Rhenish Stoneware From The Mary Rose had been unsuccessful and the limited old enigma, for to this day no one precisely technological resources of Tudor times had knows what caused her to sink in the Colin D. Townsend managed only to retrieve masts and rig• opening moments of an action against the University of Dundee, Scotland ging. In the mid-19th century too there had French fleet. According to the English been attempts made to salvage what was commission of enquiry that was set up fol• The recovery of the Mary Rose, the former left of the ship. The Deanes brothers had lowing the loss, it was due to mishandling flagship of Henry VIII, created such a vast accidentally lighted on the wreck whilst which resulted in capsize. Other contem• public following in Great Britain during the working on the wreck of the Royal George, porary commentators pointed to the fact summer of 1982, that probably a fair amount a naval vessel which had sunk at Spithead that the ship had been notoriously un• is known about the wreck in other parts of in 1782. They brought up several bronze stable ever since her refit in 1536 and that the world. Even the ordinary members of cannon and other artifacts, one of which she had been dangerously overloaded at the public who have no special interest in was the fine Cologne Bartmann jug later the time of the accident. As the ship was archaeology could find something to ap• described in this article. But the Deanes' heeling and taking water, the captain, Sir peal to them in the final moments of the efforts amounted to no more than a George Carew, had been heard to call out, rescue operation, when the remaining parts scratching of the surface; they never pene• "I have the sort of knaves I cannot rule" of the hull of the Mary Rose were lifted trated into the ship's hull and could only (1) but these words do nothing to clarify from the Solent waters near Portsmouth, collect what had been scattered on the after lying for nearly 440 years in the tidal seabed as the superstructure of the Mary muds and silts. She sank on July 19,1545 Rose disintegrated. Thereafter the wreck before the very eyes of Henry VIII, who lay undisturbed until relocated in 1967. had incidentally breakfasted aboard that very morning. It broke the surface of the The small team of archaeologists who were waters again on 11 October, 1982, watched responsible for rediscovering the wreck at by television viewers all over the country first worked very slowly, hampered by the and also by Prince Charles, who had for enormous technical problems of under• years previously lent so much support to water excavation. Also worrisome were the the rescue undertakings. It was a moving financial constraints which were gradually historical moment even for the most stu• alleviated as important finds began to ac• dious and sober archaeologist. cumulate and the public became aware that this was one of the major archaeological The final lift from the seabed, for all its discoveries of the century. As public inter• excitement, was the culmination of an ar• est grew, so too did resources. duous and protracted process of archae• ological investigation which had been going That rousing of public interest in Great on for -years. It was in 1967 that the posi• Britain is thoroughly understandable when tion of the ship was relocated using sonar one considers the appeal the ship made equipment; there was almost no visible sign to a nation with a highly developed mari• of the shipwreck as it had embedded itself time folklore. She stands in many ways as deeply in the ooze of the seabed. Imme• a symbol of that ambitious bid for naval diately after the loss of the ship, attempts supremacy that had it roots in Tudor times; 3. Traveller's Flask (i.e., "Feldflasche"), one of had been made to salvage her, but these but she also has the appeal of a century- two taken from the Mary Rose; probably Siegburg 15th and early 16th centuries normally has certain easily recognizable features, small, oval relief-work plaques, heavy thumbed bases and those toasted brown areas of coloring that are so typical of Siegburg "flamed ware." None of these features was present in the vessels found here. How• ever, Siegburg clay itself is normally clearly recognizable in its color and in the fine• ness of its component particles, so that it too, in the 16th century when fine, white, well-prepared clays are rare indeed, serves as an indication of provenace. In addition there is the fact that this clay is hard-fired and watertight, in fact stoneware. At this particular point in time white, hard-fired stoneware of European character can only come from Siegburg. Most of the vessels made in this white, hard-fired clay are jugs and beakers in various states of fragmen• tation; it is to be hoped that some at least 2. Raeren jugs taken from the barber/surgeon's cabin will be restored in the course of time. Two notable exceptions are stoneware bottles of around 22 cm in height of the type known the issue. The French, quite understand• or so vessels that were recovered from the in German as Feldflaschen [ill. 3], These ably claimed a success for their gallant wreck—together with a considerable col• were traveller's bottles rather similar to pil• gunners. The words of Admiral D'Anne- lection of fragments which still have to be grim flasks with the exception that they were bault read as follows: sorted and pieced together—over half were carried by travellers, campaigners and of Rhenish origin, coming from Raeren, huntsmen and were devoid of the religious Our galleys had all the advantage of Cologne and in all probability Siegburg. decorations found on pilgrim flasks. The working which we could desire to the bottles depicted here correspond exactly great damage of the English ships, who The Raeren vessels [ill. 2] are all of the to the Rhenish types of the late 15th and for want of wind laid exposed to our same type: Brown, simple, undecorated early 16th century in their style of manu• cannon and being so much higher and jugs around 18cm in height and originally facture (3). They are made out of two sep• bulkier than our galleys hardly a shot provided with cork stoppers, traces of which arately thrown dishes which have then been missed ... so that amongst other dam• were still present at the time of recovery. joined together in the leather-hard state. ages the English received, the Mary They are all of the same general outline, To the resulting body of the vessel a neck Rose, one of their principal ships was with sturdy thumbed base and broad strap was then added, again separately thrown. sunk by our cannon and of 5 or 600 men handles. All are salt-glazed and although which were on board only 5 and 30 es• there are color variations it is quite clear caped. (2) that they were fired to give oxidized light (According to English records there were browns. Simple jugs of this type are well 700 aboard.) recorded for the 15th and 16th centuries and can be found in many German mu• The many finds that have accumulated from seum collections. They have also been the hull of the ship give a very full and portrayed in the works of the Flemish mas• detailed picture of shipboard life in the 16th ters, such as Pieter Bruegel's Peasant century. Not only are there in great abun• Wedding and Peasant Dance. What is so dance weapons of various sorts, cannons, interesting about these finds is the exact cannon-balls, longbows, arrows, etc., but location in which they were found: They there are also those small personal articles came from the tiny cabin of the ship's bar• which give such a vivid human touch to the ber-surgeon, where they were evidently picture of nautical life in Elizabethan days: used for ointments or medicines. It is not clothing, caps, shoes, rings, games and often the case with Rhenish stoneware that other personal tokens. Relatively little was one has such a clear indication of how the found in the way of ceramics, although on ware was used. Some of the jugs were the scale of finds from the Mary Rose, a actually found in the surgeon's massive little is in reality quite a substantial amount. wooden trunk, together with bleeding bowls, It is clear that the naval pursers who pro• jars and other more primitive pieces of sur• visioned the ship preferred to choose gical equipment. stronger materials for everyday utensils such as goblets, bottles and bowls. Pot• The "Siegburg" pieces cannot be ascribed tery, especially English earthenware in to Siegburg with quite the same conviction 4. Cologne Bartmann, with typical oak-leaf work those days, would not have stood up well that applies that the Raeren pottery de• and face-mask, recovered by the Deanes to the brutal conditions at sea. Of the thirty scribed above. Siegburg ware in the late brothers perstructure of the ship that was left stand• oration did not come about until around ing proud and which in the course of time 1580, but most of the examples found here disintegrated and deposited its contents on will probably turn out to be from the Wes• the surrounding seabed. It was in this part terwald or from one of the Westerwald off• Rhenish vessels that I have seen normally of the ship, by far the most light and airy, shoots that struck up in the late 17th cen• have a foot-ring and two lugs on the shoul• that officers and gentlemen had their quar• tury. It is really hardly surprising that there der for taking the carrying straps. In the ters and it may well be that this particular should be strangers in the camp amongst case of both of the Feldflaschen these fea• jug was indeed the property of such a the material recovered during excavations tures are absent. Both bottles were, how• member of the ship's crew. At any rate, all of the Mary Rose. The Solent was after ever, provided with a wicker basket which the other vessels recovered from the ship all for centuries the main anchorage for the gave protection and also provided a stable were simple utility ware, whereas the Col• British fleet and throughout this time sail• base and attachment points for the carry• ogne jug is a clear example of a prized ors have been jettisoning their debris. ing straps [ill. 5]. Although the details of possession probably brought aboard by the manufacture, the white clay body and the owner himself. The very fact that Cologne At first glance the ceramic artifacts brought absence of any sort of glaze, relying solely ware was expensive in its day suggests up from the Mary Rose make only a mod• on the high-fired density of the vessel to that this was certainly not navy property. est impression; they are not especially nu• make them watertight, all point to Sieg- merous, nor, with the exception of the Col• burg as the place of origin, I have to admit Other pieces of Rhenish ware were found ogne jug, are they especially valuable. that I have never come across an exact when the Mary Rose was excavated. For Moreover with such a well documented equivalent in Siegburg ware. Here the evi• example, there are two tallish, oval brown- terminus ante quern, the archaeologist al• dence .of some of those who have been colored jugs with narrow necks. Both the ways hopes for the significant, the un• concerned with the detailed excavation of shape and the high degree of mottling in usual—a novelty of style or method which the Siegburg spoil heaps would be in• the salt-glaze show that these were cer• may thus be accurately dated. The Mary Rose pottery held no such surprises. And valuable. tainly deposited after the sinking of the ship. They belong to the Frechen types that were yet this collection of ceramic artifacts is in The Bartmann jug [ill. 4] has by contrast made after the closure of the Cologne pot• a way remarkable. It is in itself significant all the hallmarks of classical Cologne ware: teries and of which so many have been that in a ship which carried little in the way the tendril-work, the oakleaf sprays and illustrated and discussed in the recent book of pottery such a large proportion should acorn-clusters together with the face-mask by Karl Goebels (5). The facemasks which have come from the Rhineland of Ger• with its characteristic nobility of expres• normally tell us so much about the age of many. The remainder of the ware aboard sion. In type it corresponds closely to a Rhenish ware are missing in both these the vessel consisted of coarse, grey English famous example held by the Kunstge• cases, though they may yet be found earthenware forms which are distinctly werbe Museum in Cologne (4) and the amongst the unsorted bundles of frag• medieval in character. There is thus pre• symmetrically placed designs and the ments. But to judge from the rather coarse sented here a unique opportunity to com• carefully parted strands of the beard and clay body and the overall shape of the ves• pare and contrast two quite different pot• the moustache all demonstrate that this jug sels they were made no earlier than the tery traditions, which, due to the has been decorated according to the late 18th century. There are also many grey circumstances of the sinking of the ship, standard of a well established convention and blue salt-glazed fragments included in have been preserved in their contempo• that reached its height in the first half of the finds and these also clearly belong to rary juxtaposition for nearly four and a half the 16th century. With this jug the salt-glaze a later period than the wreck. This style of centuries. One is English, a pottery tradi• is not quite so good as with the example salt-glazing in conjunction with cobalt dec• tion which was still fundamentally medie- in Cologne. It has patches of lighter grey• ish coloration attributable to only partial re- oxidation during the cooling cycle. This jug was recovered by the Deanes in 1836, but for a long time a question-mark has hung over it since it was thought that the very perfection of the vessel suggested that it had been made and deposited only after the sinking of the Mary Rose. These doubts can now be dispelled completely. It be• longs exactly to the period of the Mary Rose. Cologne ware, moreover, became extremely scarce after the middle of the 16th century since the potteries were forced to close down by the City Council because of the pollution caused by their salt-kilns in the heart of the city. Only a remarkable coincidence could have caused a genuine Cologne pot from the first half of the 16th century to be deposited at a later date right on top of a shipwreck from exactly the same period. Since the Deanes were not able to pene• trate into the interior of the ship's hull, as this was deeply sunk into the sands and mud of the Solent seabed, it must be as• 6. The Deanes brothers, here shown working on the recovery of the Royal George, only salvaged sumed that this jug came out of the su• a few treasures from the Mary Rose before she disappeared again. val in techniques and styles; little of it was carried, most probably because it was not robust enough to stand up to the harsh conditions of shipboard life. The Rhenish pottery tradition, with new techniques of high-firing and salt-glazing, found greater favor according at least to its numerical presence. Nor was it only its fine practical qualities that were admired but also its beauty, as is shown by the splendid piece of Cologne ware. This cross section of 16th century pottery types gives a most instruc• tive insight into the superiority that Rhen• ish stoneware had acquired by the mid- 16th century and it also shows that the in• terest of the English public in Rhenish stoneware did not start in the reign of Eliz• abeth I, as is usually maintained; it had already developed in the time of her father, Henry VIII.

References

1. Margaret Rule, The Mary Rose (Lon• don, 1981), p. 5. 2. Margaret Rule, The Excavation and Raising of Henry Vlll's Flagship, (Lon• don, 1982), pp. 4-6. 3. Gisela Reineking-von Bock, Steinzeug: Catalogue of the Cologne Kunstge• werbe Museum, (Cologne, 1976), Plate 8 and pp. 141-145. 4. Ibid., Inv. Nr. E28, Plate 2 facing p. 26 and p. 199. 5. Kark Goebels, Keramik-Scherben aus Frechen, (Cologne 1980).

5. Sketch of carrying basket for the "traveller's flask"