Author: Jacqui Pearce (Museum of London Specialist Services)

Transcription

1 Title: Living in Victorian London: The Clay Pipe Evidence Author: Jacqui Pearce (Museum of London Specialist Services) Date: 01/08/07 Jacqui Pearce, 2007 This research forms part of an Arts and Humanities Research Council funded study Living in Victorian London: Material Histories of Everyday Life in the Nineteenth- Century Metropolis Award Number AH/E002285/1 led by Dr Alastair Owens in the Department of Geography at Queen Mary, University of London.. This funding is gratefully acknowledged. For further information see

2 1 Introduction and methodology The clay tobacco pipes were recorded in accordance with current MoLAS practice and entered onto the Oracle database. The English pipe bowls have been classified and dated according to the Chronology of London Bowl Types (Atkinson and Oswald 1969), with the dating of some of the early 19th-century pipes refined where appropriate by reference to published material of this date from the Tower of London moat (Higgins 2004). Pipes that correspond to Atkinson and Oswald s typology have been given the appropriate number with the prefix AO. A new code (AO27A) was created for pipes that are intermediate between AO27 and AO28, and given the date range c Quantification and recording follow guidelines set out by Higgins and Davey (1994; Davey 1997). The number of pipe bowls, stem fragments and mouthpieces recorded for each of the three sites in the project is given in Table 1. Table 1 Clay pipes by site in number of bowls (B), stems (S) and mouthpieces (M) Site B S M Total LHC NPY SYB Total The clay pipes The clay pipes have been analysed by site, separating individual groups within the largest assemblage, from LHC93, although the overall quantification for all three sites together is given in Table 2. The assemblages from each site are considered separately below, with an outline description followed by interpretative discussion as proposed in the project design. Table 2 Clay tobacco pipe quantification for all sites Total no. of fragments 76 No. of bowl fragments 62 No. of stem fragments 12 No. of mouthpieces 2 Accessioned pipes 61 Marked pipes 59 Decorated pipes 21 Imported pipes 0 Complete pipes 0 Wasters 0 Kiln material fragments 0

3 2.1 Old Palace Yard, Westminster (MoL sitecode NPY73) Four small fragments of clay pipe stem were found in context [5]. Despite attempts to date pipes by their stem bore, this remains an inadequate system at best, and fragments of this kind are almost impossible to date at all closely. Given the associated finds, it is highly likely that they are contemporaneous, unless residual or intrusive. No further discussion of these finds is included with that of the clay pipes from the other two sites in the project. 2.2 Bell Green, Sydenham (MoL sitecode SYB92) Three clay pipe bowls were recorded from context [27], all in the unclassified developed form of type AO28 with a shorter, less pointed spur datable to the second quarter of the 19th century. All three have the maker s initials JA moulded in relief on the sides of the spur, standing for Joseph Andrews, recorded in Deptford (Oswald 1975, 130). The same maker s pipes were also found at Regent Street, Limehouse (see above). All the pipes have moulded oak leaf seams at the front and back of the bowl, and one was damaged slightly and repaired before firing: a small tear or dent on the side of the bowl was smoothed over, rather clumsily, which may have affected the price of the pipe by making it a second. In addition to the pipe bowls, four small stem fragments and two mouthpieces were collected. One of the mouthpieces has traces of red wax still visible around the tip. This would have been routinely applied in order to prevent the smoker s lips sticking to the clay and could easily be renewed when it wore thin. The other mouthpiece has a diamond-shaped section, one of a variety of tip finishes common in the 19th century. 2.3 Cyril Jackson School, Limehouse Causeway (MoL sitecode LHC93) This site yielded the largest collection of pipes in the project (see Table 1), with 59 of the 62 bowls marked and 18 decorated, two of which have no obvious maker s mark. The range of forms represented is very limited and all are typical of London manufacture in the first half of the 19th century. There is one unstratified pipe datable to c , but the great majority are of the intermediate form AO27A, which is broadly datable to c These are characterised by a slightly larger bowl and longer, narrower and sometimes slightly tapering heel than the typical AO27 with its solid, square heel. They all retain the mould lines under the heel, indicating a date after c 1800 when trimming of the heel was discontinued as more decorative pipes became increasingly common (Higgins 2004, 241). Five spurred pipes (AO28) typical of the period c were identified and only three of the mid 19th-century heeled pipes with forward sloping, eggshaped bowl (AO29). Fourteen pipe bowls were found in context [1], mostly AO27A, with three AO28 pipes and one type AO29, an unmarked pipe with moulded wheatsheaf seams. There are also two stem fragments. Eight pipes are marked with the moulded initials IF in relief on the sides of the heel. This stands for John Ford of Stepney, who is recorded between 1805

4 and 1865 (Oswald 1975, 136). Three of these are undecorated and there are nine decorated pipes in total, all with moulded foliage seams at the front and back of the bowl. Six of these have moulded vertical fluting, five with alternate thick and thin ribs. At least two of the decorated IF pipes were made in the same mould. Three sets of moulded makers initials other than IF were recorded, all of them probably local. The initials JA probably stand for Joseph Andrews of Deptford, (ibid, 130), JR for James Russell, recorded in St George in East and Wapping in (ibid, 144), or possibly for James Roscoe, Stratford , and JB, which could be John Bromley in Shadwell 1831 or John Birch, Whitechapel 1823 (ibid, 131). These pipemakers recoded dates rangebetween at least 1823 and The assemblage is, however, dominated by pipes made at the one workshop, that of John Ford of Stepney, and several have the same kind of decoration. The implications of this are discussed below. There are 28 pipe bowls from context [3], the largest single group found on the site. They are all marked with the pipemaker s initials moulded in relief on the sides of the heel, but only three examples are decorated. All are of type AO27A, apart from one type AO28. Eighteen pipes have the initials IF for John Ford of Stepney (see above), with at least three different moulds for the same shape of bowl identified, and eight have the initials TC, which probably stands for Thomas Cook, recorded in Dockhead (Oswald 1975, 134). One other pipe is marked WH, possibly William Hurst of Clerkenwell, , or William Heardson, Tolley Street 1838 (ibid, 139). The three decorated pipes have moulded foliage seams and alternately thick and thin vertical ribbing (flutes). Context [5] yielded 10 pipe bowls, all with moulded makers initials in relief on the sides of the heel. Most are of type AO27A, with one type AO28 and one pipe that is close to type AO29, probably representing a form intermediate between this type with its forward-sloping, egg-shaped bowl and the more upright AO27 and AO28. There is greater variety in the makers marks, with four pipes made by John Ford of Stepney (IF). One of these also has the incuse stamped mark FORD STEPNEY on the back of the bowl, facing the smoker (cf Higgins 2004, fig A2.1, no 9). In addition, there is one pipe marked TC and one marked JA (see above). A pipe with the moulded initials WC was probably made by William Cluer, recorded in Limehouse, (Oswald 1975, 134), while an indistinct mark that probably reads WO may have been made by William Oakley, Liverpool Road (ibid). Four pipes are decorated, all with moulded foliage seams, and one of them with vertical ribbing. Five clay pipe bowls were found in context [25], and two long, curved stem fragments. All are of type AO27A and three are marked IF for John Ford of Stepney, with one marked TC, probably for Thomas Cook. One is decorated with alternately thick and thin vertical ribbing. There is also a pipe decorated with moulded Prince of Wales feathers and foliage down the front seam. The moulding is rather poor and the bowl slightly misshapen during manufacture. The initials SS are moulded in relief on the sides of the heel, but no maker can be identified for this period.

5 3 Interpretation This is considered under a number of themes identified in the project design. The assemblage from LHC is the most fruitful for discussion because it is the largest. Some comparison with the Sydenham pipes is possible, but the relative lack of finds from Westminster makes discussion of this site almost impossible, except in terms of negative evidence. Chronology The majority of the datable clay pipes from LHC93 are typical of the period c on the basis of bowl shape alone (cf Higgins 2004, fig A2.3, nos 29, 31; fig A2.4, nos 39 40). As such, they represent a closely datable, homogeneous group. The dating can be further refined by the makers marks, which again suggest a strictly limited period of manufacture. Based on recorded dates at which the pipemakers identified were working (see above and Appendix 1) and on bowl shape, the three main privy deposits and the comparable finds from context [25] can be dated as follows: Table 3 Clay pipe dating for LHC93 Site Ctxt TPQ TAQ LHC LHC LHC LHC This close dating suggests that the clay pipes from each of the three privy deposits were bought, smoked and discarded over a very short period. Such a pattern is very much in keeping with the built-in disposability and short life expectancy of the fragile clay pipe. All the pipes have been well smoked, although it is difficult to say how many times or over what period. A heavy smoker could probably produce the same effect with a day or two s use, although a good pipe was unlikely to be thrown away while it still gave a reasonable smoke. Clay pipes are, however, very easily broken and heavy use would also result in the stem bore becoming clogged up with tar quite quickly. It can therefore be assumed that the average life of each pipe represented in the privy deposits was very short, probably a few weeks at most and perhaps no more than a few days. The pipemakers identified would all probably have been working relatively locally at the same time, during the 1820s and 30s when most of these finds were manufactured. The three clay pipe bowls from SYB92 were made within the same period and are all closely similar in shape and produced at the same workshop, probably in Deptford, which also supplied some of the pipes found in Limehouse. Function and cost The function of clay pipes is of course self-evident and all the Limehouse pipes have been smoked, most of them quite heavily. Quality and cost are another matter. Very little has been published on the pricing of clay pipes, although it is known that decorated examples cost more than plain ones. It is also known that certain pipemakers or pipemaking families were known for the quality of their pipes, which were differentiated by

6 retailers from common pipes and priced accordingly (Lewcun 1998, fig 9). Pipes were priced by the gross, with length and type also factored into the cost. A good example of this can be seen in a advertisement for clay pipes issued by a group of pipemakers from Bristol in 1799, listing long tobacco pipes glazed at 5s, 3s 6d and 3s per gross, presumably depending on length, and 4s 6d, 3s and 2s 6d unglazed (Jackson and Price 1974, fig 11). Common long tobacco pipes were priced at 1s 8d per gross, and prices were also set according to the market for which the pipes were destined (American, Irish and Spanish, West Indian and African). There was also doubtless further grading according to type and quality of decoration, although the differences in cost can be reckoned in pennies. Decorated pipes became increasingly popular during the course of the 19th century, with the simple moulded foliage seams on bowls and vertical fluting or ribbing found at Limehouse very much standard designs, widely available from the time of the Napoleonic War onwards. So, while more elaborate than undecorated pipes, these simply decorated examples do not represent the pinnacle of the pipemaker s art, and their pricing would be measured accordingly. The pipe with the Prince of Wale feathers is rather more decorative, although it is poorly moulded (either an old, worn mould or one of inferior quality) and the maker cannot be identified from their initials. Armorial pipes often have tavern associations and were most likely supplied with beer on the premises of eponymous establishments. The cost of clay pipes also increased with length, and the so-called aldermans of the 18th century would be more expensive than a shorter, more practical pipe that could be smoked while working, because they were designed to allow the smoker to hold the bowl while resting their hand on the arm of a chair, which obviously required leisure time. In the 19th century, churchwardens were even longer, and were very popular in coffee houses, clubs and public houses. None of the Limehouse or Sydenham pipes is complete or can be reconstructed, although two long stem fragments that very likely come from long-stemmed pipes were found in context [25] at LHC93, and some of the bowls in other groups from this site have a length of stem surviving that suggests similar overall proportions. Unfortunately, since so few stem fragments were collected on the site, this cannot be confirmed. There is a degree of general uniformity in the clay pipe assemblage from Limehouse (with a degree of variability between privy deposits, discussed below) that suggests that some at least were purchased together and from the same source, whether a public house or a retailer. This is indicated by similarities in bowl shape, decoration and the limited number of local pipemakers represented. There would be little need for making do with clay pipes and no real scope for repair; once they had served their usefulness they would simply be thrown away and replaced. The same applies to the Sydenham pipes, which were also probably purchased from the same source, possibly at the same time, although one was very likely sold as a second. Social and domestic space Clay pipes are more or less ubiquitous in 19th-century contexts from urban excavations, reflecting the importance of smoking at every level of society. Unlike dining and teadrinking, for example, with their more restricted and specific social/domestic associations

7 and dedicated spaces, a pipe could be enjoyed almost anywhere, both inside and outside the house, in private and in public. It is entirely unsurprising to find used, discarded clay pipes in material recovered from the fill of a privy (as at Limehouse). They could have been smoked several times and in as many different places before they were finally thrown away. Gender, individuality and sex By the 19th century, smoking was seen to be primarily the preserve of the male, although women and children were certainly not excluded from the mysteries and pleasures of tobacco. In the polite society of Victorian England, these pleasures were generally unacceptable for the fair sex, although small ladies pipes were made in materials such as meerschaum, especially in the later part of the 19th century. Amongst the poor and disadvantaged members of society, smoking offered affordable comfort to both men and women, as shown by paintings and later photographs that depict women of a low sort smoking clay pipes. Whether or not the female residents of Regent Street, Limehouse and Bell Green, Sydenham indulged in this activity is, needless to say, impossible to tell from the available evidence. Condition of the material The clay pipes from both sites under consideration had all been smoked before they were thrown away, most of them quite heavily or frequently. Most of the bowls were intact, with the only damage visible likely to have occurred after disposal. It is regrettable that so few stem fragments were collected, their scarcity in the assemblage suggesting a deliberate collection policy that has biased and compromised the evidence. The absence of stem pieces at Limehouse and the small size of the Sydenham assemblage make it impossible to attempt reconstructions and thereby to determine overall length, with consequent implications for answering questions concerning quality and cost. It also makes it impossible to address questions of fragmentation and the condition of the material when it was thrown away. Variability Two assemblages of clay pipes are compared here, those from LHC93 and SYB92. The larger group by far comes from Limehouse and analysis of the finds from the three privy deposits (contexts [1], [3] and [5]) shows some minor but distinctive differences in the makeup of each collection, which may in turn reflect on their original owners. The pipes found in context [1] are dominated by the maker John Ford of Stepney and include several examples with the same kind of decoration, suggesting that they were purchased at the same time, perhaps in a box or over a short period from the same source (a local tavern or public house?). Since decorative pipes are slightly more expensive (in relative terms) than plain ones, the high proportion of decorated pipes found in this group (64%), if it is an unbiased sample, represents at the very least a desire for a more fancy-looking pipe, even if cost was not an issue. The rather more numerous pipes from context [3], by way of contrast, include a far smaller number of decorated examples (11%), and are again dominated by the one maker (John Ford), with several pipes also made by Thomas Cook of Dockhead. The closely focused dating and lack of variety again suggests that they were bought over a short space of time, if not as a single purchase. If these and the pipes

8 from context [1] were originally owned by different individuals, this shows that both most probably had access to the same sources, but made slightly different choices from what may have been a relatively limited range, with the context [3] pipes less fancy in their appearance. The pipes from the context [5] deposit at LHC93 show further minor variations. A wider range of pipemakers is represented and 40% of the pipes have simple decoration (moulded foliage seams). This may indicate that the pipes were bought from a number of different sources, although all the makers identified were relatively local. The assemblage from Sydenham is really too small to allow any meaningful comparisons to be made with the Limehouse pipes, although it is closely similar in date and appearance, down to the shared products of the same pipemaker. The smaller size of the collection is no doubt attributable to the different circumstances of disposal. 4 Further questions It has been possible to identify the makers of the various marked clay pipes with reasonable certainty, by reference to published lists of pipemakers in London (Oswald 1975). The names of these makers are listed in Appendix 1, the area in which they were recorded and the dates covered by those records. Almost all were extracted from directories and it should be possible to refine the identifications with further documentary research in order to answer the following questions: Is it possible to identify the addresses of the workshops belonging to the clay pipe makers represented at LHC93 and SYB92? Can family pipemaking businesses be recognised from the records, with successive generations of the same family continuing to work in the trade, perhaps at different locations? Is it possible to refine the date range during which the named pipemakers were working?

9 5 Bibliography Atkinson, D R and Oswald, A, 1969 London clay tobacco pipes, J British Archaeol Assoc 32, Davey, P 1997 Clay pipes from Bolsover church, unpub archive rep Higgins, D A 2004, Appendix 2: the clay tobacco pipes in G Keevill, The Tower of London Moat: archaeological excavations , Historic Royal Palaces Monograph 1, Higgins, D A and Davey, P, 1994 Draft guidelines for using the clay tobacco pipe record sheets, unpub rep Jackson, R G and Price, R H 1974, Bristol clay pipes, a study of makers and their marks, Bristol City Museum Lewcun, M 1998, An A Z of documentary sources for finding pipemakers in the historical records, Soc Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 54, Oswald, A, 1975 Clay pipes for the archaeologist, BAR 14, Oxford

10 6 Appendix 1: Catalogue of marked and decorated clay pipes from the Victorian London project The pipes are listed here by site, context and accession number (Acc), with an overall TPQ and TAQ for each context based on the clay pipe data only. Forms are recorded as AO types (Atkinson and Oswald 1969), with an additional type intermediate between AO27 and AO28, recorded as AO27A. The dating for each pipe bowl (Bowl ED and LD) is based on published parallels, while further refinement is offered by the identification of individual pipemakers. A limited range of decoration is indicated by the following codes: LB LBF WB RIBV RIBV2 OAKS POW Moulded leaf seams at the front and back of the bowl Moulded leaf seams at the front of the bowl only Moulded wheatsheaf seams at the front and back of the bowl Moulded vertical ribbing (flutes) Moulded vertical ribbing alternate thick and thin Moulded oak leaf and acorn seams front and back Prince of Wales feathers The type of mark is indicated by the letters R for relief and I for incuse, and the method of application by the letters M for moulded and S for stamped. Mark position is shown by the code SH for sides of the heel and BF for the back of the bowl (facing the smoker). All examples have been smoked.

11 7 Appendix 2: Site Ctxt TPQ TAQ Acc Form Bowl ED Bowl LD Decoration Marks Type Meth Pos Comments LHC AO IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO IR R M SH James Roscoe, Stratford or James Russell, St George in East LHC AO27A LB/RIBV2 IB R M SH John Bromley, Shadwell 1831 or John Birch, Whitechapel 1823 LHC AO LB IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A LB/RIBV2 IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney , same mould as <19> LHC AO27A LB/RIBV2 IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney , same mould as <20> LHC AO27A LB/RIBV2 IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO WB IF? R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A LB/RIBV JA R M SH James Andrews, Deptford ? LHC AO27A JR R M SH James Roscoe, Stratford or James Russell, St George in East LHC AO27A LHC AO WB/RIBV2 Possibly marked but v unclear LHC AO WB LHC AO27A WB/RIBV2 IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A WB/RIBV2 IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A WB/RIBV2 IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type c LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type c LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type c LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type b LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a

12 LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney bowl type a LHC AO STARS R M SH LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A WH R M SH Poss Wm Hurst, Clerkenwell or Wm Heardson, Tolley St 1838 LHC AO27A WB?W R M SH LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO IF/FORD STEPNEY I/R S/M BFSH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO JA R M SH Poss James Andrews, Deptford LHC AO27A WBF ROWELLS R M SH LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead LHC AO27A LB/RIBV WC R M SH Prob Wm Cluer, Limehouse LHC AO27A LB WO? R M SH Poss Wm Oakley, Liverpool Rd LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A WB/RIBV2 IF R M SH John Ford, Stepney LHC AO27A LBF/POW SS R M SH No makers identified LHC AO27A TC R M SH Prob Thos Cook, Dockhead SYB AO LB JA R M SS James Andrews, Deptford ? SYB AO OAKS JA R M SS James Andrews, Deptford ? Repaired bowl

13 SYB AO OAKS JA R M SS James Andrews, Deptford ?

14

15