Ximenez Family: Portuguese Lifestyle in 17th-Century Flanders

Post-Medieval Archaeology
ISSN: 0079-4236 (Print) 1745-8137 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypma20
A Portuguese lifestyle in the Flemish countryside:
ceramics of the Ximenez family (1595-c. 1700)
Maxime Poulain, Jeroen Van Vaerenbergh & Wim De Clercq
To cite this article: Maxime Poulain, Jeroen Van Vaerenbergh & Wim De Clercq (2017) A
Portuguese lifestyle in the Flemish countryside: ceramics of the Ximenez family (1595-c. 1700),
Post-Medieval Archaeology, 51:2, 274-308, DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2017.1370933
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00794236.2017.1370933
Published online: 27 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 73
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypma20
Post-Medieval Archaeology 51/2 (2017), 274–308
A Portuguese lifestyle in the Flemish countryside:
ceramics of the Ximenez family (1595-c. 1700)
By MAXIME POULAIN
, JEROEN VAN VAERENBERGH and WIM DE CLERCQ
SUMMARY: In 1595, the Portuguese merchant banker Duarte Ximenez bought the Blauwhof, a castlelike estate in the Flemish countryside. An assemblage of pottery, recovered from the moat adjacent to
the estate’s manor house, testifies to the status and hybrid identity of this 17th-century immigrant family.
Although they were well assimilated into Antwerp’s high society, their foreign roots are still evident from
particular Portuguese imports or the unconventional use of locally produced ceramics. Comparison
with probate inventories shows that the two categories of Portuguese pottery serve different purposes,
one in the public sphere of knowledgeable actors, and one in the intimacy of the Ximenez family.
the continuation of Iberian practices in a Flemish
context.
INTRODUCTION
Between 1998 and 2004, a multi-period site was excavated in Steendorp (Temse), a small village along the
Scheldt river in Flanders, Belgium (Fig. 1). Extensive
clay exploitation threatened the archaeological record
that was preserved under the local microtopography.
Over seven years, a team of the Archeologische Dienst
Waasland (ADW), now Erfpunt, uncovered some
remains dating to the Late Iron Age and Roman period,
a late medieval moated site, the Hof van Leugenhage
and its early modern successor, the Blauwhof, bought
in 1595 by the Portuguese merchant banker Duarte
Ximenez.1 It is the latter rural estate that will be the
focus of this article. The base of this study consists
of a large assemblage of pottery, supplementing previous studies on the Blauwhof’s bone material2 and
porcelain.3 The integration of those previous analyses
into the research presented here and comparison with
archival sources informs on the use of Portuguese
ceramics in an international context, and highlights
associated aspects of religion and hybrid identity. As
such, new insights are obtained into the lifeways of
immigrant families in 17th-century Flanders. In the
following article, the terms ‘lifeway’ or ‘lifestyle’ are
not used to deny the multiplicity of taste groups with
Portuguese immigrants, but rather serve to designate
THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
Duarte Ximenez, who ordered the construction of the
Blauwhof, was part of the old Spanish-Portuguese
noble Ximenez d’Aragão family, which settled in
Antwerp in the middle of the 16th century. Locally,
the Ximenezes were considered to be one of the most
important families amongst the so-called marranos or
cristãos-novos (New Christians): Iberian Jews who had
converted, or were forced to convert, to Christianity.4
Antwerp housed one of the largest converso communities in early modern Europe, with c. 85 New
Christian families present in the city by 1571.5 The
Portuguese immigrants in Antwerp organized themselves into nations (commercial guilds) and made the
city into their commercial hub of trade north of the
Alps.6 The Ximenez family, with Fernão (1525-1600)
and Ruy Nuñes Ximenez (1529-81) as the two first
representatives in Antwerp, engaged in the global trade
of bulk products and luxury goods and in monetary
transactions with the Spanish Crown, with offices in
several of Europe’s main cities.7 This successful trade
continued into the 1590s under three of Ruy Nuñes’s
sons: Duarte (1561-1630), Emmanuel (1564-1632) and
© Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2017
DOI: 10.1080/00794236.2017.1370933
274
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
Gonzalo (1575-1638), all of whom were Knights in
the Order of St Stephen and held the office of consul
in the Portuguese trade nation.8 The Ximenez partnership numbered many ships, embarking on voyages to
Africa, the Canaries and Brazil.9 This trade generated
275
the necessary capital to support a luxurious lifestyle
and the acquisition and maintenance of their many
properties, such as a city palace on the Antwerp Meir
(one of the most salubrious streets in the city) and a
countryside retreat, the Blauwhof.
FIG. 1
Location and simplified excavation plan of the Blauwhof, Steendorp (Temse). 1: location of assemblage, 2: manor, 3:
outbuildings, 4: garden, 5: bridgehead, 6: wells, 7: chapel (adapted from Van Vaerenbergh et al. 2007, 437, fig. 10).
276MAXIME POULAIN et al.
THE BLAUWHOF ESTATE
The late medieval Hof van Leugenhage was bought in
1595 by Duarte Ximenez. The actual construction of
the new estate started a few years later and can be dated
to around 1600. After Duarte’s death, the Blauwhof
passed on to his younger brother Emmanuel. The
manor remained in the Ximenez family until it was
sold in 1697, after the death of the last scion in 1695.
Under subsequent occupants, the estate was poorly
maintained and eventually dismantled around 1770,
to be transformed into arable lands.10
Several historical sources provide information
about the structural aspects of this country estate (Fig.
2).11 The Blauwhof was a moated site, of which the
outer walls were crenelated, with faceted towers on
the corners and a square tower with drawbridge on
the west side. The Ximenezes’ residence was situated
in the centre of the estate and had a garden adjacent to
the east. Outbuildings, such as stables and barns, were
situated to the north of the manor, while a chapel was
situated to the south.12 The tower in which this chapel
was located stood in the moat and might well have
been a remnant of the previous Hof van Leugenhage.13
The material studied in this article was recovered from the moat to the south of the estate’s manor
house, where the kitchen and latrines were most likely
situated (Fig. 3). The moat was filled up in several
phases. A first layer [E] was closed off by a nearly
sterile layer [D], on top of which layer [C] is situated
(Fig. 4). The [E] layer is associated with the Ximenez
family, whereas the [D] layer is linked to the period
when the estate transferred to its new owners at the
turn of the 18th century. A faience bowl with a date
of 1675 provides a terminus post quem for this layer
and is thus concurrent with the historical sources.
The subsequent [C] fill then contains material of the
Blauwhof’s 18th-century occupants. In this article, we
only include objects originating from layer [E], which
were certainly discarded under the ownership of the
Ximenez family.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Working with an assemblage of a known date range
(1595-c. 1700) and associated with a particular family opens up myriad possible avenues of research.
Previous studies have already raised the issue of
religion. Portuguese New Christians were and are
sometimes suspected of secretly practising the Jewish
faith (crypto-Judaism), outwardly acting as Christians
to reap the (economic) benefits of participation in a
Catholic society without internalizing Christian values.14 Evidence for a clandestine synagogue in Antwerp
between 1564 and 1594 indicates that several members
of these families were indeed crypto-Judaizers.15
However, the Ximenez family is believed to have been
fully assimilated into Antwerp’s dominant CounterReformation culture.16 A sepulchre for the Ximenez
family in Antwerp’s Cathedral of Our Lady, ordered
by Fernão in 1592,17 serves as the best illustration of
adopted Christianity. This observation of assimilation
was confirmed by recent research on the Blauwhof’s
animal bones, evidencing a Catholic religious affiliation in the dietary practices.18 However, can this
affiliation also be detected in the ceramic material?
And was the Ximenez family truly fully integrated into
Antwerp’s elite society or was there still something
that set them apart from the material culture of the
rest of Antwerp’s 17th-century elite? The evidence
here hints at the latter, as the dominance of sheep and/
or goat is identified as a continuation of Portuguese
traditions.19 An important comparison is the study of
crypto-Jews in Reformation England, certainly since
close ties existed between both regions.20 In this study,
a strong Iberian identity is observed among the conversos, possibly incorporating objects with Portuguese
associations in their material culture.21 However, it has
been noted that ‘living and worshipping outwardly as
Christians for several generations led to the incorporation of aspects of Christian culture into certain areas
of converso life’.22
A final issue lies with the question of wealth.
How was the extended network of the Ximenez family
translated into material culture? In addition, although
ceramics are often regarded as an unreliable marker
for status, are there some finds that can still be used as
indicators of the presence of affluent consumers? The
correlation between ceramics and status and/or wealth
is particularly problematic as pottery is generally cheap
and thus affordable to most. Major concerns furthermore flow from the fact that assemblages are often hard
to compare and that quality was not always a prerequisite of the higher echelons. Even the wealthy abbey
of Ename in the province of East Flanders invested in
ceramics, with the few entries in the abbey’s accounts
indicative of their low value and everyday use.23 The
issue of accessibility constitutes an additional difficulty. For example, the presence of Iberian maiolica in
the 15th-century fishing village of Raversijde does not
reflect the wealth of its inhabitants, but rather the result
of the participation of these poor households in privateering and guiding foreign ships into Flemish ports.24
METHODS
The majority of the ceramics used in analysis were
recovered from the [E] layer. In a few cases, sherds
were included from the layer where the [E] and [C] fills
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
277
FIG. 2
The Blauwhof in Antonius Sanderus’s Flandria illustrata (1641–44), Ghent University Library.
come together. Their inclusion is justified by decoration or Portuguese provenance, which places these artefacts in the appropriate period. This practice inevitably
leads to an over-representation of decorated ceramics,
such as tin-glazed ware and stoneware. However, since
only eight sherds or four vessels were included in this
way, their impact on the quantification below is only
limited. Quantification of the assemblage was made
using sherd count and a rim-based minimum number
of vessels (MNV).25 The degree of fragmentation or
brokenness, referring to an average number of sherds
into which pots of a certain form or category break,26
was calculated by dividing sherd count by the MNV.
RESULTS
POTTERY QUANTIFICATION
The selection criteria and quantification methods
resulted in a total of 8079 sherds recovered, representing a minimum of 1130 vessels (Table 1). For most
ceramic categories, the degree of fragmentation is
rather moderate compared to other early modern sites
in Flanders.27 This explains why a relatively large number of sherds could be reconstructed into (archaeologically) complete vessels. Stoneware stands in contrast to
this observation, with an average of 16.5 sherds/MNV.
The processes behind this high degree of fragmentation
are not clear.
Next to stoneware, another seven ceramic categories were identified. The greyware present in this assemblage can probably be considered as residual, dating to
the previous Hof van Leugenhage estate. Although greyware has been found in late 16th-century assemblages,28
it is generally accepted that these products went out
of production in the 16th century, and in some regions
perhaps even earlier.29 As no specific vessel forms could
be identified with certainty (Table 2), this category will
not be discussed any further. Redware, of a local or
regional origin, is by far the best represented category.
A small percentage of redware was imported, from the
Lower Rhine area, Spain and Portugal (Table 3). The
other ceramic categories are also imports, with stoneware from the Rhineland and Werra, produced somewhere along the river of the same name (Germany) or
in Enkhuizen in the Netherlands. The exact provenance
278MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 3
View of the mansion’s walls and adjacent moat, with indication of the different fills (photograph courtesy of Erfpunt).
FIG. 4
Stratigraphy of the fill of the moat (courtesy Erfpunt).
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
279
of the whiteware vessels remains unknown, although the
present-day Netherlands is the most likely candidate. Of
the three supra-regional pottery centres in the 17th-century Netherlands — Bergen op Zoom, Oosterhout and
Gouda — only Gouda produced whitewares. Moreover,
export from Gouda to Flanders has been documented
in archival records.30 Gouda should thus be considered
as one of the most likely provenances for the 17th-century whitewares, considering the major importance
of the Northern Netherlands as a pottery supplier for
Flanders. A Dutch provenance is similarly true for much
of the tin-glazed wares (e.g. Delft), although multiple
production sites remained active in the southern Low
Countries (e.g. Antwerp). Italian and Portuguese tinglazed imports are also represented (Table 3). Finally,
Chinese porcelain was the most exotic import category.
The different categories described above meet
the ever-increasing need for form diversification in
the early modern period (Table 2).31 When these forms
are grouped into probable functions (Table 4), vessels
related to food preparation are best represented, followed by tableware and those used in the kitchen or
for stock. Vessels were attributed to a certain category
according to their most probable function, based on
archaeological (e.g. residue analysis), historical (e.g.
probate inventories) and art-historical research (e.g.
paintings). However, the probability of the attributed
function must be stressed, given that a pot can always
be used for something that was originally not intended.
The resulting functional distribution is in line with the
presence of a kitchen, adjacent to the moat from which
the assemblage was recovered (see above). The excavated latrines are less well translated into the material
culture, as only 1.5% of the vessels were related to
hygiene (eleven chamber pots and six ointment jars).
In the following discussion, a selection of sherds is
outlined, reflecting the diversity of fabrics, forms and
types present within this assemblage.
LOCAL/REGIONAL REDWARE
The redware category consists of 865 vessels, representing seventeen different forms: cooking pots,
single-handled cooking pots, frying pans, lids, skillets, colanders, jugs, large carinated bowls, storage
jars, a bowl, dishes, plates, porringers, ointment jars,
bird pots, a flowerpot and handled jars. These types
are defined on the basis of previous research.32 Where
definitions were lacking, a choice was made for the
terms most widely acknowledged in (inter)national
literature.33 The fabric is characterized by a hard and
dense texture, including fine, rounded and sandy particles, with a brown, brown-red to orange-red colour.
Larger inclusions, such as grog, tertiary pebbles and
mica, may occur.
There are 275 cooking pots present in this assemblage (Fig. 5:1-24; 6:1-3). Some common characteristics are a colourless lead glaze on the interior and
traces of soot on the exterior. Where preserved, the
base always has three solid feet. It sets the ceramics
in the Blauwhof apart from sites in the coastal zone
where thumbed feet are most dominant in the late 16th
and early 17th century.34 Three vessels (Fig. 5:1-3) are
lacking in feet and can possibly be associated with the
use of a kitchen stove, as developed in the 17th century.35 When the dimensions for these cooking pots are
calculated, an evolution towards more open forms can
be observed (Table 5). Indeed, the width/height ratio of
cooking pots in the St Salvator abbey of Ename, dated
1450-1550, ranges between 1:0.9 and 1:1,36 while the
late 16th- to early 17th-century cooking pots found in
several garderobe chutes of Middelburg’s castle have
width/height ratios of about 1:0.7 to 1:0.5.37 If this
trend of continuously more open forms is followed, a
relative chronology could be proposed where the globular vessels (Fig. 6:1-2) are placed in the late 16th and
first decades of the 17th century. As such, they predate
those vessels with a larger rim diameter and no feet
(Fig. 5:1-3), which can be dated to the later part of the
17th century. The other types (Fig. 5:4-6) may range
in between in date. Those chronological phases may
well reflect two periods of clearance, one when the
Ximenezes moved into the Blauwhof and one when the
estate transferred to its new owners. This hypothesis is
strengthened with the data provided by other ceramic
categories discussed below.
TABLE 1
Quantification of ceramic categories.
Greyware
Redware
Imported redware
Stoneware
Tin-glazed ware
Whiteware
Werra
Porcelain
Total
Sherds
10
5976
28
660
1059
334
2
10
8079
MNV
2
865
5
40
161
54
1
2
1130
% sherds
0.12
73.97
0.35
8.17
13.11
4.13
0.02
0.12
100
% MNV
0.18
76.55
0.44
3.54
14.25
4.78
0.09
0.18
100
Brokenness
5.00
6.91
5.60
16.50
6.58
6.19
2.00
5.00
7.15
280MAXIME POULAIN et al.
The sheer quantity of double-handled cooking pots
stands in contrast to the number of single-handled cooking pots counted in this assemblage. Two vessels of the
latter type could be distinguished, based on the obvious lack of a second handle and their jug-like appearance (Fig. 6:4). The presence of soot and a tripod base,
however, indicates that this form did not function as a
container for liquids but was used in the preparation
of liquid foodstuffs, an observation already made by
Bruijn.38 Another form that was used in the preparation of food is the frying pan (Fig. 6:16-25). Some of
these vessels (Fig. 6:23-4) have a remarkably small rim
diameter (140-50mm). The presence of soot on these
pots indicates that they have been in contact with fire.
However, their interpretation as frying pans may perhaps be questioned because of the small rim diameters.
Frying pans usually have rim diameters over 200mm.39
There is less doubt about the skillets, as they can
all be identified by the presence of a spur right under
the rim (Fig. 6:5-11, 13-15). The sharp transition to a
tripod base, the pouring lip and pinched handle can be
considered as other diagnostic features. Only one vessel
(Fig. 6:12) seems to deviate from this general model and
has a sickle-shaped rim with a smooth transition from
body to base. In contrast to the jugs, which are all fully
glazed (Fig. 7:6-10), the ten lids in this assemblage only
have glazing on their exterior (Fig. 7:1-4). The type with
the loop handle (Fig. 7:1) has been dated to 1575-1650.40
The vessel with double fastening (Fig. 7:5) forms a type
on its own and is generally interpreted as an extinguisher.
The 109 large carinated bowls are present in many
different types (Fig. 7:13-24; 8:1). Common characteristics are the strap-shaped rim, pouring lip and glazed
interior. The large carinated bowl is traditionally associated with skimming cream from milk.41 However,
traces of soot occasionally occur, indicating multiple
uses besides dairy processing.42 Colanders are typologically associated with the carinated bowl, with similar rim types (Fig. 8:2-7). Whereas most vessels have
large diameters (over 200mm), one rim fragment (Fig.
8:5) belongs to a smaller type. Parallels for this small
colander have been found in 16th- and early 17th-century assemblages in Middelburg,43 and a 16th-century
cesspit in Bruges.44 The term ‘storage jar’ (Fig. 8:8-15)
covers a diverse group of vessels, which is reflected in
many different forms and rim types. Some vessels (Fig.
8:13-14) could have a hemispherical body which rather
makes them bowls. In their design, they strongly differ
from the only, and complete, bowl in this assemblage
(Fig. 7:11) with its simple rounded rim, convex base
and an overall green-coloured lead glaze.
The rims of plates (Fig. 8:16-25) are either
rounded or accentuated by a more profiled design.
Plates are covered with lead glaze on the interior and
are generally undecorated. One exception (Fig. 8:21)
has a marbled decoration using white slip. Dishes can
be differentiated from plates by the lack of a break from
lip to well (Fig. 8:26-32; 9:1-3). Only one vessel (Fig.
8:31) is decorated. Stripes of white slip are accentuated by green spots of copper in the lead glaze. A final
form that is considered tableware is the double-handled
bowls or porringers (Fig. 9:4-7).
The bird pots are a characteristic form of the Low
Countries. They were used to attract and house starlings, which were considered a delicacy. Three vessels
were identified. They all correspond to a same basic
type, which consists of a globular body and a long
narrow neck with a simple rim (Fig. 9:11-15). One
fragment has a pierced lug on the neck (Fig. 9:13).
This lug held a horizontal wooden perch, on which
the bird could sit. The base always has an opening that
was cut out before firing and allowed for the removal
of eggs or young birds from the nest.45 However, one
vessel (Fig. 9:15) also has an opening in the side.
Multiple holes permitted the positioning of the pot in
different directions on the Blauwhof’s outside walls.
Starlings prefer to orientate their nests to the south or
east (the least rainy sides), free of the prevailing southwest wind and the heat of the midday sun.46 Another
particular trait is that several fragments (Fig. 9:13-15)
are covered with a green-coloured lead glaze, while
another fragment (Fig. 9:12) is partly coated with a
colourless lead glaze. Glazing is not very common with
bird pots.47 It must have rendered a colourful aspect to
the Blauwhof’s walls.
Another form that is traditionally considered
unglazed is the flowerpot. Only one vessel of this type
was counted (Fig. 9:8). Although no handles were preserved, nine vessels were identified as handled jars (Fig.
9:9-10). They were used to transport hot embers. This
function is clearly evidenced by the perforations in the
inwardly bent rim, allowing the heat to come through.
The two ointment jars in this assemblage have a lead
glaze all over. Their design (Fig. 10:1) is based on that
of maiolica albarelli, with a simple everted rim on a
cylindrical body. A total of 96 vessels remained undetermined, largely due to their fragmentary state. Some of
these unknown vessels are illustrated here (Fig 10:2-4).
IMPORTED REDWARE
Two of the depicted imported redware vessels originate
from the Lower Rhine area and are both plates. A first
one (Fig. 10:6) is decorated with green-coloured lines,
waving through two sets of concentric slip circles. This
decoration pattern is generally dated to 1650-1750.48
The second plate (Fig. 10:5) is fully covered by a
white slip layer on which a green-coloured decoration
is applied. A sgraffito pattern of dots brings out the red
colour of the fabric. Similar plates have been dated to
1700-1800,49 which makes this a very early example.
A body sherd of an olive jar complements these
redware imports. The lack of a micaceous fabric is
Bowl
Covilhete
Cup
Dish
Fluted dish
Humpen
Plate
Porringer
Púcaro
Chamber pot
Ointment jar
Bird pot
Flowerpot
Handled jar
Marble
Unknown
Total
2
2
96
865
2
3
1
9
57
48
73
1
5
1
4
4
2
9
161
1
2
40
93
4
2
1
5
7
13
5
22
7
54
5
1
1
14
1
1
2
1
1
15
3
2
15
5
23
74
7
5
155
52
1
11
6
3
1
9
1
116
1130
62
3
31
12
102
22
12
26
8
2
3
109
Total
288
2
109
Porcelain
Large carinated bowl
Storage jar
Werra
20
Tin-glazed
Stoneware ware
Whiteware
13
Jug
Imported
redware
31
10
102
14
Redware
275
2
Cooking pot
Single-handled cooking
pot
Form
Frying pan
Lid
Skillet
Colander
Greyware
TABLE 2
Quantification of ceramic forms (MNV).
1.33
0.44
2.04
6.55
0.62
0.44
13.72
4.60
0.09
0.97
0.53
0.27
0.09
0.80
0.09
10.27
100
1.33
9.65
5.49
0.27
2.74
1.06
9.03
1.95
% total
25.49
0.18
food prep.
food prep.
food prep.
food prep.
kitchen/
stock
kitchen/
stock
kitchen/
stock
kitchen/
stock
tableware
tableware
tableware
tableware
tableware
tableware
tableware
tableware
tableware
hygiene
hygiene
other
other
other
other
unknown
Probable
function
food prep.
food prep.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
281
Width
Height
Ratio
Food preparation
Kitchen/stock
Tableware
Hygiene
Other/unknown
Total
Fig. 6:2
160
105
1:0.66
Sherds
Lower Rhine
20
Spain
1
Portugal
7
Italy
Low Countries
Total
28
5
MNV
4
0
1
Fig. 6:1
160
95
1:0.60
100
% sherds
71.43
3.57
25.00
100
0.44
% of total
(MNV)
0.35
0
0.09
Fig. 5:4
200
120
1:0.60
Fig. 5:5
210
100
1:0.48
Fig. 5:6
290
125
1:0.43
TABLE 5
Width/height ratio of cooking pots (in mm).
MNV
438
208
337
17
130
1130
161
11
8
142
34
31
994
1059
MNV
Sherds
TABLE 4
Quantification of probable functions.
0.35
% of total
% MNV (sherds)
80.00
0.25
0
0.01
20.00
0.09
Imported redware
100
3.21
2.93
93.86
Fig. 5:1
250
95
1:0.38
100
6.83
4.97
88.20
Fig. 5:3
270
90
1:0.33
14.25
0.97
0.71
12.57
% of total
(MNV)
% MNV
38.76
18.41
29.82
1.50
11.50
100
13.10
0.42
0.38
12.30
% of total
% sherds % MNV (sherds)
Tin-glazed ware
TABLE 3
Quantification of different provenances, present within the imported redware and tin-glazed ware.
282MAXIME POULAIN et al.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
rather indicative of a Spanish origin than a Portuguese
one. Although actually a misnomer, as these botijas did
not exclusively contain olives,50 the term is retained
here. Due to the fragmentary nature of this sherd, it
cannot be attributed to the more rounded or elongated
type in use in the 16th and 17th centuries. Several production centres seem to be involved in the production
of these jars, not only in Seville, but also in its surroundings and on the coast to the south of this city.51 We
will therefore refrain from assigning a specific provenance. A final category are the Portuguese redwares.
These will be discussed further down below, together
with the Portuguese faience.
STONEWARE
All major stoneware production sites for the late
16th and 17th centuries are represented: Siegburg,
Raeren (or its surrounding hamlets), Langerwehe and
Westerwald. A small number of these stoneware vessels serve hygienic purposes. Two types of chamber
pots were found (Fig. 10:7-8). One vessel (Fig. 10:8)
is decorated with two clawing lions and a medallion in
between, featuring a tippler and the proverb ‘[…] ER
DRINKT UND DOCH KEINEN WEIN’ (and yet he
drinks no wine). This form and decoration are typical
of Westerwald productions of the second half of the
17th century.52 Only one ointment jar was identified
with certainty (Fig. 10:9). A small rim fragment (Fig.
10:10) might perhaps also be interpreted as such. Both
have an overall salt glaze and brown engobe.
Most vessels are related to drinking. A set of beer
mugs, so-called Humpen, have a cobalt blue decoration,
indicating a Westerwald origin (Fig. 10:11-14). Some
are more elaborately decorated with hearts and tulips
(Fig. 10:11-12), an incised draughtboard pattern with
a frieze of linked-up diamonds (Fig. 10:13) and the
addition of purple. The use of manganese purple once
again points to the second half of the 17th century.53
One vessel (Fig. 10:15) is not decorated, except for the
overall colourless salt glaze and small incision under
the rim. Its provenance and dating remain unspecified.
The stoneware jugs in this assemblage fall into
two chronological groups. A first group can be identified with Raeren productions of the later 16th century (Fig. 11:1-5). For example, a vessel with a lead
gauge (Fig. 11:1) has parallels in the last quarter of
the 16th century.54 Furthermore, a globular jug with
wide cylindrical neck (Fig. 11:5) has been dated to
the second half of that century.55 A similar date can be
assigned to several of the medallion jugs. One vessel
(Fig. 11:2) bears the escutcheon of ‘ARNOLT VAN
REIFFERSCHIET GENAT MEI RAEDT’ (Arnold
Reiferscheid genannt Meirode).56 The medallion is
dated 1586 and commemorates the attack, led by the
said Reiferscheid, on the village of Raeren a century
before, c. 1450.57 Another medallion jug reads ‘WOLF
283
VOM OBERSTEIN ANNO 1591’,58 and a Peasant
Dance panel jug also points to that last decade of the
16th century.59 A panel jug depicting the seven electors
of the Holy Roman Empire is dated to the first decade
of the 17th century,60 and could thus provide a closing
date for this first group of vessels. A second group consists of Westerwald jugs of the second half of the 17th
century (Fig. 11:6-10). The decoration with rosettes
(Fig. 11:6-7) on a cobalt blue background is consistently dated to between 1650 and 1700.61 The remaining
jugs (Fig. 11:8-10) are more sparsely decorated, with
cobalt blue lines on their cylindrical necks. The three
storage jars all belong to the same type and have wavy
bands incised on the shoulder (Fig. 12:1). They have
characteristics which are diagnostic of 17th-century
Langerwehe jars (Baaren), used in the preservation
of fruit and vegetables or for the storage of butter.62
TIN-GLAZED WARE
In this article, maiolica and faience are grouped
together under the term tin-glazed ware. The distinction between both categories in established scholarship
is generally made on the basis of glazing and production technique. Faience is fully covered in a tin glaze
and produced in saggars, whereas maiolica only has tin
glaze applied on the upper surface, and vessels were
separated during firing with stilts. However, as this
distinction cannot always be made on the level of the
individual sherd and all sorts of intermediate examples
exist, the generic term will be used. Tin-glazed ware
is the most important import category in this assemblage. The majority originate from different production
sites in the Low Countries, with the plate as the most
dominant form type. As with the stoneware, the tinglazed ware once again falls into two distinct chronological groups. A first group of plates (Fig. 13:3-11)
dates to the late 16th and early 17th centuries. They
are categorized as maiolica, with an opaque tin glaze
on the interior and an external lead glaze. The only
archaeologically complete vessel (Fig. 13:3) is decorated with stylized floral motifs, using yellow, orange,
green and blue. Similar patterns have been found on
Antwerp productions, dated to the second half and last
quarter of the 16th century.63 A second plate (Fig. 13:4)
is characterized by an orange and blue zigzag line on
the rim. As with the previous type, the combination
of blue and orange is known on Antwerp productions
from the second half of the 16th century.64 Similar patterns have been found in assemblages dating to the late
16th and early 17th century.65 A final group of polychrome maiolicas can also be dated to this period, as
the application of multiple colours was on the wane
after 1640.66 The rims have been decorated with floral
(Fig. 13:5) or geometrical (Fig. 13:6) motifs, while
two base fragments have an a frutti (fruit) decoration
(Fig. 13:7) or depict a human figurine (Fig. 13:8). Next
284MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 5
Local or regional redware pottery: 1–24 cooking pots.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
to these polychrome maiolicas, a set of large vessels
(Fig. 13:9-11) continues to have an external lead glaze.
The interior, however, is covered in a plain, undecorated tin glaze. They date to the second half of the 17th
century and, as such, constitute a second chronological
group. They can be distinguished from contemporaneous plates with an overall tin glaze (Fig. 14:1-6).
Decorated wares continued to be produced in
the second half of the 17th century. A first vessel (Fig.
14:10) depicts a stylized landscape and figurine on
both lip and well. A parallel object is dated 1650-75.67
Other vessels follow Chinese models more strictly
in form and/or decoration. For example, one plate
depicts a Chinese figurine in a six-pointed star (Fig.
14:7). The exterior is also decorated, with alternating
crosses and circles, and bears traces of saggar pins.
It is the only vessel with a potter’s mark, that of the
faience factory De Pauw (The Peacock), next to which
the number twelve is added. This factory was founded
in 1651 and was located at the Koornmarkt in Delft
(the Netherlands).68 In view of the Jewish roots of the
Ximenez family, the six-pointed star could perhaps be
associated with the Star of David. Interestingly, a parallel for this decoration pattern was found on a faience
plate during the 1981-82 excavations of a Jewish
household in Amsterdam’s Vlooienburg (the present
Waterlooplein).69 However, the ceramic material provided no other indications of a Jewish identity. A kosher
diet did emerge in the faunal record, in the presence
of pewter seals, generally attached to kosher meat.70
The use of the Star of David in the 17th century needs
further research, and an association between this particular decoration pattern and a Jewish identity therefore remains preliminary. Two other plates (Fig. 15:1-2)
resemble this De Pauw production in technique, form
and in their external decoration. They differ, however,
in their compartmented rims and the style of the central
motif (bird in Chinese garden, Fig. 15:1). Although the
plates can be dated to 1650-75,71 they imitate older porcelain productions. Another vessel (Fig. 14:8) is also
produced in saggars, and depicts a Chinese figurine in
an oriental landscape. The lip is divided into compartments, filled in with geometrical and floral motifs. A
final plate (Fig. 15:3) has no oriental references. In its
design, it recalls the plates with an internal plain tin
glaze and external lead glaze (Fig. 13:9-11). This time,
the lip is decorated with lacework in purple and yellow,
while the motif on the well refers to the Parable of the
Sower. The combination of form and decoration dates
it to the late 17th or (very) early 18th century.72
Only four tin-glazed porringers have been counted
in this assemblage (Fig. 13:1-2). Three of them are
undecorated. The single decorated porringer (Fig. 13:2)
has a flower painted on the inside and several lines
radiating from a central perforation in the five-lobed
handle. It can be dated to the first quarter of the 17th
century.73 The bowls (Fig. 12:2-7) in this assemblage
285
come in many different sizes (rim diameters from 120
to 300mm). The exteriors of two similar vessels (Fig.
12:5-6) are painted with a geometrical frieze, under
which medallions with Chinese figurines in a landscape are separated by floral motifs. The inside bears
the depiction of a bird on a branch. A third bowl (Fig.
12:7) is decorated with a tree against a background of
a clouded sky and has a faceted design. In its decoration and angular body, the bowl closely resembles
the rim and base fragment of a cup (Fig. 12:8-9). The
majority of cups, however, correspond to a type with a
simple upright or slightly everted rim, based on a footring and a single vertical loop handle (Fig. 12:10-13).
The cups are universally decorated in an oriental style,
either with landscapes (Fig. 12:10) or Chinese lions
(Fig. 12:11). One cup stands out, both in decoration
and design (Fig 12:14). The exterior is characterized
by flowers, dots to fill up the empty space, and wavy
blue lines on two lobed vertical handles. This particular
handle design has parallels in the last quarter of the 17th
century.74 Two forms related to hygiene are the chamber
pot (Fig. 16:4-6) and ointment jar (Fig. 16:7). Chamber
pots always have a plain tin glaze all over. The ointment
jar, by contrast, is decorated with parallel blue lines
and a series of dots, centrally positioned on the body.
The assemblage includes two tin-glazed jugs. One
(Fig. 16:1) originates from the Low Countries. This
jug, with two loop handles attached to an everted rim,
bears close resemblance to the so-called altar vases
of the 17th century. However, the Chinese decoration
makes it rather doubtful that this particular vessel was
used for this purpose.75 Korf dates similar vessels to
the second quarter of the 17th century.76 Because of
the high-quality glaze but sketchy drawing, this dating
should perhaps be stretched into the second half of that
century. A second jug (Fig. 16:2) is fully covered in
a tin glaze and has a highly profiled footring. A final
form is the fluted dish (crespina), also completely covered in a plain tin glaze (Fig. 16:3). The provenance
for both the second jug and fluted dish may be northern Italy (Faenza?), based on stylistic resemblances
with Italian productions and the thick, high-quality
glaze. Although the dating of these particular vessels
is not entirely clear, most Italian faience imports are
to be dated in the first half of the 17th century.77 The
presence of Italian imports in this assemblage should
not come as a surprise, given the prevalence of these
wares in the early modern Low Countries. These high
quantities result from the direct trade of the Northern
Netherlands with Italy, whereby Dutch ships brought
back Italian pottery in return for grain exports from
the Netherlands.78
286MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 6
Local or regional redware pottery: 1–3 cooking pots, 4 single-handled cooking pot, 5–15 skillets, 16–25 frying pans.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
FIG. 7
Local or regional redware pottery: 1–5 lids, 6–10 jugs, 11 bowl, 12–24 large carinated bowls.
287
288MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 8
Local or regional redware pottery: 1 large carinated bowl, 2–7 colanders, 8–15 storage jars, 16–25 plates, 26–32 dishes.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
FIG. 9
Local or regional redware pottery: 1–3 dishes, 4–7 porringers, 8 flowerpot, 9–10 handled jars, 11–15b bird pots.
289
290MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 10
Local or regional redware pottery: 1 ointment jar, 2–4 unknown; Lower Rhine redware pottery: 5–6 plates; Rhenish
stoneware: 7–8 chamber pots, 9 ointment jar, 10 ointment jar?, 11–15 Humpen.
WHITEWARE
Fifty-four whiteware vessels were counted in this
assemblage, most likely originating from the (western)
Netherlands. Jugs are the dominant form (Fig. 16:17).
The glaze is generally copper-green on the exterior,
while a colourless lead glaze gives the interior a yellow
colour. This decoration pattern is also applied on many
of the cooking pots (Fig. 16:8-11). The unusual form
of these whiteware cooking pots does not suggest that
they were locally made using imported white clay, but
that they were rather imported as finished products.
The lids used to cover these cooking pots are only
fragmentarily preserved (Fig. 16:12-13). The form
(Fig. 16:14) is also related to food preparation and in
particular to the making of pastries. These vessels are
always fully glazed and easily recognizable by their
outstanding rim, decorated with small incisions on the
lip. Eight colanders were identified (Fig. 16:15-16).
Contrasting to most of the other whiteware vessels,
they are always fully covered in a copper-green lead
glaze. The only cup (Fig. 16:18) in this assemblage
has a colourless lead glaze all over, with a flat base
and a pinched handle where this is attached to the
rim. Similar cups are dated to the 17th century, and its
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
291
FIG. 11
Rhenish stoneware: 1–10 jugs.
provenance has been assigned to Gouda, or the western
Netherlands in general.79 Two final forms associated
with hygiene are the chamber pot, identifiable by its
outstanding rim and strap-shaped handle (Fig. 16:20),
and the ointment jar (Fig. 16:19).
WERRA
One plate originates from one of the production sites
along the Werra river or from Enkhuizen (Fig. 16:21).
It is characterized by a set of concentric slip circles
followed by geometrical and floral motifs. Some
highlights have been applied in green. Remarkably, no
traces of a lead glaze were preserved. The main period
of export for this ware type is generally placed between
1580 and 1630.80 Werra ceramics are often associated
with the lower and middle classes.81 This might well
explain why just one vessel was found.
PORCELAIN
As mentioned above, the porcelain from the Blauwhof
has already been studied and published.82 Bruggeman
mentions multiple fragments dating to the 17th
292MAXIME POULAIN et al.
century.83 However, only those vessels which were
found in the [E] fill of the moat were incorporated in
this study, so as not to over-represent the porcelain in
this assemblage. Statements on the value and meaning
of the few porcelain sherds in this assemblage are problematic, given that there is hardly any quantified material available for the period concerned. However, the
general trend is that porcelain in 17th-century Flanders
is only present in (very) low numbers and on a limited
number of sites.84
PORTUGUESE CERAMICS
REDWARES
The imported Portuguese redwares are an important component of the assemblage, in particular the
so-called barros finos, a specific segment of the
Portuguese pottery market in which coarser wares were
also produced. These fine redwares were erroneously
described by Hurst in the 1960s as Merida ware,85 and
were subsequently often attributed to Estremoz, based
on the influential work by de Vasconcellos.86 However,
placing the main production centre in Estremoz is also
problematic, as several other production sites are now
known in Lisbon, Aveiro and Coimbra, together with
some minor productions around Porto.87 In the Low
Countries, the term terra sigillata (also used for Roman
Samian ware, because of the stamps often occurring on
the latter vessels) is used when referring to this ware
type.88 This term has its origins in Brusting,89 but is
now considered problematic.90 The present discussion
instead opts for the more general term Portuguese redwares. Used in the plural, it reflects the diversity of
fabrics and quality in this sub-assemblage.
Portuguese redwares were identified for the first
time in Belgium in Mechelen (Malines) during the
excavation of a cesspit in 1971.91 The exact context
of this find remains unclear, however; situated right
next to St Rumbold’s Cathedral, a high-status household seems likely. Moreover, the town of Mechelen was
home to many high officials in the period of Spanish
rule;92 nonetheless, this status association cannot be
assumed to be secure in isolation. Elsewhere, sixteen
fragments of early modern Iberian red unglazed earthenwares, found on six different sites, have thus far
been published from Antwerp.93 They start appearing
in the material record from the second half of the 16th
century onwards.94 However, delineating this period of
import more clearly has thus far been unsuccessful. Of
the six sites, two can be considered as particularly rich
environments, the ‘Steen’ (castle) and the ‘Bishop’s
Palace,’.95 A third one would be related to wealthy
merchants.96 Two final Portuguese redware finds from
Belgium are a flask in Ostend,97 and an incense burner
in an early 16th-century assemblage at the Carmelite
priory of Aalst.98
In combination, these find locations confirm
Newstead’s interpretation of Portuguese redwares
as high-value commodities in a European trading
network.99 This status can also be seen in the actions
of Philip II of Spain, who gifted Portuguese redware
vessels to his daughters after his visit to Estremoz in
1581-82.100 Portuguese redwares would derive their
main value from the excellent smell and taste of the
clay when serving water.101 For the Netherlands, the
use of redwares for drinking warm wine or chocolate
has also been suggested.102 The red clay also had supposed medicinal qualities. Bucarofagio, or the eating
of drinking vessels (púcaros),103 was a peculiar craze
at the Spanish court, as it was believed to be healthy.104
A púcaro is offered to Infanta Margarita Teresa in the
iconic painting Las Meninas by Diego Velázquez
(1656), whether to be eaten or not remains unclear.105
The consumption of the finds at the Blauwhof seems
highly unlikely, however, due to their well-fired fabric
and the not easily digestible quartz grains.
In total, seven sherds of redware pottery were
found (Fig. 17:5-10), of which one rim fragment represents the only counted vessel. The latter is a púcaro
(Fig. 17:5), a drinking jug, characterized by a triangular rim on a cylindrical collar decorated with a
combination of inlaid quartz and diagonal incisions, a
common decoration pattern.106 Its fabric is hard, beige
to orange-red in colour, with the inclusion of sandy
particles and (relatively speaking) many large pieces of
grog (firesand). The vessel most likely originates from
the Lisbon area.107 Another fragment (Fig. 17:6) is part
of a long vertical loop handle and could have a similar
provenance, as its fabric resembles that of the púcaro
in texture, colour and in the presence of sandy and grog
inclusions. Two other handle fragments (Fig. 17:7-8)
definitely belong to another vessel, as their fabric is
very hard and fine, bright red in colour, with the possibility of a grey core, and has small sandy inclusions.
An exact provenance, however, remains unspecified.
The same goes for a body sherd (Fig. 17:9), which
constitutes yet another fabric type that is hard, brown
in colour and rather coarsely tempered. A final fragment (Fig. 17:10) differentiates itself from the other
Portuguese redwares in that the interior and exterior
are black, with incisions bringing the red fabric to the
fore. This fabric is purple-red in colour and has some
possible lime inclusions. Although its provenance is
unknown, a Mediterranean origin is most likely considering the particularities of the fabric and the specific
context of this assemblage.
FAIENCE
A second group of Portuguese imports comprises
the tin-glazed ware or faience. Their main period of
import into the Low Countries began around 1610,108
and ended some 50 years later, c. 1660.109 In Flanders,
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
FIG. 12
Rhenish stoneware: 1 storage jar; Low Countries tin-glazed ware: 2–7 bowls, 8–14 cups.
293
294MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 13
Low Countries tin-glazed ware: 1–2 porringers, 3–11 plates.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
FIG. 14
Low Countries tin-glazed ware: 1–10 plates.
295
296MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 15
Low Countries tin-glazed ware: 1–3 plates.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
297
FIG. 16
Low Countries tin-glazed ware: 1 jug, 4–6 chamber pots, 7 ointment jar; Italian tin-glazed ware: 2 jug, 3 fluted dish;
imported whiteware pottery: 8–11 cooking pots, 12–13 lids, 14 form, 15–16 colanders, 17 jug, 18 cup, 19 ointment jar, 20
chamber pot; Werra: 21 plate.
298MAXIME POULAIN et al.
Portuguese faience was possibly found in Bruges and
on different sites in Antwerp.110 A recent study also
shows the presence of this ceramic category on the castle site of Middelburg-in-Flanders.111 However, these
finds remain unpublished, making the present study
the first published description of Portuguese faience
in Flanders.
The vessels at the Blauwhof most likely originate
from Lisbon, since no imports from other production
centres are currently known in the Low Countries.112
Their fabrics do indeed match Lisbon products,
described as ‘white buff yellowish, and somewhat pinkish in the less quality items, with their texture compact
and homogenous and the little amount of inclusions
(mainly quartz and micas), naturally occurring in the
clay’.113 Portuguese faience can also be distinguished
from Low Countries tin-glazed ware via its different
decoration, forms and glazing.
Most vessels were identified as plates. A large
plate (Fig. 17:1) has a rim diameter of 380mm and
can be dated to between 1610 and 1635, a period
when Chinese models were faithfully reproduced.114
The well is decorated in a floral theme, while the lip is
divided into compartments, depicting gourds and aranhões, amongst other things. These so-called aranhões,
resembling the legs of a spider, reinforce this dating as
they were first used around 1610.115 Other plates have a
similar design but are smaller in size. One vessel (Fig.
17:2) is characterized by a scalloped rim. The fragment
is unfortunately too small to identify the decorative
motif. A final plate has no break from lip to well (Fig.
17:3). It is decorated with large leafs, which are typical
of the period 1635-60, when Portuguese faience loses
some of its decorative refinement.116 A parallel example
has been found in Vlissingen, the Netherlands.117 A
final open form is a vessel with straight sides on a flat
base with footring, known as a covilhete (Fig. 17:4).
Covilhete is a term used to refer to a small sweets bowl,
which was ‘used to serve a specific type of milk dessert
with the same name’.118 The Portuguese terminology
was retained in this case, since ‘bowl’ does not really
carry the same meaning. Its interior is decorated with
a floral motif in cobalt blue and manganese black.
Similar examples are recorded from the São Francisco
convent in Lisbon and date to the second half of the
17th century.119
The distribution of Portuguese redwares and
faience in Belgium (Fig. 18) shows a remarkable pattern around the Zwin-Scheldt region. Redware vessels
were found in Aalst and Mechelen to the south of the
River Scheldt, while the faience in Bruges, Middelburg
and Vlissingen (the Netherlands) is situated north of
the same river. Ostend forms an exception, with a redware find to the north of the Scheldt. However, this
presence might be explained by the city’s harbour.
Whether this distribution pattern has historical meaning, or merely reflects the current state of research, is
yet to be seen.
DISCUSSION
The preceding assemblage description permits several
observations. Concerning chronology, the more local
redware broadly dates the assemblage to between the
later 16th and end of the 17th century. At first sight,
such a broad dating range might appear to impede any
further interpretation. However, imports (especially
stoneware and tin-glazed ware) refine the date to several chronological phases. The majority of the finds
date either from the late 16th or second half of the 17th
centuries. The dominance of pottery dating to the turn
of the 16th and 17th centuries might well reflect two
clearance phases, one when the Ximenezes moved into
the Blauwhof and one when the estate was transferred
to its new owners. It is notable that only the Portuguese
and Italian imports seem to date to the first half of
the 17th century, with the important exception of the
covilhete. This may reflect a different pattern of refuse
disposal under Ximenez ownership, or that ceramics
were simply not that prevalent during the Blauwhof’s
heyday. The probate inventory of Emmanuel Ximenez,
dated 1617 (see below), hints at the former, since
maiolica plates are more often mentioned than the
more expensive, and thus more noteworthy (from the
inventory’s perspective), pewter ones.
A possible explanation for the observed pattern
could be framed by what is known as the ‘industrious
revolution’.120 The latter is a process via which labour
intensification in 18th-century households resulted
in the increase of both the supply of and demand for
marketed goods.121 A supplementary reason for the
changing consumption patterns is to be found in the
global trade of luxury goods, which initiated a process of product innovation and industrialization.122
Although the industrious revolution is mainly related
to the 18th century, the basis for an ever-multiplying
world of goods was in place a century before.123 In
the 17th century, a ‘New Luxury’ emerged out of the
urban society, as opposed to an ‘Old Luxury’ which
was defined by court life. The latter consisted of high
quality goods for the elite, while the former related to
the comfort and pleasure available to the wider public.124 The ‘New Luxury’ also introduced the concept
of breakability: the gradual replacement of expensive,
durable products possessing a high secondary market
value by cheaper, less durable, more fashion-sensitive
goods.125 The many goods dating to the second half of
the 17th century might thus be a reflection of this consumer society avant la lettre. The lack of pottery from
the first half of that century might be explained by the
fact that pottery was treated with greater caution and
handed down from generation to generation, because
of their greater monetary value.
Most crucial to the present discussion is the occurrence of Portuguese redwares and faience. These are
the first examples known from a high-status rural site
in Flanders, and their presence is bound up with the
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
299
FIG. 17
Portuguese tin-glazed ware: 1–3 plates, 4 covilhete; Portuguese redware pottery: 5–9 púcaros; Portuguese redware pottery
(?): 10 unknown.
300MAXIME POULAIN et al.
FIG. 18
Distribution of Portuguese redwares (R) and faience
(F) in Belgium (adapted from Bartels 2003, 72, fig. 4;
supplemented with new data).
Portuguese roots of the Ximenez family. Although
Duarte and Emmanuel were first and foremost burghers
of Antwerp, they still retained identifiably Portuguese
traditions in their consumption of food and material
culture. The covilhete, as a vessel for a specifically
Portuguese milk dessert, serves as the best illustration
of this hybrid identity, as no other vessels of this type
are known to us outside of a Portuguese context. The
fact that this vessel dates to after the main import period
for Portuguese ceramics in the Low Countries might
reinforce the hypothesis of a hybrid identity. It evidences the efforts made in acquiring this characteristic
Portuguese item when it was no longer readily available
in the Low Countries. These Portuguese lifeways are
possibly also reflected in the differentiated use of local
or regional redware pottery. Compared to other contemporaneous sites in Flanders, this assemblage counts a
remarkable number of (large) redware dishes. They did
not serve display purposes, given the lack of decoration
and any iconographical evidence for the latter. They
may, however, point to a Mediterranean way of dining,
focused on a large communal dish at the centre of the
table from which individual diners would serve themselves. This practice would have been common in early
modern Portugal,126 in contrast to wealthy milieus in the
Low Countries where the use of a communal central
dish was less common. However, while some aspects
of the Ximenezes’ Portuguese origins are reflected in
the assemblage, others were discarded in response to
the new environment. This is particularly true in the
case of religion, where the plate with the Parable of
the Sower certainly evidences a Catholic affiliation (in
contrast to the faience plate with the six-pointed star,
of which the interpretation is still uncertain). Although
evidence from the ceramic record is admittedly scarce,
it adds yet another argument to the historical studies
and analysis of the bone material, demonstrating that
the Ximenezes’ Catholicism was genuine.127
These observations add to the broader discussion
on hybridized and retained cultural identities using historical archaeological remains. So far, this topic has
been predominantly explored in colonial contexts.128
The Ximenezes draw the concept of hybridity back
to Continental Europe. Hybridity is defined here as
the amalgamation of influences from two (or more)
cultural groups, creating something different than the
mere combination of those existing forms.129 This
hybridity is not inherent in the ceramics discussed
here. As seen above, Portuguese ceramics do not only
surface in assemblages belonging to Iberian migrants,
but on a variety of sites. Hybridity in this case should
therefore rather be seen as a practice,130 a continuous
response to the new context in which migrant families
like the Ximenezes found themselves. These responses
were multiple, from identification with CounterReformation culture, to a pragmatic selection from, or
even active resistance to, the values associated with the
latter.131 In the case of the Ximenezes, the strategy of
identification is more likely. However, analysis of the
Blauwhof’s faunal assemblage and ceramic collection
demonstrates that there was no complete merging of
one group into the other. Portuguese merchant families continued to stress their common past, not only
through intermarriage and self-definition — referring
to themselves as os da nação (those of the nation)
— but thus also by dietary practices and the use of
material culture.132 The durability of material culture
traditions allowed the family to pass on that memory
of a common past to future generations.
Finds of Portuguese redwares in Britain have
mainly been explained by cod fishing, trade and
by English sailors and merchants spending time in
Portuguese ports, markets, taverns and brothels.133 In
the Netherlands, Portuguese faience has been associated with privateering or the extensive trade in
salt and grain.134 As a result of those two processes,
Portuguese faience is frequently found in Dutch harbour towns. In Amsterdam, clusters of Portuguese
faience are found in the Jewish Vlooienburg quarter
and also in the harbour area.135 This shows that there
was no exclusive relationship between the presence
of Portuguese faience and Jewish households. Rather,
faience appears to be a common commodity, available to a broad spectrum of social groups involved in
maritime trade.136 Moreover, Portuguese faience also
surfaces in the countryside,137 as many villagers were
seasonally involved in shipping. In contrast, finds of
Portuguese faience are rare in exclusively agrarian
communities.138 There is thus no exclusive connection
between the (merchant) elite and the occurrence of
Portuguese faience in the Netherlands. Nonetheless,
Portuguese faience is consistently more prevalent in
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
elite contexts than in the assemblages of poorer households.139 Despite its prevalence, it is difficult to ascertain the role of Portuguese faience in trading milieus
as no merchant households have been excavated with
certainty in the Netherlands. Possible exceptions
can be found in Vlissingen, where two plates were
found in assemblages that might have belonged to
a trader in fabrics, and to the trader and mayor of
that town, Cornelis Lampsins.140 A Dutch merchant
household has, however, been excavated in Helsingør,
Denmark.141 Here, Portuguese and Italian tin-glazed
wares were found in an assemblage dating to the
1630s. These have been interpreted as a mark of the
merchant’s participation in the world trade system.142
For Portuguese redwares, the situation in present-day
Netherlands more closely reflects the one in Flanders,
with the occurrence of these ceramics mainly linked to
elite assemblages. An exception is the aforementioned
Vlooienburg quarter in Amsterdam. In the excavated
households, 1-16 pieces of Portuguese redware were
found, adding up to a total of 64 vessels. Initially, as
with the Portuguese faience, these were connected to
the many Sephardic immigrants in that quarter, but
they were also found in non-Jewish households.143
It is important to remark that the above observations cannot simply be transposed to Flanders. Political
unrest, such as the Dutch Revolt and the fall of Antwerp
in the late 16th century, meant that the Southern and
Northern Netherlands, which subsequently evolved
into Belgium and the Netherlands respectively, had
a different economic history. While the Northern
Netherlands experienced a ‘Golden Age’ during the
17th century, including prominent involvement in
world trade, this global trade is less visible archaeologically in Flanders. Therefore the maritime connections
which explain the presence of imported Portuguese
ceramics in the Netherlands and Britain are not necessarily applicable for the Blauwhof. Interestingly, an
inventory of Emmanuel Ximenez is preserved, dating
to June 1617, after the death of his wife, Isabel da
Vega.144 In the porcelain room of their house on the
Antwerp Meir, this inventory mentions ‘Negentwintich
roy Portugaelse poeckers’ (29 red Portuguese púcaros).
A search for these terms in other 17th-century Antwerp
probate inventories allows for a better insight into how
these items were used.145 For example, in an inventory
dated 29 March 1634, the goods of a certain Peter De
Ram — which are stored in the house of his deceased
father, an alderman in Antwerp — include ‘Twee
Portueguesche pottekens van roy aerde’ (two small
Portuguese pots of red earth).146 Another instance of a
‘root Portuguish schotelken’ (a small red Portuguese
dish) can be found in a 27 November 1662 inventory of
the goods of the deceased Gillis van Diest in his house
de Blauwe Hand (the Blue Hand) on the Eiermarkt in
Antwerp.147 Although his profession is not stated, the
301
central location of this residence in the city, close to
the Meir (a very wealthy area), indicates a high-status
household. It can be concluded that these Portuguese
redwares only circulated in the upper echelons of
society. Unfortunately, the Antwerp inventories seldom contain price information, so we have no direct
evidence as to the monetary value of these vessels.
However, the fact that they are described in detail in
the inventories is already telling.148 Although ceramics
are generally regarded as a poor indicator of wealth,
this category can thus be used as a possible marker
for affluent consumers between the second half of the
16th century, when Iberian redwares start appearing in
Antwerp archaeological assemblages,149 and the 1660s,
after which they no longer appear in the inventories.
The few pieces of porcelain should probably also be
framed within the extended network and capital of the
Ximenez family.
Interestingly, faience is never attributed a
Portuguese origin in 17th-century inventories. Trained
archaeologists today still sometimes struggle to identify Portuguese faience, so it is possible that it was
not recognized by the notaries. If so, why then bother
to import these goods, since similar goods were produced in Antwerp well into the 17th century? A possible explanation lies in the fact that these finds are
not merely indicators of the broad trading networks to
which the Ximenezes had access. These luxury goods
were not just high-value commodities but, following
Dupré,150 they also served as a vehicle of friendship,
social cohesion and mobility amongst knowledgeable
peers. In aspiring to an aristocratic status, wealthy merchants in Antwerp imitated a noble way of life.151 In
the case of the Ximenezes, the court of Philip II was
the example to follow. Their house on the Antwerp
Meir had many references to Spanish court life, such
as portraits of the king and queen. This influence even
stretched into the garden, as is evidenced by the order
of seeds of New World flowers, similar to those in
the Escorial palace.152 The presence of Portuguese
ceramics can also be explained by this vivre noblement. For the Portuguese redwares, it is hard not to
make a link to the presumed medicinal properties or the
gift of Estremoz púcaros by Philip II to his daughters,
a knowledge shared amongst fellow merchant-collectors. In the case of the Portuguese faience, the
meaning might perhaps only be clear to those directly
involved in the purchase, in the giving and receiving
of these vessels. Other than of monetary importance,
since their provenance was not recorded in the inventories, Portuguese plates may have been especially
appreciated for their symbolic value, as attributed by
their users. This would confirm a previous suggestion
by Ostkamp153 that some Portuguese faience did not
arrive into the Low Countries as booty, but was a gift
of friendship, love or marriage.
302MAXIME POULAIN et al.
CONCLUSION
NOTES
In conclusion, the importance of the Ximenez
family’s Blauwhof assemblage is multi-faceted.
Typologically, although not very narrowly dated,
it was still possible to make advancements in the
morphological evolution of certain ceramic vessels. Moreover, this paper contains the first vessels
of Portuguese faience ever published for a site in
Flanders. The diversity of categories, forms and types
that were identified presents a much-needed chronological reference horizon in the yet-to-be-established
discipline of early modern archaeology in the historical region of the Southern Netherlands. The main
value of this assemblage lies in the connection to
the Ximenez family, a family of Portuguese origin.
Although the Ximenezes were clearly well integrated
into Antwerp’s high society, the ceramic evidence is
reflective of a hybrid cultural identity. Portuguese
traditions were still retained in the use of imported
material, or inspired the use of local material in a
Mediterranean way. However, these traditions seem
to have functioned alongside the typical consumer
preferences of the Low Countries in the early modern
period. The status of the Ximenez family is evident
from the Portuguese imports, as these are only found
in high-status households. However, after comparison with probate inventories, an interesting paradox
emerges. While Portuguese púcaros played an active
role in the imitation of court life, as an acknowledged object amongst Antwerp’s elite, it is questionable whether this was also the case for Portuguese
faience, since it was not valued in the same way. It
seems that the latter was involved in a more intimate
relationship between members of a single Portuguese
family in the Flemish countryside, expressing friendship and love in the giving, receiving and using of
these objects.
1
Van Vaerenbergh, Van Roeyen & Van Hove 2007,
428-48.
2
Aluwé, Starkovich & Van Vaerenbergh 2015.
3
Bruggeman 2015.
4
Van Vaerenbergh, Van Roeyen & Van Hove 2007, 430.
5
Bodian 1997, 28; Nenk 2003, 204.
6
Dupré 2011, 261.
7
Pohl 1977, 79; Dupré 2011, 268.
8
Pohl 1977, 80-1, 357.
9
Janssens 1941, 71.
10
van Kretschmar 1978, 47; Van Vaerenbergh, Van
Roeyen & Van Hove 2007, 430; Janssens 1939, 40-1.
11
van Kretschmar 1978.
12
Van Vaerenbergh, Van Roeyen & Van Hove 2007, 430,
438.
13
Van Vaerenbergh, Van Roeyen & Van Hove 2007, 436.
14
Göttler n.d.; Bodian 1997, 14.
15
Bodian 1997, 28.
16
Göttler n.d.
17
Pinchart 1863, 300-2.
18
Aluwé, Starkovich & Van Vaerenbergh 2015, 588.
19
Aluwé, Starkovich & Van Vaerenbergh 2015, 587.
20
Nenk 2003, 211.
21
Nenk 2003, 216.
22
Nenk 2003, 211.
23
De Groote 2008a, 429-31.
24
Verhaeghe 1998, 278; Pieters et al. 2013, 491.
25
Poulain 2013.
26
Orton, Tyers & Vince 1993, 169.
27
Unpublished data, Maxime Poulain.
28
e.g. Poulain, De Groote & De Clercq 2013, 3, table 1.
29
Verhaeghe 1988a, 64.
30
van der Meulen & Smeele 2012, 109.
31
Verhaeghe 1988b, 108.
32
De Clercq et al. 2007; De Groote 2008a; Poulain, De
Groote & De Clercq 2013.
33
Following MPRG 1998.
34
De Groote 2008a, 419.
35
Moulin 2002, 50.
36
De Groote 2008a, 162, table 15.
37
De Clercq et al. 2007, 8; Poulain, De Groote & De
Clercq 2013, 12, table 3.
38
Bruijn 1979, 69.
39
De Groote 2008a, 247, table 48.
40
Claeys, Jaspers & Ostkamp 2010, 550, cat. 105-6.
41
Groeneweg 1992, 181; De Groote 2008a, 436.
42
Groeneweg 1992, 181; Poulain et al. 2016, 41.
43
De Clercq et al. 2007, 16, fig. 11:90; Poulain & De
Clercq 2015, 83, fig. 13.
44
Hillewaert & Verhaeghe 1991, 212, fig. 173:8.
45
De Clercq et al. 2007, 12.
46
Groeneweg 1987, 165; Swinnen 1989, 45.
47
e.g. De Clercq et al. 2007; 14, fig. 10:68-9.
48
Jaspers, Eijskoot & Eesser 2015, 136, cat. 3.
49
Jaspers, Eijskoot & Eesser 2015, 136, cat. 5.
50
Gutiérrez 2000, 58.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Sarah Newstead and Tânia
Casimiro for their help in identifying the Portuguese
ceramics. However, any misidentification remains our
own. Jordi Bruggeman, Nina Linde Jaspers, Bernard
Meijlink, Christiaan Schrickx and Cees Herweijer
are also thanked for aiding in the interpretation of the
finds. We are furthermore grateful to Sarah Joan Moran
for pointing us to the work of Erik Duverger and of
Ranjith Jayasena, and Irene Faber for providing us
with a parallel for the plate with six-pointed star. We
would like to extend our gratitude to Post-medieval
Archaeology assistant editor Katherine Fennelly and to
our two anonymous reviewers for making this article
into a better version of the original manuscript. Finally,
Flanders Innovation and Entrepreneurship is acknowledged for the financial support.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
Gutiérrez 2000, 60.
Jaspers, Eijskoot & Eesser 2015, 20, fig. 7.
53
Hurst, Neal & Van Beuningen 1986, 222; Gaimster
1997, 525.
54
Gawronski 2012, 177, cat. 354; 318.
55
Reineking von Bock 1986, 279.
56
Kohneman 1982, 63.
57
Schmitz 1880, 80.
58
Schmitz 1880, 79.
59
Hurst, Neal & Van Beuningen 1986, 202, fig. 97.314.
60
Hurst, Neal & Van Beuningen 1986, 204.
61
Klinge 1996, 45-6; Vos 2012, 118, fig. 7.9; de Boer,
Vanden Borre & Gerrets 2010, 295, cat. 36.
62
Gaimster 1997, 186.
63
Veeckman & Dumortier 1999, 168, cat. 11; Korf 1981,
99, fig. 173; Dumortier 1992, 110, fig. 2.
64
Veeckman & Dumortier 1999, 145, 146, fig. 10, 165,
cat. 8, 191, cat. 50.
65
Dumortier 2002, 41, fig. 19; Poulain, De Groote & De
Clercq 2013, 15, fig. 11:10; De Clercq et al. 2007, 14, fig.
10:71.
66
Ostkamp 2014, 28.
67
Gawronski 2012, 262, cat. 893, 325.
68
Oosterbaan & Griffioen 2016, 425, 426, fig. 20.77;
Lahaussois 2008, 220.
69
Ranjith Jayasena, pers. comm.
70
Gawronski, Jayasena & IJzerman 2016, 46.
71
Jaspers, Eijskoot & Eesser 2015, 150, cat. 36.
72
Tietzel 1980, 127-9; Jaspers, Eijskoot & Eesser 2015,
146, cat. 31; Gawronski 2012, 242, cat. 758, 243, cat. 760,
323; Kleij 2007, 39.
73
Korf & Hijmersma 1971, 32, 33, cat. 16.
74
Gawronski 2012, 248, cat. 793, 324.
75
Korf 1981, 187.
76
Korf 1981, 187, figs 501-2.
77
Bartels 1999, 226; Thijssen 1991a, 28.
78
Baart, Krook & Lagerweij 1990, 7; Baart 1991, 233;
Engels 1997.
79
Gawronski 2012, 236, cat. 710, 323; Dijkstra, Houkes
& Ostkamp 2010, 133, fig. 4.47.
80
Hurst, Neal & Van Beuningen 1986, 244.
81
van Gangelen 1995; Ostkamp & Venhuis 2009, 49.
82
Bruggeman 2015.
83
Bruggeman 2015.
84
Jordi Bruggeman, pers. comm.
85
Hurst, Neal & Van Beuningen 1986, 69.
86
de Vasconcellos 1921.
87
Sardinha 1990-92; Folgado & Ramalho 2000;
Newstead 2014, 33-4; Larrazabal, Dordio & Báez
forthcoming.
88
e.g. Baart 1992.
89
Brusting 1972.
90
Newstead 2014, 117-18.
91
Vandenberghe 1972, 128-30, 138, fig. VIII:63.
92
Bartels 2003, 77-8.
93
Veeckman 1994.
94
Veeckman 1994, 16.
51
52
303
Veeckman 1994, 15.
Bartels 2003, 73.
97
Pieters et al. 1995, 197, fig. 19.
98
De Groote 2008b, 39-40, fig. 14.
99
Newstead 2014, 185.
100
Ostkamp 2003, 16.
101
Gutiérrez 2007, 73.
102
Newstead 2014, 98.
103
de Vasconcellos 1921, V.
104
Gutiérrez 2000, 76; Newstead 2014, 194.
105
Gutiérrez 2000, 78; Newstead 2014, 95.
106
Gutiérrez 2000, 76, fig. 2.52; Newstead 2014, 112.
107
Newstead 2014, 285.
108
Nina Linde Jaspers, pers. comm.
109
Casimiro 2011, 150.
110
Bartels 2003, 72, fig. 4, 73.
111
Poulain 2016, 175-7.
112
Claeys et al. 2010, 140.
113
Casimiro 2011, 21.
114
Casimiro 2011, 145.
115
Casimiro 2011, 133.
116
Casimiro 2011, 24, fig. 21, 146-7.
117
Oosterbaan & Griffioen 2016, 421, 422, fig. 20.72,
511, cat. 81.
118
Casimiro 2011, 130.
119
Teixeira, Bento Torres & Bettencourt 2015, 22-3, 24,
fig. 2.4.
120
de Vries 1994; 2008.
121
de Vries 1994, 249.
122
Berg 2004, 141.
123
de Vries 1994, 254-5.
124
de Vries 2008, 44.
125
de Vries 2008, 129-30.
126
Tânia Casimiro, pers. comm.
127
Göttler n.d.; Aluwé, Starkovich & Van Vaerenbergh
2015.
128
e.g. Young 1995.
129
Young 1995, 26; Liebmann 2013, 27; 2015, 319.
130
Liebmann 2015, 322-3.
131
Bodian 1997, 14.
132
Bodian 1997, 4, 6.
133
Newstead 2014, 169.
134
Baart 1992, 274; Gawronski & Jayasena 2013, 164;
Oosterbaan & Griffioen 2016, 422.
135
Gawronski & Jayasena 2013, 182.
136
Baart 1987, 23.
137
Bartels 2014, 6.
138
Christiaan Schrickx, pers. comm.
139
Baart 1987, 23.
140
Claeys et al. 2010, 312, 327, 332, 334.
141
Linaa 2012.
142
Linaa 2012, 95, 99.
143
Baart 1992, 274.
144
Moran n.d.
145
Duverger 1984.
146
Duverger 1984, vol. 3, 378-9.
147
Duverger 1984, vol. 8, 272-3.
95
96
304MAXIME POULAIN et al.
Blondé 2002, 295, 297.
Possibly stretching to the first half of the 16th century
on the evidence of the find in Aalst.
150
Dupré 2011, 282, 290.
151
Dupré 2011, 280.
152
Dupré 2011, 280.
153
Ostkamp 2010, 59.
148
149
ORCID
Maxime Poulain
7460
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5385-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aluwé, K.L.M., Starkovich, B.M. & Van Vaerenbergh, J.
2015, ‘The diet of the Portuguese merchant family
Ximenez at the “Blauwhof” (Belgium): between
tradition and display in the 16th–17th centuries’, J.
Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 3, 581–90.
Baart, J. 1987, ‘Portugese faience 1600–1660: een studie
van bodemvondsten en museumcollecties’, in
Kistemaker & Levie 1987, 18–24.
Baart, J. 1991, ‘Italian pottery from the Netherlands and
Belgium’, in Wilson 1991, 232–40.
Baart, J. 1992, ‘Terra Sigillata from Estremoz, Portugal’,
in Gaimster & Redknap 1992, 273–8.
Baart, J., Krook, W. & Lagerweij, A.C. 1990, ‘Italiaanse
en Nederlandse witte faïence (1600–1700)’,
Mededelingenblad Vrienden van de Nederlandse
Ceramiek 138:2, 4–45.
Bartels, M. 1999, Steden in Scherven: Vondsten uit
beerputten in Deventer, Dordrecht, Nijmegen en
Tiel (1250–1900), Zwolle: Stichting Promotie
Archeologie and Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig
Bodemonderzoek.
Bartels, M. 2003, ‘A cerâmica portuguesa nos Países
Baixos (1525–1650): uma análise sócio-económica
baseada nos achados arqueológicos’, Património
Estudos 5, 70–82.
Bartels, M. 2014, Portugese pracht uit de Westfriese
Gouden Eeuw, Archeologie in West-Friesland 12.
Berg, M. 2004, ‘In pursuit of luxury: global history and
British consumer goods in the eighteenth century’,
Past & Present 182, 85–142.
Blondé, B. 2002, ‘Tableware and changing consumer
patterns: dynamics of material culture in Antwerp,
17th–18th centuries’, in Veeckman 2002, 295–311.
Bodian, M. 1997, Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation:
Conversos and Community in Early Modern
Amsterdam, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bruggeman, J. 2015, ‘Het porselein van het Blauwhof in
Steendorp (Temse)’, Relicta 12, 267–82.
Bruijn, A. 1979, Pottersvuren langs de Vecht: Aardewerk
rond 1400 uit Utrecht, Langbroek: Stichting Het
Nederlands Gebruiksvoorwerp.
Brusting, H. 1972, ‘Terra Sigillata’, Westerheem 21:6,
252–68.
Card, J. 2013, The Archaeology of Hybrid Material
Culture, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Casimiro, T.M. 2011, Portuguese Faience in England and
Ireland, Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Int. Ser. 2301.
Claeys, J., Jaspers, N.L. & Ostkamp, S. 2010, Vier
eeuwen leven en sterven aan de Dokkershaven: Een
archeologische opgraving van een postmiddeleeuwse
stadswijk in het Scheldekwartier in Vlissingen, ADC
Monografie 9.
Clevis, H. & Van Gangelen, H. (eds) 2009, Werra
keramiek uit Enkhuizen opnieuw bekeken, Zwolle:
SPA uitgevers.
Custódio, J. (ed.) 2000, Casa do Brasil/Casa Pedro
Álvares Cabral, Santarém: Câmara Municipal.
de Boer, P.C., Vanden Borre, J. & Gerrets, D.A. 2010,
Zevenhonderd jaar wonen, werken en begraven langs
de Achterhaven: Een Archeologische Opgraving aan
de Spuistraat in Vlissingen, ADC Rapport 1278.
De Clercq, W. et al. 2007, ‘Living in times of war: waste
of c. 1600 from two garderobe chutes in the castle of
Middelburg-in-Flanders (Belgium)’, Post-Medieval
Archaeol. 41:1, 1–63.
De Groote, K. 2008a, Middeleeuws aardewerk in
Vlaanderen: Techniek, typologie, chronologie
en evolutie van het gebruiksgoed in de regio
Oudenaarde in de volle en late middeleeuwen (10de–
16de eeuw), Relicta Monografieën 1.
De Groote, K. 2008b, ‘The use of ceramics in late
medieval and early modern monasteries: data from
three sites in East Flanders (Belgium)’, Medieval
Ceram. 29, 31–43.
de Vasconcellos, C.M. 1921, Algumas palavras a respeito
de púcaros de Portugal, Coimbra: Imprensa da
universidade.
de Vries, J. 1994, ‘The Industrial Revolution and the
Industrious Revolution’, J. Econ. Hist. 54:2, 249–70.
de Vries, J. 2008, The Industrious Revolution, Cambridge:
University Press.
De Witte, H. (ed.) 1988, Brugge onder-zocht: Tien jaar
stadsarcheologisch onderzoek 1977–1987, ArcheoBrugge 1.
De Witte, H. (ed.) 1991, De Brugse Burg: Van grafelijke
versterking tot moderne stadskern, Archeo-Brugge 2.
Dijkstra, J., Houkes, M.C. & Ostkamp, S. (eds) 2010, Over
leven aan de rand van Gouda: Een archeologische
opgraving en begeleiding in het plangebied Bolwerk,
ADC Rapport 1770.
Dumortier, C. 1992, ‘De “geleyerspotbackers” in de
Schoytestraat te Antwerpen’, in Veeckman 1992,
109–20.
Dumortier, C. 2002, Céramique de la Renaissance à
Anvers: De Venise à Delft, Brussels: Éditions Racine.
Dupré, S. 2011, ‘Trading luxury glass, picturing
collections and consuming objects of knowledge
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
in early seventeenth-century Antwerp’, in Dupré &
Lüthy 2011, 261–92.
Dupré, S. & Lüthy, C. (eds) 2011, Silent Messengers: the
Circulation of Material Objects of Knowledge in the
Early Modern Low Countries, Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Duverger, E. 1984, Antwerpse kunstinventarissen uit de
17de eeuw, Bronnen voor de kunstgeschiedenis van
de Nederlanden 1.
Engels, M.C.A.E. 1997, Merchants, Interlopers, Seamen
and Corsairs: the Flemish Community in Livorno
and Genoa (1615–1635), Hilversum: Verloren.
Folgado, D. & Ramalho, M. 2000, ‘A Cerâmica Comum
Fina de Finais do Século XVI–XVII: Inovação ou
Tradição’, in Custódio 2000, 39–60.
Funari, P.P.A. & Senatore, M.X. (eds) 2015, Archaeology
of Culture Contact and Colonialism in Spanish and
Portuguese America, Cham: Springer.
Gaimster, D. 1997, German Stoneware 1200–1900:
Archaeology and Cultural History, London: British
Museum Press.
Gaimster, D. & Gilchrist, R. 2003, The Archaeology of
Reformation 1480–1580, Leeds: Maney.
Gaimster, D., Redknap, M. & Wegner, H.-H. (eds) 1988,
Zur Keramik des Mittelalters und der beginnenden
Neuzeit im Rheinland: Medieval and Later Pottery
from the Rhineland and its Markets, Brit. Archaeol.
Rep. Int. Ser. 440.
Gaimster, D. & Redknap, M. (eds) 1992, Everyday and
Exotic Pottery from Europe, c. 650–1900: Studies in
Honour of John G. Hurst, Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Gawronski, J. 2012, Amsterdam Ceramics: a City’s
History and an Archaeological Ceramics Catalogue
1175–2011, Amsterdam: Lubberhuizen.
Gawronski, J. & Jayasena, R. 2013, ‘De wereld aan tafel:
aardewerkhuisraad uit zeventiende- en achtiendeeeuws Amsterdam’, in Vlaardingerbroek 2013,
148–207.
Gawronski, J., Jayasena, R. & IJzerman, S. 2016,
‘De gelaagde stad onder het Waterlooplein’,
Amstelodamum 103:1, 28–48.
Göttler, C. n.d., The Ximenez Family in Antwerp, Lisbon,
Florence, and the Wider World, <http://ximenez.
unibe.ch/historical/> [accessed 11 September
2016].
Groeneweg, G. 1987, ‘Aardewerk uit Bergse bodem: de
spreeuwpot’, Brabants Heem 39:4, 154–67.
Groeneweg, G. 1992, Bergen op Zooms aardewerk:
Vormgeving en decoratie van gebruiksaardewerk
gedurende 600 jaar pottenbakkersnijverheid in
Bergen op Zoom, Waalre: Stichting Brabants Heem.
Gutiérrez, A. 2000, Mediterranean Pottery in Wessex
Households (13th to 17th Centuries), Brit. Archaeol.
Rep. Brit. Ser. 306.
Gutiérrez, A. 2007, ‘Portuguese coarsewares in early
modern England: reflections on an exceptional
pottery assemblage from Southampton’, PostMedieval Archaeol. 41:1, 64–79.
305
Harnow, H. et al. 2012, Across the North Sea: Later
Historical Archaeology in Britain and Denmark,
c. 1500–2000 AD, Odense: University Press of
Southern Denmark.
Hillewaert, B. & Verhaeghe, F. 1991, ‘Een afvalput uit de
16de–18de eeuw’, in De Witte 1991, 207–51.
Hurst, J.G., Neal, D.S. & Van Beuningen, H.J.E. 1986,
Pottery Produced and Traded in North-west Europe
1350–1650, Rotterdam: Stichting Het Nederlands
Gebruiksvoorwerp.
Janssens, P. 1939, ‘De heerlijkheid van Leugenhage’,
Annalen van de Oudheidkundige Kring van het Land
van Waas 51:1, 38–41.
Janssens, P. 1941, ‘De Ximenez van Aragon, te Antwerpen
en te Bazel (Waas)’, Annalen van de Oudheidkundige
Kring van het Land van Waas 52:2, 69–78.
Jaspers, N.L., Eijskoot, Y. & Eesser, K. 2015, Ruwe bolsters,
bierdrinkers en haringeters: Huishoudelijk afval van
de eigenaren, bewoners en ambachtslieden van de
scheepswerf aan de Havenstraat te Vlaardingen
(locatie Galeiwerf), Terra Cotta Incognita Special 2.
Kistemaker, R. & Levie, T. 1987, Exodo: Portugezen in
Amsterdam 1600–1800, Amsterdam: De Bataafsche
Leeuw.
Kleij, P. 2007, Archeologie van het platteland:
Zeventiende- en achttiende-eeuwse vondsten van de
Buurtweg te Akersloot, Zwolle: SPA uitgevers.
Klinge, E. 1996, Duits steengoed, Aspecten van de
verzamling Beeldhouwkunst en Kunstnijverheid
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam 7.
Kohneman, M. 1982, Auflagen auf Raerener Steinzeug,
Raeren: Gesellschaft zur Förderung des
Töpfereimuseums.
Korf, D. 1981, Nederlandse majolica, Haarlem: De Haan.
Korf, D. & Hijmersma, H.J. 1971, ‘Antwerps plateel’,
Mededelingenblad Vrienden van de Nederlandse
Ceramiek 62–3:2–3, 4–79.
Kühnel, H. et al. (eds) 1998, Die Vielfalt der Dinge.
Neue Wege zur Analyse mittelalterliche Sachkultur.
Internationaler Kongress, Krems an der Donau,
4. bis 7. Oktober 1994, Forschungen des Instituts
für Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der Frühen
Neuzeit. Diskussionen und Materialen 3.
Lahaussois, C. 2008, Delfts aardewerk, Amsterdam
& Brussels: Amsterdam University Press &
Mercatorfonds.
Larrazabal, J., Dordio, P. & Báez, B. forthcoming,
‘Contexto cultural de los púcaros hispánicos entre los
siglos XVI y XVII: un ensayo de identificación de
producciones y diacronías a partir de las colecciones
del monasterio de Santa Clara-a-Velha de Coimbra’,
Antalya: Proceedings of the 11th Congress AIECM3
on Medieval and Modern Period Mediterranean
Ceramics (19–24 October 2015).
Liebmann, M. 2013, ‘Parsing hybridity: archaeologies of
amalgamation in seventeenth-century New Mexico’,
in Card 2013, 25–49.
306MAXIME POULAIN et al.
Liebmann, M. 2015, ‘The Mickey Mouse kachina and
other “double objects”: hybridity in the material
culture of colonial encounters’, J. Soc. Archaeol.
15:3, 319–41.
Linaa, J. 2012, ‘In memory of merchants; the consumption
and cultural meetings of a wealthy Dutch immigrant
in early modern Elsinore: towards an archaeology
of consumption based in historical archaeology’, in
Harnow et al. 2012, 91–104.
Moran, S.J. n.d., Inventory of Moveable Marital Property,
Made on the Occasion of the Death of Isabel da
Vega, Wife of Emmanuel Ximenez, Antwerp,
June 13–28, 1617 (Antwerp, Stadsarchief (Felix
Archief), N 1489 (1615–1617), fols 1–31), <http://
ximenez.unibe.ch/inventory/reading/> [accessed 11
September 2017].
Moulin, L. 2002, Eating and Drinking in Europe: A
Cultural History, Antwerp: Mercatorfonds.
MPRG 1998, A Guide to the Classification of Medieval
Ceramic Forms, London: Medieval Pottery Research
Group.
Nenk, B. 2003, ‘Public worship, private devotion: the
Crypto-Jews of Reformation England’, in Gaimster
& Gilchrist 2003, 204–20.
Newstead, S. 2014, ‘The Oldest Alliance: A Material
Exploration of Early Modern English–Portuguese
Relationships’, University of Leicester PhD thesis.
Oosterbaan, J. & Griffioen, A. 2016, Van vissersdorp tot
havenstad: 750 jaar stadsvorming aan de Groote
Markt in Vlissingen, Archeodienst 650.
Orton, C., Tyers, P. & Vince, A. 1993, Pottery in
Archaeology, Cambridge: University Press.
Ostkamp, S. 2003, ‘De introductie van porselein in de
Nederlanden’, Vormen uit vuur 180–1:1–2, 14–29.
Ostkamp, S. 2010, ‘Portugese faience uit Nederlandse
bodem: Een onderzoek naar aanleiding van
een 17e-eeuwse Portugese scherf uit Brielle’,
PolderVondsten 13, 54–61.
Ostkamp, S. 2014, ‘Hollants Porceleyn en Straetwerck:
De voorgeschiedenis van Delft als centrum van de
Nederlandse productie van faience en het ontstaan
van Delfts wit’, Vormen uit vuur 223–4:1, 2–46.
Ostkamp, S. & Venhuis, S. 2009, ‘“tot soulagemente van
de schamele gemeente”: Het Werra-aardewerk uit de
werkplaats van Dierck Claesz Spiegel in Enkhuizen
opnieuw bekeken (1602–1613)’, in Clevis & Van
Gangelen 2009, 11–76.
Pieters, M. et al. 1995, ‘Zes eeuwen bewoningsgeschiedenis
Op het Mijnplein te Oostende (prov. WestVlaanderen): Interimverslag’, Archeologie in
Vlaanderen 4:1994, 187–203.
Pieters, M. et al. 2013, Het archeologisch onderzoek in
Raversijde (Oostende) in de periode 1992–2005.
Vuurstenen artefacten, een Romeinse dijk, een 14deeeuws muntendepot, een 15de-eeuwse sector van een
vissersnederzetting en sporen van een vroeg-17deeeuwse en een vroeg-18de-eeuwse belegering van
Oostende, Brussels: Onroerend Erfgoed.
Pinchart, A. 1863, Archives des arts, sciences et lettres
1:2, Ghent: L. Hebbelynck.
Pohl, H. 1977, Die Portugiesen in Antwerpen (1567–
1648): zur Geschichte einer Minderheit, Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
Poulain, M. 2013, ‘Notes on the quantification of postmedieval pottery in the Low Countries’, PostMedieval Archaeol. 47:1, 106–18.
Poulain, M. 2016, ‘The Habits of War: Early Modern
Ceramics in Flanders’, Ghent University PhD thesis.
Poulain, M. & De Clercq, W. 2015, ‘Het armeklarenklooster te Middelburg-in-Vlaanderen (1515–
1604): een archeologisch-topografische analyse’, in
Verstraete 2015, 64–97.
Poulain, M., De Groote, K. & De Clercq, W. 2013,
‘Pots from troublesome times: ceramics used in
Middelburg-in-Flanders during the Eighty Years’
War’, Medieval Ceram. 34, 1–18.
Poulain, M. et al. 2016, ‘Dietary practices at the castle
of Middelburg, Belgium: organic residue analysis
of 16th- to 17th-century ceramics’, J. Archaeol. Sci.
67, 32–42.
Reineking von Bock, G. 1986, Steinzeug, Köln:
Kunstgewerbemuseum der Stadt Köln.
Sardinha, O. 1990–92, ‘Olarias pedradas portuguesas:
contribuição para o seu estudo. 1. Os objectos
procedentes do Convento de Santa Ana e do Hospital
Real de Todos-os-Santos’, O Arqueólogo Português
4:8/10, 487–512.
Schmitz, M. 1880, ‘Grès Limbourgeois de Raeren’,
Bulletin des commissions royales d’art et
d’archéologie 19, 65–83.
Swinnen, M. 1989, ‘Spreeuwpotten: een heel verhaal …’,
Tijdschrift Mechelse Vereniging voor Archeologie
10:3, 41–7.
Teixeira, A., Bento Torres, J. & Bettencourt, J. 2015,
‘The Atlantic expansion and the Portuguese material
culture in the Early Modern Age: an archaeological
approach’, in Funari & Senatore 2015, 19–38.
Thijssen, J. 1991a, ‘Scherven, scherven en nog eens
scherven’, in Thijssen 1991b, 19–31.
Thijssen, J. (ed) 1991b, Tot de Bodem uitgezocht: Glas en
ceramiek uit een beerput van de ‘Hof van Batenburg’
te Nijmegen, 1375–1850, Nijmegen: Stichting
stadsarcheologie Nijmegen.
Tietzel, B. 1980, Fayence I, Köln: Kunstgewerbemuseum
der Stadt Köln.
van der Meulen, A. & Smeele, P. 2012, De pottenbakkers
van Gouda 1570–1940 en hun betekenis voor de
geschiedenis van de Nederlandse keramiek, Leiden:
Primavera Pers.
van Gangelen, H. 1995, ‘Was Werra-keramiek bestemd
voor “Jan met de pet”?’, Assembled Articles 2
(Symposium on Medieval and Post-Medieval
Ceram., Antwerpen 25 and 26 January 1995), 57–66.
van Kretschmar, F.G.L.O. 1978, ‘Towards the
identification of a drawing of a Flemish château’,
Master Drawings 16:1, 45–8, 106.
CERAMICS OF THE XIMENEZ FAMILY
Van Vaerenbergh, J., Van Roeyen, J.-P. & Van Hove,
R. 2007, ‘Recent archeologisch onderzoek in
het Waasland (2004–2006)’, Annalen van de
Oudheidkundige Kring van het Land van Waas 110,
381–454.
Vandenberghe, S. 1972, ‘Archeologisch onderzoek van
een aalput aan St.-Romboutskerkhof te Mechelen’,
Handelingen van de Koninklijke Kring voor
Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst van Mechelen
76:2, 107–38.
Veeckman, J. (ed.) 1992, Blik in de bodem. Recent
stadsarcheologisch onderzoek in Antwerpen,
Antwerp: Stad Antwerpen.
Veeckman, J. 1994, ‘Iberian unglazed pottery from
Antwerp (Belgium)’, Medieval Ceram. 18, 9–18.
Veeckman, J. (ed.) 2002, Majolica and Glass from Italy
to Antwerp and Beyond: the Transfer of Technology
in the 16th to Early 17th Century, Antwerp: Stad
Antwerpen, afdeling archeologie.
Veeckman, J. & Dumortier, C. 1999, ‘De voorwerpen in
majolica uit een afvalput in het Steen te Antwerpen’,
Berichten en Rapporten over het Antwerps
Bodemonderzoek en Monumentenzorg 3, 135–92.
Verhaeghe, F. 1988a, ‘‘Flemish medieval pottery studies
9th–15th century: past achievements and future
problems’, in Gaimster, Redknap & Wegner 1988,
55–79.
Verhaeghe, F. 1988b, ‘Middeleeuwse en latere ceramiek
te Brugge: Een inleiding’, in De Witte 1988, 71–114.
307
Verhaeghe, F. 1998, ‘Medieval and later social networks:
the contribution of archaeology’, in Kühnel et al.
1998, 263–311.
Verstraete, E. (ed.) 2015, Monasterium Clarissarum de
Middelburg in Flandria (1515–1604) en de twee
kloosters die er uit gesproten zijn te Ieper in 1597
en te Luik in 1604, Maldegem: Gemeentelijke
Cultuurraad Maldegem.
Vlaardingerbroek, P. (ed.) 2013, De wereld aan de
Amsterdamse grachten, Amsterdam: Gemeente
Amsterdam, Monumenten en Archeologie.
Vos, A.D. 2012, Onderwaterarcheologie op de Rede van
Texel: Waardestellende onderzoeken in de westelijke
Waddenzee (Burgzand), Nederlandse Archeologische
Rapporten 41.
Wilson, T. (ed.) 1991, Italian Renaissance Pottery:
Papers Written in Association with a Colloquium
at the British Museum, London: The Trustees of the
British Museum.
Young, R.J.C. 1995, Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory,
Culture and Race, London: Routledge.
ABBREVIATIONS
ADC Archeologisch Diensten Centrum
ADW Archeologische Dienst Waasland
MNV Minimum Number of Vessels
MPRG Medieval Pottery Research Group
SPA Stichting Promotie Archeologie
SUMMARY IN DUTCH, FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN AND SPANISH
SAMENVATTING
Een Portugese levensstijl op het Vlaamse platteland:
Aardewerk van de Ximenez familie (1595-c. 1700)
In 1595 kocht de Portugese handelaar-bankier Duarte
Ximenez het Blauwhof, een kasteelachtig landgoed
op het Vlaamse platteland. Het aardewerk, dat werd
gerecupereerd uit de gracht die grensde aan het woonhuis
van dit landgoed, getuigt van de rijkdom en hybride
identiteit van deze 17de-eeuwse immigrantenfamilie.
Hoewel ze goed geïntegreerd waren in de hogere
sociale klassen te Antwerpen, blijven hun buitenlandse
wortels zichtbaar in enkele opmerkelijke Portugese
importen of in het onconventioneel gebruik van
lokaal geproduceerd aardewerk. Een confrontatie met
boedelinventarissen toont aan dat de twee categorieën
van Portugees aardewerk verschillende doelen dienden,
een in de publieke sfeer van kenners, de andere in de
intimiteit van de Ximenez familie.
RÉSUMÉ
Un mode de vie portugais dans la campagne
flamande : les poteries de la famille Ximenez (1595
-c. 1700)
En 1595, le marchand et banquier portugais Duarte
Ximenez a acheté le Blauwhof, un manoir, dans la
campagne flamande. Un assemblage de poteries,
découvert dans la douve adjacente au manoir, témoigne
du statut et de l’identité hybride de cette famille
d’immigrants du 17e siècle. Malgré qu’ils étaient bien
assimilés à la haute société d’Anvers, les importations
portugaises et l’utilisation peu conventionnelle de
céramiques produites localement attestent leurs
origines étrangères. La comparaison avec des
inventaires des biens montre que les deux catégories de
poteries portugaises servaient des objectifs différents;
l’une dans la sphère publique d’acteurs savants et
l’autre dans l’intimité de la famille Ximenez.
308MAXIME POULAIN et al.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Ein portugiesischer Lebensstil in flämischer
Landschaft: Keramik der Adelsfamilie Ximenez
(1595-c. 1700)
Im Jahre 1595 kaufte der portugiesische Kaufmann
und Banker Duarte Ximenez den Blauwhof, ein
schlossähnliches Anwesen in der flämischen Landschaft.
Eine Ansammlung von Keramik, die in dem Graben
des angrenzenden Herrenhauses gefunden wurden,
zeugt vom Status und hybrider Identität dieser im 17.
Jahrhundert eingewanderten Familie. Obwohl sie gut
assimiliert waren in der high Society von Antwerpen,
sind ihre ausländischen Wurzeln von besonderen
portugiesischen Einfuhren oder unkonventioneller
Verwendung von lokal produzierter Keramik noch
spürbar. Vergliche mit Inventaren des Nachlassgerichts
zeigen, dass die beiden Kategorien der portugiesische
Keramik unterschiedlichen Zwecken dienen; eine in
der Öffentlichkeit von erfahrenen Schauspielern und
einer in der Intimität der Ximenez-Familie.
RIASSUNTO
Uno stile di vita portoghese nella campagna
fiamminga: la ceramica della famiglia Ximenez
(1595-1700 ca.)
Nel 1595 il mercante e banchiere portoghese Duarte
Ximenez acquistò Blauwhof, una tenuta simile a un
castello, situata nella campagna fiamminga. Un nucleo
di reperti ceramici, recuperati all’interno della proprietà,
precisamente nella motta adiacente al maniero,
testimoniano lo status e l’identità culturalmente
ibrida di questa famiglia di immigrati del XVII
secolo. Sebbene fossero ben integrati nell’alta società
di Anversa, le loro origini risultano evidenti da alcune
importazioni portoghesi o dall’uso non convenzionale
di ceramiche prodotte localmente. Il confronto con gli
inventari testamentari mostra come due diversi gruppi
di ceramiche portoghesi rispondessero a scopi diversi:
da un lato gli oggetti d’uso legati esplicitamente alla
sfera pubblica, dall’altro gli oggetti impiegati dagli
Ximenez nell’intimità familiare.
RESUMEN
Un estilo de vida portugués en el paisaje flamenco:
las cerámicas de la familia Ximénez (1595-c. 1700)
En 1595 el comerciante-banquero portugués Duarte
Ximenez compró Blauwhof, una gran finca con una
mansión semejante a un castillo, en Flandes. El
conjunto de cerámica hallado en una fosa cercana
a la mansión es testimonio del estatus e identidad
híbrida de esta familia de inmigrantes del siglo XVII.
A pesar de que estaban integrados en la alta sociedad
de Amberes, sus raíces extranjeras quedaban patentes
en ciertas importaciones de Portugal o en el uso no
convencional de cierta cerámica de producción local.
La comparación con los inventarios escritos muestra
que las dos categorías de cerámica portuguesa
tuvieron diversos fines: uno en la esfera pública de
actores conocidos y otro en la intimidad de la familia
Ximénez.
The site archive including the finds has been deposited at Erfpunt,
Regentiestraat 63, 9100 Sint-Niklaas, Belgium
[[email protected]]
Maxime Poulain, Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 35, 9000 Ghent,
Belgium
[[email protected]]
Jeroen Van Vaerenbergh, Erfpunt, Regentiestraat 63, 9100 Sint-Niklaas, Belgium
[[email protected]]
Wim De Clercq, Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 35,
9000 Ghent, Belgium
[[email protected]]
This work was supported by Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneurship [121582]