ARTIFACTS

Illustration 5.—Above, left, reconstructed wine bottle from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-fourth.Illustration 6.—Top, right, fragment of molded white salt-glazed-ware platter from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-half.Illustration 7.—Lower, right, iron bolt from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-half.

The emerging evidence indicated that the structure was rectangular, approximately 52 feet long and 26 feet wide, with a T-shaped projection 25 feet wide extending out a distance of 14 feet 5 inches from the center of the east wall of the building.

SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTOMAC CREEK COURTHOUSE

Few artifacts occurred in the small area excavated at the courthouse site. Those which did, significantly, related either to the structure itself or to the eating and drinking that probably occurred either alfresco or within the courthouse building. We know that the Ohio Company Committee met there for many years, beginning in 1750, and doubtless lunches and refreshments were served to the members during the day, before they returned to the tavern or to neighboring plantations to dine and spend the night.

Illustration 8.—Above, left, stone scraping tool. One-half.Illustration 9.—Above, right, Indian celt. Found near gate in Wall E. One-half.

Portions of wine bottles (of the same dimensions as the Mercer “1737” bottle from Marlborough) were found (ill. 5), along with small fragments of late 18th-century types. A section of the rim of a large, octagonal, white, salt-glazed-ware platter with a wreath and lattice design was recovered from the north-wall footings (ill. 86), and fragments of a salt-glazed-ware dinner plate occurred in the south trench. An oystershell found nearby suggests how the platter may have been used. Two pieces of a white salt-glazed-ware posset pot round out a picture of elegant eating and drinking in the 1760’s, as do the fragments of polished, agate octagonal-handled knives and forks. The latter were badly damaged by fire.

Pieces of blue-and-white delft punch bowls were found, as well as a sherd of polychrome delft which dated apparently from 1740 to 1760. Two sherds of creamware plates with wavy edges in the “Catherine” shape reflect the last years of official use of the courthouse. A tantalizing find is a small fragment of cobalt-blue glass, blown in a mold to make panels or oval indentations. This piece may have come from a large bowl or sweetmeat dish.

Three sherds of black-glazed red earthenware are the only evidence of utilitarian equipment. Pipe-stems belong to the mid- and late-18th-century category. A George II copper penny is dated 1746. A large mass of pewter, melted beyond recognition, was found near the south end of the structure. Bits of charcoal are held within it. The pewter originally may have been in the form of mugs or tankards.

Figure 62.—Plan of King William courthouse, whose plan dimensions correspond closely to the Stafford foundation. (Courtesy of Historic American Buildings Survey, Library of Congress.)

Evidence of the structure is found in a large numberof hand-forged nails, in quantities of window glass melted and distorted, and in pieces of plaster. The last is the typical hard, coarse oystershell plaster of the area, having a smooth surface coat, except for fine lines left by the trowel. There is no evidence of paint. A small slide bolt of wrought iron probably fitted on a cupboard door, or possibly the gate in the bar (ill. 87). Another iron fixture is not identified.

Two kinds of window glass occurred. One, the earliest type, is a thin, yellowish glass which is coated with irridescent scale caused by the breakdown of the glass surface. None of this glass shows signs of fire or, at least, of melting. The remainder is a grayish-blue aquamarine, much of it melted and distorted, and some of it accumulated in thick masses where tremendous heat caused the panes literally to fold up. A fragment of yellowish-green glass pane, related to the early type and again coated with scale, varies in thickness and was apparently from a bullseye. No evidence exists of diamond-shaped panes, but, as should be expected, there is indication of square-cornered panes in both types of glass.

ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS

The plan of the footings (fig. 60) shows a T-shaped foundation. This was an immediate clue to the nature of the structure, for the T-shaped courthouse was virtually a standard 18th-century form in Virginia. This foundation, in fact, is almost a replica of the plans of both King William and Hanover County courthouses, each built about 1734[169](figs. 5,61, and62).

The King William courthouse measures 50 feet 4¼ inches long and 26 feet 4 inches wide in the main structure. Its T section extends 14 feet 9 inches to the original end (to which an extension has been added) and has a width of 23 feet 10¼ inches. The Stafford foundation is 52 feet long and 26 feet wide in the main structure. The T-section is 14 feet 5 inches long and 25 feet wide. A closer comparison could scarcely be expected.

Hanover’s length is 52 feet 4½ inches, the width of the main section 27 feet 10 inches, while the T-section is 15 feet 2½ inches long (in its original part) and 26 feet 7 inches wide.

A third example, completed in 1736, is the Charles City County courthouse.[170]The measurements of this building are not available to us, but close examination of photographs discloses a building of about the same size.

The earliest of these T-shaped buildings thus far recorded was the York County courthouse, completed in 1733. Destroyed in 1814, its site has been excavated by the National Park Service. Its foundation, measuring 59 feet 10 inches in length and 52 feet in full depth, including the T, was somewhat larger than the others known to us. The records show that it was rather elaborate, with imported-stone floors and compass-head windows.[171]

All these buildings had arcaded verandas. Marcus Whiffen raises the question as to which of them, if any, was the prototype, then concludes by speculating that none was, and that all four may have derived from the 1715 courthouse at Williamsburg, the dimensions of which, however, remain unknown. The introduction of the loggia first at the College of William and Mary and then at the capitol led him to postulate that its use in a courthouse also would have originated in Williamsburg.[172]The Stafford foundation showed no trace of stone paving where an arcade might have been, but, since virtually all the bricks had been taken away, it is likely that such a valuable commodity as flagstones also would have been removed as soon as the building was destroyed or dismantled. Two brick piers at the west end of the structure (fig. 36) remain a mystery. They are equidistant from the longitudinal walls, and may have been the foundations for a chimney. However, their positions do not relate to the floor or chimney plans at Hanover or King William courthouses, the other features of which are so nearly comparable. One would suppose every basic characteristic of the Stafford building would have been the same as in these buildings. The piers were perhaps late additions or modifications.

The roof was apparently of wood; there were no evidences of slate shingles. The bricks were approximately 8½ inches by 4 inches by 2¾ inches, and were probably laid in a patterned Flemish bond, as at Hanover or King William, since some of the bricks were glazed. No lead or other signs of “calmes”used in leaded sash were found, so we must assume that the 1665 courthouse was built elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

It may be assumed that the Potomac Creek courthouse, which was built of brick, resembled the courthouses of Hanover, King William, and Charles City, and that its architecture, symbolizing the authority of Virginia’s government, reflected the official style expressed in the government buildings at Williamsburg. All the successive Stafford courthouses from 1722 on probably were built on the old foundations; if so, the Stafford building was the earliest T-form courthouse yet known in Virginia. Its similarity to the three structures built in the 1730’s shows that an accepted form had developed, possibly, as Whiffen suggests, deriving from a prototype in Williamsburg.

The courthouse bears no resemblance, either in its shape or the absence of a basement, to the Structure B foundation at Marlborough. The site, reached more easily than Marlborough from any direction, dictated the removal to it of the courthouse in 1722, thus contributing to the demise of Marlborough as a town. The last structure, especially, was historically important because of the meetings of the Ohio Company held in it. It is of particular interest to the story of Marlborough because John Mercer was, for most of its existence, the senior justice of the Stafford court.

FOOTNOTES:[160]Fredericksburg Suit Papers, 1745-1805 (MS., Fredericksburg, Virginia, courthouse).[161]Happel, op. cit. (footnote 22), pp. 183-194.[162]JHB, 1742-1749 (Richmond, 1909), p. 127.[163]Ibid.[164]Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia[November 1, 1739-May 7, 1754], (Richmond, 1945), p. 282.[165]JHB, 1752-1755; 1756-1758(Richmond, 1939), p. 55.[166]“Harrison of James River,”VHM(Richmond, 1924), vol. 32, p. 200.[167]Seefootnote 165.[168]Hening, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 6, pp. 280-281.[169]Marcus Whiffen, “The Early County Courthouses of Virginia,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (Amherst, Mass., 1959), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 2-10.[170]Ibid.[171]Riley, op. cit. (footnote 31), pp. 402 ff.[172]Whiffen, op. cit. (footnote 169), p. 4.

FOOTNOTES:

[160]Fredericksburg Suit Papers, 1745-1805 (MS., Fredericksburg, Virginia, courthouse).

[161]Happel, op. cit. (footnote 22), pp. 183-194.

[162]JHB, 1742-1749 (Richmond, 1909), p. 127.

[163]Ibid.

[164]Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia[November 1, 1739-May 7, 1754], (Richmond, 1945), p. 282.

[165]JHB, 1752-1755; 1756-1758(Richmond, 1939), p. 55.

[166]“Harrison of James River,”VHM(Richmond, 1924), vol. 32, p. 200.

[167]Seefootnote 165.

[168]Hening, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 6, pp. 280-281.

[169]Marcus Whiffen, “The Early County Courthouses of Virginia,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (Amherst, Mass., 1959), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 2-10.

[170]Ibid.

[171]Riley, op. cit. (footnote 31), pp. 402 ff.

[172]Whiffen, op. cit. (footnote 169), p. 4.

Figure 63.—Tidewater-type pottery: a, milk pan (ill. 11); b, base of bowl (ill. 14); c, pan-rim sherds; d, base of ale mug (ill. 12).

Most of the ceramic artifacts found at Marlborough can be dated within John Mercer’s period of occupancy (1726-1768). A meager scattering of late 18th- and early 19th-century whitewares and stonewares reflects the John Francis Mercer and Cooke ownerships (1768-1819).

COARSE EARTHENWARE

Tidewater type.—Mercer’s purchase in 1725 of £12 3s. 6d. worth of earthenware from William Rogers (p. 16, footnote 54) probably was made for trading purposes, judging from the sizable cost. Rogers operated a stoneware and earthenware pottery in Yorktown, which evidently was continued for a considerable time after his death in 1739.[173]An abundance of waster sherds (unglazed, underfired, overfired, or misshapen fragments cast aside by the potter), supposedly from Rogers’ output, has been found as street ballast and fill in Yorktown and its environs. Microscopic and stylistic comparison with these sherds relates numerous Marlborough sherds to them in varying degrees. For purposes of tentative identification, the ware will be designated “Tidewater type.” Some of the ware may have been produced in Rogers’ shop, while other articles resembling the Yorktown products may have been made of similar clay and fired under conditions comparable to those at Yorktown.

A Marlborough milk pan (USNM 59.1961,ill. 11, and USNM 59.1580) has a salmon-colored body and a lustrous mahogany glaze with fine manganese streaking. Another milk pan (USNM 59.2039,ill. 2,fig. 63a) has a buff body and a glaze of uneven thickness that ranges in color from thin brown with black flecking to a glutinous dark brown approaching black. The most typical glaze color, influenced by the underlying predominant pinkish-buff body, is a light mahogany with black specks or blotches. It occurs at Marlborough on a small sherd (USNM 60.201). A variant glaze occurring on pottery found in Yorktown appears here in a yellowish-buff sherd flecked with black (USNM 60.154). The flecking is only in part applied with manganese; it is also the effect of ocherous and ferruginous particles which protrude through the surface of the body, assuming a dark color. Occasionally the manganese is spread liberally, so that the natural body color shows through only as flecks in a reverse effect (USNM 59.1855); now and then the vessel is uniformly black (USNM 60.141).

Tidewater-type forms found at Marlborough include milk pans 15 inches in diameter and about 4¼ inches deep (in 1729 Mercer bought “2 milk pans” for 5d. and 5 “gallon basons” for 4s. 7d.), a black-glazed jar cover with indicated diameter of 6½ inches (USNM 59.2013), and fragments of other pans and bowls of indeterminate sizes. A portion of an ale mug has a tooled base and black glaze (USNM 59.2043,fig. 63d,ill. 12). Its diameter is 3⅚ inches.

Molded-rim type.—This is a type of redware with a light-red body and transparent, ginger-brown lead glaze. It is characterized by a rolled rim and a tooled platform or channel above the junction of rim and side. A small number of pan and bowl rims was found at Marlborough. The ware is usually associated with early 18th-century materials from such sitesas Jamestown, Kecoughtan, Williamsburg, and Rosewell. It may have originated in England.

North Devon gravel-tempered ware.—The coarse kitchenware made in Bideford and Barnstaple and in the surrounding English villages of North Devon is represented by only two sherds. This ware is characterized by a dull, reddish-pink body, usually dark-gray at the core, and by a gross waterworn gravel temper. It occurs in contexts as early as 1650 at Jamestown and as late as 1740-1760 at Williamsburg. One of the Marlborough sherds is part of a large pan. It is glazed with a characteristic amber lead glaze (USNM 60.202). The other sherd is a portion of an unglazed handle, probably from a potlid (USNM 59.1679,ill. 15).[174]

Slip-lined redware.—Numerous 18th-century sites from Philadelphia to Williamsburg have yielded a series of bowls and porringers characterized by interior linings of slip that is streaked and mottled with manganese. These are glazed on both surfaces, the outer surface and a border above the slip on the inner surface usually ginger-brown in color. Comparative examples are a bowl from the Russell site at Lewes, Delaware, dating from the first half of the 18th century, and several pieces from pre-Revolutionary contexts at Williamsburg. A deposit excavated by H. Geiger Omwake near the south end of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in Delaware included sherds from a context dated late 17th- to mid-18th centuries.[175]Several fragments of bowls occur in the Marlborough material (USNM 59.1613, 59.1856,fig. 64g).

English yellowware.—The few sherds of so-called combed ware occurring at Marlborough, although only the base fragments connect, all seem to have come from a single cup or posset pot having a buff body and characteristically decorated with spiraled bands of dark-brown slip that were created by combing through an outer coating of white slip, revealing an underlayer of red slip. The vessel was glazed with a clear lead glaze (USNM 59.1700,fig. 64c,ill. 16). Comparative dated examples of this ware include a posset pot dated 1735.[176]A chamber pot bearing the same kind of striping was excavated by the National Park Service at Fort Frederica, Georgia (1736-ca. 1750). A piece similar to that from Marlborough was found in the Rosewell deposit, and another in the Lewis Morris house site, Morrisania, New York.[177]Although this type of ware was introduced in England about 1680, its principal use in America seems to have occurred largely between 1725 and 1775. Archeological evidence is corroborated by newspaper advertisements. In 1733 theBoston Gazetteadvertised “yellow ware Hollow and Flat by the Crate” and again in 1737 “yellow and Brown Earthenware.” In 1763 theGazettementioned “Crates of Yellow Liverpool Ware,” Liverpool being the chief place of export for pottery made in Staffordshire, the principal source for the combed wares.[178]

Buckley ware.—I. Noël Hume has identified a class of high-fired, black-glazed earthenware found in many 18th-century sites in Virginia. He has done so by reference toThe Buckley Potteries, by K. J. Barton,[179]and to waster sherds in his possession from the Buckley kiln sites in Flintshire, North Wales. The ware probably was made in other potteries of the region also. This durable pottery, more like stoneware than earthenware, is represented by a large number of jar and pan fragments. Two body types occur, each characterized by a mixture of red and buff clay. In the more usual type the red clay dominates, with laminations and striations of buff clay running through it in the manner of a coarse sort of agateware. The other is usually grayish buff with red streaks, although sometimes the body is almost entirely buff, still showing signs of lamination. The glaze is treacly black, often applied unevenly and sometimes pitted with air bubbles. The body surfaces have conspicuous turning ridges. Rims are usually heavy and flat, sometimes as wide as 1½ inches. A variant of the ware is represented in a milk pan with adominantly red body which has a clear-amber, rather than black, glaze. (USNM 59.1887,ills. 17,18, and19andfig. 65).

Illustration 10.—Milk pan. Salmon-red earthenware. Lustrous black lead glaze. Tidewater type. One-fourth. (USNM 59.1961.)Illustration 11.—Milk pan. Salmon-red earthenware. Dull-brown glaze. Tidewater type. Seefigure 63a. One-fourth. (USNM 59.2039.)Illustration 12.—Ale mug. Salmon-red earthenware. Lustrous black lead glaze. Tidewater type. Seefigure 63d. One-half. (USNM 59.2043.)Illustration 13.—Cover of jar (profile). Salmon-red earthenware. Brownish-black lead glaze. Tidewater type. Same size. (USNM 59.2013.)Illustration 14.—Base of bowl. Salmon-red earthenware. Light reddish-brown glaze speckled with black. Virginia type. One-half. Seefigure 63b. (USNM 59.2025.)Illustration 15.—Handle of pot lid or oven door. North Devon gravel-tempered ware. One-half. (USNM 59.1679.)Illustration 16.—Buff-earthenware cup with combed decoration in brown slip. Lead glaze. (Conjectural reconstruction.) One-fourth. Seefigure 64c. (USNM 59.1700.)Illustration 17.—High-fired earthenware pan rim. Buff paste laminated with red. Red slip on exterior. Black glaze inside. Type made in Buckley, Flintshire, North Wales. One-half.

Figure 64.—Miscellaneous common earthenware types, probably all imported from England: a, “molded-rim” types of redware; b, handle of large redware storage jar, probably English; c, base of brown-striped Staffordshire yellowware cup; d, sherd of black-glazed ware; e and f, two slip-decorated sherds; g, redware crimped-edge baking pan, coated with slip; and h, slip-lined manganese-streaked sherds.

Miscellaneous.—Several unique specimens and groups of sherds are represented:

1. A large, outstanding, horizontal, loop handle survives from a storage jar with a rich red body. Two thumb-impressed reinforcements, splayed at each end, secure the handle to the body wall. The top of the handle has four finger impressions for gripping; the lead glaze appears in a finely speckled ginger color (USNM 59.2049,fig. 64b).

2. A single fragment remains from a slip-decorated bowl or open vessel. The body is hard and dark red, the glaze dark olive-brown. The fragment is glazed and slipped on both sides (USNM 59.1614,fig. 64e). Other small sherds of a similar ware are redder in color and without slip. Another, withlighter red body and olive-amber glaze, is slip decorated (USNM 60.161,fig. 64f).

Illustration 18.—High-fired-earthenware jar rim. Red paste, laminated with buff. Black glaze. Buckley type. One-half. (USNM 59.2067.)Illustration 19.—Rim and base profiles of high-fired-earthenware jars. Buff paste, laminated with red. Black glaze. Buckley type, Flintshire, North Wales. One-half. (USNM 59.2032, 59.1611, and 59.1782.)Illustration 20.—Base sherd from unglazed red-earthenware water cooler, with spigot hole. One-half. (USNM 59.2061.)Illustration 21.—Rim of an earthenware flowerpot, handle with thumb impressions attached. Slip-decorated, olive-amber lead glaze. One-fourth. (USNM 60.203.)

3. A unique sherd has a gray-buff body and shiny black glaze on both surfaces (USNM 59.1815).

4. A group of pale-red unglazed fragments is from the bottom of a water cooler. A sherd which preserves parts of the base and lower body wall has a hole in which a spigot could be inserted (USNM 59.2061,ill. 20).

5. Fragments of a flowerpot have a body similar to the foregoing, but are lined with slip under a lead glaze. A rim fragment has an ear handle with thumb-impressed indentations attached to it (USNM 60.203,ill. 21).

6. Two sherds of a redware pie plate, notched on the edge and lined with overglazed slip decorated with brown manganese dots, imitate Staffordshire yellowware, but are probably of American origin (USNM 59.1612,fig. 64g).

STONEWARE

Rhenish stonewares.—The stoneware potters who worked in the vicinity of Grenzhausen in the Westerwald in a tributary of the Rhine Valley held a far-flung market until the mid-18th century. It was not until the Staffordshire potters brought out their own salt-glazed whitewares that the colorful blue-and-gray German products suffered a decline. Before that, Rhenish stonewares were widely used in England and the colonies; those for the British market frequently were decorated with medallions in which the reigning English monarch’s initial appeared. Elaborate incising and blue-cobalt coloring gave a highly decorative character to the ware, while salt thrown into the kiln during the firing combined with the clay to provide a hard, clean surface matched only by porcelain.

Figure 65.—Buckley-type high-fired warewith laminated body. Four pieces at top have predominantly red body, streaked with buff. All have black glaze, except two at lower right, which have amber glaze.

John Mercer, like so many of his fellow colonials, owned Westerwald stoneware. From Ledger G, weknow that in 1743 he bought “2 blew & WtJugs 2/.” From the artifacts it is clear that he not only had large globose jugs, but also numerous cylindrical mugs and chamber pots. A small group of sherds has a gray-buff paste, more intricately incised than most. Internally the paste surface is a light-pinkish buff. These sherds are probably of the late 17th century, or at least earlier than the predominantly gray wares of the 18th century, which have hastily executed designs.[180]Only two "GR" emblems (GuglielmusorGeorgius Rex), both from mugs, were recovered (fig. 66d).

Illustration 22.—Base of gray-brown, salt-glazed-stoneware ale mug. Rust-brown slip inside. Same size. (USNM 59.1780.)Illustration 23.—Stoneware jug fragment. Dull red with black dots. Same size. (USNM 59.1840.)Illustration 24.—Gray, salt-glazed-stoneware jar profile. Probably first quarter, 19th century. Same size. (USNM 59.1615.)

Miscellaneous gray-and-brown salt-glazed stoneware.—The shop of William Rogers apparently made stoneware of fine quality in the style of the London stoneware produced in the Thames-side potteries.[181]Wasters from Yorktown streets and foundations indicate many varieties of colors and glaze textures, some of which are matched in the Marlborough sherds. Admittedly, it is not possible to distinguish with certainty the fragments of Yorktown stoneware from their English counterparts. Sherds of a pint mug, externally gray in the lower half and mottled-brown in the upper, may be a Yorktown product (USNM 59.1780,ill. 22). The interior is a rusty brown. Fragments of the shoulder of a very large jug, mottled-brown externally andlined in a dull red like that often found on Yorktown wasters, also have body resemblances. (Mercer bought a five-gallon “stone bottle” from Charles Dick in 1745.)

Figure 66.—Westerwald stoneware: a, chamber-pot sherds and handle fragments; b, sherds having yellowish body, probably late 17th or early 18th century; c, sherds of curve-sided flagon; d, sherds of cylindrical mugs including one with "GR" seal.

There are numerous other types of coarse stoneware of unknown origins, including one sherd with a dull-red glaze and black decorative spots (USNM 59.1840,ill. 23).

Nottingham-type stoneware.—Several sherds of stoneware of the type usually ascribed to Nottingham appeared at Marlborough. This ware is characterized by a smooth, lustrous, metallic-brown glaze. The fragments are apparently from different vessels. One is a foot rim of a posset pot or jug. Several body sherds have fluting or paneling formed by molding, with turning lines on the interior showing that the molding was executed after the forms were shaped. One sherd is decorated with shredded clay applied before firing when the clay was wet. It appears to come from the globose portion of a small drinkingjug with a vertical collar. A handle section comes from a pitcher or posset pot. Interior colors range from a brownish mustard to a reddish brown. Nottingham stoneware was made throughout the 18th century,[182]but these sherds correspond to middle-of-the-century forms (fig. 67a).

Figure 67.—Fine English Stoneware: a, Nottingham type; b, “drab” stoneware covered with white slip—brown-bordered mug sherds inupper leftcame from beneath flagstone north of mansion-house porch, about 1725, “scratch-blue” stoneware,below, is about 1750; c, “degenerate scratch-blue” stoneware is about 1790; d, “white salt-glaze” wareat bottomis hand-thrown;upper rightis molded, about 1760; e, plate and platter fragments.

Drab stoneware.—The dominant position attained by the Staffordshire potters in the 18th century is due to unremitting efforts to achieve the whiteness of porcelain in their native products. Improvements in stoneware were mostly in this direction, with the first steps plainly evidencing what they failed to achieve. One of the earlier attempts has a gray body coated with white pipe-clay slip obtained at Bideford in North Devon. This slip created the superficial appearance of porcelain, as did tin enamel on the surface of delftware. Although some Burslem potterswere making “dipped white stoneware” by 1710,[183]it does not seem to have occurred generally until about 1725. Salt glaze was applied in the same manner as on the earlier and coarser stonewares. Mugs in this ware were banded with an iron-oxide slip, presumably to cover up defects around the rims.

Figure 68.—English delftware: a, 17th- and early 18th-century sherds; b, blue-and-white sherd of the first half of the 18th century; c, polychrome fragments, third quarter of the 18th century; d, ointment pots with pink body, 18th century.

Several sherds of this drab stoneware were found at Marlborough, including the base of a jug with curving sides and pieces of tall mugs with brown rims (USNM 59.1893,fig. 67b,ill. 25). The body is characteristically gray, while the slip, although sometimes dull white, is usually a pleasant cream tone. Two sherds were found beneath the flagstones around the north porch of Structure B, where they probably fell before 1746 (USNM 59.1754).

One of the Burslem stoneware potters between 1710 and 1715 made what he called “freckled ware.”[184]Possibly this describes a sherd of a thin-walled mug from Marlborough (USNM 59.1636) which is coated with white slip inside and is finely speckled, or “freckled,” in brown on the outside. Its body is the gray of the drab stoneware, but with a high content ofmicaceous and siliceous sand. Simeon Shaw, the early 19th-century historian of the Staffordshire potteries, asserted that what he called “Crouch” ware was first made of brick clay and fine sand in 1690, and by 1702 of dark-gray clay and sand.[185]Although his dates are questioned by modern authorities, his order of the progressive degrees of refinement in the paste are acceptable as he suggests them. In respect to the Marlborough sherd, although it is coarser than the white-coated fragments described above, it answers very well Shaw’s description of sandy-gray “Crouch” ware.

Illustration 25.—Drab-stoneware mug fragment, rim coated with iron oxide. Staffordshire, 1720-30. Same size. (USNM 59.1893.)Illustration 26.—Wheel-turned cover of white, salt-glazed teapot. Staffordshire. Same size. (USNM 59.1622.)Illustration 27.—Body sherds of molded, white salt-glazed-ware pitcher or milk jug. Staffordshire. Same size. (USNM 59.1894.)

White salt-glazed ware.—About 1720 calcined flints were added to the body of the Staffordshire stoneware, thus making possible a homogeneous white body that did not require a coating of slip between the body and the glazed surface.[186]With this ware the Staffordshire potters came closer to their goal of emulating porcelain.

At Marlborough the earliest examples of this improved ware are found in two sherds with incised decorations that were scratched into the wet clay (USNM 59.1819,Fig. 67b); the incised lines next were filled with powdered cobalt before firing. This technique is known as “scratch blue,” dated examples of which, existing elsewhere, range from 1724 to 1767. The body in the Marlborough specimens is still rather drab, the whiteness of the later ware not yet having been achieved. No slip was used, however, so that the surface color is a pleasant pale gray. One sherd is from a cup with a slightly flaring rim. The exterior decoration is in the form of floral sprigs, while the inside has a row of double-scalloped lines below the rim. The other fragment is from a saucer. Possibly the cup is part of Mercer’s purchase in 1742 of a dozen “Stone Coffee cups,” for which he paid 18d. In Boston “White stone Tea-Cups and Saucers” were advertised in 1745, and “blue and white ... Stone Ware” in 1751.[187]

A later variant on the “scratch blue” is a class of salt-glazed ware that resembles Westerwald stoneware. Here loops, sworls, and horizontal grooves are scratched into the paste. The cobalt is smeared more or less at random, some of it lying on the surface, some running into the incised channels. This style of decoration was applied mostly to chamber pots but also to small bowls and cups. Fragments of all these forms occurred at Marlborough (fig. 67c).

After 1740 the body was greatly improved, resultingin an attractive whiteware. Many wheel-turned forms were produced, and these were liberally represented at Marlborough in fragments of pitchers, mugs, teapots, teacups, bowls, posset pots, and casters (fig. 67d).

Figure 69.—Delft plate.Lambeth, about 1720. (Seeill. 29.)

Figure 70.—Delft plate.Probably Lambeth, about 1730 to 1740. (Seeill. 30.)

In the middle of the 18th century a process was developed for making multiple plaster-of-paris molds from brass or alabaster matrices[188]and then casting plates and other vessels in them by pouring in the stoneware clay, diluted in the form of slip. The slip was allowed to dry, and the formed utensil was removed for firing. This molded salt-glazed ware occurs in quantity in the Marlborough finds, suggesting that there were large sets of it. One design predominates in plates, platters, and soup dishes: wavy edges, borders consisting of panels of diagonal lattices—with stars or dots within the lattices framed in rococo scrolls, and areas of basket-weave designs between the panels. On a large platter rim the lattice-work is plain, somewhat reminiscent of so-called Chinese Chippendale design. The pattern is presumably the design referred to in theBoston News Letterfor May 29, 1764: “To be sold very cheap. Two or three Crates of white Stone Ware, consisting chiefly of the new fashioned basket Plates and Oblong Dishes.”[189]One fragment comes from a cake plate with this border design and a heavily decorated center (fig. 67e).

Other molded patterns include gadrooning combined with scalloping on a plate-rim sherd. A rim section with molded rococo-scrolled edge is from a “basket weave” sauceboat. Considerably earlier are pieces of a pitcher or milk jug with a shell design (USNM 59.1894,ill. 27). One rare sherd appears to come from a rectangular teapot or tray. All the white salt-glazed ware from Marlborough represents the serviceable but decorative tableware of everyday use. It must have been purchased during the last 10 years of Mercer’s life.

Tin-enameled earthenware.—The art of glazing earthenware with opaque tin oxide and decorating it with colorful designs was an Islamic innovation which spread throughout the Mediterranean and northward to Holland and England. Practiced in England before the close of the 16th century, it became in the 17th and the first half of the 18th centuries a significant source of English tableware, both at home and in America. Because of its closesimilarity to the Dutch majolica of Delft, the English version was popularly called “delftware,” even though made in London, Bristol, or Liverpool.

Back to Index Next