Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:24:07.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Romano-British Pewter Industry*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Neil Beagrie
Neil Beagrie
Affiliation:
39 Church Street, St. Albans, Herts, AL3 5NG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the first general survey of the Romano-British Pewter Industry, published by Wedlake in his report on the excavations at Camerton in 1958, important further work has been done on the typology and distribution of pewter plates and dishes by Christopher Peal, and on the manufacture and typology of pewter vessels in a number of specialist reports. The present author first became interested in the Roman pewter industry whilst researching the development of the early tin industry of South-West England and has undertaken a reassessment of the evidence for the composition, distribution, manufacture and dating of Roman pewter in the light of recent research and examination of unpublished finds in museums.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 20 , November 1989 , pp. 169 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Neil Beagrie 1989. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Homer, R.F., Trans. London Middlesex Arch. Soc. xxxvi (1985), 151–2Google Scholar; Brownsword, R. and Pitt, E.E.H., Archaeometry xxvi.2 (1984), 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Brownsword, R. and Pitt, E.E.H., Med. Arch. xxix (1985), 152Google Scholar and note.

3 Brownsword, R. and Pitt, E.E.H., Hist. Metallurgy xvii.2 (1983), 119–120.Google Scholar

4 op. cit. (note 1).

5 Hatcher, J. and Barker, T.C., A History of British Pewter (1974), 224–5.Google Scholar

6 op. cit. (note 5), 287–8.

7 Bailey, K.C., The Elder Pliny's Chapters on Chemical Subjects (1929–1932) Vol. 2, 191–2.Google Scholar

8 Hughes, M.J. and Lang, J., Oxford Journ. Arch, iii (1984), 77–107.Google Scholar

9 Pliny, N.H. XXX, 57.

10 op. cit. (note 9), 38; Pliny, N.H. XXIX, 35.

11 Suetonius, Vitellius, V (translation Rolfe, J.C., Suetonius Transquillus, G., Works (1959–1960), Volume 2, 255).Google Scholar

12 Colls, D.et al., ‘L'Épave Port Venares II et le Commerce de la Bétique à L'Époque de Claude, Archaeonautica 1 (CRNS, 1977), 121–2.Google Scholar

13 Pliny, N.H. XXXIV, 160–1. (Translation H. Rackman, Pliny: Natural History, (1968)).

14 Gowland, W., Archaeologia lvi.i (1898), 13–20.Google Scholar

15 Smythe, J.A., Trans. Newcomen. Soc. xviii (1937), 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Liversidge, J., Proc. Camb. Amia. Soc. Hi (1959), 6–10.Google Scholar

17 Tylecote, R.F., The Prehistory of Metallurgy in the British Isles (1986), 50.Google Scholar

18 Hughes, M.J. in Oddy, W.A. (ed.), Aspects of Early Metallurgy, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 17 (1980), 41–50.Google Scholar

19 Pollard, A.M., Hist. Metallurgy xvii.2 (1983), 83–90.Google Scholar

20 Jones, C.E.E., Trans. London Middlesex Arch. Soc. xxxiv (1983), 49–59.Google Scholar M.O.L. accession nos. 19490 and A94. From analyses by Dr M. Hughes. I am grateful to Christine Jones for full details of the results. Qualitative analysis of other spoons has been carried out at M.O.L. and the Ancient Monuments Lab.

21 Brown, P.D.C., Cornish Arch, ix (1970), 110.Google Scholar

22 Barker, W.R., Trans. Bristol Glos. Arch. Soc. xxiv (1901), 288.Google Scholar

23 op. cit. (note 15), 260.

24 Colls, D.et. al., Gallia xxxiii (1975), 61–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 op. cit. (note 15), 256–7.

26 op. cit. (note 15), 263.

27 Greenfield, L.T. and Forrester, P.J., The Properties of Tin Alloys (Tin Research Institute, 1947), 28.Google Scholar

28 op. cit. (note 18), 42–3.

29 op. cit. (note 20). I am grateful to Christine Jones for giving me the results of analyses in full. The plate (M.O.L. accession no. 18221) contained 97–9% tin, 041% lead, 0–23% iron and 1–4% copper. Analysis by Dr M. Hughes.

30 op. cit. (note 19), 87.

31 op. cit. (note 20). The stratification and date of the spoons from the Walbrook may be questionable as they are workmen's finds rather than excavated items. However, impending analysis of other securely dated second-century pewter spoons at A.M.L. is likely to confirm the high-lead composition with some copper suggested by qualitative analysis of these objects.

32 op. cit. (note 19).

33 Peal, C.A., Proc. Camb. Antiq. Soc. lx (1967), 19–37.Google Scholar Peal suggests not more than 50 years after manufacture as the plates and dishes show little sign of wear prior to deposition.

34 Merrifield, R., Antiq. Journ. xlii (1962), 39–52.Google Scholar

35 op. cit. (note 20).

36 op. cit. (note 20); op. cit. (note 33), 21. A letter from W.F. Grimes in the Peal correspondence (Pewter Society Library) states that a quantity of third-century material was recovered from a point immediately below the plates and that much of the material at this point derived from the collapse of the side of the stream channel. However, the form of these plates and their decoration suggests a date contemporary with the first- and second-century pottery, even if the layer in which they were found had been redeposited.

37 op. cit. (note 20).

38 Munby, J. and Henig, M. (eds.), Roman Life and Art in Britain BAR 41 (1977) vol. 1, 352–355.Google Scholar These spoons are of a type which can be dated to the second century and will be the subject of a forthcoming article by Christine Jones.

39 Parnell, G., Trans. London Middlesex Arch. Soc. xxxvi (1985), 62Google Scholar , 65.

40 P.D.C. Brown in B. Cunliffe, The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, Volume 2 The Spring (1988). I am grateful to Professor Cunliffe for a copy of this in advance of publication.

41 Wedlake, W.J., Excavations at Camerton, Somerset (1958), 87–93.Google Scholar

42 Baines, E., History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster (1836), Vol. 2, 156–7Google Scholar ; S. Lysons, Reliquiae Romano-Britanniae (Society of Antiquaries Library), Vol. I pt IV pl. v.

43 Hill, O.C., Yorks. Arch. Journ. xxxviii (1955), 118–9.Google Scholar

44 Letter from Scunthorpe Museum. C.A. Peal correspondence (Pewter Society Library). From well excavated in 1964.

45 Trent Valley Arch. Res. Comm. Gazetteer (c. 1980), 43.

46 Petch, D.F., Lines. Architect. and Arch. Soc. Rep. and Papers vii.i (1957), 15.Google Scholar

47 op. cit. (note 33), 32.

48 Smythe, J.A. and Richmond, I.A., Proc. Durham Univ. Phil. Soc. x. i (1938), 48–55Google Scholar ; op. cit. (note 15).

49 Richmond, I.A., Arch. Ael. xxix (1951), 36Google Scholar , 88–9.

50 Thornber, W., Trans. Hist. Soc. Lanes. Cheshire iii (1851), 119–120.Google Scholar

51 Robinson, J.F., The Archaeology of Malton and Norton (1978), 24.Google Scholar

52 op. cit. (note 38).

53 David Sherlock in litt. In HBMC Museum Aldborough.

54 David Sherlock in litt. Carlisle Museum 1926.168 and 169.

55 op. cit. (note 15).

56 Brown, P.D.C. in Clarke, G., The Roman Cemetery at Lankhills (1979), 206–8.Google Scholar

57 Crummy, N., The Roman Small Finds from Excavations in Colchester 1971–9, Colchester Arch. Rep. 2 (1983), 73Google Scholar , Fiche 2, 2053. Reinterpreted as belonging to Grave 693 which cuts Grave 687. Nina Crummy in litt.

58 Bushe-Fox, J.P., Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent (1949), 80, 155, pl. LXIII.Google Scholar

59 Penn, W.S., Arch. Cant, lxxxiii (1968), 172.Google Scholar

60 Taddy, J., Rep. Assoc. Architect. Soc. ii (1852–1853), 427.Google Scholar

61 op. cit. (note 56), 207. Northampton Museum D.182/1958–9.

62 Arch. Journ. xxvii (1870), 208–12.

63 George Gray, H. St., Proc. Somerset Arch. Nat. Hist, lxxxii (1936), 163–8Google Scholar ; Proc. Somerset Arch. Nat. Hist. lxxxiii (1937), 150; Proc. Somerset Arch. Nat. Hist. lxxxv (1939), 191–202.

64 B. Cunliffe, The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, Volume 2 The Spring (1988).

65 Borlase, W., Antiquities of Cornwall (2nd ed., 1769), 316, pl. XXVIII.Google Scholar

66 Brown, P.D.C., Oxoniensia xxxviii (1973), 184–206.Google Scholar The plate is no. 24 in the catalogue.

67 Manning, W.H., Britannia iii (1972), 246–9.Google Scholar

68 Information from L. Bonnamour, Conservateur, Musée Denon, Chalon-sur-Saône.

69 Daremberg, C. and Saglio, E., Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines (1877), Vol. 4 pt 2, 1463.Google Scholar

70 Bapst, G., Rev. Arch. i (1883), 104Google Scholar ; Terninck, A., Essai sur l'industrie gallo-romaine en Atrébatie (Arras, 1874), 85.Google Scholar

71 op. cit. (note 69).

72 T. Eck, Les Deux Cimetières Gallo-Romains de Vermand et de Saint Quentin (1891).

73 idem.

74 Pilloy, J., Études sur d'Anciens Lieux de Sépultures dans l'Aisne (1886) vol. 1, 219.Google Scholar

75 C.L. Seillier, Musée Municipal, Boulogne-sur-Mer in litt. Information kindly supplied by David Brown.

76 Accession No. 1907.51. David Sherlock in litt.

77 op. cit. (note 12).

78 Inv. No. 486. David Sherlock in litt.

79 Mertens, J. and Van Impe, L., Arch. Belgica cxxxv (1972), 32.Google Scholar

80 Mutz, A., Die Kunst Des Metalldrehens Bei Den Romern (1972), 109.Google Scholar

81 Information kindly supplied by David Brown.

82 Verster, A.J.G., Old European Pewter (1958), 71.Google Scholar

83 op. cit. (note 80), 37–8.

84 Craddock, P.T. and Lang, J., Hist. Metallurgy xvii.2 (1983), 79–81.Google Scholar

85 From Castleford, W. Yorks., currently being studied by Justine Bayley.

86 Kennett, D.H., Jahrbuch R.G.Z.M. xvi (1969), 123–148Google Scholar ; Kennett, D.H., Journ. Northampton Mus. Art Gallery iv (1968), 5–39Google Scholar ; Gregory, T., Proc. Camb. Antiq. Soc. lxvi (1976), 63–79.Google Scholar

87 Balcer, W.R., Proc. Clifton Anua. Club v (1900–1903), 78–97Google Scholar , 111–7; Bristol City Museum Accession No.'s F887–8.

88 op. cit. (note 41), 82–7; JRS xlix (1959), 129; Bristol City Museum Accession No.'s 99/1980, 99/1980–658.

89 Bush, T.S., Proc. Soc. Antiq. London xxii (1908), 34–8.Google Scholar 15 inner or outer vessel mould fragments are included in photographs. There are also moulds for small artifacts.

90 C.A. Peal (op. cit. (note 33), 20) refers to 16 different moulds. The total must be higher than this as there are approx. 40 different inner and outer vessel moulds. The majority are fragmentary but very few seemed likely to be matching pairs.

91 Bath Museum Accession Nos. A945; A1131 and A1133 (fragments of single mould); A1108; A1023; A942; A938; Mould with lead clamp in situ has no Accession number but is amongst those photographed by Bush.

92 Bath Museum, A943.

93 Bath Museum Accession Nos. large mould no number: A943; A920; A1022; A946. A1134 may also have an in-gate (or damage ?) on the lip of the mould.

94 Bath Museum Accession Nos. A940 and possibly A1137 and large mould with no Accession number which are less certain.

95 Bath Museum, An 17.

96 Goodall, I.H., Yorks. Arch. Journ. xliv (1972), 36Google Scholar ; Letter from J.W. Gardiner 3.3.1966. Peal Correspond ence (Pewter Society Library).

97 Letter and photograph from E.A. Shore 21.3.1966. Peal Correspondence (Pewter Society Library).

98 Bath Museum, A1022 and A941.

99 Scarth, H.M., Proc. Bath Nat. Hist. and Antiq. Soc. i.2 (1867–1869), 1–24.Google Scholar

100 Irvine, J.T., Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. xxxiv (1878), 249.Google Scholar

101 Brown, P.D.C., Cornish Arch. ix (1970), 107–10.Google Scholar

102 Blagg, T.F.C., Britannia xi (1980), 103–5.Google Scholar

103 Britannia Romana, Portfolio 4, f 3.

104 op. cit. (note 5), 221.

105 Millett, M. and Graham, D., Excavations on the Romano-British Small Town at Neatham, Hants. 1960–1979 (1986), 136–7.Google Scholar

106 Blagg, T.F.C. and Read, S., Antiq. Journ. lvii (1977), 270–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

107 Britannia xiii (1982), 391.

108 M.G. Fulford in litt.

109 Dunning, G.C. and Webster, G., Wroxeter Roman City (HMSO Guidebook, 1965), 16.Google Scholar I am grateful to Dr Graham Webster who searched for this mould.

110 Wedlake, W.J., The Shrine of Apollo at Nettleton, Wiltshire 1956–1971, Soc. of Antiq. Research Rep. (1982), 68–74.Google Scholar The possible moulds listed are very dubious. The cut in the lip of Mould 6 is an in-gate.

111 Goddard, E.H., Wilt. Arch. Natur. Hist. Mag. 36 (1909–1910), 477Google Scholar , pl III fig. 2.

112 op. cit. (note 96), 32–7.

113 Tweedle, D., Finds from Parliament Street and Other Sites in the City Centre, The Archaeology of York 17 (1986), 199–200.Google Scholar I have corrected the published diameter and scale for the drawing in the measurements given above.

114 Tylecote, R.F. in Branigan, K., Gatcombe: The Excavation and Study of a Romano-British Villa Estate 1967–1976 BAR 44 (1977), 126.Google Scholar

115 Stead, I.M. and Rigby, V., Baldock: The Excavation of a Roman and Pre-Roman Settlement, 1968–1972 (1986), 144, 386.Google Scholar

116 Britannia vi (1974), 283; C. Young in litt.

117 I am grateful to David Brown for access to the finds.

118 Franks, A.W., Proc. Soc. Antiq. London ii (1863), 87Google Scholar , 234–8; iv (1869). 381; Haverfield, F., Arch. Journ. xlix (1894), 184–6Google Scholar ; Merrifield, R., Roman London (1969), 200–1.Google Scholar

119 B.M. Accession Nos. 62, 3–21, 1; 64, 3–15, 2; 68, 9–44, 1; 91, 2–17, 1; 91, 2–17, 2; 91, 2–17, 3.

120 Haverfield, op. cit (note 118); E. Hartley in litt.

121 Layton Collection 0.2004–5.

122 op. cit. (note 18).

123 op. cit. (note 20).

124 Gurney, D., East Anglian Arch, xxxi (1986), 149–53.Google Scholar

125 op. cit. (note 33), 23; Barbara Green in litt.

126 op. cit. (note 15).

127 op. cit. (note 15).

128 op. cit. (note 110), 236.

129 Bristol City Museum.

130 Op. Cit. (note 33), 20.

131 Dr A.K. Knowles in liti; Barbara Green in litt, has expressed similar doubts and the diameter of this ‘mould’ seems excessively large compared to surviving examples of pewter plates.

132 Britannia xii (1981), 343.

133 R. Friendship-Taylor in litt.

134 op. cit. (note 33). 23.

135 Letter from E. Owles 21.2.1967. Peal Correspondence (Pewter Society Library).