One of the big questions in early medieval British archaeology is the change in pottery. What we now think of as England had become a thoroughly Romanized part of the Roman Empire, Christian, Latin-speaking elites, villas with mosaics, hot baths. (See more on this here.) Pottery was professionally made, smooth, thrown on a wheel and thus perfectly symmetrical, fully glazed, fired in a kiln.
But in the fifth century a different kind of pottery began to appear, shaped by hand but not on a wheel, thus not nearly as symmetrical (though it might be decorated), glazed on the outside but not the inside, fired in a bonfire rather than a kiln. (One can tell the difference because a kiln gets a lot hotter, being enclosed, and the clay fires much harder.) Why the change?
Now the easy answer was always that the Anglo-Saxon invaders brought a cruder way of making pots with them. But this only makes sense if the local populations was completely replaced by the newcomers. And in fact for at least a generation both kinds of pots were used, so there must have been more to it than Celts fleeing with their symmetrical pots while crude Germans and crude pots replaced them.
To further complicate the issue, most of the hand-built pots that archaeologists have discovered were used to bury cremated bodies. And some of the pots have trace elements on the interior surface that suggests they were used for making beer. The Romans had believed in cremation (though much less so once they became Christian), whereas Germanic peoples often buried people in elaborate graves with grave-goods, so this further messes up any effort to explain the change in pots by changes in the population.
One way to explain this is to start not by supposing a change in population but rather a change in who was in charge and who made the beer. While Romanized lords ruled the villas, they tended to have the beer made in industrial amounts. They then distributed it to their tenants, who were I'm sure suitably grateful.
But if the Anglo-Saxons did not completely replace the local Celtic population, they certainly did a number on the lords in the villas. Who was going to make the beer? (And it wasn't as if they could drink wine instead--England is not really warm enough for wine grapes, even now, and wine imports from the Continent had stopped a few generations earlier.)
Beer making fell to the local women. With no lords in the villas, the locals had to figure things out for themselves. And one thing they seem to have figured out is that getting beer to ferment needs yeast, which they couldn't see (it's a microorganism), but which they knew was in bakeries or, and this was the key issue, in containers that had been used to brew beer before. (That is, they didn't specifically know about yeast, but they knew about fermenting and getting it started.) And they certainly knew that pots unglazed on the inside were more likely to retain the "fermenting principle."
So it may well be that women made these "cruder" pots specifically to brew beer, even while Roman-style pots were still being made for other purposes. Because they were fired at a lower temperature (better for a pot not entirely glazed), they were more fragile and couldn't be counted on to last more than a year or so in use. Pots archaeologists have found generally had a crack or leak. But what more appropriate to use as a container for a woman's cremated remains than the kind of pot in which women had been brewing beer? An intriguing possibility!
This blog post was inspired by the ideas of Andrew Welton, of the University of Florida.
© C. Dale Brittain 2017
For more on Romans and Anglo-Saxons, see my ebook, Positively Medieval: Life and Society in the Middle Ages, available on Amazon and other ebook platforms.
No comments:
Post a Comment