Personal possessions of the working class during the Tudor perid.

 

Personal Possessions of the Working Class During the Tudor Period

Thomas Harmon known in the society as Maiter Philippe de Lyon

Kingdom A&S Fair 2015 A look at Tudor probate inventories and archeological evidence from the Mary Rose to get an understanding of personal possessions in Tudor England. We will be focusing on the working class and what type of items they would have owned. I have been involved with the Living History groups for 19 years. When I first started attending reenactments I wore doublets and hose bought from a renaissance fair and was quite pleased. I also acquired feast gear, jewelry, and a bag from a garage sale. As my involvement increased I found myself continually asking what would some one from the renaissance have owned and used. After doing just a little research I decided on looking at the lower classes of Tudor era England. I focused my research on the farmers and tradesmen of the era. These individuals would have still worked for a living but were self sufficient and not living in poverty. I hoped that by focusing on this class I would be able to find a small list of possessions that I would be capable of making or would be inexpensive to purchase. I then started researching on what type of possessions a person of this class would have. I found several websites for enactors with a list of suggested items, but nothing that I could document. Unable to find anything definitive I decided to go ahead and use the lists from the website and to begin researching what these items would be like. During my research I came across several wonderful sources. The museum of London published a series of books cataloging items found during digs in London. Among these books were “Dress Accessories” and “Household Goods”. Both of thses books delt with artifact that would have been owned by the working class from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. ‘these were inventories made or individuals that died without a will. I also found the “Before the Mast” a wonderful book that gave us a look into the life of the crew aboard the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose was a Tudor Error War ship, commissioned by Henry the Eighth and sank in 1643. The wreckage was discovered and raised in the 20th century and is now on display at its own museum in England. Among the artifacts recovered were chests of some of the crew that held their possessions. Among the chests we found work related items and personal items. Personal items are defined by xxxxxxx as items owned by a single individual for their personal use. These include marked items and items that would be carried on the individual. It is the personal items that I was interested in. But the chests only gave us one look at the personal items owned by the working class Tudor subject. Because of the these individual living on a ship, we could not get a good idea of the items they would have owned for the day to day use of fixing food, sleeping, etc. Further research led me to Tudor probate inventories and tax inventories. These were written assessments of the worth of the individual for the purpose of paying taxes and for distributing the worth of someone who did not leave a will. While reading the inventories I realized that the wealth of the working class varied greatly. This could range from one pound of accessed values all the way to as much as one hundred pounds, although the majority would be worth between one and four pounds. Because of this the quality and number of their possessions varied greatly. But it became very apparent that the type of possessions were fairly consistent. By using these resources we can create a list of personal possessions that were owned by the working class in Tudor England. To accomplish this we need to define the time period and status of the individuals and which possessions and what artifacts we will be focusing on. So the fist thing we are doing to narrow the focus of this project is to limit the time period of our search. The Tudor period in England started with the coronation of the henry the 7th and runs through the death of Elizabeth the first. Henry 7th became King of England in 14XX. This brought to a conclusion a 50 year civil war known as the War of the Roses. It also brought a lot of social change for the kingdom and its subjects. Henry the 7th brought peace and stability to a kingdom that had been at war for two generations. His heir Henry the 8th patroned the arts, kept the country in almost constant warfare, increased England’s fleet of ships, and dissolved the catholic churches and monasteries and created the church of England. Under his daughter Queen Mary, relations with Spain flourished and she brought the country back to the Catholic Faith. Queen Elizabeth, Mary’s successor, returned the country to the Church of England. Spent considerable time and energy to enhance the English economy, created public work houses, orphanages and hospitals and brought a time of relative peace to the country. During the Tudor period, particularly during the reighn of Henry the VII and VIII, there was a considerable increase in the lower classes of society. After the civil war there was a labor shortage and a lot of empty land that needed to be teneded or it would revert to forest. Both of these conditions allowed the peasants, farming class, and craftsmen to flourish. These would be the working class of the Tudor Society. These individual would do the farming, baking, blacksmithing, weaving and any other work needed. In the countryside that was primarily farming but would also include servants and craftsmen in the cities. These individuals would comprise the majority of the population. Not all of these individuals were poor. Many of them would be part of the Yeomen class. These were farmers that owned land and was able to support themselves. Legally the group was defined as having at least 4 pounds worth of personal possessions and land. Comparable to the Yeomen were the Craftsmen. These individuals were a part of the guild and would go through an apprentice system to learn a marketable skill. The guilds were regulated by the crown and jealously guarded there professions. Together they made up the working class. Above them were the Gentry, those individuals who were armigarious, and the Nobility, those individuals who were in the line of accession for the throne. There were laws that applied to specific classes regarding rights, taxes, responsibilities, clothing, and ownership of property. The one thing not regulated by station in life was wealth. There were many members of the Yeomen and Craftsmen that were well off financially. This included some that were wealthier than members of the Gentry. It was not uncommon for a member of the gentry to marry a daughter of the Yeomen or Craftsmen class for a large dowery. Next we need to define what we mean by personal possessions. In the article Artifacts and Personal identity, they are defined as “…personal artifact is those used by an individual, belonging to one person and used exclusively by that individual over the course of the artifacts use life or persons lifetime. Within this category of artifacts are objects used by individuals and passed on the others through heredity – objects that see multiple, successive owners. Finally, the most narrowly defined kind of personal artifacts are those that are exclusively associated with the bodies of individual people—artifacts worn or used by a single person or about their body.“1 We will also narrow down a little more to exclude items used for work or to apply ones trade. These items are not of personal choice and would be highly specialized. To find out what items were owned by the working class, we will turn to historical data. During the Tudor period Inventories of subjects personal property were made to assess the worth of the individual for the purpose of lay subsidies and probate courts. According to Roger Fieldhouse in the article “Social structure from Tudor Lay subsidies and Probate Inventories”, lay subsidies was a tax on property used extensively to raise funds for specific purposes, such as war, to be levied at so much for every pound which each person was considered worth in goods, real estate and wages.2 For the Lay subsidie of 1564 households were assessed a tax if they were worth 1 pound or more. Those households with less than 1 pound of accesed value were exempt from the tax. 46 percent of the population paid no taxes. The second largest group made up 33 percent and had a value of 1-3 pounds. About 6 percent of the population would have been considered well off but not rich. This class would have started at about 4 pounds in value and would go up from there.3 Similarly the probate inventories used the same methods to calculate the worth of the individual at death. This was done for tax purposes and also to protect inheritance for those who died without a will. In “Tudor Inventories from Appleby, 1530-1601,” Alan Roberts4 gives us 9 inventories to look at. These households were valued from 3 pounds to 92 pounds. All of these were from the working class and the largest from a farmer named Edward More. In total we have 11 probate inventories and two lay subsidies made up from members of 39 percent of the Tudor population. 5 There are a few problems with using the inventories to show personal posessions. To show these lets look at one of the inventories, Peter Wryght from the 1564 inventory.6 Peter owned: 4 brass potts 8s 4d 2 culdron 15s 10 peces of pewter, 3 sacers, salt celler 6s 8d chafynd disgh and 3 candlesticks 2s 4d A cupboard, a cawlle, and ambry and 2 chards 10s 2 bedds, a chiste and a presse 3s A ton, a bacaris bourd with other tubs 2s 5 linen sheets with 2 codwares 6s 8d 5 hardyn sheets and 3 codds 4s 3 coverletts, 3 quysshynnes, 2 blanketts and a bolster 6s Total 7 pound 4 sterling (s) and 0 pennies (d) So the main issue is what was recorded. The inventories only show items of value. In the inventories I have nothing less in value than 1 sterling is listed. Dishes and drinking vessels of wood are not listed, presumably because they were not of sufficient value to be considered. In addition the inventories do not discuss the clothing and items on the persons body. Several of the inventories do not discuss clothing at all, and the ones that do discuss what are in chests. None of the inventories discuss items for grooming, shoes, belts, etc. Weather this is because they were not worth enough to include or because they were not on the property at the time of the inventory is unknown. Because of this, the inventories give us a great look into personal items of the home but not what would have been carried on the person. In addition to the inventories we will take a look at the chests found about the wreck of the Mary Rose. The Mary Rose was the premier war ship of Henry the VIII. She was built in 15XX and sank in 1548. The Mary Rose was the first purpose made warship. She was fitted with gun ports and cannons of both iorn and bronze. She had over 2XX men aboard when she was sunk in battle.7 Nearly half of the ship was recovered in the 1960s and has been moved to a museum in Portsmouth. Among the finds were a number of wooden chests. Some of these were storage for arrows and such, but 17 or them contained personal gear of the crew. Some of the chests have only afew items were several of the chests belonged to crew that may have held skilled positions and were fairly well off. One such chest is designated as Chest 81A1415.8 it is made of Elm and was in good condition. The contents are listed as: Flask, Leather 81A1214/1-2 Handle 81A0880 Brush? 81A1322 Comb 81A1320 Manicure Set? 81A4130 Mirror? 81a4139 Razor 81A1315 Axe (handle) 81A1321 Tool-holder 81A0879 Tool-holder 81A1317 Handle, chisel 81A1316 Saw (handle) 81A1314 Ruler 81A1319 Thimble Ring 81A4600 Whetstone 81A4129 We can see by the contents of this chest that it contains both personal and professional equipment, as most of the chests do. The chests constitute what may have been the only private space that the crew would have had. This is where they would have stored what little possessions they would have had. The chests give us a really good view of what meant the most to the crew that they would spend their money on and store in what little space they had to call their own. There are a couple of problems with using the chests. First of all it still does not account for what the crew would have had on their person. All of the these items would have been extra items or things not used on a daily basis. It also does not account for bedding or other items that were stored outside of the chests. Several wooden bowls and drinking vessels were found in the galley are that had personal marks on them. Lastly the crew had access to communal property that belonged to the ship such as cooking space. Despite these problems, the chests give us a good look at the small less expensive items that were missing from the inventories. Using all of the inventories and surviving chest on the Mary Rose that had personal effects in them, I have created a chart showing the items contained. As professional items are not personal affects I have not added them to the chart. These included tools, military weapons (swords, scabbards, gun shield, and kidney daggers), farming equipment, live stock, and stored grains. I have also lumped similar items together even if made out of different materials, such as candlesticks, eating vessels, jewelry, and flasks. Individuals would have owned the highest quality of item they could afford. We are interested in more in what they had than in the quality of it. Below is a breakdown of the items and number of times they appear in the sample group (please note that this is not how many items there were but in how many of the sources did they appear in). Pots and Pans 9 Bed 10 Bedding 8 Chest 27 Drinking Vessels 2 Clothes 9 (including unidentified masses that may have been fabric there were 20) Pepper Mill 1 Eating Vessels 13 Knife 14 Whetstone 7 Pouch 10 Aiglet/lacing/strap 9 Jewelry 8 Sundial / compass 3 Comb 8 Shoes 6 Razor 3 Brush 4 Dice 5 Fishing Supplies 6 Mirror 1 Manicure Set 1 Pin/needle 3 Sewing bobbin 2 Ring Thimble 3 Coins 12 Ink pot 1 Book 3 Flask 8 Bags, boxes 7 This gives us a nice look at all of the personal possessions these people had. Arbitrarily I will narrow this list down to items appearing 7 or more times. This would represent ¼ of the sample provided. Now we need to look at what these items are and what was available to the working class. First on the list is Pots and Pans. In most instances there was either one pot or a pot and a pan. In only two of the inventories was there more than one pot. There was also one cooking pot found in one of the chests from the Mary Rose. Pots were made out of copper or brass. They may have had a handle or a bail for hanging, they may have feet or a rounded bottom. A good picture of pots and pans can be found in a woodcut of a landsknecht woman with a pack on her back. The pots and pans are coming out of the top of the pack.9 All but one of the inventories mentions a bed, with two of the inventories mentioning multiple beds. These would have been wooden structures. I do not have a good woodcut to show you what they would have been. There is some evidence that most of the crew of the Mary Rose would have slept on the decks. There is no surviving evidence of a bed or hammocks. Find more information on period beds and practices on the Mary Rose. All of the inventories metions bedding of some sort. From sheets to blackets to coverlets. The amount of bedding varys greatly from inventory to inventory. Blankets were mentioned the most. In several of the inventories they refer to blankets and coverlets. Linnen and fine linen sheets were also mentioned in a couple of the inventories. Again, we have no information on what would have been on the Mary Rose. The fact that everyone of the inventores mention bedding leads me to believe that this was a basic thing. Chests are mentioned in every one of the inventories. It asppears that chests were the main storage space during the Tudor period. The construction of the chests vary greatly. They could have been large wooden containers fitted with iron straps and hinges as well as locks. During the 14th century some of these would have been quite large and would not have been portable. Of the chests found on the Mary Rose, all of them were wood. Most had iron hinges and several of them had built in locks. Several of the chests are referred to as bench boxes as they had legs attached and were designed to be used as a seat. Several of the chests also had markings on the outside of them. One such mark is clearly an ownership mark but the others are decorative and one could possible be a game board. 9 of the sample have extra clothing in them. Of these most were accessories such as a shirts or smocks, hats, and aprons. One of the inventories lists a suit of clothes, and another has several gowns, a frock and a petticoat listed. The only clothing items in the chests that were identifiable were a couple of hats and a pair of gloves. 10 of the chests had masses of an unidentified substance that may have been cloth. It was degraded enough that it did not survive retrieval and is listed in the original divers notes as merely Unidentified. It seems safe to presume that at least some of these were extra clothing. We know that some clothing in the form of green jerkins and linen shirts were provided to the crew of the Mary Rose at the crowns expense.10 We also have written records that a suit of clothing was issued to Elizabethan soldiers twice a year. A light weight one for summer and a heavy one for winter. These suits usually contained a jerken/doublet, slops, 2 shirts, 2 socks, and 1 or 2 pairs of shoues.11 In the case of both the inventories and the chests these items would have been extra clothing. We must assume that the owner of the estate and the chests had at least one full set of clothes that they were wearing. Probably the most diverse group of items was eating vessels. These varied from pewter plates to wooden bowl to wooden trenchers. 13 or the 27 sources mention an eating vessel of some sort. In addition to what was in the chests the galley of the Mary Rose was filled with loos dishes.12 Most of the wooden bowls and mugs, and several of the wooden trenchers had owner marks carved on them. This would show that a lot more crew owned bowls, trenchers, mugs and possibly pewter plates than was shown by the contents of the chests. Also conspicuously missing from the inventories and the chests were spoons. Several were found in the Galley. They were made of wood or pewter.13 One of the wood spoons had a makers mark on it. This would lead me to believe that the spoons were not communal supplies but at least some were owned by members of the crew. 14 One of the most common item on the Mary Rose was the knife. Only 3 chests did not have one and several of the chests had more than one. These were not weapons (That would be the kidney or ballock daggers. They were excluded from this study as they are primarily weapons) but were tools. They would have been used for eating, working in the riggings and anything else you could imagine. Most everyone would have carried one and as is attested to the contents of the chests, almost everyone had a spare. The Mary rose knives vary in quality but the majority are slender blades four to six inches in length. Several had a rat tail toung and would have been shoved into a block of wood. Others were scale tanged handles were slabs of wood or bone were pineed together through the tang of the blade. There were no intact leather sheaths recovered on the Mary Rose15, but many wood sheaths were. These sheaths are unique to the Mary Rose and have not been found in the rest of Tudor culture. Related to the ownership of knives were wetstones. These were used to sharpen knives and bladed tools. Several wetstones where found in a box containing personal gear as well as carpentry tools. In this case it is unclear as to whether this was a personal item or a professional tool used to sharpen chisels and planes. Most of the wetstones were found in personal chests not containing tools. Two of the wetstones were found with shallow wooden trays that they would sit in while being used.16 A pouch would refer to a bad designed to hang from a belt or girdle. There were many different designs used by Tudor society. The simplest is a bag held closed by a drawstring with a belt loop and cover attached. One such pouch was found on the Mary Rose. Other types include kidney pouches with multiple compartments that was made out of later. More expensive pouches would include a metal frame called a hanger, or would be made of heavy cloth. Several straps, laces and loose aglets were found in the Mary Rose chests. These would have been used to secure clothing by either lacing them together or using them as a garter and tying or buckling them around your leg or arm. The laces were woven and would have had aglets or small metal cones or brass, attached to either end. One bundle of 10 laces was found. They were wrapped together and tied into a knot. Several of the chests had loose aglets. Most probably these were attached to laces that did not survive. The straps would have been made of leather and would have had a buckle or could have been tied. Many of the jerkins found had lacing holes in them. One cloth doublet had buttonholes going down both side. Most likely these would have been fastened with a lace. There were lots of jewelry found in the inventories and chests. These ranged from wooden paternosters, lead tokens, to silver pendants, charms, and rings. Several wooden paternosters (prayer beads) were found aboard the Mary Rose. There were also beads of stone and bone found that could have been from paternosters or other jewelry.17 There was a lead token in the shape of a small coin that may have been a religious token. There were several silver pieces in the chests as well. One was a cross medallion with a garnet in the center. Two finger rings were found. One with small bumps all over it and the other was a signet ring with the letter K on it. Although these were of value and were much more than most could afford18 they do not begin to compare with the jewelry of the gentry or nobles. 19 20 The combs found on the Mary Rose were mainly made of wood, except for one of ivory, and were all small double sided. In addition to the ones found in the chests, many combs were found in association to human remains. They were a key item for personal grooming. Some of the combs found also had a leather case they were inside of. In addition several other items of personal grooming were found in chests. Several brushes and razors were found, as well as a manicure set and small mirror. These were not wide spread among the finds but do show us other items that might be owned. The razor would have been an expensive item for an individual to own. Also among the grooming items were found a manicure set made of bone. This had a pick for cleaning your teeth, a blade like item for cleaning your fingernails, and a small spoon for cleaning out your ears. Sets of this kind were common in the 15th and 16th century. Several versions of these tools appear in the Museum of London book on dress accessories. They are made of wood, bone, and bronze.21 Almost half of the chests and inventories had coins. These varied from silver coins of various demoninations and origins to gold coins. This means that it was quite common for the working class to have coin. This parrelles a growing trend in tudor society twords a cash economy and more people using money to get basic needs than providing it for themselves. The fact that half of the samples came from a ship, may skew the data on having coins and savings. This is a category that surprised me. There were several flasks found. Most were leather but there was one of pewter, one of ceramic, and one of glass. These area small containers for holding liquid. It is impossible to know from the flasks found on the Mary Rose, contained. The leather flasks have multiple parts stitched together and then the whole piece was coated in wax. The flasks range in size from being rather small holding less than 8 oz, to large, holding 16 or more. This last catagorie of out top items contains small boxes, bags, and baskets. These seem to be used for storage of small items. The boxes were made of joined wood or out of wood staves that were shaved and soaked. The bags were both closth and leather. They had drawstrings and a bottom piece sewed on the the sides. 22 There were several items that while not prevalent amoung the inventories and chests were represented enough to make note of. Several of the items found in the chests were items used during leisure time. The dice would have been for gamining or gambling. There were two game boards found carved in to chests (containing supplies not personal gear) and one on the top of a barrel. There were also gaming pieces and a backgammon board found abord the Mary Rose that were not associated with a personal chest. Also falling into this catagorie would be the books that were found. 3 different chests had books stored in them. We can no longer be sure what the content of the books were. There were also 6 chests that had fishing equipment. These would also be used during leisure time as they would have food provided for them. Any fish caught would be an added bonus to supplement personal provisions. Among the finds were lead fishing wheights, floats, a hook disgorger, and frames for winding the fishing line. None of the line survived but it was most likely made of linen. Although these items give us a good view of what type of things were owned by the Tudor working class it does not account for everything. There were several items on our list that only appears once. Such as the manicure set, pepper mill, and mirror. That does not mean that they were uncommon it simply means that they were not prevalent in our study points. Care must be taken in using this study to state that something was not used or owned by the working class. The example of one of the probate inventories that were worth 80 pounds showed that even the working class could be very comfortable and afford luxuries such as silver and gold jewelry. Even the amount of possesions will vary greatly from person to person. Some of the chests only had a few items and a couble had 10 or more itms. The same with the inventories. Some had very little personal possesions were one of the inventories had many. This also applies to the quality of the items themselves. Many of the clothing items found in the chests were leather and wool. But several silk lined hats were recovered and linen is mentiond frequently in the inventories. As we saw with the eating inventories there were bowls and trenchers of wood as well as pewter plates. In most cases the individual would posses an item that was of the best quality they could afford. This would show there social standing and how well off they were. 23 Now we have our list of items and a general understanding of what those items would be like and be made of. Unfortunatly this list is far from complete. We have some obvious holes in the research that do affect our findings. First of all is the fact that we have used the findings from a ship. Individuals would not need person cooking apparatus as they would have access to communal cooking facilities were measl would be made for them. They also would be provided places to sleep, although no such facilities were survived from the Mary Rose. The next issue with the samples we used is that none of them account for what was on the person. We have no evidence as to what they would have carried. There was some evidence of items found in the vicienty of human remains from the Mary Rose. The problem is that we cannot know which skeleton had what artifactsAlthose they can give us an idea of what was carried they cannot tell us who had them and in what combination. . Were their dive records that plot out were items were found in conjunction with skeletons as they did for the chests? We have the same issue with the inventories. Were people buried in their clothes? Were personal items berried with them? These are questions that would should be looked at as further research is done. Despite these concerns, we can get a very good look at what items a member of the working class in Tudor England would have. From the inventories and the personal chests found on the mary rose we can create a list of what these individuals had in common . These items include: a pot or pan, a bed, blankets and or sheets, a chest for storage, extra clothing, a plate or bowl, a utility knife, a whetstone, laces or leather straps for securing clothing, a piece of jewelry, a comb and possibly a leather case, some coins, a flask for carrying liquids, and small bags or boxes to keep small itmes in. From this list we can create a kit for the renactors wanting to portray a member of the Tudor working class. This would be the basic kit and then could be supplemented as needed based on the class and wealth of the person being portrayed. This would also allow the renactors to use the items and live within the restraints that Tudor society had placed upon its subjects. Personal items were few. It would aslo allow the reinactor to think in terms for what was available to the Tudor working class to cook, clean, and to do during leisure time. In short it gives us as renactors a chance to experiment with what life would be like if all of our worldly possessions had to be kept in a single chest. Bibliography: “Artifacts and Personal Identity” by Carolyn L White and Mary C. Beaudry. Published 2009 Available on line at www.academia.edu/198170/artifacts_and_personal_identity International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, published 2009 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). “Tudor Inventories from Appleby, 1530-1601,” Alan Roberts “Before the Mast: Life and Death aboard the Mary Rose. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose, Volume 4” edited by Julie Gardiner with Michael J. Allen Websites: The Mary Rose Museum and Trust: www.maryrose.org 1 Carolyn L. White and Mary C Beaudry “Artifacts and Person Identity” 2 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 3 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 4 “Tudor Inventories from Appleby, 1530-1601,” Alan Roberts 5 We have very little information on the posesions of those belowe one pound in value as no inventories were recorded for them. Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 6 Roger Fieldhourse, “Social structure from Tudor Lay Susidies and Probate Inventories, A Case Study: Richmondshire (Yourkshire). 7 No one knows for Shure why the Mary Rose sunk. It is believed that she capsized making a turn during the battle and took water in through her gun ports. 8 “Before the Mast: Life and Death aboard the Mary Rose. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose, Volume 4” edited by Julie Gardiner with Michael J. Allen 9 Wood Cut of Landsknecht couple 1520. 10 Need sitation 11 Need Sitation 12 Need Sitation 13 Need Sitation 14 From the Mary rose museum website. 15 There were several loose pieces of leather that could have been a knife sheath but there is no was to tell for sure. 16 Need sitation 17 Sitation needed 18 If we go back to the inventories and look at the 46% who were exempt from taxes, they would not be able to buy any of these items. 19 From the Mary rose museum website. 20 From the Mary rose museum website. 21 Museum of London, Dress Accessories Need Sitation 22 From the Mary Rose Museum website, copyright by the Mary Rose Trust 23 Need sitation