The Consumption of Material Culture in Castles During the English Civil War
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
‘The House of Every One’: the Consumption of Material Culture in Castles during the English Civil War Volume 1: Discussion and Bibliography Rachel M. C. Askew Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology University of Sheffield September 2013 ‘The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose’ Edward Coke, 1604. Abstract Castles studies are currently polarised between proponents of the castle as defensive stronghold and those who view it as elite status symbol. However, these debates largely ignore the participation of castles in the English Civil War. This thesis addresses these problems through the development of an alternative, biographical approach which is applied to drinking and dining assemblages from three castles: Eccleshall, Staffordshire and Sandal and Pontefract, West Yorkshire. Rather than interpret the castle from the viewpoint of its elite owner, a biographical approach utilises excavated material culture to investigate how the castle was inhabited on a daily basis by its non-elite occupants. It highlights the possibility that a castle is not identified on the basis of its appearance, but the way in which it is experienced by those who inhabit it. This is demonstrated by case studies of three buildings utilised as castles during the Civil War: a bishop’s palace, a ruined motte and bailey and a strong fortress. The selected assemblages demonstrate the important role played by food, drink and their containers during the Civil War. As well as being integral to a garrison’s ability to stave off starvation, these assemblages were vital in the maintenance of group cohesion and identity. This is most clearly seen through the adoption of outmoded vessels and other material culture at all the castles studied. Analysis of these suggest the occupation of castles during this period, far from being an act of desperation, was instead part of a conscious effort by their defenders to legitimise and sustain their identity through references to the past. This demonstrates that, far from being divorced from the medieval period, the occupation of castles during this period was instead the continuation of a much longer history lasting from their initial construction until the present day. Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without a doctoral award from the AHRC and the assistance of a large number of people. The staff at Wakefield Museum Service and the Potteries Museum, Stoke-on-Trent dealt with frequent visits and endless questions with patience and efficiency. Particular thanks go to Pam Judkins, Deb Klemperer and Sam Richardson for allowing me access to their archives during an extremely busy period. Dr. Chris Cumberpatch and Dr. Jane Richardson were extremely generous in answering my queries regarding Pontefract and provided unpublished material relating to their analysis of pottery and faunal remains from the castle. Peter Brears furthered my knowledge of the excavations at Sandal whilst Katey Goodwin permitted the reproduction of her graphs relating to the distribution of glass at Eccleshall (fig.6.11) and John Hudson answered my queries regarding 17th-century pottery manufacture. Stephanie Ratkai, Dr. Richard Thomas and Pete Boland all provided additional information regarding the excavations at Dudley and Susan Harrison answered my queries concerning Beeston and supplied the distribution plan of artefacts from Helmsley (fig 1.2). I would also like to thank the staff of the British Library for their assistance and Prof. Oliver Creighton, who provided the details of Crowmarsh Castle. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Anne Irving, without whose patience and extensive knowledge of post-medieval ceramics this thesis could not have been completed. The world of Civil War archaeology is a small one, and I am particularly grateful to Dr. Lila Rakoczy, Dr. John Mabbitt, Brian Kerr and Peter Harrington for sharing their experience and information regarding particular aspects of their research. At the University of Sheffield, my fellow PhD researchers have provided endless support and fruitful debate, particular thanks to Alex Cassels, Claire Finn, Charlotte Howsam, Freya Massey, Alyx Mattison, Dr. Gareth Perry and Veronica Velasquez. Dr. Amy Hufton was also invaluable in providing necessary support as were my family, particularly my parents. Dr. Hugh Willmott supervised this thesis with great skill and patience and also shared invaluable knowledge regarding post-medieval glass. It was examined by Prof. Dawn Hadley and Prof. Oliver Creighton, for whose insight and comments the author is extremely grateful. Finally, thanks to David for his love, support and computer wizardry. I could not have done it without you. Abbreviations used within the text AO= Athenae Oxonienses CJ= Journal of the House of Commons CWT= Civil War Tracts (Minster Library, York) HMC=Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts HMSO= Her Majesty’s Stationery Office HC= House of Commons MPRG= Medieval Pottery Research Group PRO= Public Records Office RCHME= Royal Commission on Historical Monuments England SP= Collection of State papers SRO= Scottish Record Office STC= Item included within Pollard and Redgrave’s Short-Title Catalogue TT=Thomason Tract preserved at the British Library Wing= Item included within Wing’s Short-Title Catalogue (1641-1700) Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION: A NEW APPROACH TO CASTLES 1 1.1 Thesis Aims 2 1.2 Thesis structure 2 1.3 The Role of Castles 3 1.3.1 Not just a pretty picture: the positivist approach 4 1.3.2 Playing at soldiers: the revisionist approach 5 1.3.3 The Battle for Bodiam 6 1.4 Revising the revisionist approach 7 1.4.1 Castle selection 7 1.4.2 Characterisation of defence 8 1.4.3 The Static Role of Castles 10 1.4.4 Elite interpretations 11 1.4.5 The need for a new approach 12 1.5 Beyond the Castle Gate: the biography of castles 13 1.6 Excavating biographies and material culture 14 1.7 Conclusion 17 2 THE ROLE OF CASTLES DURING THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR 19 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 The English Civil War: an introduction 20 2.3 An inconvenient truth I: the post-medieval castle within medieval studies 22 2.4 An inconvenient truth II: the post-medieval castle within Civil War studies. 23 2.5 The castle during the Civil War 25 2.6 The (un)changing role of castles 28 2.7 The biography of the Civil War castle 30 2.8 Selected sites 32 2.8.1 Eccleshall 32 2.8.2 Sandal 33 2.8.3 Pontefract 33 2.9 Conclusion 34 3 THE CONSUMPTION OF FOOD, DRINK AND ASSOCIATED MATERIAL CULTURE DURING THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR 37 3.1 Consumption: an archaeological introduction 37 3.2 The English Irish Souldier: an introduction to the significance of food and drink during the English Civil War. 38 3.2.1 Food and drink 39 3.2.2 Containers 39 3.3 Food and drink in the 17th Century 41 3.4 Food and Drink during the Civil War 42 3.4.1 Bread 43 3.4.2 Dairy products 44 3.4.3 Meat 45 3.4.4 Drink 47 3.5 Containers for consumption 48 3.5.1 Ceramics 49 3.5.2 Glass 52 3.5.3 Metal 53 3.5.4 Bone, horn, ivory and leather 54 3.5.5 Wood 55 i Table of Contents 3.6 Consumption during the Civil War 56 3.6.1 Procurement of goods 56 3.6.2 Communal Consumption 58 3.7 Conclusion 60 4 DESTRUCTION 63 4.1 Introduction: the case for a theory of deposition during the Civil War 63 4.2 Structured deposition 64 4.2.1 Site Formation Processes 64 4.2.2 Destruction and Abandonment 65 4.3 Destruction in the Civil War 66 4.3.1 Destruction: the documentary evidence 67 4.3.1.1 Destruction by siege 68 4.3.1.2 Victorious destruction 68 4.3.1.3 Pillage 69 4.3.2 Destruction: the archaeological evidence 70 4.3.2.1 Destruction by siege 71 4.3.2.2 Victorious destruction. 71 4.3.2.3 Pillage 71 4.4 Deposition 72 4.4.1 Deposition: the documentary evidence. 72 4.4.2 Deposition: the archaeological evidence. 74 4.5 Creating a biography of destruction 75 4.5.1 Site history 76 4.5.2 The origin of deposited material 77 4.5.3 The instigators of destruction 77 4.5.4 The composition of deposited material 78 4.5.5 The location of deposition 78 4.6 Destruction at the selected sites 79 4.6.1 Eccleshall 79 4.6.2 Sandal 81 4.6.3 Pontefract 82 4.7 Conclusion 87 5 METHODOLOGY 89 5.1 Introduction 89 5.2 Castle Selection 89 5.3 Recording of ceramic vessels 90 5.3.1 Estimated number of vessels 91 5.3.2 Number of sherds 92 5.3.3 Weight 92 5.3.4 Area and location 92 5.3.4.1 Eccleshall Castle 92 5.3.4.2 Sandal Castle 92 5.3.4.3 Pontefract Castle 93 5.3.5 Form 93 5.3.5.1 Sub-categories 96 5.3.6 Fabric 98 5.3.6.1 Principal Fabric types 99 5.3.6.1.1 Cistercian ware 99 5.3.6.1.2 Blackware 100 5.3.6.1.3 Transitional Cistercian/blackware 100 5.3.6.1.4 Yellow ware 100 5.3.6.1.5 Brown-glazed coarseware 101 ii Table of Contents 5.3.6.1.6 Redware and slipware 101 5.3.6.1.7 Tin-glazed earthenware 101 5.3.6.1.8 Rhenish stoneware 102 5.3.7 Glaze colour and glossiness 102 5.3.8 Number of handles 103 5.3.9 Percentage of vessel present 103 5.3.10 Sooting 103 5.3.11 Production notes 104 5.3.12 Decoration 104 5.3.13 Photography and illustration 104 5.4 Additional analysis of ceramic material 105 5.4.1 Cross-matching sherds 105 5.4.2 Fragmentation analysis 106 5.4.3 Form analysis 108 5.5 Customised analysis 108 5.5.1 Pontefract Castle 108 5.5.2 Sandal Castle 108 5.6 Glass vessels 109 5.7 Additional excavated material 109 5.7.1 Additional material culture 109 5.7.2 Ecological evidence 110 5.8 Use of written sources 110 5.9 Inter-site comparisons 110 5.10 Conclusion 111 6 ECCLESHALL 113 6.1 Introduction