Some possible questions/ approaches to the midden Class and Sex distinctions in the Poorhouse through pottery. Sex distinctions between the poor. It was suggested on a radio programme on the Workhouse a few months ago that for one particular workhouse in England, men's mugs were larger than women's, the former holding about ¾ pint. Supposing blue is for men and pink if for women, do there appear to be any distinctions in size/shape between the blue and the pink pottery? How can these differences be explained in terms of different stereotypical assumptions about the sexes? Did the blue and the pink distinction have a functional use? Class distinctions between the poor. Was there a third category with no decoration? Who was it for? Distinctions in status between staff and the poor. To what extent is high-status pottery represented? It would have been handled in a separate kitchen, so was more care taken and the breakage rate lower in spite of it being more delicate? What can a statistical analysis of the percentages of different pottery remains tell us (if anything)? Other possible approaches to the pottery Changing attitudes to the poor. If stratigraphy can establish a chronological sequence for the blue and pink pottery, to what extent can we observe changing ideas in the changing pottery designs? Was tradition stuck to rigorously, or did changing ideas about the poor cause them to order less super-sturdy, more normal, crockery? Diet. What can we tell about their diet from the combination of documentary sources and range of crockery? Are there any striking absences of articles of pottery? How can these be explained? Analysis of pottery for trade. Where were things coming from? All from England? Why? Analysis of the other artefacts Pottery and glass containers. What else was in the Poorhouse? In the way of tooth-paste, shampoo etc. Who did it belong to? Why haven't we found combs and tooth brushes? Non-essential items. To what extent were dolls, clay pipes etc. officially permitted, and what does their presence on the midden indicate? Structural. Study of toilets, sinks, pipes, tiles, window glass. The midden itself Where was the rubbish from and how effectively was it separated? Why are some bones represented? Can we safely conclude that most of the rubbish came from the Poorhouse, rather than either of the (closer, but less accessible) hospitals? Period of use. Can we establish a period of use for the midden from pottery dating evidence and documentary sources? How do we know that this was a midden at all? Is it possible that at one point all the crockery was dumped? This is unlikely due to gradual metamorphosis rather than closure of the Poorhouse. Also, assuming there were no refuse collections, non-combustibles had to go somewhere, so if they did chuck out all the pottery at the end, it was probably chucked onto an existing dump. Was it the only midden? Can we conclude anything about other middens missing from the record due to imbalances in rubbish representation? What can we conclude about the Poorhouse's attitude toward skimping and saving? Was all pottery thrown away if it became damaged? Were bottles or containers reused or were whole ones thrown away? The ash What can we tell from the ash on the midden about what was being burned? Was it just coal? Why has some of the pottery and glass been burnt? Was it in a bonfire after deposition, or was it in the boiler? Summary of proposed project strategy further desktop study further analysis of artefacts on surface of midden, with reference to some of the questions and issues indicated above topographical survey of the midden excavation of a small trench at the top of the midden to examine stratigraphy, with implications for the surface artefacts more analysis publication of reports on Royal Edinburgh pottery and Craiglockhart Poorhouse midden - location of reports to follow. Back to main page The text and images in this page are ©copyright Joanna Dawson 1999