A late 18th-century inn clearance from Uxbridge, Middlesex

Post-Medieval Archaeology 34 (2000), 144-186

A late 18th-century inn clearance asseInblage froInUxbridge, Middlesex

By JACQUELINE PEARCE

SUMMARY· Numerous large, well-dated 18th- to 19th-century closed assemblages of domesticpottery, glass and other artefacts have recently been excavated in the London area. Discarded as asingle deposit, these (clearance groups' offer an invaluable opportunity to compare individualestablishments across the social spectrum, allowing the evolving role of ceramics in a rapidlydeveloping consumer society to be traced. This article is concerned particularly with clearances frominns and taverns, focusing on a fine assemblage of pottery, glass and clay pipes from the site of theKing's Arms in Uxbridge, deposited c. 1785-1800. The range offinds recovered, their sources andfunction, and their contribution to our understanding of inn society are discussed and comparison ismade with clearances from other victualling establishments and households in London, Guildford,Leicester and the American colonies, examining in particular the availability of ceramics, choice,taste, social status and function, as demonstrated by archaeologically recovered collectionsassembled by their original owners rather than by the preferences of modern curators and collectors.

I

INTRODUCTION

The subject of this article is a large group of late18th-century pottery and other finds excavated onthe site of the former King's Arms in Uxbridge,Middlesex. The archaeological evidence for thematerial culture of inns and taverns during the17th and 18th centuries will be reviewed by com-paring excavated assemblages from a number ofsites, both in England and the United States. TheUxbridge assemblage, and most of the othersincluded here, exhibit several distinctive features incommon, and probably represent the wholesaleclearance of unwanted or damaged crockery andother items. As such, they conform to a patternobserved in several domestic assemblages excav-ated in the London area and elsewhere. Togetherthese provide an invaluable insight into the life ofa wide and varied range of people from differentlevels of society and walks of life. By allowing the

© Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2000

144

exceptional and the mundane to be seen togetheras they originally co-existed within individualestablishments, such assemblages hold consider-able potential for bringing to life archaeologically-recovered material, often giving a more sharply-focused picture of the social milieu in which theybelonged than finds deposited as a result of general-ized dumping over a lengthy period by propertiescovering a wide area.

A DEFINITION OF 'CLEARANCE GROUPS'

'Clearance groups' may be defined as closeddeposits of deliberately discarded, everyday house-hold artefacts, with little evidence for chrono-logical contamination, representing the final fill ofa substantial cut feature, such as a cess pit, well orcistern, in which the contents are preserved as adiscrete assemblage. Such features would havebeen regularly cleaned out during their activelifetime and kept free of an excess of accumulateddebris and waste. The final fill may represent alarge-scale clear-out of selected goods from the

UXBRIDGE INN CLEARANCE

property or properties using the feature, coincidingwith its use coming to an end. Such assemblagesare usually characterized by a number of distinctivefeatures:1. Large quantities of pottery, a material which

tends to have a relatively rapid turnover in theaverage household economy, and does notlend itself to resale or recycling when damaged.Glass and metalware, such as pewter, can berecycled and are therefore not usually ~sabundant as ceramics, while most organIcmaterials generally survive burial only inspecial circumstances.

2. There is generally a high proportion of large,joining sherds and vessels whic~ can be sub-stantially reconstructed, suggestIng that theywere either thrown away intact, because theywere damaged, outmoded or no longerwanted, or that they had been freshly brokenand all recoverable fragments discarded at thesame time. One or two pieces of this kind areto be expected in any large excavated featureused for rubbish disposal, but when significantnumbers of such vessels are found together,something other than the routine, day-to-daydisposal of household waste may be indicated,especially when parts of sets of crockery andglass are recovered from the same fill.

3. They are typically closely datable, often towithin ten or 20 years, and include a highproportion of fabrics and forms in contempor-aneous use.

4. Chronological contamination is normally min-imal, with relatively little residual or intr~sivematerial present. This would be expected If thedeposit was made at one time, in which casethe final fillwill also include odd items accumu-lated between the penultimate cleaning-out ofthe feature and it disuse. Alternatively, thefinds may have been discarded over a shortperiod, no longer than the usual intervalbetween cleansing, and probably shorter.

5. A far lower degree of fragmentation andabrasion is apparent than in deposits whichhave accumulated over many years or decades.Individual vessels would be discarded in amore piecemeal fashion, mostly as accidentsoccurred, or when they became too damaged I

or worn for continued use. This pattern ofdisposal generally leads to a much higher levelof dispersal than in closed groups.

Groups with a tight date range may wellinclude some vessels which may, for variousreasons, have had a longer life than average. Theymight, for example, have had heirloom or 'antique'value and been carefully looked after by their

145

owners, passing through several generations oft~esame family. Moreover, some forms and fabncsare more durable than others, such as heavy-dutystoneware bottles and coarse earthenware storageand cooking vessels. On the other hand, relativelyfragile vessels, such as delicate salt-glazed stone-ware or porcelain tea bowls, are usuall~ treatedmore carefully in domestic use and subjected toless vigorous handling, reserved rather for specialoccasions (the 'Sunday best'). They may not evenbe used at all, but kept out of reach, as orname~tson display. The more vulnerable and fragIleceramic forms, which are more easily damagedthan many sturdier domestic vessels, are often lesscommon in the archaeological record than cham-ber pots and cooking vessels which are morerobustly constructed, but more vigorously andfrequently used. Some householders may, ofcourse, have been more careful than others andbroken less, or have had smaller households andowned less; some may simply have been mo:ethrifty or old-fashioned and immune to changes Infashion. In the end, there are any number of factorswhich might contribute to significant differences inthe breakage rates of artefacts from archaeologic-ally-recovered assemblages, leading to !he app~r-ently chance association of discarded objects whIchmay, to the modern analyst, remain forever elusive.

TAVERN ASSEMBLAGES

There are several additional features which maycharacterize assemblages from inns and taverns.These have been summarized in an Americanmodel proposed by Kathleen Bragdonl in a com-parative study of finds assemblages from twocolonial sites in Massachusetts: the Joseph How-land farmstead in Kingston, and the WellfleetTavern, at Wellfleet, Great Island. Bragdon's ana-lysis suggests that tavern assemblages typicallyinclude:2

1. a large number of vessels, both ceramic andglass

2. a large proportion of drinking vessels in rela-tion to the whole ceramic assemblage

3. a large proportion of ceramic fabrics mostcommonly used for drinking vessels

4. a large number of wine glasses5. a quantity of specialized glassware6. and a large number of clay pipe stems.

By way of contrast, the domestic assemblagefrom the Howland site includes:

1. a high proportion of food preparation an.dstorage vessels in relation to the whole ceramICassemblage

146

_.'

JACQUELINE PEARCE

FIG. 1Part of the Trumper map of Uxbridge of 1825, showing the location of the King's Arms in London Street, now High

Street (reproduced by courtesy of Hillingdon Borough Council).

FIG. 2 (right)Creamware plates with shell edge rim (no. 1), feather edge rim (no. 2), moulded pendant leaves (no. 3) and foliate

decoration (no. 4), large dish (no. 5) and sauceboats (Nos 6-8). Scale 1:3 (no. 6a, 1:2).

UXBRIDGE INN CLEARANCE 147

·"-r~~~4

,/

148

2. predominantly local coarseware (redware)3. fewer wine glasses4. pipestems in the hundreds rather than the

thousands.

The distinction between tavern and domesticassemblages is, however, not always so clear-cut.This paper will examine the extent to which artefactassemblages from English inns and tavernsconform to the pattern observed by Bragdon, anddemonstrate something of what was consideredfashionable and appropriate for furnishing suchestablishments, with their constant traffic of travel-lers and local patrons from different levels ofsociety, and their active part in the social, politicaland business life of a community.

II

THE KING'S ARMS, UXBRIDGE AND ITSFINDS

THE SITE

Relatively few English inns and taverns have beenarchaeologically investigated. In 1985, however,the Museum of London and West London Archae-ological Field Group (WLAFG) carried out anexcavation on the site of the former King's Armsat 20, High Street, Uxbridge (TQ 055 841), onceone of the chief market towns of Middlesex, andnow part of the London Borough of Hillingdon. AGrade II listed timber-framed building whichincorporates 15th- and 16th-century elements, theinn is recorded in 1647, under the name of 'TheRose,.3 By 1702the sign had changed to the 'King'sArms' ,4 which eventually closed as a pub in 1960(Fig. 1). A carefully-built, rectangular, brick-linedpit or tank, measuring 2.35 x 1.12 x 0.6m. deep,was uncovered, sunk into the ground in the court-yard of the former inn, and lined with sticky clayin such a way as to make it watertight. It wasprobably built in the 18th century as a watercistern, covered with flagstones. The feature wasfilled with the discarded remains of a considerablenumber of ceramic vessels, glass and clay tobaccopipes.5

THE POTTERY

Pottery constitutes the main component of theKing's Arms finds assemblage. A total of 2980sherds from a minimum of 210 vessels were reco-vered from the fill of the pit. This includes a veryhigh proportion of vessels which can be substan-tially or completely reconstructed (330/0of all potsare more than 500/0complete). Only 295 small,non-diagnostic sherds could not be associated with

JACQUELINE PEARCE

any of the more complete forms, and of these only29 are too small for their form to be identified. Thepottery was therefore quantified by minimumvessel count (Minimum Number of Vessels orMNV) and by sherd count (SC). All figures givenin this paper are derived from these data, summar-ized in Appendix 1.

The bulk of the pottery came from a single,very large context [140], which includes 68% of allpottery recovered and in which there is a very highproportion of large joining sherds. The fill alsoincluded material from six other contexts in whichthe pottery was generally much more fragmented.Context [140] therefore represents the main dump-ing which, to judge from the state of completenessof most of its contents, seems most likely to havetaken place at one time, rather than over a periodof even a few months. There are frequent sherd-links between all contexts in the fill and very littleresidual or abraded pottery which might have beenlying in the feature for some time (four small sherdsonly would have been more than 60 years olderthan the main deposit),6 suggesting that the cisternwas 'clean', though no longer functional as origin-ally intended when it was filled. There are alsonumerous part-sets represented and the assemblagecan be closely dated (see below), forming a coher-ent group which was most likely to have beendeposited at one time or over a short period, andwhich conforms closely to the pattern for clearancegroups outlined above.

Creamware

This constitutes the largest single fabric group at40.50/0 by minimum vessel count. Dinner anddessert services predominate, with plates account-ing for more than half of all plain creamwares, andincluding at least 30 dinner plates from five differ-ent services, all with rim diameters between240mm. and 250mm. There are fifteen almostcomplete dinner plates and two dessert plates,200mm. and 205mm. in diameter, with royalpattern rims, all probably from the same factory,as well as three plates of the same shape withdouble moulded lines around the edge of the rim.Another common pattern is the popular shell edgerim, and there are ten examples which are morethan 800/0complete (Fig. 2, No.1). Two completeplates have identical feather edge rims with veryclear moulding and a brownish-cream glaze, darkerthan the pale cream of all the other plates in thedeposit (Fig. 2, No.2; Fig. 3a). The decoration iscomposed of seven-barb units, with one long andsix shorter barbs, and one of the plates has abackstamp in the form of a small, central teardrop-shaped mark. Both plates probably date to


FIG. 3Cream ware plates, details of rim decoration: featheredge (a), moulded pendant leaves (b) and foliate (c)

(Copyright Museum of London).

c. 1770-85.7 Finally, there are sherds from twooctagonal plates with diamond moulding aroundthe rim," one complete plate, 205mm. in diameter,with moulded pendant leaves? (Fig. 2, No.3;Fig. 3b), and a small plate, 160mm. in diameter,with a scalloped rim and finely moulded foliatedecoration (Fig. 2, No.4; Fig. 3c) which bears avery close resemblance to a pattern made byWilliam Greatbatch in Phase III of production,c. 1770-82. 10 There are significant problems inattempting to attribute unmarked forms, since acommon pattern came from moulds purchasedfrom mouldmakers who supplied many manufacturers, all of these moulds originating from a

149

common model. Factories made what was currenti.e. they existed on producing forms identical totheir neighbours and buying in from outside to fillorders was standard practice.11

Other vessels from dinner services in creamware include two large oval serving plates withroyal pattern rims and a large deep dish, 275mm.in diameter, with a rounded profile and pearlbeading around the top of the rim (Fig. 2, No.5).There are also four almost complete sauce boats,all thin-walled, lightweight and elegant, hardlysuited to robust usage (Fig. 4). Two are of thesame shape, size and design and probably formedpart of the same service (Fig. 2, No.6). They havea simple lobed body and handle terminals ofa typeTowner identified with Leeds c. 1770-90 (Fig. 2,No. 6a; Fig. 5).12 A smaller shell-shaped sauceboat has two indistinct, circular, stamped marksunderneath its scalloped foot which have so fareluded identification (Fig. 2, No.7; Fig. 6). Thefourth and most elaborate sauce boat has a featheredge rim and moulded acanthus decoration (Fig. 2,No.8). This is a very good match for an unpublished design made by Greatbatch c. 1770-82.13 Acomplete dry mustard pot had double intertwinedhandles (now missing) and a matching lid, alsocomplete (Fig. 7, Nos 9-10). The lid has a convolvulus knob similar to a Leeds pattern dating toc. 1770-85 (Fig. 7, No. 10a).14 There are also twounusual, thinly potted, matching biconical tablesalts (Fig. 7, No. 11). Together these vessels forman interesting selection showing that services ofseveraldifferent patterns were in contemporary useat the inn, some of them of fine quality andeminently fashionable when new.

There are at least seven cylindrical mugs increamware, fiveof them almost complete. Two arelarge, 150mm. in height, one of them slightly flaredtowards the base (Fig. 7, No. 12) and the otherwith a band of pearl beading around the rim andbase (Fig. 7, No. 13). Although liquid measurewas regulated by Act of Parliament, some degreeof variation is apparent in mugs and tankards evenfrom the same factory. There is greater consistencyin the 18th century than in the 17th, and analysisof excavated stoneware mugs from the FulhamPottery suggests a correlation between heights of120mm., 130mm. and 170mm.with half-pint, pintand quart sizes.15 With this as an admittedly roughguideline, the large creamware mugs probably helda pint measure. The other fivemugs are all smallerand perfectly plain, probably with a half-pintcapacity (120-23mm. in height). Four of thesehave a flared base, two have indented loop handles.two handles are lightly reeded, and all mugs arebeautifully lightweight and thinly potted (Fig. 7.Nos 14-16). One of the larger mugs has a stamp

150 JACQUELINE PEARCE

FIG. 4Creamware sauceboats (length ofvessel far right, including handle, 165mm.) (Copyright Museum ofLondon).

under the base, close to the footring, in the form ofa small circle, divided into six segments (Fig. 7,No. 12a). This mark has not yet been identifiedwith a factory, but appears to be the same as thetwo rather indistinct stamps beneath the foot ofthe shell-shaped sauce boat described above (seeFig. 6). All the mugs seem quite unsuitable forserious drinking in the taproom, which would nodoubt be fullyequipped with pewter and stonewarefor the regular quaffing of ale and beer. There isalso a plain creamware tea bowl with beaded rim(Fig. 7. No. 17), and two larger bowls whichprobably come from a matching set. Both havehooked rims and thin walls, and are decorated withregularly spaced, narrow, turned, horizontalgrooves. One is deep, resembling a chamber pot inshape. but without a handle (Fig. 7, No. 18). Theother is wider and more open (Fig. 7, No. 19), andmight have been a washing bowl from a toilet set,although it is difficult to be certain.

There are some fine decorated vessels incrcarnware. Among the most attractive are threesmall bowls with marbled slip outside, two ofthem complete (Fig. 9, No. 20; Fig. 8). Thesev.erge on pearlware, with a slight greenish-blueungc to the glaze, and probably date afterc. 1775. l h Marbled decoration, made by swirlingtogether slips of three different colours, is notcommon in excavated creamware from the~ondon area. This is surprising, since Wedgwoodan 1786 referred to the use of marbling on 'greatquantities of our cheap wares'.'? It is, however,quite possible that relatively few completeexamples have survived precisely because they

were cheap 'and not the "Sunday best" teapotswhich people preserved'.18 Although they arelarger than tea bowls, they were most probablyused as drinking vessels, possibly for punch.Sherds from six bowls of various sizes in creamware and three in pearlware, with rim diametersbetween 16Omm. and 20Omm., have under-glazeblue-painted decoration in the Chinese style,typical of the last quarter of the 18th century(Fig. 9, No. 21). They are among the latestpottery in the group, and are all in quite afragmentary state. Some of them could haveserved as slop bowls from tea services, but theform has such wide possibilities that no onefunction can confidently be identified in theabsence of other evidence.

English porcelain

The King's Arms assemblageincludesan unusuallyhigh proportion of English porcelain. There aresherds from eighteen differentvesselsor 8.70/0 of allpottery, all but one of them tea wares. During thelate 18th century English porcelain was generallyheld in higher regard than the widelyavailable andcheaper Chinese export porcelain, especially theeverydayblue and white wares.Highlyornamentedwares were expensive, and even simple, less decorative tea services might sell for three times theweekly wage of the average workman.l? It therefore had a more limited distribution and availability, and was likely to be carefully looked after.Excavated finds of English porcelain from anyfactory are extremely rare on consumer sites in the


FIG. 5Creamware lobed sauce boat, detail ofhandle terminal

(Copyright Museum of London).

FIG. 6Creamware shell-shaped sauce boat, detail ofstamps

beneath base (Copyright Museum of London).

London area, and the occurrence ofrelatively largequantities in the discarded waste from an Uxbridgeinn is most interesting. The main source is Worcester, accounting for at least eleven vessels; of these,seven have under-glaze blue transfer-printed decoration. There are three matching saucers, two ofthem complete, and three tea bowls, all from thesame set, printed with the popular 'Birds in a Tree'pattern.i? a design which was also used at Caughley21 (Fig. 9, Nos 22-23; Fig. 10). All are markedunder the base with the filled-in or shaded crescentused at Worcester on under-glaze printed wares,

151

and probably date to c. 1775-83.22By c. 1770highquality blue-printed wares were being made atWorcester in enormous quantities.P representingthe cheaper, 'bread and butter' products of thefactory." As an indicator of price, the Chamberlain-Turner accounts for Caughley porcelain decorated with the 'Birds in a Tree' print show that in1788 two sets of teacups and saucers cost £3 4s.8d.25

The remaining Worcester porcelain has bluepainted under-glaze decoration. Part of a saucer ispainted with the 'Rock Strata' pattern, not common on this form, and dating to c. 177026(Fig. 9,No. 24). Three bowls of similar size, 150-60mm.in diameter, have formal floral painting, 'anexample of reticent, well-balanced decoration?"(Fig. 9, No. 25). Two of them, dating toc. 1775-80,28 are marked with an open crescent.The Chinese border may be compared with aversion used on Bow porcelain in the 1750s and1760s.29 Inside the base, the bowls have a simplepainted motif showing a rock and twigs. A fourthbowl, which is of similar size, has a Chinese-stylelandscape on the outside, with rocks, pine treesand a house, and probably dates to the sameperiod'" (Fig. 9, No. 26). It also has a comparablerock and twigs motif inside, but the border isdifferent, consisting of a simple diaper pattern."Bowls of this size and type could well have beenused to hold slops, as part of a tea service,althoughother uses cannot be ruled out. These finds showthat not only was Worcester porcelain available tothe inhabitants of Uxbridge during the 1770sand1780s, either through an outlet in the town, orthrough a London dealer, but also that the inn wasfurnished with more than one set of fashionableand attractive tea wares from this source.

An even more unusual find for the Londonarea, from an archaeological perspective, is acylindrical mug with a slightly flared base inLowestoft porcelain (Fig. 11). It has under-glazeblue-painted chinoiserie decoration showing aheavily-built lady of European appearance, holding a parasol and standing in a rocky landscape,with a very large bird overhead. The design is notat all common and can be compared in style with asmall mug ofthe same shape illustrated byGeoffreyGodden and dated to c. 1760s.32 A closely similarLowestoft mug, dated to c. 1762,which could verywellhave been painted by the same decorator, wasdisplayed in Simon Spero's Annual Exhibition in1998.33 Inside the rim, the mug has a version ofSmith's 'Lattice and Flower Type I' border, whichhas been given a date-range at Norwich of1757-66.34 The shape of the mug can be comparedwith an example in Norwich Museum which has ablue-painted Chinese river scene, and is dated to c.


15

12

14

11

lOa

"J(y,_.<, •..•.."',\\l{~:.~~.".~·:.~w;·~

\ I

.-._ ..

9

~

..

.....~-

10

OJ",~'1,

.......... ;,.

13

16

"-"~---- ..

18

17

0:::"-= __ -=--_

19


FIG. 8Creamware bowl with marbled slip decoration (rimdiameter I22mm.) (Copyright Museum of London).

1760-64.35The Uxbridge example is marked insidethe footring with an indistinct painter's number ortally mark, probably a '7'.36 This is not one of themore common marks, and painter's numbers wereused at Lowestoft only between 1757 and 1775.37

By the end of the 18th century Lowestoft wasbecoming firmly established as a seaside resort,and the products of its porcelain factory were verypopular locally amongst a middle class clientele,especially as gifts and 'trifles'. It did not, however,have such a wide distribution outside East Anglia,although William Mathews' 'Leostoffe ChinaWarehouse' in Addle Street, Aldermanbury, islisted in a London directory as early as 1763. Theagency was taken over by Clark Dumford in 1768,until he became bankrupt in 1786.38The innkeeperof the King's Arms may have bought or been giventhe mug as a souvenir of a visit to Lowestoft, ormay have obtained it from London, quite likely asa special, one-off purchase.

Chinese porcelain

The other main type of porcelain in the assemblageis Chinese export ware, totalling 36 vessels or17.2% of all pottery. The bulk of this is blue andwhite dating to the third quarter of the 18thcentury, the reign of Qianlong (1736-95).39 Theseare typical export wares, with a mixture of bothEuropean and Chinese shapes and designs, andmany can be paralleled in material recovered fromthe wreck of the Geldermalsen, a Dutch East IndiaCompany vessel which sank on a reef off the coastof Java in 1752.40 There are two large, heavilypotted plates, both from dinner services, and one

153

of them decorated with a typical river landscape(Fig. 9, No. 27; Fig. 12 back). The plate isoctagonal, a shape first mentioned in an East IndiaCompany order of 1755, and subsequently becoming one of the standard plate forms in use up to c.1785.41 The other plate is circular and finelypainted with peonies and rocks (Fig. 9, No. 28;Fig. 12 front). Two small bowls, one of which isthinly potted and of good quality, are decoratedwith flowers and butterflies (Fig. 9, No. 29; Fig. 13left). The remaining vessels are all tea wares andinclude a tea bowl decorated in Chinese taste forhome consumption or export. Tw~ deep saucersand a small handled, bell-shaped teacup, all fromthe same set, have European stepped profiles andscalloped rims (Fig. 9, Nos 30-31; Fig. 13). Theyare finely painted with chrysanthemums, althoughthe hand of more than one decorator can be seen.A small sherd probably from a coffee can42represents the only vessel in the assemblage used for thisbeverage, although the larger tea services in avariety of wares would normally include twelvecoffee cups with handles."

The remaining Chinese porcelain is decoratedin famille rose palette, including three saucers anda tea bowl, all from the same set, painted with afisherman on an island (Fig. 9, Nos 32-33). Thepainting is not of the best quality; the general runof enamelled porcelain made for the Europeanmarket was often quite coarsely painted.v' Thevessels are, however, finely potted, and enamelledwares were more expensive than ordinary blue andwhite. One of the saucers has a repair to the rim,part of which had come away in two sherds whichhave been riveted together (Fig. 9, No. 33). Thisshows that the fragile service had originally beenvalued enough by its owners to justify the effortrequired to effect a relatively unsightly mend inorder to prolong its life. It may well have been inactive use or kept on display for some 20-30 yearsbefore finally being discarded. The introduction offamille rose decoration is dated to 1720-22,45 andthese pieces were probably made c. 1730-80,46 somay be earlier than the bulk of the blue and whitewares. A large saucer-shaped dish is decorated inthe European taste with gilding and English-stylepink roses painted over the glaze (Fig. 14 left). 47 Asix-sided teapot stand, unglazed underneath, isdecorated in similar fashion, though rather crudely(Fig. 14 right),48 both pieces dating to the thirdquarter ofthe 18th century. This kind ofdecorationwas commonly executed in Canton according toEuropean patterns on plain white porcelain from

FIG. 7 (left)Creamware mustard pot (Nos 9, 9a) and lid (Nos 10, lOa), salt (No. II), mugs (Nos 12-16), tea bowl (No. 17) and

bowls (Nos 18-19). Scale 1:3(Nos 9at lOa and 12a, 1:2).

154 JACQU ELINE PEA RCE

20

22

21

25

32

29

30


FIG. 10Worcester porcelain matching tea bowl and saucers, transfer-printed with the 'Birds in a Tree' pattern (diameter of

saucers, 126mm.) (Copyright Museum of London).

the main factories, but was also carried out I invarious European centres, and in London from thelate I 720s.49 It is not known whether the Uxbridgepieces were painted in China or closer to home,although the gilding on the dish has survived betterthan is often found on porcelain decorated inChina. 50 These Chinese export wares are typical ofpopular taste during the second half of the 18thcentury, and show that the inn was equipped withat least three sets of fashionable and attractiveimported tea wares, as well as sets in Worcesterporcelain. They are both functional and decorative,even if not of the best quality, and could easilyhave been used to adorn the more select privaterooms. Chinese porcelain was first being distributed to provincial towns in the early 18th century,but whether it could be purchased in Uxbridge orhad to come more directly from chinamen inLondon is unclear." By the late 18th century salesof Chinese export porcelain were beginning tosuffer in the face of competition from good,decorative English porcelain and earthenwares,especially creamwares. The import duty in theI 790s was almost 500/0, seriously affecting the price

of the once cheap and ubiquitous Chinese ware,and the East India Company's interest in thecarriage of porcelain in its cargoes effectivelyceased after 1792.52

Industrialfinewares

There is a small quantity of white salt-glazedstoneware. This includes two large serving plates,one of them complete, with a plain rim 305mm.across (Fig. 17, No. 34), and the other with abeaded rim (Fig. 17, No. 35). A near-completecylindrical mug has a flared base and incisedhorizontal grooves around the body (Fig. 15).53There are small body sherds from at least fourother mugs.

A complete teapot lid in black basalt ware hasa sybil finial, a type not made before 1773(Fig. 16).54 The figure is an unusual one, a reversemodel of the Turner-type sybil, which cannot easilybe matched with marked teapots from an identifiable factory. The best parallels seem to be withexamples with 'Salopian' impressed marks. 55 Small

FIG. 9 (left)Creamware bowl with marbled slip (No. 20) and bowl with blue-painted decoration (No. 21). Worcester porcelain

with transfer-printed decoration, tea bowl and saucer (Nos 22-23); with blue-painted decoration, saucer (No. 24) andbowls (Nos 25-26). Chinese blue and white porcelain plates (Nos 27-28), bowl (No. 29), teacup and saucer (Nos

30-31). Chinese porcelain withfamille rose decoration, tea bowl and saucer (Nos 32-33). Scale 1:3.

156

FIG. IILowestoft porcelain cylindrical mug (Copyright

Museum of London).

quantities of basalt have been found in the excavated kiln dumps at Caughley;" although they maynot be factory wasters.57 This has led to thesuggestion that Thomas Turner commissioned basalts from other potteries, but marked them 'Salopian', in which case we are no nearer identifying thesource.58 Interestingly, there are no other sherds ofblack basalt in the assemblage, leaving the intriguing question of why a complete and undamagedteapot lid was thrown away when the teapot towhich it belonged was not discarded at the sametime.

The complete base of a globular teapot insolid agate ware, with fine horizontal banding(Fig. 17,No. 36), may be one of the earlier finds inthe pit fill,representing a type popular in the 1750s,but which continued in production into the early1770s.59

Delftwareandstoneware

There are very few other fabrics in the assemblage.A small quantity of tin-glazed ware or delftwareprobably comes from London factories, and datesto the late 18th century. There are sherds from twobowls, one with a blue-painted Chinese-stylepavilion in a landscape, and the other, 260mm. in

JACQUELINE PEARCE

diameter, with bold floral decoration (Fig. 17,No.37). The first is crudely painted in a style similar tothat used in the Lambeth High Street factory in the1770s and 1780s.60 The decoration of the otherbowl can be compared stylistically with flowerpainting of the I760s and early 1770s.6 1 They maywell have been used as punch bowls, especiallysince they originally belonged to an inn. AsMichael Archer comments, 'there can be littledoubt that the decorative delftware bowls overabout 25.4cm. (10") in diameter were intendedmainly if not exclusivelyfor the serving of punch'. 62

He also notes, however, that it is likely that fewbowls had one specific purpose.P while smallerbowls could be used for drinking, rinsing wineglasses or as slop-basins for tea services." Nodelftware plates were found in the pit, which isunsurprising at this date, since they would hardlybe durable enough for frequent use in a busycoaching inn in the face of competition fromcreamware. The relative instability of tin glaze asopposed to lead glaze and its suitability as a vehiclefor decoration made it a far better choice fordisplay than for practical purposes.

One complete ointment pot or dispensing jarin plain white delftware/" and sherds from threecylindrical jars decorated with blue stripes'" werealso found in the Uxbridge pit, all dating to thesecond half of the 18th century. Although they areprincipally associated with the pharmacy, such jarswere also 'treated as general storage containers bysociety as a whole'. 67 Even the small ointment potsclearly 'had the same multiplicity of uses as theirlarger brethren'.68

The presence of large quantities of stonewaremight well have been anticipated in a grouprecovered from an inn, but small sherds from onlytwo jugs and two mugs, and one almost-completestraight-sided jar (Fig. 17, No. 38) were recovered.The source of the jar is unknown, but similar formsare very common in deposits of c. 1785-1800 at theFulham Pottery. 69 The function of such pots isuncertain, but it is likely that pickles, pastes andother preserves were stored in both small and largejars."? The paucity of stoneware recovered fromthe King's Arms may well say more about thecircumstances of disposal than about the originalmakeup of the inn's stock of pottery.

Red earthenwares

Local coarsewares (that is, in the regional sense)for general use in the kitchen, and for the bulkserving of food, constitute 17.70/0 of the potteryrecovered from the King's Arms pit. Bowls anddishes .of various shapes and sizes are the onlyforms represented, the great majority of them


FIG. 12Chinese blue and white porcelain plates (diameter of plate at back, 230mm.) (Copyright Museum of London).

(12.90/0 of all pottery) made in Red Border ware,from the kilns of the Surrey-Hampshire bordersaround Farnham." In London, coarse redwaresmade more locally predominate in the 18th centuryas the principal source of heavy-duty storage andkitchen wares, especially jars and large dishes.PThey are represented here by three substantiallycomplete vessels, all glazed internally: a large,deep, rounded bowl, 310mm. in diameter, and twolarge, flared dishes, the larger one probably apancheon (Fig. 17, Nos 39-40). Small sherds froma storage jar and bowl are the only other examplesof London-type post-medieval redware in theassemblage. Late 17th-century redware kilns areknown at Woolwich;" and waster groups ofsimilardate at Deptford, where production apparentlycontinued well into the 19th century.?" No other

18th-century production sites have yet beenexcavated.

All other forms are in Red Border ware, andinclude at least eleven medium-sized bowls withone upturned horizontal loop handle just belowthe rim; five are glazed internally only (Fig. 17,Nos 41-42; Fig. 18, Nos 43-44),75 and six have awell-finished, unthickened rim and fine, glossyglaze overall (Fig. 18, No. 45).76 Bowls such asthese would have had a wide range of functions,probably focused mainly around food preparation,although the better-made and glazed examples aremore likely to have been used for serving than asgeneral-purpose kitchen wares. None of the bowlsshows any sign of having been heated, and thishighlights one significant absence in the range ofdomestic functions represented in the assemblage:


FIG. 13Chinese blue and white porcelain bowl,saucers and matching teacup (diameter of saucers, l20mm.) (Copyright

Museum of London).

FIG. 14Chinesefamille rose porcelain dish and teapot stand (diameter of dish, l60mm.) (Copyright Museum of London).

there are no cooking vessels at all (and very fewvessels which might conceivably have been usedfor the storage of dry goods). In addition to thebowls, there are two large flared, deep dishes inRed Border ware, both glazed internally (Fig. 18,No. 47),77 and at least three rounded bowls withflanged rims, all glazed internally (Fig. 18, No.

46). These closely resemble chamber pots in form,but no evidence for handles survives. All theseforms are long-lived, utilitarian types which weremade throughout much of the late 17th and 18thcenturies. 78 .

Although no 18th-century Border ware kilngroups have yet been uncovered anywhere in the


FIG. 15White salt-glazed stoneware cylindrical mug (height

115mm.) (Copyright Museum of London).

FIG. 16Black basalt ware teapot lid with sybil finial (rim

diameter, 45mm.) (Copyright Museum of London).

Farnham region, redware production is known tohave continued well into the 19th century." TheBorder potteries supplied London along wellestablished trade routes which had been in use since atleast the late 13th century.P? and their wares werewidelydistributed throughout south-east England.Whether they reached Uxbridge via London or bymore direct routes is uncertain. Both 'Hampshire'

159

and 'Deptford' wares are recorded in the probateinventories of members of the Glass Sellers Company from at least the late 17th century, 81 and weredoubtless sent out from the capital to the provincesalong the major coaching roads.

Slip-decorated redwares

Three large, slip-decorated, redware dishes, two ofthem complete, were recovered. One of the dishesis made in Donyatt-type ware, from Somerset, andis among the first excavated examples of this wareto be recorded in the London area. 82 The fabric ofDonyatt-type ware is tempered with chert, presentin the clay dug from the Mendip Hills, and typicallyhas moderate, red, iron-rich inclusions." Thedecoration of this incomplete dish, which measures300mm. in diameter, is quite distinctive and unlikeslipwares made by the contemporaneous Red Border ware potteries, or the earlier, 17th-centuryMetropolitan slipware kilns around Harlow, inEssex. A series of evenly-spaced, concentric, whiteslip lines run around the inside of the dish, andhave been broken by pairs of radial lines drawnacross them with the fingers at intervals, probablydividing the design into quadrants (Fig. 18, No.48; Fig. 19 right). The dish has an internal glazewhich appears a dull olive in colour. The techniqueis known as 'wet sgraffito'P" and was commonlyused at the Donyatt potteries in Somerset in the17th and 18th centuries, although usually in moreelaborate designs." Similar decorative techniqueswere also used by local potteries in Dorset in theearly 18th century, as shown by a group of potteryexcavated on the site of the Plume of Feathers inDorchester;" although the fabric of the Uxbridgedish is unlike Dorset redwares."?

Rather more spectacular are two large dishesor platters with bold but simple trailed slip decoration. One dish is 315mm. in diameter and appearsto have been in use for some time, since it showsnoticeable signs of wear, including heavy knife-cutsinside the base. It is decorated in a striking, brokenpattern of concentric wavy lines around a centralspiral (Fig. 18,No. 49; Fig. 19centrej." The otherdish is larger, at 415mm. diameter, with a flangedrim.89 It has rather thin, feeble decoration based ona central cross with radiating wavy lines, anduneven spots around the rim. These dishes also bearsome resemblance to Donyatt-type ware,"?although microscopic examination of the fabric isdifficult because of their completeness. Decorationincorporating white slip spots occurs at Donyatt inearly 19th-century contexts, but may be earlier,since not all of the kiln dumps have beenexcavated."


....\

7

.'..;::~..";:.~::.::,,.:...

., ,..~~:.:~~:::~:.?::~;:;:;,:~.:__..~.';w, :> . _.. . _..

... ,,;. "

··:<·~:z;~:::.~::.:;:~.:~.-~: .•• ' ••••••••••• to' ~35

34~--'----'I ...::: -_.. .--- --=-=-=-==

•••••..•• -- 1- - .~- /

~--_ ..

36

.: ',:: :-.:.::

~:~'-m~- .37

I

~-·- '~~._-._~--:--.-... _~.~.~.~.._~_.~., '---I .-=,'"':~~ .

.- :~

....:;!)..:: ::::.?:;::,fi~:i,;:;:i,;iii;,;ki~.....•:jt.

~-_ ..

3938

.....---~_...• _-:::::;::::;:.-' ----

40

41 .-~~ .•• --.-'-.- 42


Donyatt-type ware has a relatively local distri-bution in the west country, 92 but was also exported,mainly through Watchett and Lyme Regis, as wellas from Bristol. 93 It has been identified in South-ampton, and even as far north as Newcastle-upon-Tyne; it also reached the American colonies ofVirginia and Maryland from the mid 17th century,occurring at Jamestown in deposits dated toc. 1620-40.94 Scattered finds have been made inLondon (for example, at the Tower of London andodd sherds collected along the Thames fore-shore),95 but no others have been recorded fromsecure, well-dated, excavated contexts. The King'sArms finds of Donyatt-type ware, if theseidentifications are confirmed, are among the mostsignificant occurrences yet made in the Londonarea, both because of their completeness, andbecause they come from a large sealed deposit. Thedishes were clearly used for the serving offood andcould also be put on display to good effect. Theymay be seen as the more humble 'country pottery'of the 'ordinary' people, in contrast with the moreelegant and classically-inspired creamwares, andfashionable, colourful porcelains reserved for morerefined patrons.

Slip-decorated redwares were also made bythe potteries of the Surrey-Hampshire bordersduring the 17th and 18th centuries. Although rarein the City and central London, they are foundmore frequently on sites to the south and west ofthe capital. Two fine examples of slip-decoratedRed Border ware have recently been found in alarge sealed deposit of pottery and glass which mayhave been derived from a nearby coaching inn at19- 31 High Street, Bagshot, Surrey. 96The decora-tion is unusual, consisting of alternate straight andwavy lines running across the dish. The depositprobably dates to c. 1785-1820, and is thereforecontemporaneous with that from Uxbridge. 97Since the King's Arms already owned a reasonablestock of utilitarian Red Border wares, it is interes-ting that at least one of their large and impressiveslipware dishes probably came from Somerset,rather than from the familiar and more localpotteries of the Farnham region. Perhaps thissuggests contacts in the west of England, althoughunless further finds are made, apparently isolatedoccurrences of unusual, non-local wares are diffi-cult to explain adequately.

161

The supply of pottery to Uxbridge

A full breakdown of the pottery from the King'sArms is given in Appendix 1, and presented bymajor regional sources or types in Table 1.Ceramics reached the inn from a strikingly widerange of sources, some of them situated at someconsiderable distance from the town. Fortunately,many of these can be identified with confidence,while others are suspected but not proven, leavingrelatively little unprovenanced pottery. This divers-ity of sources is a testimony to the economic driveand vitality which characterized England at thebeginning of the Industrial Age, and to the effect-iveness of the growing transport network whichbrought fine ceramics from Staffordshire and theMidlands, Yorkshire and Worcester to a prosper-ous provincial town in Middlesex. Alongside theseare locally-made (in the regional sense)coarsewares and pottery from the Surrey-Hampshire borders and London. From furtherafield came more unusual items from Norfolk andSomerset, while from furthest away of all, a supplyof Chinese porcelain reached the town via London.

From an archaeological perspective, the pro-nounced bias towards industrially produced fine-wares, mainly from the Midlands and Yorkshire, isquite normal at this date throughout the Londonarea, accounting for 49.05% of all pottery from theassemblage.98 Border wares are the main source ofutilitarian kitchen and serving wares (12.850/0 of allpottery), a pattern more in keeping with sites insouth and west London than elsewhere in theregion of the capital. Chinese porcelain was widelyavailable in the late 18th century, although largeexcavated assemblages are more restricted in distri-bution, since it was normally reserved for displayand for 'best'. The same applies to English porcel-ain, although this is far less common in thearchaeological record. There are almost twice asmany vessels in Chinese porcelain than in English(see Table I); it is, in fact, the second most commonmajor source of pottery in the assemblage afterindustrial finewares, followed by Border wares,then English porcelain. The small proportion ofdelftware can probably be accounted for by thelate date, when it was going out of fashion, whilethe more unusual Donyatt-type ware is rare any-where in London. The paucity of stoneware issurprising, but not inexplicable.

FIG. 17White salt-glazed stoneware plates (Nos 34-35). Agate ware teapot (No. 36). Delftware punch bowl (No. 37). English

stoneware jar (No. 38). Post-medieval redware dishes (Nos 39-40). Red Border ware bowls (Nos 41-42). Scale 1:3.


TABLE 1Breakdown of the pottery from the King's Arms, Uxbridge, by broad types

50.00%

45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

>z25.00%:E

.rf!.

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%Border Delftware Fineware Imports Slipwares Eng Porcelain Redware

Source/typeStoneware

Any or all of the ceramics used in the inn,could have been selected in London warehousesand sent out with the coach or by carrier toUxbridge, since the capital served as the primaryoutlet for all the latest fashions, influencing con-sumer behaviour far and wide. On the other hand,by the late 18th century even fashionable potterywas reaching the mass consumer market throughnumerous outlets, some of them very modest. Thenetwork of provincial shops was well established,taking their lead of course from London, and couldgenerally cater for a wide range of requirementsand tastes. As revealed by contemporary recordsand pictorial sources, pot fairs and markets inprovincial towns sold everyday, utilitarian vesselsmade in the local coarseware industries, alongsidethe latest styles of elegant dinner services from theStaffordshire potteries. 99 Moreover, inns fre-quently acted as markets for goods passing throughthem, offering warehousing and retail facilitieswhich could have been the source of some at leastof the pottery purchased in provincial towns. 100

THE GLASS

In addition to the large collection of ceramics, aquantity of glass was recovered from the fill of thecistern. A minimum of 56 vessels is represented,although sherds were not counted; since glass caneasily become very highly fragmented, this wouldhave provided a statistic of dubious value. Theassemblage exhibits the same features identifiedabove as characteristic of wholesale clearances,with a high proportion of vessels which can besubstantially reconstructed: 41.070/0of all glassvessels have more than 50% of the body present,and 32.140/0 are 800/0complete or more. Fewfragments cannot be associated with more com-plete forms. The assemblage as a whole is closelydatable, representing material which would havebeen in contemporaneous use. All glass vesselsreconstructed can be dated broadly to the late 18thto early 19th century, and thus conform closelywith the dating of the pottery and the clay pipes(see below). The range of vessel forms recovered isin keeping with the function of the site as a busy

FIG. 18Red Border ware bowls (Nos 43-46) and dish (No. 47). Donyatt-type ware dish (No. 48). Slip-decorated redware

dishes (Nos 49-50). Scale 1:3.


_.-~~'-~.

43 44

--.-"~--_.-

CJ 11:'1~:t~:-.!-·.:!~

t'l:1

'- '~'-=--' ... - _:.":".:'.~

4645

47

48

..----.- ---.:::~--=====-=-_.-._~_... ---::-:-:-- .-

49

_.----._-_ ....:..~-~-.- ..._----::."-:- .._---- ---------_ .._---_ ... ---=-:==;:.---' ---;.--- ----- ..a

... --- -- - -.. -------:- ... -._---- .:..:....:.=..::.-:-:---

._~~~----_. ------ - - ~_- :.~r' . _:~'_:::..'~: - :-;,,;.-..----:.~~'::',,<::.;;!:~:i- .:.:

~ __ u-.~-~u \ ~~-l~~--~-·-~-~·'"}~:~>.:;;j?·;;·~o


FIG. 19Slip-decorated redware dishes (diameter of dish on far left, 410mm.) (Copyright Museum of London).

coaching inn, consisting almost entirely of bottlesand glasses designed for the storage, serving andconsumption of alcoholic beverages.101

A total of 35 cylindrical glass bottles werereconstructed, including seven which are more orless complete. All date from the late 18th to early19th century. One is of squat cylindrical form, andat least 22 are true cylindrical bottles, although therelative proportions tend towards a more squatprofile, with a domed base. This gives a slightlywaisted appearance to the profile which suggeststhat they come from the earlier part of the daterange. All are free-blown in dark green glass, witha drawn neck and high-domed kick in the base,more acute on the true cylindrical bottles than onthe squat cylindrical forms (Fig. 20, No. 51); allhave central ponti I marks. The squat cylindricalbottle has a tapering neck and can be reconstructedfrom the base almost up to the rim.102 There aretwelve complete necks without associated bodiesor bases which could come from either form. Twobases arc noticeably smaller than the rest, and mayhave come from half-bottles. 103 Three bottles havea projecting string rim of the type datable to

c. 1740-60.104 The majority of the remainingbottles have a double string rim typical of theperiod c. 1770-1800. 105 None of the bottles ismould-formed; three-piece moulds rapidly becamethe usual method of production after c. 1820, atthe expense of free-blown forms, in order tostandardize manufacture. 106 Following the signingof the Methuen Treaty with Portugal in 1703, portbecame very popular. Since it was found to benefitfrom maturing in the bottle, rather than beingdecanted from a cask, the evolution of the cylindrical form over the course of the century allowedwine bottles to be binned horizontally, so takingup the minimum storage space and keeping thecontents in contact with the tightly-fitting cork,thus preventing it from drying out. 107 Clearly,wines of this kind were purchased in some quantityby the King's Arms where they could be laid downto age, although for how long is unknown; theirquality is equally uncertain. One seal alone hassurvived (Fig. 21), although it is unknown howmany of the discarded bottles were originallysealed. Embossed seals, bearing the owner's crest,cypher or name, were frequently used on wine

FIG. 20 (right)(ilass. Wine hottle (No. 51), small wine or dram glasses (Nos 52-54), wine glasses (Nos 55-56), tumblers (Nos

~f\ hO). jelly glass (No. 61), decanter (No. 62) and pharmaceutical phial (No. 63). Clay tobacco pipes (Nos 64-66).Scale 1:3.


5253 55

56

57

61

54

59

51

58

60 63 62

•I.•.•~-..:=.:...:.:...._.-. __ . __ ..

I

64\}~.~

'~\---••. ---

~ 65

166

FIG. 21Glass wine bottle seal (Copyright Museum of London).

bottles until the 1830s, and vintners' bottles weresealed with a badge, tavern sign, initials or someother distinctive mark.l'" The crest on the King'sArms bottle has not so far been identified, but maywell belong to the inn, rather than a privateindividual.

The bulk of the remaining glass assemblageconsists of drinking vessels in free-blown colourlessglass. Six small wine or dram glasses include fourwith a short, thick, solid, drawn stem and solidbase. Two of these have a funnel bowl and one anovoid bowl (Fig. 20, No. 52). A fifth glass (Fig. 20,No. 53) has a rounded bowl, and a well-made footwith a flattened, hollow, tubular base-ring and atear-shaped air bubble in the stem. The mostdecorative glass in the collection is embellishedwith engraved and wheel-cut swags, foliage andcross-hatching (Fig. 20, No. 54). 'Flowered'glasses such as this were made from c. 1740onwards.109 Drams are 'dwarf' glass types, usuallywith a bowl of average size, but only a short stem,or none at all. 'Dramming' involves taking thecontents of the glass at one quick gulp and isassociated with 'distilled spiritous liquors or strongwaters' as defined by Act of Parliament in 1763,notably brandy, whisky, rum and gin.110 They wereused in taverns and gin shops for serving spirits,the counterpart of the high-class cordial glass.!'!Their squat form was 'no doubt adopted to minimize breakages', since taller glasses would 'quicklyhave fallen victim to daily usage in a publicplace'i!'?

JACQUELINE PEA~CE

There are at least eight wine glasses, all withsolid, drawn stems, mostly quite thick, and two ofthem with round funnel bowls (Fig. 20, No. 55).113One glass (Fig. 20, No. 56) has a finely made basewith a flattened, hollow, tubular base-ring, comparable with that of the small wine or dram glassdescribed above (Fig. 20, No. 53), and dates to themid 18th century. There are numerous fragmentsfrom at least three small wine glasses, their bowlsoptically blown with slight vertical ribbing, andtheir bases well-made with flattened, hollow, tubular base-rings. The folded foot was nonnal until1730/40, as an effective protection against chipping. After this, improvements in grinding andpolishing led to the pontil mark being groundaway, obviating the need for a conical foot toprotect the table and making way for the solid, flatfoot. 114 All remaining glasses which can be reasonably reconstructed have rounded bowls and a solidfoot. Drawn glasses were the standard form forpublic drinking and ordinary domestic use, andwere made in tens of thousands from c. 1730onwards.I'" Most stemmed glasses were used forred wines and the heavy wines of Spain andPortugal, while flutes were preferred for sparklingwhite wines and cider.P" After 1750 'adventitiousdecoration of some sort tended to be used on everyglass of any pretension', with the result that plainstemmed glasses 'descended the social scale to beused in kitchens and taverns'r'!?

Two glasses have stems decorated with wheelcut, elongated, hexagonal facets (Fig. 20, No. 57);one is missing its bowl and foot, but they may havecome from the same set.118 Faceting produces apleasing scintillation as the glass reflects thecandlelight, and would have been very attractive atthe dinner table. 119 Very few faceted glasses can bedated with certainty before 1760, and none before1750.120 By the last quarter of the 18th century thefaceted stem had become extremely popular andremained so into the early 19th century.121

There are four small tumblers, two of themwith feint horizontal corrugations (Fig. 20, Nos58-60).122 Glasses such as these would have beenused for cordials and a variety of other drinks,including spirits and strong liquors. 123

As with the bottles, all glass drinking vesselsfrom the King's Arms are types current during thelate 18th to early 19th centuries, although there areno stem glasses common to the first half of the 19thcentury (for example, multi-piece glasses withsingle- and double-waisted stemsj.P" The stemglasses with folded feet are earlier than the rest ofthe collection, but only by a generation or so (i.e.mid rather than late 18th century). There are nolarge volume glasses in the assemblage, such asrummers or large ale glasses; even the tumblers are


quite small. The later glasses in the collection maywell have come from glass services, a conceptwhich was probably not established in Englandmuch before c. 1780.125They would therefore havebeen suitable for use with the high proportion ofceramics related to serving and eating food.

In addition to the drinking glasses, the base ofa jelly glass was recovered (Fig. 20, No. 61). Madein free-blown colourless glass, a slight ridge at thetop of the fragment suggests that it may have hada bucket-topped, rounded funnel bowl. The sweetcourse at a meal during the 17th century and lateroften consisted of jelly, syllabub, ice creams orcustards served in individual glasses for eachdiner. 126There is a distinction between glasses usedfor wet sweetmeats such as these, and dry sweet-meats such as candied fruit. According to FrancisBuckley's Index, jelly glasses were the most advert-ised of all table glasses between 1725 and 1771.127

A substantial proportion of a plain, should-ered decanter was also recovered (Fig. 20, No. 62).Made in free-blown, colourless glass, the neck isground internally to keep the stopper tightly inplace. As with the drinking vessels and bottles, thepiece dates to the late 18th to early 19th century,when it was customary to allow the contents ofdecanters to stand; before this, in the 17th andearly 18th centuries, decanters were usually forshort-term use and had only loosely-fitting stop-pers, since the contents were not allowed to standfor long.128The changeover from claret to port asthe 'Englishman's favourite wine' took place dur-ing the 18th century, following the signing of theMethuen treaty (see above), and was largelyresponsible for this development in the decanter.Port was found to benefit from careful storage andfrom being poured out of its original bottle, storedin the cellar, into another container where it couldsettle and reach room temperature. Hence the needfor a closely-fitting stopper, which from 1750onwards was ground into the neck to make italmost airtight.129 The 'polite decanter was athrow-off from the common wine-bottle', allowingwine to be brought to the table in a more refinedand elegant fashion.130

The only other glass recovered from theKing's Arms cistern consists of several fragmentsof colourless window glass, and a complete cylin-drical pharmaceutical phial with a broad mouth infree-blown, colourless glass, similar in date to thedrinking vessels (Fig. 20, No. 63).131

THE CLAY TOBACCO PIPES

A large quantity of clay tobacco pipes was reco-vered from the fill of the King's Arms pit. Counting

167

only the more complete bowls and spurs, a min-imum of 75 pipes is represented, along with 672stem fragments. The full breakdown of clay piperemains by context is given in Table 2.132 Nocomplete pipes were found, so their lengths couldnot be calculated. Most bowls show signs of havingbeen used. The value of large numbers of clay pipesin an archaeological deposit such as this needhardly be stressed. As Noel Hume points out, theywere made, used and thrown away within a year ortwo, were extremely cheap and were used by alllevels of society.133

All identifiable pipe bowls fall into Type 23 inOswald's 1975 Simplified General Typology,defined as having thin bowls and stems, and 'longforward spurs', and dated to c. 1760-1800 (Fig. 20,Nos 64-65).134 They also fit into Types 26 (with aforward spur) and 27 (with a flat-based spur) inAtkinson and Oswald's 1969 classification ofLondon clay pipes, dated to c. 1740-1800 and c.1780-1820 respectively. 135There is some slightvariation in the degree to which the spur projectsforward, making it a little difficult to place allsurviving bowls into one category or the other. Thisis probably insignificant, suggesting minor differ-ences in the moulds used, given the close similarityin form shared by all the pipes, and serves rather tohighlight the pitfalls of adhering too rigidly totypological systems, however valuable.

All surviving spurs bear the same maker'smark, 'WP', with the 'w' on the left-hand side ofthe spur as the smoker holds the pipe to theirmouth. Pipes with this mark have been foundelsewhere in Uxbridge, as well as in Ruislip andPinner, 136suggesting that the maker was a popularsource of pipes used locally. Finds of clay pipeproduction waste and documentary records indi-cate that a house on the corner of Harefield Road,adjoining present-day 118 High Street, and demol-ished in 1837, housed an established clay pipebusiness for more than 100 years, from the early1700s onwards.137In the Poor Rate Assessment of2 April 1766, the house is recorded as occupied bya 'Mr Patman', who appears to have been apipemaker. In the October 1766 Assessment a 'MrPittman' is recorded, a form of the name whichwas used until 1783, when 'William Pickman',pipemaker, appears, remaining in occupation until1818.138Given the divergent spellings of the period,these names most probably all refer to the sameindividual, who was living and working at theproperty formerly adjacent to 118 High Street,between at least 1766 and 1818. No other 'WP'pipemakers are recorded in Uxbridge during the18th century, so William Pickman is the most likelycandidate as manufacturer of the marked pipesfound in the brick cistern at the King's Arms.139


TABLE 2Distribution of clay tobacco pipes in the pit at the King's Arms, Uxbridge

Context Bowl Marked Marked Spur Mouth- Moulded Stemfragments bowls-WP spurs-WP fragments pieces decoration fragments

110 10 2 3 31137 4 2 13139 5140 104 32 29 2 12 2 454184 1 3185 17 3 2 54197 4 1 28198 5 2 3 2 8 84

Total 144 34 34 9 28 2 672

A discrete deposit of seven pipes, their bowlscomplete and a large proportion of the stemremaining, were found in the main chimney stackof the former King's Arms, at 20 High Street, onthe first floor south. All are of the same shape, andfall within Type 27 in Atkinson and Oswald'sLondon type-series, dated to c. 1780-1820 (Fig. 20,No. 66).140Two are marked 'WP', and all appearto have been in use before they were deposited; onestill has a plug of tobacco inside the bowl.

III

ANALYSIS OF THE KING'S ARMSASSEMBLAGE

DATE OF DEPOSITION

The Uxbridge ceramic assemblage consists almostentirely of fabrics and forms with styles of decora-tion current during the second half of the 18thcentury, particularly the 1770s and 1780s.Although some of the creamwares, the blue-painted pearlware, and the black basalt teapot lidcould have been made after 1790, there is nothingdefinitely later than this. A small number ofcreamwares, such as the feather edge plates, maydate to the 1760s, and the agate teapot could havebeen made as early as the 1750s. The white salt-glazed stoneware too could date to the middledecades of the century and was past its prime by1770, while the Lowestoft mug dates to the 1760s.The Chinese porcelain is also largely decorated instyles typical of the third quarter of the 18thcentury, with a number of pieces which closelyparallel vessels recovered from the wreck of theGeldermalsen, which sank in 1752. The glass toofits into the same date range as the pottery. Thewine and dram glasses with a folded foot date to

the middle of the 18th century, although the bulkof the drinking glasses and wine bottles were madelater in the century. The clay tobacco pipes, whichare among the best indicators of date in anyassemblage, also date to the late 18th century, withsome at least made between c. 1780and 1800.

Creamware is certainly a vast improvementon delftware in its strength and durability, and theglaze has the distinct advantage of not flakingaway easily, but it is still not as strong as the laterironstone chinas. Most of the plates have chips andwear at the rim, and numerous knife-cuts acrossthe base, showing that they had already seen heavyuse by the time they were discarded. It seems veryunlikely that they would have survived in regularuse in a busy coaching inn for more than a fewyears, and they would certainly have had a shorterlife expectancy than the equivalent forms in anormal domestic environment. Porcelain teawares, however, were probably treated with greatercare, thus lasting longer, even if in frequent use.This doubtless applies to the Chinese wares,although the Worcester porcelain was probablynot in use for long before it was thrown away, mostlikely having been damaged. The tea wares mayalso have been largely decorative, used to adornsome of the private and more exclusive rooms inthe inn. By the end of the 18th century these wouldhave been increasingly furnished in a comfortableand fashionable manner to accommodate the needsof the wealthier and more distinguished clientele,drawn from the local gentry, who undoubtedlyfrequented a busy coaching inn such as the King'sArms as a focus for social and business activity.

Items such as the wine bottles were disposable,but also recyclable, once empty, while the drinkingglasses would certainly have been vulnerable tobreakage. The clay pipes would have had the


shortest life expectancy of all, since they were 'asexpendable as cigarettes, though vastly moredurable' .141

Based on the latest date of the marked Worces-ter tea wares, the pearlwares, the latest clay pipesand the absence of any common, distinctive early19th-century pottery or glass, such as ironstonewares, wine bottles made in three-piece mouldsand stem glasses of types in common use after c.1800, a deposition date between c. 1785 and 1800seems most likely. This allows only a short periodof use for the latest pieces in the assemblage and alife-span of up to 40 years for the oldest potteryand drinking glasses, which include some of themore 'special' and unusual vessels recovered, aswell as much of the Chinese porcelain.

FABRIC AND FUNCTION BREAKDOWN

A classification of vessel forms according to broadfunctional categories can be very helpful in provid-ing an overview of the makeup of a large assem-blage, giving some idea of where and howindividual surviving vessels (of all materials) wereused in their original context, and allowing inter-pretative models to be proposed for the site fromwhich they were recovered. Formalized schemesare, however, fraught with problems. Many vesselforms had a multiplicity of uses, some of whichcannot even be guessed at, and functions whichappear the most obvious to modem eyes need notbe those for which any particular form was origin-ally made, or indeed used. Anyone vessel mighthave served several different purposes during itslifetime, although some forms are clearly adaptedto specific functions, especially by the late 18thcentury (for example, sauce boats, salts, teapots).There are, however, distinct advantages to thearchaeologist in being able to arrange vessel formsin their most likely functional groupings and thusaid their interpretation in the context of the whole.

Large assemblages of pottery were excavatedin 1974 on the site of a row of terraced propertiesbuilt in the 1670s to the south of Aldgate HighStreet, London, and demolished in the mid 18thcentury.142These were organized into very broadfunctional groups, consisting of storage and trans-port, cooking and food preparation, table/decorat-ive wares, 'sanitary' wares and 'other forms' .143This approach proved very useful in showing howthe range of vessels recovered at different phasescould be related to the original occupants. In theUnited States, the Potomac Typological System(POTS) was developed for classifying vessel shapesexcavated on colonial sites in the Chesapeakeregion of Virginia and Maryland.144 This system ismore specific than that used at Aldgate, and draws

169

heavily on contemporaneous probate inventoriesto name and arrange vessels according to theirknown or suspected uses. POTS differentiates, forexample, between vessels used for individual andcommunal beverage consumption, and betweenforms reserved for the consumption of solid andsemi-solid foods.145A modification of this systemwas proposed by Anne Yentsch for 17th- and 18th-century artefacts, again from the Chesapeakeregion.146This relates vessel forms to the adoptionof new ways of preparing and serving food in theearly American colonies, following earlier Englishmodels. The classification usefully differentiatesvessels used for serving food and beverages ('distri-bution'), and for their consumption. Drinkingvessels favoured for 'traditional' beverages, suchas beer and ale, are also distinguished from thosedesigned for 'new' drinks, such as punch, tea andcoffee.147

A similar approach to the classification offunctional groups has been adopted here, furthermodifying the Potomac Typological System andthat proposed by Yentsch. There are significantdifferences in the range of forms and functions forwhich ceramic vessels were used in late 18th-century provincial England, from those found in acolonial American context of a century earlier.There are also points of comparison, although theceramic revolution which started in the EnglishMidlands in the mid 18th century, and the greatsocial changes of the period as reflected in vesselforms inevitably led to major developments infabrics and forms over the course of the century.The system proposed here for the King's Armsassemblage (seeAppendix 2) differentiates betweenvessels used for the serving and consumption ofalcoholic beverages, and tea and coffee, and groupstogether vessels which would originally have beenbought and used for serving and consuming foodin dinner (and dessert) services. Food preparationvessels can be distinguished according to whetherthey were obviously used for cooking or not (asindicated by the presence of sooting or heat-blackening), although there is no evidence that anyof the kitchenwares deposited in the Uxbridge pitwere ever used to heat food.'Inevitably, a numberof forms, particularly bowls, cannot readily beplaced into a single category, since they wereprobably used for any number of purposes, rangingfrom the purely decorative to cooking and servingfood or beverages. The classification adopted hereis intended only as a guide to aid interpretationand should be regarded as flexible, rather thanlaying down hard and fast rules.

For the purposes of the Uxbridge assemblage,ceramics and glass have been quantified togetherby MNV, giving a total of 266 vessels. The figures


TABLE 3Breakdown of the ceramicsand glass from the King's Arms, Uxbridge, by broad functional groups

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%>z:E#-

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%Storage Prep Serving Alcohol Dining Teaware

Functional groupHygeine Multi Unident

given below, and summarized in Table 3, are basedon these combined statistics, since functions servedby many of the forms represented could be cateredfor by either material.

A clear correlation between fabric and func-tion is apparent, with creamware used principallyas the serviceable everyday crockery for dining,English and Chinese porcelain for hot beverages,coarse red earthenwares for the general kitchenpottery, glass drinking vessels for alcoholic bever-ages and green glass bottles for storing and servingwine. Vessels from dinner services, both for theserving and consumption of meals, together consti-tute the largest single functional category in theassemblage at 24.430/0.148These were probablyused both in the private rooms and for the generalserving of food, one of the principal functions ofthe inn as a provider of hospitality for travellers.The widespread availability of the different dinnerplate·patterns would make them perfectly suitablefor a general hostelry. More earthy pottery forserving food is probably represented by the RedBorder ware handled bowls with a good cover ofglossy glaze inside and out, and by the slip-decorated redwares. Together these account for nomore than 4.140/0of the whole assemblage.

The criteria identified by Bragdon as distinct-ive of Anglo-American tavern assemblages un sur-prisingly highlight the important role of drinkingvessels in a variety of materials, and of smokingequipment, in even the meanest victualling

establishment.149 Bragdon compared assemblagesfrom the site of the Wellfleet Tavern, on GreatIsland, Wellfleet, Mass., and from the homesteadof Joseph Howland, a prosperous yeoman farmer

. in Kingston, Mass., to see if occupational differ-ences could be recognized in their material remains,and found that they closely reflected patternsobserved in contemporary probate inventories.150The Wellfleet Tavern was part of a thriving fishingand whaling community during the late 17th andearly 18th centuries,151and excavations yielded afar higher number of mugs, beakers and porringersthan domestic sites of comparable date andstanding, particularly in wares generally associatedwith drinking vessels.152Although there were onlysix glass bottles, this could be accounted for bytheir being used to decant wine from woodenbarrels or casks, rather than for binning.153This isin marked contrast with the King's Arms, where aminimum of 38 glass bottles were found, andvessels for the storing and serving of alcoholaccount for 15.040/0of the whole assemblage.154This could well be explained by the difference indate, with the later bottles being used to store winelaid down in the cellar to age, rather than used asdecanters to carry wine from cask to table.

Redware bowls which are well-glazed insideand out, and which were probably used for serving,have been distinguished here from the rather morehumble handled bowls which are glazed insideonly, and which probably served several different


functions, particularly in the kitchen. Vesselswhichwere probably used primarily in the preparation offood account for 8.270/0of all vessels recovered.None of these had been used for heating food, butonly the plainer, more utilitarian bowls and disheshave been included in this category. In contrastwith the Uxbridge assemblage, however, theWellfleet tavern yielded relatively few ceramicforms associated with food preparation. Thesedisparities between the two sites are not reallysurprising in view of the considerable differencesbetween a large and busy coaching inn in aprosperous English market town and a smaller,but thriving tavern in a colonial whaling commun-ity. Moreover, the Wellfleet assemblage had appar-ently been discarded over several years, while theKing's Arms material was deposited over a muchshorter period. Bragdon also examined artefactassemblages from seven other Anglo-Americantaverns, including John Earthy's Tavern at Pema-quid, Maine and Wetherburn's Tavern in Williams-burg, Virginia, 155in order to test the validity of hermodel for occupational differences.156Althoughthe sites differed in time, location and circum-stances, they all yielded very high proportions ofpottery associated with food service and drinking,large numbers of ceramic vessels and glassware.

At one level, the Uxbridge assemblage appearsto conform to Bragdon's model, in that 30.830/0ofall pottery was designed and used for the consump-tion of beverages. This does, however, include ahigh proportion of tea wares, and vessels from teaservices (for serving and consumption) togetheraccount for 16.550/0of the whole assemblage.1s7The choice of Chinese and English porcelain fortea wares may hint at a more select clientele, andwould be the accepted norm for polite society towhich the middle class and wealthier patrons wereaccustomed. By the end of the 18th century,however, porcelain was also one of the main typesof pottery used by society at large for serving anddrinking tea, and the ubiquitous Chinese wareswere no longer the expensive luxury they had oncebeen. Tea consumption soared during the courseof the 18th century, rising from £3,000,000 in 1750,to £23,000,000 in 1800,158an increase over thecentury of 97.70/0for a population which increasedby only 140/0.159Prices fell as it became the stapledrink of the lower classes. Inns, taverns and somealehouses served tea,160and in 1775 Georg Chris-toph Lichtenberg noted that 'in a small inn onNewington Green, 240 gallons of tea were servedin a single afternoon'. 161Pottery and porcelainmade for tea-drinking could also just as well havebeen used for display, since by the early 19thcentury many public houses were making a heavyinvestment in furnishings of one kind or another,

171

including purely ornamental items, such as porcel-ain.161 The high proportion of tea wares at theKing's Arms can probably be explained by thebroad spectrum of social functions fulfilled by theinn at the end of the 18th century, which includednot only the sale of alcoholic beverages and food,but also the provision of comfortable, well-appointed private rooms for a wide range of socialactivities in which tea- and coffee-drinking wouldnaturally have played an important part.

Vessels for the consumption of alcohol (asopposed to serving and storage) account for15.79% of the whole assemblage from the King'sArms. Interestingly, ceramic mugs which wereprobably used for alcoholic drinks, such as beerand ale, outnumber drinking glasses for wines andspirits (a minimum of 25 vessels, as opposed to 17glasses of different kinds). Most are in creamware,with some examples in white salt-glazed stonewareand Lowestoft porcelain, and minimal brown-glazed stoneware. Both pint and half-pint capacit-ies are represented, and all the mugs are quiteunsuitable for heavy use. By 1700, the old-fash-ioned lead-glazed earthenware mugs and drinkingvessels which had previously been used in publicdrinking establishments were in decline and, by theend of the century, pewter and glass were the chiefmaterials used for everyday drinking.163 Since itcan be melted down and reused, however, pewteris generally scarce in archaeological assemblages.Some London pewterers specialized in vessels forthe drink trade and produced a profusion of formsand sizes.164Silver tankards and other items fordisplay were, however, less widespread by the late18th century, probably as a result of their inherentvalue which ensured that they were unlikely eitherto be put on public display or discarded. 165

There are many more drinking glasses in thecolonial American tavern assemblages than oncontemporaneous domestic sites.166At Uxbridge,the number of glasses is not exceptional, eventhough the overall proportion of vessels associatedwith the serving and consumption of alcohol ishigh (32.330/0of all forms). Once again this mayhave more to do with differences in taphonomybetween the King's Arms and the American sites,where deposition was taking place over a muchlonger period.

One category of vessels which appears not tobe represented in the Wellfleet and other tavernassemblages discussed by Bragdon is that relatingto what might euphemistically be termed sanitaryand hygiene considerations. Together, chamberpots and pharmaceutical vessels167account for3.380/0of the Uxbridge assemblage. This again isby no means exceptional, and differs little frommany contemporaneous domestic assemblages in

172

the London area. The number of clay tobaccopipes is, however, larger than average,168and thisis one of the features highlighted by Bragdon ascharacteristic of tavern assemblages.169 TheUxbridge pipe fragments do not run into thethousands as do the finds from the Wellfleet tavern,but they do represent waste discarded over a muchshorter period.

Overall, the Kings' Arms assemblage presentsus with an illuminating picture of the range andtype of ceramics used to stock a late 18th-centurycoaching inn, although not necessarily what mighthave been expected in the light of the colonialAmerican model. We must, however, be careful ofover-interpreting the surviving sample of materialremains from what was originally a far wider, morecomprehensive and constantly changing range ofutensils, since what was discarded and what wasnot were undoubtedly dictated by individualcircumstances.

IV

OTHER ENGLISH INN AND TAVERNASSEMBLAGES

Two sites recently excavated outside the Londonarea yielded considerable quantities of finds whichwere originally derived from public victuallingestablishments, and which appear to include mat-erial from wholesale clearances. Both date to the18th century, although they are separated by up to90 years, and both provide valuable comparisonswith the King's Arms assemblage.

THE TUN INN, GUILD FORD

One of the most spectacular post-medieval finds ofrecent years is a large sealed deposit recovered in1991 from a chalk-lined pit on the site of the TunInn in Tunsgate, Guildford, Surrey.170It includeda minimum of 193 ceramic vessels,!71 as well asglass, clay pipes and organic remains. The findsform a discrete and chronologically uncontamin-ated group, mostly dating from the last quarter ofthe 17th century, and deposited c. 1702-14.Numerous vessels are reconstructable as substan-tially complete and the assemblage shows everysign of having been deposited at one time, as awholesale clearance, or over a short period, thuscomparing closely with the King's Arms group.There are many very fine and unusual pieces ofpottery and glass, some of them unique, includingpreviously unknown examples of the work ofGeorge Ravenscroft and the largest group ofmould-blown cristallo beakers so far found in the

JACQUELINE PEARCE

UK or North America.172 Together, Surrey-Hampshire Border wares, both white- andredwares, make up almost 750/0of the ceramicassemblage, consisting mostly of vessels used incooking, food preparation, serving and consump-tion, and including several drinking vessels andchamber potS.173A very large flanged dish in RedBorder ware with trailed slip decoration can becompared with the Donyatt-type slip-decoratedexamples from the King's Arms, and probablyserved a similar dual function for serving anddisplay.174There are also Dutch and English tin-glazed wares, many of them finely decorated andprobably intended for display as much as forpractical use, if not more. Much of the tin-glazedware would have been around 30 years old whenthrown away, with some pieces possibly made asmuch as 60 years earlier.175There are very few teawares, apart from an exceptional teapot made byJohn Dwight of Fulham,176 and there is only onepiece of Chinese porcelain, which at this date wassomething of a rarity in ordinary circles.177To alarge extent these differences between the Tunsgateand Uxbridge assemblages can be explained by thedifference in date, and what was available,affordable and fashionable, as well as in keepingwith prevailing social customs. Tea-drinking andthe use of porcelain were not so widespread at thestart of the 18th century as they were later, andprobably did not constitute a regular element ofinn society and customs. Delftware was the prin-cipal medium for decorative pottery, constitutingthe second most common ceramic fabric at Tuns-gate after Border wares,178while the StaffordshirePotteries had not yet taken the place of dominancethat they were increasingly to assume from the mid18th century onwards.

Interestingly, there are few stoneware or otherdrinking vessels for beer or ale in the Tunsgateassemblage, but large numbers of glasses of variouskinds, especially for wine-drinking.179 Vessels forthe consumption of beverages are the most com-mon functional category found at Tunsgate, andalmost 600/0of these are made in glass.18oAfterbeverage consumption, vessels associated with'health and hygiene' are the second most commonfunctional group, of which about half are againmade in glass (pharmaceutical phials).181 In thisrespect, the Tunsgate assemblage differs signific-antly from both the American taverns discussed byBragdon and the finds from the King's Arms. Aminimum of sixteen wine bottles was recon-structed, which may seem too few for a victuallingestablishment, although, as Bragdon suggested forcontemporaneous American tavern sites, they mayhave been used as decanters for drawing wine fromthe cask, rather than for storing wines in the


cellar.182There are also 133 clay pipe bowls and290 stem fragments, a large number, although notas considerable as the quantities recovered on thesite of the Wellfleet Tavern. 183

Guildford, like Uxbridge, was an importantmarket and coaching town, and both had a numberof large inns competing with each other in theirrespective High Streets. The Tunsgate assemblagefulfils all the criteria for clearance groups andcompares closely with the pattern of functionaldistinctions observed in Anglo-American tavernassemblages, with a considerable quantity of pot-tery, specialized glassware, large numbers of claypipe stems and a large proportion of all vessels,both ceramic and glass, used for beverage con-sumption. In some respects, it meets these criteriaeven more closely than the Uxbridge assemblage.This may simply be a matter of some 80 years'difference in date, a time during which considerabledevelopments were taking place in social customsand in ceramics. It may also reflect a very differentset of circumstances, both in the set-up of the twoinns and in the reasons for disposal, or possibly acombination of both.

THE BOWLING GREEN PUBLIC HOUSE,LEICESTER

Another close comparison with the Uxbridgeassemblage, both in date and composition, ispresented by a large group of pottery and glassexcavated in 1996 on the site of the Bowling Greenpublic house in Oxford Street, Leicester, as yetunpublished.184 Most of the finds came from twopits dated to the last quarter of the 18th century, 185and show all the signs of having been deliberatelydiscarded together, with many vessels largelyreconstructable. As at Uxbridge, creamware is thelargest single fabric group.186Most of it is relativelyplain, although there are examples of tortoiseshell,banded and marbled decoration, including a bowlwith marbled slip very similar to the King's Armsexamples.187 There is a higher proportion ofpearlware than at Uxbridge, principally tea bowlsand saucers with under-glaze blue-painted chinois-erie decoration, but very little transfer-printing onany ware, suggesting that the deposit was madeslightly too early for this pottery to be present inquantity.188 Nottingham stoneware is the secondmost common fabric present, with a relatively largenumber of bowls, as well as jugs and mugs.189There are only two pieces of Chinese porcelain,part of a teapot and a saucer, both blue andwhite,190and no English porcelain at all. Duringthe 18th century the area was a poor one,191unlikeUxbridge, and it may be that the owners had to be

173

content with cheaper imitations of the fine porcel-ains belonging to the wealthier members of society.

A large proportion of the pottery from theBowling Green site consists of vessels for theserving and consumption of food and variouskinds of beverage. In all, nineteen plates werefound, as well as several serving vessels fromcreamware dinner services, including two sauceboats, a mustard pot, salt and cruet.192This neednot be excessive for a domestic assemblage, but thetotal of 61 drinking vessels is exceptional, andwould be highly unusual in a normal domesticcontext. This includes eleven tea bowls, nineteensaucers and, most significantly, nine teapots, oneof which is a toy.193This decided emphasis on teawares makes comparison with the King's Armsmore pronounced, and offers confirmation of thewide range of refreshments available in victuallingestablishments at the end of the 18th century. Thelarge number of drinking vessels also ties in withBragdon's criteria for Anglo-American tavernassemblages, although the Leicester site yieldedrelatively little glass, mostly pharmaceutical phials(twelve examples) and wine bottles (ten).194It maybe that the establishment concentrated more onbeer, ale and cider than on wine, a suggestionwhich is borne out by the large number of mugsrecovered (30 large vessels in different fabrics) andjugs which were probably used for serving alcoholicbeverages (nine examples).195It is also possible, ofcourse, that any wine bottles used on the premiseswere recycled once finished with.196Cullet was ofprime importance in glass-making, and thisencouraged the collection of broken glass forrecycling; there were even those poorer membersof society who made a living by collecting all kindsof broken glass for sale to the makers.197Alternat-ively, wine might have been decanted into jugs,rather than into more refined decanters. The rela-tively large number of pharmaceutical phials is ofinterest and invites comparison with the Tunsgateassemblage, although only one example was foundat Uxbridge. No clay pipes are recorded from theBowling Green site, which makes a striking con-trast with both the Tun Inn and the King's Arms,as well as with the American taverns.

OTHER TAVERN AND INN ASSEMBLAGES

Overall, the Bowling Green and Tunsgate assem-blages provide valuable comparisons with theUxbridge material, and are among the very fewtavern or inn assemblages in the UK to have beenfully analysed. Several excavations and watchingbriefs have been carried out on the sites of knowninns, taverns and alehouses in the London area inrecent years, including the Hoop and Grapes in

174

Aldgate (site code HAG80); the George Inn at theFenchurch Street/Aldgate junction (PUB90); andthe Swan with Two Necks, and the Ship, nearLondon Bridge (LBA95, LBB95).198 TheUxbridge group, however, is the only one to havebeen examined in detail. Nothing else comparablein composition has yet been recovered, and littlewhich conforms to Bragdon's colonial Americanmodel. There is, however, one remarkable assem-blage which was excavated in St Thomas's Street,Southwark in 1982 and is still awaiting analysis. 199A minimum of 143 vessels was found in a depositdating to c. 1610-50, exhibiting all the features ofa wholesale clearance. Among these were sherdsfrom at least 70 Frechen stoneware Bartmann jugsor Bellarmines, comprising half the assemblage ormore, and displaying an astonishing variety ofdecoration. The discovery of so many Rhenishstoneware wine bottles in a single deposit is unpre-cedented in London and probably elsewhere in thiscountry. It seems improbable that the pottery camefrom a domestic context, and since Southwark wasespecially well known for its large number oftaverns and inns serving the coaching and carriagetrades to the south of London, it is a distinctpossibility that the pottery was discarded from oneof these. Confirmation of this suggestion mustawait further research.

COMPARISON OF THE ENGLISH INNASSEMBLAGES

How does the Uxbridge assemblage, and thosefrom Guildford and Leicester, compare with thecolonial American model proposed by Bragdon?Each of these assemblages clearly fulfils all thecriteria for wholesale clearance groups set out atthe beginning of this paper (see p. 145). There are,however, many ways in which they depart from thecolonial tavern model. Some of these have alreadybeen discussed; for example, the large number oftea wares in the Uxbridge and Leicester assem-blages, the low proportion of glass drinking vesselsand bottles at Leicester, the relatively large numberof coarse earthenwares used for food preparationand vessels from dinner services at Uxbridge, andthe large number of clay pipes at Uxbridge andGuildford, but not Leicester. To a large extent, thedifferent emphases in the various assemblages canbe explained by differences in location, status, dateand taphonomy (the American assemblages do notall come from sealed deposits). The questionremains, however, of whether any constants can beidentified in the English assemblages which allowthem to be recognized as distinctive, or indicativeof the 'occupational differences' sought by Brag-don in the United States.

JACQUELINE PEARCE

Allowing for differences in time, place andcircumstances, the following features may be sug-gested as characteristic of assemblages from post-medieval inns and taverns, some of them corres-ponding with Bragdon's criteria:

1. large quantities of ceramics2. a high proportion of drinking vessels, ceramic

or glass, or both3. a high proportion of pottery used for dining,

including vessels used both in serving andconsumption.

These criteria are fulfilled by each of the Englishinn or tavern assemblages discussed in this paper.There are, in addition, a number of features whichare certainly suggestive of a tavern or inn, butwhich may not always be found:

4. a high proportion of glass wine bottles5. a concentration of vessels usually used for the

consumption of alcoholic beverages6. a large number of good quality vessels for

serving and/or display, both ceramic and glass7. a large number of vessels used for food

preparation8. a large number of clay tobacco pipes.

The Uxbridge and Tunsgate assemblages bothfulfil all of these, although the number of winebottles at Guildford is not as great as might beexpected (see above). The Bowling Green findsfulfil most of these criteria except 6 and 8. Thereare, of course, other kinds of assemblage whichcould show some of these characteristics, but thecombination of several of them together in oneassemblage must surely be regarded as a signpost,suggesting that the finds in question could havecome from a victualling establishment. It is, how-ever, important that these criteria are not taken ashard and fast rules for the identification of suchassemblages; there are many variables which needto be taken into account (some of these havealready been mentioned), and it is essential thatother evidence, especially documentary records, beconsidered alongside the finds.

There were three main kinds of victuallingestablishment in pre- and early industrial England.The most significant in size and social status wasthe inn, the focus of the nation's transport systemuntil the 1840s.This was usually a large, importantand fashionable establishment where wine, ale,beer and spirits could be obtained, as well as quitelavish meals of several courses. The larger estab-lishments would have many sizeable, well-fur-nished rooms and guest chambers for the well-to-do traveller, ample stabling for horses and space inthe courtyard for carts, wagons and goods. They


catered largely for the aristocracy and landedgentry, the merchant and professional classes.2ooThere might also be a number of sub- and co-tenancies operating around the inn yard, such assmiths, farriers and wholesale warehousemen.201Taverns sold wine, beer and ale, and food of a lesselaborate kind to the better off, but did not havethe extensive accommodation of inns, while ale-houses were usually smaller, selling ale or beer andlater spirits, and offering basic food and accom-modation for the lower orders of society.

Since the makeup of the finds assemblage caneasily change according to the date of deposition,location and status, it is suggested that the criteriaoutlined above can be related to the nature of theestablishment. The relatively wealthier inns, forexample, may yield large amounts of ceramics usedfor dining, and good quality vessels for serving anddisplay, while taverns and alehouses may not havesuch high-quality or refined vessels in their posses-sion and show a greater emphasis on ale- and beer-drinking. Tea wares will not, of course, be wide-spread before at least the middle of the 18thcentury. Regardless of status or date, however,large numbers of drinking vessels appear, unsur-prisingly, to be the chief distinguishing feature ofall inns, taverns and alehouse excavated both inEngland and in America.

V

THE UXBRIDGE ASSEMBLAGE INCONTEXT

In the l780s and l790s, Uxbridge was at the heightof its prosperity, the most considerable markettown in Middlesex and a great area beyond, with aflourishing corn market and brewing industry.202It was the first major coaching stop on the mainroad from London to Oxford and the west, 15miles from Tyburn, the furthest a team of horsespulling a coach could go at speed, and 15 milesfrom High Wycombe, the next major stop.203Posting inns along the Oxford Road were servedby the inns of Holborn,204 and by the l780s it wasa two-hour journey to Uxbridge.20s In 1779, 'TheShopkeeper's and Tradesman's Assistant' gives thetimes of coaches from Holborn to Uxbridge asfollows:

Uxbridge (Middlesex, 18 miles) Post Coach,Bell and Crown, Holborn, daily, afternoon 3pm summer, 2 pm winter. Coach Bull, andBell and Crown, Holborn, daily, afternoon 2pm summer, 1 pm winter. King's Arms,

175

Holborn-bridge wed, frioWhite Horse, Fleet-market, tues, fri morning 8 am. Wa~80n, Bell,Warwick-lane, tues morning 11am. 6

By the l830s, more than 80 stagecoaches a daypassed through Uxbridge, as well as privatecoaches, wagons, carts and other traffic,207and in1798 John Middleton wrote that 'the road fromTyburn through Uxbridge is supposed to havemore broad-wheeled wagons pass over it than anyother road in the country'. 208By the middle of the18th century there were 29 licensed alehouses andtwo breweries in the town,209 and well over aquarter, and probably much more, of the town'spopulation was employed in the supply of foodand drink. 210It is striking that all this bibulousactivity was taking place in a town which, in 1782,was said to have a population of 1712 and 366houses within the precincts of the borough ditch.211In the 'Uxbridge Panorama' of c. 1790 (Fig. 22)fifteen inns are shown in the High Street, and mostof the old timber-framed houses seem recently tohave been refurbished or rebuilt.212This coincideswith a time of general improvements to the townamenities which took place at the end of the 18thcentury. High Street was both widened anddiverted over part of its length, and a new MarketHouse was completed in 1789, this renewal of civicpride going hand-in-hand with general improve-ments in street-cleaning, paving and lighting. 213

By the end of the 18th century, the King'sArms was one of the four largest, wealthiest andoldest of the town's posting inns.214 These innswere important centres for travellers, places for thetransaction of local business deals, social centresand meeting places for the local gentry and growingmiddle classes, as well as numerous clubs andsocieties. It was essential that they should beappropriately and handsomely equipped with allthe crockery and other utensils needed to servethese many needs, and to do it in style wherenecessary. Factors of vital importance in the provi-sion of crockery for any inn would be price,availability, durability and appearance. Potsselected would need to be practical and easy toclean, suitable for display and fashionable, ideallymirroring the tastes of the gentry and wealthierclasses. The pottery recovered from the King'sArms fits very comfortably into such a picture,providing standard dinner service wares for generaland more select usage, and attractive and fashion-able tea wares for more refined patrons.

A list of the licensees of the King's Armsduring the late 18th and early 19th centuries,derived from Licensed Victuallers Records,21syields two main candidates for innkeeper at thetime the assemblage is most likely to have been


FIG. 22Detail of the Uxbridge Panorama of c. 1790, showing the King's Arms in the High Street (reproduced by courtesy of

Hillingdon Borough Council).

discarded: one William Fennix or Fennex, who waslicensed between 1786 and 1788, and John Norton,who held the licence for nine years, from 1789 until1797 when his name appears with that of RichardBrown (see Table 4). As yet little else is knownabout either of them, although no other licenseebetween 1780 and 1800 was in occupation for more

than five years. Within 20 years of 1800, before orafter, the longest tenure of the inn was held byJohn Doman, who is first recorded in 1799; it ispossible that the material excavated on the site ofthe King's Arms was discarded during this period,although an earlier date is indicated by the finds(see above).

TABLE 4Lists of licensees of the King's Arms, High St, Uxbridge during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, from

Licensed Victualler (LV) returns

Licensee

Ann CasewellJohn CaswellAnn Caswell, widowJoseph MaidmentWilliam FennexWilliam FennixWilliam FenningJohn NortonJohn Norton?John NortonJohn NortenJohn N orten/Richard BrownRichard Brown/John BrayJohn Bray/John DomanJohn DormanJohn Doman

John Doman/James FasnidgeRichard Green

Date of tenure

178017811782-841785178617871788178917901791-941795-9617971798179918001801-13

18141815

LV return

LV 9/97LV 9/105LV 9/112, 9/120, 9/128LV 9/137LV 9/146LV 9/155LV 9/164LV 9/182LV 9/191LV 10/8, 10/16, 10/37, 10/45LV 10/53, 10/61LV 10/69LV 10/77LV 10/85LV 10/93LV 10/101, 10/109, 10/119, 10/126, 11/8, 11/16,11/23, 11/36, 11/136, 11/144, 12/8, 13/8LV 14/9LV 15/7


REASONS FOR CLEARANCE

There are any number of possible reasons whichmay account for the phenomenon of clearancegroups, both domestic and otherwise. The death ofthe householder or proprietor, might, for example,be followed by a general dispersal of householdeffects and the jettisoning of unwanted goods,especially in the case of a widow who may havehad no one to whom her property could bebequeathed. This scenario has been postulated fora large domestic assemblage excavated at Cross-wall in the City of London, where the remains ofhousehold pets, including an Angora rabbit, alinnet with its glass bird feeder and a cat foetus,were found alongside fine quality Chinese porcel-ain, including parts of several sets of tea wares,English finewares and ordinary domestic potteryin a context dated to the 1770s.216 In a similar vein,the selective clearing-out of domestic equipmentmight follow a serious or contagious illness,although this probably cannot account for thewide range and combination of finds recovered inmany clearance groups. The clearing out of old orunwanted goods might also take place when ahousehold moved away, especially if the propertyfell into disuse at the same time. This is a likelyexplanation for the massive series of clearancesrecovered from working class or artisan house-holds on the site of tenements at Norfolk House,in Lambeth Road, Southwark, dated to the1860s.217 More than 1000 near complete vesselswere recovered from one of three brick-linedcesspits excavated in 1990. Every aspect of dailylife is represented in an outstanding collectionwhich provides a unique insight into the minutiaeof the livesof ordinary people in Victorian London.The completeness and comprehensiveness of theartefact assemblages suggests that they may havebeen discarded wholesale at one time, followingthe eviction of the owners, probably when thehouses were converted to the mains sewer system.On the other hand, unwanted, damaged or old-fashioned household equipment might simply bethrown out en masse, so that it could be replacedwith new and more up-to-date or 'better' articles,and this, of course, presupposes the necess~rymeans to accomplish such a.refurbishment.

Which, if any, of these possible explanationsapplies to the assemblage from the King's Arms?Rapid changes in ceramic fashions were takingplace throughout the 18th century, accompaniedby increased disposable wealth moving inexorablydown the social scale in what Neil McKendrick hascalled the 'convulsion of getting and spending'which characterized the consumer revolution in18th-century England.218 The public was fickle in

177

its tastes, always looking for something new, up-to-date and above all in the height of fashion, asexemplified by the upper levels of society andagainst a background of 'china mania' which ragedhand-in-hand with the consumer boom.219 JosiahWedgwood took signal advantage of this state ofaffairs by actively courting a highly select clientelewhich included the crowned heads of more thanone country, while 'cashing in on the emulativespending those exclusive sales excited among therest of society' .220 In doing so he successfully wonthe mass market as well.

It is possible that the Uxbridge assemblagerepresents a wholesale clear-out of worn anddamaged stock to make way for new, more fashion-able and probably more durable wares. Cream-wares were relatively cheap, but not as hard-wearing as ironstone chinas which were renderedthe more attractive by the application of mass-produced transfer-printed designs. By the end ofthe 18th century, people expected to replace severaltimes over what was once bought to last a lifetime.They were now able to buy at the dictate of fashionto demonstrate their new-found wealth, andincreasingly did so from a growing network ofshops and merchants. Innkeepers had become animportant and well-to-do part of local society, andmany could well afford to keep their stock ofcrockery in good condition and in the current taste.In this context, it is surely significant that cream-ware accounts for 54.670/0of all pottery which ismore than 500/0complete (see above p. 148). Sincethis was clearly at one time the principal potteryused for dining at the King's Arms, it is highlysuggestive that such a large amount should bediscarded at one time. During the last quarter ofthe 18th century pearlwares and transfer-printeddecoration were increasingly popular, and wouldhave represented the fashionable choice for fur-nishing a prosperous coaching inn which wasactively in fierce competition with its main HighStreet rivals. So few of these wares were found inthe deposit that it reflects both on the date ofdeposition and the circumstances of disposal. Itseems highly plausible that when a new licenseetook over at the King's Arms, this presented itselfas the ideal time for refurbishment, especially sincethe clearance took place at a time when UxbridgeHigh Street was undergoing significant renewal. Ifso, it is quite possible that William Fennix or JohnN orton was responsible for the deliberate clear-outof old stock in or near 1786 or 1789. Since Nortonis recorded as holding the licence for nine years,until 1797, and no one else had tenure for morethan three years before 1800 (see above), it istempting to view him as the innkeeper most likelyto have undertaken any major refurbishment of

178

the King's Arms at the end of the 18th century. Ifthis reasoning isjustified, it would place the date ofdeposition between 1789 and 1797, and probablynearer 1789 than later.

There are, however, questions which remainunanswered by this explanation. If the creamwareswere old and worn and needed replacing, the samedoes not necessarily apply to the English andChinese porcelain. Why were only parts of servicesthrown away? Does this mean that some vesselswere damaged and the rest were not? Why was thesybil thrown away but not her teapot? How do weaccount for the absence of items which might beexpected to turn up in a replacement-inspiredclearance, such as tureens, soup plates, milk jugsand the like? Perhaps a more dramatic explanationlies with the known problems of drunkenness andanti-social behaviour long associated with inns,taverns and alehouses, which led in the early 19thcentury to a growing campaign against publicdrinking places,221and a call for the strict regula-tion of the victualling trade, particularly at itslowest levels.222Writing in 1828, an anonymouscontributor to the Uxbridge Note Book recalls thedays of his youth when

the generality of tradesmen, in other pointsrespectable, indulged habitually in gluttonyand drunkenness. They sallied forth at mid-night, pulled down their neighbour's shutters,broke their windows and even into theirhouses, changing the publicans signs, paintedthe White Horse black etc. Their feastingbegan in the morning - the sole business oftheir lives appeared to be eating and drinking,and indulged in practical jokes without count-ing the cost. Woe to Juvenal's Vines and fig-trees - he never heard of the 'MarlowMen'.223

This provincial version of London's infamousMohocks was well known for getting out of handand provides us with a tempting, if romantic,explanation for the disposal of selected elements ofthe King's Arms crockery and glass. It wouldcertainly explain why parts of new, up-to-date andmore expensive tea services were jettisoned, ratherthan entire sets which were no longer wanted.

If some of the furnishings of the King's Armsdid indeed fall victim to the over-enthusiasm of the'Marlow Men', an attractive speculation whichunfortunately cannot be proven, this makes aninteresting comparison with the Tunsgate assem-blage, much of which would have appeared out-of-date and unfashionable by the time it was dis-carded. It too may represent a large-scale clearanceto make way for more up-to-date pottery and glass,thus making the inn more competitive with its

JACQUELINE PEARCE

numerous High Street rivals. It is also possible,however, that the contents of the pit represent thefurnishings of a private room, perhaps a committeeroom, and that a disturbance of some kind, pos-sibly at an election meeting, was responsible forextensive damage which necessitated the disposalof a large part of the room's crockery and glass.224

CONCLUSION

There are any number of possible explanations forthe existence of clearance groups, and they dependon a limitless range of variables, including thenature of the source of the material, the status ofthe household or occupants, wealth, personalhabits and so on. Ultimately, we can seldom becertain why such clearances took place, unlessconveniently documented, but archaeologists,social historians and ceramicists alike must beprofoundly grateful that they did, for the invalu-able series of vivid snapshots they provide ofeveryday life. This is certainly the case with themassive assemblage of ceramics, glass and claypipes recovered from the site of the King's Arms,Uxbridge. Viewed as a whole, the finds bring intosharp focus the broad spectrum of social activitieswhich were catered for by a prominent provincialcoaching inn at the end of the 18th century.Inviting comparison with other excavated assem-blages of finds from inns, taverns and public houseselsewhere in England and the American colonies,they allow a range of characteristics to be identifiedas typical of such establishments. These varyaccording to date, location and status, as well ascircumstances of disposal. What emerges is acomplex and rich picture of inn and tavern society,which also throws light on the life of a prosperousMiddlesex market town at the end of the 18thcentury, as well as on patterns of trade in theLondon area, and on fashion and the tastes of thegrowing middle classes. Clearly this is a veryfruitful field of study, ripe for further research, andit can only be hoped that more excavated closedassemblages from victualling establishments, aswell as domestic clearances, will be brought to lightand given the attention they richly deserve.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is dedicated to the memory of RichardKilburn who gave so generously of his time andknowledge in discussing coaching inns, the probateinventories of the Hon. Company of Glass Sellersand Chinese porcelain, and freely made availablemuch of his unpublished research into these differ-ent areas of scholarship.

2) Expansions for fabric codes shown in this report

179

APPENDIX 1

1) Ceramic{abric breakdown with summation of rows,sherd count-(SC) and Minimum Vessel Count (MNV)from the King's Arms assemblage (UX85)

See also Table 1 on p. 162. Grouped values areexpressed as percentages of the total amount of potteryfrom UX85. Expansions/or the MoLASjMoLSSfabriccodes used here are given below.

Fabric Rows SC %SC MNV %MNV

AGAT 1 16 .5 1 .5BBAS 1 1 .0 1 .5CHPO 1 1 .0 1 .5CHPOBW 17 138 4.6 27 12.9CHPOROSE 6 175 5.9 8 3.8CREA 39 1784 59.9 76 36.2CREABW 5 17 .6 6 2.9CREAMARB 1 52 1.7 3 1.4DONY 1 7 0.2 1 0.5ENGS 3 28 .9 4 1.9ENPO 3 5 .2 4 1.9ENPOBW 2 2 .1 2 1.0LOWEBW 1 14 .5 1 .5NOTS 1 1 .0 1 .5PEARBW 1 8 .3 3 1.4PMBL 4 4 .1 4 1.9PMR 6 98 3.3 6 2.9PMST 1 104 3.5 2 1.0RBOR 11 238 8.0 23 11.0RBORB 1 8 .3 1 .5RBORG 2 63 2.1 3 1.4SWSG 12 104 3.5 13 6.2TGW 7 47 1.6 8 3.8WORCSBLTR 2 32 1.1 6 2.9WORCSBW 5 33 1.1 5 2.4

Total 135 2980 100.0 210 100.0


I am indebted to John Mills for giving mecopies of his unpublished work on Uxbridge pipe-makers and other records relating to the site; andto Joan Hutchinson and Deirdre O'Sullivan forinformation on the Bowling Green public house,also unpublished. Carolynne Cotton, of HillingdonHeritage Service, offered invaluable advice onUxbridge in the 18th century, and Pat McCabegenerously provided me with the fruits of hisdocumentary researches into the history of theKing's Arms. The late Tony Lewis most ablyreconstructed much of the pottery and glass fromthe site soon after excavation, and tirelessly visitedceramic specialists in pursuit of accurate identi-fications of individual pieces. Among these, specialmention must be made of Henry Sandon andSimon Spero. I am especially grateful to RichardColeman-Smith for identifications ofDonyatt-typeware and for most valuable discussions of thepottery.

Identification and cataloguing of the glass wascarried out by my colleague, John Shepherd, of theLondon Archaeological Archive and ResearchCentre, and I am most grateful to him for thebenefit of his time and knowledge.

I would like to express my gratitude to manycolleagues at the Museum of London, LAARCand MoLAS who have given advice and help in thecourse of the preparation of this paper: LynBlackmore, Nathalie Cohen, Edwina Ehrman,Kieron Heard, Nigel Jeffries, Heather Knight, PaulMackie, Roy Stephenson, Steve Tucker, MikeWebber and Andrew Westman. Ellen McAdamread through the text and gave editorial advice.Outside the Museum of London fraternity, MinnieHoldaway also kindly gave useful information. Iam particularly grateful to David Barker forinformation on creamwares and the products ofthe Greatbatch factory, and for his encourage-ment. I would also like to thank Bly Straube forinformation on relevant finds of pottery inVirginia.

The photographs in Figs 4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19,and 21 were taken by Torla Evans of the Museumof London. Those in Figs 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15 and 16and all the line drawings were made by the author.All photographs and artwork are copyrigl1tMuseum of London. The reproductions of sectionsof the Trumper map of Uxbridge and the UxbridgePanorama appear here by courtesy of HillingdonHeritage Service.

Finally, I offer my very sincere thanks to myinfinitely long-suffering husband, Michael, and mydaughter, Sarah, who patiently helped me withtyping and statistics respectively.Museum of London Specialist Services, 46 Eagle WharfRoad, London N1 7ED.

Fabric

AGATBBASCHPOCHPOBWCHPOROSE

CREACREABW

CREAMARB

Expansion

Solidagate ware (wedgedclay)Blackbasalt wareChineseporcelainBlueand white ChineseporcelainChineseporcelain withfamille rosedecorationCreamwareCreamware with under-glaze, blue-painted decorationCreamware with marbled slips


DONY Donyatt wareENGS English stoneware (factory Form Rows SC %SC MNV %MNV

unknown)ENPO English porcelain (factory BOWL 9 18 .6 16 7.6

unknown) BOWLIHRN 6 201 6.7 11 5.2ENPOBW English porcelain under-glaze, blue- BOWLDRN 1 37 1.2 1 .5

painted decoration BOWLPNCH 2 26 .9 2 1.0LOWEBW Lowestoft porcelain with under- BOWLRND 13 256 8.6 21 10.0

glaze, blue-painted decoration CHP 5 92 3.1 5 2.4NOTS Nottingham or Crich stoneware DISH 2 40 1.3 2 1.0PEARBW Pearl ware with under-glaze blue- DISHFLAR 3 150 5.0 4 1.9

painted decoration DISHRND 2 31 1.0 2 1.0PMBL Post-medieval black-glazed ware JAR 4 30 1.0 4 1.9

(Essex) JARST 1 6 .2 1 .5PMR Post-medieval Redware (London JUG 1 1 .0 1 .5

area) LID MUST 1 1 .0 1 .5PMST Post-medieval slip-trailed Redware LID TPOT 1 1 .0 1 .5RBOR Red Border ware (Surrey- MISC 8 28 .9 9 4.3

Hampshire) MUG 8 80 2.7 15 7.1RBORB Red Border ware with brown glaze MUGCYL 4 51 1.7 4 1.9RBORG Red Border ware with green glaze MUG LCYL 2 79 2.7 2 1.0SWSG (Staffordshire) White salt-glazed MUGSCYL 1 95 3.2 5 2.4

stoneware MUST 1 1 .0 1 .5TGW English tin-glazed earthenware or OINT 1 14 .5 1 .5

delftware PANCH 1 30 1.0 1 .5WORCS BLTR Worcester porcelain with under- PLATE 11 334 11.2 11 5.2

glaze, blue transfer-printing PLATEDESS 1 52 1.7 2 1.0WORCSBW Worcester porcelain with under- PLATE DIN 5 715 24.0 30 14.3

glaze, blue-painted decoration PLATELG 2 56 1.9 2 1.0PLATE OCT 2 2 .1 2 1.0PLATE OVAL 2 82 2.8 2 1.0

3) List of ceramic fabrics and glass included in each ofPLATE TEA 3 34 1.1 3 1.4SALTBICON 1 33 1.1 2 1.0

the main types/sources (see Table 1) SAUC 14 212 7.1 26 12.4

RBOR; RBORB; RBORG.SBOAT 4 79 2.7 5 2.4

BORDER SLOP 3 30 1.0 3 1.4DELFTWARE TGW TBOWL 6 38 1.3 8 3.8FINEWARE AGAT; BBAS; CREA; CREA TCUP 1 11 .4 1 .5BW; CREA MARB; PEAR BW; TPOT 2 19 .6 2 1.0

SWSG TPOTSTND 1 15 .5 1 .5IMPORTS CHPO; CHPO BW; CHPO ROSEENG ENPO; ENPO BW; LOWE BW; Total 135 2980 100 210 100PORCELAIN WORCS BLTR; WORCS BWREDWARE PMFR;PMRSLIPWARES DONY;PMSTSTONEWARE ENGS;NOTS 2) Expansionsforform codes shown in this report

Form names, wherever possible, conform with thoserecommended in the MPRG Guide to the Classification

APPENDIX 2 of Medieval Ceramic Forms (MPRG 1998).

1) Ceramic form breakdown with summation of rows,Form Expansionsherd count (SC) and Minimum Number of Vessels

(MNV) from the King's Arms assemblageBOTCYL Cylindrical bottle

See also Table 3 and discussion on p. 170 (grouped BOWL Bowlvalues are expressed as percentages of the total amount BOWL IHRN One-handled rounded bowlo/pottery). Expansions/or the MoLAS/MoLSS/orm BOWLDRN Deep rounded bowlcodes used here are given below. BOWLPNCH Punch bowl


3) List of ceramic and glass forms included in each ofthe main functional categories (see Table 3)

STORAGE JAR (coarseware,stoneware): JAR ST.

PREP (ARATION): BOWL; BOWL IHRN,DRN, RND; DISH; DISHFLAR (coarseware, glazedinside only).

SERVING BOWL; BOWL IHRN;DISH FLAR, RND (notparts of dinner or otherservices and coarseware,glazed inside and out.

4) Main functional groups present in the ceramics andglass from the King's Arms assemblage (to be used inconjunction with Table 3)

Function MNV %MNV

Storage (food) 3 1.130/0Preparation (uncooked) 22 8.27%Serving (foodjcoarseware) 11 4.14%Serving (alcohol) 40 15.040/0Serving (dining) 14 5.260/0Serving (tea) 8 3.01 %

sub-total 73 27.45%

Consumption (alcohol) 46 17.290/0Consumption (beverage) 4 1.50/0Consumption (dining) 51 19.170/0Consumption (tea) 36 13.54%sub-total 137 51.5%

Hygiene (pharmaceutical) 4 1.50/0Hygiene (sanitary) 5 1.880/0

sub-total 9 3.380/0

Multi-purpose 17 6.390/0Unidentified 9 3.380/0

Total 266 100%

BOWLRNDCHPDECANTDISHDISHFLARDISHRNDDRAMJARJARSTJELLYJUGLID MUSTLID TPOTMISCMUGMUGCYLMUG LCYL

MUGSCYLMUSTOINTPANCHPHIALCYLPLATEPLATEDESSPLATE DINPLATELGPLATE OCTPLATE OVALPLATE TEASALTBICONSAUCSBOATSLOPTBOWLTCUPTPOTTPOTSTNDTUMBWINEGLASS

Rounded BowlChamber potDecanterDishFlared dishRounded dishDram or small wine glassJarStorage jarJelly glassJugMustard pot lidTeapot lidMiscellaneous unidentified formsMugCylindrical mugLarge cylindrical mug (1 pint ormore)Small cylindrical mug (t pint)Mustard potOintment potPancheonCylindrical phialPlateDessert plateDinner plateLarge plateOctagonal plateOval PlateTea plateBiconical saltSaucerSauce boatSlop bowlTea bowlTeacupTeapotTeapot standTumblerWine glass

ALCOHOL

DINING

TEAWARE

HYGIENE

MULTI-PURPOSE

UNIDENT(IFIED)

Ceramic: BOWL PNCH;BOWL RND (small,fineware); JUG; MUG,MUG CYL, LCYL, SCYL.Glass: BOT CYL; DECANT;DRAM; TUMB; WINEGLASS.DISH; LID MUST; MUST;PLATE, PLATE DESS,DIN, LG, OCT, OVAL,TEA; SALT BICON;SBOAT. Glass: JELLY(dinner services in finewarefabrics).

SAue; SLOP; TBOWL;TCUP; TPOT; TPOT STND.Ceramic: CHP; JAR(delftware); OINT. Glass:PHIALCYL.BOWL; BOWL RND (bothcoarse and finewares).MISC.

182

NOTES1 Bragdon 1988.2 Ibid., 90.3 London Metropolitan Archive, LMA Acc 538/1/

29-30 (formerly Middlesex Record Office); MillsunpubI.; VCH 1971, 61. This reference was providedby Pat McCabe.

4 LMA, Middlesex Land Registry, Book 2, No.492 (Hillingdon Heritage Collection deed, courtesy ofCarolynne Cotton; reference provided by PatMcCabe).

5 The site archive is stored at the London Archae-ological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC)under the site code UX85vi. The finds are recorded onthe Museum of London Archaeology Service(MoLAS) and Specialist Services (MoLSS) Oracledatabase under the code UX85.

6 The four sherds are all in post-medieval black-glazed ware from the Harlow area of Essex, a fabricin current use in London c. 1580-1700. None of theother pottery recovered need be earlier than thesecond quarter of the 18th century.

7 David Barker, pers. comm.8 Plates of this kind have been stated to have been

made in Melbourne, Derbyshire: see Towner 1978, pI.47a, pI. XI, no. 5; at the Greatbatch factory: Barker1991, fig. 33, no. 23 and at other factories in Stafford-shire and elsewhere.

9 Cf. Barker 1991, 179, fig. 33, no. 17. This is apattern used by Greatbatch in Phase III, c. 1770-82,but also at other factories.

10 David Barker, pers comm. See also Barker 1991,179, fig. 32, no. 14.

11 For a discussion of some of the problems ofattribution, see Lockett 1986.

12 Towner 1978,210, fig. IX, no. 13; see also Walton1980, fig. 7, no. 2.

13 David Barker, pers comm.14 Towner 1978, fig. VII, no. la.15 Green 1999,294, table 15.16 Marbled creamwares were made at the Great-

batch factory, amongst many others, the majority ofthem verging on pearlware, suggesting that they wereintroduced after c. 1775. See Barker 1991, 202-03, pIs85-87.

17 Emmerson 1992, 117, no. 136.18 Ibid.19 McKendrick 1983, 102.20 Godden 1969a, pI. 39b.21 Ibid., 39, 134; Sandon 1969,62,64.22 Ibid., 44, pI. 1, row 5. Geoffrey Godden states

that 'most, if not all, blue-painted porcelains bearingthe filled-in or shaded crescent are Worcester of the1770-90 period': Godden 1969a, 126.

23 Sandon 1969,43.24 Godden 1969a, 123.

JACQUELINE PEARCE

25 Ibid., 39.26 Shortly after the site was excavated, the Worcester

porcelain was shown to Henry Sandon by the lateTony Lewis, who carried out all of the reconstructionwork on the pottery for the WLAFG. The identifica-tion of the 'rock strata' pattern and others included inthe group were made by Mr Sandon at this time.

27 Fisher 1947, 105, pI. 29a shows a very closeparallel, marked with an open crescent and dated c.1760-70.

28 Sandon, pers. comm.29 Fisher 1947, 105, 33, pI. 9.30 Sandon, pers. comm.31 Cf. Sandon 1969, fig. 4, no. 6.32 Godden 1969b, fig. 81.33 A photograph of the mug is reproduced in the

Antique Dealer and Collectors Guide, October 1998,12.

34 Smith 1975,261.35 Ibid., 146, no. 216, fig. p.155.36 Ibid., 37-38, 254.37 Ibid., 37.38 Ibid., 11.39 The Chinese porcelain from the King's Arms was

initially identified by a 'Miss Scott' of the PercivalDavid Foundation. The material was subsequentlyviewed by the late Richard Kilburn. Their commentsare incorporated in the descriptions given here.

40 Sheaf & Kilburn 1988.41 Godden 1979, 127, 142.42 Richard Kilburn, pers. comm.43 Archer 1997, 347.44 Godden 1979, 175.45 Ibid.46 Miss Scott, pers. comm.47 Cf. Godden 1979, pI. 280.48 Cf. ibid., pI. 287 for the shape of the teapot stand.49 Ibid., 365.50 Miss Scott, pers. comm.51 Richard Kilburn, pers. comm.52 Godden 1979, 49; see also Howard 1994, 17.53 Mountford 1971, pI. 116 right.54 Rakow 1983, 163.55 Ibid., 167, fig. 88b, c.56 Godden 1969a, 84.57 Edwards 1994, 136.58 Ibid. Roger Edmundson's opinion after examin-

ing the sherds, quoted in Edwards 1994, 136.59 Sandon 1973, pI. 74 shows a closely similar

teapot, dated c. 1755-58.60 Cf. Archer 1997, F.45, F.46.61 Cf. ibid., F.41, and the decoration on a night-

light holder, G.6.62 Ibid., 282.63 Ibid.64 Ibid., 285.65 Cf. ibid., J.19.


66 Cf. ibid., J.11.67 Ibid., 378.68 Ibid., 380.69 Cf. Green 1999, 157-58, fig. 128, no. 361.70 Ibid., 158.71 Pearce 1992.72 Orton & Pearce 1984, 63.73 Pryor & Blockley 1978.74 Divers & Jarrett 1999; Nenk 1999,236-37.75 Cf. Pearce 1992, fig. 24, no. 94.76 Pearce 1999,258.77 Cf. ibid., fig. 21, nos 45,49; fig. 22, no. 50.78 Pearce 1999, 258; see also Fryer & Selley 1997,

fig. 23, nos 94-95, 97.79 Holling 1971, 58-59.80 Pearce 1992, 1.81 Information from Richard Kilburn, whose

invaluable but unpublished work on inventories ofthe Glass Sellers Company in the late 17th and 18thcenturies was cut short by his untimely death in 1999.The inventory of John Parker, for example, taken on15 May 1721, lists '83 cast deptford ware' and '178cast Hampshire ware' valued together with variousflower pots at £14 Is. 6d. Parker had a warehouse inthe yard of the White Hart, a famous coaching inn inSouthwark.

82 Richard Coleman-Smith, pers. comm.83 Richard Coleman-Smith, pers. comm. Samples

of sherds from the Donyatt kilns and from consumersites have been submitted for Neutron ActivationAnalysis and form part of an ongoing programme ofresearch into the pottery.

84 Coleman-Smith & Pearson 1988, 388.85 See, for example, ibid., figs 85-86, 87-89, 92-93.

A similar pattern to the Uxbridge dish can be foundon two chafing dishes illustrated in fig. 111, nos 9.17and 9/19, but with added wavy lines drawn throughthe concentric white slip circles.

86 Draper 1984,56-59.87 Lorraine Mepham, pers. comm.88 Cf. Coleman-Smith & Pearson 1988, figs 100-02,

105.89 Pearce 1992, fig. 19, nos 8-18; fig. 20.90 Richard Coleman-Smith, pers. comm.91 Richard Coleman-Smith, pers. comm.92 Pearce 1992, 401, fig. 192.93 Richard Coleman-Smith, pers. comm.94 Bly Straube and Taft Kiser, pers. comm.95 Richard Coleman-Smith, pers. comm.96 Cole 1986; the finds from this site are currently

being analysed with a view to publication and wereviewed by the author in 1998.

97 Pearce 1998,9 (unpublished).98 These include creamwares, pearlware, black bas-

alt ware, agate ware and salt-glazed white stoneware.99 McKendrick 1983, 59.

100 Chartres 1977,25-26.

183

101 The glass was identified and recorded by JohnShepherd of the Museum of London ArchaeologicalArchive and Research Centre. His catalogue formsthe basis of the descriptions and dating given here.

102 Cf. Dumbrell 1983, 92, fig. d.103 These measure 75 and 85mm. respectively. The

bases of the remainder of the bottles range in diameterfrom 95 to 100mm., while the four squat cylindricalbottles identified are somewhat larger, with basesbetween 110 and 120mm.

104 Ibid., 92, cf. pI. 32, left.105 Ibid., 92.106 Ibid., 32.107 Ibid., 21.108 Hughes 1958,96.109 Thorpe 1929, 241.110 Hughes 1958,69.111 Charleston 1984, 161.112 Wills 1968, pt 3, 2.113 Cf. Bickerton 1971, no. 240, dated c. 1750.114 Ibid., 20-21.115 Hughes 1958,36.116 Ibid., 65.117 Charleston 1984, 145.118 Cf. Bickerton 1971, pI. 854.119 Ibid., 13.120 Ibid., 21.121 Ibid., 14.122 Cf. ibid., no. 600; No. 602, both dated c. 1775.123 Charleston 1984, 161.124 Shepherd 1988, 157-61.125 Charleston 1984, 140.126 Wills 1968, pt 3, 4.127 Hughes 1958,81.128 Wills 1968, pt 4, 11.129 Ibid.130 Thorpe 1929,318.131 Cf. Noel Hume 1969a, fig. 17, nos 13-14, dated

c. 1780.132 A MoLAS archive assessment report on an

incomplete sample of the clay tobacco pipes from theKing's Arms and four other sites in Uxbridge wasprepared by Kieron Heard (1992), and was consultedin the preparation of this paper.

133 Noel Hume 1969a, 296.134 Oswald 1975,40, fig. 4G, no. 23.135 Atkinson & Oswald 1969, 10, fig. 2, nos 26, 27.136 All information given here relating to the pipe-

maker, WP, comes from an unpublished article basedon research carried out by the excavator of the King'sArms site, John Mills. I am indebted to the author forpermission to quote freely from this work.

137 Ibid.; the Uxbridge Burgage Rent Roll recordsthat the house was occupied in 1693 by a GabrielRandall, who at the time of his death in 1716, wassaid to be a pipemaker. The house was subsequently

184

occupied by further pipemakers, including the makerof the WP pipes, until the early 19th century.

138 Ibid.139 Ibid. The records consulted are currently housed

in the London Metropolitan Archive and were for-merly in the Middlesex County Record Office.

140 Atkinson & Oswald, 10.141 Noel Hume 1969a, 296.142 Thompson et al. 1984.143 Orton & Pearce 1984, 68, fig. 31.144 Beaudry et al. 1988.145 Ibid., 59.

, 146 Yentsch 1991.147 Ibid., 50-51, tables 2-4.148 This figure is largely made up of creamware,

although Chinese porcelain and white salt-glazedstoneware are also represented, as well as the singlejelly glass from a dessert service.

149 Bragdon 1988, 90.150 Ibid., 83.151 Deetz 1996, 44-48.152 Ibid 88153 Ibid" 89'., .154 This includes not only glass wine bottles, but also

the glass decanter, two delftware punch bowls andpossibly part of one jug.

155 Noel Hume 1969b.156 Ibid., 90.157 This figure includes tea bowls, teacups, saucers,

teapots, slop bowls, the teapot stand and the onecoffee can, since coffee cups were included in thelarger tea services.

158 Clark 1982,297.159 McKendrick 1983,29.160 Clark 1982,297.161 Quoted in Archer 1997, 346.162 Clark 1982,274.163 Ibid., 276.164 Ibid., 198.165 Ibid.166 Bragdon 1988, 89-90.167 These include the delftware jars and ointment pot

and the single glass phial. Any or all of these mayhave had other functions.

168 Heard 1992.169 Bragdon 1988,90.170 Fryer and Selley 1997.171 Ibid., 142.172 Ibid., 194-95.173 Ibid., fig. 14, figs 17-25.174 Ibid., 98,166, fig. 20, no. 74.175 Ibid., 147. For some of the earliest pieces see, for

example, fig. 27, nos 184, 191.176 Ibid., fig. 29, no. 206.177 Ibid., fig. 29, no. 217.178 Ibid., table 1, which shows that tin-glazed wares

account for 16.1% of the ceramic assemblage byMNVs.

JACQUELINE PEARCE

179 Ibid., figs 34-36.180 Ibid., fig. 14.181 Ibid., fig. 14; fig. 33.182 Ibid., 192-93; figs 31-32; Bragdon 1988,84.183 Fryer & Selley 1997, 197; Bragdon 1988,90, table

8.4.184 I am most grateful to Deirdre O'Sullivan of the

School of Archaeological Studies, University ofLeicester for bringing this site to my attention, and toJoan Hutchinson for the use of her MA dissertationbased on the finds from the site: Hutchinson 1996.

185 Ibid., 1.186 Ibid., fig. 6.187 Ibid., 16,45, fig. 13, no. 2.188 Ibid., 17, fig. 6.189 Ibid., 21-22, fig. 6.190 Ibid., 22.191 Ibid., 4-5.192 Ibid., 32, fig. 7.193 Ibid., figs 7-8.194 Ibid., 55-57.195 Ibid., fig. 7.196 Ibid., 54.197 Bickerton 1971, Introduction (not numbered).198 Excavations carried out by the former Depart-

ment of Urban Archaeology (DUA) and the Museumof London Archaeology Service (MoLAS). All siteand finds records relating to these sites are housed inthe London Archaeological Archive and ResearchCentre (LAARC).

199 This site was excavated by the former Departmentof Greater London Archaeology (DGLA), site codeSTS82. Records are housed in the LAARC, includingthe unpublished finds assessment (Pearce 1996).

200 Clark, 1982, 5-7.201 Chartres 1977, 25-26.202 Hearmon 1982, 30.203 Hearmon 1994, 32.204 Chartres 1977, 29.205 Hearmon 1994, 35.206 The Shopkeeper's and Tradesman's Assistant,

1779, 87. I am indebted to Richard Kilburn for thisreference.

207 Ibid., 67.208 John Middleton's View of the Agriculture of

Middlesex, quoted in Hearmon 1994, 34.209 VCH 1971,61.210 Hearmon 1994, 32.211 VCH 1971, 61.212 Ibid.213 Ibid.214 The others were The Crown, The George and

The White Horse; Hearmon 1994, 32.215 This information is derived from unpublished

research by Pat McCabe on the Licenced VictuallersRecords (LV) in the London Metropolitan Archive.

216 Vince & Egan 1981.


217 The site was excavated by the DGLA (site codeNOR90). Webber 1991, 349-50; Webber unpubl. Allrecords and finds are housed in the LAARC.218 McKendrick 1983, 9.219 Ibid., 100.220 Ibid., 77.221 Clark 1982, 254ff.222 Ibid., 255.223 Hearmon 1994, 30.224 Fryer & Selley 1997, 154.

BIBLIOGRAPHYArcher, M. 1997. Delftware. The Tin-glazed Earthen-

ware of the British Isles - A Catalogue of theCollection of the Victoria and Albert Museum,London: The Stationery Office.

Atkinson, D. & Oswald, A. 1969, 'London claytobacco pipes', J. British Archaeol. Assoc. 32.

Barker, D. 1991, William Greatbatch: a StaffordshirePotter, London: Jonathan Home.

Beaudry, M. (ed.) 1988, Documentary Archaeology inthe New World, Cambridge.

Beaudry, M. C., Long, J., Miller, H. M., Neiman,F. D. & Stone, G. W. 1988, 'A vessel typologyfor early Chesapeake ceramics: the Potomactypological system', in Beaudry (ed.) 1988,51-67.

Bickerton, L. M. 1971, An Illustrated Guide to Eight-eenth-Century English Drinking Glasses, London:Barrie & Jenkins.

Blockley, P. 1988, 'Excavation at no. 41 St George'sStreet, Canterbury, 1985', Archaeol. Cantiana105,59-77.

Bragdon, K. 1988, 'Occupational differences revealedin artefact assemblages', in Beaudry (ed.) 1988,83-91.

Charleston, R. J. 1984, English Glass and the GlassUsed in England circa 400-1940, London.

Chartres, J. A. 1977, 'The capital's provincial eyes:London's inns in the early eighteenth century',London J. 3,24-39.

Clark, P. 1982, The English Alehouse: a Social History1200-1830, London.

Cole, G. 1986, 'Interim report on excavations at Nos19 to 31, High Street, Bagshof', Surrey HeathGroup Newsletter 8,3-5.

Coleman-Smith, R. & Pearson, T. 1988, Excavationsin the Donyatt Potteries, Chichester: Phillimore.

Deetz, J. 1996, In Small Things Forgotten. An Archae-ology of Early American Life (expanded andrevised edition), New York: Anchor Books.

Divers, D. & Jarrett, C. 1999, 'Excavations at themouth of Deptford Creek, Greenwich Reach',London Archaeol. 9:1, 6-15.

Draper, J. 1984, Post-Medieval Pottery 1650-1800,Princes Risborough: Shire.

185

Dumbrell, R. 1983, Understanding Antique WineBottles, Woodbridge: Antique Collectors' Club.

Edwards, D. 1994, Black Basalt. Wedgwood andContemporary Manufacturerers, Woodbridge:Antique Collectors' Club.

Egan, G. & Michael, R. L. 1999, Old and New Worlds,Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Emmerson, R. 1992, British Teapots and Tea Drinking,London: HMSO.

Fisher, S. W. 1947 (1989 edition), English Blue andWhite Porcelain of the 18th Century, London:Fitzhouse Books.

Fryer, K. & Selley, A. 1997. 'Excavation ofa pit at 16,Tunsgate, Guildford, Surrey, 1991', Post-Medi-eval Archaeol. 31, 139-230.

Godden, G. 1969a, Caughleyand Worcester Porcelains1775-1800, London: Herbert Jenkins.

Godden, G. 1969b, The Illustrated Guide to LowestoftPorcelain, London: Herbert Jenkins.

Godden, G. 1979, Oriental Export Market Porcelainand its Influence on European Wares, London:Granada.

Green, C. 1999, John Dwight's Fulham Pottery:Excavations 1971-79, London: English Heritage.

Hearmon, C. 1982, Uxbridge, a Concise History,Hillingdon Public Libraries.

Hearmon, C. 1994, Uxbridge Past, London: HistoricalPublications.

Holling, F. 1971, 'A preliminary note on the potteryindustry of the Hampshire-Surrey borders', Sur-rey Archaeol. Collect. 68,57-88.

Howard, D. S. 1994, The Choice of the Private Trader,London: Zwemmer.

Hughes, G. B. 1958, English Glass for the Collector,1660-1860, London: Lutterworth.

Lockett, T. A. 1986, 'Problems of attribution', inLockett & Halfpenny 1986,52-58.

Lockett, T. A. & Halfpenny, P. A. 1986, Cream andPearlware, The Fifth Exhibition from the North-ern Ceramic Soc., Stoke-on-Trent City Museumand Art Gallery.

McKendrick, N. 1983, 'Commercialization and theeconomy', in McKendrick et al. 1983, 9-194.

McKendrick, N., Brewer, J. & Plumb, J. H. 1983, TheBirth of a Consumer Society, London:Hutchinson.

Mountford, A. 1971, The Illustrated Guide to Staff-ordshire Salt-Glazed Stoneware, London: Barrie& Jenkins.

MPRG 1998, A Guide to the Classification of MedievalCeramic Forms, Medieval Pottery ResearchGroup.

N enk, B. S. 1999, 'Post medieval Redware pottery ofLondon and Essex', in Egan & Michael (eds)1999,235-45.

Noel Hume, I. 1969a, A Guide to the Artifacts ofColonial America, New York.

186

Noel Hume, I. 1969b, Archaeology and Wetherburn'sTavern, Colonial Williamsburg Archaeo!' Ser. 3.

Orton, C. R. & Pearce, J. E. 1984, 'The pottery', inThompson et al. 1984, 34-68.

Oswald, A. 1975, Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist,BAR 14.

Pearce, J. E. 1992, Post-Medieval Pottery in London1500-1700, Part 1: Border Wares, London:HMSO.

Pearce, J. E. 1999, 'The pottery industry of the Surrey-Hampshire borders in the 16th and 17th centur-ies', in Egan & Michael (eds) 1999,246-63.

Pryor, S. & Blockley, K. 1978, 'A 17th-century kilnsite at Woolwich', Post-Medieval Archaeol. 12,3-85.

Rakow, Dr & Mrs L. 1983, 'The Sibyls and theWidows', English Ceramic Circle Trans. 11,163-72.

Sandon, H. 1969, The Illustrated Guide to WorcesterPorcelain 1751-1793, London: Faber and Faber.

Sandon, H. 1973, Coffee Pots and Teapots for theCollector, Bartholomew.

Sheaf, C. & Kilburn, R. 1988, The Hatcher PorcelainCargoes, the Complete Record Oxford: Phaidon,Christie's.

Shepherd, J. D. 1988, 'The Glass', in Blockley 1988,150-63.

The Shopkeeper's and Tradesman's Assistant, 1779,Guildhall GAL 116.

Smith, S. 1975, Lowestoft Porcelain in Norwich CastleMuseum Volume 1: Blue and White and ExcavatedMaterial, Norfolk Museums Service.

Thompson, A., Grew, F. & Schofield, J. 1984,'Excavations at Aldgate, 1974', Post-MedievalArchaeol., 18, 1-148.

Thorpe, W. A. 1929 (facsimile edition 1969), AHistory of English and Irish Glass Vol. 1.

Towner, D. 1978, Cream ware, London: Faber andFaber.

VCH (ed. R. B. Pugh) 1971, The Victoria History ofthe County of Middlesex Volume IV, London:OUP.

JACQUELINE PEARCE

Vince, A. G. & Egan, G. 1981, 'The contents of a late18th-century pit at Crosswall, City of London',Trans. London & Middlesex Archaeol. Soc. 32,159-82.

Walton, P. 1980, 'An investigation of the site of theLeeds Pottery', English Ceramic Circle Trans. 10:4 & 5, 223-31.

Webber, M. 1991, 'Excavations on the site of NorfolkHouse, Lambeth Road, SEl', London Archaeol.6:13,343-50.

Wills, G. 1968, English and Irish Glass, London.Yentsch, A. 1991, 'Chesapeake artefacts and their

cultural context: pottery and the food domain',Post-Medieval Archaeol. 25, 25-72.

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

Heard, K. 1992, Post-Excavation Assessment of ClayTobacco Pipes from Sites in Uxbridge, MOLASunpublished Assessment Document.

Hutchinson, J. 1996, The Post-Medieval Pottery andGlass from the Bowling Green Public House, 44Oxford Street, Leicester, unpublished disserta-tion MA Post-Excavation Skills, School ofArchaeological Studies, University of Leicester.

Mills, J. unpubl., The Uxbridge Pipemakers Part 1:'118A' High Street: The Vanished House of anUxbridge Clay Tobacco Pipemaker (with a newlist of pipemakers in the town centre).

Pearce, J. E. 1996, North-East Roman Southwark:Assessment of Medieval and Later Pottery,unpublished MOL assessment report.

Pearce, J. E. 1998, Post-excavation Processing ofArtefacts from 19-31 High Street, Bagshot.Assessment of Potential and Programme ofRecording and Analysis leading to Publication,MoLSS Unpublished Assessment Document.

Webber, M. unpubl., Report on the ArchaeologicalExcavation at 113-127 Lambeth Road: NorfolkHouse, unpublished MOL summary report.

A late 18th-century inn clearance from Uxbridge, Middlesex

Documents

Transcript of A late 18th-century inn clearance from Uxbridge, Middlesex