3.8 Article

Mazers and the drinking culture of late medieval England

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDIEVAL HISTORY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/03044181.2023.2250961

关键词

Mazer; drinking vessels; material culture; memory; family; inheritance practices; medieval England; ale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mazers, made of maple wood, were an important part of medieval English material culture since the 12th century. They held various meanings, being prestigious in elite households, establishing connections between families through inheritance and identity, and perpetuating memory and memorial practices. They also served as communal drinking vessels, fostering unity in families, guilds, and chantries, and even conveying indulgences. Furthermore, mazers differentiated between wine-drinking sections of society, who used silver vessels, and lower-status individuals, who primarily drank ale. They were most commonly found in towns and monasteries, where monks were discouraged from using silver vessels.
Mazers, drinking vessels often made of maple, were an important part of the material culture of medieval England from at least the first half of the twelfth century. They were significant for the range of meanings they brought to the consumption of drink. In some elite households, they had prestigious associations; elsewhere across society, they made important connections between families, in terms of inheritance and identity, and helped perpetuate memory and constitute memorial practices; as communal drinking vessels, they brought people together in common causes, in families, in gilds and chantries, even acting as a medium for conveying indulgences. They also marked a social distinction between those parts of society commonly drinking wine, who mainly used silver vessels, and those of lesser status, who more usually drank ale. The largest numbers were found in towns, and in monasteries, where the personal use of silver vessels by monks was discouraged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据