Transactions 93 33

The analysis of ·some metal objects from Castle· ...... •. ,

Roger Brownsword, Ernest Pittand David Symons

CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS

Introduction 34 List of figures Catalogue 34 Conclusions 38 Fig. 1 metalwork. Pewter flatware: . a. WC 301 40 b. WC 305 40 . c. WC 307 40 d. WC 306 40 Fig. 2 Weoley Castle metalwork. Pewter flatware, buckle, bottle and spoon: a. WC 30341 b. WC 302 41 ·c. WC 309 41 d. WC 304 41 e. WC 310 41 f. WC 311 · 41 . g. WC 334 41 Fig. 3 Weoley Castle metalwork. Copper-alloy jugs, spur, steelyard weight and cauldron fragments: a. WC 379 42 b. WC 324 42 c. WC 325 42 d. WC 348 .. 42 e. WC 423 42 f. WC 489 · 42 g. WC 490 42

.. List of tables . :, '. . ' Table 1 Alloy compositions of Weoley Castle pewter objects 39 Table 2 Alloy compositions of Weoley Castle copper and copper alloy objects 39 A grant from the Council for British Archaeology towards the cost of publication is gratefully acknowledged

Transactions of the and Warwickshire Archaeological Society for 1983 - 4, volume 93 • I 34 Transac'tions 93

INTRODUCTION the manor to John Sutton, Lord Dudley. Three years later he also pardoned Sir William Berkeley and Weoley Castle is a moated site lying some four miles guaranteed the return of his estates after Jasper south-west of the centre of Birmingham. It occupies Tudor's death. Despite this confusion it seems that a low-lying site in the valley of the Stonehouse or the Lords Dudley were generally in possession of ,': ,' . Bourne Brook with low hills rising to north and. Weoley and in 1531 Edward, Lord Dudley, sold it south of the castle site. The stream originally fed ... .., for 1200 marks (£800) to Richard Jervoise, a London the moat but its course was altered in 1792, during merchant. the construction of the Dudley Canal; and it was diverted into a new sewer in the 1930s when the It is difficult to say when Weoley was last inhabited. .... \ '," Weoley Castle Corporation Housing Estate was Excavations revealed traces of what was interpreted being developed (Bark 1934). In consequence the as a rough, agricultural structure in use until c 1600 moat is now completely dry. (Oswald 1962, 69 - 70) but the J ervoise family seem never to have lived there. By the middle of the, 17th ' For most of the medieval period Weoley Castle wa~ century it is described as 'a ruyned castell' (Pears on the manorial centre for the manor of Northfield­ 1902, 56 - 60). ' , Weoley, which also included the sub-manors of Selly . and Middleton. A little has already been published The site of the castle has been the subject of two on the history of the castle 1 but it is still difficult periods of excavation. Initial work took place on the to give an authoritative account of more than the site between 1932 and 1936. This was aimed at main outlines of its development. clearing out the moat and revealing the lines of the

,', " stone walls of the latest phase of the castle. Only , At the time of the Domesday Survey, Weoley formed two arms of the moat still retained water, the other part of the estates of William FitzAnsculf, a leading two having been filled in earlier. The water was figure in the kingdom whose barony was centred on drained off to facilitate excavation and the moat has Dudley. On current evidence it is impossible to say remained dry ever since. It is unfortunate that no whether the site at Weoley was occupied at that full account of this work was ever published and period or not, the earliest remains so far fOllnd almost all records of it were destroyed by bombing dating to the 12th century. The Barony of Dudley during the war (Bark 1934; Oswald 1962, 61). passed via heiresses first to the Paganels and then, . at the close of the 12th century, to the de Somery From 1955 to 1962 , further excavations were ' family. In 1264, Roger I de Somery received a royal conducted by Adrian Oswald, the Keeper of licence to fortify his manors of Dudley and Weoley. 2 Archaeology at Birmingham City Museum and Art Roger I died in 1273 and there is no mention of a Gallery. They examined parts of the moat and areas castle at Weoley on his death, so it seems unlikely of the platform. It was this work .th~t proved t~e that building work had begun by then (Willis Bund. existence of the earlier phases of bUlldlOg on the SIte (ed.) 1894'-1909, 16-18). By 1291, however, when (Oswald 1962,61-85). Among the most spectacular , his son Roger 11 died, the site was occupied by a , finds were the waterlogged timbers of an early 13th 'capital messuage' (idem. 36). The remains visible century wooden kitchen, which was connected to the today, therefore, are substantially the work of Roger contemporary stone hall by a long wooden service 11 and of his son John. At this time the platform corridor (Oswald 1962 - 3). Part of this timberwork ' of the earlier moat was substantially enlarged and was preserved and is now on display in the site ' raised in height and it was surrounded by a carefully museum. An interim report on some of this work built stone wall. It is unfortunately difficult to trace was published in the Transactions for 1962 and an the details of the various additions and alterations article on the wooden kitchen appeared in Medieval , , made over the next two centuries, although it is clear Archaeology for the same year (Oswald 1962; '. that these occurred (Oswald 1962, 70). . 1962 - 3) . No full report has appeared and the ' surviving documentation is not as complete as one John de Somery died in 1322 and the barony was would wish. In these circumstances it is difficult to ' divided between his two sisters and co-heiresses, provide much useful information on the provenances Margaret and Joan. Joan, the widow of Thomas de of the items published here. Botetourt, received Weoley . and used it as her -,;', "" principal residence. On the death of John de

'. ;.. ..: ... Botetourt in 1386, the estates passed to his grand­ daughter Joyce, the wife of Sir Hugh Burnell. He CATALOGUE held them until his death in 1419, when a dispute arose over the inheritance. An eventual settlement In this section the main items of metalwork made of the dispute gave Weoley and certain other manors in copper- or tin-alloy are described, illustrate~ ,and to Sir Maurice Berkeley, John de Botetourt's discussed. Analytical data on the alloy composItIOns descendant. In 1485 Maurice's son, William, was used are given and the discussion is based on a attainted and lost his estates after the battle of consideration of these data along with stylistic Bosworth. In the following year Henry VII granted analysis and such archaeological information on the Weoley to his uncle, Jasper Tudor·, and also sold objects as is available. Transactions 93 35

Pewter objects: Flatware - saucers and plates. 3 narrow-rimmed, angled-bead flatware of this approximate size were of this period in the rim The collection of nine items appears to contain fragment found in a 14th century context at the certain groups recognizable on the basis of close Augustinian Friary site at Leicester (Melior & Pearce . similarities of dimensions and stylistic features or 1981,130, fig 45, 1).4 This has the same angled-bead . :. , " of pewter composition or of both; the discussion is rim and high quality alloy as the Weoley Castle .. ' , -, ' " .., conducted on this basis: plates.

Saucer: WC305 (Fig 1). Found in the pre-war Saucers: WC306 and 309 (Figs 1 & 2). Both saucers excavations; no details of its discovery survive. were found in the pre-war excavations; no details Although in a poor state of preservation, this item of their discovery survive. These items and WC305 . reveals certain unusual stylistic features. It has a rim are similar although not identical. The main in which the outer edge is raised above the general distinction of WC306 and 309 from all the other . rim level to form an angled-bead reinforcement; on WeoleyCastle flatware is the low quality of the most pewter, the reinforcement bead is below the. -,,:, .>~ pewter used, their lead contents being in excess of ... .. rim (Michaelis 1971, 24, fig 1). The saucer has a 20%. From the evidence available on the lead struck mark, apparently the letter P, on the upper · - contents of extant items of flatware (Brownsword - rim. . & Pitt 1984) it appears that the vast majority had low or very low lead levels, suggesting that the In both the rim form and struck mark of WC305 control exercised by the Pewterers' Company was there is a remarkably fortunate parallel with the to a degree effective. However, the effectiveness' .: features of a very similar saucer excavated in . almost certainly varied with time and place; London- ' Southampton (Platt & Coleman-Smith 1975,250 & made pewter was most likely to be of high quality fig 239). This item has a secure contextual date late and provincial pewter to be of inferior quality. In in the 13th century (c 1290). The two saucers are very the light of these observations the saucers WC306 ... . close in form and size (diameters 127 and 130mm), and 309 would therefore appear to be provincial in their high quality alloy composition and in the items, probably of the late 15th or early 16th general features of the struck letter. It may therefore centuries, a period during which pewter manufacture not be impossible that they had a common origin, had developed in provincial towns but had not come the slight differences in dimensions being accounted properly under the control of the London-based for by the difficulties of accurate measurement on Company searchers. The rim-form probably badly damaged items and those in the struck marks represents an inferior copy of that on earlier items being accounted for by assuming the use of different such as WC301 and 307. punches made to nominal common design. Whether or not this hypothesis be accepted, the parallels are - Plates: WC302, 303 and 308 (Fig 2). These are such as to suggest a date for WC305 similar to that closely similar and so are treated together; all were .. for the Southampton saucer, namely the closing found in 1956 in the SE corner of the moat. WC302 years of the 13th century. and 303 are said to have been found together and

" .. with sherds of 'Hispano-Moresque' ware. Oswald Plates: WC301 and 307 (Fig 1). These are closely records the finding of Spanish Maiolica in two -':. : similar and so are treated together. WC301 was contexts, the layers which sealed layers of his periods found in the pre-war excavations; no details of its VII (dated c 1385 - 1440) and VIII (the later 15th discovery survive. WC307 was found in the northern century) (Oswald 1962, 81). The later Maiolica is '.:: bank of the moat in January 1970 by. the Chief described as being 'of early Tudor date'. The plates , , . Attendant at the site. They differ from the saucer have a shallow recess with flat rim and base; they , WC305 in being of greater diameter, having a deeper carry no inscribed rings by way of decoration,. -. recess with a pronounced domed centre to the base - WC303 has a struck letter B on the underside of the and an incised groove decoration at the limit of the rim. Unlike the preceding items, the rim­ dome; their rims are as wide as that on the saucer reinforcement is below the rim-edge in the form of but being parts of larger items produce an impression a rounded bead. All three items are of high quality of narrower rims. However all three share the same pewter. " , ~ .', . '

-..: " angled-bead rim form; all are of high quality pewter, .... . WC301 having an unusually high copper content. It is fairly certain that flatware with rims beaded ' : : -,. -: below are later than those with rim reinforcement It appears likely that these plates are from the 14th above the rim. There is ample evidence of the former century since there are clear links with flatware from type with many dated examples from the 16th and the end of the 13th century, but there are also 17th centuries but no clear indication of the date of features which may represent developments from the its introduction. An overlap in time of the two basic early flatware. Unfortunately since saucers and designs probably occurred in any case. It is suggested plates are being compared, differences in form that these plates are of 15th century date, taking into cannot be regarded with certainty as developments. account the above comments on rim reinforcements, There is some support however for the view that the rim width and the alloy compositions. This 36 Transactions 93

suggestion also agrees with the archaeological The alloy from which it was made is by far the worst evidence. quality of all the Weoley Castle pewter. Indeed the high lead content ought to rule out the use of the Plate: WC304 (Fig 2). This plate was found in the word pewter to describe it. 1957 season in the north-east corner of the moat. ', ~ . ' . Oswald records this as an area that was cleared . Cruet: WClOOO. The circumstances of the cruet's · . mechanically and where a deposit of kitchen refuse discovery, in a layer whose date of deposit was held • was noticed (Oswald 1962, 64). No stratigraphiC to be after c 1380, were fully discussed by Oswald, information survives. The plate has a relatively who first published this piece (Oswald 1962, 70 - 1; broad rim and a pronounced domed centre to the pIs 8 - 10).6 Although the treatment was brief it base outlined by an incised ring. The rim is covered a description of the cast decoration, ,'--: reinforced with a rounded bead below; the letters illustrated with photographs of this and a very HB have been struck on the underside of the rim. similar pewter cruet found at Ludlow; in view of this High quality pewter alloy was used in its the cruet is not described here. manufacture. The matters of date and place of manufacture were · This plate is probably the latest of the flatware items, · considered by Oswald. From stylistic judgement a dating from the late 15th or early 16th century since 14th century date was put forward although a more it shares the same general form as some known · accurate placement was not made in the light of Tudor items (Michaelis 1971, pI 1, fig 17), although slight divergence of opinion. He was less certain of the Weoley Castle example may in fact be pre-Tudor the country of manufacture, tending to support an English source but acknowledging the possibility of . ~ " in view of its fairly high copper content. .. a continental origin. Oman suggested to him that the cruet might have been made in Spain. Analysis of the metal of the cruet showed it to be Other pewter objects: essentially pure tin with very low levels of other elements commonly found in pewter. These unusual Spoon: WC311 (Fig 2). This was found in the 1959 findings were matched by data from the analysis of season in Area A, an area on the platform which the Ludlow cruet kindly carried out at the British covered the northern end of the stone hall at the Museum Research Laboratories at the authors'. eastern end of the site (Oswald 1962, fig 2). request. Thus the link between the two objects is Unfortunately, no stratigraphical information is · strengthened but their metal composition sets them recorded. Although badly damaged, the spoon is apart from other medieval pewter. The Weoley " " , recognizably of ficulate bowl form and has an acorn Castle flatware, except for WC306 and 309, and knop. The very poor grade of pewter · is . not other items of medieval domestic flatware from uncommon amongst spoons of the late medieval · Southampton (Platt & Coleman-Smith 1975) and · period (Homer 1975) and probably indicates that it Leicester (MelIor & Pearce 1981), have been shown was cast by ari itinerant metalworker with to be made of high-grade pewter, i.e. with a low lead adulterated metal. It.was probably made in the 15th content but a few per cent of copper as hardener. century. A few other ecclesiastical pewter objects have been sampled for analysis by the authors; the objects, , 1" " Buckle: WC334 (Fig 2). The buckle was found at induding funerary chalices and patens and the White some time in the 1950s in the moat. No more detailed Castle cruet (Lewis 1965 - 9), are of very poor grade '", -. information is known. It was cast in three separate pewter having lead contents in the range 250/0 to parts, assembled and given simple cross decoration. 75%. There is thus no compositional parallel for the . The item is mainly remarkable for having been made two hexagonal cruets amongst analysed medieval .· ·· in pewter rather than a stronger copper-alloy. . pewter flatware or holloware. This makes it likely that the objects came from a source other than the Vessel: WC310 (Fig 2). No details of the discovery main pewter producing centre, London, from which of this object are known. This item is badly damaged the vast majority of English pewter must have and corroded and comment is therefore restricted · emanated in the 13th - 15th centuries. Both a to matters of general shape and size. Two small provincial and foreign source have been suggested vessels with a similar narrowed neck and rather (Oswald 1962, 71) , the former apparently favoured flimsy strip handles have been found in London; by Oswald. Unfortunately comparative material and although neither from a sound archaeological analytical data are not available to settle the matter context. A further example was excavated amongst and their place of manufacture must remain a den:olition debris at the site of the Dominican Friary, subject for speculation at present. GUIldford, but since the final demolition was not until 1607, the matter of dating the vessels is not Copper-alloy objects: much further advanced. 5 The nature of the contents or the use to which the vessels were put are not clear Steelyard weight: WC379 (Fig 3). This was found from the evidence available at present. in 1938 in the 'passage close to Octagon tower, just Transactions 93 37

below surface of lower level'. This presumably refers WC324 and 325 are almost identical in form and to the surface of the platform near the south-eastern decoration, differing only in size (172 and 154mm corner of the site. However, with the destruction of in height respectively). Two others of this type are almost all the records of the pre-war excavations, known, one found in the moat at Caerphilly Castle . , ' . no more definite context can be established. The and now in the National Museum of Wales (Lewis " -, " external shell of this weight is of copper-alloy filled 1978, item 37) and the other believed to have been by a lead core; the roughly spherical body has a­ • found in Dorset and now in the British Museum. --- perforated lug at the top for suspension from the - The latter is a small example of the type. The ': .: :. ~ . . steelyard. Such weights are notable for the armorial similarity of these four in every respect but size is ~.. ,.: decoration carried around the shell, cast in relief on striking. Analyses by the authors have shown that usually three or four shields. The present example, all are of latten rather than bronze. This is true also found in a passage close to the octagon tower, has of a less exact parallel known as the Dunfermline three shields with the following details: jug (Lawrence 1936, 323 - 4 & pi LX) which shares the body shape of the others but which has a pouring , " ., ," Three leopards in pale - the arms of . " .. .. ._ . .:, lip, a different handle shape and no lid or decorative ," , ~.: Lion rampant - the arms of Poitou. bands. The value of this jug to the present discussion Double-headed eagle displayed - the arms of the lies in the fact that it contained a hoard of coins Hanseatic League. whose date of deposition was c 1345._Early 14th - century dates may therefore apply also to WC324 This type of weight was the subject of a study carried out over many years by Dru Drury who contributed and 325 and the other two tankards. a number of papers to the Dorset Natural History _ " " " and Archaeological Society Proceedings in which he Support for this suggestion comes from a further _ published details of a large number of examples and consideration of the analyses of the five items. All discussed inter alia the significance of the arms; ­ share a significant zinc content (8 -14OJo), a relatively WC379 figures in one of these contributions (Dru - high iron content (0.5 - 1.0OJo) but low nickel content _ Drury 1943). He linked the Poitou arms (and the (0.10%). These are compositional features of the Cornwall arms on other weights) to Richard, Earl alloys used to make the Type A latten steelyard .. ,' ',' of Cornwall and Count of Poitou, brother of Henry weights of the late 13th century (Browns word & Pitt Ill, on whose behalf the official weights were issued, 1983); such alloys may well have continued in use thus accounting also for the English royal arms. The into the 14th century. double-headed eagle was interpreted by Drury as - relating to Richard's election to the position of 'King The place of manufacture of the vessels is more _- of the Romans' in 1257, but Lloyd (1972, 70-3) difficult to determine. The striking stylistic similarity proposed an alternative ascription of the eagle arms of the four items suggests a common origin but certain dissimilar alloycompositional features are : . : to the Hansa merchants who were granted protection around 1260 by Richard for their trading activities then a problem. WC325 and the Caerphilly tankard -.- in London. This latter approach is adopted by the were made from alloys with high antimony content present authors. whereas the alloys of the other two had only about

. , .: .~ a tenth the antimony content; the alloy of WC324 Drury and others dealing with these weights have was particularly low in arsenic. These two elements '0" ' attempted to classify them on the basis of their arms, are impurities derived from the copper ores and this but with only a limited measure of success due largely wide variation in levels suggests a variety of sources to their considerable variety. Recently a more of that metal used in making the alloys. An area comprehensive study (Brownsword & Pitt 1983, _ away from the main copper-producing regions would - 83 - 8), including analysis of the alloys used in the be more likely to have this variety of copper sources. - -manufacture of the weights, has led to a designation of latten weights (containing significant amounts of It is possible that the tankards were made in zinc) as Type A standard weights of the second half England, even though the raw materials and of the 13th century and leaded bronze weights technology for the production of latten can be ­ (containing little or no zinc) as Type B copies of a considered essentially as available only in the Meuse slightly later date. WC379 falls into the latter group region and Lower Saxony at the time. The latten '. . ,-,:. ~ . and therefore probably dates from c 1300; it is steelyard weights, it is believed, were made in believed to have been of English manufacture. England using imported latten and the same may be " ' : . ~ true of the tankards. A small vessel from London, Vessels: WC324 and 325 (Fig 3). These were both similar in general form to the Weoley Castle items found in the pre-war excavations and no details of but without decoration, is in the Museum of London their discovery survive. The exact nature and use of collection (Medieval Cat 1940, 200 & pI LII). The these two items is not certain although they were alloy used in its manufacture is broadly similar to clearly vessels intended to hold liquid. The vessels the others but it contains 0.13 % nickel, probably were originally lidded but neither retains its lid; the an indication of a slightly later date since nickel levels term lidded jug or tankard may therefore be have been shown to be higher in late medieval than appropriate. earlier alloys. 38 Transactions 93

Other metalworking regions on the continent were of the categories early-medieval, late-medieval and similarly placed in regard to metal supplies from the post-medieval. The Weoley Castle fragments all fall metal-producing areas; the jugs may therefore have into the late-medieval category. been made in an area such as Normandy and traded to England as finished articles. However, the origin ' . : ' " of the tankards must remain conjectural and the · matter await the outcome of further research on .. .• , medieval copper-alloy vessels . CONCLUSIONS ", :: Spurs: WC347 and 348 (Fig 3). Both were foundin " , .: ... .. : . pre-war excavations and no details of their discovery It will readily be seen from the foregoing comments ' ,,- survive. These rowel spurs are essentially complete, that the archaeological evidence for dating any of lacking only some of the fastenings, and the these items is scanty. Nevertheless, the dates 24-pointed rowel-wheels can be rotated. Their proposed here on stylistic criteria all fall within the general form suggests an early 15th century date, the period which one would expect, that is during the ," . ~ body extension at the back of the heel being a feature intensive occupation of the site between the major of this period (Medieval Cat 1940, 94-112). rebuilding by Roger 11 de Somery and the probable abandonment in the early 16th century. This is The spurs are of interest in two particular respects. exactly the time when Weoley was first a favoured . The arms of most spurs of the period follow a residence and then the principal seat ofits successive smooth curve and the cranked bends of WC347 and owners. 348 with their attendant decoration are unusual. A ". - .," further unusual feature of these spurs was revealed The presence of the possibly foreign-made jugs or by analysis of the metal which is essentially pure tankards (WC324 and 325) fits well with other · copper; about 30 non-ferrous spurs have been evidence of foreign goods reaching Weoley. Mention sampled for analysis at Lanchester Polytechnic has already been made of Spanish Maiolica ware and (Coventry) and all the remainder are of latten. Many the site has also produced glass from Syria and the of the latten spurs retain traces of gilding and the Byzantine Empire and pottery from France (Oswald Weoley Castle spurs may well have been gilt 1962, 70), in addition to a Venetian silver soldino originally. An attractive and protective gold coating of Michael Stene (1400-1413). The western would have been entirely appropriate on copper ,a distribution of jugs comparable to those from .· metal with only modest resistance to oxidation and Weoley hints at the Severn asa major route of corrosion, inferior in these respects to latten. penetration by which 'exotic' imports reached the However, no gilding is now to be seen and the . At this period the Severn was proposal must remain speculative. navigable as far upstream as Shrewsbury and near the river mouth lay Bristol, a major port and one Cauldron fragments: WC423, 489 and 490 (Fig 3). . of the biggest towns in England. Bristol 'was a No details of either the date or the location of their contact with the world at large, from Iceland to the . } . . discovery are known. WC432 is a vessel leg, Mediterranean. It imported and redistributed probably from a cauldron, which has crude . commodities from those foreign parts ... ' (Hilton decoration at its foot. It was probably a replacement 1966, 9). . for an original leg broken from the body since there is evidence of a lack of 'wetting' at the joint. The probably London-made pewter may have Attempts to cast-on replacement parts to leaded­ reached Weoley via travelling merchants but there bronze objects would have been bedevilled by is no reasOn why it could not have been bought in . problems of bonding the metal of the two parts · London and brought back from a visit to the capital. properly. An apparently satisfactory repair would The de Somerys, as barons of the realm, were probably fail at the first serious abuse, thus regularly summoned to Parliament (VCH accounting for the not infrequent occurrence of such Worcestershire, 3, 91) as was Sir Hugh Burnell legs on archaeological sites. (Pears on 1902,55). The latter was also at one time Governor of Bridgnorth Castle and created a Knight .' \ ';; .. , WC489 and 490 are fragments from the rims of of the Garter (idem. 55). John de Botetourt was a cauldrons about which little can be said from the JP for Worcestershire and Commissioner of Array physical appearance of the fragments. However, for Warwickshire (VCH Worcestershire 3, 194). these fragments and the leg WC423 have similar Persons of this status in society would have had every alloy composition, being heavily-leaded bronzes rich reason for regular visits to London, a fact which can in antimony. The analytical work being carried out tend to be overlooked in considering the material at the Polytechnic on cooking vessels has suggested from such sites. 7 Although the Berkeleys were of that there may be a useful correlation between alloy lesser importance, their long legal battles over composition and date of manufacture of these leaded ownership of Weoley would also have given them bronzes, albeit on a basis of placing objects in one reason to travel south. : '. Transactions 93 39

Table I. Alloy compositions of Weoley Castle pewter objects

Sn. Pb. Cu. Sb. Bi. WC305 96.4 0.05 ~ . 74 0.12 <0.05 . WC301 92.6 0.66 . 6.51 0.05 · <0.05 WC307 · 96.4 1.65 2.07 · 0.06 <0.05 WC306 77.5 22.3 ·· 0.46 <0.04 .· <0.05 WC309 72.0 26.5 1.20 <0.04 <0.05 WC302 98 .4 0.22 1.40 0.12 <0.05 .. ' ,. .; ' WC303 97.2 0.24 2.52 0.16 <0.05 WC308 97 .7 0.22 2.09 0.04 <0.05 WC304 96.2 0.74 2.63 0.08 0.31 WC31l 45.5 53 .2 1.07 0.04 .0.16 WC334 99.2 0.37 0.44 0.07 . <0.05 . WC310 ...; 32.3 67.3 . .0.42 0.03 <0,05 . . WC 1000 99.9 ·0.04 <0.03 0.06 <0.03 Ludlow Cruet >99.0 0.1 0.05 <0.05 <0.03* *data kindly made available by Michael Cowell, British Museum Research Laboratory.

...... Table 11. Alloy compositions of Weoley Castle copper and copper alloy objects

Cu. Zn. Sn. Pb. · Ni. Fe. Sb. As. . Ag. WC379 74.9 1.57 1.09 18.3 0.06 0.15 3.35 0.46 0.07 WC324 70.2 12.1 1.87 14.1 · 0.03 0.87 0.64 0.08 0.05 WC325 66.8 7.98 0.11 18.3 0.05 0.72 5.61 0.35 0.09 WC347 99.4 0.12 0.02 0:23 0.01 OJ3 <0.04 0.01 . 0;06 WC348 ·. 99.4 . 0.07 . 0.12 . 0.26 0.01 .. 0.03 <0.04 0.04 0.08 . WC423 70.6 0.12 1.66 . 19.8 0.15 - 0.06 6.16 1.30 0.10 WC489 73.0 0.07 . 1.93 18.5 · 0.09 . 0.07 . 5.52 0.69 . 0.12 WC490 71.8 0.11 . 3.46- 17.7 0.05 - 0.06 6.26 0.45 0.11

..-.: ' . '

. .... 40 Transactions 93 ,'. I

...

...... ~ .' .

. ~ . ~ . . ~--.

we305 (b) 1:2

. -.-. ~ . ~ ". -'. -: - -'~"." . .

WC 301 (a) 1:2

.: ". ". . I . ~ ~'" i)J WC 306 (d) 1:2 '> '~,=-~ WC 307 (e) 1:2 Fig. 1 Weoley Castle metalwork. Pewter flatware Transactions 93 41

',: '. , "

. ~ . ~~ '-" ,

, ','

~I WC 302 (b) 1:2 WC 303 (a) 1:2

.:.

. ,: :

~llllllllllil~::~··" WC 309 (c) 1:2

.. ~ . ~ .

WC 304 (d) 1:2

; ', . :

. ,~ ,'.: . ' ......

WC 310 (e) 1:2 WC 311 (f) 1:2 WC 334 (g) 1:2 Fig. 2 Weoley Castle metalwork. Pewter flatware, buckle, bottle and spoon 42 Transactions 93

WC 379 (3a) 1:2 WC 423 (3e) 1:2

- 0 I - @

WC 325 (3e) 1:3 ·

WC 324 (3b) 1:3 WC 490 (3g) 1:3

. " " : ~:':1".:: '

.:,:. '. :

" .' " , \ . " , '::.::, ', . '. ' ~:;s... ·.·cFOI

WC 348 (3d) 1:3 WC 489 (3f) 1:3

Fig. 3 Weoley Castle metalwork. Copper-alloy jugs, spur, steelyard weight and cauldron fragments Transactions 93 43

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY

The authors wish to thank Miss S J Lloyd for the Bark, G M, 1934 Weoley Castle, Trans Birmingham & Warwickshire drawings. .. . . Archaeol Soc, 56, 119 - 21. . Brownsword, R, & Pitt, E E H, 1983 A technical study · ~f some medieval steelyard weights, Proc Dorset Nat Hist Archaeol Soc, · 105, 83-8...... :: . NOTl;S Brownsword, R & Pitt; E E H, 1·984 X-ray fluorescence analysis oc:. I. ·For the histQ~y and descent of the Barony of Dudley amf of the English 13 - 16th century pewter flatware, Archaeometry, 26, Manor ofWeoley, see VCH Worcestershire 3,1971,90-2,194-6. 237 -44. ~ Dru Drury, G, 194·3 kfurther series of four 13th century steelyard In addition, there are three articles by Pearson (1894, 1896, 1902). , weights, Proc Dorset Nat Hist Archaeol Soc, 64, 21-4. . 2. T~e ~hoice of these two sites is interesting. Dudley was Roger's pnnclpal stronghold and a place of strategic significance. The same Hiltcm, RH, 1966 A medieval society; the West Midlands at the end· was hardly true ofWeoley. It is tempting to see Weoley as a favourite of the 13th century . . retreat of the family, where they could come to hunt deer in the Homer, R F, 1975 Five centuries of base metal spoons. deer park which is known to have existed from at least the late 13th ·· Lawrence, LA, 1936 ,kdated bronze jug, Antiq j, 16, 323 -4. century. . Lewis, J M, 1965 - 9 Two pewter vessels from White Castle, 7 (Pt 3), 127 - 30. 3. The pewter plates and saucers were included in a technical study Monmouthshire Antiquity, · Lewis, M, 1978 National, published by two of the authors of 13th -16th 'century pewter J Medievai pottery and metalware in Wales, flatware (Brownsword & Pitt 1984) but space did not allow a full Museum of Wales, Cardiff. . LIoyd, J D K, 1972 A medieval steelyard weight from Montgomery . description or detailed discussion of the individual items to be made. 4'. Fig 45.1 in Melior & Pearce (1981) is unfortunately drawn inverted.· Castle, ArchaeQICambrensis, 21, 70-3. . .. 5: The authors are grateful to Mrs Rosemary Weinstein of the Museum Medieval Cat 1940 Medieval Catalogue, London Mu~eurri Catalogues, . of London for this information. The two vessels from London are no 7 (repr 1967) . not published; their accession numbers are 80.439/4 and A16901. · Melior, J E, & Pearce, T, 1981 The Austin Friars, Leicester, Counc Brit Archaeol Res Rep 35. . 6. The cruet (with two of the pewter saucers) was also featured in the · Michaelis, R F, 1971 catalogue of an exhibition of British pewterware held in 1969, Antique pewter of the British Isles. Moorhouse, S, 1983 Documentary evidence and its potential for , 'Exhibition of British Pewterware through the Ages', Reading ·understanding the inland movement of medieval pottery, . Museum and Art Gallery, Sept-Oct 1969. . Medieval 7,45-87. 7. For an interesting discussion of the potential reasons for objects Cer(lmics, to travel in the manorial milieu, see Moorhouse (1983). ·· . Oswald, A, 1962 Interim report on excavations at Weoley Castle, 1955 - 60, Trans Birmingham & Warwickshire Archaeol Soc, 78, · 61-85. · . .. Oswald, A, 1962-3 Excavation ofa 13th-century wooden building . at Weoley Castle, Birmingham, 1960-61, Medieval Archaeol, 6-7, 109-34. Pearson, F S, 1894 . The manor of Northfield and Weoley in the·reign of Henry VI, Trans Birmingham & Warwickshire Archaeol Soc, 20, 29-44. ' . Pearson, F S, 1896 ·. The history of the manor of Northfield and Weoley, Trans Birmingham & Warwickshire Archaeol Soc, 22, 36-48. . Pearson, F S, 1902 The manor·, and ·castle of Weoley, Trans Birmingham & Warwickshire Archaeol Soc, 28, 51-67 . Platt, C, · & Coleman-Smith, R, 1975 . Excavations in medieval Southampton, 1953 -1969, Vol2, The finds. . VCH Worcestershire 3 The Victoria History of the County of Worcester, Vol 3, 1971, ed J W Willis-Bund. Willis Bund, J W (ed), 1894-1909 The Inquisitiones Post Mortem for the county of Worcester. '

. ' . ,.0.

",-' ", '