Were there important potteries in the Blackwater Valley dating from about the time of the Norman Conquest? Phil Jones, Surrey's acknowledged pottery expert, says a 1991 article by Vince and Jenner says there were, and he finds the evidence in Surrey.
During a question and answer session at a recent Woking conference on medieval pottery Phil Jones, when asked about the origins of whiteware manufacture, answered that there had been a very important medieval coarseware that dominated the London market in the late 11th to mid 12th century, and is thought to have been made in or near Aldershot.
I emailed Phil after the conference to find out more. Phil told me that this pottery known as 'Early Surrey Ware' (ESUR) in an 1991 article by Vince & Jenner, but is called IQ Ironstone Sandy Ware in the Surrey county type series, because it used crushed sandstone from Folkestone Beds as the temper within a highly plastic and thixotropic clay that could be fired white and must have been from the basal clay seams of the Reading Beds. He added that this pottery marked the revival (since the Roman period) of both wheel-thrown and sand-tempered wares in the London area, and was considered most likely to have been made somewhere in the Aldershot district.
This is extremely interesting since it means that late medieval Coarse Border ware (CBW) is likely to have had a local antecedent technology existing from about the time of the Norman Conquest.
Phil pointed out to me that "Vince & Jenner noted on p44 that an (un-named) settlement site in Aldershot was the only one they found in the area with a majority of their ESUR. I have looked at many collections from west Surrey and can vouch for its dominance in later 11th and early 12th century collections."
"The unique aspect of the Aldershot area is the Runfold fault, that juxtaposes Reading Beds with Folkestone sands -- the two key elements in ESUR/IQ (Ironstone sandy ware). Somewhere in the area is to be found the seat of production of a vastly under-rated early medieval pottery type."
The actual words used by Vince & Jenner give no exact clues as to the siting of the manufacturing site: "A source in western Surrey, north-east Hampshire, or even eastern Berkshire, is therefore more likely. The only settlement site at which sherds of ESUR form the majority of those seen is Aldershot, close to the borders of all three counties." Although specifically mentioning Aldershot by name this seems to me to be a rather enigmatic statement. Although apparently stating that sherds of Early Surrey Ware (ESUR) have been found at an unnamed site in Aldershot, the emboldened sentence mentioning Aldershot must be read in the context of the preceding sentences in the article.
"Although petrology shows that this ware [ESUR] must have been carried some distance to London, insufficient fieldwork has been done to map the location of the potential resources. Not all of the Reading Bed clays are white-firing and not all of the Lower Greensand is iron-rich sandstone. Even less certain is the extent to which alluvial sands in Surrey are derived solely from iron-rich sand-stone. The sand used in Kingston-type is more varied in composition but that used for Coarse Border ware in the later medieval period is very similar. A source in western Surrey, north-east Hampshire, or even eastern Berkshire, is therefore more likely. The only settlement site at which sherds of ESUR form the majority of those seen is Aldershot, close to the borders of all three counties"
This is a meticulous sequence of reasoning starting from two premises: that the petrology of ESUR from consumer sites must point to the source of production, and that the pottery must therefore have been carried some distance to the capital since potteries in and around London had already been eliminated because the petrology of their raw material did not fit. Alan Vince's logic is clear and impeccable: he looks around the capital in ever increasing circles for whiteware production. He eliminates Kingston because of its petrology, and comes to the Surrey/Hampshire/Berkshire borders, noting that the petrology of the later medieval Coarse Border ware (CBW) is 'very similar' to Early Surrey ware (ESUR).
It is just possible that Alan Vince mentions Aldershot specifically because Newport Road (NMR UI 1262698) was the only production site of CBW which he knew in 1991. In 1976 NEHHAS had already excavated a kiln in Ship Lane, Farnborough (NMR UI 247643) but no specific details are given in the NMR record. On the other hand if the petrology of finds from this site had been examined then CBW produced in Farnborough could have been found to be different from Aldershot due to a different source of local sand, and thereby eliminated by Alan Vince.
Whatever Alan Vince's reason for mentioning Aldershot specifically, the fact is he did. Tragically we cannot now ask him. Phil Jones now provides us with supporting evidence that our attention should be firstly on Aldershot as the source of much of London's early Norman pottery. The Runfold Fault provides the raw material which will fit Alan Vince's petrology specification, and Phil vouches for the "dominance [of ESUR/IQ] in later 11th and early 12th century collections" found in West Surrey.
Holling and Ashdown solved the conundrum of where 'Tudor Green' and the predominant 16th/17th century whiteware was produced when they exacated the four kilns at Farnborough Hill. The only proof that Early Surrey ware was produced in Aldershot would be successful excavation of a kiln which produced it.
Whilst seeking kilns in Aldershot we should not neglect nearby communities now known to have produced Coarse Border ware until about 1500. Both Ash and Farnham are also candidates for ESUR. Evidence from later Blackwater Valley potteries is that firewood is valued in inventories more highly than clay. The volumes of firewood used are also more bulky than clay. Therefore it is more efficient to cart clay to production centres with ample sources of firewood. Working potteries are antisocial because of their nature. In the Blackwater Valley they were later sited well away from the local manor or other large houses. We should therefore be looking at the siting of medieval farmsteads with ready sources of water, probably yielding a higher chance of locating medieval potteries than within existing villages. Villages such as Farnborough Street and Tower Hill at Cove developed away from their respective manor houses, because they were centres of pottery production, not because they attracted pottery production to them.
P J Tipton, 27 May 2013 (still in preparation)
REFERENCESConference organised by Medieval Studies Forum of Surrey Archaeological Society in conjunction with the region body of the Medieval Pottery Research Group, 11 May 2013, at the Surrey History Center, Woking
Vince and Jenner, 1991 in LAMAS Special paper 12
