Mid 17th- and 19th-century English wine bottles with seals in London's archaeological collections
25
Mid 17th- and 19th-century English wine bottles with seals in London’s archaeological collections By NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR SUMMARY: This article details work which has, for the first time, delivered a comprehensive catalogue of 17th- and 19th-century dated English glass bottles with applied seals derived from archaeological excavations in London by MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) and its pre- decessors. This text introduces the cataloguing methodology employed, reviews the historiography of bottle seal studies and summarizes the survey results. We consider, among other issues, the context and parallels behind individual seal designs, their chronologies, geographies of their move- ment and spaces of use in early Modern London. INTRODUCTION Undertaken in 2013, the cataloguing of English glass bottles with applied seals in London col- lections was achieved by collaboration between Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) and King’s College London (KCL) 1 using the col- lections of two different institutions: MOLA, and the Museum of London’s (MOL) London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC). 2 Though they are housed in the same building, they represent two separate institutions. The findings of other archaeological units that work in London and have deposited excavated material in the LAARC were not considered. To deliver an accurate and comprehensive catalogue of the glass seals required the examina- tion of nearly all of the boxes from each London archaeological site excavated after 1974 until the mid 1990s which had yielded glass. The emphasis on 1974 is deliberate, reflecting the foundation of the Department of Urban Archaeology (DUA) and the Department of Greater London Archaeology (DGLA). This marked the begin- ning of significant archaeological investigations in the City of London and its immediate environs, and the date after which the vast majority of the archaeological collections begin. The DUA and DGLA merged in 1991 as Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS), renamed MOLA in 2009. After the mid 1990s, bottles with seals were recorded on the database systems employed by both institutions, 3 and could therefore be more immediately and easily located in both archival collections. The focus of the study was to record the results onto MOLA’s Oracle database and photograph each individual bottle seal. We therefore examined approximately three hundred separate archaeo- logical interventions across London and its immediate environs that yielded glass and could contain material dated to the Roman, Saxon, medieval and later periods, an exercise that was nevertheless useful for illuminating further signifi- cant assemblages of whole or fragmentary bottles found from individual sites dated to the 17th and 19th centuries. 4 Owing to the fragile nature of glass, and the process of breakage and depo- sition, many of the seals survived divorced from their original bottle. Post-Medieval Archaeology 49/1 (2015), 131–155 © Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2015 DOI: 10.1179/0079423615Z.00000000075 131
Transcript of Mid 17th- and 19th-century English wine bottles with seals in London's archaeological collections
Mid 17th- and 19th-century English wine bottles with seals in London’s
archaeological collectionsBy NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
SUMMARY: This article details work which has, for the first time, delivered a comprehensive catalogue of 17th- and 19th-century dated English glass bottles with applied seals derived from archaeological excavations in London by MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) and its pre-decessors. This text introduces the cataloguing methodology employed, reviews the historiography of bottle seal studies and summarizes the survey results. We consider, among other issues, the context and parallels behind individual seal designs, their chronologies, geographies of their move-ment and spaces of use in early Modern London.
INTRODUCTION
Undertaken in 2013, the cataloguing of English glass bottles with applied seals in London col-lections was achieved by collaboration between Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) and King’s College London (KCL)1 using the col-lections of two different institutions: MOLA, and the Museum of London’s (MOL) London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre (LAARC).2 Though they are housed in the same building, they represent two separate institutions. The findings of other archaeological units that work in London and have deposited excavated material in the LAARC were not considered.
To deliver an accurate and comprehensive catalogue of the glass seals required the examina-tion of nearly all of the boxes from each London archaeological site excavated after 1974 until the mid 1990s which had yielded glass. The emphasis on 1974 is deliberate, reflecting the foundation of the Department of Urban Archaeology (DUA) and the Department of Greater London Archaeology (DGLA). This marked the begin-ning of significant archaeological investigations in
the City of London and its immediate environs, and the date after which the vast majority of the archaeological collections begin. The DUA and DGLA merged in 1991 as Museum of London Archaeology Service (MoLAS), renamed MOLA in 2009. After the mid 1990s, bottles with seals were recorded on the database systems employed by both institutions,3 and could therefore be more immediately and easily located in both archival collections.
The focus of the study was to record the results onto MOLA’s Oracle database and photograph each individual bottle seal. We therefore examined approximately three hundred separate archaeo-logical interventions across London and its immediate environs that yielded glass and could contain material dated to the Roman, Saxon, medieval and later periods, an exercise that was nevertheless useful for illuminating further signifi-cant assemblages of whole or fragmentary bottles found from individual sites dated to the 17th and 19th centuries.4 Owing to the fragile nature of glass, and the process of breakage and depo-sition, many of the seals survived divorced from their original bottle.
Post-Medieval Archaeology 49/1 (2015), 131–155
© Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2015 DOI: 10.1179/0079423615Z.00000000075
131
132 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
HISTORIOGRAPHY OF BOTTLE SEAL STUDIES
The practice of affixing seals to the shoulder (usu-ally) of glass bottles — which commonly present either a name and surname, in full or initials only, or a family coat of arms, or the sign of the tavern and sometimes dated — began early in the devel-opment of England’s glass bottle industry in the mid 17th century.5 With this material representing ‘one of the characteristic artefacts of early mod-ern archaeology’,6 bottles with seals have proved of interest to British and North American archae-ologists, the private collector and the museum curator.
The first published work on this subject appears to be the British archaeologist E.T. Leeds’ short note in the journal Antiquity in 1914, later revised in 1941 in a fuller article in the journal Oxoniensia,7 on glass bottles of the mid 17th to early 18th centuries from various Oxford taverns in which he placed those with seals as central to this study. Leeds’ 1941 work is significant as this appears to be the first attempt to demonstrate the evolution of English glass bottles,8 an approach centred on using the collections of bottles with seals from four Oxford taverns for the period 1650–1730. Here he combined bottles with dated seals from the taverns, with those undated seals from the same premises but whose licensees where known through the initials presented, and others with just a tavern sign displayed, in order to map typological progression. Whilst the first book that exclusively tackles the subject, Sheelah Ruggles-Brise 1949 book Bottle Seals quickly followed, this was not followed up until Roy Morgan’s 1976 Sealed Bottles in 1976. In the United States, Virginia-based British archaeologist Ivor Noël Hume (who had begun his archaeological career at the Museum of the Corporation of London in the late 1940s) published his influential A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America in 1970, and, while not solely focused on glass, this offered the first deliberate arrangement of glass bottles by dated seals over the longue durée (c. 1651–1834) in order to illustrate their typological evolution.9
The private collector/connoisseur, curator and archaeologist have therefore converged in the use of dated bottle seals as the principal means of developing a bottle morphology or typology for English glass bottles.10 This research has ‘meant that unsealed bottles, the silent majority, were more precisely datable than was previously thought possible’.11 It is now generally held that the development of English glass bottles from the 1640s to the 1740s can be defined into six types. The first and earliest is the ‘shaft and globe’
bottle, followed (chronologically) by a steady design evolution into what is now classified as the ‘onion’, ‘bladder onion’, ‘mallet’, and ‘cylin-der’ or ‘cylindrical shape’, descriptive and typo-logical terms which seem to have been adopted by the end of the 1970s,12 though they are absent from earlier typologies.13 Although shape, tech-nology and various other chronological markers on bottle glass are important for anyone wishing to date a bottle, this does not concern this paper, unless bottle shape is used to reinforce and deter-mine the chronology of various seal designs.
The practice of applying seals to English bot-tles can be dated to shortly after the establish-ment of the glass bottle industry, with the two oldest divorced seals (without their bottles) dated 1650 and 1652 respectively. The first of these dated seals present the initials WE surmounting the date 1650 and the second portrays the name John Jefferson in full and the date 1652, encir-cling a coat of arms.14 Willmott, however, has suggested an undated bottle seal he has exam-ined from Chastleton House in Oxfordshire could potentially be earlier.15 Willmott also notes that the enabling circumstances for the English wine bottle industry to expand and flourish only came into being after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and the establishment of the Worshipful Company of Glass Sellers in 1664.16 Glass bot-tles are nevertheless not common among in the contents of cellars of the three retail drinking establishments destroyed by the Great Fire of London of 1666 that have been archaeologically excavated.17
The exact decade in which the ‘shaft and globe’ bottle emerged is contested. Van Den Bossche proposes a clear chronology, based on surviv-ing documentary evidence, that the ‘Belgium’-type shaft and globe bottle was introduced to England in 1632 — probably at the bottlehouse of Newnham-on-Severn in Gloucestershire as a result of various French-Belgium glass- makers (such as Jean Colinet/John Colnett) assisting Sir Kenelm Digby in making coal-fired bottles.18 Materially there appears to be no evidence for this production. Archaeologists Biddle and Webster therefore dispute any 1630s date, pro-posing instead that English bottle-making began around 1640,19 with Noël Hume suggesting a prototype shaft and globe bottle, with a neck ‘half its length, perhaps in 1645’.20 The earliest complete shaft and globe with a seal attached is dated 1657 and is a good example of a ‘tav-ern bottle’ seal design which presents a triad of initials for the landlord and landlady above the sign of their establishment, the King’s Arms in Northampton.21
133LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
Also emerging at the same time as the tav-ern bottle was a second seal design added to the shaft and globe type, defined as ‘the gentleman’s bottle’, which includes those with armorial crests and heraldic symbols of individuals and families.22 Van Den Bossche, for example, describes a shaft and globe bottle of the period c. 1660 with a seal displaying the armorial or coat of arms of the 1st Baron of Thorseway.23 The practice of displaying personal information on bottle seals by ‘gentle-men’ or private individuals remained popular up to at least the mid to late nineteenth century.24 Van Den Bossche depicts two English-made wine bottles with seals dated 1877 and 1887 from a whisky and wine merchant respectively.25 The lat-est dated seal in Van Den Bossche representing a private individual or gentlemen’s seal is from 1848.26
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
As presented in Table 1, the cataloguing resulted in the (re)discovery of up to 81 individual seals in the collections; previously only up to two dozen had been known, with most of latter not catalogued in any detail. All the bottle seals were excavated in London or its immediate environs, with the majority being found within the City of London. Of the 81 seals identified, 77 have been divided and catalogued here into two basic types (Types 1–2) following the well-established method for classifying seals first into tavern (Type 1), then second gentlemen’s or private indi-viduals bottles (Type 2) including armorial crests and/or heraldic symbols. Another type of seal applied to European spa bottles are not consid-ered here.
Emphasis is placed here on the design particu-lar to each type. Thus tavern bottles (Type 1), which provide 37 examples, are identified by the four different variations of seal design unique to bottles circulated within retail drinking establish-ments (Types 1.1–1.4). Gentlemen’s or private individuals bottles (Type 2), including armorial seals, are divided into four design types (2.1–2.4), and supply a further 40 examples. The latter category supplied the only two dated seals in London’s archaeological collections; in Table 1, these are site code BUT88 [26], (not accessioned) and PW90 [2072] <258>. Both sites are curated in the LAARC. This leaves four seals that do not neatly fit into either of the main types. Pending further research, two are assumed to be undefined armorial and tavern bottles, with two displaying possible merchant’s marks and depict a stylized symbol only. There is nothing to suggest that the
bottles are anything other than English (probably London) made.
In order to place the seals into their respective Type 1–2 groups and particular design typolo-gies with reference to comparative examples, a range of published works,27 online sources28 and museum collections29 were consulted. Case studies of each Type are supplied below with particular attention paid to the archaeological context and site and the discernible biographical information they yielded.
TAVERN BOTTLES (TYPE 1)
Building on E.T. Leeds’ studies, the focus of most of the past work by British archaeologists on English bottles with seals has been on the ‘tavern bottles’ issued by various Oxford taverns for use in different Colleges during the mid to late 17th to 19th centuries. Comprehensive works on the subject which explore the relationship between the licensees and various institutions were completed first by Jeremy Haslam,30 and more recently Fay Banks.31 The adding of a seal to a wine bottle was intended to discourage the theft of the bottle and ensure its safe return in the takeout trade.32 Used in the public sphere, seals that can be linked to particular taverns represent the most common seal type recovered from archaeological excava-tions in the City of London and its immediate environs, with 37 examples found.
As noted above four different standardized design arrangements can be observed in the Type 1 seal. The first design (Type 1.1), used for seals applied by the tavern trade, are the seven which display a licensees forename in full and/or ini-tials with full surname encircling in part or full a symbol that presents the sign of the drinking establishment with five identified as the Rose (Fig. 1), Castle (Fig. 2), Feathers, Fleece (Fig. 3) and Three Tuns (Fig. 4). Figure 1 shows the first of three Type 1.1 tavern bottle seals considered in more detail. This seal presents the full name of the licensee — JOSEPH HOWARD — encircling the top half of a rosette, and is applied to a shaft and globe bottle (Table 1: site code SHL90 [396] <179>; curated in the LAARC). The sym-bol is of a five-petalled rosette pierced by five arrows (Tudor Rose) and is thus from the sign of a drinking establishment known as the Rose. Variations of the sign of the Rose have been found on glass bottles from five archaeological sites in London, and it is a design that appears on a large number of copper alloy trade tokens issued by licensees of this sign during the mid to late 17th century.33 Worth either a farthing or
134 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
TA
BL
E 1
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
107B
HS8
121
19T
YP
E 1
.1
(TA
VE
RN
)JO
HN
EL
LIS
ON
(L
ET
TE
RIN
G)
AR
OU
ND
‘T
HR
EE
B
AR
RE
LS’
(SY
MB
OL
)
107–
15 B
OR
OU
GH
H
IGH
ST
RE
ET
, SE
1SO
UT
HW
AR
K53
2590
1800
50
BR
E77
520
TY
PE
1.1
JOH
N C
LA
RK
B
RE
NT
FO
RD
(L
ET
TE
RIN
G)
AR
OU
ND
TH
RE
E
SWA
NS?
(SY
MB
OL
)
9–14
NE
W S
PR
ING
G
AR
DE
NS,
H
IGH
ST
RE
ET
, B
RE
NT
FO
RD
, M
IDD
LE
SEX
, T
W8
HO
UN
SLO
W51
7800
1775
10
EA
G87
195
191
TY
PE
1.1
FIG
. 2
H&
C H
AW
SON
(L
ET
TE
RIN
G)
AR
OU
ND
A C
AST
LE
(S
YM
BO
L)
CA
NN
ON
ST
RE
ET
, 86
–96,
EA
GL
E H
OU
SE,
EC
4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2709
1808
66
FE
R97
5888
3062
TY
PE
1.1
..OSE
PH
…’
(LE
TT
ER
ING
) A
ND
P
RIN
CE
OF
WA
LE
S F
EA
TH
ER
S (S
YM
BO
L)
PL
AN
TA
TIO
N H
OU
SE
RE
DE
VE
LO
PM
EN
T
SIT
E,
LO
ND
ON
EC
3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3180
1808
62
LH
C93
011
7T
YP
E 1
.1C
JR H
IND
ES/
KIN
GS
AR
MS/
TH
RE
E C
OL
T
STR
EE
T/L
IME
HO
USE
(L
ET
TE
RIN
G)
CY
RIL
JA
CK
SON
SC
HO
OL
, L
IME
HO
USE
C
AU
SEW
AY
, E
14
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5369
2818
0742
SHL
9039
618
0T
YP
E 1
.1F
IG.
3C
LIF
TO
N
CO
VE
NT
GA
RD
EN
(L
ET
TE
RIN
G)
AR
OU
ND
HA
NG
ING
F
LE
EC
E (
SYM
BO
L)
34–5
GR
EA
T
ST H
EL
EN
S,
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
EC
3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3161
1813
03
SHL
9039
617
9T
YP
E 1
.1F
IG.
1JO
SEP
H H
OW
AR
D
(LE
TT
ER
ING
) A
RO
UN
D T
HE
TU
DO
R
RO
SE (
SYM
BO
L)
34–5
GR
EA
T
ST H
EL
EN
S,
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
EC
3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3161
1813
03
AC
E83
1041
TY
PE
1.2
(T
AV
ER
N)
FIG
. 5
WP
(IN
ITIA
LS)
A
ND
MIT
RE
S H
AT
(S
YM
BO
L)
77–9
GR
AC
EC
HU
RC
H
STR
EE
T,
EC
3C
ITY
OF
LO
ND
ON
5330
2418
1024
BP
L95
119
146
TY
PE
1.2
WP
(IN
ITIA
LS)
A
ND
MIT
RE
S H
AT
(S
YM
BO
L)
MO
NU
ME
NT
HO
USE
, 30
–5 B
OT
OL
PH
LA
NE
, 29
–31
MO
NU
ME
NT
ST
RE
ET
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3023
1807
32
135LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALST
AB
LE
1
(Con
tinu
ed.)
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
CR
T89
115
202
TY
PE
1.2
TB
(IN
ITIA
LS)
A
ND
ST
AG
S H
EA
D
(SY
MB
OL
)
8–11
TH
E C
RE
SCE
NT
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3620
1808
40
GA
F04
169
154
TY
PE
1.2
KR
(IN
ITIA
LS)
OV
ER
C
RO
WN
(SY
MB
OL
).
PO
SSIB
LY
TA
VE
RN
SE
AL
(K
ING
’S A
RM
S?)
GL
ASS
HO
USE
F
IEL
DS,
ST
EP
NE
Y,
E1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5356
3718
0943
HL
S08
140
403
TY
PE
1.2
DB
(IN
ITIA
LS)
UN
DE
R
STY
LIS
ED
DO
LP
HIN
(S
YM
BO
L)
HO
LL
AN
D S
TR
EE
T,
HO
PT
ON
ST
RE
ET
, SE
1
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5318
8318
0353
RH
E01
1017
9T
YP
E 1
.2T
P (
INIT
IAL
S) O
VE
R
SUN
(SY
MB
OL
)B
OM
BA
Y W
HA
RF
, C
EY
LO
N W
HA
RF
A
ND
EA
ST I
ND
IA
WH
AR
F,
101–
5 R
OT
HE
RH
ITH
E
STR
EE
T,
ST M
AR
Y
CH
UR
CH
ST
RE
ET
, SE
16
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5351
0017
9800
RK
H06
192
526
TY
PE
1.2
WC
(IN
ITIA
LS)
OV
ER
H
AN
GIN
G F
LE
EC
E
OV
ER
SH
IEL
D
(SY
MB
OL
)
573
CIT
Y W
AT
ER
SID
E
AR
CH
AE
OL
OG
Y
CO
NSU
LT
AN
CY
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2730
1806
70
SSA
0188
2T
YP
E 1
.2W
P (
INIT
IAL
S)
AN
D M
ITR
ES
HA
T
(SY
MB
OL
)
ST B
OT
OL
PH
S H
AL
L
AN
D T
HE
CU
RA
TE
S H
OU
SE,
35 S
PIT
AL
SQ
UA
RE
, E
1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5334
3018
1890
VB
N89
556
163
TY
PE
1.2
WP
(IN
ITIA
LS)
A
ND
MIT
RE
S H
AT
(S
YM
BO
L)
VA
UX
HA
LL
BR
IDG
E
FO
OT
(N
OR
TH
)L
AM
BE
TH
5303
3017
8150
VB
N89
556
166
TY
PE
1.2
WP
(IN
ITIA
LS)
A
ND
MIT
RE
S H
AT
(S
YM
BO
L)
VA
UX
HA
LL
BR
IDG
E
FO
OT
(N
OR
TH
)L
AM
BE
TH
5303
3017
8150
BR
E77
741
TY
PE
1.3
(T
AV
ER
N)
GR
IFF
IN O
R D
RA
GO
N
(SY
MB
OL
)9–
14 N
EW
SP
RIN
G
GA
RD
EN
S,
HIG
H S
TR
EE
T,
BR
EN
TF
OR
D,
MID
DL
ESE
X,
TW
8
HO
UN
SLO
W51
7800
1775
10
136 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
CG
W05
1828
TY
PE
1.3
LIO
N R
AM
PA
NT
ON
T
OR
SE (
SYM
BO
L)
PA
LA
CE
OF
W
EST
MIN
STE
R
VIS
ITO
R A
CC
ESS
IM
PR
OV
EM
EN
T
PR
OJE
CT
, C
RO
MW
EL
L G
RE
EN
, SW
1A
WE
STM
INST
ER
5301
7517
9554
CU
T78
012
29T
YP
E 1
.3T
UD
OR
RO
SE
(SY
MB
OL
)P
LA
WA
RE
HO
USE
S,
CU
TL
ER
ST
RE
ET
, E
1C
ITY
OF
LO
ND
ON
5334
4618
1514
FC
C95
1399
397
TY
PE
1.3
DR
AG
ON
’S H
EA
D
(SY
MB
OL
)L
LO
YD
S R
EG
IST
ER
O
F S
HIP
PIN
G,
68–7
1 F
EN
CH
UR
CH
ST
RE
ET
, 1–
7 R
AIL
WA
Y P
LA
CE
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3430
1809
90
FC
C95
1399
395
TY
PE
1.3
FIG
. 6
DR
AG
ON
’S H
EA
D
(SY
MB
OL
)L
LO
YD
S R
EG
IST
ER
O
F S
HIP
PIN
G,
68–7
1 F
EN
CH
UR
CH
ST
RE
ET
, 1–
7 R
AIL
WA
Y P
LA
CE
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3430
1809
90
FC
C95
1399
431
TY
PE
1.3
DR
AG
ON
’S H
EA
D
(SY
MB
OL
)L
LO
YD
S R
EG
IST
ER
O
F S
HIP
PIN
G,
68–7
1 F
EN
CH
UR
CH
ST
RE
ET
, 1–
7 R
AIL
WA
Y P
LA
CE
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3430
1809
90
LO
V81
759
TY
PE
1.3
RA
MP
AN
T
LIO
N H
OL
DIN
G
DO
WN
WA
RD
SP
EA
R
(SY
MB
OL
)
7–28
LO
VA
T L
AN
E,
8–19
ST
MA
RY
AT
H
ILL
, 29
–40
BO
TO
LP
H
LA
NE
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3050
1807
40
SHL
9038
814
0T
YP
E 1
.3R
AM
PA
NT
LIO
N
WIT
H F
IVE
FL
EU
R D
E
LY
S O
N E
AC
H S
IDE
(S
YM
BO
L)
34–5
GR
EA
T
ST H
EL
EN
S,
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
EC
3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3161
1813
03
TA
BL
E 1
(Con
tinu
ed).
137LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALST
AB
LE
1
(Con
tinu
ed).
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
SHL
9038
815
9T
YP
E 1
.3F
IG.
7R
AM
PA
NT
LIO
N
WIT
H F
IVE
FL
EU
R D
E
LY
S O
N E
AC
H S
IDE
(S
YM
BO
L)
34–5
GR
EA
T
ST H
EL
EN
S,
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
EC
3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3161
1813
03
SHL
9038
816
5T
YP
E 1
.3R
AM
PA
NT
LIO
N
WIT
H F
IVE
FL
EU
R D
E
LY
S O
N E
AC
H S
IDE
(S
YM
BO
L)
34–5
GR
EA
T
ST H
EL
EN
S,
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
EC
3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3161
1813
03
SRP
9843
1924
48T
YP
E 1
.3T
UD
OR
RO
SE
(SY
MB
OL
)SP
ITA
LF
IEL
DS
MA
RK
ET
, L
AM
B S
TR
EE
T,
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
E1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5334
8018
1890
BA
8422
6024
23T
YP
E 1
.4
(TA
VE
RN
)T
/P/S
(T
RIA
D O
F
INIT
IAL
S) O
VE
R A
W
ING
ED
MY
TH
ICA
L
CR
EA
TU
RE
(SY
MB
OL
)
BE
RM
ON
DSE
Y
AB
BE
YSO
UT
HW
AR
K53
3400
1793
50
BG
E98
2262
TY
PE
1.4
T/A
/K (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
OV
ER
T
HE
TU
DO
R R
OSE
(S
YM
BO
L)
288
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
EC
2T
OW
ER
HA
ML
ET
S53
3400
1819
00
GD
A06
236
96T
YP
E 1
.4W
/H/P
(T
RIA
D O
F
INIT
IAL
S) A
ND
SH
IEL
D (
SYM
BO
L)
CIT
Y B
UN
HIL
L
BU
RIA
L G
RO
UN
D,
GO
LD
EN
LA
NE
, W
HIT
EC
RO
SS
STR
EE
T,
EC
1
ISL
ING
TO
N53
2343
1820
38
HB
O10
149
4T
YP
E 1
.4F
IG.
4T
/H/M
(T
RIA
D O
F
INIT
IAL
S) O
VE
R
TH
RE
E B
AR
RE
LS
OV
ER
VE
RT
ICA
L
AR
RO
W S
IGN
; M
OT
TO
‘A
T T
HE
TU
N A
T
HO
LB
OR
N B
RID
G’
BA
TH
HO
USE
, 60
H
OL
BO
RN
VIA
DU
CT
, E
C1
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
1616
1815
18
HL
S08
182
420
TY
PE
1.4
I/I/
H (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
OV
ER
SH
IEL
D (
SYM
BO
L)
HO
LL
AN
D S
TR
EE
T,
HO
PT
ON
ST
RE
ET
, SE
1
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5318
8318
0353
138 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
OO
F92
032
TY
PE
1.4
R/A
/I (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
AB
OV
E
TU
DO
R R
OSE
(S
YM
BO
L)
OW
EN
AN
D O
WE
N
SIT
E (
FO
RM
ER
), 2
9–34
G
EO
RG
E S
TR
EE
T,
RIC
HM
ON
D,
TW
9
RIC
HM
ON
D51
7920
1748
80
PR
441
401
6068
TY
PE
1.4
T/I
/R (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
OV
ER
ST
AG
(SY
MB
OL
) &
L
ET
TE
RIN
G
RO
SE T
HE
AT
RE
[E
H
SIT
E 1
989]
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5322
7518
0420
SIC
0682
898
TY
PE
1.4
T/P
/E (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
OV
ER
A
SHIP
(SY
MB
OL
)
ST G
ILE
S C
OU
RT
, ST
G
ILE
S H
IGH
ST
RE
ET
, C
AM
DE
N,
WC
2
CA
MD
EN
5300
2118
1340
WA
T78
1618
850
TY
PE
1.4
R/O
/E (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
OV
ER
SH
IP
(SY
MB
OL
)
WA
TL
ING
CO
UR
T,
11–1
4 B
OW
LA
NE
/41–
53
CA
NN
ON
ST
, E
C4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2354
1810
43
207B
HS7
20
369
TY
PE
2.1
(P
RIV
AT
E
IND
IVID
UA
L)
IH (
INIT
IAL
S)20
7–11
BO
RO
UG
H
HIG
H S
TR
EE
T,
SOU
TH
WA
RK
, SE
1
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5325
1017
9830
AP
O81
819
TY
PE
2.1
TC
(IN
ITIA
LS)
WA
TE
R L
AN
E/
BL
AC
KF
RIA
RS
LA
NE
, A
PO
TH
EC
AR
IES
HA
LL
, E
C4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
1748
1810
61
BA
Z05
834
215
TY
PE
2.1
W.?
(IN
ITIA
LS)
BA
SIN
GH
AL
L
STR
EE
T 3
5, E
C2
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2557
1814
80
BP
L95
119
145
TY
PE
2.1
HV
(IN
ITIA
LS)
MO
NU
ME
NT
HO
USE
, 30
–5 B
OT
OL
PH
LA
NE
, 29
–31
MO
NU
ME
NT
ST
RE
ET
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3023
1807
32
BR
E77
1119
TY
PE
2.1
IR (
INIT
IAL
S)9–
14 N
EW
SP
RIN
G
GA
RD
EN
S,
HIG
H S
TR
EE
T,
BR
EN
TF
OR
D,
MID
DL
ESE
X,
TW
8
HO
UN
SLO
W51
7800
1775
10
CIL
8676
20T
YP
E 2
.1R
B (
INIT
IAL
S)C
OR
NH
ILL
, 62
–4,
EC
3C
ITY
OF
LO
ND
ON
5330
2418
1146
TA
BL
E 1
(Con
tinu
ed).
139LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALST
AB
LE
1
(Con
tinu
ed).
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
EA
G87
195
319
TY
PE
2.1
RC
(IN
ITIA
LS)
AN
D
FO
LIA
GE
(SY
MB
OL
)C
AN
NO
N S
TR
EE
T,
86–9
6, E
AG
LE
HO
USE
, E
C4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2709
1808
66
FC
C95
1399
630
TY
PE
2.1
Z (
INIT
IAL
)L
LO
YD
S R
EG
IST
ER
O
F S
HIP
PIN
G,
68–7
1 F
EN
CH
UR
CH
ST
RE
ET
, 1–
7 R
AIL
WA
Y P
LA
CE
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3430
1809
90
FR
I88
108
499
TY
PE
2.1
GH
(IN
ITIA
LS)
10 F
RIA
R S
TR
EE
T,
69
CA
RT
ER
LA
NE
, E
C4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
1808
1810
59
GA
F04
201
155
TY
PE
2.1
GD
(IN
ITIA
LS)
GL
ASS
HO
USE
F
IEL
DS,
ST
EP
NE
Y,
E1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5356
3718
0943
HB
O10
375
961
TY
PE
2.1
S.S
(IN
ITIA
LS)
BA
TH
HO
USE
, 60
H
OL
BO
RN
VIA
DU
CT
, E
C1
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
1616
1815
18
LB
T86
168
84T
YP
E 2
.1SH
(IN
ITIA
LS)
71–6
LIT
TL
E B
RIT
AIN
+
10
KIN
G E
DW
AR
D
STR
EE
T
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2100
1816
00
PE
P89
1761
8T
YP
E 2
.1F
IG.
9F
.N (
INIT
IAL
S) U
ND
ER
C
RO
SS (
SYM
BO
L)
PE
PY
S ST
RE
ET
, C
OL
CH
EST
ER
H
OU
SE/P
EP
YS
HO
USE
, E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3520
1808
28
PW
9020
7225
8T
YP
E 2
.1B
C (
INIT
IAL
S) A
ND
17
22 (
DA
TE
)P
LA
TF
OR
M W
HA
RF
, C
AT
HA
Y S
TR
EE
T,
SOU
TH
WA
RK
,
SE16
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5347
8017
9720
SHL
9036
863
TY
PE
2.1
S.S
(IN
ITIA
LS)
34–5
GR
EA
T
ST H
EL
EN
S,
BIS
HO
PSG
AT
E,
E
C3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3161
1813
03
140 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
SIC
0666
193
TY
PE
2.1
IM (
INIT
IAL
S)ST
GIL
ES
CO
UR
T,
ST
GIL
ES
HIG
H S
TR
EE
T,
CA
MD
EN
, W
C2
CA
MD
EN
5300
2118
1340
SKN
8713
4T
YP
E 2
.1E
P (
INIT
IAL
S)SK
INN
ER
S H
AL
L,
8–9
CL
OA
K L
AN
E/
CO
LL
EG
E H
ILL
, E
C4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2549
1808
62
SPI9
137
979
TY
PE
2.1
LC
(IN
ITIA
LS)
SPIT
AL
FIE
LD
S M
AR
KE
T,
6–13
SP
ITA
L S
QU
AR
E,
E1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5334
7018
1900
SRP
9821
7152
6T
YP
E 2
.1IK
(IN
ITIA
LS)
SPIT
AL
FIE
LD
S M
AR
KE
T,
LA
MB
ST
RE
ET
, B
ISH
OP
SGA
TE
, E
1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5334
8018
1890
SSA
0188
3T
YP
E 2
.1IH
(IN
ITIA
LS)
ST B
OT
OL
PH
S H
AL
L
AN
D T
HE
CU
RA
TE
S H
OU
SE,
35 S
PIT
AL
SQ
UA
RE
, E
1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5334
3018
1890
TR
N08
3575
255
TY
PE
2.1
AB
(IN
ITIA
LS)
TR
INIT
Y S
QU
AR
E 1
0,
MU
SCO
VE
Y S
TR
EE
T,
SAV
AG
E G
AR
DE
NS,
P
LA
HQ
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3450
1807
98
VB
N89
537
1T
YP
E 2
.1T
H (
INIT
IAL
S)V
AU
XH
AL
L B
RID
GE
F
OO
T (
NO
RT
H)
LA
MB
ET
H53
0330
1781
50
EA
G87
195
192
TY
PE
2.2
(P
RIV
AT
E
IND
IVID
UA
L)
W/C
/B (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
CA
NN
ON
ST
RE
ET
, 86
–96,
EA
GL
E H
OU
SE,
EC
4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2709
1808
66
FN
B02
1049
103
TY
PE
2.2
I/B
/A (
TR
IAD
OF
IN
ITIA
LS)
FIN
SBU
RY
AV
EN
UE
SQ
UA
RE
, E
C2
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3009
1817
92
JON
8933
8T
YP
E 2
.2H
/E/I
I (T
RIA
D O
F
INIT
IAL
S)47
–9 S
T J
OH
NS
SQU
AR
E,
EC
1IS
LIN
GT
ON
5317
0018
2100
AB
O92
635
2069
TY
PE
2.3
(A
RM
OR
IAL
)SH
IEL
D W
ITH
CO
AT
O
F A
RM
S (S
YM
BO
L)
AB
BO
TS
LA
NE
, L
ON
DO
N B
RID
GE
C
ITY
, SE
1
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5333
2018
0240
TA
BL
E 1
(Con
tinu
ed).
141LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALST
AB
LE
1
(Con
tinu
ed).
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
BG
X05
1653
453
TY
PE
2.3
SHIE
LD
WIT
H C
OA
T
OF
AR
MS
(SY
MB
OL
)E
AST
LO
ND
ON
LIN
ET
OW
ER
HA
ML
ET
S53
3750
1822
00
CT
734
33T
YP
E 2
.3C
R (
INIT
IAL
S) U
ND
ER
C
RO
WN
(SY
MB
OL
)C
HU
RC
H T
ER
RA
CE
, H
EN
DO
N,
NW
4B
AR
NE
T52
2900
1894
00
GA
F04
015
3T
YP
E 2
.3SH
IEL
D W
ITH
CO
AT
O
F A
RM
S (S
YM
BO
L)
GL
ASS
HO
USE
F
IEL
DS,
ST
EP
NE
Y,
E1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5356
3718
0943
GA
F04
258
156
TY
PE
2.3
SHIE
LD
WIT
H C
OA
T
OF
AR
MS
(SY
MB
OL
)G
LA
SSH
OU
SE
FIE
LD
S, S
TE
PN
EY
, E
1T
OW
ER
HA
ML
ET
S53
5637
1809
43
GL
S06
334
76T
YP
E 2
.3C
OR
ON
ET
OV
ER
SH
IEL
D W
ITH
CO
AT
O
F A
RM
S (S
YM
BO
L)
GR
EA
T S
UF
FO
LK
ST
RE
ET
, L
EV
ING
TO
N
STR
EE
T,
SE1
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5318
9418
0148
HL
S08
110
352
TY
PE
2.3
SHIE
LD
WIT
H C
OA
T
OF
AR
MS
(SY
MB
OL
)H
OL
LA
ND
ST
RE
ET
, H
OP
TO
N S
TR
EE
T,
SE1
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5318
8318
0353
SSQ
8830
202
TY
PE
2.3
FIG
. 10
PL
UM
ED
CO
AT
OF
A
RM
S U
ND
ER
A
CR
OW
N O
R C
OR
ON
ET
ST M
AR
Y S
PIT
AL
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5334
1018
1900
PIC
8725
425
2T
YP
E 2
.3P
LU
ME
D C
OA
T O
F
AR
MS
SHO
WIN
G
RA
MP
AN
T L
ION
A
BO
VE
MY
TH
ICA
L
CR
EA
TU
RE
HO
LD
ING
M
AC
E (
SYM
BO
L)
56–6
6 C
AR
TE
R L
AN
E,
1–3
PIL
GR
IM S
TR
EE
T,
25–3
3 L
UD
GA
TE
H
ILL
, E
C4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
1816
1811
02
WA
T78
2527
1152
TY
PE
2.3
SHIE
LD
WIT
H C
OA
T
OF
AR
MS
(SY
MB
OL
)W
AT
LIN
G C
OU
RT
, 11
–14
BO
W L
AN
E/4
1–53
CA
NN
ON
ST
, E
C4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2354
1810
43
BU
T88
263
TY
PE
2.4
(P
RIV
AT
E
IND
IVID
UA
L)
GE
OR
GE
PE
RV
IS
(LE
TT
ER
ING
) A
BO
VE
17
[69?
] (D
AT
E)
CU
RL
EW
ST
RE
ET
, B
UT
LE
RS
CO
UR
TSO
UT
HW
AR
K53
3720
1799
30
BY
I03
203
204
TY
PE
2.4
J P
OR
TE
R
(LE
TT
ER
ING
) O
VE
R D
AR
TM
O
(LE
TT
ER
ING
)
BL
OW
S Y
AR
D,
15
WIN
CH
EST
ER
WA
LK
, SE
1
SOU
TH
WA
RK
5325
5518
0346
142 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
SIT
E
CO
DE
CO
NT
EX
TA
CC
. N
O.
TY
PO
LO
GY
FIG
UR
EC
OM
ME
NT
SS
ITE
AD
DR
ES
SL
ON
DO
N B
OR
OU
GH
SIT
E
EA
ST
ING
SIT
E
NO
RT
HIN
G
CX
H04
122
16T
YP
E 2
.4L
R (
INIT
IAL
S)
UN
DE
R M
AR
GO
E
(LE
TT
ER
ING
)
CA
XT
ON
HA
LL
, C
AX
TO
N S
TR
EE
T,
SW1
WE
STM
INST
ER
5295
4917
9415
RG
N92
380
62T
YP
E 2
.4H
.EY
RE
…
(LE
TT
ER
ING
)R
EG
EN
T S
TR
EE
T
172–
82,
W1
WE
STM
INST
ER
5292
1018
0910
SMD
0181
218
9T
YP
E 2
.4C
HA
RL
ES
WR
IGH
T/
OP
EN
CO
LL
ON
AD
/H
AY
MA
RK
ET
/L
ON
DO
N
(LE
TT
ER
ING
)
ST M
AR
TIN
S IN
TH
E
FIE
LD
CH
UR
CH
, ST
M
AR
TIN
S P
LA
CE
, W
C2
WE
STM
INST
ER
5301
1318
0552
BIG
8292
510
03U
NK
CO
LU
MN
(?)
(M
ER
CH
AN
T’S
M
AR
K?)
LO
WE
R T
HA
ME
S ST
RE
ET
, B
ILL
ING
SGA
TE
M
AR
KE
T L
OR
RY
P
AR
K,
LO
WE
R
TH
AM
ES
STR
EE
T,
EC
3
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
3033
1806
19
GA
F04
354
157
UN
KA
(IN
ITIA
L)
UN
DE
R
CR
OW
N O
R C
OR
ON
ET
(S
YM
BO
L)
GL
ASS
HO
USE
F
IEL
DS,
ST
EP
NE
Y,
E1
TO
WE
R H
AM
LE
TS
5356
3718
0943
SKN
8713
41
UN
KT
WO
PA
RA
LL
EL
H
OR
IZO
NT
AL
LIN
ES
WIT
H X
BE
TW
EE
N
(ME
RC
HA
NT
’S
MA
RK
?)
SKIN
NE
RS
HA
LL
, 8–
9 C
LO
AK
LA
NE
/C
OL
LE
GE
HIL
L,
EC
4
CIT
Y O
F L
ON
DO
N53
2549
1808
62
WIZ
0521
0963
UN
KR
OSE
TT
ES
AN
D
HO
RSE
S? (
SYM
BO
L)
HA
MM
ER
SMIT
H
EM
BA
NK
ME
NT
, W
INSL
OW
RO
AD
, W
6
HA
MM
ER
SMIT
H
AN
D F
UL
HA
M52
3232
1778
82
TA
BL
E 1
(Con
tinu
ed).
143LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
half a penny, tokens would be issued by individu-als connected to a trade in response to the 1644 proclamation by Parliament that no more licensed coins should be made. This led to a shortage of small coinage34 and the use of trade tokens dur-ing the Interregnum (1649–60) continued into the Restoration until Charles II again issued Royal
coinage in small denominations in 1678. The third Type 1.1 ‘tavern bottle’ seal design (Fig. 3) depicts the name CLIFTON, the geographical location COVENT GARDEN encircling the sym-bol of a hanging fleece (Table 1: site code SHL90 [396] <180>; curated in the LAARC). Thus the name of the licensee (CLIFTON) and the exact
FIG. 1
Type 1.1 tavern bottle seal (width 40mm, height 39mm) displaying the sign of the Rose and the
licencee’s full name JOSEPH HOWARD (site code SHL90, [396] <179>) (photograph, Nicholas Major).
FIG. 4
Type 1.4 tavern bottle seal (width 32.2mm, height 31.5mm) displaying the sign of the Three Tuns and the licensees triad of intitals THM (site code HBO10, [149]
<4>) (photograph, Andy Chopping: © MOLA).
FIG. 2
Type 1.1 tavern bottle seal (width 35mm, height 35mm) displaying the sign of the Castle and the licencees initials and surname H&C HAWSON (site code EAG87, [195] <191>) (photograph,
Nicholas Major).
FIG. 3
Type 1.1 tavern bottle seal (width 39mm, height 35mm) displaying the sign of the Fleece, the licensee’s
surname CLIFTON and the location COVENT GARDEN (site code SHL90, [396] <180>)
(photograph, Nicholas Major).
144 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
location is presented on this shaft and globe bot-tle. William Clifton was the licensee of the Fleece, on Bridge Street in Covent Garden in London’s West End, from at least 1633/4 until 1672; this was an establishment frequented by Samuel Pepys on a number of occasions.35
The second (Type 1.2) of the tavern trade seal designs displays a symbol and variously positioned initials, with up to nine examples in London’s archaeological collections, which can be matched to the sign of the following estab-lishments: the Dolphin, Fleece, Mitre (Fig. 5: five examples), Sun36 and Stags Head. Of these nine, five are of the same well-known design — the Mitre with WP initials (Fig. 5) — found not only in London,37 but elsewhere in England38 and colonial sites in Virginia.39 It represents the most common seal design both among London’s archaeological collections and the non- archaeological bottles with seals curated by MOL’s Ceramic and Glass collection, with to up to five examples here applied to shaft and globe bottles.40 Sometimes thought to be a gentleman’s bottle seal attributed to William Piers (1580–1670), succes-sively Bishop of Peterborough then of Bath and Wells,41 it seems more likely they were made for use in one of two City of London taverns if we accept the assumption that trade tokens42 struck at the same time by licensees of the Mitres of Fleet Street and Great Wood Street who share the WP initials — William Paget and William Proctor — are the same individuals. Whilst trade
tokens portraying the locations of two Mitre tav-erns at both Great Wood Street and Fleet Street have therefore survived, one further token struck by the Fleet Street Mitre does at least present the name of the licensee — William Pagget — whereas the Great Wood Street Mitre tokens display a WEP triad of initials only.43 Berry notes William Paget at the Fleet Street Mitre between 1658–60 and William Proctor at the Great Wood Street Mitre between 1635–65;44 both married women with the forename Elizabeth.45 Ruggles-Brise quotes from the diary entry of Samuel Pepys for July 1665 that ‘Proctor of the vintner of the Miter in Wood-street and his son, are dead this morning there, and was the greatest vintner for some time in London for great entertainments’.46 Both Proctors were therefore victims of the Great Plague of that year.
If the bottles with seals presented here were commissioned by Proctor or Paget, it is unknown why they did not follow the convention of pre-senting a triad of initials on their bottles, a prac-tice that Proctor employed on his trade tokens. Bottles with this particular seal design were man-ufactured at John Baker’s Vauxhall glasshouse in Lambeth, London, constructed sometime between 1663 and 1681, but disused by 1704. Two shaft and globe bottles found with seals portraying two different variations of this design47 were found in the demolition deposits of the glasshouse,48 and the inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (ICPS) analysis undertaken on one seal showed it was nearly identical in composition to both bot-tles, the local working waste and frit, indicating they were made at the site.49
The third seal design (Type 1.3: Fig. 6; Fig. 7) portrays a symbol with only twelve examples in London’s archaeological collections. Three were made by the same seal die and applied to a group of intact shaft and globe bottles recovered in the backfill of a cesspit from an excavation on Fenchurch Street in the City of London (Table 1: site code FCC95 [1399] <395>, <397>, <431>; curated by MOLA). These bottles were errone-ously omitted from the publication of the site, which includes a detailed description of the late 17th-century artefact assemblage that filled the cesspit.50 All three portray a dragon’s head design (Fig. 6, one photographed) made from the same die or matrix. While these might represent an armorial seal, the designs are likely to be display-ing the sign of a drinking establishment known as the Dragon’s Head or the Green Dragon. The fourth and fifth Type 1.3 seal depicts the Tudor Rose pierced by five arrows, the standard design for the sign of the Rose and found dur-ing excavations on Cutler Street (Table 1: site
FIG. 5
Type 1.2 tavern bottle seal (width 45mm, height 36mm) displaying the sign of the Mitre and the
licensees initials WP (site code ACE83, [10] <41>) (photograph, Nicholas Major).
145LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
code CUT78 [+] <1229>; curated in LAARC) and Spitalfields (Table 1: site code SRP98 [4319] <2448>; curated by MOLA), on the eastern and north-eastern edges of the City of London respec-tively. Five further seals present a lion rampant within a shield (Fig. 7), probably bottles meant for an establishment such as the Red or White Lion. Completing the group is a seal depicting a full mythical winged creature, possibly represent-ing the sign of the Dragon or Griffin.
The fourth and final distinct tavern bottle seal design, applied to nine bottles, presents a triad of initials, surmounting the sign of the drinking establishment (Type 1.4), with one each recog-nized as the Three Tuns (Fig. 4), the King’s arms, the Rose and the Ship (a sign twice displayed on bottles from different seal dies). Representing the licensees Thomas and Margaret Helmsley, this Type 1.4 seal (HBO10 [149] <4>; curated by MOLA) was found among a large collection of clay tobacco pipes and Frechen stoneware jugs sealed in the cellar of the Three Tuns tavern in Holborn in the City of London, an establishment that once stood on the site of the excavation. It depicts the triad of initials THM over the symbol of the Three Tuns encircled by the inscription ‘AT THE TUN AT HOLBORN BRIDG’. This is an early example of a tavern bottle seal as the Helmsley’s occupied the Three Tuns for only a short period, from at least 1648 but no later than 1655. This glass seal is similar to the design used on the four trade tavern tokens issued in 1648 by
the Helmsley’s that have survived in both the col-lections of the Museum of London (Fig. 8)51 and the British Museum.52
The triangular arrangement of the initials used on Type 1.4 seals, presenting the forename ini-tials of the landlord (bottom left) and landlady (bottom right) with their surname initial at the apex, was also employed in print, from where it is likely it originated; Ruggles-Brise notes that triad of initials is commonly used as the mark of married couples on contemporary documents
FIG. 6 Type 1.3 tavern bottle seal (width 37mm, height
38mm) with the sign of the Dragon or Green Dragon (site code FCC95, [1399] <395>) (photograph,
Nicholas Major).
FIG. 7
Type 1.3 tavern bottle seal (width 34mm, height 40mm) with the sign of the Red or White Lion (site code SHL90, [388] <159>) (photograph,
Nicholas Major).
FIG. 8
Trade token issued by Thomas and Margaret Helmsley (MoL accession NN17655: image courtesy of MOL)
Obv inscription (L) AT. THE.THREE.TVNS (around field) Device = Three Tuns (in field); Rev inscription HOLBORNE.BRIDGE.1648 (around field) Device = T.H.M (triad of initials in Roman capitals, in field).
146 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
such as leases.53 Other artefacts with this arrange-ment of initials include the noted copper alloy trade tokens commonly issued 1644–7254 as small change coinage, and English-made delftware.55 Indeed the similarities in the design between some glass bottle seals in the ‘tavern bottle’ group and those copper alloy trade tokens issued by licensees in London’s ‘tavern trade’ and struck at the same time cannot be ignored. The detailed catalogues of London’s copper alloy trade tokens published by Akerman56 and Beaufoy57 during the mid 19th century demonstrate that the licensees of numer-ous coffee houses and drinking establishments had copper alloy tokens struck. These presented their name in full or used initials accompanied by their sign. Comparing the design of the signs applied to trade tokens to the Type 1.1–1.4 glass bottle seals in London’s archaeological collections58 clarified many of the names of the retail drinking estab-lishments, notably the Castle, Dolphin, Feathers, Fleece, Mitre, Rose, Three Tuns, Sun and the Stag’s Head. In two instances — the above-noted Fleece of Covent Garden (Fig. 3) and Three Tuns tavern of Holborn (Fig. 7) — glass seals and trade tokens have survived that depict the initials or full names of the same issuing licensee. Type 1 tavern bottle seal designs, in common with trade tokens, never present the name of the establishment, just the sign, and this encouraged the reader to make a mental leap from the written name of the licensees to the visual sign — an early instance of an advertising technique we today take for granted.
GENTLEMAN’S OR PRIVATE BOTTLES (TYPE 2)
Termed as ‘gentlemen’s or private individuals bottles’,59 four different design variations can be observed (Types 2.1–2.4) within this bottle seal type. The vast majority (Type 2.1: 23 seals) pres-ent initials with the second design (Type 2.2, not illustrated) used on three seals60 displaying a triad of initials arranged in the same fashion as Type 1.4 tavern bottles. The first seal, with the triad of initials WCB, was retrieved from excavations at Eagle House, 90–6 Cannon Street, EC4 in the City of London (Table 1: site code EAG87 [195] <192>; curated in the LAARC). A second, with the triad of initials IBA was recovered from exca-vations at Finsbury Avenue Square, EC2 in the City of London (Table 1: site code FNB02 [1049] <103>; site curated by MOLA). Unlike Type 1 seals, however, Types 2.1–2.2 seals carry no sign or symbol and therefore follow a design conven-tion that best places them as gentlemen’s or pri-vate individuals bottle seals.
While it is generally accepted that these bot-tles emerged at the same time as Type 1 tavern bottles, those Type 2 bottles bearing initials only (Type 2.1) present obvious challenges in trying to identify the commissioning individuals. It remains uncertain why simple initials were used rather than full names (like Type 1.1 tavern bottle seals above and Type 2.4 bottle seals below). The evi-dence for the motivations behind these commis-sions remains a matter of speculation, and while indicating proof of ownership and individual sta-tus appears the most likely explanation, an insight into the context of their use and circulation is provided by a much quoted 1663 diary entry by Samuel Pepys in which he collected from Daniel Rawlinson’s Mitre tavern at Fenchurch Street ‘five or six dozen’ bottles bearing his crest, already filled with wine.61 This reference is perhaps more significant for highlighting the importance of the take-out trade to taverns and alehouses, and how the new medium of glass bottles enabled drink to be easily transported from these premises, and taken back for refilling; thus gentlemen’s or pri-vate individuals bottles represent vessels meant for private and domestic use.
Figure 9 displays a useful example of Type 2.1 bottle seal (applied to an onion bottle) depict-ing two initials within a roundel from London’s archaeological collections (Table 1: site code PEP89 [17] <618>; site curated in the LAARC). This seal was recovered from the remains of a late 17th-century brick-built icehouse uncovered in the City of London:
The backfill of the icehouse included over 48 whole wine bottles and countless shards of broken glass. Some Chinese porcelain was also recovered as were un-smoked tobacco pipes. As a group these finds typify a 17th- and 18th-century warehouse group: Luxury items from world trade. They therefore mark the change to a world capitalist market.62
Note that unsmoked tobacco pipes are often seen as representing an unused batch of pipes, and thus representing the stock of a drinking establishment.
As with the Type 1.2 seal presenting the sign of the Mitre and the initials WP (Fig. 4), two seals with the FN initials have been found during excavations on late 17th-century sites in colonial Virginia. One from Jamestown was found in a cellar alongside ten bottles of the same period,63 with the second found at Williamsburg.64 While the design of the Jamestown seal is different — it has a star symbol surmounting the initials rather than the + symbol used on the London and Williamsburg examples — both Noël Hume
147LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
and Morgan attribute the Williamsburg seal to Francis Nicholson, an army officer who became governor of Virginia in 1698 and who is known to have lived at both Jamestown and then Williamsburg.65 The seal from the last site is remarkably similar to the London example, and suggests they were made from the same die. These sites on either side of the Atlantic give an insight into the transfer of identity into what was a new society for European settlers. Nicholson made the effort to ship commissioned bottles bearing his initials; his position as governor would have been one of status, and there were no glass works in the colonies capable of producing such sealed bottles in this period.66
Represented by ten seals in London’s archae-ological collections, the third Type 2 group has been identified as consisting of armorial seals (Type 2.3: Fig. 10). These display one or more of the two features; either a shield (or arms: often, but not always, crested/plumed) or a ducal, earl or baronial crown. Two each are characterized by either a crown or coronet surmounting shields of different designs surrounded by plumed feathers (Table 1: site code GLS06 [334] <76>; site code SSQ88 [30], <202>; sites curated by MOLA and the LAARC respectively). The third features four crosses within a quartered shield similarly plumed (Table 1: site code GAF04 [+] <153>. Site curated by MOLA).67 The remain-ing six present different shield designs only. By the 19th century a new and simpler armorial seal
design had emerged, where an initial or name in full (sometimes including title) encircles a date.68
The fourth and final group comprise five seals (Type 2.4: Fig. 11) of a distinctive design which display either one or more initials, an abbrevi-ated first name with full surname or the name in full. Examples from elsewhere show these seals sometimes incorporated a place name (of where the individual lived or worked) and are dated. This style of presenting a name can be traced by dated seals to as early as 1652,69 but the practice appears to be more common in the last decade of the 17th century and was used throughout the ‘long’ 18th century.70 While this seal type is often associated with wine and spirit merchants and shippers, seals that present names in this fashion were commissioned by a diverse range of (male) individuals, from skilled artisans,71 writers72 and wealthy farmers.73 The five found in London, however, can be linked to known wine mer-chant or vintners. One example bears the name J PORTER/DARTMo and was found with a large collection of ceramics and bottle glass in a cesspit sealed during the 1790s. This is likely to be John Porter, a wine merchant of Dartmouth, Devon, recorded in the 1822–23 Pigot’s Directory for Dartmouth.74 Porter followed a long-established trend among many the vintners of south-west England of commissioning bottles with seals.75 A second seal (Table 1: site code SMD01 [812] <189>; site curated by MOLA) presents the name CHARLES WRIGHT and the address OPEN
FIG. 9
Type 2.1 ‘private individuals’ bottle seal (width 39mm, height 37mm) displaying the intitials FN, for Francis
Nicholson (photograph, Nicholas Major) SCALE (site code PEP89, [17] <618>).
FIG. 10
Type 2.3 ‘private individuals’ bottle seal (width 40mm, height 50mm) displaying coat of arms, plumed
(site code SSQ88 [30] <202>) (photograph, Nicholas Major).
148 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
COLLANDE/HAYMARKET/LONDON (Fig. 11) and is from a bottle commissioned and sold by Charles Wright. Wright boasts of his status as a wine merchant to the Royal Family in an advert for his business placed in the medical journal The Lancet on 11 December 1824.
While ‘merchant’s bottles’ are not different or unique in shape compared to their plain counter-parts, the suggestion that merchants added their names to protect their bottles being re-used by com-petitors was taken from a letter from a wine-shipper to Ruggles-Brise76 and was unquestionably adopted by Morgan.77 In terms of design, the presentation of the name on a Type 2.4 seal was employed by a wide range of professional and artisan back-grounds; those used by merchant’s are no different.
MOVING BEYOND BOTTLE MORPHOLOGY AND PEPYS:
REFLECTIONS ON FUTURE RESEARCH
The historiography of the study of dated seals is dominated by their use to determine bottle morphology, and identifying the individuals who commissioned the bottles. Yet the making of bottles with seals and the designs employed — decisions made at the beginning of the English bottle industry in the 1640s and 1650s — did not occur in a void. As this study progressed it was clear that many important facets had been overlooked or not addressed, principally the importance of
propriety and the context of seal design, their representation in historical sources such as court records, cost, the geographies of their movement and spaces of use and refinement of the chronol-ogy of the identified design types.
Adding a seal to a glass bottle reflected just one of a number of media by which ownership was transmitted, and can be positioned along-side an emerging class of materials introduced to the mid to late 17th century — notably London made delftware, stoneware and copper alloy trade tokens — in addition to already established pewter and clay tobacco pipes which allowed for stamp-ing or lettering, dates and/or signs and symbols to be applied. As a practice, it is similar to the application of medallions on Rhenish stoneware pottery of the 16th and 17th centuries; while the glasshouses of Germany had been applying deco-rative seals or prunts to glass roemers of the same period, by the 1660s many of the seal designs subsequently used by the English, Low Countries (Belgium and Dutch) and German glasshouses are visually similar.78
English glass bottles with seals that advertised content — as opposed to the owner — appear to have been rare. Instead a bottle’s content could be (as Pepys noted) written on a paper label and pasted upon a bottle.79 Delftware bin labels were also produced, presenting the name of the wine, such as Whit (White wine), Sack (fortified wine from the Canary Islands or the Iberian Peninsula) and Claret,80 a practice transferred to London made delftware bottles of the period.81 The shape of these delftware bottles mimics Frechen stone-ware, imported into Britain in large quantities during this period; similar vessels can also be found in the BM’s collections.82 Continental wine bottles with contents labels attached to a chain hung round the neck and shoulder of the vessel have also survived.83
Aside from trade tokens, it is therefore impor-tant to reflect on an important comparison for understanding the design of seals and the market that the London glass bottle industry shared from the third quarter of the 17th century: the tavern and personalized wares made for a short period by John Dwight’s fledgling stoneware pothouse in Fulham. Opened in 1672, Dwight made gorges (mugs) and bottles with medallions for up to a year before he abandoned most of his personal-ized wares as a result of the agreement he signed with the London Glass Sellars Company.84 In his publication on the excavations and products of this pothouse, Chris Green recognized the paral-lels behind the design of the medallions applied to Fulham stoneware with copper alloy tavern tokens and glass bottle seals, and the market they
FIG. 11 Type 2.4 ‘private individual’ bottle seal (width 45mm,
height 45mm) displaying the name CHARLES WRIGHT, a vintner (SMD01 [812] <189>)
(photograph, Nicholas Major).
149LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
shared.85 Making vessels with seals for ‘gentlemen’ or private individuals and for public use by tavern keepers, Dwight therefore followed similar design conventions. His tavern medallions employed the same designs for the signs of the Mermaid, Feathers, and Rose, as used on glass bottle seals and trade tokens in addition to those with the Royal Cypher of Charles II.86 While no direct rela-tionship could be found between the medallions with initials made by Dwight87 and the Type 2 category of glass seals in London’s archaeologi-cal collections, the Death’s Head medallion used on both stoneware gorges (mugs) and bottles88 is similarly matched to a glass bottle seal from a site in Southwark (Table 1: site code HLS08 [182] <420>; curated by MOLA).
Unfortunately, evidence for the dies used in glass seals from excavations on glasshouses or surviving in museum collections appears, how-ever, slim. Only two stamp dies have been recov-ered archaeologically; both from the Bolsterstone glasshouse in Yorkshire,89 and both subsequently lost.90 These were nevertheless noted as being made from fired pipe-clay with the first seal die displaying an animal head, the second the letter ‘G’.91 Noël Hume suggests single letter dies would have been mounted in a wooden handle for those who ‘could not afford, or did not care to have, their own brass seals designed and cut’,92 and thus in a few cases initials were impressed side by side using two separate dies.93 The use of pipe-clay dies is also evidenced from excavations at two German glasshouses where two examples with handles with the first used for pressing ‘raspberry prunts’,94 and the second used for the initials KK.95
By the 18th century brass and bronze dies appeared to be the preferred medium for applying seals to glass bottle. The British Museum curates a number of copper-alloy matrices used for glass seal design, including one used for a Rose tavern and another for The Duke of S[…].96 While the present discussion has clearly demonstrated how the design and arrangement of the Type 1 tavern bottle seals closely followed contemporary copper alloy tokens issued by the licensees of numerous London taverns, it does not appear that the evi-dence of the dies/moulds used for making both classes of material have survived to be directly compared. Although the design choices behind armorial seals (Type 2.3) would appear straight-forward, the arrangement of lettering on the wine merchant’s bottles (Type 2.4; for example the abbreviated spelling of the location Dartmouth presented above) requires further research and might be found on trade cards of the period.
Understanding what the contemporary term(s) used for a particular object were, and how they
were used in (for example) court cases and inven-tories of the period is also critical. It is not clear if the term ‘seal’ was used during this period. Instead ‘marked’ or ‘stamp’97 appears to have been vari-ously employed in contemporary documents. In the London Company Glass Sellers’ Wholesale Rates and Sizes of Green-Glass Vessels (printed in 1677) bottles with seals appear described as ‘marked bottles’ with a ‘marked quart bottle’ costing four shillings, one shilling more than a plain quart bottle.98 Several authors explore the cost of bottles with seals in comparison to plain bottles, though often relying on the same small range of historical sources.99 Whether bottles with seals would have been unaffordable by the end of the 17th century as glass became more widely circulated is worth exploring.
Trials in the principal criminal court of London (the Old Bailey) featuring glass bottles with seals are elusive. This resource, available online and covering the period 1674–1913,100 was analysed using a number of keyword phrase searches. First ‘marked bottle[s]’ revealed three trials dated to the mid to late 19th century, with searches under ‘sealed bottle’ and ‘stamped bottle’ yield-ing no results. A useful reminder of the problems in employing terms used in the present day to search historical records, even eliminating modern terminology for either ‘bottle’ and ‘glass bottle’ (trials searched up to 1790) failed to produce any description of a glass bottle with an applied seal. Finally the term ‘my seal’ was employed (trials up to 1800) but revealed just the one trial dated 1773 that could be related to glass bottle with a seal. Seal was not a term used in the period they were made.
There remains an unquestioned presumption throughout the published literature that bottles with seals were made for taverns at the exclusion of other retail drinking establishments such as ale-houses and inns.101 It would seem, however, that despite the licensees of coffee houses issuing trade tokens, there is no evidence to suggest they com-missioned bottles with seals. Similarly, the diary of Samuel Pepys has proved a common source for multiple authors seeking insight into the use of glass bottles in mid to late 17th-century London. Another line of future research is therefore to understand the rituals and routines of the ale-house or ordinary, tavern and inn operating dur-ing this period, and how the bottle with a seal or a plain bottle would have circulated. Bottles with seals made for the tavern trade (Type 1) would have been sold filled by the licensee to customers with the expectation that the empty bottle would be returned. Was a deposit for the bottle required for the take-out trade? Being able to provide
150 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
proof of ownership by the licensee, and making sure the seal design easily conveyed this informa-tion, would have been crucial.
Court cases of the period illuminate the movement which glass bottles could have. The December 1690 Old Bailey trial of George Furnier notes how the defendant took a pint of wine to drink in and half a pint in his own bottle to ‘carry away’.102 The archaeological record is therefore useful in determining the geographies of move-ment of ‘tavern bottles’ during this period. When location of the source of the tavern on the seal can be demonstrated, none of the Type 1 bottles with seals in London’s archaeological collections — with the exception of the bottle with seal found on the site of the Three Tuns in Holborn — appear to have been found on the site of the tavern they were commissioned for. For exam-ple, the two bottles with seals made for William Clifton of the Fleece in Covent Garden (Fig. 3) were found some distance from the tavern, in the City of London. Likewise the bottle with the seal displaying the sign of the Rose and the licensee William Howard (Fig. 1) was found in excava-tions on Bishopsgate in the City of London, with the nearest known Rose taverns located to the south-west at Poultry and Cheapside. One of the bottles with the seal of the Mitre and the initials WP was found in the cesspit serving Spittle House, the Spitalfields residence of Paulet St John, the 3rd Earl of Bolingbroke, and was found discarded with a large collection of artefacts characterized by London made delftware, Chinese porcelain, clay pipes and other glass bottles and tableware on the cusp of the 18th century.103
While there remains the presumption that only those of wealth and status would commission a bottle with a seal, there remains another impor-tant acknowledgment not always made explicit in the study of glass bottles with seals: they appear to be largely male-gendered objects. It is worth not-ing, however, that although examples of bottles with seals commissioned exclusively by women in the published and online works consulted for this study were rare, some have survived. Morgan noted two onion bottles with seals com-missioned by women: the first presents the name and date ‘Anne Eilhering 1708’ and the second ‘Mary Raynes’.104 While there are no examples of the bottles used by the Oxford Colleges within London’s archaeological collections, this group of well-studied seals also serve to remind of vessels used in the male domain.
With London’s archaeological collections sug-gesting bottle’s made for the tavern trade (Types 1–1.4: 37 seals) and for private individuals (Types 2–2.4: 40 seals) as the most common types,
this collection conforms to a pattern observed more broadly across England by Biddle.105 Noël Hume’s statement that the production of ‘tavern’ bottles (Types 1.1–1.4 here) had ceased by the early 18th century106 is borne out when assessed against London’s archaeological record. When bottle shape can be determined, all the Type 1 designs are applied to ‘shaft and globe’ and ‘onion’ bottles, shapes common to the period 1640/50–1720/30. When chronological refinement can be accurately determined through the other dateable artefacts found in the same context or deposit as the bottle seal — for example, pot-tery, clay tobacco pipes and coins — the Type 1.1–1.4 designs are all found in contexts with ter-minus post quem and terminus ante quem dates of 1660–80 or 1680–1700. Yet other objects explicit to the tavern trade continued to be marked; the practice of inscribing pewter tankards with the licensee name, their initials on the handle and the name of the premises in full onto the body of the vessels, continued well into the 19th century. It would therefore be desirable to explore the rea-sons behind why bottle glass with seals for the tavern trade ceased being made by the early 18th century. Reasons could be related to the cost and effort of commissioning glass bottles with seals and that the marking of a glass bottle to prove ownership could have been achieved via a differ-ent and simpler means in wax.
It is also worth reflecting on the imbalance between the relative quantities of glass bottles with seals in the archaeological record in contrast to auction house catalogues and museum collec-tions. Overall, the archaeological evidence from London suggests glass bottles made with seals are the exception and represented only a tiny propor-tion of production. Over 40 years of excavations have yielded potentially hundreds of complete and thousands of fragments of glass bottle frag-ments, but only 81 bottle seals. Museum collec-tions of English bottle glass and auction house catalogues,107 however, present a very different picture; here the quantities of glass bottles with seals would instead suggest the latter were the mainstay of production. The London percentages are nonetheless supported by other archaeologi-cal data. Biddle measured the quantities of bottles with seals as a percentage of the total assem-blage from Nonsuch Palace, Hertfordshire, and Jamestown, Virginia; bottles with seals comprised just 0.36% and 0.52% of these glass assemblages respectively.108
British glasshouse inventories could potentially be used to illuminate stock of one premises at a particular time, and mediate the apparent imbal-ance between the archaeological and curated
151LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
collection evidence. Unfortunately, the available inventories are not unproblematic. The survival of the 1699 inventory of John Robins, manager of the Pickleherring stone and delftware pothouse in Southwark, London, which details the quantities of stock held, price and the contemporary termi-nology used to describe its products has proved of value in understanding this particular industry at the cusp of the 18th century.109 The three invento-ries of English glasshouse owners known to have survived are all related to the West Yorkshire glasshouses of Silkstone and Bolsterstone. The first two are from Abigail Pilmay110 and her son John Scott,111 the successive owners of the Silkstone glasshouse, who died 1698 and 1707 respectively. The third is dated February 1727/8, and is for Robert Blackburn, the owner of the close by Bolsterstone glasshouse.112 The earliest inventory is of Abigail Pilmay, which is repro-duced in full in David Hey’s Family History and Local History in England. Unfortunately, it is not particularly illuminating when it comes to listing in detail the stock kept in ‘the glasshouses’ or in ‘all the warehouses’.113 This is sadly mirrored in the other two inventories, and neither docu-ment lists glasshouse stock in the sufficient detail required. Little is therefore known about glass production rates of bottles with seals during this period and until new evidence comes to light, the question of how many remains problematic.
CONCLUSION
This paper, whilst presenting the results of the cat-aloguing process that rediscovered this significant collection of glass bottles with seals, also set out to test whether the application of the long estab-lished categories by which glass bottles with seals have been classified hold true. Does our attempt to then isolate and define the design variations particular to each also work? Seals placed in the ‘tavern bottle’ category could be further divided to demonstrate that licensees employed four dis-tinct seal designs (Types 1.1–1.4). The attribution of the seals that present a symbol only (Type 1.3) to this group requires further critique. While Ruggles-Brise was usually successful in placing a seal as armorial (Type 2.3 in our analysis) when a shield (or arms), and/or a coronet was present in its design and was then able to link it to known aristocratic or titled gentry,114 she found seals that display just a symbol (which she also defines as a crest and is usually an animal) more difficult to place.115 Her subsequent linkage of the latter design as the arms or crest used by a historically visible individual remains intelligent conjecture.
Her entries for the Malveysin Crest116 and Deane Crest117 are the only two definitive examples she offers when a crest on its own was linked to a known individual. Instead, in terms of design, we argue that a seal which presents just a symbol is more consistent to those used by the licens-ees of a retail drinking establishment (Type 1.3 ‘tavern bottles’), for example the glass bottle that presents the sign of the Goose,118 and the medal-lions of the same design made by John Dwight’s Fulham stoneware pothouse intended for the same establishments.119
Given the examples (albeit rare) of female names appearing on bottles with seals, the term ‘gentlemen’s bottles’ is anachronistic and ‘pri-vate individuals bottles’ appears better suited as the overarching term for the second group (Type 2.1–2.4). Reserved for the private and domestic sphere are bottles with seals that present initials only (Types 2.1; and the most common in this group and Types 2.2). The small group of more elaborately designed armorial seals (Type 2.3) were similarly used, but should be positioned as a further means by which the aristocracy could project status and wealth in addition to own-ership. The final seal design within this group (Type 2.4) displays the most detail. This usually consists of full names, sometimes dated and with location, which could be linked to wine merchants or vintners. Within the colonial North American context, Pope suggests the bottles commissioned by a similar mercantile group — the planters or shipmasters of Newfoundland, Canada — during the 18th century as evidencing not just owner-ship, but also literacy and power.120 While there are only two examples in London’s archaeological collections which also display a year, the reasons for placing a date on the seal have also been spec-ulated upon in some detail.121 Ruggles-Brise, for example, tentatively suggests bottles were made as part of a commemoration of an event in a man’s life, an opinion she offers cautiously following examination of a few bottles with dated seals from known individuals and correlating them to known important events in their life.122
Now seal design has been considered, the high visibility of glass bottles with seals in museum col-lections and auction house catalogues compared against the archaeological record in London and colonial America suggests a significant imbalance in representation. If this statement is accepted — and more data from the archaeological record coupled with historical data from household and glasshouse inventories would be desirable — should this impact our interpretation of this apparently uncommon object of mid 17th- to 19th-century life?
152 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
White and Beaudry positioned glass bottles with seals alongside other inscribed objects ‘evocative as emblems of identity in post-1650 contexts’.123 It is from here that we need to situ-ate future analysis. In addition to the avenues of future research noted above, these objects are perfect for telling ‘material histories’124 and for unlocking biographical accounts of the individu-als whose names are often presented. Ivor Noël Hume’s comment that ‘to the archaeologist, the recovery of artefacts should not be the object of the exercise. Just like the digging, artifacts are a means to an end, that of teaching us something you about the past. They are three dimensional additions to the pages of history’125 seems a par-ticularly apt statement for the biographical poten-tial of a bottle with a seal.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors both acknowledge the guidance and practical assistance of both Dan Nesbitt (LAARC) and James Andrews (MOLA) in accessing the col-lections of both institutions and Professor David Green of the Department of Geography, King’s College London, the instrumental figure in facili-tating and supervising Nick Major’s internship. In addition, Nigel Jeffries would like to thank his colleague Jacqui Pearce of MOLA and Dr Anglea McShane, Head of Renaissance and Early Modern Studies for the jointly run Royal College of Art (RCA) and Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) postgraduate programmes in the History of Design and Material Culture, for many illu-minating conversations had on the subject of the material culture of drinking in 17th-century England. The insightful comments from anony-mous peer-reviewers were also welcome, and we hope to have done justice to their efforts.
NOTES
1 This project was the result of the first internship drawn from the MA in Nineteenth-Century Studies (run by the Departments of History, Geography and English, King’s College London (KCL), University of London: supervisor Professor David Green) to be hosted by Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA, Mortimer Wheeler House, London, N1 7ED). Details of the KCL’s MA intern programme can be found at <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/depart ments/geography/study/masters/internships.aspx> [accessed November 2013].
2 The archives of the individual archaeological sites that yielded bottles with seals are held at Mortimer
Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London, N1 7ED and can be viewed by appointment.
3 MOLA employs the Oracle database (used since 1995), and MOL the Multi Mimsy cataloguing sys-tem. Glass bottles with seals are recorded in the reg-istered finds and specialist data section of MOLA’s Oracle database, recorded in the Object field under the code BOTS.
4 For example, the assemblages from excavations at 9–14 New Spring Gardens, High Street, Brentford (site code BRE77), 34–5 Great St Helens, Bishopsgate, EC3 (site code SHL90, in contexts [368], [388] and [396]) and Colchester House, Woodruffe House, EC3 (site code PEP89 [17]). The first site is in the London Borough of Hounslow with the last two excavations located in the City of London.
5 Van Den Bossche (2001, 22) noted the earliest known dated Continental bottle with seal is 1663.
6 Biddle & Webster 2005, 266.7 Leeds 1941, 44–55.8 Leeds 1941, fig. 11:52.9 Noël Hume 1970.
10 Ruggles-Brise 1949; Noël Hume 1961; 1970; Morgan 1976; Dumbrell 1983; Biddle & Webster 2005.
11 Dumbrell 1983.12 Morgan 1976; Dumbrell 1983.13 They are not used, for example, in Leeds 1941 or
Noël Hume 1961; 1970.14 See Noël Hume 1970, 61 and Dumbrell 1983, 153
on the John Jefferson seal.15 Willmott 2002, 87.16 Willmott 2005, 109–10.17 Jeffries, Featherby & Wroe Brown, 2014.18 Van Den Bossche 2001.19 Biddle & Webster 2005, 266–7.20 Noël Hume 1970, 60.21 Morgan 1976, 11. This bottle is curated by the
Central Museum Northampton.22 Morgan 1976, 13.23 Van Den Bossche 2001, 67.24 Morgan 1976, 21–2.25 Van Den Bossche 2001, 84.26 Van Den Bossche 2001, 83.27 Leeds 1941; Ruggles-Brise 1949; Noël Hume 1961;
1970; Morgan 1976; Dumbrell 1983; Biddle & Webster 2005; Van Den Bossche 2001; Green 1999; Biddle 2013. Burton’s Antique Sealed Bottles was published in March 2014 after research had been completed, so was not included.
28 Specifically the Portable Antiquity Scheme database (<www.finds.org.uk/database> [accessed June 2013]); the British Museum (BM) (<www. britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online> [accessed July 2013]) and the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) (<www.collectionsvam.ac.uk> [accessed July 2013]).
153LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
29 MOL’s Ceramic and Glass store includes a collec-tion of bottles with seals. These were not recovered archaeologically, but were examined to provide paral-lels to the excavated examples. Eight glass bottles of the period up to c. 1750 in the Centenary Gallery of the Horniman Museum, Forest Hill, London (visited February 2014) were also studied; four carry seals.
30 Haslam 1969.31 Banks 1997.32 Banks 1997, 21.33 Stanley 1995, 100.34 Noël Hume 1970, 155.35 <http:/ /pepyssmallchange.wordpress.com/
2013/06/15/the-fleece-in-covent-garden/> [accessed 7 December 2013].
36 Pearce 2007, 88 (see fig. 8:90).37 Table 1: site code ACE83 [10] <41>; curated in
the LAARC.38 <http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/
id/482418> [acessed 8 April 2013]; Morgan 1979, 32.39 Deetz 1993, 61.40 <http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/ceram
ics/> [accessed December 2013]. Five further bottles with this seal design in this resource can be found curated under MOL accession numbers 3496, 11229, 20575, NN18827 and NN18826. The last three are applied to ‘shaft and globe’ bottles.
41 Morgan 1976, 32.42 Akerman 1849, vi (cat. nos 722, 83 & 2446, 243).43 MOL accession no. NN17478.44 Berry 1978, 78.45 Berry 1978, 75.46 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 131.47 Tyler & Willmott 2005, 56, 71 (figs 57:57, fig.
58:58, fig. 75:73).48 Tyler & Willmott 2005, 40.49 Tyler & Willmott 2005, 56. With neither William
Proctor or William Paget present at the Wood Street and Fleet Street Mitres after 1660 and 1665, this builds a body of circumstantial evidence to attribute bottles with the WP seal to William Proctor of the Wood Street Mitre.
50 Brigham, Nielsen & Bluer 2006, 90–2.51 MOL accession NN17655, NN17654; N2070.52 BM Museum number T.2917.53 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 34.54 Akerman 1849; Beaufoy 1853. Over 3,000 copper
alloy trade tokens can be found on the MOL’s Collections Online <http://collections.museumoflon don.org.uk/online/SearchResults.aspx?description= trade+tokens> [accessed December 2013].
55 Britton 1987 112.56 Akerman 1849.57 Beaufoy 1853.58 Akerman 1849, II–III, 61, 173, 243, 1071; <http://
collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/> [accessed 19 March 2013].
59 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 26.
60 Table 1: the first seal, with the triad of initials WCB, was retrieved from excavations at Eagle House, 90–6 Cannon Street, EC4 in the City of London (site code EAG87 [195] <192>). Curated in the LAARC. The second, with the triad of initials IBA, was found from excavations at Finsbury Avenue Square, EC2 in the City of London (site code FNB02 [1049] <103>). Site curated by MOLA.
61 Biddle 2013, 136.62 Stanley 1995, 100.63 <http://historicjamestowne.org/featured_find/fea-
tured_find.php?id=4> [accessed April 2013].64 Noël Hume 1961, 114–115; Stanley 1995, 127.65 Noël Hume 1961, 114; Morgan 1976, 61–2.;
Hardwick 200466 Noël Hume 1970, 60.67 Table 1: site code GAF04 [+] <153>. Site curated
by MOLA.68 Morgan 1979, 61, 74.69 Noël Hume 1970, 61; Dumbrell 1983, 153.70 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 20.71 White & Beaudry, 218; Morgan 1976, 60.72 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 140. Entry for I SWIFT.
DEAN. 1727.73 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 147. Entry for C.H
WANSBOROUGH. SHREWTON.74 <http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Dartmouth/
DartmouthPigotPre1830.html> [accessed December 2013].
75 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 20.76 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 20.77 Morgan 1976, 19.78 For example, Willmott 2002, 53 (fig. 45).79 Willmott 2002, 87.80 Sotheby’s London 1981, 79 (cat. nos 340–3).81 Britton 1987, nos 36–7, 112.82 British Museum cat. nos 1887,0307,E.22 and
1887,0210.113, <www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online> [accessed February 2014].
83 Van Den Bossche 2001, 236.84 Green 1999, 221.85 Green 1999, 203.86 Green 1999, 205, 241–2, 249–50, 255.87 Green 1999, 221–30.88 Green 1999, 246–7.89 Ashurst 1987, 202–3.90 Tyler & Willmott 2005, 56.91 Willmott 2005.92 Noël Hume 1970, 61.93 Biddle 2013, 120.94 Van Den Bossche 2001, 379.95 Van Den Bossche 2001, 380.96 Biddle 2013, 121.97 Van Den Bossche 2001, 22.98 Van Den Bossche 2001, 22.99 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 26–7; Dumbrell 1983, 19–20;
Van Den Bossche 2001.
154 NIGEL JEFFRIES and NICHOLAS MAJOR
100 <www.oldbaileyonline.org> [accessed December 2013].101 Ehrman et al. 1999, 17–18, 31–47.102 <www.oldbaileyonline.org> [accessed 28 December 2013].103 Harward, Holder & Jeffries, forthcoming.104 Morgan 1979, 56.105 Biddle 2013, 122.106 Noël Hume 1970, 61.107 Sotheby’s, London 1968; Christies, London 1970.108 Biddle & Webster 2005109 Britton 1990, 61–92.110 CR484 Sheffield Archives.111 Borthwick Institute, York.112 Borthwick Institute, York.113 Hey 1987, 58–61.114 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 61, 67.115 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 66–7.116 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 62–3.117 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 66–7.118 Morgan 1979, 34.119 Green 1999, 232–41.120 Cited in White & Beaudry 2009, 218 (footnote 1).121 Morgan 1979, 11.122 Ruggles-Brise 1949, 31.123 White & Beaudry 2009, 218–19.124 Hicks & Jeffries, 2004.125 Noël Hume 1970, 5.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akerman, J.Y. 1849, Tradesmen’s Tokens, Current in London and its Vicinity Between the Years 1648 and 1672, London: J.R. Smith.
Ashurst, D. 1987, ‘Excavations at the 17th–18th century glasshouse at Bolsterstone and the 18th-century Bolsterstone pothouse, Stocksbridge, Yorkshire’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 21, 147–226.
Banks, F. 1997, Wine Drinking in Oxford 1640–1850. A Story Revealed by Tavern, Inn, College and Other Bottles, Oxford: BAR.
Beaufoy, H.B.H. 1853, A Descriptive Catalogue of the London Traders, Tavern and Coffee House Tokens Current in the Seventeenth Century, London: Corporation of the City of London.
Berry, G. 1978, Taverns and Tokens of Pepys London, London: Seaby.
Biddle, M. (ed.) 2005, Nonsuch Palace The Material Culture of a Noble Restoration Household, Oxford: Oxbow.
Biddle, M. 2013, ‘Oenology and the English’, in Klingelhofer 2013, 119–51.
Biddle, M. & Webster, J. 2005, ‘Green glass bottles’, in Biddle 2005, 266–315.
Brigham, T., Nielsen, R. & Bluer, R. 2006, Roman and Later Development East of the Cornhill:
Excavations at Lloyds Registry, 71 Fenchurch Street, MOLA Monograph 30.
Britton, F. 1987, London Delftware, London: Jonathan Horne.
Britton, F. 1990, ‘The Pickleherring Potteries: an inventory’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 24, 61–92.
Christies, London. 1970, Sealed wine bottles; English and Continental glass.
Deetz, J. 1993, Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619–1864, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Dumbrell, R. 1983, Understanding Antique Wine Bottles, Woodbridge: Antique Collectors Club.
Ehrman, E., Forsyth, H., Peltz, L. & Ross, C. 1999, London Eats Out; 500 Years of Capital Dining, London: Philip Wilson Publishers Ltd.
Goldman, L. 2014. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford: University Press, 2004 <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ 20130> [accessed 24 February 2014].
Green, C. 1999, John Dwight’s Fulham Pottery: Excavations 1971–79, London: English Heritage.
Hardwick, K.R. 2004, ‘Nicholson, Sir Francis (1655–1728)’, in Goldman 2014.
Harward, C., Holder, N. & Jeffries, N. forth-coming, The Spitalfields Suburb 1539–c 1880: Excavations at Spitalfields Market, London E1, 1991–2007, MOLA Monograph 61.
Haslam, J. 1969, ‘Oxford taverns and the cellars of All Souls in the 17th and 18th centuries’, Oxeniensia 34, 45–77.
Hey, D. 1987, Family History and Local History in England, Oxford: Routledge.
Hicks, D. & Jeffries, N. 2004, The Biographies of London Life and their Things (1600–2000), Research Matters 3, MOLA: London.
Jeffries, N., Featherby, R. & Wroe Brown, R. 2014, ‘“Would I were in an ale-house in London!”: a finds assemblage sealed by the Great Fire from Rood Lane, City of London’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 48:2, 261–84.
Klingelhofer, E. (ed.) 2013, A Glorious Empire Archaeology and the Tudor-Stuart Atlantic World, Oxford: Oxbow.
Leeds, E.T. 1914, ‘On the dating of glass wine–bottles of the Stuart period’, Antiquity 50, 285–90.
Leeds, E.T. 1941, ‘17th and 18th–century wine bottles of the Oxford Taverns’, Oxoniensia VI, 44–55.
Majewski, T. & Gaimster, D. (eds) 2013, International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, New York: Springer.
Morgan, R. 1976, Sealed Bottles: Their History and Evolution (1630–1930), Burton on Trent: Midland Antique Bottle Publishing.
Noël Hume, I. 1961, ‘The glass wine bottle in colo-nial Virginia’, J. Glass Stud. 3, 91–117.
155LONDON GLASS BOTTLE SEALS
Noël Hume, I. 1970, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America, New York: Vintage.
Pearce, J. 2007, ‘An assemblage of 17th-century pottery from Bombay Wharf, Rotherhithe’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 41:1, 80–99.
Ruggles-Brise, S. 1949, Sealed Bottles, London: Country Life.
Sotheby’s London 1968, English and Continental glass and an interesting collection of sealed wine bottles.
Sotheby’s London 1981, The Lipski Collection of English and Irish Delftware of the 17th and 18th centuries.
Stanley, D. 1995, ‘Archive Report’, unpublished MOLA report.
Tyler, K. & Willmott, H. 2005, John Baker’s Late 17th-Century Glasshouse at Vauxhall, MOLAS Monogr. 28.
Van Den Bossche, W. 2001, Antique Wine Bottles: their History and Evolution (1500–1850), Woodbridge: Antique Collectors Club.
White, C.L. & Beaudry, M.C. 2013, ‘Artifacts and personal identity’, in Majewski & Gaimster 2013, 209–24.
Willmott, H. 2002, Early Post-medieval Glass in England, 1500–1670, Counc. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. 132.
Willmott, H. 2005, A History of English Glassmaking: AD 43–1800, Stroud: Tempus.
ABBREVIATIONS
BL British LibraryBM British MuseumLAARC London Archaeological Archive and
Research CentreKCL King’s College London, University of
LondonMOL Museum of LondonMOLA Museum of London ArchaeologyV&A Victoria and Albert Museum
MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology), Mortimer Wheeler House, 46 Eagle Wharf Road, London N1 7ED, UK
