The Earthenwares

Figure 15.â€”Yellow lead-glazed earthenware creampanof local Tidewater manufacture, probably dating from the second quarter of the 18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 34.29 centimeters.

Other kiln furniture found in Yorktown includes fragments of sagger lids having an average thickness of Â¾ of an inch and various lumps of clay which served as kiln pads and props.[262]Without knowing the typeof kilns used it is impossible to determine how the saggers were employed. It is obvious, however, that they prevented the pots from sticking together in the kiln, from being dripped upon by the fusing brickwork of the roof, and from becoming repositories for the salt as it was thrown or poured into the kiln. But, as Mr. Maloney demonstrates daily, it is perfectly possible to make good stoneware without saggers, though wasters will accrue from the mishaps just described. If a single-level "crawl-in" or "groundhog" type kiln is used, the number of pots discarded as wasters is more than offset by the space saved through not using saggers. It can be argued, therefore, that Rogers' kiln was of a type in which the saggers served the additional function of allowing the pots to be stacked one on top of the other instead of being spread over a wide flat area, in which case it is possible that the kiln or kilns were of the beehive variety.[263]

Figure 16.â€”Lead-glazed earthenware bowlof typical Yorktown type, probably dating from the second quarter of the 18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameter 18.95 centimeters.

The manufacture of stoneware requires only one firing at a temperature of about 2300Â° F., and it takes Mr. Maloney approximately 13 hours to burn them, although at Yorktown the use of saggers may have necessitated prolonged "soaking" of up to 24 hours or more. The salt was thrown in at the peak temperature and repeated at least twice at intervals of about a half hour. When the fire was extinguished the kiln would have been allowed to cool for up to two days and two nights before it could be unloaded. Mr. Maloney has stated that his stoneware kiln, which he considers small, takes approximately three hours to load. Thus, if the Yorktown factory worked at full capacity, it probably would have been possible to fire each kiln once a week. But, not knowing how many workmen were engaged in the operation, we would be unwise even to guess at the size of its output. The listing of stoneware and coarse earthenware included in Rogers' inventory is not particularly large, although Â£5 worth of "crackt" stoneware might have represented a considerable quantity of "seconds" or wasters when one considers that 26 dozen good quart mugs were worth only 4 shillings more.

Pint mugs are the most commonly found stonewarerelics of the Yorktown factory. Following the "26 doz. qtMugs Â£5.4.," a value of 4d. per mug, we find "60 doz ptDo7.10."[264]A stock of 60 dozen would be reasonable because, as Mr. Maloney has stated, a good potter can throw approximately 12 dozen a day.

Figure 17.â€”A pair of brown lead-glazedlocal earthenware funnels, paralleled by a fragment from Yorktown, discarded in the mid-18th century. Found in Williamsburg. Rim diameters: left, 18.25 centimeters; right, 18.42 centimeters.

Before leaving the evidence of the inventory it should be noted that the vessels which we usually term storage jars are probably synonymous with Rogers' "9 large Cream Potts 4/6"; but where are the large stone bottles? The "4 doz small stone bottles 6/" were likely to have been of quart capacity. We can only suppose that the large bottles were not included in the batches fired just before Rogers died and that, consequently, he had none in stock.

Besides the stonewares, the inventory includes the following items of earthenware:

This listing might be read to indicate that the Yorktown factory produced considerably less earthenware than stoneware, a construction that could be supported by the earlier inventory reference to "a pcl crakt redware" with a value of only Â£2 as against the Â£5 worth of "crackt" stoneware. We may wonder whether a ratio of 40 to 60 percent may not be a reasonable guide to the proportionate output of coarse-ware and stoneware, although it must be admitted that we do not know the relative sizes of the two parcels of cracked wares. It must be added also that, besides the inventory, the only extant direct documentary reference to the Rogers' factory products (1745) is to earthenware, not stoneware. Furthermore, we know that 20 years earlier he had sold a considerable quantity of earthenware to John Mercer of Marlborough.

Prior to the discovery of the Yorktown evidence we had known of no stoneware manufacturing in Tidewater Virginia in the 18th century, but archeological evidence had revealed the presence of earthenware kilns in the 17th century, with the possibility of two or three operating at much the same time.[265]It can easily be argued that there would have been more in the 18th century, though no kiln sites have yet beenfound. These considerations cannot be ignored, and consequently we must carefully avoid the trap of attributing all 18th-century, lead-glazed earthenwares made from Tidewater clay to the Rogers factory. A wood-fired Yorktown kiln burning pottery made from Peninsula clay and coated with a clear lead glaze would produce wares possessing variations of texture and color similar to those emerging from a comparable kiln, say, at Williamsburg.[266]Therefore, in attempting to assess the range and importance of Rogers' earthenwares we must use potting techniques alone as our guide to their identification.

Figure 18.â€”Unglazed earthenware bottle, probably of Yorktown manufacture, discarded about 1765. Found in Williamsburg. Surviving height 23.81 centimeters.

The principal evidence comes from the cut beside Main Street in Yorktown in front of the Digges House,[267]where numerous rim fragments of overfired and unglazed creampans were found. Others were recovered from the edges of the roadways on three sides of the adjacent colonial lots 51 and 55, shown on the 18th-century plat (Watkins, fig. 1) as having belonged to William Rogers. The rims from these deposits flared slightly, were tooled inward, and were flattened on the upper surface (fig. 13, no. 1). Fragments of such bowls, usually coated on the inside with a mottled lead glaze varying in color from light ginger to the tone and appearance of molasses, depending on the color of the body, are frequently found in Williamsburg (fig. 14) and on plantation sites in contexts of the second quarter of the 18th century. This creampan form is one of two made from Virginia clay which constantly turn up in contemporaneous archeological deposits. The second form (figs. 13, no. 2, and 15) possesses an everted and rolled rim,[268]anentirely different technique from that described above. I am inclined to doubt that these and their variants were made at the Rogers factory and have termed them products of the "rolled-rim" potter. Nevertheless, a few unglazed fragments of such pans (fig. 13, nos. 2-4) are represented in the National Park Service collections from uncertain archeological contexts in Yorktown.[269]The fact that they are unglazed suggests that they may have been made there, though undoubtedly not by the craftsman who threw the flattened-rim creampans.

Other earthenware sherds from the Digges House group include small, folded-rim fragments which may have come from storage jars or flowerpots. Another fragment was sharply everted over a pronouncedly incurving body. This could have been part of a small bowl or porringer. The Williamsburg archeological collections include a number of bowls of this form, one of which is illustrated in figure 16. A similar rim form is present on a pair of lead-glazed funnels (fig. 17) from a mid-18th-century context at the Coke Garrett House in Williamsburg and on a presumed funnel fragment (fig. 13, no. 5) in the Park Service collection from Yorktown.[270]Also from Yorktown comes the only known porringer fragment (fig. 13, no. 6), a biscuit sherd with a flattened rim and traces of the luting for a handle.[271]Although the type is not represented among stratified finds from Yorktown, mention must be made of an unglazed earthenware water (?) bottle found in Williamsburg,[272]which is clearly a stoneware form and thus probably was made at the Yorktown factory (fig. 18).

Perhaps the most baffling item listed in Rogers' inventory was the reference to "4 doz bird bottles 12/", for it was hard to imagine that he would have been making the small feeder bottles for cages which were normally fashioned in glass. However, it now seems reasonably certain that the Rogers bird bottles were actually bird houses. Figure 19 illustrates two bottle-shaped vessels of Virginia earthenware coated with lead glazes identical in color to examples found on a creampan and other presumably Rogers products excavated in Yorktown. The example on the left has lost its mouth but when complete was undoubtedly comparable to the specimen at right. The former was found in 1935 during the demolition of a chimney of the "Pyle House" at Green Spring near Jamestown.[273]It was mortared into the chimney twelve feet above the ground with its broken mouth facing out but with its base stopping short of the flue. The bottle is now in the collection of the National Park Service at Jamestown, and a recent examination showed that it still contained a lens of washed soil lying in the belly clearly indicating the position in which it had been seated in the chimney brickwork. A stick had been thrust through the wall before firing and emerged on the inside at the same point that the lens of dirt was resting. It was apparent, therefore, that the hole was meant for drainage. The stick hole was present in both bottles as also was an ante cocturam cut in the base (fig. 20) which removed almost half of the bottom plus a vertical triangle. It is believed that this feature was intended to enable the bottles to be hooked over pintles or large nails which latched into theVand prevented them from rolling. In this way they could have been mounted under the eaves of frame buildings as nesting boxes (or bottles) and although firmly secure when hooked, they could be easily lifted off for cleaning. Evidence of such use is provided by slight chipping on the inner face of the verticalVcut of the second bottle (right) where the bottle had abraded against the nail or pintle.

The date of the Green Spring bottle is uncertain, though the paper label accompanying it says "Probably 1720, date of building of house." However, it is clear that the bottle was not installed in the intended portable manner and it is possible that it was added at a later date. The complete example (fig. 19, right) was recently discovered in a sound archeological context during excavations at the James Geddy House in Williamsburg, being associated with a large refuse deposit dating in the period about 1740-60.[274]

It may be noted that in the 1746 inventory of the estate of John Burdett, tavern keeper of Williamsburg, there are listed "16 bird Bottles 3/".[275]As it seems unlikely that a tavern keeper would have a stock of birdcage bottles when he apparently had no birdcage,it may be suggested that the reference is to bottles similar to those discussed here. In support of this conclusion, attention is drawn to the fact that Rogers' new bottles were valued at 3d each, while Burdett's (used?) seven years later were appraised at 2-1/4d.[276]

Figure 19.â€”Two earthenware "bird bottles"believed to be of Rogers' lead-glazed earthenware showing drainage holes in sides. Bottle on left is from a house chimney near Green Spring and, on right, is from the James Geddy House in Williamsburg. Height 18.42 centimeters, and 21.91 centimeters, respectively.

It seems evident that the Rogers earthenware was fired to biscuit, glazed, and fired again in a glost oven; no other explanation accounts for the large quantities of unglazed earthenware found at Yorktown. Mr. Maloney's experiments at the Williamsburg Pottery have amply demonstrated that the Yorktown earthenware could have been glazed in the green state and would not have required a second firing. Furthermore, the study of a late-17th-century kiln site in James City County has confirmed that not all potters thought it necessary to make glazing a separate process. It is curious that the Rogers factory found it desirable to take this second and seemingly uneconomical step. The making of stoneware certainly would not have been a double-firing operation, and, although some of the pieces actually are fired no higher than the earthenware, they have been slipped and salted. Consequently we must accept the bottle discussed above as an intentional earthenware item which had passed through only the first kiln. Furthermore, its presence in Williamsburg indicates that it was never meant to be glazed. And finally, it should be noted that an unglazed handle fragment, probably from a similar bottle, was among the sherds recovered from the roadway in front of the Digges House.

Figure 20.â€”Bases of the "bird bottles"depicted in figure 19, showing holes for suspension. Base diameters: left, 10.48 centimeters; right, 10.16 centimeters.

The Rogers inventory contains such a wide variety of forms that one may claim without fear of contradiction that his factory wascapableof producing any of the kinds of kitchen vessels and general-purpose containers that the colony may have required. Consequently, a Yorktown origin may reasonably be considered for any of the wares made from local clay that turn up in contexts of the appropriate period. In the Williamsburg collections are such varied lead-glazed, earthenware items as closestool pans, chamber pots, straight-sided dishes, lidded storage jars, wide-mouthed and double-handled storage bins, pipkins, and chafing dishes. But whether all these things were made, in fact, at Yorktown cannot be known until the factory site is found and excavated.

In the meantime, a few conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the existing archeological evidence. There can be no doubt that the Rogers factory at Yorktown was a sizable operation and that it employed throwers as capable in their own field as any in England. Our slender knowledge of Rogers' own background does not indicate that he himself was a potter. It must be supposed, therefore, that he obtained the services of at least a journeyman potter apprenticed in one of the brown-stoneware factories in England. One can only guess at the center in which this unknown craftsman was trained, but it is more than likely that he came from London and might have worked at Fulham,[277]or more probably at Southwark, or even, perhaps, at Lambeth, the types of sagger and the wares produced at Yorktown being stylistically identical to the fragments found on the latter sites.

Not knowing the number of craftsmen employed, we cannot hope to determine the size of Rogers' output or the number of kilns in operation. But one would suppose that he had at least two kilns, one for stoneware and the other for lead-glazed earthenware, although they could, conceivably, have been interchangeable. An indication that lead-glazed wares were sometimes burned in the salt-glaze kiln isprovided by a single creampan in the Williamsburg collection,[278]which is both lead-glazed and heavily incrusted with salt. It is possible, however, that, knowing that there would be "cold" spots in the kiln,[279]the potter tried to make use of every available inch and inserted a few lead-glazed pieces along with the stoneware.

Documentary evidence relating to the distribution of Rogers' products has been discussed by Mr. Watkins (pp. 83-84), and, although some of it tends to be equivocal, we are left with the impression that both stoneware and earthenware were shipped for trade elsewhere, but that such shipments were probably infrequent and not of large quantities.[280]When seemingly comparable fragments are unearthed on sites beyond the environs of the York and James Rivers one must use extreme caution in attributing them to Yorktown. Clay of a generally similar character lies beneath much of Tidewater Virginia, and, since little serious historical archeology has been undertaken in the state beyond the Jamestown-Williamsburg-Yorktown triangle, it is much too soon to assume that apprentices trained at Yorktown did not set up their own kilns in other counties. In short, techniques of manufacture such as are exhibited by the shaping of earthenware rims and handles should be the only acceptable guide for identification, and even these are not infallible. As for the stoneware, the manufacturing techniques are so English in character that they are of no help. Thus, once the Rogers stoneware was shipped out of Yorktown, it must have lost its identity as totally as Governor Gooch presumably had hoped that it would.

Archeological evidence for the date range of the Yorktown ware is not very conclusive. The Challis site mug seems to have been thrown away around 1730, and this provides the earliest tightly dated context in which the wares have been found. The largest single assemblage of probable Yorktown products was the extensive refuse deposit believed to have been associated with John Coke's tavern in Williamsburg, but this was not discarded before mid-century. Other fragments of stoneware tankards, jars, and pipkins have been found at the Anthony Hay and New Post Office Sites in Williamsburg in contexts ranging from 1750 to 1770, while more, possibly Yorktown pieces, were encountered in a rubbish deposit interred in the period 1763-1772 at Rosewell in Gloucester County. These are, of course, dates at or after which the pieces were thrown away; they do not necessarily have a close relationship with the dates of manufacture. Nevertheless, the recovery of so many fragments from late contexts does suggest that the factory continued in operation after the last documented date of 1745.[281]

The most obvious source for dating evidence is clearly at Yorktown itself, but, unfortunately, little of the large National Park Service collection has any acceptable archeological associations. The fragments recovered from the roadway in front of the Digges House were accompanied by no closely datable items. While it is tempting to associate this deposit with Rogers' tenure as "Surveyor of the Landings, Streets; and Cosways" beginning in 1734,[282]it is also possible that he provided the City of York with road metaling before that date and that after his death his successors continued to do so. The quantity of sagger fragments from the vicinity of the Swan Tavern might have been associated in some way with the fact that Thomas Reynolds (see Watkins, p. 83) occupied the adjacent lot. More sagger fragments were found in the backfilling of the builder's trench around the recently restored Digges House on Main Street, which the National Park Service believes to have beenconstructed in about 1760.[283]But it can be argued that the sagger pieces were scattered so liberally around the town that their presence in the builder's trench does not necessarily imply that the factory was still operating at that date.

In summation, it may be said that the quantities of stoneware and earthenware with possible Yorktown associations which have been found in archeological sites in Tidewater Virginia leave little doubt that the venture established by William Rogers was of considerable value to the colony. There can be equally little doubt that Governor Gooch was aware of this fact and that he gave his tacit approval to the venture by minimizing its importance in his reports to the Board of Trade.

The quality of the products was good by colonial standards, and their quantity impressive. Consequently, in spite of Governor Gooch's misleading reports, William Rogers begins to emerge as one of the pioneers of industry in Virginia. It is to be hoped that it will be possible eventually to undertake a full archeological excavation of his factory site and so enable Rogers to step out once and for all from behind the deprecatory sobriquet of the "poor potter" of Yorktown that has concealed for more than two centuries his name, his acumen, and his potters' talents.

I am indebted to Colonial Williamsburg for helping to subsidize the preparation of this paper and for permission to illustrate specimens from its archeological collections; also to J. Paul Hudson, National Park Service curator at Jamestown for similar facilities; as well as to Charles E. Hatch, senior National Park Service historian at Yorktown, for access to various archeological reports in his library.I am particularly grateful to James E. Maloney of the Williamsburg Pottery for the immense amount of work which he so generously undertook not only to reproduce copies of the Yorktown products but also to recreate the wasters as well, thus providing information regarding the colonial technical processes that could not have been obtained in any other way. I am also grateful to Joseph Grace, Colonial Williamsburg's watchmaker and engraver who made an accurate copy of the unofficial excise stamp used on Rogers' mugs, and to my secretary Lynn Hill, who toiled long and hard to bring order into this report.I am further indebted to Wilcomb E. Washburn, Chairman, Department of American Studies, at the Smithsonian Institution, who first drew my attention to the artifacts in front of the Dudley Digges House; and to my wife Audrey, to John Dunton and William Hammes, all of Colonial Williamsburg's department of archeology, who through the years have helped collect ceramic evidence from Yorktown.I. N. H.

I am particularly grateful to James E. Maloney of the Williamsburg Pottery for the immense amount of work which he so generously undertook not only to reproduce copies of the Yorktown products but also to recreate the wasters as well, thus providing information regarding the colonial technical processes that could not have been obtained in any other way. I am also grateful to Joseph Grace, Colonial Williamsburg's watchmaker and engraver who made an accurate copy of the unofficial excise stamp used on Rogers' mugs, and to my secretary Lynn Hill, who toiled long and hard to bring order into this report.

I am further indebted to Wilcomb E. Washburn, Chairman, Department of American Studies, at the Smithsonian Institution, who first drew my attention to the artifacts in front of the Dudley Digges House; and to my wife Audrey, to John Dunton and William Hammes, all of Colonial Williamsburg's department of archeology, who through the years have helped collect ceramic evidence from Yorktown.

I. N. H.

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1967

FOOTNOTES:[183]For example:Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker,The Old South, The Founding of American Civilization(New York: Scribner's, 1942), p. 265;J. Paul Hudson, "Earliest Yorktown Pottery,"Antiques(May 1958), vol. 73, pp. 472-473.[184]This material is located in the collection of the Colonial National Historical Park, Jamestown, Virginia.[185]"Reasons for Repealing the Acts pass'd in Virginia and Maryland relating to Ports and Towns,"Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, edit. William P. Palmer (Richmond, 1875), vol. 1, pp. 137-138.[186]Victor S. Clark,The History of Manufactures in the United States, 1607-1860(Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Institution, 1916), pp. 26-27.[187]Ibid., p. 203.[188]Ibid., p. 204.[189]Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Records Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1322, p. 185.[190]Percy Scott Flippin, "William Gooch: Successful Royal Governor of Virginia,"William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine(1926), ser. 2, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37-38;Flippin,The Royal Government in Virginia (1624-1775)(New York: Columbia University Press, 1919), pp. 124 ff.[191]Charles Campbell,History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia(Philadelphia, 1810), p. 448.[192]Flippin(1926), op. cit. (footnote 8), p. 38.[193]Campbell, op. cit. (footnote 9), p. 414.[194]Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1323, p. 82.[195]Ibid., p. 133.[196]Ibid., p. 189.[197]Ibid., vol. 1324, p. 3.[198]Ibid., pp. 30-31.[199]Ibid., p. 104.[200]Ibid., vol. 1325, p. 83.[201]C. Malcolm Watkins,The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia, (Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 253), Washington: Smithsonian Institution, in press.[202]York County Records: Deeds & Bonds, vol. 2, 1701-1713, p. 365 (In York County Courthouse, Yorktown, Va.).[203]York County Records, Book 14:Orders & Wills, 1716-1720.[204]Ibid., pp. 307, 317, 357, 386, 394, 439.[205]York County Records, Book 17:Orders, Wills, &c., 1729-1732, p. 136.[206]Ibid., p. 296.[207]York County Records, Book 18:Orders, Wills, & Inventories, p. 15.[208]Ibid., p. 121.[209]Ibid., p. 157.[210]Lester J. CapponandStella F. Duff,Virginia Gazette Index, 1736-1780(Williamsburg, Va.: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1950); and theVirginia Gazette, 1736-1780(Williamsburg, Va.: Issued on microfilm by the Institute of Early American History and Culture from originals loaned by other institutions, 1950), reel 1.[211]Edward M. Riley, "The Colonial Courthouses of York County, Virginia,"William & Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine(1942), ser. 2 (hereinafter designatedWMQ2), vol. 22, pp. 399-404.[212]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.[213]York County Records, Book 18:Orders, Wills, & Inventories, pp. 525, 537 ff.[214]Ibid., pp. 553 ff.[215]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.[216]Library of Congress Transcripts, op. cit. (footnote 12), vol. 1325, p. 83.[217]York County Records, Book 5:Deeds, 1741-1754, p. 64.[218]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 41), reel 1 (June 17, 1737).[219]Tyler's Quarterly(Richmond, Va., 1922), vol. 3, p. 296.[220]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1 (Sept. 30, 1737; April 17, 1738; June 23, 1738; July 7, 1738; April 20, 1739; July 13, 1739; Aug. 24, 1739; January 25, 1740).[221]"Reynolds and Rogers,"WMQ1 (1905), vol. 13, pp. 128, 129.[222]John Norton & Sons, Merchants of London and Virginia, edit. Frances Norton Mason (Richmond, Va.: Dietz, 1937), p. 518.[223]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm (Parks' Virginia Gazette, June 20 and July 4, 1745); I.NoÃ«l Hume, Part II, p. 110.[224]"The Votes of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania,"Pennsylvania Archives(Harrisburg), ser. 8, vol. 3, pp. 2047-2049. (From Rudolf Hommel, in correspondence with Lura Woodside Watkins.)[225]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.[226]York County Records, Book 18:Orders, Wills, & Inventories, p. 290.[227]"Petition of Isaac Parker, September, 1742,"Massachusetts Archives, vol. 59, pp. 332-333 (quoted inLura Woodside Watkins,New England Potters and Their Wares[Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950], p. 245).[228]Bideford-in-Devon: Official Guide to Bideford and District, edit. Sheila Hutchinson (Bideford, about 1961), p. 35.[229]C. Malcolm Watkins, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century" (paper 13 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), pp. 28-29.[230]Lura Woodside Watkins,New England Potters and Their Wares(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950), p. 16.[231]Ibid., p. 24.[232]The Register of Burials in the Parish of Braintree in the County of Essex from Michaelmas ... 1740(MS in Essex County Record Office, Chelmsford, England), p. 40.[233]"Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents," prepared byW. G. Stanard,Virginia Magazine of History & Biography(hereinafter designatedVHM) (1899), vol. 5, p. 186.[234]"Viewers of Tobacco Crop, 1639,"VHM(1898), vol. 5, p. 121.[235]Virginia Wills and Administrations 1632-1800, comp. Clayton Torrence (Richmond, Wm. Byrd Press, Inc., n.d.), pp. 364-365.[236]English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records, comp. Louis des Coquets, Jr. (Princeton, N.J.: Privately printed, 1958), p. 128.[237]Virginia Wills and Administrations, loc. cit. (footnote 53).[238]Lyon G. Tyler, "Education in Colonial Virginia,"William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine(1897), ser. 1 (hereinafter designatedWMQ1), vol. 5, p. 221.[239]"Extracts from the Records of Surry County,"WMQ1 (1903), vol. 11, p. 83.[240]English Duplicates, op. cit. (footnote 54), p. 73.[241]Ibid., p. 210.[242]Ibid., pp. 81, 83, 86.[243]Virginia Wills and Administrations, loc. cit. (footnote 53).[244]"Virginia Gleanings in England,"VHM(1921), vol. 29, p. 435.[245]"Tithables in Lancaster County, 1716,"WMQ1 (1913), vol. 21, p. 21.[246]FromOrders, Wills, & Inventories, York County Records, no. 18, pp. 553 ff. The linear totals given in the right-hand column are not always the sum of the amounts noted in each line, but they are presented here as faithfully as possible.[247]Adrian Oswald, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations at Bankside,"The Connoisseur(January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp. 183-185.[248]J. F. Blacker,The A. B. C. of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware(London: 1922), pp. 46, 48, 51, 56, 57, 63, and 65.[249]Kiln waste found in recent excavations in Philadelphia indicate that Anthony DuchÃ© was manufacturing stoneware there in the style of Westerwald in the 1730s.[250]No trace of a kiln was found on the Bankside site in Southwark; it is probable that the waste came from another location nearby, possibly from the factory established in Gravel Lane around 1690, which continued under various managements until about 1750. It may be noted that, in the same way that much Southwark delftware has been erroneously attributed to Lambeth, it is likely that brown stonewares in the so-called style of Fulham was made in Southwark before Lambeth rose to prominence in that field. SeeF. H. Garner, "Lambeth Earthenware,"Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle(London: 1937), vol. 1, no. 4, p. 46; alsoJohn Drinkwater, "Some Notes on English Salt-Glaze Brown Stoneware,"Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle(London, 1939), vol. 2, no. 6, p. 33.[251]W. R. excise or capacity stamps continued to be impressed on tavern mugs long after William III was dead. The latest published example is dated 1792.Drinkwater, op. cit. (footnote 69), p. 34 and pl. XIIIb.[252]The Williamsburg Pottery, on Route 60 near Lightfoot, specializes in the reproduction of 18th-century stoneware and slipware.[253]I.NoÃ«l Hume,Here Lies Virginia(New York: Knopf, 1963), fig. 55.[254]Colonial Williamsburg, E. R. (Excavation Register) 140.27A.[255]E. R. 140.27A.[256]Colonial Williamsburg, cat. no. 1913.[257]E. R. 157G.27A (also 159A, 165A, 173, and 173A).[258]The majority of archeologically documented pieces have been recovered from English domestic sites and not from kiln dumps.[259]I.NoÃ«l Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959," (paper 18 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18, U. S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington, Smithsonian Institution, 1963), p. 208, no. 3 and p. 209, fig. 28, no. 3.[260]U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown the first from the Swan Tavern Site and the others from Project 203, F. S. 8, unstratified material recovered during sewer digging on Main Street, 1956-1957.[261]Oswald, op. cit. (footnote 66), fig. IX.[262]U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, S. T. 1933.[263]Mr. Maloney is of the opinion that saggers could just as usefully have served a "groundhog" kiln where they would have enabled the pots to be stacked up to four in height.[264]SeeWatkins, Part I, footnote 32.[265]Op. cit. (footnote 72), pp. 208-220.[266]It must be stressed that no evidence of any such kiln exists. See also footnote 30.[267]This material is divided between the colonial archeological collections of the Smithsonian Institution and of Colonial Williamsburg.[268]I.NoÃ«l Hume, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck, James City County in Virginia, 1960-1961," paper 53 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology(U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249); Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1966, fig. 19, nos. 1, 3, and 4.[269]N.P.S. Collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.[270]Bowl IC.1.18C, Funnels E.R. 140.27A, and National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.[271]National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.[272]E.R. 157A, C, and G, 27A.[273]National Park Service collection, J. 13049 (G.S.), with label reading "Pyle House Green Spring. Built into brickwork of chimneyâ€”removed in securing brick for Lightfoot House by C.? T. (10.29.35)."[274]Colonial Williamsburg archeological collections, E. R. 987D.19B, cat. 3275.[275]"Inventory and Appraisement of estate of John Burdett," York County Records, Book 20,Wills and Inventories, pp. 46-49.[276]Since this paper was written and the bird bottles identified, a number of additional fragments have been recognized among mid-eighteenth-century finds from Williamsburg excavations, including a small, pierced lug handle fitting the scar on the Geddy example (fig. 19, right). The hole through the handle lined up with that through the shoulder clearly indicating that their combined purpose was to provide an alternative method of suspension for use when the bottles were hung in trees.[277]There is a long-established belief that Fulham was the principal source of 18th-century brown-stoneware vessels. While the art of making the ware was first developed there by John Dwight, the factory fell into decline after his death in 1703 and remained in virtual oblivion until the 19th century.[278]Archeological area 2B2, context unknown.[279]Mr. Maloney has pointed out that a margin of 150Â°F. is sufficient to make the difference between earthenware and stoneware.[280]Export records for the York River should be treated with some caution as goods often were imported from one place and later exported to another. But if we accept the 1739 and 1745Virginia Gazettereferences (Watkins, footnotes 38 and 41) as being to wares of Yorktown manufacture, by the same token we must draw comparable conclusions from the Naval Office Lists for Accomac (Eastern Shore of Virginia), which show "1 shipment" of "stoneware" exported to Maryland in 1749. Similarly we would have to assume that there was an earthenware factory operating near the James River in 1755 when the records list the exporting of "2 crates Earthenware" to the Rappahannock. Such conclusions may, indeed, be correct, though there is as yet no evidence to support them. Naval Office Lists, Public Records Office, London; cf.Commodity Analysis of Imports and Exports, Accomac, Virginia, 1726-1769, and for theRappahannock, Virginia, 1726-1769microfilm books compiled under the direction of John H. Cox, University of California, 1939 (unpublished).[281]Virginia Gazette, June 20, 1745.[282]Watkins, Part I, footnote 37.[283]Large numbers of wine-bottle fragments also were recovered from the builder's trench, and provided archeological support for a construction date after about 1760.

[183]For example:Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker,The Old South, The Founding of American Civilization(New York: Scribner's, 1942), p. 265;J. Paul Hudson, "Earliest Yorktown Pottery,"Antiques(May 1958), vol. 73, pp. 472-473.

[184]This material is located in the collection of the Colonial National Historical Park, Jamestown, Virginia.

[185]"Reasons for Repealing the Acts pass'd in Virginia and Maryland relating to Ports and Towns,"Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, edit. William P. Palmer (Richmond, 1875), vol. 1, pp. 137-138.

[186]Victor S. Clark,The History of Manufactures in the United States, 1607-1860(Washington, D.C.: The Carnegie Institution, 1916), pp. 26-27.

[187]Ibid., p. 203.

[188]Ibid., p. 204.

[189]Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Records Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1322, p. 185.

[190]Percy Scott Flippin, "William Gooch: Successful Royal Governor of Virginia,"William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine(1926), ser. 2, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37-38;Flippin,The Royal Government in Virginia (1624-1775)(New York: Columbia University Press, 1919), pp. 124 ff.

[191]Charles Campbell,History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia(Philadelphia, 1810), p. 448.

[192]Flippin(1926), op. cit. (footnote 8), p. 38.

[193]Campbell, op. cit. (footnote 9), p. 414.

[194]Library of Congress Transcripts: Great Britain, Public Record Office, Colonial Office 5, vol. 1323, p. 82.

[195]Ibid., p. 133.

[196]Ibid., p. 189.

[197]Ibid., vol. 1324, p. 3.

[198]Ibid., pp. 30-31.

[199]Ibid., p. 104.

[200]Ibid., vol. 1325, p. 83.

[201]C. Malcolm Watkins,The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia, (Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 253), Washington: Smithsonian Institution, in press.

[202]York County Records: Deeds & Bonds, vol. 2, 1701-1713, p. 365 (In York County Courthouse, Yorktown, Va.).

[203]York County Records, Book 14:Orders & Wills, 1716-1720.

[204]Ibid., pp. 307, 317, 357, 386, 394, 439.

[205]York County Records, Book 17:Orders, Wills, &c., 1729-1732, p. 136.

[206]Ibid., p. 296.

[207]York County Records, Book 18:Orders, Wills, & Inventories, p. 15.

[208]Ibid., p. 121.

[209]Ibid., p. 157.

[210]Lester J. CapponandStella F. Duff,Virginia Gazette Index, 1736-1780(Williamsburg, Va.: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1950); and theVirginia Gazette, 1736-1780(Williamsburg, Va.: Issued on microfilm by the Institute of Early American History and Culture from originals loaned by other institutions, 1950), reel 1.

[211]Edward M. Riley, "The Colonial Courthouses of York County, Virginia,"William & Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine(1942), ser. 2 (hereinafter designatedWMQ2), vol. 22, pp. 399-404.

[212]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.

[213]York County Records, Book 18:Orders, Wills, & Inventories, pp. 525, 537 ff.

[214]Ibid., pp. 553 ff.

[215]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.

[216]Library of Congress Transcripts, op. cit. (footnote 12), vol. 1325, p. 83.

[217]York County Records, Book 5:Deeds, 1741-1754, p. 64.

[218]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 41), reel 1 (June 17, 1737).

[219]Tyler's Quarterly(Richmond, Va., 1922), vol. 3, p. 296.

[220]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1 (Sept. 30, 1737; April 17, 1738; June 23, 1738; July 7, 1738; April 20, 1739; July 13, 1739; Aug. 24, 1739; January 25, 1740).

[221]"Reynolds and Rogers,"WMQ1 (1905), vol. 13, pp. 128, 129.

[222]John Norton & Sons, Merchants of London and Virginia, edit. Frances Norton Mason (Richmond, Va.: Dietz, 1937), p. 518.

[223]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm (Parks' Virginia Gazette, June 20 and July 4, 1745); I.NoÃ«l Hume, Part II, p. 110.

[224]"The Votes of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania,"Pennsylvania Archives(Harrisburg), ser. 8, vol. 3, pp. 2047-2049. (From Rudolf Hommel, in correspondence with Lura Woodside Watkins.)

[225]Virginia Gazettemicrofilm, op. cit. (footnote 28), reel 1.

[226]York County Records, Book 18:Orders, Wills, & Inventories, p. 290.

[227]"Petition of Isaac Parker, September, 1742,"Massachusetts Archives, vol. 59, pp. 332-333 (quoted inLura Woodside Watkins,New England Potters and Their Wares[Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950], p. 245).

[228]Bideford-in-Devon: Official Guide to Bideford and District, edit. Sheila Hutchinson (Bideford, about 1961), p. 35.

[229]C. Malcolm Watkins, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century" (paper 13 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), pp. 28-29.

[230]Lura Woodside Watkins,New England Potters and Their Wares(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950), p. 16.

[231]Ibid., p. 24.

[232]The Register of Burials in the Parish of Braintree in the County of Essex from Michaelmas ... 1740(MS in Essex County Record Office, Chelmsford, England), p. 40.

[233]"Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents," prepared byW. G. Stanard,Virginia Magazine of History & Biography(hereinafter designatedVHM) (1899), vol. 5, p. 186.

[234]"Viewers of Tobacco Crop, 1639,"VHM(1898), vol. 5, p. 121.

[235]Virginia Wills and Administrations 1632-1800, comp. Clayton Torrence (Richmond, Wm. Byrd Press, Inc., n.d.), pp. 364-365.

[236]English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records, comp. Louis des Coquets, Jr. (Princeton, N.J.: Privately printed, 1958), p. 128.

[237]Virginia Wills and Administrations, loc. cit. (footnote 53).

[238]Lyon G. Tyler, "Education in Colonial Virginia,"William & Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine(1897), ser. 1 (hereinafter designatedWMQ1), vol. 5, p. 221.

[239]"Extracts from the Records of Surry County,"WMQ1 (1903), vol. 11, p. 83.

[240]English Duplicates, op. cit. (footnote 54), p. 73.

[241]Ibid., p. 210.

[242]Ibid., pp. 81, 83, 86.

[243]Virginia Wills and Administrations, loc. cit. (footnote 53).

[244]"Virginia Gleanings in England,"VHM(1921), vol. 29, p. 435.

[245]"Tithables in Lancaster County, 1716,"WMQ1 (1913), vol. 21, p. 21.

[246]FromOrders, Wills, & Inventories, York County Records, no. 18, pp. 553 ff. The linear totals given in the right-hand column are not always the sum of the amounts noted in each line, but they are presented here as faithfully as possible.

[247]Adrian Oswald, "A London Stoneware Pottery, Recent Excavations at Bankside,"The Connoisseur(January 1951), vol. 126, no. 519, pp. 183-185.

[248]J. F. Blacker,The A. B. C. of English Salt-Glaze Stoneware(London: 1922), pp. 46, 48, 51, 56, 57, 63, and 65.

[249]Kiln waste found in recent excavations in Philadelphia indicate that Anthony DuchÃ© was manufacturing stoneware there in the style of Westerwald in the 1730s.

[250]No trace of a kiln was found on the Bankside site in Southwark; it is probable that the waste came from another location nearby, possibly from the factory established in Gravel Lane around 1690, which continued under various managements until about 1750. It may be noted that, in the same way that much Southwark delftware has been erroneously attributed to Lambeth, it is likely that brown stonewares in the so-called style of Fulham was made in Southwark before Lambeth rose to prominence in that field. SeeF. H. Garner, "Lambeth Earthenware,"Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle(London: 1937), vol. 1, no. 4, p. 46; alsoJohn Drinkwater, "Some Notes on English Salt-Glaze Brown Stoneware,"Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle(London, 1939), vol. 2, no. 6, p. 33.

[251]W. R. excise or capacity stamps continued to be impressed on tavern mugs long after William III was dead. The latest published example is dated 1792.Drinkwater, op. cit. (footnote 69), p. 34 and pl. XIIIb.

[252]The Williamsburg Pottery, on Route 60 near Lightfoot, specializes in the reproduction of 18th-century stoneware and slipware.

[253]I.NoÃ«l Hume,Here Lies Virginia(New York: Knopf, 1963), fig. 55.

[254]Colonial Williamsburg, E. R. (Excavation Register) 140.27A.

[255]E. R. 140.27A.

[256]Colonial Williamsburg, cat. no. 1913.

[257]E. R. 157G.27A (also 159A, 165A, 173, and 173A).

[258]The majority of archeologically documented pieces have been recovered from English domestic sites and not from kiln dumps.

[259]I.NoÃ«l Hume, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959," (paper 18 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18, U. S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington, Smithsonian Institution, 1963), p. 208, no. 3 and p. 209, fig. 28, no. 3.

[260]U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown the first from the Swan Tavern Site and the others from Project 203, F. S. 8, unstratified material recovered during sewer digging on Main Street, 1956-1957.

[261]Oswald, op. cit. (footnote 66), fig. IX.

[262]U.S. National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, S. T. 1933.

[263]Mr. Maloney is of the opinion that saggers could just as usefully have served a "groundhog" kiln where they would have enabled the pots to be stacked up to four in height.

[264]SeeWatkins, Part I, footnote 32.

[265]Op. cit. (footnote 72), pp. 208-220.

[266]It must be stressed that no evidence of any such kiln exists. See also footnote 30.

[267]This material is divided between the colonial archeological collections of the Smithsonian Institution and of Colonial Williamsburg.

[268]I.NoÃ«l Hume, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck, James City County in Virginia, 1960-1961," paper 53 inContributions from the Museum of History and Technology(U.S. National Museum Bulletin 249); Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1966, fig. 19, nos. 1, 3, and 4.

[269]N.P.S. Collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.

[270]Bowl IC.1.18C, Funnels E.R. 140.27A, and National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.

[271]National Park Service collection at Jamestown: Yorktown, no provenance.

[272]E.R. 157A, C, and G, 27A.

[273]National Park Service collection, J. 13049 (G.S.), with label reading "Pyle House Green Spring. Built into brickwork of chimneyâ€”removed in securing brick for Lightfoot House by C.? T. (10.29.35)."

[274]Colonial Williamsburg archeological collections, E. R. 987D.19B, cat. 3275.

[275]"Inventory and Appraisement of estate of John Burdett," York County Records, Book 20,Wills and Inventories, pp. 46-49.

[276]Since this paper was written and the bird bottles identified, a number of additional fragments have been recognized among mid-eighteenth-century finds from Williamsburg excavations, including a small, pierced lug handle fitting the scar on the Geddy example (fig. 19, right). The hole through the handle lined up with that through the shoulder clearly indicating that their combined purpose was to provide an alternative method of suspension for use when the bottles were hung in trees.

[277]There is a long-established belief that Fulham was the principal source of 18th-century brown-stoneware vessels. While the art of making the ware was first developed there by John Dwight, the factory fell into decline after his death in 1703 and remained in virtual oblivion until the 19th century.

[278]Archeological area 2B2, context unknown.

[279]Mr. Maloney has pointed out that a margin of 150Â°F. is sufficient to make the difference between earthenware and stoneware.

[280]Export records for the York River should be treated with some caution as goods often were imported from one place and later exported to another. But if we accept the 1739 and 1745Virginia Gazettereferences (Watkins, footnotes 38 and 41) as being to wares of Yorktown manufacture, by the same token we must draw comparable conclusions from the Naval Office Lists for Accomac (Eastern Shore of Virginia), which show "1 shipment" of "stoneware" exported to Maryland in 1749. Similarly we would have to assume that there was an earthenware factory operating near the James River in 1755 when the records list the exporting of "2 crates Earthenware" to the Rappahannock. Such conclusions may, indeed, be correct, though there is as yet no evidence to support them. Naval Office Lists, Public Records Office, London; cf.Commodity Analysis of Imports and Exports, Accomac, Virginia, 1726-1769, and for theRappahannock, Virginia, 1726-1769microfilm books compiled under the direction of John H. Cox, University of California, 1939 (unpublished).

[281]Virginia Gazette, June 20, 1745.

[282]Watkins, Part I, footnote 37.

[283]Large numbers of wine-bottle fragments also were recovered from the builder's trench, and provided archeological support for a construction date after about 1760.

Back to Index Next