'-, " ■> .'"■■■ » * '^ <% ■■>
_• ■> ' '■- •■ ■-■'' 'A: f T:;, ,,* T!» -j(f ?jj i^ „>>: .-,* ..ft.' -S .>■ :^,^ .•'•jt ilk •'*■' f-. -ft -f, '*:, •*, *' * -*: * ■*' ■
'*'■ *:.: f;' 'v V ♦:* ^' *;«. ^' f^' % ^- ^•.'^' 4»' -V i' 4'' ■*' ;■»" <^ ' .i' #■' 4' .*'' .'w ■*' m ■* *' .*' -j^ i' * .^^ ♦ .• * * %; ♦'. f . . ♦.: *,; V *.r V V ^: fe^ ^- 1.' %' ;i^- ,if ■' 4^ i«%^ ^: ;i-: ^» ^ ^^ -i-; o*^ .J^ .;: » ' .i; i- 4 ^?^: '^^ :■ • * r * ,;; *.- ♦,: ',: *, ^: ^ ♦^ #,; V % *^ %^ f^ u ^; 4^ •^' V .4' ^v' -^: 4; -*' ^: ^i^- 4 * ^i^ * ^ *' ^ ': ^■ '.:♦:'':■ ^: <., '.: % % fy V V' %,%;%[ S^ $: ^' >: ^ #: .W ,»• .^' 4- ^: i' .*^ ^^ .^' ♦* V ■^: -i ' ' ' ' ' : ♦<•■ '-J *■- ♦.: ♦/ N f^ V V f*. V V 1^; ^5. ^" ^** #; ^^ >■ 4 ^*' 4' *; ^^ i- .r K <*: *' * *; Mf-. ■* |.- ■ *■■■■ ♦< : ♦.; ♦,, * ■ ^- fi*. f» V ^' ^: ^ V ^' $. ^f ^ ^\ >•' /V 4 r4" ,4' 4 ' * ' *' -»' -«; t' ■»' f ■ •*' f j ^^
W *?': \ *>■ *r- *^ *^v %[^'m%^y^%^ %[ %^^[ * f ^ f_ i ' •>' f ~ ->■ -f : ^ '?f' 4' f) '^' f ■ , .S"^ f\ f ^ i*^ ii ^ .
'«■.*?■**;**'*«-.: ^'^'^VVV^'^-"^- *?«. i>^ $' :S£^ '#' -y -Jlt^V l'.^' i-^i.:'i'.4' #] :*^' l>'' * i^i/ ■^^t■ ■•fS'^!
'JK ^^ *«i *¥':%^%\%^ Ijii ^ ^^ 1W ?»' 4i %' i- -^ '^' 9 ' i' #' 4' i ' ^' f ; ^%' '» 4' t' •*' *i ?*■ f- ">( * ■ '^' ^. f. \t ^; ^?*fe -4%^,^^*^%^%l%iM $■ %^ ^: A.' ■^' /i^ ■■ri ■>' •*! ■>■ 'i*' ■>' •»' -i >^; ^' •^" •>'• ■* , •¥* '*• 4' ■ii- .ij'
■f: .(*.),■-"«, '•*. •.«•■ ■♦'■ ■». '■« ••?', '* T *■ 'P -y. 'f . "f,, ff, T! -K '4;' •*' *' J -»: * •'*>■ ■>' *■' *■ ♦ ■«» l"'^ ■*).*? ■*■-. *-'!
.^' i.; -M M ■*' *: .*' .^ i' *' ^; 4* *■'%:' 4] #; t;*: !» ^'^',^'..% t *.' - ■!•; M .?»{ ,;: s ; .i; i-' .^: ^^ ■^- i^' w •*; 4^ ^^ ¥- ^- "^^ *« t , *"■ *■, ft t. * ' t.
4-^ jff.: :ft^ ^^ «>^ r^;^ 4' .i- *' i' <^ %" ^', *' *[ *■■■*, 4' * . t: ''' 'if' ■'«/ ■*:' ■» >i»' .*' ** v^
■f^^ >•» y, .> ;■»: '-v *j * ■!% % -P. ■*, I:-
>V ^^1 4! ^' *i '*' -^i ^^ * • '^! 4; 4^ t. •<ii. ;«' »" r:V •:»'' ■■*' f %' '#■ .i' » -i/ ri
*'i ¥■ f • 4( * ■ '^' *^! 4^ *" 4^ t! 4! ** '?'^ *' . ^''
^" ■}>'. -i, •¥* ':i' 4 'i^' ■^' 4^' 4^ '^. *^ f j *! ^/
■i'' 4' ii-i •*' .i' 4" ■''f' ■*' *'. 4' *, ■^" ^. '^'. '?
't; *. y t^ ■:»: ^. * ^'
^ ¥'. > *; ^^' i -' -^■'
r '^-l «■ It. ,
•*■ V ■))? * ■:««! ic,' i» :^)(
ii; '#-> -i; -m 'W k -k '3: •* p -4.' .»: ^. *' r-i; 'P'' -y -St' '»" •i'^?»'
,;^ ;^. •* ^, > it, ii-jf.-- .r >.:>v '^'^ ■)», f\ *'■ If- vv -j^ .. > ; ^
■i' 'js^ * 'M M ^K 'V -^^ .:*; jr 4* -K 'V:! i \ ■•y *■ 'i^ *>; *: * '^ 'f ■
•:s.' ;,j:' ■*" '#' >' »', ■•*■' i' -t -«■•' 'V" 'iS^ •*• »; ••%' f •*' '■*' V- *■'. •%^, *^
•k' ■:« ^ ^» !~'» * ■*■' 'J«'. '-fe ■> •* ■1' i*' ■*'-«> ■*■: ■'* * % ■i'' * ■^.
^W .-K .is" s'-?.' '.* 4'>' *' -jf *'
- I* * .'J. % •* * ■*_ «
if * !»■ ^k -^^ f % f M' f *' i"^ *' ?^ >^^^ ■» , •»■ pi ic, i» :)( 4r -k 'k -Sf '*• ■» 'k' -K ^i' -f '*' ^*' ■» ■*' ■^' ■*, '«: »^ > ^5^ -ill * fi^ r :is' .;V 'is' i; -i ■■ii[ ^?s V ^f' ■*. ■> **^ ^»; .*
^ i' ■*; 'JV*^ * * *■ ^ ■^''^. 1* '*' ?' ^' ?- *' *■' '^'' '^'. '*
¥ -.r «&^ f. -f^^ ^; 'fe", -^' 'i« -^^ * f: ^*: '?; "* '^. "* '^^ ^y ^!^, ■*
if :V -ij ■« ,»v k' #' -^, .:W ■»' a; #' •^' f ; ^^ ^ •*' f , »*■ -f' ■» W ij -W i>.^ 'K if£ a 'J^ ^'^ ^' ^4' '*; 'S!- ■* ^i^ *; f ' * *' f ■* 4 -K i^' '-^ i' '•I'- 'Sf * * -t' i3!i' f ■. ^i, 'S; • < if * ^*" ■'"■ } •'■> ■■' n :'d -n^. ^ ^^" '•*■ '>^ -W af -ii? ^#' .*( #', V 5? ^^/*, -S;^. '^ •tr 'te lir 'j*; .yf i*;' <^ f ■ -V *' ;??' 'f. -V i •* >' ■» ■*' * ■ ': ?.' >' %■' W St; 'isf 4' /*; &^ i' f _«V *^ ■»■ ■>, v '* ■•*
U -K ^Is' * .^' ;^' =V •# i^' '>' ' is' % ' * :!> 4
*■ ,|' ::v ^y .■»' ,j»; ,i »i([ .>■ »' ♦' •»/ ■^, .*{ :» *'^ i' .!■' ,V * 'V f J %'
.»• •♦^ 'i' vt^ .-»: '^ ■>.' y .'^^ rj>' .■a,' ■#' 4i * %! >^ >W -f V * *; f , •*■
ri» •■■* ■* %■. .*: « .^^ ■.* ■r^^: 4'.-% > 'ih l»' is'
i> ■* .% .*;!«^ ■}» ■.■f. -^r. ■■*!■ p
* .■> >!» ^k ■*' 'V >V ■^«" .v ■*■'
.», ■»■ .*, :i*':- .V :?-.
.»:,■ » -v 1* .V '^
'♦ ■* .}-, ^» Jf.-v y-
if^ 1» '* is' s^ > «' *■ .»: ■^- '»■ '»_ '» «•■ .Ji. ►*• ■* .}- , ^i Jf ,
* jfe; :*^ •?*; V i^ "Jf -^'^ iV -^^ .V :&' .»'^ /»_ .»i' '¥[ i*' 'S' •*.' ■S'. ^ #''^' f^ ^'.* f^*.-^' ■»' 'V •?.' 't'W *"■•*' ?,■»:,?
4' ■?»■ .ui' .^^ :-W dp; iW * V 4 ■* 'a- •« 'f ^w » ■*>' ;*'%■ >-
■% »■: > t * ■>■_ f'
i' *' r ■■V i^ :i^ J
■^ * -jr ■> •*, ■#•' V f'- »■.
•V ?■' ¥ f^, >■■ > »■■■ f 5
if' j' i,t: ■*■ •#.- '*■■ f . ■>
■* * .■». ■■* .* :»_.v *. -s; ^f 4' > V'^ii .« :'»''i.'--i.'-)i;' »:. W j .'jt' -If .f' '*' ■*' >" r 4'
-i.- S/is' « *' i. -f
% ^'..ft.'.* j !<'■*
i: i- .{■ * .S-
..« ;■»" >■ ■* .* 'i ^
■fi -.t ? -^ .'* ■« A '■■1! #'
&''.*.* r' '4''
.» & .>■. * ?
?■ ■*' «r ?^- ^>ft f, f *, ^
f' ?•"■ i' f:'*J 'f *; -*,•*.
V « i f^ ?i^'* i;^^ i'
ji %,' ?■ j? *' #' ^5'" ■« ■?•
\«; * -» '^ -x -l*^ « -t ^.v ■•^, ;}<^ ■% <p 'K-'f^ ■#, '*_ '*•,
■ K jy;' X --jf; ;* ^^' .ir 'f ^* f ' 'IS!' 'h^^ ■>; •.* V i^' >t •;^ i' -3!?: '5*" ^-^ <■*'<'> 'ili' -:*■ sis' •*' ;*' ii ^>e" •> •% i- ■V :*■
i':y r . J*' >W V*-S^':^''J»- '.»/»'# -^'t' ■* *,lt' *
. " ^^ 5f^ -k' is[ V :>' '>f ^M' -f ■*; ir; V -i^; f ^ V •!; - - s; .% ^ ■)?' 1* je 'V >»■ ^|£ '*' -W '.*' ■'%. »-, .1' *'
a- ■■* ■*" *-■ J. 'i
if if ■■^- :*• ■■«■. '* 'K * ■»■'•?■' J.' -K t' »i' g '«
?! ■¥ ;> .*, -^^ ^'«-
W -V * .V :*' '.»■
•»' .a. (.js* St^ .k^ *■ -i' 'W 'k :^ 'if f .* 'V 4 •^' i- ■?' ^*
% k k if 3J .#^.y ,|i^ .y <r fe' -^^ ^«( :j;_ ,5f ^V -r '> i
'^ y -M ^-f M k k M ^y: * vif" <K ■f -v ^K V * .'^
r '- '--. ?;■ V ^^ «•*.!>;'.»' 'ST'* <W^*'''Si''V ■»
' ■ - ■■ k '^k ^' v^-' -js' jK .>}' s ::V ,* -■»' ■.» .V
«■ .^^: ^isf :if! ».' -fi^ -^-k^y •.^. ■i*' ■^. v« ^ .i s>^ .5' ■ jc -4
■*" 'i^^ * «* 'i* ■*■ -W v^ 't «■ ■>•' ■.*■ -.* '>' ■%' "V V ■:« ■■i'.
■ s. »■■ * -»■■ '^ *■ * u f
■f i*' •*.' i*- '^'
i' i' ■> ■*■ 'V' ■$■■■ -V S^^'i '*\>«^
» ■« -4 '.^ .^j •*:_ »" •^' ■* ;* •.* J.'
.* '« ..« :»■ -JI,.
^i:-^- '-ife-^.a: 'ite, ■>', ■* ■'« ■> ^k ■> =*; >* .ss:
■ ii^ ?i -k '^^ •:si^ * ift*;^ 4«!
ir r ■<•;' .?■ ■*. ■*•
))» ;» •* .» I* ;,* 'J ■,^ .'K' :ill .s»^ -A. ^# ..j.
* .'4'Ji ■'ii 4 .% * ■> *
■k 4' T .* •■•»^ ■^. -J^' '■^, *
s #■ .'*■ *■ ■»■ ■«• .«
it' g 'i' '^r ?'■ ip > '3-' ■*. ? f , »,
5. ^' «. i' * i/ .a^" .%,,, V '^^ r ^_ «» t >fc -it. ,■..«>■»'%''<*•*,**■ '*^ s'' ^, X 'SV^ii^.'fcl ■*Vt^ *^ f s'lf ■ i',-%. ^h''. *? r » *• -s^ ^•. ^, *■ J. >' ■%: ■». «f-*'.ii'f;f «" i i'.i; »■ -v J(; *: ^-^^r; i-^*: ^, f . ^ .»' *"■«■ *r- V? *^ r 1^*; f *. ?;' i' «: a- ■is: -S ii ^V ^*"' -i _ *. '*
s >■,■§•' .»' y ii^-j.-' 4' •■'''
i' .?'■•».' if' «'■ * » *■' 'f , t. ? . ^.
^*^! >'. ^' ^^ ;.*■ ^ ?«'
:» i> :9 ./». :9f, 4v » .*; '.SS- >
S»f' $\'>''4" ;» V ?•:" i^ :•■« 4'
:V:W V'St'-^ .%":>: .:«' <* .%t' K'^>'fW -f^'i' :f' ^«' •»' *■ ■i' -St" * > :j» ,Ss ^* 4' ■» iV
*. •*■■. •*, '*: « -a' iJ*- ;.;*
i^'V^V^'^^if*' i*' !^/*^' '^*' * ■''* ■**• '*■ ■* '*■
V \^' ^ ^ ^.^ ^^ ^'' 1* * vK "*"' '*■ ^V ■*'
*' -k . >.' ;* J^ j'' iif i*; "i' '^ vW -^^ «■: 'iif 'i ■ V
♦^■V- ir^r^,-^ ^; ♦r^ ,f, r v^'. ■■' r: r, :* -r. ?
ir.%?;:,'*^i^:^**: J' v*^. ,«:^ .* ^* ;^ •^. *: '^*. ? ,'(4* ♦*: «f^: <* ^: ,": ^^ ♦* ^*, i?^ ^, ■^: --r. •^. *, '^
^^^ ^^. i*-^:^i«' i*.^« ^.^^ f t ■^. >. ■> '•^ >'. ♦^^ i*^ ♦*■ i^ ♦K i?^ i^ ;* i* e. if ^?; I 'T. -^
■>'^^''-»' V V> i> ■if .4 J»%irif ■>* -i'
isi ,fc •> .* .*,
■/* ^Sf *■ 4."..'«
:,J! -f .4 i. -i/,* .4, # .?i .;*. .*. *.-.
■a :^ -y, '* .» f^ 'p., -i^' f f, \;. i,' •>' •« *•' ■#■' ■(*' -a ■ ^^ 'ji' ^^^ <j'^ .-rf' ,* .» .i' •*' i>.' 4"- f*^.' *' f_ '*-' ■i' .,«' -i' ■» * <^'' *" i-' * » '^
^.•.■ .*» i t* *
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995 VOLUME XXI, NUMBER 2
THE MUSEUM OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
EDITORIAL BOARD
Henry Parrott Bacor, Loiiisiivia Stiite Lhuversityi Museum of Art, Baton Rouge
John A. Burrison, Georgia State Uiiii'er>ir\i, Atlanta
Colleen Callahan, Valentine Museiini, Rielnnond, Virginia
Barbara Car.son, College of Williatn and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
Bernard D. Cotton, Buekinghainslure College, United Kingdom
Donald L. Fennimore, Jr., Winterthur Mtiseum, Winterthur, Delaware
Leiand Ferguson, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Edward CJ. Hill, M.D., Winston-Saleni, North Carolbia
Ronald L. Hurst, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Willamsburg, Virginia
Fheodore Fandsmark, Mayor's Office, City of Boston, Massachusetts
Carl R. Lounsbury, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Willamsburg, \'irginia
Susan H. Mvers, Niitional Ahiseum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C
|. Cjarrison Stradling, New York, New York
C^arolvn [. Weeklev, Abhy Aldriclt Rockefeller Folk Art (.'enter. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Willamsburg, I 'irginia
GENERAL EDITOR: Bradford F. Rauschenberg
MANAGING EDITOR: Cornelia B. Wright
MEMBERSHIP IN M E S D A
Members of" MESDA receive the fiuinial of Early Soiithcni Decorative Arts, published in summer and win- ter, and the MESDA newsletter. The Luminary, published in spring and tall. Other privileges include notifi- cation of the classes, programs, and lectures offered by the Museum; participation in Members' Weekend, with a symposium on collecting and decorative arts research; a lO",. discount on purchases from the MESDA Bookstore and Old Salem stores; and tree admission to general tours ot MESDA and Old Salem.
Membership categories begin at $30.00. Library subscriptions are $2S.oo (oversees members please add $10.00 for postage). For further intorniation about joining Members ot MESDA and benefits ot membership, please write the Coordinator of Membership Services, MESDA, RC^. Bo.\ 10310, Winston-Salem, NC' 27108.
;r Illiistr.uion: Slipw,irc di-li, d-itcd l6u. trnm M.irlins Hundred. Xirgmi.i. I'lwti'pdph iourleiy of the Cokmutl WVluvmhiirg uliltion.
THE JOURNAL
OF EARLY SOUTHERN
DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995 VOLUME XXI, NUMBER 2
In November 1994. in conjunction with the Lyceum in Alexandria, Vir- ginia, MESDA held its first fall ceramics seminar, "Up from the Earth: Virginia Pottery." to celebrate the publication of H. E. Comstock, Pot- tery of the Shenandoah Valley Region (MESDA, 1994). Th^is Journal \s de- voted to the papers presented at that seminar, which ofler perspectives on the evolution of Virginia's rich pottery tradition, in addition, a research note revealing the identity of the earliest potter known in English North America, which was not presented at the seminar, is also included as ap- propriate to this volume. — ed.
The Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts is published twice
a year by the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Ans (MESDA).
It presents research on decorative arts made in the South prior to 1820,
with an emphasis on object studie*. in a material culture context.
Potential contributors are encouraged to contact the Managing Editor for guidelines concerning subject matter and manuscript preparation.
All correspondence concerning the juurnal should be sent to the
Managing Editor. Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts. MESDA,
P.O. Box 10310, Winston-Salem. NC 27108. Correspondence concerning
membership in MESDA, including renewals and address changes.
should be directed to the Coordinator of Membership Services.
MESDA. P.O. Box 10310, Winston-Salem, NC 2tio8.
Articles from the Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts are abstracted in the Bibliography of the Histon of Art and America: Histon' and Life.
The paper used for this publication meets the minimum American
National Standard tor inlormation Sciences — Permanence ot Paper for
Printed Library Materials. ANSI 739-48-1984. »=^^ and contains 20%
post-consumer fiber.
Some back issues ol [\\t Journal are available.
ISSN 0098-9266
Copyright © 1996 by Old Salem, Inc.
Designed and typeset in Adobe Garamond by Kachcrgis Book Design,
Pittsboro, Nonh Carolina
Printed in the L'nited States of America
Contents
The Colonial Potters of Tidewater Virginia
BEVERLY A. STRAUBE
An Archaeological Perspective on Alexandria's Pottery Tradition
BARBARAH.MAGID 4I
The Lowndes Stoneware Pottery of Petersburg, Virginia
CHARLESE.UMSTOTT 83
Exploring Western Virginia Potteries
KURTC.RUSS qS
Research Note
The Martins Hundred Potter: English North America's Earliest Known Master of His Trade
MARTHA H. MCCARTNEY I39
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.archive.org/details/journalofearlyso2121995muse
The Colonial Potters of Tidewater Virginia
BEVERLY A. STRAUBE
There is likewise found great Variety ot Earths tor Physick, Cleansing, Scouring, and making all Sorts of Potters-Ware; such as Antimony, Talk, yellow red Oker, Fullers-earth, Pipe- Clay, and other tat and fine Clays, Marie, &c. In a Word, there are all kinds of Earth fit for Use.
— R OBERT BEVERLY, The History and Present State of Virginia, i/os-^
ROBERT Beverley's comprehensive portrayal of Virginia from 1705 includes this description of Virginia soils that has ^ been verified in recent years through the archaeological record. Virginia does indeed have earth suitable for making pottery, as evidenced by the plethora of locally made wares appearing on sev- enteenth- and early eighteenth-century archaeological sites. In most cases, these wares have been identified by the location where they were archaeologically recovered. In a few instances, documentary ev- idence can be linked with archaeological findings to give the potter a name and, at times, even his dates of production.
To date, the wares of eight colonial Virginia potters have been identified and associated with eight probable sites of production (fig.
Fredenckshurg
VIRGINIA
NORTH CAROLINA
I. Map showing locations ot Virginia's identified potters ot the seventeenth and earK eighteenth centuries.
i). In reality, there may be only six potters, tor there are indications that two oi the potters may each have been working in more than one location. The perceived differences in the potters' production that resulted in their dual identities are perhaps a result oF different clay sources. Only three potters have been verified through the loca- tion oi their kilns. The rest have been identified through the excava- tion of waster sherds, kiln furniture, or concentrations ol large quan- tities of locally produced ceramics.
The process of understanding and defining the pottery produced in colonial Tidewater Virginia has evolved over the past twenty years as more sites are excavated, more assemblages are thoroughly ana- lyzed and quantified, and more reports are published. This study, based primarily on the extensive archaeological collections of the Virginia Division of Historic Resources, Richmond, and of Colonial National Historical Park, Jamestown, is an attempt to record the present knowledge ol Virginias colonial potters in a comparative context. Both collections have been curated by the author over the past twenty years and contain vast amounts of local pottery. It is hoped that this work may alert those working with colonial Virgin- ian archaeological collections to discernible differences among the various local wares.
Distinguishing one locally made lead-glazed earthenware from another can be a daunting task for the untrained eye; often, for ex- pediency, these wares are lumped by catalogers under such undiag- nostic labels as "Yorktown-type" or "redwares." Beyond glazes and fabrics, there are differences in the way a potter forms his rims, han- dles, and bases that become a signature of that craftsman's work. Recognizing these differences can not only provide the researcher with important dating information for archaeological sites, but can also place the pottery and its production back in the social context. More important, correct attribution of the local wares by catalogers of archaeological collections will result in data that could be com- pared from site to site, providing a regional and temporal view of the early Virginia pottery industry. This introduction to Virginia's colo-
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
nial potters presents the characteristics ot the different local products for researchers who wish to gain a clearer understanding of the vari- ances."
For the most part, Virginia potters in the seventeenth century produced lead-glazed earthenwares trom the hematite-rich Tidewa- ter clays. Hematite inclusions, diagnostic ot the local wares, are visi- ble on earthenwares as red grains peppering the fabric. The clear lead glazes on these earthenwares appear in varying shades of light to dark brown, orange, or light to olive green, depending on kiln at- mospheres and firing temperatures. Occasionally slipwares were coated with a lic]uid clay or slip under the lead glaze to change the ground color ot the vessel and allow for contrasting decorative tech- niques such as slip trailing, marbling, or sgraffito.
Following the English ceramic tradition in which they learned their craft, the Virginia potters used traditional methods of forming, firing, and glazing that had been practiced since the medieval peri- od. The pots were produced by a combination of hand-formed and wheel-thrown techniques. While each vessel was primarily formed on a rotating kick wheel, elements such as spouts, handles, and dec- orative accents were added by hand.' The wheel-thrown wares are utilitarian: milk pans, storage jars, bowls, pipkins, chamber pots, pitchers, porringers, chafing dishes, candlesticks, bottles, and mugs. English pottery forms of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries were heavily influenced by the increased importation of ce- ramic wares and the emigration of potters from the Continent, espe- cially the Low Countries.^ This led to a rather uniform ceramic ma- terial record which, to the convenience of archaeologists working on seventeenth-century Virginia sites, is illustrated in great detail in Dutch genre paintings.
There is no evidence for any attempt at pottery production dur- ing the first decade of English settlement at Jamestown. The Jamestown colony was established in April 1607 as an economic ven- ture of the Virginia Company, a London-based group of entrepre- neurs chartered by James I. During the first years of settlement, the
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
colonists were engaged in enterprises that would potentially fatten the purses of the investors. These included glassmaking, the search for precious metals, and the production of pitch, tar, and soap ashes. Pottery production, a relatively minor industry in England at this time, was not a priority.
Pottery making in seventeenth-century England was basically a rural endeavor correlated with low status. It was practiced part-time by members of a household as permitted by the agricultural sched- ule.^ The products were ultimately more valuable to consumers as containers and conveyors of high-status objects than as coarse utili- tarian wares.''
The local ceramic record begins with the Martin's Hundred pot- ter, whose work appears in contexts near Jamestown as early as the 1620S, and ends with William Rogers, who operated a kiln in York- town from 1720-1745. From the mid-eighteenth century to the be- ginning of- the nineteenth century there is no evidence of coarse earthenware being produced in Tidewater Virginia.
THE martin's hundred POTTER
Traces of what may be the earliest potting endeavor were first identified at Martin's Hundred, now known as Carter's Grove, about ten miles below Jamestown on the James River (fig. i)." Recent archival research has revealed the possible identity of this potter as Thomas Ward." Ward, who was 47 years old in 1624, apparendy arrived in Virginia in 1621.' Based on a slipware dish attributed to the Martin's Hundred potter, which is dated 1631,'" Ward appears to have worked into the 1630s. His wares have been found in contexts dating to the second quarter of the seventeenth century on Jamestown Island and in settlements at Kingsmill, which lies along the James River between Martin's Hundred and Jamestown. Al- though no kiln was located, the large quantities of wasters, and a roofing tile bearing the oudine of a pot and covered with glaze drip- pings, point to the existence of pottery production."
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
The lead-glazed earthenwares reflect the talents of a very accom- plished potter. Not only were the wares adeptly made, but they in- cluded some highly sophisticated forms, belying the common belief that the colonists dropped their aesthetic standards tor the sake of utility. Among these vessels is a piece ot distillation equipment called an alembic. From the late medieval period, distillation was associat- ed with the production of alcohol as well as with assaying in metal- lurgy.'- With the late sixteenth-century appearance of herbals de- scribing the medicinal use of plants, distilling also became a popular practice among the gentry and merchant classes for the concoction of home remedies.'' The potter has embellished his earthenware lab- oratory equipment with decorative elements that include cordoning, a circle of thumb-impressions joining the spout to the body, and a turned handle on the top of the vessel bearing a dab of green glaze.
The fabric of the Martins Hundred potters vessels is usually or- ange-red in color and bricky in texture, and the glazes used range from orange to dark chocolate brown. The potter must have been very frustrated at his craft for, while it is evident that he was highly skilled, he evidently had trouble with the Virginia clay and the glazes that he had available. This is particularly apparent with his trailed and sgraflfitoed slipware, where the slip did not adhere uniformly to the clay fabric. The potter must have quickly abandoned attempts to produce decorated wares, because not many have been recovered ar- chaeologically. There is some evidence that he was processing lead shot for his glaze, and this may explain some of the problems.'^ Shot was found trapped in the glaze pooled up in the bottom of a Mar- tin's Himdred mug."
Martin's Hundred Pottery Forms
The Martin's Hundred artifact inventory and ceramic analysis, with illustrations of all the forms, is currently being prepared for publication by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.'" The vessel forms include alembics, three-legged cooking pots, pipkins, lidded storage jars, handled cooking pots, fuming pots, pans, dishes, flat-
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
based cooking pots, and chamber pots. The wares attributed to the Martin's Hundred potter appear, in most cases, to be the same as those described as Jamestown pottery and will be discussed in greater detail under those forms.
THE JAMESTOWN POTTER
There is also evidence of a skilled potter, or potters, working at Jamestown from c. 1630-1645 (fig. i). National Park Service archae- ologists in the 1930s tentatively identified traces of three kilns with associated roofing tiles bearing pot scars like those found at Martin's Hundred." No large waster piles were found in association with the kilns, thereby shedding some doubt on their function; as Ivor Noel Hume has put it, "A wood-firing kiln rarely burns evenly, and conse- quently there are always waste products."'- There are a number of over-fired and under-fired vessels, but it is difficult to judge if the potters would consider them wasters or seconds. There is much evi- dence in the archaeological and documentary record of seconds, consisting of broken and misshapen vessels, being used. Further study of the Jamestown collection is needed to determine if these de- posits oi "defective vessels" are concentrated, which would be indica- tive of a waster pile, or randomly spread out around the settlement, which would suggest they were being used.
Like the Martin's Hundred potter, the Jamestown potter evidently had trouble with his clays and glazes. The fabric of his vessels ranges in color and texture from buff and chalky to reddish-orange and bricky The glazes appear in varying shades of light yellow, dark brown, yellowish brown, and olive green, with many glazing defects. In some instances the glaze is so thin that it looks like a slip, a wash of liquid clay that is applied to vessels before glazing to change the ground color. Characteristic of the Jamestown potter's wares are small pinpricks in the surface of vessels surrounded by dots of glaze (fig. 2). It appears that a natural inclusion in the clay such as hematite, calcium, or salt, is burned out in areas covered with glaze.
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
1. lAmestown cup base, showing the characteristic pinpricks in the Fabric surrounded by dots of glaze. Aswciation for the Preseniatiou oj Virginia Antiquities, Jamestown Rediscovery, JRioH-ioJ-ioK-ioN-ioX.
3. Rooting tile, excavated at Jamestown, bearing a pot scar and glaze drippings. National Park Ser- vice. Colonial National Historical Park, h"0i)6.
The Jamestown potter's forms are very similar to some of those identified as being of Martin's Hundred manufacture, indicating that perhaps the same potter was at work in both places. It is tempt- ing to assign a Jamestown pitcher bearing traces of incised initials, the first of which may be a "T", to the handiwork of Thomas Ward." It is interesting that the only evidence of a pottery kiln is the same at both sites: roofing tiles with pot impressions and glaze drip- pings (fig. 3). This suggests an itinerant potter traveling to where he can sell his wares and producing them in a simple ground-laid kiln. Open firings above ground or in a shallow pit, for which pots are stacked around and under the fuel, are commonly practiced by tra- ditional potters today and leave little, if any, physical evidence to be recovered archaeologically.-"This method is very efficient for firing coarsewares, with even glaze firings possible, and it provides the ad- vantage of flexibility. The potter can fire up as few or as many pots as he likes and does not need to wait until he has produced a whole kiln-load of wares before firing them. This would have made sense
JOURN.AL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
in colonial Virginia where the potter probably only engaged in his craft part-time, as demand required it — the rest of his time could be spent in some aspect oi tobacco production, the big money-maker and all-encompassing enterprise.
Jamestown Pottery Forms
At least sixteen forms have been recognized as products of the Jamestown potter.-' These include vessels tor the storage, prepara- tion, and serving ot food and drink, as well as specialized utilitarian forms modeled after non-ceramic objects such as candlesticks, fum- ing pots, and distilling apparatus. The most common form appears to be the pan or pancheon (fig. 4). This vessel type was introduced in the late sixteenth century, at which time it consisted of a wide, high-sided bowl-shaped object with an everted rim, usually contain- ing a pouring spout. The pan became shallower and wider through
4. Jdmestown pan or pancheon, doa 14" (est.). National Park Service, Colonial Na- tional Historical Park. J -^42- 1 A.
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
■;. Some of the [amestown potter's kirms. Lett to right: small storage jar (j-7089), HOA 8"; pitcher (j-7600), hoa 12"; large storage jar (j-7008), hoa 10".
time, until it was almost dish-shaped, and the rim became narrower. Used primarily in a dairying context tor separating cream, the pan or pancheon form proved to be very useful tor many household pur- poses and is the most common torm ot the seventeenth-century coarsewares."'
The storage jar is the next most popular pottery form produced by the Jamestown potter (fig. 5). It is cylindrical in form, with an in- ternal ledge at the rim to hold a lid. The Jamestown jar was made in two sizes, the smaller about 8 inches tall and the larger from 10 to 12 inches tall. The large jars are always embellished with a thumb-im- pressed band just under the rim. The band would have been applied when the jar was in the leather-hard state so that the wall ot the jar would stand firm as the band was impressed; while decorative, the band served primarily to strengthen the rims oi these large jars.
JOIIRNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
The shoulders of both sizes of jars are cordoned, reminiscent of the cordage that binds stave-built wooden vessels together. Again, this decorative element served a functional purpose by providing a tex- tured area tor gripping the vessel.
The Jamestown potter also made large dishes, about lo inches in diameter, with a flat base and a wide marly. These forms were glazed on the interior only, and there are indications that some may have been slip-decorated. Dishes were used not only as serving vessels but also to bake or cook a course of food, sometimes with an inverted second dish used as a lid.'' Dishes would not be placed over an open fire as a cooking pot would, but had an individual heat source called a chafing dish.
Ceramic chafing dishes appear frequendy in Jamestown Island contexts but have not been documented as having been found on other Tidewater Virginia sites (fig. 6). This pottery form appeared in the late medieval period as copies of the metal chafing dishes owned by the wealthy-' and continued to be produced into the first half of the eighteenth century.-' Hot embers placed in the bowl would heat
6. The Jamestown potter's chafing dish from, hoa 5%", Dia. 8V2". Nutiomil Park Serince. Colonial National Historical Park,
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
or warm a plate of food balanced on three knobs projecting from the top. The cut-out in the pedestal base provided ventilation to keep the coals glowing. Randle Holme, a seventeenth-century recorder of material culture, describes that the purpose oi the chafing dish "is to hold hot coales of fire in, and to set dish-meates theron, to keepe them warme till the tyme of serveing them up to the table, or to heat a cold dish of meate, on the table."'" The seeming popularit)' ol the chafing dish in early seventeenth-century Jamestown suggests that the colonists did not prepare their food solely in an English folk tra- dition, which relied heavily on pottages or stews served directly from a cauldron over the fire." Rather, the chafing dish provided a "gentle method of heating""- a single serving of food. This was especially necessary when cooking food in pewter dishes, which have a low- melting point and could not withstand the intense heat of an open fire.
Constructed much the same as a chafing dish is the fuming pot, used to burn sweet-smelling herbs to counteract odors. It has the same pedestal base as the chafing dish, but its body has straighter, narrower sides and lacks the projecting knobs. In addition, the body sides of fuming pots have cut-out openings of various shapes for dis- pensing the fumes. The Jamestown potter used rectangular slits for this purpose. The fuming pot is not a commonly recorded shape on Virginia sites; only two examples are known at Jamestown, and a third was excavated at Martins Hundred.-'
The Jamestown potter produced drinking vessels in the form of barrel-shaped mugs (fig. 7) very similar to the Haslam Type I mugs produced by the Borderware potters in England.'" Common features include the neck cordon below the rim, the folded and rounded base, and the ovoid handle, which is applied over the neck cordon at the top and pressed to the body at the bottom by wiping at each side.
A large loop-handled pot, seemingly well suited for the trans- portation of water, is another shape made by the Jamestown potter. This vessel has two large, round-sectioned loop handles, a flat bot-
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1 9 9 "i
torn, and a smoothly finished, restricted neck. It is glazed on the in- terior to make the vessel impermeable to liquid.
The Jamestown potters chamber pot (fig. 7) looks very much like the form produced by the Martins Hundred potter, which in turn is very "Dutch" in appearance. The chamber pot is basically the pipkin or three-legged cooking pot form without legs; until recently, this shape in the archaeological record has been misidentified as a cook- ing pot, leading researchers to believe that there were no ceramic chamber pots in Virginia prior to 1640. This affinity between the cooking pot and the chamber pot is apparent in the medieval period and suggests the chamber pots evolution as a specialized vessel." The form has a rounded rim with an interior ledge for a lid. The single vertical loop handle is pulled from the rim and is applied, by swiping at each side, over mid-section cordoning. The base, as in the mug form, is folded and rounded. This form is glazed on the interi- or only.
Cooking pots formed a substantial part of the Jamestown potter's ceramic repertoire. Throughout the medieval and post-medieval pe- riods, the ceramic cooking pot, mirroring metal shapes, grew in pop- ularity. The pottery vessel soon showed its advantage in that it could be placed directly on the fire and left unattended for long periods of time without boiling dry This made it a particularly suitable con- tamer for the slow cooking of stews and boiled meats. Indeed, some researchers believe that the increased use of pottery vessels may have prompted an heightened reliance on the one-pot meal.'^
The Jamestown potter produced cooking pots in the shape of flat- bottomed cylindrical pots with two horizontal loop handles (fig. 7), and three-legged cooking pots and pipkins with one pulled handle. A similar pattern has been documented with the Martins Hundred potter. The flat-bottomed cooking pots have an exterior V-tooled flange to support a lid. Flattened dome-shaped covers with pinched knop handles were made by the Jamestown potter to accommodate these pots. No lids that fit the pipkins or three-legged cooking pots have been recovered.
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER \IRGINIA
-. Some ot the vessels attributed to the Jamestown potter. Left to right: chamber pot (j-34i7iA), Hat-bottomed cooking pot (j-y^S?), mug (J-1119S), porringer (]-4390i). Ndtiondl Piirk Service. Coloniiil Niilioiuil Hutoriciil Piirk.
Pipkins, which are small three-legged cooking pots, would have been used for cooking small portions of food. In tact, pipkins are of- ten depicted in Dutch paintings, where they can be seen being used at the table as single-serving vessels similar to porringers." They could also have been used in the preparation of foods that require frequent stirring while cooking, such as sauces.'*
Another commonly produced Jamestown vessel is the porringer (fig. 7). A small bowl-shaped vessel with a single horizontal handle, the porringer was a popular seventeenth-century form in silver and pewter as well as in earthenware. It is just large enough for a single serving, and the configuration of the handle suggests that the por- ringer, or "porridge pot,"" was used as a bowl for the consumption of a semi-liquid food rather than as a drinking vessel. "Porringers were well suited to serving gruel, pottage, or chowder, and thus their presence is one indication of the continuation of the one-pot
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
meal."*'' The Jamestown porringer is usually angled outward at mid- section with cordoning just above it. The base, like those of the mug and chamber pot, is folded and rounded.
The pitcher, a large vessel for the serving oi liquid at table, is a common Jamestown form (fig. 5). This ware type was virtually un- known until the late Middle Ages; its appearance is probably associ- ated with the growing popularity oi wine and its consumption at table.* The rounded body narrows to a flat base at the bottom and constricts to a slightly funnel-shaped neck at the top. A pulled strap handle is applied over a raised neck cordon at the top, similar to the mug, and is pressed against the pitcher's midsection at the bottom, just below triple-grooved cordoning. A spout is pinched out from the neck opposite the handle. The same form, made without a spout, was used for jugs.
THE NANSEMOND FORT POTTER
The next evidence for pottery production occurs at the site that is being called Nansemond Fort, from its location in proximity to the Nansemond River. This was a fortified seventeenth-century settle- ment recently excavated by the James River Institute for Archaeolo- gy in modern-day Suffolk County (fig. i; also see map on p. 140). Historical documentation, substantiated by the artifactual material, dates the site to the last few years of the 1640s."*
Historical research suggests that the site is located on a tract of land that was patented in 1645 by Samuel Stoughton as a re-patent of property once owned by his wife's late husband, Michael Wilcox. The property lies in an outlying area that was particularly impacted by the Indian Massacre of 1644. Legislation was passed to encourage colonists to re-occupy these settlements, and returning settlers were instructed to have at least ten armed and equipped men in their compounds to guard against Indian attack. By February 1645, when the settlers were slow to return to their land, the colony's leaders threatened them with loss of their patents.*" At this time Stoughton,
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
a burgess in Upper Norfolk County, "may have erected a fortified compound as a means of preserving his and his wife's claim" and as "an example for others in his community."'"
The material record suggests that the site was not occupied very long. The lack of wine-bottle glass points to site abandonment prior to 1650, when globular glass wine bottles are ubiquitous on Tidewa- ter sites. Locally made earthenwares comprise the majority of the finds. A number ot the wares are seconds, suggesting that they were probably made on site, it not nearby. The site represents some of the earliest setdement in the area, perhaps accounting for the need for a potter to supply ceramic needs for the lonely outpost.
Nanse))W)i(i Fort Pottery Forms
Examination of the vessels reveals that they are all utilitarian forms used for cooking and preparing of food and for consuming beverages. Vessel forms include three-legged cooking pots, pans, chafing dishes, shallow dishes or trays, cups, and porringers (fig. 8).
8. Assemblage ot some of the Nansemond Fort potter's terms. Lett to rigtit: stiallow dish. HOA 2' 2"; cooking pot (missing its three legs), hoa ~' 2", doa s'4"; chafing dish, hoa 4':" (inc.), base dia. 4^8"; and cup (front), HOA 3'2" (inc.), base dia. 2"k". \'iigini,! Company Fouiidtitwn. Audrey Noel HiDiie Center for Arel'deoln^ieii/ Reieareh.
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
All forms except the cups and porringers are glazed on the interior only. The rims of all the large hollow wares are formed by folding and pressing tightly against the exterior of the vessel. The ware is usu- ally very low-fired, the fabric appearing buff and sandy with the char- acteristic lead glaze yellow to light orange in color. On the higher- fired wares, the fabric appears gray and the lead glaze a bright olive green. The bases of the low-fired wares typically show scratches or marks left by the surfaces upon which they were left to dry.
The identity of the Nansemond potter is unknown and his wares have not, as yet, been identified as appearing on any other sites. The Lower Norfolk County records of 1652 contain an interesting entry that suggests that an itinerant potter named Henry Merritt was at work in the area at this time." h is possible that the Nansemond Fort potter was not a regular member of the compounds household, but a traveling potter, like the potter(s) at Martins Hundred and Jamestown, who fired up wares on site as demand required.
THE GREEN SPRING POTTER
Just prior to 1650, another potter was producing utilitarian earth- enwares at Green Spring plantation (fig. i).'- Situated three and a half miles north of Jamestown, Green Spring was built between 1646 and 1650 by Governor Berkeley, who lived there until his death in 1677. Berkeley's plantation complex was considered without peer in the Virginia colony.'' The Green Spring pottery is dated from C.1646, when construction began on Green Spring, to c.1650, based on contexts at Jamestown and nearby Governors Land where it has been found. Less than two hundred total vessels were identified at the kiln site, suggesting that the potter was not in production long at that location. '^
The kiln was located in 1954 through National Park Service exca- vations conducted under the direction of Louis Caywood.'' The brick-walled kiln foundation, laid in English bond, was re-excavated in 1980 by James Smith. It was found to consist of a 10.9 x 11. i foot
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
area with a 3.4 x 4 foot rectangular firebox.^'' This structure is unusu- al for a pottery kiln, but the evidence uncovered by Smith seems ir- refutable. The interior surfaces of the bricks in the structure were highly fired and covered with a blistered wood-ash glaze, and the floor of the kiln consisted of high-fired clay. In addition, the founda- tion contained large quantities of pottery wasters and glaze-covered tile fragments that would have been used as props and spacers dur- ing firing.^" Smith speculated that the original purpose oi the struc- ture was as a clamp, or pile of bricks built for burning in the open air, used to fire up tiles for the roof of the Green Spring manor. Some tiles from the latter, bearing lead runs, appear identical to those found in the kiln.'"
Control of the kiln or clamp temperature appears to have present- ed some problems for the potter, since many of the wares are warped and have glazes fired to an almost black color. These results are con- sistent with a reduced firing atmosphere caused by poorly burning wood, which produces a great deal of smoke in the initial stages of firing. The fabrics range for the most part from light to brick red; the vessels, which are lead glazed, tend to be large with thick walls. Many of the vessels exhibit heavy throwing rings or finger marks, but the forms are well made. Like the potters at Martin's Hundred and Jamestown, the Green Spring potter appears to have been an ac- complished potter struggling to replicate the wares he once made in England with the clays, glazes, and kiln temperatures of the New World.
Green Spring Potter)' Forms
Eleven different forms have been identified as Green Spring pot- tery, including such customary utilitarian vessels as storage jars, pans, pitchers, chamber pots, mugs, pipkins, colanders, dishes, and candlesticks. In addition, the Green Spring potter produced a form for a specialized industrial function, the sugar cone (fig. 9). As its name suggests, this is a cone-shaped vessel, ranging in height from 18 to 21 inches, used as a mold in sugar refining. This vessel form has
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
')■ Sugar cone, loa ii" (inc.), produced by the (".reen Spring potter. Witioiidl Piirk St'ri'ice. Colonial National His- torical Park. Body frag- ment. C-2000B: bottom opening fragment, G- 64110.
been found on other Virginia archaeological sites/" but none from such an early context. Its production at Green Spring attests to Berkeley's involvement in the growing coastal trade with the West Indies.
Sugar molds were made in the colonies, but those imported from England were preferred by colonial consumers who did not mind paying the higher cost.'" The vessel is unglazed to allow moisture in the sugar to evaporate. It is very thick-walled at the rim, narrowing at the bottom to a thick-lipped mouth. Throwing rings are evident at the base, with knife trimming at the rim. Sugar syrup would be poured into one of these molds, which sat upright with a plug in the base, and left to crystallize. Once the sugar had hardened, it would be removed from the mold with a knife. In order to remove the hard- ened loaf easily, it had to be perfectly conical." The irregular vertical scratches covering the interior of these forms may have resulted from the difficulties encountered when the sugar maker tried to remove the hardened sugar from the crudely shaped cone (fig. 9a).
Another unusual form produced by the Green Spring potter is the garden urn (fig. 10). Only one of these vessels was excavated at
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
9.1. Gouges on inte- rior surface ot sugar cone from tig. 9, probably caused when the sugar makers attempted to remove the hard- ened sugar from the mold.
10. Garden tirn base and rim, loa sW, produced by the Green Spring potter. National Park Scrvu-e. Colonial National Historical Park. G-<;}64.
1 1 Large storage jar bearing the Green Spring potter's signatute of three thumb impressions tor attachment of the handle, HO-\ 14", Rim dia. 9 ". National Park Sirvice. Colonial National Historical Park, J-4S390.
Green Spring plantation, and none has been recovered from other sites containing Green Spring pottery."' It may have been an experi- mental form produced to accommodate Berkeley's interest in gar- dening, which is evident in the gardens and greenhouse discovered during Caywood's archaeological investigations/' Although very different from the other utilitarian forms made by this potter, it has the same red fabric and thick-walled profile as his other wares. The urn has a knite-trimmed pedestaled base and is covered with a thin white wash. It incorporates molded reliefs of a devil and a cherub, although the cherub takes a minor role.
An additional form for which only one example was located is the candlestick. It appears to be a kiln waster, since it is unglazed and missing its base. Even in its incomplete state, the candlestick's ele- gant form is perceptible. Its cylindrical knopped socket with incised rings is reflective of brass and silver candlesticks of the mid-seven- teenth century.
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
Large storage jars with handles, about 15 inches in height, make up one-third of the identifiable vessels/* The jar term, as shown in figure II, characteristically has a slightly everted rim and is glazed on the interior only. Two large round-sectioned loop handles were ap- plied to the vessel's midsection with the Green Spring potter's signa- ture three thumb impressions. Four cordons encircle the vessel just below the handle attachment. Small storage jars without handles, about 6V2 inches in height, were formed in the same way.
Large dishes about 16 inches in diameter resemble seventeenth- century Anglo-Netherlandish tin-glazed earthenware chargers. They have sloping side walls with lully everted rims and thick loot rings at the bases. The bases of the foot rings are not flat but slope slightly inward toward the center; this is characteristic of Dutch delftware dishes and chargers and may point to the ethnicity of the potter (fig. 12). The interior lead glaze ranges from light brown to deep black. The latter is probably, as mentioned earlier, the result of contact with smoke produced by improperly burning fuel in the kiln. The exterior of the base and side walls shows tool trimming.
As with the Jamestown potter, pans were the most common form
12. Exterior ot l.irge dish pro- duced by the Green Spring potter, show- ing the inward- sloping foot- ring. Niitioihil Piirk Service. Coloiiinl NiUional His- torical Park. G-2410.
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
13- Pitcher (G-5388), hoa 10' 2" (inc.). Base dia. 4':" and mug (1-2410), hoa 4V2", Rim dia. 5". produced b\' the Green Spring potter. National Park Service. Colonial National Historical Park.
made by the Green Spring potter. Unlike the bowl-shaped pans of earlier potters, the Green Spring pan was wider and not as tall.
The pitcher, about 10 inches high, is the only vessel type from this site with exterior and interior glaze (fig. 13). Like the Jamestown pitcher, it has a folded and rounded base, but it differs in its bulbous shape and straight-sided neck. As with the large Green Spring jar, the strap handle is attached to the vessel's midsection by three thumb impressions. The handle is reinforced where it joins the body by an extra roll of clay applied beneath the handle and pushed down over the handle terminal.
The mugs are of a globular form, carinated and cordoned at midgirth, with a finished toot (fig. 13). There is a raised cordon at
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
the base of the collar neck, over which the top of the strap handle is applied.
THE MORGAN JONES POTTER
The four potting concerns thus far disctissed, except for the Nansemond Fort site, were located in the primary area ot seven- teenth-century Virginia settlement, along the James River between Jamestown and Carter's Grove. The potters were supplying wares for a very localized market. A 1973 excavation of a kiln site in West- moreland Count)' revealed that by the second half of the century this pattern was changing to one of potters participating in a wider regional economy (fig. i).''"
Historical documentation associates the propert)' with "Morgan Jones, Potter" in the year 1677.'" Morgan Jones's aesthetically pleas- ing coarseware has not only been found on neighboring Westmore- land County sites, but in contexts dating to the second half of the seventeenth century throughout the Chesapeake area from St. Mary's City, Maryland, to Jamestown and its vicinity. It is unlikely that all the wares attributed to Morgan Jones emanated from this one kiln that operated for only four short months in 1677. It is known that a pottery existed in Westmoreland County, associated with Jones, as early as 1669. In that year, according to the Westmore- land County records, Morgan Jones assigned a local merchant:
My share of ye earthenware that I have made this year at ye Potthouse at Mr. Quigley's Plantation and also my share of ware which I shall by God's Grace make this present year upon ye said plantation and all m\' share of lead ovens'" that I have there in my possession.'"
In August 1677, Dennis White and Morgan Jones agreed to be- come partners for five years in the making and selling of earthen- ware. During that time, Dennis White was to find three men to help in this endeavor and, in return, would receive one-half of the prof- its."' That same year, Morgan Jones is documented as buying the Glebe Harbor property- upon which the kiln was found. Unfortu-
24 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
nately, White died by the end of the same year, and the property re- verted to its previous owner.""
From historical documentation we also know that in 1681 Morgan Jones was in Lower Norfolk County, Virginia, and that he died about ten years later in Dorset County, Maryland."' Perhaps future research, coupled with archaeological investigation, will uncover the sites of other kilns operated by Jones and thereby further elucidate the products of this very accomplished potter.
The kiln plan, as revealed by excavation,'- was typical of rural sev- enteenth-century English pottery kilns. It consisted of an 8'6" x 6' 6" ovoid central oven with four flues. Two of these flues or firemouths had stoking pits. The central oven was bisected into two pedestaled areas that supported the vessels to be fired. Six-inch wide channels, which were ten inches deep, encircled the pedestaled area and served to circulate the heat. Burned bricks found lying on the oven floor suggest a brick superstructure.
Morgan Jones pottery has a buft-to-pink fabric containing nu- merous large hematite inclusions. The wares are coated predomi- nantly on the interior with a clear lead glaze that appears yellow to pale orange and olive green. The hematite inclusions are visible through the glaze. Candlesticks, mugs and pitcher necks appear to be the only vessel forms to have exterior glazing.
Morgan Jones Pottery Forms
The overwhelming majority of shapes from this site are storage jars and pans. The pans have neatly folded rims with a deep incised line running around the interior rim edge (fig. 14). A few of the inte- rior bases were marked with an asterisk or sunburst stamp (fig. 16), although this mark is not commonly found.
Also represented are pitchers, chamber pots, pipkins, candlesticks in the form of short chamber sticks, mugs in bulbous and bag shapes (fig. 15), bowls, and cooking pots. Many of the jars, bowls, and cooking pots have a distinctive notched decoration on the rim and flange (fig. 16). This notching is believed to have been done with a
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
14- Morgan Jones pan, dia. iT's". Nd- tio)hjl Park Service. Coloiiitil National Historical Park. ]-7)0i.
!<;. Bag-shaped nnig (1-11813), hoa 2^4", rim dia. 3'/r", and bulbous mug (j-47317), hoa ^Vs", rim dia. ?'.s", forms produced by Morgan Jones. National Park Service, Colonial National His torical Park.
l6. Morgan Jones jars with the characteris- tic notching at the rim and the stamped asterisk mark found on the interior of some pans. Morgiiii Jones Pflttoy kiln Site, Virginia Depart- ment ofHistorie Re- sources.
rouletting wheel, and diflFerent repetitious imperfections suggest that several different wheels were used."*
THE CHALLIS POTTER
Chronologically, the next known potting industry is back on the banks of the James River near Jamestown. The wares associated with this potter appear in archaeological contexts dating from c.1690 to 1730, and have been given the name Challis after an indentured ser- vant Edward Challis. A 1683 map shows that the area of the site was rented by Challis, although there is no evidence that he was the pot- ter."' The site was identified in 1961 by Ivor Noel Hume, who found no kiln, but rather large piles of wasters and slabs of sandstone with the marks of the pots that had been fired on them. In addition, many of the jar rims bore bits of that same sandstone."" Challis wares are often misshapen and discolored (fig. 17), suggesting that the pot- ter was not as technically competent as Morgan Jones, especially in maintaining kiln temperatures. He must have successfully fulfilled a ceramic need, however, tor his vessels are commonlv found on
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
i;'. Warped Challis jar found in a Jamestown well HOA lo':". N,itioihil Piirk Service. Colonial National Historical Park, J-7^9S.
i8. Challis pan, dia. g". Na- tional Park Serrice, Colonial National Historical Parle. J--601
Williamsburg area sites, even what we would consider wasters or sec- onds. The fabric oi the ware ranges from pale pink to gray, flecked with hematite, with the clear lead glaze appearing yellow or olive to olive brown, often streaked with orange. The forms are the usual utilitarian wares of jars ranging from 8'/2 to 13 inches high, pans (fig. 18), bowls, pipkins, pitchers, dishes, colanders, cups, and chamber pots. No report exists yet for the Challis material, which is in a pri- vate collection, but it is hoped that this important assemblage may be documented in the near future."" More detailed descriptions are important in light of what appears to be a contemporary coarseware potting endeavor, known as Lawnes Creek, which has been recently recognized.
LAWNES CREEK POTTER
The Lawnes Creek potter was identified by the Department of Historic Resources based on wasters found on Lawnes Creek in Isle of Wight County, on the south side of the James River (fig. i). Little else is known about this potting enterprise except that the wares are very similar to Challis and that they have been found on eastern shore of Virginia sites as well as Isle of Wight and Jamestown and vicinity."^ Lawnes Creek wares have the same forms as Challis, while the fabric is sandier and the wares are fired at a lower temperature, resulting in a light olive-green glaze. It is most likely that Challis and the Isle oi Wight potter are one and the same, and that the differ- ences can be explained by their differing clay sources. As with the Martins Hundred and Jamestown potter, if this could be proven, it would lend credence to the "itinerant potter" theory that colonial potters were mobile, setting up rudimentary kilns wherever they could find a market for their wares and then moving on when the market had been saturated. An organized attempt to find the Lawnes Creek kiln has not yet been undertaken, but the site where the wasters were located has not been developed, so there is hope that this may still be possible.
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
WILLIAM ROGERS, POTTER
The last "potter" to be discussed is unique: in addition to histori- cal documentation giving him a name, William Rogers, he is the first Virginia potter to produce stonewares (fig. i). Operating in Yorktown between 1720 and 1745, the William Rogers pottery kiln produced lead-glazed coarsewares and salt-glazed stonewares that were extremely well made. They appear to have been exported to the West Indies, as well as to most major ports along the east coast.'" Despite this thriving industry, which has been confirmed by the ex- cavation ot his kiln complex between 1966 and 1982 by the College of William and Mary, very little documentary information is avail- able on William Rogers or his wares.' ' In fact, William Rogers was not the actual potter, but rather came to Virginia in 1711 as a brewer. He soon turned his entrepreneurial skills to various mercantile activ- ities, including pottery." He is known as the "poor potter" from re- ports relating to manufactures in Virginia that were written by Vir- ginia Governor William Gooch to the English Board of Trade between 1732 and 1741. Gooch appears to have deliberately hidden the extent of Ropers's business from the British government, which may have interpreted it as a threat to the home export pottery trade. This intent seems quite clear in a 1736 report by Gooch, which is typical of his entries on William Rogers; it states that "the same poor Potter's Work is still continued at York Town without any great im- provement or Advantage to the Owner, or any Injury to the Trade of Great Britain." '
Unlike the other potting concerns thus far discussed, Rogers' business was a factory producing a wide range of forms for a far- reaching market. Rogers was probably not the master craftsman of the pottery, but rather a master of finance, production, and market- ing. His thriving business seems to have ceased soon after his death in 1739.
The 1720 date for the beginning of pottery production is based on the discovery of what appears to be a dedicatory burial of two vessels beside one of the kiln walls (fig. 19). ■ The first vessel is a porringer
30 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
19- Two vessels comprising the dedicatory burial at the William Rogers potters' kiln. Cup (Y-7097), HOA 3", and porringer (Y-7096), hoa 3%", Rim dia. 6V2" . Natto>ial Park Service. Colonial National Hiitorical Park.
19a. Detail of the porringer from fig. 19, showing the initials "ac" and the date "1720. " It establishes the beginning date of William Rogers potter,- production.
which is a "Rogers" product, beautifully turned, with a nicely exe- cuted upturned handle that has decorative incising on the upper sur- face. Interestingly, the porringer bears the incised initials "AC" or "AG" and the date "1720" on the exterior wall beneath the handle (fig. 19a). The porringer was tound upside down, covering a tin- glazed earthenware cup. The cup is painted with a Ming-inspired design, which is identical to one in the L.L. Lipski collection in Lon- don and attributed to Lambeth, c. 1690-1700. ' Interestingly, there is indirect evidence, in the form of correspondence, that links William Rogers with relatives living near Lambeth, which was a large pottery production area on the Thames River south ot Lon- don. It is possible that he came from there. ^
The significance of the seemingly purposeful burial ol these two vessels is not presently known. It is possible that it represents the agreement between William Rogers from Lambeth and his master potter, who could have been English or, perhaps, German. The lat- ter is suggested by the Germanic formation ol the porringer's "A", with its chevron crossbar, and by some of the pottery forms such as betfy lamps and stove tiles. The rectangular shape of the kiln, which differs from the traditional circular plan for English earthenware or stoneware kilns, may also point to Continental influence. ' The rec- tangular kilns in England are usually associated with the firing of delltware, although recent excavation on John Dwight's stoneware pottery at Fulham has revealed that he used this same rectangular kiln plan from the 1670s to the mid-eighteenth century. "
The quantity of vessels and the variations in rim and handle for- mations indicates that there was more than one potter at work pro- ducing Rogers's pottery. There is some evidence to suggest that many of the potters may have been slaves. At the time of his death in 1739, Rogers had one servant but owned thirty-six slaves. In addi- tion, a number of cowrie shells were found in the excavations of the kiln and workshop area. These shells, which are frequently recovered archaeologically on eighteenth-century African-American slave sites in Tidewater Virginia, originate in the West Indies and along the In-
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOL'THERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 199 S
dian Ocean and were used as currency in Africa. Many of the kiln products, especially the bisque wares, bear fingerprints. It is hoped that study of these clues horn the past may eventually yield informa- tion about the number, race, and gender of Rogers's potters."*
William Rogers Pottery Forms
Twent)'-three forms have been identified among William Rogers's extremely well-made wares from the kiln excavation. Some of the forms have only been documented at the kiln site and do not appear elsewhere in the archaeological record, perhaps indicating that these were made solely lor export.'" Twent\'-one of the forms were pro- duced in earthenware and fifteen in stoneware, and nearly all the wares were bisque-fired."" Bisque firing, or firing vessels before glaz- ing, is an unusual practice with salt-glazed stoneware vessels but per- haps was a step taken to make these vessels stronger to withstand breakage during kiln stacking.'^'
Forms that were only made in earthenware include chafing dishes, funnels, porringers, betry lamps, bird botdes, cream pots, platters, and stove tiles. The tiles are one of the most interesting forms made by the Yorktown pottery and again suggest a Continental origin for at least one of the potters. Found only in bisque form, these tiles (numbering about forty-four) have a face molded with a pomegran- ate and swag design. Stove tiles "would have been used either for paneling on walls or ceilings or as free-standing stoves" and are very rare in English contexts outside London.'- They are a more common German lorm and have been documented among the wares made by the Moravians in North Carolina in the eighteenth century.''
The only stoneware lorms that were not also made in earthenware consist of floor tiles and kiln furniture such as saggers, props, and spacers. The kiln furniture comprises one of the most significant col- lections ol material from an American kiln and provides much infor- mation about how the wares were stacked and fired in the kiln. The saggers, made in three sizes, were apparently produced solely to pro- tect Rogers's stoneware mugs during the firing process.'" The mug
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
was Rogers's most skillfully produced form; its thin turned walls, cordoned bases, and graceful strap handle equal any made in Ful- ham in the early eighteenth century. Like their English contempo- raries, many of the mugs are also stamped with a crowned "WR." Probably standing for William Rex, not William Rogers, these marks were most likely excise stamps used, as in England, to certify capacity."'
The forms made in both stoneware and earthenware, and believed to have been fired in the same kiln, are bottles, bowls, chamber pots, churns, colanders, jugs, milk pans, mugs, pipkins, plates, sauce pans, storage jars, and teapots.
The fabric of Rogers's earthenwares ranges from a reddish orange to a buff color and exhibit large red hematite inclusions (fig. 2). Lead glazing of the earthenwares produced an orange to brown color with dark brown flecks. Stoneware fabrics are uniformly gray and resem- ble the English stoneware fabrics, except that they manifest tiny black specks resembling the ground-up bean in vanilla ice cream. In addition, the margins of the stonewares are often gray from a re- duced firing atmosphere. The majority of the stoneware forms were slipped on the upper half with iron oxide and appear darker brown or reddish brown in that area; other\vise, stonewares are brown to gray with a mottled appearance from the salt glazing.
The William Rogers pottery kiln material represents a significant archaeological collection not only for the record of vessels produced and the information it provides on the infrastructure of an early eighteenth-century pottery kiln. The wide range of forms indicates dietary changes occuring in the early eighteenth century, as well as the increasing importance of ceramics in the day-to-day lives of the colonists. It also provides an insight into the underground colonial economy that apparently operated with impunity in the face of very restrictive English laws. As Norman Barka wrote in his study of Rodgers's production, "The poor potter and his pioneering industri- al efforts testify to the increasing independence of American indus- try."'"'
34 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
CONCLUSIONS
This summary of the colonial Virginia porters has shown that once the initial period of settlement had passed, potters began pro- viding utilitarian wares to fulfill the foodways requirements of the colonists. The first potters probably did not have a settled workshop, but were required to travel to their markets, at least periodically, to produce and fire up requested wares. The wares, although principal- ly utilitarian, lead-glazed coarsewares, were not unsophisticated ves- sels made by untrained novices. They were instead well-constructed vessels, often with thoughtful decorative detailing, that reflected the work of skilled artisans. No matter how well made, however, when the vessels were fabricated with an incompatible glaze and fabric or were subjected to an uneven and uncontrollable firing, the outcome was less than perfect. Not representative of the potters' capabilities, these imperfect specimens should testify, rather, to the difficulties these craftsmen faced replicating in the New World the conditions and materials that tradition had accustomed them to in Europe.
By the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, potters, though still not numerous, had become firmly established in the Virginia landscape. Results were more consistently uniform. Kiln temperatures and clay and glaze sources no longer seemed to inter- fere with achieving the desired results. As local populations grew denser, the potters no longer needed to travel great distances to their markets. One result was that they began building substantial kiln structures. The wares of Virginia potters start appearing along east- ern coastal shipping routes, which suggests a change in the market- ing of pottery. The potter no longer had to be both pot maker and pot seller, but could devote himself full-time to his craft.
Clearly much more can be learned about Virginia's early potting industry. It is entirely possible that further excavation and research on Virginias archaeological sites will add to the record presently un- known potters, who were producing for a very localized market. In fact, the products ot some of those potters may be residing, unno- ticed, in collections excavated long ago. It is hoped that this study
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
will encourage curators of Virginia seventeenth and eighteenth-cen- tury archaeological collections to closely examine their assemblages for these local wares. Only when all these vessels are identified can Virginia's pottery industry be completely understood.
BEVERLY STRAUBE IS the ciimtor and assistant director of the James River Institute for Archaeology in Williamsburg, Virginia.
NOTES
1. Robert Beverley, The Hmoty and Present Siiite of Virginui. fos, ed. Loius B. Wright, (Charlottesville: Universit)' Press ot Virginia, 1968). u8.
2. This study is based on visual examination of fabrics, glazes and hirms which can be com- plicated, especially when dealing with kiln wasters or seconds. Other tools tor ceramic study, as spectroscopy. X-ray fluorescence, and pctrological analysis, eliminate the possibilir)' tor human error by transforming visual data into numbers that can be manipulated and compared objec- tively. Dr. Thomas Davidson of Jamestown Settlement is currently analyzing seventeenth-cen- tury ceramics using electronic image processing, which is providing some very promising re- sults. His preliminary work has shown that even though local wares have the same inclusions of quartz, feldspar, quartzite and red and black hematite, they can be distinguished one from another both on the basis ot inclusion percentage and inclusion size (personal communica- tion).
3. Ftench potters tormed both handles and spouts on the wheel, in contrast to the English technique of hand-forming these elements (Michael R. McCarthy and Catherine M. Brooks, Medieval Pottery in Britain A.D. goo~i6oo (Leicester: Leicester University' Press, 1988), 30.
4. David Crosslev, Post-Medu-fal Archaeologf m Britain (Leicester: Leicester L'niversit)- Press, 1990), 288-89.
5. Lorna Weatherill, The Potteiy Trade and Nortli Staffordshire 1660-1-6(1 (Manchester, England, 1971), S3.
6. Car}' Carson, "The Consumer Revolution in Colonial British America: Why Demand?" Of Consuming Interests (Charlottesville: The L'niversit)' Press ot Virginia. 1994). S30.
7. The material from excavations at Martin's Hundred is curated by the Department ot Ar- chaeology, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Some of the Martin's Hundred potter)' is displayed in the Wolstenholme exhibit at Carter's Grove in Williamsburg.
8. Martha W. McCartney, Research Note, "The Martin's Hundred Potter: English North America's Earliest Master of His Trade," m this issue ot the Journal.
9. Annie Lash Jester and Martha Woodroof Hiden, eds.. Adventurers of Purse and Person. Virginia 1607-162^ (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1956), 44. Ward is recorded as arriving in the colonv on the Wanviek. which deposited colonists in 1621.
10. Ivor Noel Hume, Martin's Hundred {New York: Dell Publishing Company, I9"9).
36 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
11. Ibid.. 103.
12. McCanhy and Brooks. 120.
13. Some ot the English herbals were William Turner's A New Herbatl (I'^'ii) . Henry Lyre's Newe Herbalt(is~'i), and Gerard's Herbal/ or General Historie of Platitesd^gj).
14. There is documentary evidence from the medieval and post-medieval periods of potters manufacturing lead glaze by melting scrap lead. The resultant lead oxide powder is mixed with water and applied to leather-hard potterv' (McCarthy and Brooks, JS-.lS).
15. Noel Hume, Martin 's Hundred. 200.
16. Personal communication, Cary Carson. Vice President of Research, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
17. John L. Cotter. "Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown Virginia, " Archaeological So- ciety of Virginia Special Publication Number }2. (1994), 110-12.
18. Ivor Noel Hume, Here Lies Virginia (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 211.
19. Alam Charles Outlaw, Governor's /.jW (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1990). 1S9.
20. Clive Orton. Paul Tyers. and Alan Vince. Pottery in Archaeology (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1993), 127.
21. The largesr collection ot the Jamestown pottet's wares is in the Colonial National His- torical Park at Jamestown. The Jamestown potter is a particular tocus of research currentiv be- ing undertaken by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation under a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service. This study, conducted by Robert Hunter and Beverly Straube, will define and illustrate the potter's forms and attempt to determine if he and the Martin's Hun- dred potter are the same. It is hoped that a study ot the forms may lead to a determination of where the potter learned his craft.
22. Crossley. 250.
23. Elisabeth de Schipper, Joop Witteveen. Karel Vlierman, Johannes van Dam, Quintes- seiis. Catalog of an Exhibition at Museum Boymans-van Beunigen, Rotterdam (Rotterdam, 1992). 19.
24. McCarthy and Brooks, its.
25. A chafing dish attributed to William Rogers, potter in Yorktown c. 1-20-4'i, was exca- vated by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation near the Coke-Garrett House. See Audrey Noel Hume, food' (Williamsburg, 1978), 33.
26. Randle Holme, The Academy oj Armory, or a Storehouse of Armory and Blazon, Book III, Chapter 14 (Chester, 1688), 11.
27. Anne Yentsch, "Chesapeake Artefacts and Their Cultural Context: Potterv and the Food Domain," Post-Mediefal Archaeology 2; (iq^i), 25-72.
28. McCarthy and Brooks, lis.
29. Noel Hume, Martin's Hundred, 195.
30. Jacqueline Pearce, Border Wares (London: HMSO, 1992), 27-28.
31. There are medieval period illustrations depicting cooking pots in use as chambet pots as well as recipes calling for urine in the cooking pot (McCarthy and Brooks, 115-16). This affini- ty berween the chamber pot and cooking pot forms persists through the post-medieval period. Edward A. Chappell points out that in the late eighteenth century, diarist Louis-Phillipe recorded that he was given a cooking pot to use as a chamber pot when there was no window convenient to urinate from. (Edward A. Chappell, "Housing a Nation: The Transformation of Living Standards in Early America," in Of Consuming Interests edited by Caiy Carson et al [Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994], 169).
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
31. McCarthy and Brooks, 123.
33. Maryellen Spencer, Food rti Sn'eyiteetith-CeutiDy Tidewater Virgiuia: A Metiwd for Studying Histortcal Cuisines (Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni- versity, 1982).
34. McCarthy and Brooks, 107.
35. H. J. L. J. Masse, Chats on Old /"fK'/cr (London: T. Fisher Unwin Ltd., 1923), 184.
36. Yentsch, 41.
37. McCarthy and Brooks, no.
38. Dateable objects from the site (44SK192) include clay tobacco pipes and a Dutch delft- ware dish imitating Chinese kraack porcelain. Artifacts and notes are held by the Virginia Company Foundation, 2080 Jamestown Road, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. The Virginia Company Foundation has recently received grants from the Richard Bennett Trust and the Jorman Group to write up the site and artifacts, including an analysts ot the pottery.
39. William W. Hening, ed., The Statues at Large: Beinga Collection of All the Laws of \ir- ginia, I (Richmond: Samuel Pleasants, 1809), 285-86, 291-94.
40. Martha W. McCartney, "The Harbor View Fort," unpublished manusctipt on file at the James River Institute for Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia, 199s.
41. The citation tor the potter located in the vicinity of Nansemond Fort m the mid-seven- teenth century reads as follows: "In cause betw Thomas Ivev pitf and Henen' Merritt dtt, order that Merritt returne to the house ot the said Ivey and there to use his best industry tor the fin- ishinge upp ot one kill ot Earthen Ware: the said Ivey assisting him with two men according to a condi'con made berweene them. And the said Ivey to gett the Kill finished upp fittinge to burne the aforesaid Earthen Weare. And further the said Ivey is to bringe in a full and just ac- count of all disbursments and receipts whatsoever laid out or received by the said Ivey since their partnershipp at the next court. It the work not perfomed Ivey to deliver to Merritt his bedd and workinge Tooles with Come to keepe him till the next Court and then to be heard and determined." Virginia Colonial Abstracts vol. 31. Lower Norfolk Counri' 1651-1654 pp.
lO-II.
42. The Green Spring archaeological collection is curated by the National Patk Service and stored in their collections at Colonial National Historical Park, Jamestown.
43. Thomas Tileston Waterman, The Mansions of Virginia (Chapel Hill: Universiry ot North Carolina Press, 1946), 19-20.
44. Smith, 96.
45. Lewis R. Caywood, Green Spring Plantation (Yorktown, 1955).
46. James M. Smith, The Pottery and Kiln 0} Green Spring: A Study in I'th Century Materi- al Culture (M.A. thesis. College of William & Mary, 1981), 36-38.
47. Smith, 38.
48. Smith, 52-53.
49. Numerous fragments ot sugar refining pottery were excavated in Alexandria, Virginia, at the Moore-McLean Sugar Refinery site, which operated in the first quartet ot the nineteenth century.
50. Benjamin Silliman, Manual on the Cultivation of the Sugar Cane and the Fabrication and Refinement of Sugar {Wishm^wn. D.C.: Francis Preston, 1833).
51. J. P. Allan, Medieval and Post-medieval Find' from Exeter. ig-i-igSo (Exeter, L'.K.: Ex- eter City Council and The University of Exeter, 1984), 139.
52. Horticultutal wates such as decorative urns were excavated at Basing House, England, from a mid-seventeenth century context (Peter C. D. Brears, "Finds From Basing House. Hampshire," Post Mediei'al Archaeology 4 (1970), 87-90) but they have not been recorded on scventcenth-centurv' Virginia sites.
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
53- Caywood, 14-16.
54. Smith, 75.
55. The artitaccs from the kiln excavation are housed with the Department of Historic Re- sources, 221 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia. A very important report was published on the site describing the configuration ot the i<iln structure and documenting the pottery forms (see note S7)- However, most ot the material has not been washed and it is very likelv that some forms were missed in the preliminary survey. There is no mention in the teport, for in- stance, of any kiln furniture such as props or spacers that would be expected on a kiln site.
56. Westmoreland County Deeds Wills, Patents, Etc., 166^-1677- (Montross, Virginia), 284.
57. As Edward Chappell has pointed out, the reference to lead ovens is either to the kilns for glazing the lead-glazed wares or to "ovens used to calcinate lead to produce a powder for glazing the pottery." Edward A. Chappell, "Morgan Jones and Dennis White: Country Potters in Seventeenth-Century Virginia," Virginia CaiuiliradeXXW (1975), 150.
58. Westmoreland County Deeds. Wills. Patents, Etc.. 1665-1677 (Montross. Virgmia). n.p.
59. Ibid., 3S3-54.
60. Westmoreland County Order Book. 16^6-77 to i688-8g, 13s.
61. Virginia Land Abstracts. Patent Book 7. 479.
62. The site was excavated by what was then known as the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, now the Division ot Histotic Resources.
63. William M. Kelso and Edward A. Chappell. "Excavation of a Seventeenth Centura- Pottery Kiln at Glebe Harbor. Westmoreland Count)'. Virginia." H/stoncal Archaeology VIU (1974), 60.
64. William Salt Library, Stafford England.
65. Noel Hume, Here Lies Virginia, 216.
66. The excavator of the Challis site, Ivor Noel Hume, holds the collection of kiln debris, but Challis pottery has been found throughout Tidewater Virginia. Collections of Challis pot- tery can be tound at Colonial National Historical Park-Jamestown, Department of Archaeo- logical Research ot the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and the Department of Historic Resoufces ot the State ot Virginia.
67. Collections of Lawnes Creek pottery are held by the Department of Historic Re- sources, Richmond, Virginia; Colonial National Historical Park, Jamestown, Virginia; and. the Isle of Wight County Museum, Smithfield, Virginia.
68. The William Rogers kiln excavation material is curated by Colonial National Historical Park-Yorktown, which maintains an extensive study collection of the site. The attifacts were recently cataloged according to the Automated National Cataloging System by the lames Rivet Institute tor .'Krchaeology, and are accessible for study.
69. Norman F. Barka, Edward Ayres. and Christine Sheridan, The "Poor Potter " of York- town: A Study of a Cobnial Pottery Eactory, vol. 2: Archaeology. Yorktown Research Series no. 5 (Williamsburg, Va.: College of William & Mary, 1984).
70. Norman F. Barka, Edward Ayres, and Christine Shetidan, The "Poor Potter" of York- town: A Study of a Colonial Pottery Eactory, vol. i: History, Yorktown Research Series no. 5 (Williamsburg, Va.: College of William & Mary. 1984). 20.
71. Ibid., lis. From records in the Public Record Office. "William Gooch to the Board of Trade, May 19. 1736," Colonial Office 5/1324/20-21.
72. Norman F. Barka, "The Kiln and Ceramics of the 'Poor Potter' of Yorktown: A Pte- liminary Report." Ceramics in America, edited by Ian M.G. Quimby (Charlottesville: Univetsi- ty Press of Virginia. 1973). 293.
73. F. H. Garner and Michael Archer. English Delfiware {London, 19-2), 15.
74. Barka er al. The Poor Poller, vol. i. 19.
COLONIAL POTTERS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA
75- Barka, "The Kiln and Ceramics ot the 'Poor Porter,'" 311-14.
76. Crossley, 174.
77. Barka et ai, The Poor Potter, vol. i, 28.
78. Fingerprint analysis was initiated on the Virginia Tidewater potters by Dr. Warren Bar- ber of the State University oi New York, Buffalo, 1989. Dr. Barber was building on a data base he initiated during his doctoral study ot the potters ot household tigunnes in Teotihucan. Us- ing computer imaging to read patterns and measurements, he was able to successfully docu- ment diachronic gender shifts during 1,000 years of pottery production. Gender determination is based on the width and spacing of linger ridges. Dr. Barber believes that the development ot technology will allow more sophisticated measurements resulting in the identification of age and race through fingerprint analysis. Many samples were taken from the Rogers pottery, but the analysis was never completed after grant moneys were withdrawn. This research holds great promise for understanding the make-up ot the work torce of an early colonial industry.
79. Rogers's forms which have not been uncovered on other eighteenth-centur)' sites in the Tidewater include betn' lamps, slip-decorated platters, churns, molded stove tiles, Hoor tiles, plates, and tea pots.
80. Norman F. Barka, Edward Ayres, and Christine Sheridan, The "Poor Potter of York- town": A Study of a Colonial Pottery Factory, vol. 5: Ceramics. Yorktown Research Series no. s (Williamsburg, Va.: College of William & Mary, 1984), 343.
81. Ibid., sso.
82. Alan Thompson, Francis Grew, and John Schofield, "Excavations at Aldgate, 1974." Poit-Alediet'iil Archaeology iS (London. 1984), 77.
83. John Bivins, Jr., The Moravian Potters in North Carolina (Chapel Hill: The University Press of North Carolina, 1972), 174-8".
84. Barka etal. The "Poor Potter." vol. 3, 478. Ss. /hid. 428.
86. Barka, "The Kiln and Ceramics ot the Poor Potter," 314.
40 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
An Archaeological Perspective on Alexandria's Pottery Tradition
BARBARA H. MAGID
In October 1983, an Alexandria resident discovered the western wall of a pottery kiln in a construction trench, four feet below ground, for an underground parking structure. He informed City archaeologists working at another nearby construction site of this important find. With permission from the land owners, rescue exca- vations were carried out by Alexandria Archaeology staff and volun- teers on the exposed portion of the kiln and the surrounding waster dump. Among the first potsherds found were fragments of an or- ange-colored stoneware ink bottle, stamped with a portion of a mak- er's mark, the letters "t i L D o n e ." This was recognized as the name of Alexandria potter Tildon Easton, until then unknown apart from an 1841 notice in the Alexandria Gazette^ which had languished in research files for many years. Archaeologists were able to excavate the remainder of the kiln the next year, prior to construction on the neighboring property (fig. i).-
This find had tremendous significance for Alexandria, where ex- tensive research on other Alexandria potters had previously been un- dertaken in conjunction with the archaeology program. Test excava- tions conducted in the late 1960s and 1970s identified the sites of the Piercy, Fisher, and Plum potteries,' helping to establish the prove- nance of large quantities of earthenware vessels found in wells and privies excavated on domestic and commercial sites in Alexandria. Later, a brief rescue excavation in 1977 recovered 16,000 wasters
I. Excavation of the Tildon Easton Potter\' site. The brick kihi base, with flue chan- nels and a tire box, can be seen at right. Alexandria Archaeolog)' volunteers are exca- vating portions of the surrounding waster pile. The round structure at left is a later well. I'hotogTiiph courtesy of Alfxaiiririii Anltiit'ology,
from the Wilkes Street pottery, establishing a sequence tor Alexan- dria earthenware and stoneware through much ot the nineteenth century.'
The discovery and excavation oi the Tildon Easton site enhanced this base of knowledge in three ways. First, the excavation provided the first opportunity in northern Virginia or the Washington metro- politan area to examine the structural remains oi a pottery kiln in si tit.'' Secondly, research into the history ot Tildon Easton and con- temporary potters provided evidence of local competition for the Wilkes Street pottery and a better understanding of the economics of the local stoneware industry. And finally, analysis of the 5,220 sherds of Easton's wares recovered in the excavation enabled a com-
4i
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
parison with those of the Wilkes Stteet pottery and a better under- standing of the regional style.''
Archaeological excavations at Alexandria's pottery sites were ac- companied by extensive documentary research conducted under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution and the city of Alexandria, and by individual researchers." This research helps to illuminate the lives of Alexandria potters who supplied most of the utilitarian earthenware and stoneware used in the town and oudying commu- nities between 1792 and 1876. In that time period, at least seventeen potters worked in Alexandria, at nine different pottery manufacto- ries (fig. 2). Alexandria had at least five earthenware potteries. The best known and most successful was that of Henry Piercy, in opera-
C:-! C^ C3 pi C3 C^'Cffi C3 CZ3
□ □ OtJ □ □ ta □ IZj
L^ CI] □ jzii □ □ □ i:^ Ls □
ll: □□□□□□□□
□ L^OLZiLDESCJaiUa □ □^'□□□□□□□IZ] CLJEi; [Z][Z]LljDCJLJLZlCZl C LJ U 1-3 t_J [_; C LE l_J LJ L5 C Q iltO IZj IZ: LJ Llj CE; □ □ □
□ □□□□L-jaizjtijCjnLj
1 LJ LJ dCILQ □ □ □ □ d] □ □
□l: □□Ljiz]d_:ua I ■I'fi' I.
■ « i i , I !
I I n n I
ca C3 13 c^ ca ca I
□ □ciuacji ""
□ □□□□□I '
CLUQLJCl-JI
LJQjii:i_:i_:[ui
LJ L^ LI [IJ LZ LI I
□ CjCJLIILjQI IHE^LILZLiSl
□ C
□ c
X
2. Location ot the Alexandria pottery sites, superimposed on Colonel George Gilpin's 1798 map of Alexandria. A. The Piercy pottery, 1792-1809; B. The Fisher pottery, 1795-1798; c. The Plum pottery, Prince Street. 1800; D. The Reynolds pottery, 1807; E. The Wilkes Street pottery (Swann, Smith, Milburn) 1813-1877; F. The Plum pottery, "Wolfe Street, 1801-1821; g. The Black pottery, 1836; h. The Easton pottery, 1841-1843
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
tion from 1792 to 1809. Another early pottery was owned by Thomas Fisher from 1795 to 1798. Lewis Plum managed two potter- ies between 1800 and 1821, with the later pottery continuing until 1828 under the ownership of Evans and Griggs. A fourth earthen- ware potter, James Miller, manufactured earthenware for a local sug- ar refinery at some time between 1804 and 1828. Other potters work- ing at these sites included John Piercy, Thomas Hewes, and James Hibberd. A few stoneware wasters were also found at each ot the three excavated earthenware potteries (Piercy, Fisher and Plum's sec- ond pottery).
The most successful stoneware pottery was in operation from 1813 to 1876 under the successive ownership of potter John Swann, mer- chant Hugh Smith, potter B. C. Milburn, and Milburn's two sons. Other potters working at this site included David Jarbour and James Black, who later opened his own business. Stoneware potters William Reynolds (1807), James Black (1836), and Tildon Easton (1841 to 1843) were less successful in their ventures. Excavations at the Wilkes Street pottery and the Easton pottery shows that they continued to produce earthenware along with their main product, stoneware.
Many of these men learned the "art, trade and mystery of a pot- ter"' through apprenticeships with other Alexandria potters, or formed short-lived partnerships with their fellow craftsmen. At first, they made coarse earthenware in the Philadelphia-Germanic style, but by the 1820s they had created a distinctive Alexandria style of cobalt-decorated salt-glazed stoneware. The production of decora- tive utilitarian stoneware reached its florescence at the Wilkes Street pottery in the 1830s and 1840s, only to decline twenty years later with the advent of the Civil War. This style, while having character- istics distinct to Alexandria, also has much in common with a re- gional style seen in Washington, D.C., the Shenandoah Valley, and Baltimore, Maryland. In this region, gray salt-glazed stoneware is generally decorated with brushed cobalt flowers and foliage. The de- sign is usually symmetrical, radiating from a central axis, with lesser design elements such as clusters of leaves continuing on the reverse
44 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
(see fig. lo). Less often, the foliage encircles the pot. Similar designs are also executed in slip-trailed cobalt, especially by Alexandria pot- ter B. C. Milburn (fig. 12). This contrasts, for example, with the small discrete motifs of birds or flowers common on stoneware from Vermont and New York.
The local pottery also reached a regional market. Alexandria earthenware and stoneware are found in excavations throughout the region, and collectors have found marked Alexandria stoneware as far away as West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
HENRY PIERCY
The earliest Alexandria earthenware, manufactured in the 1790s and the first years of the nineteenth century, is linked both stylisti- cally and historically with Philadelphia, 150 miles to the north. The best known of Alexandria's earthenware potters is Henry Piercy, who established a pottery at Washington and Duke streets in 1792.' Pier- cy was one of many German potters to emigrate to America in the eighteenth century. Born in 1756 at Saarbrucken, in Lorraine, he came to Philadelphia before the age of thirteen. His older brother Christian Piercy established a pottery in Philadelphia prior to 1774 and became a well-respected master potter. Henry probably learned the craft from his brother before joining the Revolutionary Army in 1776 at the age of twenty. Sometime between 1787 and 1791 Henry moved to Trenton, New Jersey. The next year he moved on to Alexandria and opened his earthenware manufactory. Christian re- mained in Philadelphia, where he died of yellow fever in 179^'" Both brothers produced slip-decorated earthenware in the German tradi- tion, similar to wares produced in their native land. The Alexandria wares can be distinguished from Philadelphia imports by the lighter color and weight of the Alexandria clay, although the shape and dec- oration of many vessel types are indistinguishable."
When Piercy came to Alexandria in 1792, he found a bustling and prosperous port town with a growing population and a good trade
ALEXANDRI.-\ S POTTERY TRADITION
in tobacco, flour, corn, and wheat. AJexanciria was laid out in 1749 near a e;roup of tobacco warehouses that had been estabhshed about twenty years earUer. hs naturally protected harbor attracted Scottish merchants who helped the town evolve into a major international commercial port by the 1790s. By this time the shallow flats of- the half-moon-shaped bay had been filled in and numerous docks ex- tended out into the Potomac River, allowing one thousand ships to land each year.'' In 1790, the Federal District was also laid out, in- cluding Alexandria within its boundaries. Baron Alexander von Humboldt, a visitor to the town in 1804, wrote that the town "has increased considerable since my last visit to it in the revolutionary War — it was then composed of a few scattered buildings, & chiefly along the River & which was bordered with a high bank, said bank is now cut away to make long wharfs, and the streets are here paved ... & the Houses mostly oi brick, & many of them are a good stile [sic] oi architecture."'*
Settlers from Philadelphia, including potter Henr\' Piercy, were among those attracted to the booming port town over the next decades. A 1816 profile of the town, printed in the Alexandria Gazette, stated, "The houses are generally built of brick and upon the less modern Philadelphia plan, the most oi the mechanics having been from that place."'* One of the attractions lor Piercy and his contemporaries was a law, passed in 1792, exempting artisans, me- chanics, and handcrafters migrating into Virginia from taxes on im- plements of trade, and Irom other taxes apart Irom those assessed on land. The exemption, in effect until 1826, encouraged the migration of skilled craftsmen to the town."
Before this influx of craftsmen began in 1792, the population was smaller and its needs for pottery and other goods were met by im- ports. Utilitarian pottery used before this period, lound in ex- cavations of homes, taverns, and businesses in Alexandria's commer- cial center, includes stoneware from Germany and England and earthenware from both England and America. Philadelphia was the main source of American pottery reaching Alexandria around
46 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
I790, as seen both from local advertisements and excavated wares."' Piercys advertisement for the opening of his pottery boasted that "the goodness of his ware, will ensure him the patronage of all those who wish to encourage home manufactures."'" Indeed, excavations in Alexandria confirm the patronage of "home manufactures," with local wares quickly supplanting imported utilitarian wares from Philadelphia and Europe. Excavations show that between the 1790s and the 1870s the needs of the populace for utilitarian earthenware and stoneware were met almost entirely by local production.
The same advertisement described Piercys work as "equal to any work in Philadelphia or elsewhere." It is indeed fine work, and his venture was a successful one. Still, not only were Alexandria's houses built "upon the less modern Philadelphia plan," but so were the pots produced by Piercy and his contemporaries. The slip-decorated wares made by Henry Piercy in 1792 were similar to those made by his brother in Philadelphia as early as 1774. Also, many American potters were already producing stoneware by this time, as the dan- gers of using lead-glazed earthenware for cooking and food storage were already well known."*
The best source of pottery attributable to Piercy is not the waster piles at the pottery site, but a deep, brick-lined privy shaft behind his King Street shop. Excavations at the pottery site produced bro- ken fragments, and the sherds of Piercys manufacture are mixed with those of his successors. In the privy, however, excavations re- vealed more than eighty vessels of Piercys manufacture, many of them now restored and in the collection of the Alexandria Archaeol- ogy Museum.'" Piercy and Graham advertised the opening of their King Street shop on June 25, 1795, selling dry goods, china, and glass.-" As this shop was only occupied by the firm for a ten-month period,^' the pottery from this site can be very closely dated to 1795-96. Sherds of Piercy pottery were also recovered from the site of his Fairfax Street house, also occupied in 1796."
The pottery from the Piercy and Graham shop privy shows a wide range of vessels and glazes. Slip-decorated wares include large dishes
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
3. Slip-decorated earthenware dish with pie-crubt rim, attributed to Henr\' Piercv. From the site of PierL\' and Ciraham's shop, i~96. Yellow slip over red glaze, doa iV ■ Fro)>i the AU'xattrlrid Archaeology collec- tion.
4. Earthenware attrilnitea to I lerir\' Piercv. ca. fgi-irijS. The bowl was found at the site ot Pier- cy and Graham s shop, and the basin and jar from nearb\- residential sites. From left to right: Bowl, yellow slip over brown glaze, at rim 6"; basin, yellow slip over orange glaze, at rim 14"; pre- serve jar, orange glaze, hoa 8". doa 6". From the Alexandria Archaeology collection.
or chargers with a crimped pie-crust rim and yellow-combed slip decoration (fig. 3), and deep basins or pans with sloping sides, evert- ed rims, and spirals of trailed slip (fig. 4). Some vessels also exhibit green (copper oxide) or brown (iron oxide) splotches over the orange glaze and yellowish pipe-clay slip. These splotches also appear on or- ange-glazed milkpans and on bowls with a yellow-slipped interior (fig. 4). Porringers, pitchers, syrup jugs, tankards, preserve jars (fig. 4) and chamber pots are lead-glazed in orange, brown, olive green, or a dark brownish-black color. Utilitarian forms with glaze only on the interior include long-handled pipkins for cooking and pots rang- ing from five to fourteen inches high.
Piercy owned the pottery on the northeast corner of Washington and Duke streets until his death in 1809 at the age of fifty-three. By 1799, however, the pottery was leased to others. Piercys ill health may have prevented him from actively continuing to produce pot- tery as early as 1798. In that year he formed a partnership with Thomas Fisher, who had opened a pottery across the street from Piercys in 1795.
OTHER EARTHENWARE POTTERS
Alexandria's early potters formed short-lived and changing part- nerships, producing similar styles of earthenware at several potteries (table i). Lewis Plum, Thomas Hewes, James Miller, John Piercy, and James Hibberd are among the names of other Alexandria earth- enware potters who appear in tax and census records. Henry Piercy took Lewis Plum and his nephew John Piercy as partners in 1797, while Fisher worked with Thomas Hewes and James Miller. The next year, Piercy and Fisher formed a partnership, and a year later Plum and Hewes rented their pottery. The following year, 1800, James Hibberd rented the Piercy pottery, while Plum and Miller worked together at a pottery on Prince Street. By 1801 Plum may have moved to Wolfe Street, and in 1805, Hewes and Miller were working at the Piercy pottery.'' Archaeological collections from the
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION 49
TABLE I. Alexandria Potteries ivid Their Proprietors
Chronology
Characteristics
Piercy Pottery,
Washington and Duke streets, northeast cotner Site # 44AX87
1 792-1 809 Henry Piercy owns potter\'.
1795-96 Owns Piercy and Graham China and Glass Shop, 405 King Street
1796 Sells earthenware from Fairfax Street house.
1797 Forms partnership with Lewis Plum and nephew John Piercy.
1798 Forms partnership with Thomas Fisher; they may also operate Fisher's pottery- Piercy probably no longer makes potter,' himselt.
1799 Rents property to Lewis Plum and Thomas Hewes. Plum probably produces hrsl Alexandria stoneware.
1 800 Rents property to James Hibberd.
1 805 Rents property to Thomas Hewes and
James Miller. 1809 Pierc~\' dies, and potter,' is ottered tor sale. 1811 The properrv' is divided into house lots.
Earthenware in the Philadelphia Germanic sp,'le, with orange to brown glazes, some with trailed or combed slip decoration.
Stoneware, gray salt-glazed with brown wash and reeded rims, attributed to Plum.
No maker's marks.
Fisher Pottery,
Washington and Duke streets, southwest corner Site # 44AX80
1785 James Lownes purchases site. He may be
a potter, or may build the pot-house for Fisher. 1795-98 Thomas Fisher owns potterv'.
1797 Forms partnership with Thomas Hewes and James Miller.
1798 Forms partnership with Henry Piercy. This site
is not mentioned in later documents, but may continue to be run along with the Pierc^,' pottePi' accross the street.
Earthenware and stoneware similar to that found at the Piercy site.
No maker's marks.
Plum Pottery, Prince and St. Asaph Streets, northwest corner. Site not excavated
1800-1.^? Lewis Plum works with James Miller and an apprentice. He may work here until 1813, or may move earlier to the South Columbus Street potren-.
1 SO.'^ Takes apprentice John Swann, working here or at South Columbus Street.
Plum Pottery, Wolte 1801-21 Lewis Plum purcha,ses propcrt)'. He produces
and South Columbus pottery here at least by 1814.
streets, southwest 1822-28 Evans and Griggs take over pottery after
cotner. ?\um\ death.
Site # 44AX7
Earthenware and stoneware similar to that found at
the Piercy site. Also earthenware flowerpots with combed lines and
tooled pie-crust rim and flange. No maker's marks.
RejTiolds Pottery,
King and Fayette
streets
Site # 44AX86
1 807 'William Reynolds
1808 John Reynolds (?)
Stoneware, gray salt-glazed stoneware, undecorated.
No maker's marks.
JOURN.AL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
TABLE I. conrinuea
Wilkes Street Pottery. 600 block Wilkes Street, north side Site # 44AX29
Chronology
1812 (Jonathan Scolield, property owner, built kiln) 1813-25 John Swann (may work until 1833) 1820-41 David Jarbour, slave and then free black potter. Other Free black workers at Wilkes Street after 1820: Mordecai Bennett, William Bennett. John Davis, Ben Jones. Luke Lee, Kjtt)' Marshall, Alfred Merricks Michael Morris, Silvia Rogers Morris (treed by Hugh Smith), Wiliam Nickens, John Payne, John Simms Thomas Valentine (freed by Hugh Smith) 1825—31 Hugh Smith and son Hugh Charles Smith, owners and managers ol pottery. Also owned China Shop, King Street. 1822-67 Benedict C. Milburn. Apprenticed with Swann beginning in 1822. Leased potter)- trom Smith in 1833. Purchased potter)' in 1841 1834 James Black worked for Milburn 1867-73 Stephen C. Milburn (B.C. Milburn's son) 1867-73 Milburn's son S. C. Milburn takes over
following his death 1871-76 Another son W. Lewis Milburn works at pottery and owns it ftom 1873.
Earthenware, uliliatrian with brown glazed interior.
Stoneware, gray salt glazed with iron wash (Swann), brushed cobalt (Swann, Smith, and Milburn periods), slip-trailed cobalt (Milburn), or undecorated (Milburn's sons).
Stamped maker's marks
James Black Pottery,
Wolfe and Patrick
streets, northwest
corner
Site not excavated
1836 James Black works here for one year, after working at Wilkes Street.
Stoneware, gray salt-glazed with cobalt decoration. Stamped maker's mark.
Tildon Easton Pottery, King and Peyton streets, southeast corner Site # 44AX76
1841-43 Tildon Easton opens pottery in 1841 and files lor bankruptcy two years later. Arrived in Alexandria by 1835, and may have apprenticed or been employed at Wilkes Street.
Earthenware, utilitarian with brown glazed interior, and flowerpots with spotty green glaze on exterior.
Stoneware, gray salt-glazed with cobalt decoration.
Stamped maket s mark.
James Miller Pottery, ? James Miller manutactured syrup jars tor an Alexandria Unknown location sugar refinery which operated from 1804 to 1828. The
Site not excavated 1820 Census lists him operating a pottery in the District
ot Columbia.
Earthenware syrup jars tor sugar refiner)', utilitarian with otange or brown glazed interior and heavy rounded rmis.
Stamped maker's mark.
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
<.^*»'< '
S. Flower pot attributed to Lewis Plum, c. iSoi-iSii. Light orange clay with pie-crust rim and Hange and in- cised hnes, HOA S", dia. at rim ".s' • FroDi the Alexiiiiilihi Archdcolog)' collec- tion.
-^as«jteSK ♦-.
Piercy and Fisher potteries and from Plum's Wolte Street pottery confirm the production ot similar slip-decorated and plain glazed earthenware at all three sites. Because ot the similarity ot earthen- ware wasters found at these sites, the many examples of similar pot- tery found on other sites in Alexandria can only be classed as Alexandria-style earthenware, and cannot be directly attributed to Henry Piercy. Fragments of Alexandria-style earthenware, distin- guishable from Philadelphia wares by the lighter clay, have been lound in excavations throughout northern Virginia.'
The lead-glazed earthenware pottery found at the Plum pottery on Wolfe Street was of lour types: deep basins with spiraling slip decoration, milk pans and pots with dark brown glazed interiors, thinner-walled vessels glazed on both interior and exterior, and unglazed earthenware flower pots with incised lines and pie-crust rims and flanges (fig. 5).'' The flowerpots are unique to the Plum
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
site, but the other wares are nearly identical to those from the earlier Piercy and Fisher sites. Also found were a few sherds of gray salt- glazed stoneware jars and bottles, some with a brown iron-oxide wash, and under-fired sherds with a reddish-brown glaze. The ap- pearance of the salt glaze on broken surfaces proves these sherds to be wasters.
LEWI S PLUM
The earliest stoneware manufactured in Alexandria was found at the sites of both the Piercy and Fisher potteries. As stated earlier, these are thought to have been manufactured by Lewis Plum, a for- mer Piercy partner, who, with former Fisher partner Thomas Hewes, took over the business in 1798. The sherds include gray salt- glazed stoneware bottles with reeded necks (fig. 6) and jars with a brown iron-oxide wash. They are similar to ones found at Plum's lat- er pottery at Wolfe and South Columbus streets.'" Plum owned the Wolfe Street property by 1801 and worked there at least from 1814 until his death in 1821. John Swann, the first of the Wilkes Street stoneware potters, was indentured to Lewis Plum in 1803 and learned the art of stoneware production. Swann probably worked as
6. Stoneware from the Piercy pottery site, attrib- uted to Lewis Plum, c. 1799. Gray salt-glazed stoneware bottle sfierd with brown iron-oxide wash, at base 3.5". From the AlexiDidrin Archijeolo- rt collection.
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
an apprentice with Plum and James Miller at another site, as yet un- excavated, on the northwest corner oi Prince and St. Asaph streets."
Most of the sherds recovered from these three sites are earthen- ware, with only a small quantity of stoneware wasters. Similar stoneware bottles and jars are rarely found among the domestic trash excavated from Alexandria households, while those produced later by Swann and Milburn are common. It would appear that Plum's major product remained earthenware, while his stoneware was limit- ed to experimentation and small-scale production. Plum's appren- tice, John Swann, was to became Alexandria's first major stoneware producer.-** In 1822, when Evans and Griggs took over the pottery af- ter Plum's death, they did not advertise stoneware, but only "Earth- en-ware, such as pitchers, tea and coffee pots, &c. ""' Despite this ad- vertisement for tea- and coffeepots, sherds of one fluted teapot from the Fisher pottery site, with glaze on the broken edge, is the only ex- ample of press-molded wares from any of the Alexandria pottery sites. The main production of the Wolfe Street pottery, even under Evans and Griggs, was apparently still wheel-thrown earthenware.
Several factors may have contributed to the delay of more than ten years in full-scale stoneware production, including competition from low-priced imported goods. As British pottery became increas- ingly cheaper, Alexandria's potters would have suffered financially; they may have been unable to pay the higher costs of materials and fuel needed for stoneware production. Merchants, however, pros- pered as they supplied consumers who preferred imported Stafford- shire pottery such as creamware and pearlware to the coarse local wares.
In the early nineteenth century, Alexandria's trade turned more toward the northern seaports of America, and to the West Indies. As Alexandria became a major sugar producer, at least one Alexandria potter, James Miller, found a niche producing industrial wares. Syrup jars bearing his stamp were found at the site of an Alexandria sugar refinery. Miller had been, at various times, a partner of Thom- as Fisher, Lewis Plum, and Thomas Hewes.'"
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
JOHN SWANN
In the second decade of the nineteenth century, potters and other local manuhicturers benefitted briefly from the Embargo Act of 1807 and the British blockade of the Chesapeake Bay in 1813, which re- duced the amount of imported goods reaching the town. After the War of 1812 the supply of imported goods once again increased, but rising tariffs helped, at least for a few years, to renew the market for local pottery. This economic climate enabled John Swann to pur- chase the Wilkes Street pottery in 1813," where he produced stoneware on a larger scale. The pottery, on the 600 block of Wilkes Street, was constructed in 1810, and probably leased by Swann from that time. The Wilkes Street pottery was first owned by Swann (1813-25), then by merchant Hugh Smith (1825-41), and finally by potter Benedict C. Milburn (1841-67) and his sons (1867-76). This was the largest and most successful pottery manufactory in Alexan- dria, and the one about which we have the most historical informa- tion. Many marked stoneware vessels manufactured at Wilkes Street survive in museums and private collections.
Stoneware was John Swanns main product, as can be seen from advertisements for his "Stone Ware Manufactory" printed in the Alexandria Gazette.^- Waster sherds from undecorated earthenware milk pans were also found at the Wilkes Street potterv' site, but in much smaller quantities than the stoneware. By this time, many of the traditional earthenware forms, such as bowls and pitchers, had been replaced with mass-produced products from England. A re- mark in the 1820 Census of Manufacturers by a Baltimore potter ex- plains the decline of earthenware potteries in favor of stoneware. "Our Manufactures at present, are in a languishing condition," he wrote, "and the Earthenware in a peculiar manner, (as it is substitut- ed by Queensware [of which there has been immense quantities forced into our country] more than Stoneware) as in the Stoneware they neither make Dishes or any Flat shaped Ware, Bowls or Por- rengers [sic\ . . ."" While mass production and trade incentives flooded the market for dining vessels with these increasingly cheap
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
English wares, the sturdier stoneware continued to fulfill a need for utilitarian kitchen wares, particularly tor food storage. In Alexan- dria, the earthenware tankards, bowls, and porringers made by Pier- cy and his contemporaries were the forms replaced by queensware, or creamware. Earthenware chamber pots were also replaced largely by English creamware, and after 1830 by yellow ware trom Baltimore and other parts of the United States," with only a tew stoneware chamber pots found in local excavations. Earthenware cooking ves- sels gave way to cast iron pots and to yellow ware "fire-proof" dishes. Stoneware production mostly met the need for food storage, with jars and jugs making up the bulk oi the inventory.
Swann's earliest stoneware has a gray or brown surface, dipped to the shoulder in a brown iron-oxide wash which was allowed to drip down the surface of the pot. Bulbous jugs with reeded necks are the most common form, followed by bulbous pots or jars with lug han- dles (fig. --).
In 1819 an advertisement announced that Swann "has been en- abled lately to make a great improvement in his ware, although it has been at considerable expense and labor.""" Around this time he began to produce a better, lighter-colored stoneware body with sparse cobalt blue decoration.'' The considerable expense may have been for the importation ol clay, as well as tor the cobalt. An 1820 advertisement provided a price list, per dozen, for jugs, pots, pitch- ers, milk pans, churns, and chamber pots.'" Examples of all ot these forms were found at the pottery site and have been attributed to Swann, either stylistically or from maker's marks.'"
Only four vessels stamped with "j s wa n n a l e x ^" are known from the Alexandria Archaeology' collection. These include a deco- rated chamber pot, a lug-handled pot (or jar), a milkpan, and an unidentified sherd from the pottery site. A few other marked pieces are extant in private collections, including an undecorated dark gray jug with a reeded neck, and several cobalt-decorated ovoid pots. The simplest decoration is found on the milk pan, whose steep sides are marked with six evenly spaced pairs of leaves (fig. 8). These simple
JOURN.AL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
■J. Stoneware attributed to John Swann. The brown iron-oxide wash around the neck of the vessels is indicative o\ Swann's earliest stoneware, c. 1810-1820. From left to right: Jug with reeded neck and brown wash dripping down over gray salt- glaze, HOA 11", DOA 7"; pitcher with brown neck and blue cobalt flowers over gray salt-glaze, hoa 9", doa 6"; pot with lug handles and brown wash at neck, over gray salt-glaze, hoa 6.5", doa 8.5". From the AUxandria Archaeology collection.
8. Stoneware marked
"l SWANN A L EX \" The
blue cobalt decoration is in- dicative ot Swann's later stoneware, c. 1820-182S. From left to rigbt: Milkpan, HOA 4.s", dia. at rim 8.2"; ": pot with lug hanciles, hoa 13", doa 10"; chamber pot, hoa 6.<i", diameter at rim S.";". From the Alexandria Archaeology collection.
pairs of leaves are found again arranged as a vine around the shoul- der or rim of pots (fig. 8), and flanking the lip of a pitcher. Another jar has a vine with small three-petaled tulips, a variation of a com- mon stoneware motif" which is found throughout the years of the Wilkes Street potterv. One marked pot, from a private collection,"' has a triangular arrangement of scalloped lines also seen on earthen- ware from Peter Bell of Winchester, variously identified as st\'lized grapes, seed pods,^' or fish scales.'^ This pattern also appears on an unmarked milkpan, probably from the Shenandoah Valley, in the collection of the Alexandria Archaeology Museum. The chamber pot has a more complex pattern of vines, still made up primarily of small pairs of leaves with no apparent stem (fig. 8). The arrangement of elements on this pot is similar to that seen on Smith and Milburn
jars.
One marked Swann pot is decorated with a st\'lized flower on a
JOt_IRNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
leafy stem, the flower encircling the potter's stamp (fig. 9). This flower marks the beginnings of a stylistic motif used for at least thir- ty years, through the Smith and Milburn periods. This simple round flower, usually drawn on a leafy stem with additional foliage branch- ing out on either side, is the hallmark of the Alexandria potters. It is seen again and again on a variety oi vessel forms and in a variety of painting styles (see fig. 10). The flower is most often drawn as a plain circle, but is sometimes given petals. On some of the Milburn pots a tulip is similarly placed. A variation on this design, with a diflerent placement of the foliage, was used by R. Butt in Washington, D.C., around 1834 and 1843.^'
Two unmarked pitchers in the Alexandria Archaeology collection may also be examples of Swanns stoneware. Both have cobalt deco- ration in a style similar to that seen on the marked pieces, and one has brown wash on the neck, as seen on Swann's earlier wares. While one pitcher exhibits a simple floral motif- (fig. 7), the other shows a face in profile. Only one other Alexandria pot, also unmarked, has a representative motif other than flowers and foliage. This straight- sided jar, depicting a ship on one side and a leafless tree on the other,
9. Mark from a stoneware jug, "j SWANN ALEX'," showing a floral motif typical of Alexandria stoneware through the Swann, Smith and Milburn periods, hoa 8.75", DOA 8". Private collection; photograpl) courtesy of Alexandria Archaeolo^.
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
10. Stoneware from the Wilkes Street potter,' marked with the Smith Company name. From left to right: Jar marked "h c smith .a lex '," made after retroces- sion of Alexandria to Virginia during B. C. Milburn's ownership, c. 1846-1851, hoa 9.s". DOA 7"; cake pot with the torward-facing flower r\pical oi the Wilkes Street potter)', marked "h smith & co ," c. 1825-1831, hoa 5.5", doa 9.5"; jar marked "h smith & CO ," a, i^is-iS}i. HOA 10. s", DOA 6" . From the Alexandria Archae- ology collection.
is attributed to B. C. Milburn based on its shape and artistic style. Swann's style of decoration may have been influenced primarily by Baltimore potters such as Thomas and Joel Morgan and Henry C. Remmey. While Piercy's advertisements compared the quality of his wares with those oi Philadelphia, Swann's compared the price of his wares with those of his major competitors from Baltimore."
The 1820 Census of Manufacturers listed Swann as employing six men and two boys, including three slaves and two apprentices. The manufactory included a potting house with four wheels and two kilns, a warehouse, and a mill house. With a $6,000 capital invest- ment and $2,000 expenses for materials and wages in that year, the pottery produced stoneware with a market value of $8, 000.
This was, however, a difficult time for many Alexandrians. Fore- closures, bankruptcies, and auctions of businesses were common- place starting in 1817, and the Panic of 1819 deepened the depression. By the mid-i820s Alexandria's growth had been curtailed, with Balti- more and Richmond increasingly drawing off trade. Many Alexan- drians blamed the town's status as part of the Federal City for its hardships. In part because of her surrender to the British in the War of 1812, Alexandria suffered in this arrangement, coming under strict Federal control at the same time that most development was taking place across the river in Washington City.
Although an accomplished potter, Swann was among those plagued by financial problems. In 1821 he mortgaged his property, receiving a loan of $500 from Hugh Smith, a King Street china mer- chant and wholesale buyer of Swann's pots. A contract was signed between Smith and Swann for the purchase of all stoneware that would be manufactured during the next two years. Alexandria deed books record Swann's failure to pay back the loan or to deliver stoneware according to the contract.*' In 1822 Swann notified the public that he had disposed of his stoneware manufactory and all his stock to Hugh Smith & Co., which had continued the business on a large scale. He asked his customers to patronize the new owner.* However, it was not until 1825 that Hugh Smith & Co. foreclosed
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
on the mortgage. The property was sold at auction and purchased by the mortgage holder/' At this time Hugh Smith retired from his retail business, which was left to the management ot his son, and took over management of the pottery. Swann may have remained an employee, at least sporadically, until 1830, but Smiths business acu- men had a major influence on the pottery. The infusion of capital from the new owner, and his active involvement in the business, en- abled the pottery to grow. It directly supplied the Smith family retail business with a large supply of stoneware marked with the company name, and advertised widely throughout the region.
THE HUGH SMITH PERIOD
During the period of Smith's ownership of the pottery in the 1830S, Alexandria began to industrialize on a small scale, manufac- turing steam engines and machinery. Hugh Smith's business benefit- ted from the general economic growth, although he never industrial- ized the pottery.
The pottery from the Smith period is more exuberantly decorat- ed, exhibiting more fully developed floral designs. While the designs are still forward-facing, the back of the pot carries more decoration than Swann's earlier works, often in the form of leaves in groups of three. Most vessels have a version of the typical round Alexandria flower, centrally placed above a stem with flanking branches (fig. 10). Others are decorated with tulips (fig. 10) or are encircled by elabo- rate trailing vines, usually springing from a single flower (fig. 10).
Working at the pottery in Hugh Smith's employ was potter Bene- dict C. Milburn. Milburn came to Alexandria from St. Mary's Count}', Maryland, in 1822, at the age of seventeen.'" The two Alexandria potteries in operation at that time were the Swann-Smith pottery on Wilkes Street and the Wolfe Street pottery of Evans and Griggs, successors to Lewis Plum. No record of where Milburn worked during these early years has been found, but he was probably working at Wilkes Street by 1831, when he was recorded as renting
62 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
John Swann's former house. In 1833 he apparently took over manage- ment of the pottery,-" leasing it Irom Smith before purchasing it in 1841.'"
A number of journeymen potters, apprentices, slaves, and inden- tured servants worked at the Wilkes Street pot- tery through the years. James Black, a potter who worked tor Milburn in 1834, went on to open his own pottery in Alexandria in 1836, but worked there for just one year."^' Several of the potters were free blacks, including David Jar- bour, also of St. Mary's County, who worked at the pottery between 1826 and 1840. A jar in the MESDA collection is signed on the bottom in script, "1830 Alex' Maid [sic] by D. Jarbour." At twenty-eight inches in height, this is one of the largest pots known from the Wilkes Street pot- tery and one of only a few to be signed.^- The style of painting, with rather long, broad brush strokes, is similar to that seen on some other pots of the Smith period, and the motif a tor- ward-facing design of tulips and foliage, is typi- cal of the Wilkes Street pottery under Swann, Smith, and Milburn (fig. 11).
Suzita Myers made a study of the Smith company names used in newspaper advertise- ments to develop a chronology lor the pottery stamps used during the Smith period. She found that the "h U G H smith & C O "' name, „ Stoneware pot made in 1830 by Dav.d jarbour. though rarely seen on pottery, was used by 1822 ^^ African-American potter who worked at the until 1831, and therefore indicates pottery made wilkes Street pottery between 1826 and 1841. before Milburn took over operations at Wilkes Signed on the bottom, in script, "1830 Alex' Maid Street, "h smith & co" was used at the by D. Jarbour." hoa i/H"; doa 11V2". yi/£"5Z)/l same time, but also from 1841 to 1851, when ACC. 2964 m. Milburn owned the pottery, "h c smith"
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
63
was used from 1831 until 1851, under Milburn. This mark is im- pressed on pottery with the place name "alex^ dc" until retro- cession in 1846 (when Alexandria was returned to the state ot Vir- ginia), and with "alex^" alone from 1846 to 1851. Thus, some of the pottery marked with the Smith company name was made tor their retail business after Milburn purchased the manufactory. The presence of Jarbour and other journeymen potters also clouds the is- sue ot attribtition. Milburn also manufactured pots for merchants James P. Smith from 1851 to 1854" and E. J. Miller from 1865 to 1876, and their marks appear on pot sherds found at the Wilkes Street site.""
The predominant Smith company marks, "h smith & co" (probably 1825 to 1831), "h c smith alex^ dc" (1831 to 1846), "h c smith alex^" (1846 to 1851), and Milburn's own marks, are each found on both broad-shouldered and cylindrical jars, so the shape alone offers little help with attribution. Similarly, stymies of dec- oration cannot be clearly linked with one mark or time period dur- ing Smiths tenure.
Pottery forms identified from the wasters at the Wilkes Street site include jugs, jars, pitchers, milk pans, butter or cake pots, chamber pots, and churns (in descending order of quantity). Other stoneware forms known from collections (both museum and private) are water coolers, spittoons, and banks.
B . C . MILBURN
After acquiring the pottery in 1841, Milburn continued to manu- facture both earthenware and stoneware, with stoneware the main product of the pottery. In addition to decorated stoneware jars, pans, water coolers, and churns, he advertised the sale of flower pots, stove pipe collars, and chimney pots. These latter forms were earth- enware.
While some of Milburn's pottery is stamped with the marks of merchants Smith and Miller, much of his production after 1841 bears
64 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1 9 9 <;
12. Stoneware with slip- trailed cobalt decoration, stamped "b c mi lb urn ALEX \"' c. 1846-1861. From left to right: Jar, HOA 15", DOA 9.5"; milk pan, HOA 4", diameter at rim 9"; pitcher, hoa is" (estimated), doa 8". From the Alexandria Archaeology collection.
his own mark. From 1841 to 1846, before Alexandria's retrocession to Virginia, his stamp reads "b . c. milburn alex^ d . c . " Later wares use his name alone or with "alex\"
The decorated stoneware marked with Milburns name exhibits the most elaborate designs of any of the Alexandria potters, with ex- uberant, lorward-f^acing floral designs. In addition to brushed cobalt decoration similar to that from the years of Smiths ownership. Mil- burn introduced the technique of slip-trailed cobalt, using a slip cup to create a narrower, raised line (fig. 12). Slip trailing appears occa- sionally on other Virginia stoneware, but unlike Milburns wares, it is combined with brushed cobalt on the same vessel. ""
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
65
The Alexandria Archaeology collection includes marked Milburn milkpans with the same round flower used by Swann. Tulips are seen more commonly, in both brushed and slip-trailed cobalt. Both tech- niques are used to create the two most typical Alexandria designs: forward-facing flowers with foliage, and vines and flowers encircling the pot. On larger pots the patterns become more elaborate, with larger numbers of flowers and branches. Wavy lines, scalloped lines, chains, or waves may encircle the neck or otherwise embellish the floral and foliate designs.
An interesting jar and churn, in a private collection,'" each has a scalloped line below its rim, typical of many Milburn pieces. Below this, on the shoulder, is a pattern of graduated leaves, each group ending in a large leaf to form a C-shaped branch, interspersed with tulips. This distinctive leaf pattern is characteristic of Solomon Bell and others in the Shenandoah Valley." While Milburn provided for most of Alexandria's needs, Shenandoah Valley stoneware has been found in excavations in the city. Wares from Baltimore, and proba- bly from the District of Columbia, were also used and may have in- fluenced the Alexandria potters. Milburns stoneware was sold over a wide area, including the Shenandoah Valley, and the exchange of ideas and styles was no doubt r^vo-way.
TI LDON EASTON
There had been no local competition with the Wilkes Street pot- tery since the former Plum pottery closed in 1828. In 1841, however, the same year that Milburn purchased the Wilkes Street pottery, Tildon Easton advertised his "new stone and earthen ware manufac- tory" on Peyton Street." Easton competed unsuccessfully with Mil- burn's established business, however, and he filed for bankruptcy af- ter less than two years.'" Easton's wares are known only from the wasters found at the kiln site.
All that remained of the Easton's pottery kiln was its base, includ- ing the lowest four courses of brick set in mortar. The upper portion and most of the rubble from the kiln's destruction were removed
66 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
during land-filling operations in the twentieth century. The eight- sided kiln measured twelve feet in diameter. Nearby postholes may indicate the type of shed typically built to protect the kiln from the elements.
The Easton kiln had one flue channel encircling the brick floor and another cutting across the floor from the firebox. Large flat tiles such as those found in the waster dump would have bridged the flue channels. The firebox, opening directly into the flue channel at the level of the firing chamber door, indicates an updraft kiln with a central hole or chimney for the escape of air and fumes."" The un- even firing produced by this type of kiln is evident from the appear- ance of many of the wasters found at the site. Easton's use oi an up- draft kiln, a type commonly used for earthenware, reflects the low technology level needed tor a small-scale stoneware manufactory. More sophisticated down-draft kilns were preferred for salt-glazing, because the temperature was more easily controlled and the tall, re- mote chimney disposed of the chlorine-gas byproducts at a greater height."'
A nearly complete cobalt-decorated jar was found broken in one of the flues, providing proof that salt-glazed stoneware was produced in the last firing of this kiln. The gases from the salt had not reached the sherds in the flue, but had glazed a rim sherd from the same pot that was found in the nearby waster pile (fig. 13).
A total of 879 pieces of kiln furniture, all burnt to the reddish col- or of the surrounding ash, were also found in the flues, with another 66^ pieces found above the kiln floor. These fire bars, stilts, jar sag- gers, and other shapes of clay would have supported the stacked pot- tery during the final firing of the kiln. This amount of kiln furniture would have supported several hundred pieces of stoneware. The flues were completely filled with artifacts and ash, indicating that they had not been cleaned out after the last firing, although the fired vessels had been removed from the kiln. This may indicate that the kiln was damaged in the last firing, and that Easton did not plan to use it again.
After the fired pottery was unloaded from a kiln, the kiln furni-
alexandria's pottery tradition 67
13- Stoneware churn from the Tildon Easton Potter)' site. These sherds, in an unglazed biscuit state, were recovered trom the Htie channel ot the i<ihi. The missing rim sherd, with a sah glaze, was found in the waster pile, hoa 8", no.^ 6". Fro)>i the AlfXd>idyii7 A n/hif<>/n^' collection.
ture and broken sherds remaining at the bottom ot the kiln were normally shoveled out to clear the kiln tor re-use. Waster piles there- fore surrounded the kilns on all pottery manufacturing sites, provid- ing archaeological evidence ot the wares produced. Ot the v220 earthenware and stoneware sherds recovered trom a portion ot the Easton waster pile, stoneware comprised a little more than halt. A total ot 677 vessels were identified trom these stoneware and earth- enware sherds, and they have been analyzed and compared with the pottery trom the Wilkes Street site.
Easton's earthenware is not easily distinguished from that of the Wilkes Street and earlier potters, apart from the distinctive flanged, green-glazed flowerpots.'" These are reminiscent of much earlier English forms and glazes (fig. 14). Easton did, however, introduce some new stoneware vessel forms to Alexandria, producing ink bot- tles (fig. is), flasks (fig. 16), and flower pots (fig. 17). The small, straight-sided ink bottles, stamped "tildon easton," are the
68
JOLlRN.'\L OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
14. Earthenware flowerpot sherd from the Tildon Easton potter)- site. These pots, with a pie-crust rim and flange, have a spotty green glaze on the interior, with fewer areas of glaze on the exterior. From the A/exaudrid Airhaeol- 0^' collection.
15. Stoneware ink bottle from the Tildon Easton pottery site. Gray salt- glazed with a shiny greenish-brown glaze on interior, stamped "tildon easton." HOA 6" (estimated), dia. at base 3.5". A similar bottle was found with an orange body and salt- glaze, with a brown glazed interior. From the Alexandria Archaeolog)! collection.
16. Stoneware flask from the Tildon Easton pottery site. Brown salt-glazed with a buft- colored body, hoa 9" (estimated), woa s" ■ From the Alexdiidria Archaeology' collection.
17. Sherds frome a Stoneware flower pot from the Tildon Easton pottery site. Gray salt-glazed with brushed cobalt design, hoa 3" (estimated), di- ameter at rim 2.5". From the Alexandria Archaeology collection.
only known Alexandria stoneware vessels with an interior slip or glaze. The shiny, distinctive olive-green interior surface may have been produced by combining the common brown Albany slip and a clay from Seneca Falls, New York. In addition to producing a brighter-colored glaze, this mixture apparently covered more evenly than the Albany slip."' At least five of these bottles have been identi- fied, including two gray and two orange salt-glazed jars and one buff-colored waster in a bisque state. A number of orange and brown glazed bottles and pocket flasks with buff-colored bodies also appear to be lighter in color and finer in texture than Easton's gray, cobalt-decorated milk pans and jars. The gray body and glaze are the result of the reducing atmosphere of the stoneware kiln, which draws oxygen from the clay. The orange body and glaze is the result of incomplete firing of the pottery in an oxidizing atmosphere. This may have been accidental, since these are wasters, but could have been a deliberate attempt to produce a light-colored ware. More than two hundred cow phalanges, thought to come from a nearby tannery, were found in the waster pile. The presence of these foot bones may indicate that an attempt was made to use bone ash to lighten the body color.'" Only three hundred sherds of the light buff- colored ware were found at the site, so this may have been an experi- mental endeavor.
Bottles from Easton's pottery are straight-sided, with strap han- dles springing from the shoulder and long, straight necks. The straight double rims imitate those ol glass bottles formed with the lipping tool after 1840, and were also used by Milburn on broad, squat jugs. Like those of the other Alexandria potters, Easton's bot- tles and jugs are not decorated.
Easton's stoneware milkpans, ranging in size from eight to fifteen inches in diameter, have squared rims, pouring spouts, and lug han- dles. They are similar in form to those produced by Smith and Mil- burn, but with straighter sides. His jars are straight-sided with curved shoulders and a squared rim, with lug handles on some ves- sels. The shape is similar to some Irom the Wilkes Street pottery.
70 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
i8. Stoneware milk pan from the Tildon Easton pottery site. Gray salt- glazed with brushed cobalt design, hoa 4.5", diameter at rim 9". From the Alexandria Archiieo/ogy collection.
However, the simple squared rims contrast with the rounded ones from the Swann and Smith periods and the more complex rim forms used by Milburn.
The gray salt-glazed milk pans and jars Easton produced are deco- rated with brushed cobalt vines and flowers, arranged in a wavy hor- izontal band around the upper portion of the vessel. All of the known vessels have a similar arrangement of decorative elements, al- though the execution varies from careful brush strokes to quick slashes, indicating the work of more than one decorator. The closest Alexandria parallel for Easton's cobalt-decorated stoneware is that produced by Milburn for H. C. Smith in the 1830s. Easton lived in Alexandria during this period and could have been working with Milburn. Unlike the forward-facing designs most common at Wilkes Street, however, Easton's designs appear the same from all sides (fig. 18).
Some of Easton's decorative patterns are nearly identical to those excavated from a pottery site in Washington, D.C., attributed to
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
Enoch Burnett (1843-62). Burnett apprenticed in Baltimore begin- ning in 1813. He worked with Henry Remmey in Philadelphia from 1827 to 1831, before returning to Baltimore for the period 1831 to 1843."" The similarity of Easton's works to Burnetts is most likely due to the influence of Baltimore stoneware sold in Alexandria, rather than from any direct working relationship.
Easton's innovations in vessel form and his possible experimenta- tion with lighter colored wares show an attempt to vary his produc- tion from that of his competitor, to find his own niche in the local market. However, his enterprise was short-lived, due at least in part to the intense competition from Milburn, who had an established market for his wares. After Easton's bankruptcy, Milburn's pottery remained the only one in Alexandria.
An article printed in the Alexandria Gazette in 1855 provides a fas- cinating description of how Milburn's stoneware was manufactured, and suggests that the public visit the manufactory. It reads as follows:
Alexandria Pottery
Those who have never witnessed the operations of shaping and finishing Earthenware will be gratified by a visit to the manufactory of Mr. Mil- burn, on Wilkes Street, of this city. The material employed is a species of bluish white clay, found in various parts of the countrv, and composed of such proportions of alumina and other ingredients as to make it very tenacious and plastic when moistened. The clay used at Mr. Milburn's factory is brought from the vicinity of Baltimore Cir\'. After the clay is thoroughly kneaded and prepared, a certain portion, according to the size of the vessel to be made, is placed upon a circular board fixed hori- zontally and connected with a treadle by which a rotary motion is given to it. While the clay is revolving in common with the board on which it lies, the operator shapes it with his hands, into whatever vessel it is de- signed to make. The judgment shown in choosing just the proper quan- tity for the vessel designed, and the skill and regularity with which it is brought to the shape and size desired, by the aid of machinery so simple, excite the admiration of the beholder. The vessels thus prepared are dried a while in the sun; after which they are placed in the kiln where the processes of burning and glazing complete the work."
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
While the stoneware potters may have utihzed local clays during some years of operation, the article shows that, at least in 1855, Mil- burn was bringing clay from Baltimore. The color of the stoneware body on Milburn's decorated wares ranges from a pure gray to a brownish gray, darker than that seen on some of Swanns decorated wares. This article does not discuss the step of decorating, implying that Milburn's wares were already no longer regularly decorated by 1855.
By this time, the production of yellow ware, glass, and tin in more industrialized parts of the country provided homemakers with alter- natives to the use of the heavy old-fashioned stoneware. In particu- lar, the introduction of the Masons canning jar in 1858 replaced con- sumer demand for small stoneware jars. With less demand for stoneware products, Milburn stepped up production of chimney pots and unglazed earthenware flowerpots, supplying a local seed warehouse."
Alexandria's level of industrialization continued to be minor com- pared to that of Baltimore and other cities that became early centers of rail transportation. The railroads finally arrived in Alexandria in 1851, five years after retrocession, along with a new coal wharf at the Alexandria Canal, a foundry to build locomotives and other indus- try."' This was the height of Milburn's success at the Wilkes Street pottery. However, while Baltimore's potters industrialized in the mid-nineteenth century, producing large quantities of molded yel- low ware and Rockingham wares, Milburn continued to produce wheel-thrown wares on a much smaller scale.
The railroad did not bring prosperity for long. The invasion of federal troops, which occupied Alexandria in the Civil War, had dev- astated Alexandria's economy."" Eventually great warehouses were built to supply the Army of the Potomac, but domestic trade, in- cluding the manufacture of pottery, was stifled.
Milburn's business declined sharply in the 1860s, due in part to the changing technology, but also due to economic conditions dur- ing and after the Civil War. During the war, Milburn may have sup- plied the Union troops occupying the town, but the pottery appears
Alexandria's pottery tradition
to have shut down during the war years, reopening on a reduced scale in 1866." Not until the next year, when the elder Milburn passed away did the town begin to regain its trade and commerce/'
MILBURN S SONS
B. C. Milburn died in 1867 at the age of sixty-two, and the busi- ness was continued by his thirty-four-year-old son, S. C. Milburn. "- Another son, W. Lewis Milburn, worked at the pottery from 1871, and managed it starting in 1873. Just a few pieces of stoneware marked with S. C. Milburn's name are decorated with brushed cobalt. Some of these may have been made when he was a young man working at his fathers pottery. All known examples of W. Lewis Milburn's pottery are plain. In 1874, the pottery was producing stoneware jugs, pots, pans, and churns, as listed in a lien filed by an employee. ' Jugs were a major product in the later years, formed in a cylindrical shape with a sloping lip resembling the tooled lip of glass bottles. Most ot the pots produced in the 1860s and 1870s were no longer decorated, and the long tradition oi Alexandria stoneware de- sign was coming to an end.
By 1873, when W. Lewis Milburn took over control of the pottery from his brother, the town's economy was continuing to improve. Streetcars were being built, the town was lighted with gas and sup- plied with water, and steam cars and terries connected the town with Washington. By 1876, reconstruction had ended and Alexandria's economic recovery was complete. In this same year, however, the Wilkes Street pottery closed its doors, finally unable to compete with the lower prices ot both industrial goods and stoneware from the much larger Baltimore and Pennsylvania stoneware potteries. Sherds ol stoneware Irom the James Hamilton Company in Greens- boro, Pennsylvania, have been found in excavation, bearing sten- cilled advertisements for Alexandria merchant E. J. Miller. Many ex- amples of this stoneware, with an Albany slip on the interior and elaborate stenciled designs, can also be found in private collections.
74 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
A year after the Wilkes Street pottery closed, the neighboring Smoot Tannery built a bark shed on the property, marking the end of Alexandria's eighry-tour-year-old pottery industry.
BARBARA MAGID IS assistant director of Alexandria Archaeology, a division of the Office of Historic Alexandria, City of Alexandria, Virginia.
NOTES
1. On June lo, 1841 the following notice appeared in the Alexandria Gazette: "new STONEWARE AND EARTHEN WARE M A N u F A c T o RY . The Subscriber respectfully in- forms the public, that he has commenced the above business on Peyton Street, between King and Prince Streets, Alexandria, D.C., where he has on hand, and is constantly manufacturing, STONE AND EARTHEN w A R E , of every description, and of the bcst quality, which will be sold on the most accommodating terms. Country merchants and others, would do well by call- ing, tildon E ASTON."
2. Excavations at the Tildon Easton site (44AX76) were carried out by Alexandria Archaeol- ogy, a division of the Office of Historic Alexandria, City of Alexandria, Virginia. Initial excava- tions in October 1983, at 1412 King Street, were directed by J. N. Leith Smith. Subsequent ex- cavations in November 1984, at 1410 King Street, were directed by the author, who also directed the laboratory analysis.
3. Test excavations on the sites of the Piercy (44a,x87) and Fisher (44AX80) potteries were conducted in 1968-1969 by Rjchard J. Muzzrole. Museum Specialist in the Department of Cultural History of the National Museum of History and Technology (now the National Mu- seum of American History), Smithsonian Institution, undet the direction of C. Malcolm Watkins. Wasters recovered from these sites are in the collections of the Alexandria Archaeolo- gy Museum and the Department of Ceramics and Glass at the National Museum of American History. The City of Alexandria investigated the Plum Pottery site on Wolfe Streer (44AX7) in 1975, 1979 and 1983, with back-hoe trenches and surface collection (see note 21).
4. Rescue excavations at the Wilkes Street pottery (44AX29) were conducted in 1977 by Alain C. Outlaw, for the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology. The excavation has been described briefly in Dennis J. Pogue, "An Analysis of Wares Salvaged from the Swan [stc\- Smith-Milburn Pottery Site (44AX29), Alexandria, Virginia," Archaeological Society of Virginia Qtiarterly Bulletin, 34:3 (March 1980), 149; and in Suzita Cecil Myers, Alexandria Salt-Gkzed Stoneware: A Study m Material Culture iSl-i-l8-'6. M.A. Thesis, University of Mar)'land (1982), 54-70.
5. While this was the first m situ kiln structure found, excavations at the Wilkes Street site had uncovered several sections of articulated salt-glazed brick from a pottery kiln, including a portion of an interior structural arch, disturbed by demolition. Pogue, "An Analysis of Wares, " 149.
6. Barbara H. Magid, Tradition and Innovation at a Nineteenth-Century Pottery. Alexandria
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
Archaeology Publications, number s. Presented at the Socierv' tot Historical Archaeology an- nual meeting, Baltimore, 1989.
7. Documentary research on Alexandria's potters was conducted by Suzita Myers, Robin Ruffner, Jack Pickens, and, under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution, Malcolm Watkins, Richard Muzzrole and Betty Walters. Research notes and manuscripts are on file at Alexandria Archaeolog)'. Some excavated wasters from the Pierc.' pottery site are curated hv the Department of Ceramics and Glass. National Museum of ,\jnerican Histon'. Smithsonian Institution. Additional material from this site, and all excavated material Irom the other Alexandria pottery sites, is owned and curated by Alexandria Archaeolog)'.
8. From the standard language oi indentures, as used in the 1803 indenture ot John Swann to potter Lewis Plum, in the Alexandria Orphan Court Records. 1801-1830.
9. Piercy's first advertisement in The Virginia Gazette and Alexandria Advertiser {later the Alexandria Gazette), on November i. 1792, reads as follows: "earthen ware manufac- tory. The subscriber has lately, at a very considerable expense erected a manufactory of EARTHEN WARE in the Town which he now carries on, on a very extensive plan, where Merchants and others may be supplied at the shortest notice, and their orders carefully execut- ed. He flatters himself that the quality of his wares is, and will constantly be, equal to anv work in Philadelphia or elsewhere, and that his assiduity to please, and the goodness of his ware, will ensure him the patronage of all those who wish to encourage home manufactures. He has also for sale at his house, the upper end. Prince Street, a large assortment of c H 1 N a . Q u e e n s
WARE and GLASS . "
10. The history' of Henn,- Piercy is recounted in John K. Pickens. "Captain Henn.- Piercv." i-S. unpublished manuscript 19-5-19-9 in the files of Alexandria Archaeologv and in the Pick- ens Papets (box 5~). Alexandria Library. Lloyd House.
H. In 1974. Richard Muzzrole and John K. Pickens dug a test pit and probed in a ten-block construction site in the vicinity of Christian Piercy's pottery in Philadelphia. While they did not locate the waster piles, they uncovered a cache of pottery thought to have been from a shop. A box of earthenware thought to he of Piercy's manufactute is in the collection of the Alexandtia Atchaeology Museum. A discussion of this investigation is provided in Pickens. Captain Henry Piercy. 8.
11. Donald K. Shomette, 'Maritime Alexandria: an Evaluation of Submerged Cultural Re- source Potentials at Alexandria. Virginia. " unpublished report. 198s. 6:'-69. Report on file at Alexandria Archaeolog)-.
13. T. Michael Miller, ed. Pen Portraits of Alexandria. \':rginia. i-m-ii^oo. (Bowie. Md.. Heritage Books, 198-). 60.
14. Miller. Pen Portraits, 81, quoting The Alexandria Gazette Commercial & Politieal oi ]\i\\ 27, 1816.
15. Black's Laws of Virginia, ch. 48. as discussed in Pickens, Captain Henn Piercy. s.
16. Excavated eighteenth-century utilitarian wares from Alexandria include Staffordshire slipware. Buckley ware. North Devon gravel-tempered ware, agate ware, and brown salt-glazed stoneware from England, Iberian storage jars, German stonewares, and Philadelphia redware. The Philadelphia redwares are similar in style to those made in Alexandria in the 1790s. but with a heaviet. darker red clay. A survey of advertisements in the Alexandria Gazette from its inception in i~84 through the i~90s shows that Alexandria merchants were selling Philadelphia pottery, and comparing Alexandria products to these wares.
i^. The Virginia Gazette and Alexandria Advertiser, November 1. i"92. 18. The following article from the Pennsylvania Mercury. February 4. i-8s. indicates the lev- el of understanding of the ill effects of lead-glazed earthenware in the late eighteenth century:
76 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
"The best of Lead-glazing is esteemed iinvvhoiesomc, hy obsening people. The Mischie- vous effects ot it fall chiefly on the country people, and the poor everywhere. Even when it is firm enough, so as not to scale off, it is yet imperceptibly eaten away by every acid mat- ter; and mixing with the drinks and meats ot the people, become a slow but sure poison, chiefly affecting the nerves, that enfeeble the constitution, and produce paleness, tremors, gripes, palsies, &c, sometimes to whole families. " Reprinted in Harold F. Guilland, Early American Folk Ponetj {V\\\\i^e\ph'ix. Chilton Book Company, 1979), 38.
The effects fell chiefly on the poor, because lead-glazed earthenware was less expensive than stoneware. Earthenware was also more accessible to country dwellers, since it was produced at many small local potteries which operated part-time to serve the local community. Stoneware was expensive to transport because of its heavy weight. The article goes on to s.iy that the man- ufacture of stoneware should be encouraged by the Legislature.
19. A brick-lined privy shaft (designated 4KSW-15, site 44AX91) behind Piercy and Graham s shop, which stood at 406 King Street from 1795 to 1796, was excavated by Richard Muzzrole in 1974. The shaft, five feet in diameter and five feet deep, was "almost solidly filled by Piercy's pottery, apparently a year's worth of daily breakage in the store," according to John K. Pickens in his manuscript "Early American Craftsmen: Captain Henry Piercy. Patriot and Master Pot- ter." I. The pottery may instead have been discarded after the store closed, as some of the pots contained paint and plaster. In either case, the large quantity of Piercy's earthenware clearly as- sociates the assemblage with the short period of the ship's existence. Other artifacts from the privy also point to a date of deposition around this time period. The Alexandria Archaeology Museum has a collection of eighty-one vessels of Piercy's manufacture that were restored from sherds found in this feature. These were found along with wasters and kiln furniture. English pearlware and creamware, Chinese porcelain, bottle glass, lead bale seals, and other debris from the shop were also recovered.
10. The Columbia Miiror and Alexandria Gazette (later the Alexandria Gazette), lune 23.
21. "A brick house in King Street now occupied by Captain Pearcy [sic\" was offered for rent as of April i, 1-96, in The Columbia Mirror and Alexandria Gazette. March 3, 1796.
22. Piercy's property at 127 South Fairfax Street, consisting of "A Store and Cellar, and, if required, a Counting Room," was offered for rent in The Columbia Mirror and Alexandria Gazette. June 7, 1796. A contractor building a shop on that site in 19-4 uncovered "a halt bar- rel of large Piercy sherds in one pile which apparently had been a vard clean up sometime after 1800." Pickens. Early Alexandria Craftsmen^: 1.
23. A discussion of the history of these potters can be found in Pickens, "Captain Henry Piercy," and also in "The Pots and Potteries of Alexandria. Virginia: 1792-18-6." unpublished manuscript. C. Malcolm Watkins. in the files of Alexandria Archaeology.
24. The author has examined Alexandria earthenware and stoneware from a number of northern Virginia sites, including Mount Vernon. Manassas. Earp's Ordinan in Fairfax Ciry. and sites Throughout Fairfax Counr\-.
25. Flowerpot waster sherds from the Plum site on Wolfe and South Columbus streets (44AX7). in operation from 1801 to 1818. exhibit the pie-crust rim and flange and combed deco- ration illustrated in figure 5. The pie-crust rim on these pots is not pinched, but is made by im- pressing a tool in the rim and flange. The pots are encircled with panels which are separated bv lines made with a four- or six-tooth comb. Some sherds have wavy lines filling the panel, made with the same instrument. Similar sherds have been found on numerous residential sites in Alexandria dating from the early nineteenth century. Restored pots in the Alexandria Archae- ology collection include a 7" pot with three panels of wan' lines made with a six-tooth comb
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
(44AXi-RD6'i), an 8" pot with two panels ot wavy lines made with a four-tooth comb (44AX93- GBi-67.ioi6), a 10" pot with four plain panels separated by lines made with a four-tooth comb (44AX9S-3KSW4-D2), each with the double pie-crust rim. Another 10" pot has rwo panels ot wavy lines, made with a single-toothed tool (44AX95-3KSW8-A1). The double rim has the same profile as the other Plum pots, but without the indentations which give the pie-crust appear- ance. No definite attribution has been made for other pots in the collection with plain, single rounded rims, although some, with panels ot single wavy lines, may also be products of the Plum pottery.
26. A rwenty-toot trench was excavated by the City of Alexandria with a backhoe in 197s, uncovering several pieces of kiln flooring and ceramic artifacts at six to seven feet below grade. Pickens, "Early Alexandria Craftsmen," 2:3. The site was trenched again in 1979 under the di- rection of Terry Klein for the Alexandria Regional Preservation Office, and surface collections were made during construction in 19S3 by J. N. Leith Smith for Alexandria Archaeology.
27. A history of potter Lewis Plum is provided in rwo Pickens manuscripts, "Lewis Wilson Plum," and "Early American Craftsmen," 2: "Lewis Wilson Plum, the Potter in the Dip," and also in Watkins, "The Pots and Potteries of Alexandria, Virginia." According to their research in Alexandria deed books. Plum worked with Piercy at Duke and Washington streets in 1797, and he and Thomas Hewes rented the pottery in 1799. In 1800 he worked with James Miller at Prince and St. Asaph streets. It is probably at this site that John Swann was an apprentice, be- ginning in 1803. Plum purchased a lot at 800 Wolfe Street m 1801, and added to this properry and built a potter)' there between 1813 and 1814.
28. Another potter, William J. Reynolds, produced stoneware at the corner ot King and Fayette streets in Alexandria beginning in iSo'' {44AX86). Richard Muzzrole excavated part ot the waster pile on this site, but the collection is not extant. Sherds of what appear to be gray stoneware bottles can be seen in a photograph ot the site in Alexandria Archaeology's photo- graphic archives. Pickens manuscript, "Potters — Little Known and Unknown," 34.
29. Plum passed away in 1821, and the potterv was run by Evans and Griggs from 1822 to 1828. The Alexinidria Gazette and Daily Adwrtiser, March 7, 1822.
30. The author discusses these wares fully in Keith Barr, Pamela J. Cressey, and Barbara H. Magid, "How Sweet it Was: Alexandria's Sugar Trade and Refining Business," m Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake. Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, eds., Smithsonian Institu- tion Press (1994), 257-63.
31. The 1820 Census of Manufacturers (Original Schedules of the Fourth Census, 1820, Na- tional Archives Record Group 29, Washington, D.C.) shows the Swann pottery to be "in fijll and complete repair, and always has been for 11 (or 10) years in operation." An advertisement in 1820 also stated that the pottery was ten years old {Daily National Intelligencer. July 13, 1S20). Swann purchased the lot from Jonathan Scholfield in 1813 (Corporation Court City of Alexandria Deed Book Z: 146-50, January 29, 1813, Alexandria Court House), but may have rented it from 1810 as the deed specified that "Scholfield will accept S500 for the property and rent shall cease." Swann's histor\' is discussed further in Myers, Alexandria Salt-Glazed Stoneware, 18-31, with the entr)' from the Census of Manufactures repnnted on page 150, and in Myers, The Potter's Art. ^-11.
U. The earliest Swann advertisement read. "Stone-Ware Manufactory'. The subscriber re- spectfully informs his customers that he has a large assortment ot STONE-WARE on hand which will sell low tot cash or on short credit — Country merchants can be supplied at the shortest notice." The Alexandria Gazette Commercial & Political. March 2, 1815.
33. Excerpted from the 1820 Census of Manufactures, from "The Aggregate ot 10 Potteries in the City of Baltimore State of Maryland, 5 Earthen — 3 Stone & Earthen & 2 Stone only — ", as
78 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
reproduced in John N. Pearce. "The Early Ballimore Potters and Their Wares, i76!-iX<io," M. A. thesis. University ot Delaware (1959). Hi-
34. Yellow ware is a hard-bodied buft-yellow colored earthenware with a clear alkaline glaze which was mass-produced from around 1830 to the 1930s. Yellow ware was Hred between 2000 and 2200° F, and thus is sometimes nearly or fully vitrified (non-porous). Manufacturers referred to it as a fire-proof ware, meaning that it could be used for cooking. Usually produced in molds rather than on a wheel, yellow ware was used primarily for utilitarian forms such as mixing bowls, baking dishes and chamber pots. By the 1840s, yellow ware was decorated with bands of colored slip, usually in white, blue and brown. At least by the 1860s it was being pro- duced in decorative molds, but this variety is rarely seen in Alexandria. Yellow ware was pro- duced in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Vermont, as well as in England and Canada. Alexandria's closest source was the Bennett pottety in Baltimore, which produced yellow ware and Rockingham (a molded yellow ware with a brown modeled glaze). Further information on yellow ware production can be found in Joan Leibowitz, Yellow Ware: The Transitional Ceramic. ShifFer Publishing Ltd., Exton, Pennsylvania (198s) and John Gallo, Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Yelloiv Ware. Heritage Press, Richfield Springs, New York
(1985).
35. The Alexandria Gazette and Daily Advertiser, August s, 1819. This notice shows that Swann's wares were advertised widely, with the same announcement appearing in newspapers in Winchester, Warrenton, Leesburg, Woodstock, and Charleston.
36. Myers, The Potter's Art, 9-10.
37. The Alexandria Gazette and Daily Advertiser. May 9, 1820. The price list, per dozen, reads as follows. Please note that a potters' dozen is variable and may not consist of twelve pieces.
|
3 gallon |
iugs, pots & |
pitchers |
6 00 |
|
2 |
do do |
do |
4 so |
|
l'/2 |
do do |
do |
3 2"; |
|
I |
do do |
do |
2 so |
|
1/2 |
do do |
do |
I 7S |
|
'4 |
do do |
do |
I 00 |
|
Vi |
do do |
do |
50 |
|
2 gallon |
milk pans |
4 00 |
|
|
I |
do do |
i25 |
|
|
"2 |
do do |
I 50 |
|
|
4 gallon |
churns |
9 SO |
|
|
3 |
do do |
800 |
|
|
2 |
do do |
6 00 |
|
|
Large chamber pots |
i 3.3 |
||
|
Less |
do do |
I 50 |
38. Rim profiles showing these vessel forms are illustrated in Myers, Alexandria Salt-Glazed Stoneware. Appendix II.
39. In 1931, Evelyn Abraham wrote about the stoneware of southwestern Pennsylvania, say- ing that "the best of the gray stoneware is decorated with blue — usually festoons in the well- known tulip pattern ot Teutonic antecedents, the color applied freehand." As quoted in Phil Schaltenbrand, Old Pots: Salt-Glazed Stoneware of the Greensboro-New Geneva Region. Every- body's Press. Hanover, PA (1977), si-
40. This pot is illustrated in Kristin B. Lloyd, From Potter to Pantry: Nineteenth-Century
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
Sioneivdre. catalogue of the Exhibition at the Lyceum. Alexandria s Histon- Museum, (iqgi). 8. hg. 21.
41. H. E. Comstock. The Pottery of the Shenandoah Valley Region. (Winston-Salem. N.C.: Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts. 1994). 104. figure 4.61.
42. Myers, The Potter's Art, 7s.
43. The dates of the Butt Pottery are trom Mark Walker and Liz Crowell. "Pottery from the Butt/Burnett Kiln. Washington. D.C.. " paper presented at the Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Richmond. Virginia. January 1991 (paper on file at Alexandria Archaeology and at Parsons Engineering Science. Inc.). The author is familiar with six jars from a private collection marked R butt w. City DC. These include one pitcher with a styl- ized round flower similar to the one used in Alexandria, but with branches springing from four directions. One jar in the collection is decorated with three rows of small splotches, similar to Swann's decoration. Other jars are decorated with branching foliage and tulips similar to ones from the Wilkes Street pottery. One of these jars is decorated on the back with "C-shaped" branches of graduated leaves similar to those seen on Shenandoah Valley pottery. The similari- ties of design could indicate an interchange of workers between Alexandria. Washington, and the Shenandoah Valley, or could simplv be .1 refiection ot the documented trade in stoneware betNveen these areas.
44. In The Alexandria Gazette and Dailv Advertiser lor August 5. 1819. Swann advertises prices 20 to 30 percent below Baltimore's.
45. John K. Pickens, "The Poor Potter of Alexandria, John B. Swann." and "Early Alexan- dria Craftsmen 3: John B. Swann. the Poor Potter of Alexandria." unpublished manuscripts on file at Alexandria Archaeology, provide a fuller histon- ot the agreements between Swann and Smith.
46. The Alexandria Gazette and Daily Advertiser. March 22. 1822.
47. Pickens. The Poor Potter. 11-14. referencing Corporation Court City of Alexandria Deed Book P2:55 (August I. 1825) and P2:6o (December 2, 1825). Alexandria Court House, and the Phenix Gazette (later the Alexandria Gazette], March 21, i82S-
48. Pickens manuscripts. "B. C. Milburn and the Alexandria Potter\-," and "Earlv Alexan- dria Craftsmen 4: B. C. Milburn and the .Alexandria Potter,-." unpublished manuscripts on file at Alexandria Archaeology.
49. His son, S. C. Milburn. stated in the Alexandria Gazette. Februar>- 24. 1869. that the pottery had been established in 1833.
50. Pickens. "The Poor Potter." 14. and "B. C. Milburn." 3.
51. From a chart entitled "Nineteenth Century' Alexandria Potters and Merchants," in the papers of Robin Rutfner. on file at Alexandria Archaeology.
52. The name "Smith" is written in script on the bottom of a stamped B. C. Milburn jar in a private collection. This could refer to a member of the merchant family that owned the pot- tery, as no potter is known by that name.
53. James P. Smith was one of the partners in Hugh Smith & Co., and continued the busi- ness on his own from iSsi to 1854. Pickens, "Potters — Little Known and Unknown," 4. A pot stamped "l . P . ,s .\i i T H " is in the M t: s 11 x collection.
54. Myers. The Potters' Art. Appendix \'ll. .
55. One example of Virginia pottery combining slip-trailed and brushed cobalt decoration is a water cooler marked "str.^ssburg 1833" in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of .American History, Division of Ceramics and Glass.
Sb. These pots are also in the collection of Mr. Al Steidel.
5~. Comstock. Potteiy of the Shenandoah \'alte^'. This motif can be seen in man)- figures, in- cluding those on pages 214-I';. 330. 340. and 381.
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
s8. Alexandria Gazette. June lo, 1841.
59. His bankruptc)' notice was listed in the Alexiin/Zria Gazette on Febriiar\- 20. 1843, but the corresponding court records are missing from the courthouse. A copy of the notice was provided to the author by T. Michael Miller.
The first known reference to Tildon Easton is an entr)' in the Class Membership Lists of the Trinity United Methodist Church (1802-1849). His wife Rebecca is first listed in 1832, with the name Cook crossed out and replaced with Easton, indicating their marriage. Tildon and Rebecca Cook Easton, were "Removed with certificate May is. 183'i." Rebecca's name contm- ued to appear alone in the class lists until the last extant list in 1849.
In the 1840 Census, Easton is listed as being between the ages of twent>' and thirty. Other members of his household included one female between the ages of twenty and thirty (his wife Rebecca), two females under the age of five (presumably their daughters), and one female be- tween sixty and seventy (possibly his mother-in-law Rebecca Cook, whose name appears with Easton's in some tax records). Also included in the household were another female between fif- teen and rwenn,- and a free black male, over fift\'-five. These two individuals could have been boarders, or may have worked with Easton. Three people are listed in the census as being en- gaged in manufacturing or trade.
In the 1850 Census, Rebecca Easton, age thirrv'-five, is listed without her husband. At that time she is living with Robert Cook, age seventy-seven (ptobably her father), Sarah A. Rogers, age thirty-seven, Amelia Easton, age ten. and H. A. M. Easton (male), age eight. Rebecca Cook, his wife's mother, appeared again in the i860 census, and recorded a will in 1861 at age eighty-two, leaving all her propert)- to a daughter in Charlottesville ( Corporation Court City of Alexandria Wi/I Book ttS, 444, ^Alexandria Courthouse).
Tax records list Easton beneath the name of Rebecca Cook in the years 1840-1844 and 1846 at a one-story house and lot at Henry, Wilkes, and Patrick streets. The 1843 tax records are missing from the Alexandria Courthouse, and in 184'i Rebecca's name appeared alone, and the property was listed as "idle." Easton is also listed in tax records as a tenant on the pottery site in 1842 and 1843. Tildon Easton's whereabouts after 1846 cannot be ascertained. (Research on Tildon Easton was conducted h\ .Alexandria Archaeology volunteer Vivienne Mitchell, under direction of the author).
60. Georgeana H. Greer, "Basic Forms of Historic Pottery Kilns which may be Encoun- tered in the United States," The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 19-S, Stanley South, ed.. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University ot South Carolina, Colum- bia, South Carolina (1979), Volume 13: 133-4-.
61. Kenneth J. Barton, Pottery in England fi-om i'soo B.C-A.D. i-jo. (Newton Abbott: David & Charles, 1975). 133.
62. Waster sherds of six earthenware flower pots and flower pot tra\'s were found at the Easton site. The two trays, measuring 5 ' and 7" in diameter, are unglazed, with crimped pie- crust flanges and rims. The four flowerpot fragments have varying amounts of spotty green glaze on the exterior. They have one or more flanges, and crimped edges. The crimped flanges and rims are created by pinching the clay with the fingers, in contrast with the earlier Plum flower pots, where the pie-crust effect was incised with a tool.
63. A description of the Pinson Potter)' Company in Tennessee includes a discussion of the use of a mixture of Albany and Seneca Falls slip: "The Albany clay is, of course, often used alone, but the Seneca Falls slip is ver\' hard to fuse, and in consequence Albany slip is usuallv added to it, the proportions of the mixture being one-third Seneca Falls, rwo-thirds ,Albanv. The Seneca Falls slip cosrs somewhat more than the Albany clay. It is not so easv to dissolve as the Albany slip clay, but when it dissolved covers the ware more evenlv. When used alone it gives a beautiful bright olive glaze. Used in combination with .Alhanv slip, it brightens the col-
ALEXANDRIA S POTTERY TRADITION
oration of the Utter and also gives a somewhat greenish tint. " Most other Albany type slips ap- pear brown or brownish-black in color. Edward C. Eckel, Stoneware and Brick Clays of West- ern Tennessee and Northwestern Mississippi. Contributions to Economic Geology 1902. United States Geological Siimey Bulletin No. 213, (1903), 382-91, as quoted by Samuel D. Smith and Stephen T. Rogers, in A Siiti'ey of Historic Pottery Making in Tennessee, Division of Ar- chaeology, Tennessee Department ot Conservation (1979), 120.
64. The use of calcined bone in the making ot stoneware was discussed with Reggie Blazczek and materials scientist Henry Hodges, who both suggested that it could be used to lighten the color. A test for potassium may show the presence of bone ash in the clay.
65. The Butt/Burnett site, located between H and 1 streets and Seventh and Eighth streets in northwest Washington, D.C., was excavated in 1989 by Engineering Science, Inc. Informa- tion on the site and artifacts is contained in Walker and Crowell, Pottery from the Butt/Burnett Kiln.
66. This article, reprinted trom the Virginia Sentinel in the January 10, 1855, issue ot the Alexandria Gazette, was brought to the author's attention in 1991 by T. Michael Miller, Re- search Historian for the office of Historic Alexandria, City of Alexandria, Virginia.
67. Flower pots, stovepipe collars, churns, butter jars, pans, and fruit jars with cork and ce- ment were itemized on a business card, dated i8s9, in the Monroe-Milburn family records. A purchase order dated 1849, in the collection of the Stabler-Leadbeater Apothecary Shop Muse- um, shows that John Leadbeater, a chemist and seed wholesaler, ordered two- and three-inch pots from Milburn. These documents were described by Suzita Myers in The Potter's Art.
68. The late arrival ot the railroads in Alexandria was blamed by many Alexandrians on its inclusion in the District ot Columbia in the March i". 18-1 issue ot the Alexandria Gazette. "During the so years she formed a part of the district, she made no advancement in popula- tion, and lost most ot her valuable trade and commerce by the building of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad from Baltimore, and the Central, now the C&O . . . from Richmond. ... As soon as we obtained representation in the state legislature, we at once set to work to regain our lost trade, bv applving tor charters to build railroads.'
69. According to the Alexandria Gazette. "The war chilled the growing enterprise ot the place, destroyed its social life and annihilated its trade" (January 2, 1864).
70. Some oblique references to an interruption of operations during the war are discussed in Myers, Alexandria Salt-Glazed Stoneware. 44.
71. Alexandria Gazette, April 3, 186-.
72. The announcement reads: "the pottery of the late Mr. Milburn, which he carried on, with so much credit to himself, for many years, will be continued under the control ot his son. This is another of the old and successful manufacturing establishments of this place. Its wares are well known throughout the country, and considered the very best ot their kind. Alexandria Gazette. April 10, 1867.
73. Pickens, "B. C. Milburn," 16-1-.
82 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
The Lowndes Stoneware Pottery of Petersburg, Virginia
CHARLES EDWARD UMSTOTT
By the early nineteenth century, the south-central Virginia town of Petersburg had become a thriving Tidewater community. Its loca- tion at the falls oi the Appomattox River, near its confluence with the James River, was uniquely favorable for the production of fine stoneware, having the combination of excellent water transportation and a source of good stoneware clay on each side of the James River. The navigable water of the James provided an avenue for the wide- spread distribution of finished goods crafted in the area.
The Lowndes pottery produced gray and gray-brown salt-glazed stoneware, as well as a hard-burned, glazed earthenware. It is distinc- tive in being one of the few southern potteries that adorned its wares with high-quality cobalt decoration and script signatures that identi- fied the maker, the town, the state, and in several cases, the date "1841." It employed a wide range of forms, including forms common to other materials.
Thomas Lowndes and his wife Elizabeth came to Blandford (now a part of Petersburg), Virginia, from Staffordshire, England, in 1805. They had also lived for a time in Lancashire.' What training and ex- perience Lowndes had as a potter in England is unknown. Accord- ing to court records cited by early Petersburg historians,^ the Lowndes had three sons, Henry, Thomas, and John, and three daughters, Elizabeth, Ellen, and Mary. The pottery site on was on lot 56, one of
one hundred lots laid out on a map by W. Harrison in 1782 and dis- persed in the Blandtord real estate lottery, recorded on July 6, 1785. Charles Duncan is listed in court records as first owner ot this lot.' This location would now be approximately one hundred teet east oi the northeast corner of Crater Road and Wythe Street, extending back 210 feet with a 100 toot frontage on Wythe Street. The pottery site is at present partially covered by commercial development.
On December 2, 1806, Thomas Lowndes placed the following ad- vertisement in the Petersburg Intelligencer, possibly on the occasion of the opening of his pottery:
Stoneware Manufactory — Thomas Lowndes takes this opportunit)' to in- form the public, that he has established and is now carrying on the above business in Blandford, near the Church, and flatters himself that the arti- cles are of equal, if not superior, to any imported, and hopes to meet with that encouragement, he has every reason to expect, as he sells at the low- est prices. Orders received at his store in Bollingbrook Street or at the Pottery, where a constant supply of ware is always ready packed, and also open for sale.'
Only six years later, on October i, 1811, the Petersburg hitelligencer reported that Thomas Lowndes, a resident of Petersburg, had died on September 27.' His family was able to carry on the business after his death. Later in October, young Thomas began advertising the pottery again with almost the same wording as the earlier notice, adding, "The above business is carried on as usual."' A June 2, 1812, advertisement in the same newspaper proclaimed that the business carried on, still listed under the name of Thomas Lowndes, and that county merchants could be "supplied at the shortest notice."
By 1812 at least two of the Lowndes sons had been trained as pot- ters. Kenneth Scott's British Aliens in the United States during the War ofiSi2 lists the following members of the Lowndes family:
Lowndes, Elizabeth, age 53, in U.S. since 1805, 6 in family, Petersburg, potter (iz-26 March 1812); Lowndes/Lownes, John, age 16, 8 years in U.S., Petersburg, potter (21-2- March 1813), s feet 3 inches, fair comple-
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
xion, brown hair, black eyes; Lowndes/Lownes, Thomas, age 20, 8 years in U.S., Petersburg, potter (21-27 March 1813), 5 feet 8 inches, fair com- plexion, brown hair, gray eyes.
It is interesting that Henry Lowndes, who was the only son to re- main involved with the pottery, was not listed; he may have estab- lished U.S. citizenship by this time.
Petersburg historian William Stanton described the management oi the pottery and the extent of the Lowndes family's operations.
Thomas Lowndes, Sr. operated the pottery in Blandford until his death in September 1811. Henry, the oldest son continued the operation and purchased additional lots adjoining the pottery until his death in 1842. At the time ot his death, Henry was also part owner ot a china and pottery store. Hatcher and Lowndes, on the north side ot Bollingbrook in Peters- burg. The owner, Henry Lowndes, was an Englishman and resided tor a long time in the old rock house in the rear of the Baptist mission with his three maiden sisters, misses Mary, Elizabeth, and Ellen. They were very strict and devout Episcopalians and had the peculiarity that they never walked abreast, as it was their custom to Indian file in going to church or elsewhere.
After her husband's death, Elizabeth Lowndes had a major role in the business. According to Stanton, an ad appearing in a Petersburg paper in 1818 refers to "E. Lowndes, earthenware and stoneware, manufactory Blandford. "' Perhaps Elizabeth Lowndes ran the busi- ness while her sons operated the production of the pottery.
Her sons Thomas and John seem to have disengaged themselves from the business within a few years after their father's death. The Petersburg, Virginia, Hastings Court Deed Book lists a title transfer between Thomas and his mother on May 9, 1814: "Deed of Bargain and Sale from Thomas Lowndes (son) of Petersburg to Elizabeth Lowndes, mother of said Thomas for $200.00. Thomas does hereby release, makeover, sell and dispose of all his right title and interest in and to the estate of his deceased father, Thomas Lowndes both real and personal of whatsoever nature and kind to said Elizabeth and
LOWNDES STONEWARE POTTERY
Ellen Lowndes for their joint benefit."' A similar deed of sale is recorded on May 28, 1817, between John Lowndes and Elizabeth the mother and Ellen and Elizabeth the daughters in Deed Book #5 cov- ering 1816-1818.'" These transfers of property suggest that the two sons were dissociating themselves from the business, consolidating it in their mother's hands, and possibly leaving the area.
The pottery continued to be operated by the Lowndes family un- til the year 1855; Henry Lowndes played an important role until his death in 1842. In 1855 the business was sold to Thomas and John Ducey, who continued it on their Watson Street site for some time. They then moved it to the Lowndes pottery on Wythe Street.
LOWNDES CERAMIC FORMS AND DECORATION
With a dearth of archaeological information and only one date, appearing several times on Lowndes pottery, it is difficult to establish a chronology for the period the Lowndes pottery was in operation. No vessels can be identified as being made from 1806 to i8ii when Thomas Lowndes ran the pottery, but it is possible that some of the unpainted, utilitarian stoneware vessels date from that time. No signed or marked earthenware examples have been identified.
The form of most of the utilitarian vessels made by the Lowndes pottery is ovoid. Some that may represent the early period have loop or lug handles, many of which are round or rolled rather than ex- truded and concave. The rim may be rolled, with a deep concave groove, or straight. The vessels that can be attributed to the Henry Lowndes period by their decoration generally have extruded concave handles. Only one cylindrical or straight-sided vessel is known to exist.
Examples of Lowndes pottery that seem to reflect a relatively early style of decoration have brush-painted outlines of stemless flowers, sometimes placed over festoons of long, slender, curvilinear leaves (fig. i). Sometimes circles are painted around the neck of the vessel together with leafy fronds on the body (fig. 2). In contrast, the pot-
86 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
I. Storage jar, Lowndes potter)', 1805-1855, Petersburg, Va. hoa gVi". Private collection. The loosely painted decoration of this jar may represent an early style, possibly from the peri- od when Thomas Lowndes ran the pottery (1805-1811).
tery made while Henry Lowndes directed the pottery, from 181 1 to his death in 1842, is readily identifiable by its decoration. He, or dec- orators working for him, signed his vessels in bold script with trailed slip (fig. 3) and decorated them with distinctive floral designs. This decoration generally consists of a flower with three petals, painted close together like a tulip's, on a straight or slightly curving stem with leaves (fig. 3a). A lew examples have been lound with wav)' or corkscrew stems (fig. 4). The leaves are usually in pairs and look al- most like dragonfly wings, painted at right angles from the stem (fig. 3a). Not infrequently, however, the paired leaves are angled upward in an open "V" form (fig. 5). Some examples have terminal three- petalled flowers that resemble a three-leafed clover (figs. 6, 7, 8).
LOWNDES STONEWARE POTTERY
1. Crock, Lowndes pottery, iSo'i-iS^'j, Petersburg, Va. HOA 8". Private collection. This food storage container is incised with the word "Peaches" and with open circles and Horal motits similar to the vessel in Hg. 4.
/
>- ^**^ '•
3. Storage jar, Lowndes potter)', i8o<i-i8'i'i, Petersburg, Va. HOA ii's". Private collection. The cobalt inscription, "H Lowndes / NLmutactor / Petersburg / VA," applied with a slip cup, is in a script typical of the Lowndes potter)-.
2a. Reverse side ot h^ beth Fournav."
showing the incised inscription, "Eliza-
i
m t
•Td.
3a. Reverse side of fig. 1, with a common form of Lowndes floral decoration. Note the tight terminal buds and the painted leaves growing at right angles from the stems.
4. Large storage jar, Lowndes potter,'. iSo^-iSsv Petersbtirg, Va. hoa 16". Private collection. As well as the imusual corkscrew stems of the flowers that appear together with the signature, "H. Lowndes / Maker / Petersburg, Va.," on the front, this jar has a large floral motif on the reverse side.
■i. Ovoid storage jar, Lowndes potter)', 1805-1855, Petersburg, Va. hoa 11%". Private collection. The combination of the slip-trailed inscription, "H Lowndes / Manufactot / Petersburg / Va ' with extensive floral decora- tion on one side of a vessel is unusual.
u^^,.^^^^ct^^
6. Storage jar, Lowndes pottery, 180^-1855, Pe- ^. Tobacco jar with lid, attributed to the Lowndes potter)', iSos-
tersburg, Va. hoa ii /s". Private collection. This iSss, Petersburg, V'a. hoa -/Vs' . Private collection. The painted
jar has scalloped, slip-trailed decoration around Hower decoration is repeated at three places around the jar, and
the shoulder and painted floral decoration on the lid is decorated ,is well, the body.
One unusual variation consists ot a horizontally undulating line dec- orated with cloverlike flowers and paired leaves (fig. 9).
While generally the vessels have the signature on one side and painted floral decoration on the other, in a few cases the signature and floral motih were combined on one side of the vessel (fig. 5). The signature on one straight-sided, cylindrical jar is flanked by flo- ral decoration, with the reverse undecorated (fig. 10).
One ovoid food storage container has an incised inscription on both sides: "Elizabeth Fournay" on one side, and the word "Peaches"
JOURNAL or EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
8. Storage jar, Lowndes potterv', i8o<;-i8s5, Petersburg, Va. hoa 9%". Private collection. This jar, with relatively primitive painted flo- ral decoration, is signed on the reverse.
9. Storage jar, Lowndes pottery, 1805-185S, Petersburg, Va. hoa 12". Private collection. The horizontal orientation of this floral motif is unusual. The vessel is signed on the reverse, "H. Lowndes / Maker / Petersburg / Va."
on the other (figs. 2, 2a). The painted cobalt circles and festoons of leaves are typical ol the decoration that may represent the early peri- od of production at the pottery, while its extruded handles are like those seen on vessels, including the decorative water coolers, ot the later period.
The Lowndes pottery did not use stamps to identify its wares. The signature on the vessels usually appears as "H. Lowndes," but occasionally "Henry Lowndes" was spelled out in full. Below the sig- nature the word "Maker" or "Manufactor" appeared, followed by
LOWNDES STONEWARE POTTERY
"Petersburg / Va." or rarely "Petersburg Virginia." For some reason, the only date known to appear on Lowndes pottery is 1841 (fig. 11). The significance ot this date is unknown. No vessels can be firmly attributed to the period afi:er Henry Lowndes' death in 1842.
The products of the Ducey pottery operation (c. 1854— 1878) were similar in torm to the Lowndes pottery, but they were marked with a stamp imprint rather than a cobalt slip signature. The Ducey Boral decoration, with open tulip petals and realistic tulip leaves, is also different and should not be contused with Lowndes forms.
'Mi
10. Storage jar, Lowiides potter)-. iSos-iSss. Petersburg, \'a. hoa 13". Priviitc collection. This vessels cylindrical form is unusual. The slip-trailed inscription, "H. Lowndes / Manufactor / Petersburg / Va " is flanked by loosely painted floral decoration on the sides, and the reverse is unpainted.
11. Stor.ige jar, Lowndes potter\', 1841, Petersburg, Va. hoa I3''8". Prtvate collection. This vessel bears the slip-trailed inscription, "Henr\- Lowndes / Maker / Petersburg Virginia / 1841"; it is unusual in that it is dated and the words "Henn'" and "\'irginia' are spelled out in hill.
9i
lOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 199s
Henry Lowndes made decorative vessels that rival those of any American pottery of the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries. The design and execu- tion of these pieces is superb. Two water coolers and rwo pitchers are known; all are adorned with a cobalt- painted, sprigged eagle and stars and profuse painted cobalt floral decoration.
The water coolers are of very different forms. One is ovoid, thrown in two pieces, with the body and foot joined before firing (fig. 12). It has free-standing loop or lug handles. The body is decorated with a sprigged spread-winged eagle over an oval medallion that is applied to the vessel, and thirteen sprigged six- pointed stars that encircle the eagle. All have been painted with cobalt. It also has cobalt-painted fes- toons of flowers extending from the bung hole around the lower body, and the reverse is signed "H. Lowndes, Manufactor, Petersburg Va." The ends of the handle are decorated with cobalt blue where they are attached to the body. The edge of the base has a ring of relief decoration, resembling a chain, that was impressed with a coggle wheel (fig 12a). The inside of the foot is hollow.
The second water cooler is a classical or federal form, possibly copied from a silver or Sheffield urn (fig. 13). It has sprigged decoration similar to that of the ovoid water cooler, except that the thirteen stars outline the shape of the eagle in an inverted triangle. Its handles are extrtided and applied to the body of the vessel. The foot and body were turned separately and then joined before firing, with a decorative mold- ing covering the join. The sloping shoulder has a ring of flowers and leaves painted in cobalt between two rings of coggle decoration, probably made by the
12. W aiL-i cooler, Lowndes potter)', i8os-i8<iS. Petersburg, Va. hoa 16". Priviite collection. This ovoid-bodied water cooler has molded, applied eagle and stars that have been painted with cobalt, and painted cobalt flowers. It is signed on the reverse, "H Lown- des / Manufactor / Petersburg / Va. "
* «* MM*
I la. Coggle decoration used on the rwo known Lowndes water coolers (figs. 12 and
LOWNDES STONEWARE POTTERY
.^ .^ ^ ^ -^ Jf ^
13. Water cooler, Lowndes pottery, i8os- 13a. Side view of fig. 13, showing the 13b. Reverse ot fig. 13, showing the shp- I
1855, Petersburg, Va. HO,-\ i<f«". Prituite unusual painted fijhate decoration on the trailed signature. "H Lowndes / Manutac- J
collection. The urn shape of this water cooler shoulder and extending out from the water tor / Petersburg / Va." j is reminiscent ot silver or Sheffield urns.
cooler s spigot.
same tool used on the water cooler in fig. 12; long festoons of flowers and leaves also extend out from the bung hole (fig. 13a). As on the ovoid water cooler, the floral decoration consists of a long wavy stem with clusters of leaves painted close together, between pairs of three- petalled flowers growing on short stalks perpendicular to the stem. The reverse is signed in script, "H. Lowndes / Manufactor / Peters- burg / Va" (fig. 13b). The lips of both coolers are slightly uneven and show no signs of wear from a lid. Vessels of this nature were often
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
covered with cloth or wax paper tops secured with string to keep out insects.
A third water cooler, with a barrel-shaped body and the same sprigged and cobalt-painted eagle and stars, plus tour raised, painted horizontal bands, appears in Clarence P. Hornung's Treasury of American Design and Antiques;" it seems to be very similar to the other Lowndes water coolers, but its provenance and current loca- tion are unknown.
One of the pitchers attributed to the Lowndes pottery has an ovoid body and is decorated with a sprigged eagle and six-pointed stars, eleven around the shoulder of the pitcher and two on each side of the eagle (fig. 14). The spout is decorated with an impressive flower and acanthus motif, and it is angled to the right to make pouring easier tor a right-handed person. The extruded handle is at- tached to the short cylindrical neck and the body; the base of the
14. Pitcher, attributed to the Lowndes pot- tery, 1805-1855, Petersburg, Va. hoa uVs". Private collection. The eagle and star applied decoration on this ovoid pitcher are similar to those on the water coolers in figs. 12 and 13. The pitcher's spout, with molded, applied flower and acanthus decoration, is angled to the right to make pouring easier tor a right-handed person.
LOWNDES STONEWARE POTTERY
I4a. Side view ot fig. 14, showing painted fioral deco- ration with double or triple paired leaves.
handle bears an impressed thumbprint. Sprays of flowers and leaves that are more loosely and gracefully painted than those on the water coolers extend around the sides (fig. 14a).
This presentation of extant examples oi the Lowndes pottery's production is only a beginning. In his research, Stanton discovered thousands of fragments of pottery, stilts, and burned bricks from the kiln itself at the Lowndes pottery site. Pottery fragments he found there had cobalt blue borders and designs like the tulip and other floral decoration used. Excavation and analysis of the kiln site and waster piles would permit a more comprehensive evaluation of the forms, both utilitarian and those designed for special use. The exis- tence of particularlv large numbers of signed pieces is of great help in the studv of these ceramics. It can help in the development of a
96
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 199s
chronolog}' ol^ the Lowndes pottery st\'le and in expanding our knowledge oi the forms produced by this outstanding pottery.
CHARLES UMSTOTT !s a physician from Newport News, Virginia, with a long-standing interest in collecting and researching Virginia ce- ramics.
NOTES
I. William L. Stanton, "Potten- Here Eighty Years Ago. " Petcnhurg Evening Progrea. May i8. igzi.
I. Documentation for the early history oi Petersburg are sketchy, since many early records were destroyed by fire during the Civil War. Much of the history of the Lowndes family de- pends on two sources: a histoiy compiled by Milton Thrift, a retired Methodist minister, around iSso (now lost), and a newspaper article by William L. Stanton, "Pottety Here Eighty Years Ago," published in the Petenhurg Evening Progress. May i8, 1921. which drew heavily on Thrifts account. The "court records" Stanton cites have been lost or destroyed.
3. Blandford Real Estate Lottery, July 6, 1785.
4. Petersburg Intelligencer, December 30, 1806.
5. Ibid., October i, 181 1.
6. Ibid.. November 8, iSii (the advertisement was placed on October 22. 1811).
7. Ibid,, June 2, 1812.
8. Stanton, "Pottery Here Eighty Years Ago."
9. Hasting Court Deed Book *4, May 9, 1814. p. 242, Petersburg, Va.
10. Hastings Court Deed Book #5, 1816— 1818, Petersburg, Va.
II. Clarence P. Hornung, Treasury of American Design and Antiques (New York: Abrams, 19'io). p. 3S4. pi. 1232.
LOWNDES STONEWARE POTTERY
Exploring Western Virginia Potteries
KURT C. RUSS
INTRODUCTION
Despite the research potential Virginia pottery holds for under- standing the transplantation and adaptation of Old World pottery traditions, the "dynamic process" oi changing production and con- sumption patterns, and the effects of industrialization on the trade, until recently only limited research on the subject had been under- taken.
Within the last decade, documentary and archaeological research concerning the counties oi Alleghany, Botetourt, Rockbridge, Au- gusta, and Rockingham has ranged from descriptive, site-specific kiln excavations to counrv and regional surveys of pots, potters, and potteries. As a result of this recent work, our knowledge of Virginia's pottery industry both within and beyond this region has been signif- icantly enhanced. The t}'pes and range of variation in wares, the in- dividual potters responsible for their production, the nature of the technology employed in their manufacture, the factors affecting pot- tery site location, the industry's evolution, the industrial transforma- tion of the traditional craft industry, and the marketing and con- sumerism of Virginia ceramics can now be more fully explored, documented, and understood. The importance of the pottery of these five counties, located in the upper Shenandoah Valley (also called the "ridge-and-valley" region of Virginia), can be best under- stood in the context of Virginia pottery in general. A look at the his-
98 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
torical background oi the pottery industry in Virginia imm the ear- liest days oi settlement, and the ways in which archaeologists have begun to approach the study of pottery sites, can reveal much about the nature of the ceramics in theses western counties and why they flourished, as well as suggest areas for future research.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF VIRGINIA S POTTERY INDUSTRY
Virginia's pottery industry began in the Tidewater, probably soon after the setdement of Jamestown in 1607. A number of potters were active in the area in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries; most of them supplied wares for local use.' One, William Rogers, who is known as the "Poor Potter" of Yorktown had a successful pot- tery factory- that exported its wares to New England, North Caroli- na, and even the West Indies in the second quarter of the eighteenth century.' For the most part, Tidewater pottery relied on English earthenware techniques and forms.
Despite the success of the Yorktown pottery operation, the Tide- water area of Virginia was never to develop an extensive ceramic in- dustry. The lack of availability of good stoneware clays and the dom- ination of the plantation economy, which was dependent on its extensive commerce network, contributed to a continued reliance upon imported items. In fact, during the eighteenth century there was limited promotion for wares produced by local cottage indus- tries in Virginia.
It was not until the first quarter of the nineteenth century that the ridge-and-valley region of Virginia emerged as a center tor pottery production; it was to dominate Virginia pottery production throughout the nineteenth century. All the prerequisites for the de- velopment of successful pottery enterprises existed within this re- gion: the availability of natural resources (suitable clay deposits, wa- ter sources, fuel supply) and a steadily expanding population.^
By the mid-iyoos, immigrants were traveling south along the
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES 99
Great Philadelphia Wagon Road hom southeastern Pennsylvania through the Valley oi Virginia, and westward through southwestern Virginia and northeastern Tennessee. This migration resulted in the establishment of towns and communities progressively farther south and west, providing population centers large enough to support skilled artisans capable oi" producing much needed items from local raw materials.
One of the most important and prominent groups oi potters to settle in the northern Shenandoah valley was the Bell family. Peter Bell, |r., the son of Peter Bell, Sr., the patriarch of the Virginia branch of the German family, started in the pottery business in Hagerstown, Maryland (ca. 1805-1824) before settling in Winches- ter, Virginia during 1824.' Peter's sons, John, Samuel, and Solomon, developed significant potting skills as they participated in the Win- chester business. During the 1830s, both Samuel and Solomon moved on "up" the valley to Strasburg in Shenandoah County" where they initiated a pottery tradition which ultimately resulted in Strasburg being referred to as "Pot Town."
The earliest manifestation of this largely Germanic pottery tradi- tion in the northern valley is represented by an enormous variety of both strictlv utilitarian and highly decorated earthenwares. The multi-colored glazes of white, brown (iron or manganese oxide), green (copper oxide), and vellow clay slip used on these earthenware bodies resulted in bold and striking vessels that are now widely rec- ognized. Although most of their wares were hand-thrown, the Bell family of potters also produced distinctive mold-made and hand- formed pieces.
Equally remarkable are the wares of the early nineteenth-century earthenware potters located farther "up" the Great Road in the ex- treme southwest of Virginia and northeastern Tennessee. These ranged from large ovoid storage jars and jugs with extruded handles, often embellished with splotched or trailed iron or manganese diox- ide decorative touches beneath a clear lead overglaze, to small stor- age vessels with domed lids and polychrome slip decoration. These
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I99S
wares were unquestionably produced or strongly inHuenced by a Moravian immigrant to the Virginia area.
Other smaller earthenware pottery centers also developed, but aesthetically the wares they produced were, from a comparative per- spective, unremarkable. Most significant is the concentration oi earthenware pottery production in the Fincastle area of Botetourt County.** Here at least eleven potters were involved in the produc- tion of simple semi-ovoid earthenware storage vessels often embell- ished with combed and free-hand incised decorative treatments. Earthenware manufacture in this area appeared to continue to the early i88os, well after earthenware had been abandoned and replaced by stoneware production in most northern potteries.
By the end of the initial quarter of the nineteenth century the vast majority of producers and consumers of Virginia pottery had be- come well aware of the potentially lethal effects of the lead glazes used on earthenware, leading to a demand for stoneware. Stoneware was recognized as a superior product for the storage, preservation, preparation, and consumption of food stuffs and beverages. Because stoneware was fired at a much higher temperature and glazed with salt rather than lead, it was highly durable and vitreous, and above all offered no threat of toxicity to the consumers. Stoneware pottery production techniques were also being successfully transplanted to Virginia by this time as a result of both the diffusion of knowledge regarding stoneware production and its success in the north, and the movement of individuals trained in this tradition into the Valley.
The salt-glazed stoneware tradition spread across Virginia with successful manufacturing centers in cities such as Alexandria,' Rich- mond,'" and Petersburg" as well as throughout the Valley from Win- chester (Frederick County) to Washington County in southwest Virginia.'" Stoneware production was initiated in Strasburg, Shenan- doah Count}', in the first quarter of the nineteenth century and con- tinued successfully until, by the last half of the century, it had grown to such an extent that the area contained the largest concentration of stoneware production in the Valley." Another key pottery center was
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
in Rockingham County, where over fifry-three potters were involved in the industry at no fewer than twelve different potteries.'^ Signifi- cant among these was Emmanuel Surer, who developed an extensive operation and continued to produce wares well into the twentieth century."
Alleghany and Rockbridge counties also developed successful stoneware operations. The remarkable pottery of George N. Fulton, sometimes decorated with elaborate tree and floral motifs, executed with both cobalt oxide and manganese dioxide, is significant in Al- leghany County from 1867 to 1880.'" The somewhat earlier manifes- tation of this tradition (ca. 1830) in Rockbridge illustrates how early ceramic traditions spread from one part of the country to another.' John S. Morgan, a potter trained in the northern stoneware tradition at the Commeraw Pottery in New York, successfully transplanted the strongly Germanic-influenced tradition to rural Rockbridge. Farther south in southwest Virginia, the stoneware tradition flour- ished in the second half of the nineteenth century, most notably in Washington County, where over thirty-eight potters are known." Although an enormous quantity of wares was produced in this area, they are decidedly less decorative and strictly utilitarian.
Despite the somewhat limited nature of the information currently available, broad patterns in the development of Virginia pottery can be ascertained. Beginning with initial settlement in Jamestown and continuing for two centuries, earthenware — basically a conservative transplanted English tradition — dominated Virginia pottery pro- duction. In the late eighteenth century, German influence is noted in certain earthenware forms and decorative techniques, particularly among "Great Road" and Strasburg potters. With the exception of the Poor Potters successful production of stoneware during the 1720-1745 period, it is not until the first quarter of the next century that stonewares begin to replace the functionally "inferior" earthen- wares. Salt-glazed stoneware rapidly spread throughout Virginia, most notably in the heart of the Shenandoah Valley. The nine- teenth-century manifestation of the industry represented a continua-
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
tion of both diffusion of knowledge and direct immigration down the "Great Road" of those trained in the successful northern tradi- tion that was transplanted from Germany. During this earthenware- stoneware transition, the t)'pical European style kilns oi the earthen- ware tradition were replaced by the characteristic nineteenth-century oval and circular up- and down-draft kilns. Several other changes ac- companied this transition, including a significantly larger number and expanded geographical distribution ot potters within the state; the use of brushed blue cobalt oxide as the dominant decorative treatment, replacing the multicolored clay slips and lead glazes fre- quently seen on earthenware; and the production oi a greater variety of vessel forms.'"
In addition, the nature of the wares produced changed consider- ably. Early earthenware forms included flat-shaped wares, bowls, pans, and porringers, and larger ovoid vessels, all of which relate to both the serving and preparation as well as storage and preservation of foodstuffs. Stoneware forms were quite varied but generally in- tended for food storage and preservation, with earthenware forms by the third quarter of the nineteenth century being restricted to flower pots, roofing tiles, firebricks, chimney pots, and related articles. An- other factor important in this transition was the availability, by the nineteenth century, of queen's ware and other imported refined ce- ramic types suitable for replacing the earthenwares, particularly in the context of tablewares for food serving.
The general decline in the pottery industry in the late nineteenth century relates to the difficult)' most traditional potters faced in ne- gotiating the transition from traditional handcraft industry produc- tion to industrialized or mass production. In fact only a few, proba- bly less than 5 percent, were successful in making the transition to industrialization and surviving into the twentieth century. Those who were successful either totally embraced industrialization, includ- ing its mechanized production with manufacture segmented by task and technology (which often involved unskilled workers trained in one particular aspect of manufacture, and the imposition of sched-
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
ules and standardized vessel sizes and forms) ok like Suter, integrated particular aspects of industrialization in the running of a traditional pottery. The reasons for the industry's ultimate demise relate specifi- cally to industrialization and the problems traditional potters faced in embracing both new technologies and the changing mode and re- lations of production in an evolving capitalist economy that could provide mass quantities of alternative goods at lower prices.-"
UNDERSTANDING THE POTTERY INDUSTRY IN WESTERN VIRGINIA
Research Approaches
Based on a review and assessment of relevant published and un- published literature, several specific research approaches to the study of western Virginia pottery have been identified. These research ap- proaches include a thematic survey identifying potters and potteries across the state wherein the forthcoming data is evaluated within a hypothetical-deductive framework addressing questions ranging from factors affecting pottery location, to the evolution of the indus- try both spatially and temporally; and archaeological testing and ex- cavation of individual pottery sites. With respect to future research directions, topics to be addressed are: i) documentation of both ex- tant and archaeologically recovered ceramics providing a basis for analyses of time-sensitive attributes allowing coarsewares status as important temporal t)'pes; 2) the need for and value of systematic quantification of Virginia pottery from archaeological contexts with respect to form, decorative treatments, maker's and capacity marks, and stylistic attributes; 3) analysis of documentary data relating to the cost of earthenware versus stoneware, and of varying forms of each r)'pe of ware, to understand the marketing and consumption of nineteenth-century pottery; and 4) textual research to better under- stand the industrial transformation of the traditional handcraft in- dustry.
104 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I '} ■) <,
A Statewide Thematic Survey of the Traditional Pottery Industry
In 1984, Washington and Lee University's Laboratory of Anthro- pology initiated an investigation of the traditional pottery manufac- turing industry in Virginia. The project's research design combines both documentary and archaeological research and focuses on the identification ol historic pottery manufacturing sites, the individual potters associated with these sites, and the t)'pes and varieties of wares produced.^'
The statewide survey, together with detailed investigations ol par- ticular potteries, is intended to reveal information regarding the technological history of the pottery manufacturing industry in Vir- ginia." The data generated from this work is also used to address the economics involved in the production and consumption of historic pottery, as well as the effects of industrialization on this traditional industry.
Several hypotheses were articulated in order to address these is- sues, as well as those relating to: i) site selection for the establish- ment of a pottery; 2) the earthenware to stoneware transition; 3) the effect of the Civil War on the industry; 4) the changing distribution of potteries through time and across space; and 5) the factors ac- counting for the industry's demise."' The specific hypotheses are as follows:
1. Site selection for the establishment of a pottery depended upon a variet)' of factors, the most important being a suitable source of clay.
2. The dominant economic pattern from the seventeenth until the mid-nineteenth century is one in which regional "family-operated" potteries provided utilitarian wares for localized markets.
3. The evolution of the early earthenware pottery manufacturing tradition in the east into a more homogeneous stoneware tradition to the west of the Blue Ridge is seen as a result of a) an increased availability of good stoneware clays in the west, b) a shift in the tech-
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
nology of this early industry, and c) an increase in the consumption of stoneware beginning in the early nineteenth century.
4. There is an increase in the number oi potteries established dur- ing the period from i860 to 1865. Coinciding with the Civil War, this increase is viewed as a response to the restricted supply oi Euro- pean export wares and an increased demand tor common handmade wares.
5. By 1880 there should be evidence oi a shift in the location oi potteries towards major urban centers as a result of both the indus- trial transformation of the industry and changing demographic pat- terns.
6. As a result of increasing industrialization, by the turn oi the nineteenth century, the vast majorit)' of the small "family-operated " potteries were no longer in existence, the demand tor stoneware dropped, and the continuation oi the traditional potter)' manufac- turing industry was no longer economically feasible.''
Two hundred and ninety-four potters, pottery-making sites, or pottery marks have been identified. This information has been com- piled into a checklist of Virginia potters and potteries which is orga- nized according to the count)' in which the potter worked or the pottery was located (tables 1-5).
The archaeological expectation was that the distribution ot pot- tery-making sites would be fairly even geographically, reflecting the universal need and demand for the utilitarian wares produced by lo- cal potters. Assuming that the distribution of potters, potteries and pottery marks quantified here reflects the actual distribution of pot- tery sites, preliminar)' observation indicates that the geographical distribution is nor even; the vast majority of potteries, 238 or 80.95%, are lineally distributed within the ridge-and-valley region, with 34 or II. 56% located in the piedmont, 21 or 7.14% in the Tide- water, and I or .34% in the Appalachian plateau regions.^" The con- centration of potteries within the ridge-and-valley region is explain- able by the presence of lineally distributed population centers and a
106 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
I. The geographic distribution of potter.- centers in Virginia.
major clay belt within this region. Another concentration of potter- ies is noted in the southern juncture oi the Piedmont and Tidewater physiographic regions, hs early settlement, with nucleated popula- tion centers and the presence of residual clay beds exposed by major stream drainage associated with the James River, account for this concentration of potteries.
Of the total number of potters identified, ten are associated with seventeenth-and early-eighteenth-century pottery production (pri- marily earthenware) occurring exclusively in the eastern Tidewater, and 17 individuals working in seven counties (Henrico, Fairfax, Franklin, Frederick, Goochland, Rockbridge, Rockingham and Wythe) located throughout the state are associated with earthenware manufacturing during the late eighteenth century; the other 267 are associated with the nineteenth-century earthenware and stoneware manufacturing industry, although a few continue to work into the first quarter of the twentieth century.
An obvious pattern has emerged of pottery manufacturing sites being located near population centers and available clay sources (fig. i). Other factors relating to the selection of a suitable site for the es- tablishment of a pottery include an adequate source of fuel (wood), access to a water source, and close proximit)' to either an urban cen-
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
ter or a major roadway, river port, or railway that would provide a ready means tor shipping wares and receiving supplies."'
Although the relative degree oi importance of these factors has yet to be determined, some general trends can be recognized. During the seventeenth century, when the earliest potteries were being es- tablished in Virginia, access both to local resources and a local "sup- port" population was undoubtedly of utmost importance. These fac- tors probably continued to be of major importance, especially to the small folk or family-operated potteries that characterized the Vir- ginia industry from the mid-eighteenth until the last quarter of the nineteenth century.
By the beginning of the nineteenth century, major routes of trans- portation were fairly well established and there was access to new markets and a variety of goods. As a result, the strong dependence earlier potters had on both local sources of clay and local markets began to diminish. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, many of these family operations were either abandoned or transformed, and what have been termed "industrial potteries " began to predomi- nate, located near major urban centers.- It is clear that during this period, access to both local resources and local markets was of little significance, whereas the potter's reliance on the exportation of his wares and the receipt of shipments of supplies via the expanded transportation systems played a greater role."'
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF POTTERY MANUFACTURING SITES IN WESTERN VIRGINIA
Since the inception of the statewide survey in 1984, research has been undertaken on a county-by-count)' basis with concentration on five counties within the ridge-and-valley region: Alleghany, Bote- tourt, Rockbridge, Augusta, and Rockingham."" Twenty-six pottery operations and ninety-eight potters, two affiliated with the late eigh- teenth and ninet\'-six with the nineteenth century, have been identi- fied from these areas. Archaeological investigations have been con-
108 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
ducted at seven nineteenth-centur\' kiln sites (Fulton, Waddell, Fin- castle, Rockbridge Baths, Firebaugh, Grimm, and Morris) within this region.
Alleghany Count)' Potters
Five potters and two nineteenth-century pottery kiln sites have been identified in the Alleghany County area ot Virginia (table i).'" Perhaps the best known of these potteries was that operated by George N. Fulton from 1867 until 1880 (fig. 2). The Fulton pottery site (44AY184) is located approximately i mile south of Boiling Spring, Virginia, on a hill in a relatively flat agricultural field. It con- sists of the remains of a circular kiln and a waster pile that contained a dense deposit ol salt-glazed stoneware sherds and kiln furniture fragments.
1. Five-gallon salt-glazed stoneware churn with elabo- rate brushed manganese diox- ide and cobalt oxide floral motit, "s and signature "G.N. Fulton," Fulton potter)', Alleghany County, c. 1S67-80. Pni'dtf collection.
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
109
3- Alleghany Couiuy pottery, c. 1850-80 from left to right: i gallon salt-glazed jar stamped "T. R. Waddell "; small-mouthed earthenware jar stamped "G. A. Brown"; i-gallon stoneware |ar with brushed manganese decoration and signature "G. N. Fulton"; and i-gallon jar with cobalt decoration and the initials "G. N. F." Priviite collectwii.
Documentary and oral history research indicates that the kiln was oi the circular updraft variety, a common nineteenth-century stoneware kiln. An interview with Mr. Daniel Arritt, who as a young man worked at Fulton's pottery, revealed that the kiln held a thou- sand gallons of ware. The fully loaded kiln was fired for three days and three nights; after the ware was allowed to cool for two days, it was drawn, loaded onto a wagon (about 350 gallons to a two-horse load), and sold throughout the local community.*'
In addition to manufacturing prodigious quantities of distinctive stoneware crocks, churns, jugs, jars, and other utilitarian storage ves- sels typicalK' decorated with elaborate floral motifs in both man- ganese and cobalt oxides (fig. 3), Fulton also made tombstones, a few of which still survive.
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 199s
The Thomas R. Waddell pottery, which operated from 1850 until the 1870S, is located approximately one and a half miles north of the Fulton pottery. Interviews with the land owners revealed that the old kiln was bulldozed; now a large circular concentration of artifacts re- main on the ground, including numerous salt-glazed stoneware sherds, kiln furniture fragments, and bricks. Several of the sherds ex- hibited the maker's mark, "T.R. Waddell," with the abbreviation for Virginia, "VA."
Botetourt Coimtyi Potters
As a part of the research effort dealing with Botetourt County, two mid-nineteenth century pottery kiln sites and 11 nineteenth- century potters have been identified, indicating that the Fincastle/ Amsterdam district was an important pottery center for the region (table 2).'- One of the two Botetourt potteries identified, the Fincas- tle kiln, has been tested" and intensively investigated.'* Preliminary documentary research indicates that the Fincastle pottery was oper- ated by Jacob Noftzinger and his sons, Joel and Mathias, who are listed on the 1850 Botetourt County census records as potters.
The excavations revealed structural foundations and features that have been interpreted as a single-chambered, two-flued, rectangular pottery kiln. The portions of the kiln that had not been destroyed included evidence of one central and two exterior kiln walls, separat- ed by arched flues with mortared floors. These flues lead into smaller channels which provided a flue venting fianction representing the kiln's chimney base." This sketch illustrates a hypothetical reconstruc- tion ot the Fincastle kiln, while, for comparative purposes, this draw- ing shows the characteristic structural features of a groundhog kiln.
Artifacts recovered from the site include glazed and unglazed earthenware waster sherds, fragments of earthenware tile, kiln furni- ture fragments, and miscellaneous artifacts. Artifact analysis indi- cates that a relatively restricted varierv' of lead-glazed earthenware utilitarian vessel forms were manufactured at the pottery. The nature of the artifact assemblage, with well-constructed, glazed, and fired
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
4- Three semi-ovoid earthenware storage jars with iron oxide wash and lead glaze, combed incised banded decoration, and applied handles, attributed to the Henkel- Spigle potter\', Botetourt Counn', c. 1830-50. PriiuUe collection.
earthenwares, suggests a technologically efficient operation. Recon- struction efforts show that the most common vessel form represent- ed in the assemblage is the wide or open-mouthed storage crock.
The kiln hirniture r\'pes encountered include hand-formed circu- lar pins, placing bars, points, stilts, triangular pins, spurs, and saggers. These kiln furniture t)'pes are distinctively different from those ob- served on nineteenth-century stoneware pottery kiln sites and reflect the technology unique to manufacturing lead-glazed earthenwares.
lesse Hinkel and Phillip Spigle also operated a pottery in Bote- tourt as early as 1830 and produced lead-glazed earthenwares utiliz- ing both combing and free-hand incising as decorative treatments (fig. 4). One extant semi-ovoid lead-glazed storage vessel with lid is signed "[esse Hinkel, Botetourt County, Virginia" and dated 1839 (fig. 5). This presentation piece exhibits a varien,' oi incised deco- ration and was made by Hinkel for Mrs. Spigle. Although this is the only signed Hinkel piece known, several with similar form,
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
V Semi-ovoid lead-glazed earthenware storage vessel with a varien' ot incised decoration on both the bodv of the vessel and matching lid. Jar is signed "Jesse Henkel. Botetourt Countv'. Virginia, " and dated 1S39. It is a pre- sentation piece made by Henkel for Mrs. Spigle, most likely his partner's mother. MESDA ace. 32^4.
glaze, and decoration survive in local collections. A lead-glazed pitcher with an incised floral motit and an iron- and lead-glazed storage jar with lug handles are attributed to Spigle (figs. 6, 7).
The Obenchain (Obenshane) pottery was located along Mill Creek in Botetourt Count)' and was probably started by Peter M. ("Potter Pete") Obenchain around 1850. Two signed pieces of Oben- chain pottery have been identified (fig. 8). Both are tall, semi-ovoid, lead-glazed storage jars with distinctive applied handles and a flat, broad, outward-flaring rim. Incised on the bottom of one jar is "Matthew Obenshane 1868" (fig. 8a).
An elusive group of pottery collected in Botetourt County and ar- eas to the south along the James River has locally been referred to as James River Basin pottery. Collectively the wares consist of thick- walled, well-constructed ovoid stoneware storage jars (fig. 9), jugs (fig. 10), and pitchers (fig. 11) ranging in size from one to six gallons in capacity, usually de