itself, only a minority of the Humberware sherds showed signs of damage, mostly overfiring and warping. Further sherds showed atypical firing (complete oxidation as opposed to the reduced firing with oxidized surfaces of normal Humberware), but others were indistinguishable from those found in typical domestic waste in York. Furthermore, sherds of vessels, which were clearly not produced in York (such as Dutch Red Earthenware and Rhenish stonewares), were found in association with the definite waste, so it cannot automatically be assumed that all Humberware sherds found at Blue Bridge Lane are products of the Blue Bridge Lane kiln. On the other hand, there were very few assemblages of any size at Blue Bridge Lane which produced sherds of Humberware with not a single waste sherd. Therefore, there is very little evidence for a pre-kiln use of Humberware on the site.
The Humberware sherds were then recorded in more detail. Featureless body sherds were ignored and the typological features of the remainder were recorded. The recorded features are listed in Table 2.
| Field | Comments |
|---|---|
| record date | |
| sitecode | YBB or YFH |
| context | Context number |
| cname | HUM |
| form | controlled word list |
| action | A unique identifier was assigned to each sherd selected for illustration, starting with H001 |
| rim form | Rim forms were assigned codes, from R01 to R49. |
| rim eves | Percentage of rim present, ranging from 0 to 100 |
| rim diameter | Diameter in mm |
| spout form | Only one form of spout was present, PULLED |
| rim/handle join | Percentage of rim/handle form present |
| r/h join type | controlled word list |
| handle form | controlled word list |
| handle width | Width (horizontal) in mm |
| handle thickness | Thickness (vertical) in mm |
| handle dec | controlled word list |
| body/handle join | percentage present |
| b/h join type | controlled word list |
| glaze | controlled word list covering the type (plain or copper-green), location (inside or out) and condition of glaze |
| slip | controlled word list |
| decoration type | |
| decoration placement | controlled word list |
| base form | Base forms with assigned codes from B1 to B8 |
| knife trimming | YES/NO |
| base decoration | |
| base eves | Percentage of base present, from 0 to 100 |
| base diameter | Diameter in mm |
| condition1 | WASTE, WASTE? or blank (not waste) |
| use | Codes: SE = sooted exterior, SI = sooted interior, WDI = white deposit int etc. |
| condition2 | ABRADED, VERY ABRADED or blank (not abraded) |
| stacking | Denotes presence of a central stacking scar on the base |
| description | Other comments, such as details of waste fault(s) |
Where measurements of diameters are given the diameter was calculated using a radius chart and the accuracy depends on the amount of the rim which was present, as well as on the presence or absence of distortion. There are significantly fewer diameters with odd rather than even centimetres. For example, there are nineteen bases with diameters of 200mm and forty-three with diameters of 180mm but only three with diameters of 190mm. The limited accuracy of the diameter measurements should be borne in mind in the following discussion of vessel sizes and standardisation.
Wasters of six vessel types were present: cisterns, curfews, drinking jugs, jars, jugs, and pipkins. In addition there were a number of rims and bases which could not be assigned to a vessel type. This is because the same rim, handle and base forms were used on more than one vessel type.
A study of both the rim and base diameters indicates that there are overlapping ranges for the jugs (including bunghole cisterns) and unglazed drinking jugs. It is therefore difficult to distinguish with any certainty small jugs and large drinking jugs and there are too few examples of the cisterns to tell if they overlap in size with the larger jugs.
Table 3 shows the frequency of these forms within the definite waste sherds from BLUE BRIDGE LANE. It shows clearly that there are discrepancies between the different measures, of which the most obvious is the lack of measureable base sherds and that body/handle joins survive slightly better than rims and rim/handle joins. However, the data do show clearly that jugs were the most common form produced, followed as a poor second by drinking jugs with all other forms being present only as isolated examples.
| Data | UNID | CIST | CURFEW | DJ | JAR | JUG | JUG/DJ | PIPKIN | Grand Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rim eves | 61 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 35 | 466 | 10 | 0 | 586 |
| rim/handle join | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 542 | 5 | 0 | 552 |
| body/handle join | 0 | 0 | 5 | 17 | 0 | 649 | 0 | 0 | 671 |
| base eves | 345 | 11 | 0 | 67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 423 |
About three times as much pottery had no sign of wastage but presumably is mostly kiln waste. The range of vessel types found in this larger assemblage is extremely similar to that found in the waste, with the addition of a urinal, a small handled bowl or condiment dish and a possible dripping dish (Table 4). Here too there are discrepancies between the four measures, with a much higher base EVE total than for the other measures.
| Data | UNID | ? | CIST | DJ | JUG/DJ | DJ? | JAR | URINAL | JUG | LARGE JUG; BICONICAL? | COND | Grand Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rim eves | 34 | 16 | 0 | 369 | 75 | 0 | 292 | 12 | 1029 | 0 | 6 | 1799 |
| rim/handle join | 0 | 51 | 0 | 547 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1071 | 0 | 0 | 1669 |
| body/handle join | 0 | 0 | 0 | 268 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 0 | 966 | 60 | 0 | 1364 |
| base eves | 1991 | 0 | 12 | 508 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 2631 |
The frequency of drinking jugs varies between the two groups. In the definite waste group, 12% of rim EVEs and 16% of base EVES are from drinking jugs, while the low frequency of drinking jug handles may indicate that a number of handles classed as jugs are actually from drinking jugs. For the sherds with no sign of wastage, the frequency of drinking jugs is 20% by rim EVEs, and 19% by base EVEs. Here, however, the ratio of jugs to drinking jugs is as high or higher for the rim/handle and body/handle join EVEs as it is for the rims and bases (33% and 20%). Four different measures therefore give a similar result: there are fewer drinking jug wasters than there are jug wasters. It is possible, however, that this is an artefact of the recording system, since a number of sherds were classed as waste if they had irregular firing or had burnt clay adhering to their glaze. The unglazed drinking jugs were intentionally oxidized, making it more difficult to spot waste sherds through firing, and of course they show no signs of faulty glaze. It is also possible that there was a greater wastage rate for the glazed jugs than for the unglazed drinking jugs and that a higher proportion of the unglazed vessels therefore left the site for sale. The data from Fishergate House hint that on a contemporary consumer site as much as half of the Humberware vessels discarded would have been unglazed drinking jugs.
The BLUE BRIDGE LANE waste includes forty-one rims with measurable diameters. These range from 60 to 130 mm. Three were identified as coming from jars (120-130mm), while the remainder were classed as jugs, drinking jugs, or either. The remaining Blue Bridge Lane Humberware included a further eighty-six jug/drinking jug rims. Even this combined dataset of 123 rim sherds is barely large enough to see whether there is any standardisation in rim diameter, especially given the inevitable bias towards whole number radii in the recording process.
Grouping together the measured diameters produces a bell-shaped curve (Figure 4) with a peak at 80-99mm and slight skewing towards the larger diameters. Those vessels with rim diameters less than 90mm are likely to have been drinking jugs and those with greater diameters were probably jugs.
Figure 4.
There is some correlation between rim diameter and rim form, suggesting that certain rims were only used on drinking jugs or jugs, for example, R30 ranges from 100-120mm whereas R12 ranges from 60-100mm. However, R1 ranges from 60-120mm and was evidently used for both vessel forms (Appendix 3).
Nine rim forms only ever occur on small diameter vessels (R6, R7, R14, R17, R32, R36, R37, R41, R44), while twenty-seven rim forms only occur on wider diameter vessels (R08, R09, R10, R11, R13, R15, R19, R21, R22, R23, R25, R26, R27, R28, R29, R30, R31, R33, R34, R35, R38, R39, R40, R42, R43, R45, R46). The remainder occur on both sizes (R1, R3, R4, R5, R12, R16, R18 and R24).
| rim diameter | DJ | JUG | JUG/DJ | Grand Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 50 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 60 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 16 |
| 70 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 15 |
| 80 | 3 | 21 | 1 | 25 |
| 85 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 90 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
| 100 | 0 | 26 | 0 | 26 |
| 110 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| 115 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 120 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| 130 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Grand Total | 25 | 93 | 5 | 123 |
Eighteen handles were found attached to measurable rims. Five were rod handles (i.e. approximately circular in cross-section) and these occurred on vessels with diameters ranging from 60-80mm. Thirteen were strap handles (i.e. appreciably wider than their thickness). These were found on vessels with diameters ranging from 100 to 120mm. The ratio of width to thickness on the measured handles shows that there is actually some variation in the aspect of handles classed as rods. Their aspect ratios range from 1.1 to 2.27. Figure 2 shows that there is actually some overlap between handles classed as rods and those classed as straps, both in absolute size and in their aspect. There is, however, a clear tendency for the rod handles to be less than 25mm wide with aspect ratios between 1 and 2 and for strap handles to be wider than 30mm with aspect ratios ranging from 2 to 4. It is likely that these smaller rod handles are exclusively from drinking jugs and the strap handles exclusively from jugs (or cisterns), while the larger rod handles are probably also from jugs. Ellipse-sectioned handles with decoration have been classed as oval and tend to be larger than rod handles but with a narrower aspect than the strap handles of similar width. It is assumed that they came from jugs.
Seven base forms were recognised at BLUE BRIDGE LANE, all of them represented by at least one waste example (Table 6).
| Form | Vessel type(s) | Base EVEs | diameter range |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Jug, Cistern, Jar | 1673 | 80-260mm |
| B2 | Drinking jug, jug | 225 | 70-210mm |
| B3 | Drinking jug | 123 | 60-140mm |
| B4 | Cistern or cauldron | 14 | 120mm |
| B5 | Drinking jug, jug | 405 | 70-180mm |
| B6 | Jug | 21 | 180mm |
| B7 | Jug, drinking jug | 321 | 60-240mm |
Base forms, therefore, mainly occur in a range of sizes and could be used for more than one vessel type. Based on base form, together with evidence for glaze and/or slip, Figure 5 shows the base diameters for all Blue Bridge Lane Humberware bases, attributed to vessel types. It indicates that the smaller diameter bases come mainly from unglazed drinking jugs whereas larger ones probably come from jugs, jars and cisterns.
Figure 5 here
Thirty-five examples of pulled spouts were found at BLUE BRIDGE LANE, including waste examples. Where the rim diameter could be measured it ranged from 80mm to 120mm. Most had some evidence for glaze or slip and occurred with a range of rim forms (R1, R2, R11, R16, R19, R20, R24, R30, R32, R38, R42 and R45).
Three bung or spigot holes were present, one of which was waste. One had a measurable base diameter, 120mm, indicating that these cisterns could be quite small, while the other measureable diameter was 180mm. The scarcity of bung holes on the site suggests that only a small proportion of the BLUE BRIDGE LANE production could have been from these vessels.
Decoration was rare and seems to have been confined in the main to jugs. Twenty-one examples of neck sherds with cordons were recorded, several of which were waste. One hundred and thirty-eight sherds with horizontal grooves or lines on the body were recorded, again with numerous waste examples. All of these have been interpreted as coming from jugs. Thirty-three sherds with applied strips were recorded. One of these came from a jar or pipkin and thirteen from jugs. The remaining nineteen sherds could not be assigned to a vessel type. Twelve sherds had stamped decoration. Only one example was stamped directly onto the body, the remainder being stamped onto applied strips (seven examples, six of which were waste) or blobs (four examples, none definitely waste).
Handle decoration is found on strap and oval handles. The oval handles have deep grooves or ridges, sometimes combined with stabbing. Of the six examples, two were waste. The strap handles also have grooved and stabbed decoration, usually in combination but including one with an applied roller-stamped strip (not waste). Sixteen of the thirty-eight strap handle fragments were waste.
Bases were mainly plain. Of the 3096 base EVEs recorded only 465 were from sherds with decoration.
A single example (not waste) had continuous thumbing around the base. Examples with widely spaced thumb impressions were equally scarce. Seven sherds had single, widely spaced thumbed impressions (none waste), two had groups of two thumb impressions (one waste) and one had groups of three thumbed impressions (not waste). The curfew fragment (waste) had thumbing at the shoulder (i.e. the base angle as thrown).
Figure 6 here Rim Diameters for Jugs and Drinking Jugs (top: by sherd count, bottom: by EVEs)
The BLUE BRIDGE LANE Humberware is characterised by the production of jugs and drinking jugs with a few minor forms. Both the jugs and drinking jugs mainly have rounded rims, varying in the presence and degree of thickening inside and out. The jugs mainly have a copper-stained glaze, applied with a white slip, and the drinking jugs are unglazed and oxidized. Handles on the jugs are usually oval or strap, decorated with grooves and those on the drinking jugs are rods with no decoration. Decoration other than grooved lines is rare. Either considered together or separately, these characteristics are not particularly diagnostic although they place the production firmly within the Humberware tradition.
At West Cowick, there is documentary evidence for the production of pottery from 1320 into the 17th century, although excavated kilns are of late 14th to 15th century date. Similarly, Humberware at Hull is first found in late 13th century deposits, in small quantities, is more common in early 14th century deposits and forms up to 40% of the pottery found in late 14th century assemblages (Watkins 1987). A similar picture is true for York, a pit group from Blake Street, assigned a 1250-1350 date, produced a single piece of Humberware, 14th century pit groups from Lendal, Skeldergate and Bishophill produced slightly higher, but still minor, quantities of Humberware (Holdsworth 1978, Section VI).
A feature of the late 13th to 14th century pottery of York is the rounded squared rim and 'devolved collar' rim, both of which are typological progressions from the squared and collared rims found on York Gritty and splash-glazed wares in the 12th and early 13th century. A few of the Blue Bridge Lane Humberware rims are of this form: R5, R11, R26, R27 and R47. They include one example from Fishergate House, from the backfill of a grave, but are otherwise from mid- to late 14th century deposits at Blue Bridge Lane. None of these rim forms occurs on definite waste, and it is possible that they pre-date the Blue Bridge Lane kiln.
Holdsworth publishes three 15th century assemblages from York and these contain a higher percentage of Humberware. One from the Bedern includes two jugs with rolled-out, rounded rims, similar to waste examples from Blue Bridge Lane. The presence of salt-glazed Raeren stoneware confirms a late 15th century or later date. Humberwares made up about half of this assemblage, the remainder being whitewares. A stone-lined pit group from Skeldergate, however, produced an assemblage almost completely consisting of Humberware, with two whiteware cisterns and sherds of two Cistercian ware Type 4 cups. The illustrated Humberware sherds include jugs with sharper neck angles and flat topped rims, which seem typologically later than the Blue Bridge Lane waste. Finally, Holdsworth publishes a pit group from Bishophill containing a large Humberware jug with a flat topped rim and a jar with a flat topped strongly everted rim. Both are types found at Blue Bridge Lane and Fishergate House but clearly later than the pottery kiln. The only contemporary associated sherd at Bishophill is of unglazed Saintonge ware.
Archaeomagnetic dating of the BLUE BRIDGE LANE kiln indicates two possible dates, one in the 1320s and the other in the late 14th century. The latter date is certainly the most likely on the basis of the similarity of the forms to those from the 15th century Bedern pit.
Two pits at Blue Bridge Lane produced assemblages of late 13th to early 14th century character which contained Humberware (as opposed to five which did not). Only two vessels with typological features were present: a knife-trimmed jug base (base form B1) and sherds from a jug with copper-stained glaze decorated with applied, roller-stamped horizontal and vertical strips. Both probably pre-date the kiln.
Of those deposits containing Humberware but without late 14th century or later imported wares, which have therefore been tentatively dated to the mid-14th century, there were 2231 sherds in total, of which 1618 were Humberware, and 1218 of these showed signs of wastage. Associated pottery consists mainly of demonstrably residual wares together with a small quantity of possibly contemporary sherds (Table 7). Most of these are likely to be of late 12th to 13th century date and none need be later than c.1350. Thus, they are consistent with the earlier of the two archaeomagnetic dates. The largest assemblages of Humberware in this group are the backfill of the terrace (F352), the backfills of pits F50 and F518 and the backfill of ditch F450. The backfill of the kiln itself, F58, included contaminated assemblages with asbestos and later medieval pottery (including Dutch Red Earthenware), but uncontaminated assemblages produced a collection of Humberware waste and probably residual 12th to 13th century wares.
| context group | BEVO | BRANDSBY | GSS | MEDLOC | NYG | RED SANDY | STAX | YG | YORK | YSP | Grand Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F049 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||
| F052 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||
| F057 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
| F058 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 13 | |||||
| F186 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 11 | ||||||
| F211 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||
| F223 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 37 | 9 | 10 | 71 | |||
| F236 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | ||||||
| F240 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||
| F248 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| F259 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
| F269 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 13 | 9 | 1 | 32 | ||||
| F325 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | |||||||
| F330 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| F333 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||
| F351 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 10 | |||||
| F352 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 53 | ||
| F401 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |||||
| F431 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
| F450 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||
| F451 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 10 | |||||||
| F518 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 9 | |||||
| Grand Total | 9 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 87 | 59 | 35 | 255 |
By contrast, in groups which contain late 14th century or later imports there are only 476 sherds of Humberware, of which 160 are definite waste, together with 125 sherds of other potentially contemporary wares (i.e. excluding Roman and earlier medieval wares) (Table 8). Some of the potentially contemporary wares do occur in the later 13th or earlier 14th century (Brandsby, Coal Measure Whiteware, Dutch Red Earthenware and Siegburg stoneware), while others are definitely later than c.1350 (Langerwehe, Langerwehe/Raeren stoneware, Hambleton ware). In most cases, these associated wares date to the later 14th century or later but the sherds of Langewehe/Raeren stoneware are possibly saltglazed and of 15th century date. These assemblages could be contemporary with the later archaeomagnetic date. The lower frequency of waste to other Humberware sherds, and the higher quantity of other potentially contemporary sherds, suggest that these assemblages post-date the use of the pottery kiln and therefore that the earlier archaeomagnetic date (c.1320-40) is probably the correct one.
| context group | BRANDSBY | DUTR | HAMBLETON | LANG | LARA | LMEDX | SIEG | Grand Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F066 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 8 | ||||
| F078 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| F122 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 17 | ||||
| F162 | 27 | 2 | 3 | 32 | ||||
| F208 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 10 | ||||
| F215 | 17 | 4 | 21 | |||||
| F219 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 18 | ||
| F220 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 13 | ||||
| F225 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| F242 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| F253 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Grand Total | 78 | 25 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 125 |
A visual comparison between samples of waste from Blue Bridge Lane and samples from Walmgate suggests that the same source of clay was used for both and that it is only through chemical analysis or typological study that the Blue Bridge Lane ware may be distinguished from other York-made Humberware.
The same range of vessel types and the same relative order of frequency are found in the Blue Bridge Lane waste and non-waste assemblages. There is a higher frequency of unglazed drinking jug sherds in the non-waste assemblage, but this is almost certainly at least in part due to the difficulty in recognising waste fragments of an unglazed, oxidized form.
There are twice as many non-waste as waste rims from Blue Bridge Lane and one would therefore expect to find some rim forms in the non-waste category which were not represented in the waste group, even if they had in fact been produced on site. However, where a large number of examples is present this may be more significant.
There are thirty-one rim forms at Blue Bridge Lane which are not represented in the waste assemblage. However, only six of these are represented by more than two examples. In order of frequency these are: R2 and R10 (ten examples each), R19 (six examples), R5, and R6 (four examples) and R16 (three examples). To judge by their rim diameters and the presence of glaze and/or slip, R2 and R19 occur on large glazed jugs, R5 and R16 are also glazed jugs but with smaller rim diameters. R10 comes from an everted rim jar and R6 occurs on unglazed drinking jugs. The R6 rim form can be thought of as a variant of R1 and it may simply be the small size of the collection which had led no waste examples to be found.
In contrast to the definite waste, the glaze on these vessels includes plain lead glaze applied with white slip. One of the jars has a possible thin brown slip.
These vessels include flat-topped jug rims and everted rimmed jars. These types are probably of later 15th and 16th century date. However, the rounded rimmed unglazed drinking jug (R6) is probably earlier.
No spout or handle types not represented in the waste assemblage are present. Neither are there any handle decoration types which are not present in the waste. Three handles were attached to the non-waste rim types described above, all were strap handles. Waste examples of all the decoration types present at Blue Bridge Lane were present and the base forms and diameter ranges of the waste and non-waste assemblages are comparable. Thus, if the rim forms identified above are indeed not kiln products the rest of the vessels must have the same range of spouts, handles decoration and bases as the remainder.
No sherds from Fishergate House show any sign of being waste, indicating that the Blue Bridge Lane potters were not able to dispose of their waste to the south of the lane.
Thirty-five of the Humberware sherds from Fishergate House had typological features. Ten could be identified as jugs, ten as drinking jugs, three as jars and the remainder were base sherds of unknown vessel form. This indicates a much higher frequency of drinking jugs than at Blue Bridge Lane.
Eleven rims were present, of which three were of types found amongst the BLUE BRIDGE LANE waste (two R12 and one R18) and the remainder either not found at BLUE BRIDGE LANE at all or found at the site but with no clear evidence for manufacture there. There is no example at all of rim form R1, the most common jug rim type amongst the BLUE BRIDGE LANE waste.
Fourteen base sherds were present and these include three of type B8, which does not occur at all at BLUE BRIDGE LANE, while the others are all represented amongst the BLUE BRIDGE LANE waste.
Copper-stained glaze has a lower incidence at FISHERGATE HOUSE but is present on 9% of rims (by Rim EVEs), and a similar proportion of base EVEs. Plain glaze is absent from rims at FISHERGATE HOUSE and present on 4% of bases. The lower incidence of glaze in general is a reflection of the higher quantity of the unglazed drinking jugs, while the ratio of copper-stained to plain glaze is probably a reflection of the inability to identify copper on some of the BLUE BRIDGE LANE wasters. Slip also has a lower incidence although it is found on 30% of the body handle joins (compared with 41% at BLUE BRIDGE LANE). Both the rim and base diameter ranges are well within those found at BLUE BRIDGE LANE. Finally, a single decorated sherd was found, an applied, stamped blob.
Two of the rims are of types identified at Blue Bridge Lane as probably not being made on site. They occur in the secondary fill of the ditch and in an overlying soil horizon and thus are potentially later than the cemetery.
To summarise, the Fishergate House Humberware is of a similar type to that made at Blue Bridge Lane (for example, copper-stained glazes applied with white slip) but includes some rim and base forms not found at Blue Bridge Lane and it does not include any examples of rim forms R1, R2 and R4, some of the most common types at Blue Bridge Lane. The high incidence of unglazed drinking jugs probably indicates a 14th century rather than later date for the majority of the Fishergate House Humberware and is reflected in lower frequencies of glaze and slip, both of which would have been restricted to jugs, jars and cisterns. A few sherds may be later than the Blue Bridge Lane kiln but these occur in late deposits and probably do not have any significance for the dating of the cemetery.
Figure 7 - Humberware H1-14
Figure 8 - Humberware H16-17 & H19-27
Figure 9 - Humberware H28-36
Figure 10 - Humberware H37-44
Figure 11 - Humberware H45-54
Figure 12 - Humberware H55-67
Figure 13 - Humberware H68-79
Figure 14 - Humberware H80-88
Figure 15 - Humberware H89-96
Figure 16 - Humberware H97-103 & H105-109
Figure 17 - Humberware H110-111 & H114-119
see also:
apc > monographs > blue bridge lane & fishergate house > artefacts & environmental > ceramics > humberware
