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 decorated with brushed blue cobalt floral motifs.
Three vessels have been identified with animal motits in blue cobalt,
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
6. One-gallon iron
and lead-glazed
earthenware pitcher
with incised floral
motif or Tree
of Lite, attributed to
Phillip Spigle,
Henkel-Spigle
Pottery, Botetourt
County. Private
collcitioji.
8. Three-gallon lead-
glazed earthenware stor-
age jar with broad Hat
rim and applied handles
Obenshane pottery. Mi
<■ reek. Botetourt Coun
t\-. Prn\itc collcctio)}.
^. Robust wide-mouthed earthenware storage jar with iron
and lead glaze and characteristic applied handles, attributed to
Philip Spigle, Botetourt County. MESDA ace. ps4-:-
Sa Octail lit hgurc S showing the incised date "1868" and
signature, "Matthew Obenshane" on the vessel's base.
9. One-gaJIon ovoid salt-glazed
stoneware storage jar with brushed
cobalt eagle, attributed to James
River basin, c. 1830—60. Prii'ate
collection.
10. Three-gallon salt-glazed
stoneware jug with extruded
vertical handle and bold
brushed cobalt owl, attributed
to James River basin,
c. 18^0-60. Private collection.
I#%
II. Two-gallon salt-glazed
stoneware pitcher with
brushed cobalt decoration,
including a wreath encir-
cling the date "183s, "
attributed to the James
River basin. Privdtc collec-
tion.
including an eagle (fig. 9), an owl (fig. 10), and a rabbit; three have
been seen with crudely incised decoration absent blue cobalt show-
ing a fish or serpent, an upside-down clipper ship, and a heart.
Rockbridge Count)' Potters
Ten potters have been identified as working at three potteries in
Rockbridge Counry between 1785 and 1880 (table 3).'" The earliest of
these is Benjamin Darst's pottery operation in Lexington, which be-
gan in 1785. Darst's pottery prospered, and in 1788, John Grigsby
and David Cloyd, overseers oF the poor fi)r Rockbridge County,
bound out an apprentice, one Francis Garner, to Darst to learn the
"Art and Trade" of a potter. The indenture, dated 18 June 1788
(Rockbridge County Will Book #1, p. 319), obligated Darst not only
to teach his sixteen-year-old apprentice pottery skills, but also to
116
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
12. Two elongated semi-ovoid salt-glazed stoneware jars with characteristic rolled rim,
turned ear-like handles, brushed cobalt floral motifs, and "roc K B R i dg E " stamp
attributed to the Rockbridge Baths potter)', c. 1840-82. Private coUectton.
"teach him or cause him to be taught to Read & Write and also the
five Common Rules of Arithmetic" and to "find him in sufficient
Meat, drink, Lodging, Washing & apparel." This remarkable docu-
ment further orders that, when "the time is Expired" (1793), Garner
must be given "a Turning Lathe & five pounds Cash & two Suits of-
Clothing, one ot which shall be new." Darst closed his pottery in
1791 in favor of pursuing brickmaking and house building.'"
The other two Rockbridge potteries have been excavated. The
Rockbridge Baths Pottery site (44RB84) was identified and inten-
sively investigated in 1985.'" The pottery operated trom ca. 1840 until
ca. 1882 and consisted of a circular updraft kiln, a potter's shed, and
a clay processing/ storage area."' Both salt-glazed stoneware and lead-
glazed earthenware were produced in a variety of forms, including
churns, storage jars (fig. 12), jugs (fig. 13), milk pans, and bowls, with
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
13. Ovoid three-gallon salt-
glazed stoneware jug with ex-
truded handle, ringed or in-
cised neck, and cobalt incised
Horal decoration attributed to
|ohn Morgan, the Firebaugh
Potter)', c. 1830-50. Private
collection. The characteristic
tigure-eight stroke used to in-
cise the rounded petals of the
floral design is virtually iden-
tical to that used to decorate
the cooler in hgure 14.
the vessel shape typically being ovoid. Decorative treatments incluci-
ed both incised and brushed or sHpped blue cobalt floral, geometric,
and animal motifs.^" The "Rockbridge" mark was observed on sever-
al wasters. Anthropomorphic, reed-stem pipes were also made at the
pottery.
Archaeological investigations were also conducted at the Fire-
baugh pottery, located near Bustleburg, in spring 1988. This pottery
was established by John S. Morgan in association with John Fire-
baugh during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. An oval
updraft kiln with two fireboxes and thirteen arches separating the
firing and pot chambers was identified. Recovered artifacts include
kiln fiirniture, lead-glazed earthenware, and salt-glazed stoneware
sherds like those from the Rockbridge Baths Pottery. The "rock-
bridge" maker's mark is observed on several sherds, indicating
118
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
14- Salt-glazed stoneware wa-
ter cooler with vertical bilat-
eral strap handles and cobalt
incised floral decoration at-
tributed to John Morgan,
the Busdeburg-Firebaugh
pottery. Rockbridge Histori-
cal SociePi'.
that this site was associated historically with the Rockbridge Baths
Pottery, which is located approximately four miles to the west.
Morgan's association with the Commeraw pottery in New York
prior to coming to Rockbridge provides an explanation for the
unique vessel forms and decorative treatments observed in the Fire-
baugh assemblage which otherwise are virtually indistinguishable
trom those produced at the Rockbridge Baths Pottery." The pres-
ence of the "rockbridge" mark on sherds from both sites pro-
vides additional evidence tor their historical association and Mor-
gan's involvement with both potteries (figs. 14, 15, 16). The wares
manufactured in Rockbridge clearly show the pervasive influence of
the Germanic salt-glazed stoneware tradition in which Morgan was
trained.'"
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
119
15. One-gallon salt-glazed stoneware jug with
ringed neck, extruded handle, cobalt Boral
decoration, and "r o c K B R i D G E " stamp at-
tributed to John Morgan, c. 1830-50. Privatt'
lollt'cunn.
16. One-gallon salt-glazed stoneware pitcher
with incised and cobalt decorated eagle and
inscription, "Rockbridge Va April the 24th
1838." The naive but elaborately detailed
incised eagle with wings spread exhibits a
shield across its breast, fig leaves and arrows
in its talons, and a snake in its beak. Attrib-
uted to John Morgan, the Firebaugh
Potter)-. Rockbridge C'ounrv, i<S3S. Private
collectio)!. Compare this with a similar exam-
ple illustrated in Comstock (1994; Fig. 6.^,
p. 319).
Augusta County Potters
In Augusta County, at least seven potteries, including one mid-
nineteenth-century earthenware kiln site and 19 nineteenth-century
potters, have been identified, indicating that this was an important
pottery region (table 4).''
Unlike the other counties studied, the pottery sites ot Augusta
County are not clustered around one or more locales, but are dis-
persed across the county. This area saw the production of both
stoneware and earthenware during the period from 1840 through
1870. Limited salvage excavations were conducted at the Grim earth-
enware pottery,'' resulting in the attribution of several extant vessels
to this site (fig. 17). The manufacture of pottery in Augusta County
is unusual in respect to the paucity of extant signed or marked wares
and, hence, is poorly understood.
17. Two small-mouthed elongated lead-glazed earthenware storage jars with earlike
handles and a Hat broad rim, attributed to the Grimm potter)-, Augusta Count)',
1840-60. Private collection.
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
i8. Five ,salt-gl.ized stoneware vessels attributed to John Heatwole, Rockingham
County, Virginia, c. 1851-80. From leh to right: two-gallon wide-mouthed jar with
brushed cobalt bluebells and date "1857"; one-gallon salt-glazed pitcher with
manganese floral decoration and date "1865"; small- mouthed preserve jar with cobalt
floral spray and date "1853"; tall wide-mouthed churn with cobalt bird and date
"1869 "; three-gallon salt-glazed wide-mouthed crock with date "1866" and cobalt
decoration. Private collectwn.
Rockingham Coinir)' Potters
The largest pottery center within the area being examined was in
Rockingham County; 53 potters worked in the industry at over
twelve potteries, forming two clusters, one in the eastern part of the
county and the other along the county's western side (table 5).'' The
vast majorirv' ot the potters in both areas were either descendants of
Andrew CofFman or had worked in one of the three Coti^man pot-
teries. The eastern group of potters included the Coffmans (Andrew
JOURN.AL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 199s
and his sons, William C, William S., Edward, Robert, and John)
and several neighbors in the Elkton area as well as a number of pri-
marily journeyman potters including Ireland, Duey and Shinnick
who were working in the Mt. Crawford area. Western Rockingham
potters were clustered along the Dry River and were largely products
o{ the Coffman shops."' Of these western Rockingham potters, Em-
manuel Suter developed an extensive operation and continued to
produce wares into the twentieth century.'" John Heatwole was also
very productive (fig. i8). Excavations were undertaken at the Morris
kiln, a circular downdraft kiln that produced predominately
stoneware, which was in operation during the third quarter of the
nineteenth century."*
Together this archaeology oi pottery manufacturing documents
that the industry was fairly homogeneous across the state, being gen-
erally conservative and slow to change with respect to manufactur-
ing technologies, specifically kiln type and the range of forms pro-
duced. The distribution of potteries is also quite regular and
explainable in terms of proximity to population centers, raw materi-
al resources and those factors outlined earlier. Despite these regulari-
ties, the influence of the tradition in which the potter was trained is
recognizable, as are distinctive changes accompanying the transition
from earthenware to stoneware production and those associated
with industrialization."'
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Pottery Attributes
In order to realize the full research potential of western Virginia
pottery both in terms of how it provides for understanding the in-
dustry and for its interpretive value from an archaeological perspec-
tive, it is critical that vessel attributes (including maker's marks,
capacity stamps, and unique aspects of vessel form, paste, glaze,
manufacturing techniques, and decoration) be properly identified
and recorded. In this way we will be able to identify and attribute
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
unsigned extant wares, assess the chronological significance of wares
from archaeological contexts, and understand the regional signifi-
cance and distribution individual ware types.""
Pottery Assenibliiges at Domestic Sites
In addition to providing basic chronological information, other
relevant areas of interpretation include changing patterns ot pottery
consumption. One hypothesis to be tested states that there is a de-
creasing dependence on stonewares and earthenwares after 1870 as
the result of the market availability of a wide range of alternative
containers. The properly recorded attribute data for these wares
from archaeological contexts will also allow us to understand when,
how quickly and to what degree stonewares replaced earthenwares,
the variation in the percentages of European and American coarse-
wares through time and across space, the extent to which locally
manufactured wares were purchased for markets outside the region,
and so forth."
Text and TL>e Arclhieolog)/ of Virginia Pottery
One primary area of current research concerns the exploration of
text to better understand the industry. Current research that involves
assessing potter's ledgers which detail pottery prices through time
suggests that the types and percentages of pottery wares at archaeo-
logical sites have significant potential for contributing to assessments
of socio-economic status. Preliminary work with the Zigler ledgers,
which detail sales of wares from their pottery in Timberville, Rock-
ingham County, documents variation in costs of earthenware and
stoneware and of different vessel types within both ware categories
and shows how these cost relationships change through time. This
basic data regarding what wares were available and how much they
cost is essential for valid economic and social interpretation of ce-
ramics.'- The lack of exploration of this rv'pe of information illus-
trates both the need for more research of the American ceramic
market and the tenuousness with which we currently understand it.
124 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
Equally important information provided by the ledgers is the pot-
ter's definition ot ware types and their intended functions. The
ledgers further reveal the names of potters employed by the pottery;
provide information about the wages earned and time involved in
producing pots, hauling clay, and cutting timber; and show to whom
wares were sold and how they were distributed."'
Exploring text to understand how traditional potters negotiated
the impact of industrialization on the industry is the subject of on-
going research b\' Paul Mullins."^ His work concerns interpretation
of the diaries, ledgers and other documentary materials from the
Suter pottery in Rockingham County. Here one Emanuel Surer op-
erated a traditional farm pottery during the 1850s using handcraft
technologies and exchanging wares in local barter networks. After
the Civil War, he successfully incorporated certain industrial aspects
of both mechanized mass production and organizational strategy, so
as to continue his enterprise in an expanding capitalist economy for
the rest of the nineteenth century. This was an "accomplishment"
few traditional potters were able to achieve.
SUMMARY
With the exception of the transplanted English earthenware tradi-
tion in the Tidewater during the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-
turies, the Virginia pottery industry is dominated by wares strongly
influenced by the Germanic pottery tradition. This largely stone-
ware tradition is most pronounced in the ridge-and-valley region of
the state, where suitable local resources and population centers sup-
ported well over 230 nineteenth-century potters.
The history of the traditional pottery manufacturing industry in
western Virginia, including the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt,
Rockbridge, Augusta, and Rockingham, begins with the establish-
ment of the Darst pottery in Rockbridge County in 1785. The few
potters working in Rockingham County at the beginning of the
nineteenth century set the stage for this areas domination of pottery
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
production in western Virginia throughout the century. Although
there is no historical or archaeological evidence ot the pottery indus-
try within the other four counties region until the second quarter of
the nineteenth century, it is likely that individuals were engaged in
the manufacture of pottery on a part-time basis, in small shops, with
their primary occupation being that of farming.
By the 1830s the Morgan-Firebaugh pottery was producing both
earthenware and stoneware in Rockbridge County and the Hinkle
pottery was producing earthenware in Botetourt County. The last
half of the nineteenth century was characterized by a proliferation of
the stoneware industry in Rockingham County involving the Coff-
mans, their descendants, and those trained by them, and in Al-
leghany County involving Fulton, Waddell and the Browns. It was
further characterized by an increase in the production of earthen-
ware in Botetourt evidenced by the involvement of Hinkle, Spigle,
the Obenchains and Noftzingers, as well as in Augusta by the Grim-
m's and similar family-oriented operations. Also significant is the
continuation of the predominately stoneware pottery tradition by
Morgan and others in Rockbridge. While the Rockbridge Bath area
became a center for pottery manufacture in Rockbridge, with a
number of potters living and working in the area, for most of the
nineteenth century, the Fincastle-Amsterdam District and Potts
Creek area became focal points for the industry in Botetourt and Al-
leghany Counties, respectively. In Rockingham County, the Elkton
and Dry River areas are recognizable as pottery centers, but in Au-
gusta Coimry the patterning of pottery locales is inconsistent with
that of the other counties, being characterized by a dispersed distrib-
ution of sites across the county.
The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw many potteries in
the rural areas of western Virginia cease operation. With the closing
of Fulton's Alleghany pottery (44AY184) around 187s, the Oben-
shane pottery in Botetourt County, around 1880, and the Rock-
bridge Baths Pottery (44RB84) circa 1882, the traditional pottery
manufacturing industry ceased to exist in western Virginia. The in-
126 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
dustrialized and much transformed industry in Rockingham, how-
ever, continued into the first decade of the twentieth century (until
1905 at Coffmans Elkton West pottery)." As a result ot increasing
industrialization that on the one hand, was difficult tor these tradi-
tional potters to negotiate, and on the other provided alternative,
and perhaps preferred, storage containers, the manufacture of tradi-
tional domestic ceramic wares was, by this time, no longer economi-
cally feasible.""
KURT R u s s IS an archaeologist and ceramic expert from Lexington,
Virginia.
I. Jeffrey P. Blomster and Kurt C. Russ, "Early Pottery Production in Eastern Virginia: An
Examination of Its Extent and Development" (paper presented at the annual meeting ot the
Society for Historical Archaeolog>', Richmond, Va., January 1991), 11-13. As many as eight sev-
enteenth- and eighteenth-century endeavors have been identified in the Tidewater area of Vir-
ginia; see Beverly Straube, "The Colonial Potters of Tidewater Virginia," in \}n\i Journal.
1. Norman Barka and Christine Sheridan, "The Yorktown Pottery Industry, Yorktown,
Virginia." Also Norman Barka, Edward Ayers, and Christine Sheridan, The "'Poor Potter' of
Yorktown." m\. 3, Cenimies. Yorktown Research Series no. s (Williamsburg, Va.: College of
William & Mary, 1984).
3. Beth A. Bower, "The Pottery-Making Trade in Colonial Philadelphia: The Growth ot
an Early Urban Industrv'," in Domestic Pottery of the Northeaitern United States. /ft-'V-zi'vo. ed.
S.P. Turnbaugh (New York: Academic Press, 1985), 276; Barka and Sheridan, "The Yorktown
Pottery Industry, 21.
4. Kurt C. Russ (1990a), "The Traditional Potterv- Manufacturing Industry in Virginia: Ex-
amples from Botetourt and Rockbridge Counties," Rockbridge Historical Society Proceedings X.
(Lexington, Va.: Rockbridge Historical Sociery, 1990), 4SS-s6.
5. H. E. Comstock, introduction to William E. Wiltshire, The Folk Potter of the Shenan-
doah Valley. (New York: E.P. Dutton, 197s). 19. This Winchester potten- operation continued
from 1824 until 1S4S. It was not until 1832 that Peter Bell manufactured stoneware.
6. Samuel Bell was the first to move to Strasburg in 1833 when he purchased the old Beyer
Pottery. He continued to be actively engaged in the business until 1853- It was not until 1837
that Solomon Bell came to participate in his brother's pottery. He soon dominated the potrery
production end of the business, with which he continued to be involved until his death in
1882. Solomon's sons, Richard Franklin (Polk) Bell and Charles Forrest Bell, continued the
Bell family pottery until 1908.
7. J. Roderick Moore, "Earthenware Potters along the Great Road in Virginia and Ten-
nessee." Antiques 124, no. 3 (1983), 528-37.
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
S. Kurt C. Riiss (19S9), "The Fincastic I'ottcp,' (44BO304): Salvage Excavations at a Nine-
teenth-Ceniury Earthenware Kiln in Botetourt County, Virginia," Washington and Lee Uni-
versity Laboratory of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropologf 28 (May 1989): Russ
(1990a); Russ (1990b), "The Nineteenth-Century Traditional Pottery Manufacturing Industry
in Botetourt County, Virginia" (paper presented to the Roanoke Historical Society, Roanoke,
Va., March 1990); and Russ (1991a), "The Zigler-Coffman Potteiy Located in Timberville,
Rockingham County, Virginia" (manuscript on tile at Washington and Lee L'niversirv- Labora-
tory of Anthropology, Lexington, \'a.), 1991.
9. Dennis Pogue, "An Analysis of Wares Salvaged from the Swan-Smith-Milburn Pottery
Site (44AX29), Alexandria, Virginia," Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia
34 (1980), 149-60; and Barbara H. Magid, "An Archaeological Perspective on Alexandria's Pot-
ter)' Tradition," in this Journal.
10. Bradford L. Rauschenberg, "B. Duval and C"o./ Richmond": A Newly Discovered Pot-
tery," Pottery Collectors Newsletters, no. 4 (i9~8), 26-38.
11. The Henry Lowndes pottery manufacturing concern was prominent in Petersburg, Vir-
ginia circa 1840. The rypically semi-ovoid one to five gallon salt-glazed stoneware vessels often
are embellished with elaborate blue cobalt floral motifs opposite the signature, "Henry Lown-
des, Manufacturer, Petersburg, Virginia." See Charles E. Umstott. "The Lowndes Stoneware
Pottery of Petersburg, Virginia," in Ms Journal.
12. RU.SS (1990a): Russ and John M. McDaniel (1991a), "Understanding X'irginia's Tradi-
tional Potter)' Manufacturing Industn.': An Interim Report on the Statewide Survey" (paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society tor Historical Archaeology, Richmond. Va.,
lanuar\' 1491)- The statewide survey of potters shows a concentration and lineal distribution ot
potters in the ridge-and-valley region. Of 294 potters identified as working in the state, 81 per-
cent were located in this region.
13. A. H. Rice and John Baer Stoudt, The Shenandoah Potteiy (Strashurg, Va.: Shenandoah
Publishing Company, 1929). Over 35 potters have been identified as working in Strasburg trom
circa 1820 through 1908.
14. Paul R. Mullins, "Historic Potter)' Making in Rockingham Count)', Virginia" (paper
presented at the Archaeological Society of Virginia Symposium, "Ceramics in Virginia," Vir-
ginia Piedmont C'ommunity College, Chadottesville, Va., 1988); Kurt C. Russ and John M.
McDaniel, (t99ib).
IS- Paul R. Mullins, "The Boundaries of Change: Negotiating Industrialization in the Do-
mestic Potter)' Trade" (paper presented at the annual meeting ot the Society tor Historical Ar-
chaeology, Richmond, Va., 1991); Stanley A, Kautman, Heativole and Suter I'otteij (Harrison-
burg, Va.: Cood Printers, 1978).
16. Kurt C. Russ and Tom Langheim, "The Alleghany County Pottery Manufacturing In-
dusiiT" (Paper presented .it the Virginia Social Science Association Meeting, Sweet Briar Col-
lege. Sweet Briar. Va.. April 19SS); Russ (1990a); and Kurt C. Russ and John M. McDaniel
(1991a).
I-. Russ and McDaniel (1991b), "LInderstanding the Historic Potter)' Manufacturing in-
dustn,' in Rockbridge County, Virginia: Archaeological Excavations at the Firebaugh Pottery
(44RB290)," Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 7 (1991), 155-68.
18. Klell Bayne Napps, "Traditional Pottery in Washington Counr\', Virginia, and Sullivan
County, Tennessee," The Historical Society)' of Washington County'. \'irg:nia. 2d ser.. no. 10
(I9"2), 3-16; Russ (1990a).
19. Kurt C. Russ (1993), "Virginia Coarseware Archaeology" (paper presented at the Coun-
cil ot Virginia Archaeologists Symposium, " Fhe Transtormation ot Virginia trom 1800-1900:
128 JOURNAL OF E.^RLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
An Archaeological Synthesis." Alexandria, Va., 1993); Kurt c;. Riiss (1994). "The Archacolog)-
ot Nineteenth-Centiir)' Virginia Coarsewares" (paper presented at the annual meeting ot the
Socierj' tor Historical Archaeolog\', \'ancouver, B.C.. 1994); Kurt C. Russ (1995), "Rockbridge
Potters and Their Role in \'irginia s Porten.' Industn'." in Barbara Crawford and Royster Lvle.
Rockbridge Counn Ariists iind Artisans, (C^harlottesville, Va.: Universit)' Press of Virginia. 199s),
167-81.
10. Elizabeth A. Crowell and Mark Walker. "Stoneware from the Butt/ Burnett Pottery in
Washmgton. D.C." (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Socier)' for Historical Ar-
chaeology, Richmond. Va.. 1991). Paul R. Mullins, "Defining Boundaries of Change: The
Records ot an Industrializing Potter." in Text Aided Archaeology ed. Barbara j. Litile (Boca Ra-
ton. Fl: CRC Press, 1992) 179-93; Russ (1993), (1994).
21. Kurt C. Russ (1984). "Historic Potter)' Making in Virginia," in Upland Archaeology in
the EiUT, II, U.S. Department ot Agriculture, Forest Ser\ice Southern Region Cultural Re-
sources Report no. s (Washington. D.C: GPO, 1984).
22. Kurt C. Russ and John M. McDaniel (1986a), "Archaeological Excavations at the Rock-
bridge Potter)' I44RB84): A Preliminary- Report." Quarterly Bidletin of the Archaeological Soci-
etal' of Virginia 41 (1986). 72-88; Kurt C. Russ (1989).
23. Russ (1984), (1990a), (1994); Russ and McDaniel (1991a).
24. Russ (1984), (1990a).
25. Russ (1990a).
26. Russ (1984).
27. Samuel Smith and Steven T. Rogers. "A Sur\ey of Historic Potter,- Making in Ten-
nessee," Research Series, no. 3. Fennessec Division ot Consenation. Division ot Archaeology,
Nashville, 1979.
28. Russ (1984). (1990a); Kurt C. Russ and John M. McDaniel (198-). "A Sunev of the
Traditional Pottery Manufacturing Industn.- in Botetourt and Rockbridge Counties" (paper
presented at the Third Symposium: Uplands Archaeology in the East. James Madison Univer-
sity, Harrisonburg, \'a., Februan- 198").
29. Jim Hanger. "Pots. Potteries, and Potting in Augusta Count)-. iSoo-iS-o." Augusta
Historical Bulletin 9 (1973), 4-1'i; Paul R. Mullins, "Historic Pottery Making"; Kurt C. Russ
(1986), "Pots. Potters, and Potteries in Botetourt Count)-, Virginia, 1830-1894" (Paper presenr-
ed to the Roanoke Chapter of Archaeological Societ)- of Virginia, 1986); Kurt C. Russ (1987),
"Historic Potter)- Making in Central Southwestern X'irginia" (paper presented at the meeting
of the New River Valley Chapter of the Archaeological Society- ot Virginia. Blacksburg. Va.. 14
May 198-); Kurt C. Russ (1988), "Archaeological Investigation ot an Historic Earthenware Pot-
tery Kiln in Botetoun County, Virginia" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Vir-
ginia Social Science Association, Sweet Briar College, S-«'eet Briar, Va., April 1988); Russ
(1989), (1990a), (1990b), (1993), (1994); Kurt C. Russ and Tom Langheim, "The AJleghanv
County- Pottery- Manufacturing Industt)-": Kurt C. Russ and John M. McDaniel (1986), "The
Historic Potter)- Manufacturing Industr)- in Rockbridge County-, Virginia, 1785-1882," manu-
script on file, Laborator)- of Anthropolog)-, Washington and Lee Universir)-, Lexington, \'a.;
Russ and McDaniel (1987); Kun C. Russ and John M. McDaniel (198S). "Understanding Vir-
ginia's Traditional Pottery Manufacturing Industn-: An Interim Report on the Statewide Sur-
vey" (paper presented at the Archaeological Societ)- of Virginia Symposium, "Ceramics in \'ir-
ginia," Virginia Piedmont Community- College, Charlottesville. \'a.. .April 19S8): Russ and
McDaniel (1991b).
30. Russ (1984). (19S-). (1990a); Kurt C. Russ and Tom Langheim. "The Alleghanv Coun-
t)- Potter)- Manufacturing Industr)-"; Russ and McDaniel (198"). (1991b).
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
129
31. Marion N. Rawson, Candlerliy Art (Hev/ York: E.P. Durton, 1938), 105-106.
32. Russ (1984), (1986), (1987), (1988), (1989). (1990a). (1990b); Kurt C. Russ (1991a), "The
Fincastle Pottery (44BO304): Salvage Excavations at a Nineteenth-Century Earthenware Kjln
Located in Botetourt County, Virginia Technical Report, ser. no. 3, Department of Histotic
Resources, Richmond, V'a., 1991; Kurt C. Russ (1991c), "Nineteenth-Century Domestic Ce-
ramic Production m the Fmcaitie/ Amsterdam Region of Botetourt County, Vitginia" (paper
presented at the annual meeting of Historic Fincastle, Fincastle, Va.. April 1991); Russ (1994);
Russ and McDaniel (1987), (1991b).
33. Russ (1986), (1987), (1988).
34. Russ (1989), (1990b).
.!5- (1989)-
36. Russ (1990a), (1994), (199s); Russ and McDaniel (1986a), (1987), (1988), (1991b); Also,
Kurt C. Russ, John M. McDaniel, and William G. Londrey. "Archaeological Excavations at a
Traditional Mid-Nineteenth-Century Pottery in Virginia," UpLind Archaeotogf in the East: A
T/nrd Symposium. Cultural Resource Report Series, no. 8--1, (Atlanta, Ga: U.S. Forest Service
Southern Region, 1988), si-69.
3-. Russ (1990a, 199s); Russ and McDaniel (1988I, (i99lbl, (1991a).
38. John M. McDaniel and Kurt C. Russ, "Rockbridge Origins: An Anthropological Per-
spective" (Paper presented at the symposium, "A Search for Early Rockbridge County Arti-
sans," Southetn Seminar.' Juniot College, Buena Vista, Va., 1985); Russ and McDaniel (1986a),
(1986b), (1990).
39. Russ and McDaniel (1986a).
40. Ibid.
41. Russ (1995).
42. William C. Ketchum, Earty Potters and Potteries of Neif York State (New York: Funk
and Wagnall, 1970), Ketchum personal communication, 198^; Kurt C. Russ (1994), (uw'i);
Kurt C. Russ and John M. McDaniel (1990), (1991a).
43. Jim Hanget, "Pots, Potteries, and Potting m Augusta County, 1800-18-0"; Russ (1984),
(198:'); Russ and McDaniel (1988), (1991a).
44. Hanger. "Pots, Potteries, and Potting."
45. Kaufman, Heatwo/e and Suter Pottery: Paul R. Mullins, "Histotic Potten- Making."
Also Russ (19S4), (198-), (1991), (1993), (1994): Russ, 11991b); Russ and McDaniel (1988),
(1991b).
46. Mullins, "Histotic Pottery Making."
4-. Ihid.: Mullins. "The Boundaries of Change"; and Mullins, "Defining the Boundaties ot
Change."
48. Mullins, "Histotic Potterv' Making."
49. Russ (199.!)- (1994)- (199s).
50. Russ (1993), (1994)-
51. Ibid
52. Robett R. Hunter, Jr., "Ceramic Acquisition Patterns at Meadow Farm, 1810-1861."
Master's thesis. College of William and Map.-, 198^), 14.
53. Russ (1991a), (1993), (1994)-
54. Mullins, "Historic Pottery Making"; Mullins, "The Boundaries of Change"; and
Mullins."Defining the Boundaries of Change."
55. Russ (1990a); Russ and McDaniel (1991b).
56. Mullins. "The Boundaries of Change."
130 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
TABLE I. Ponen working in Alleghany County, Virginia, during the
nineteenth century
Specific location
within the county
Approxmhiic daWi
of operation
First District
Boiling Springs District
George N. Fulton
(b. 1835-d. 1894)
Thomas R. Waddell
(b. ca, 1810)
John Brown
(b. 1801 inMD)
Gustavus A. Brown
(b. 1834 in VA)
John W. Brown
(h. 1834 in VA)
ca. 1867-1880
ca. 1850-1870
ca. 1850
ca. 1850
ca. 1850
TABLE 2. Potters working in Botetourt Count)'. Virginia, dur
tiineteenth century
ing
the
Specific location
within the county
Potter
Approximate dates
ofoperation
Fincastle/Amsterdam District.
Western District #8
1 Edward Dunbar
(b. c. 1835)
ca. 1850
George N. Fulton
(b. I835-d. 1894)
ca. 1875-1894
Robert Fulwiler
(b. 22 lulv 1825-
d. 17|unel908)
ca. 1850
Joshua Hill
(h. c. 1790)
Joseph (Jesse) Henkel
(Hinkle) (b. c. n96 in MD)
Joel Noftzinger
(b. 11 Feb. r812-
d. 3 0ct. 1857)
Mathias Noftzinger
William Obenchain
(Obenshane) (b. 1804)
Peter Obenchain
(b. 1828)
Peter M. Obenchain
(b. 1817)
Philip Spigle
(b. 9Nov. 1828-
d. 16 Feb. 1880)
ca. 1850
ca. 1830-1850
ca. 1850
ca. 1850
ca. 1860-1880
ca. 1860-1880
a. 18S0-1880
ca. 1850-1880
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
TABLE 3. Hiitoric Potters working in Rockbridge County. X'irginia
Specific location
withi)! the count)' Potter
RiKkbridgc Baths Isaac D. Lam (b. 1-4 Jan. 1832-
d. 22 July 1882) mark: "Rockbridge"
John D. Campbell (b. 1802)
lames H. (b. 1834) &
Charles Campbell (b. 1832)
W.P. Harris (worked with Lam)
Henr\' Morgan
Lexington Bejamm L:)arst, Sr. (b. I'l Jan. rhO-
d. 6 Oct. 183=>)
Francis Garner (apprentice to Parsi)
Bustleburg John Firebaiigh (h. 1-4 March r8')
m Pa.-d. 13 Jiilv LSiD
Robert T. FullweideriFulwiler)
(b. 22July 182S^. 1" June l')08)
Flenr)' Morgan
JohnS. (or D.) Morgan
(b. 1768 m NY)
Dates
of operation
c. 18(i4-
■1880
c. 1840-
■1860
c. ISSO-
■1860
c. 1875
c. 1840
c. n85^
-1791
c. r8S-
-1-91
c. 1830-
186"
1860-1880
c. 1830
c. 1830-
-18^0
132 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
TABLE 4. Historic potters working in Augustii County. Virgii
Specific location
withi}! the county'
Pntto
Approxmtiite dates
of operation
Specific location unkno
North Subdivision
Dooms
Burkes Mill/North Subdivision
Crimora Area
Mt. Solon
New Hope
Staunton
C'hristian Gnmni
Jacob Grimm
Phillip Grimm
David Grimm (h. 1S12)
Samuel Lutz (h. 1822 m PA)
Bayler Lutz
Wm. Shumate & Company
(2 anonymous potters employed)
Charles W. Bunsfek
(b. 1830 in Prussia)
Edward 'Walter (b, 1823 in Prussia)
Conrad Wilson (b. 1800 in Md.)
J. W. Watson (b. 182S in Md.)
Samuel Watson (b. 182" in Md.)
Lindsay Morris (b. 1821)
VX'alter's Pottery
D. Coffman
L H. Plecker (stenciled mark)
Lipscomb and Somer\'ille
(stencilled mark)
Michael Puflfenberger
(PufFenbarger)
— Buck (husband ot Catherine Buck
c. I84O
c. 1840-1850
c. 1860
c. 1850-1860
c. 18S0
c. 1850
c. 1870
c. 1870
c. 1850
c. 1850-1860
c. 1850-1860
c. 1860
c. 1870
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
133
TABLE 5. Historic porters working in Roikiitg/hun County, \'irgiiiii7
Specific location
witliin the county Potter
Approximate dates
of operation
EaM Elkton
(Whip-pcKir-wlll Springs)
Harrisonburg (Black's Run
and German Street)
Elkton North
("Willow Springs")
John Stephen Conrad, Jr.
(b. 26 Feb. 1749-d. 28 Aug. 1822)
Andrew Coffman
(b. 22 July 17')'i-d. 10 May 1853)
Andrew Coffman
William Carlton Coffman
(Andrew's son; b. 1822-d. 1899)
John Coffman
(Andrew's son; b. 11 May 1824-d. 12 Oct. 1899)
Andrew Carlton Coffman
(Andrew's son; b. 4 Nov. 1833)
Reuben Samuel Coffman
(Andrew's son; b. 1836-d. 1900)
Daniel A. Coffman
(Andrew's son; b. 29 Nov. 1839)
David Coffman
(b. 1829; Andrew's nephew)
Isaac Lam
(b. 14 Jan. 1832-d. 22Julv 1882)
Joseph H. Kite
(b. 1828-d. 1889)
John Stephen Conrad, Jr.
(b. 1749-d. 1822)
Lindsay Morris
(b. 1820-d. 1902) (Andrew's son-in-law)
John Heatwole
(b. 1826-d. 190") (Andrew's son-in-law)
George Kline
William C. Coffman
(b. 22 Aug. 1822-d. 8 June 1896)
Edwin E. Coffman
(b. 24 Sep. 1853-d. 5 Oct. 1919; William's son)
William S. Coffman
(b. '1 May 184(^d. 2 June 1012; William's son)
Robert A. Coffman
(b. 'lAug. I8S3-d. 11 Nov. l')21 ; William's son)
Isaac Lam
(b. lS32-d. 1882)
c. 1800-1822
c. 1819-1822
c. 1820-1833
c. 1833-1830
c. 1840-1853
c. I84S-I86O
c. 1850
c. 1850
c. 1850
c. 1850
c. 1850
c. 1820
c. 1845-18S3
c. I84S-I8SO
c. 1800-1830(?)
c. 1850-1899
c. 1870-1892
c. 1865-I870s
c. 1870-1882
c. 1850s
134
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 199s
TABLE 5. continued
Specific location
within the county
Approximate dates
of operation
North Harrisonburg;
Drv' River North
Specific location unknown
loseph Kite
(b. 1828-d. 1889)
Thomas Logan
(b. 1791 in Ireland)
Thomas G. Logan
(b. 1820; Thomas' son)
Neville Logan
(Thomas's son)
Ahram Spencer
(b. c. 1812)
Jacob Rimel
John Heatwole
(b. 18 Aug. 1826-d. 16 June 1907)
Lindsay Morris
(b. 1820-d. 1902)
Alfred N. Powell
(b. 1834)
Reuben S. Coftmon
(b. 1836-d. 1900; John's brother-in-la
Daniel A. Cofifman
(b. 1839; John's brother-in-law)
Joseph Silber
(b. 1830-d. 1899)
lohn W. Ford
(b. 17 Mar. 18'50-d. 28 Mar. 192S;
John's son-in-law)
Andrew D. Hearvvole
(b. 1853; John's son)
Emmanuel Suter
(b. 1833-d. 1902; John's cousin)
Mathias Bright
(b. 1798 in Germany)
Joseph Hiram Kite
(b. 1828-d. 1889)
William C. Coffman
(b. 1822-d. 1899)
William S. Coffman
(b. 1846-d. 1912)
18S0s
1840-1 850s
1840-1 860s
1850-1870s
1860
1870
1850-1861
1865-1892
1845-1850
1850
I860
1860
6/1865-7/1866
1870-1880
1880s
1851-1855
1850
1866-1889
1866-1889 (?)
1866-1889 (?)
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
TABLE 5. continuei
Specific location
ivithin the comity
Approximate dates
of operation
Drv River South
Rawley Springs
I'ranklin lownship
(Mt. Crawford)
Elkton West
(Ricketsville Farm)
Thomas Kite c. 18^0-1880
(b. 1855; Joseph's son)
Lindsay Morris c. 1866-1872
(b. 1820-d. 1902)
Erasmus Morris c. 1866-1872
(b. 1846-d. 1932; Lindsay's son)
Andrew Jackson Morris c. 1870-1872
(b. 6 0ct. 1853-d. Id May 1888;
Lindsay's son)
Reuben Samuel Coltman c. 1866—1872
(b. 29 May 1836-d. 1 Oct. 1900;
Lindsay's brother-in-law)
Reuben Samuel Colfman c. 18~2- 1890s
Lindsay Morris c. 1872-1890s
(b. 1820-d. 1902)
Erasmus Morris c. 1872-1 890s
Andrew Jackson Morris c. 1972-1890
Joseph Silber c. 1875-1890
(b. 26 Mar. 1930, Baden,
Germany-d. 14 Dec. 1890)
Joseph Silber c. 1867-1874
(b. 26 Mar. 1830 Baden, Germany-
d. 14 Dec. 1890)
George M. Woods c. 186^-1874
(b. 1822)
Mathew/Matihias Ireland lb. 1828) c. 18^0s
George Duey c. 1 870s
(b. 1832, PA)
James Shinnick c. 1 8^0- 1880s
(b. 1813, Maryland)
William S. Coffman c. 1 882-1 90^
(b. 9 May 1846-d. 2 June 1912;
son of William C C'oltman)
Robert A. Coffman c. 1 882-1905
(b. 9Aug. 1855-d. 11 Nov. 1921;
William's brother)
Edward E. Coffman c. 1 882-1 888
(b. 24 Sep. 185.3-d. ^ Oct. 1919;
William's brother)
136
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
TABLE 5. continued
Specific location
within the county
Potter
Approximate datei
of operation
Clinton Coftman
(b. 1874-d. 1963; son of William)
c. 1 890-1 90S
Emmanuel Surer
(b. 26 Mar 1833-d. 16 Dec. 1902)
c. 1851-1864
John Hearwole
(b. 1826-d. 1907)
c. 1851-1855
Emmanuel Surer
c. 11/1866-8/7/1890
John Heatwole
1886-1890
Isaac Good
(b. 27 Feb. 1851-d. 8Feb. 1907;
John Good's son)
c. 1866-1890
John W. Ford
(b. 7 March 18S0-d. 28 March 192S)
c. 1890
Reuben Surer
(b. 16 April 1888; E.Suter's son)
c. 1875-1890
Peter Swope Surer
(b. 7Sep 1871; E.Suter's son)
c. 1890
Emmanuel J. Suter
(b. 22 Feb 1868; E. Suter's son)
c. 1885-1890
John P. Good
(b. 1819-d. 1879)
c. 1866- 1870s
John R. Suter
(b. 24 Feb 1863; E. Suter's son)
c. 1880-1890
Joseph Silber
(b. 1830-d. 1890)
c. 1875-1875
Andrew Heatwole
(b. 1833)
c. 1874
William and J. Ricketts
c. 1870?
John F. Good
(b. 1853; John P. Good's son)
c. 1875
Steaven Benjiman Briger
c. 18:^9
Emmanuel Suter
(h. 1833-d. 1902)
c. 1891-1897
Reuben Suter
(b. 1888)
c. 1891-1897
Emmanuel J. Suter
c. 1891-1897
General District
and Mr. Clinton
Mt. Clinton/
New Erection Potten'
Harrisonburg/
Harrisonburg Steam
Pottery
(b. 1868)
EXPLORING WESTERN VIRGINIA POTTERIES
137
TABLE 5. COIirillHed
Specific location
within the county
Approximate dates
of operation
Specific location unknown
(Area now in Pendleton Co.,
West Virginia)
Timberviile
John R. Surer
(h. 1863)
Isaac Good
(b. 18Sl-d. 1907)
John Fisher
lohn Zigler
Andrew Cotfnian
Isaac Good
(b. ISSl-d. 1907)
Branson O Roarke
(b. 1812)
c. 1891-1897
c. 1891
c. 1794 or 7{?)
c. 1830 (?)
c. 1830 (?)
c. 1873-1874
c. 18S0-1870
138
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
Research Note
The Martins Hundred Potter: English North
Americas Earliest Known Master of His Trade
MARTHA W. MCCARTNEY'
ON MAY 20, 1625, Thomas Ward of Martin's Hundred in
Virginia signed a letter, identifying himself as a "pottmak-
er."- That soHtary act, and the archaeological evidence for
early pot-making at the James River plantation known as Martin's
Hundred, earned Ward a singular place in history as the earliest
identifiable practitioner of his trade in English North America.
ARRIVAL IN THE COLONY
In 1619 the fort)'-one-year-old Ward set sail from England aboard
the Warwick with a dozen or so others whom the Society of Martin's
Hundred had sent to Virginia.' One of his shipmates was a bricklay-
er named John Jackson, to whom he was indentured." The two men
were among the 266 people the Society dispatched to the colony
during 1618-19 to establish a plantation upon the land they had been
assigned. When the would-be settlers arrived in Virginia, Deput)'-
Governor Samuel Argoll" seated them in Pasbehay, just west of
Jamestown Island, instead of sending them several miles down-
stream to the Society of Martin's Hundred land (fig. i). Argoll, wit-
tingly or not, overlooked the fact that the acreage upon which he
placed the Martin's Hundred people was property that Virginia
THE MARTIN S HUNDRED POTTER
I. John Farrar, A mnpp of
Virginia discouered to ye
Hills, and in it's Latt: From
is deg: C ill neer Florida, to
41 dig: bounds of new
Fiiglaud. Ludgate, England,
i6<ii. '["his map shows the
location ot Martin's Hun-
dred and Jamestown in the
early seventeenth century.
Courtesy of the John Carter
Brown Lihraiy at Brown
University.
^'^^^K.VV
.^•^^>- 'J&^^'^^iSVj
Company officials tentatively had reserved tor each incumbent gov-
ernors use."
In January 1620 John Rolte reported that the Martin's Hundred
people, who still were residing upon what officially had become the
Governors Land, were in good health and had "reaped good
cropps." Bv March they had gone forth to the vast tract that had
been set aside for the Societ)' of Martins Hundred.' The community
they established was called Wolstenholme Town, which took its
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 199s
name from that of Sir John Wolstenholme, one of the Society's prin-
cipal investors and an officer of the Virginia Company of London.'
thomas ward and life at
martin's hundred
During 1620 and 1621, the Martin's Hundred colonists took in
fourteen newcomers the Socierv's investors sent over in the Mar-
niaduke and the Francis Bonaventure.^" One of them was William
Harwood, the leader or "governor" of Martin's Hundred, who ar-
rived in August 1620." Another was the twenty-year-old sister of
Thomas Ward's master, John Jackson, one of the marriageable young
women the Virginia Company sent to the colony in 1621.'- Accord-
ing to census records compiled during 1621-22, Martin's Hundred
had seventy-two inhabitants: forty-five men, fourteen women and
thirteen children." In January 1622 the residents of Martin's Hun-
dred reportedly were weakened by sickness and malnutrition, prob-
lems surely exacerbated by the arrival of new settlers needing food
and shelter and probably carrying infectious diseases."
The Society of Martin's Hundred's official correspondence reveals
that its investors made ambitious plans for their plantation's devel-
opment. They transported tenants to the colony, who were to work
as sharecroppers for five or six years before receiving twenf\'-five
acres of their own." They also sent indentured servants whose con-
tracts ranged from five to seven years, and a dozen or more boys to
serve as apprentices to skilled workers.'" The Societ)' of Martin's
Hundred's investors, like those of the Virginia Company, hoped to
reap a substantial profit from their plantation through the produc-
tion of marketable commodities that could be sent abroad. They
also intended lor those with special skills to produce goods and ser-
vices that would meet local needs.' Among the specialized workers
the Society ot Martin's Hundred purposefully dispatched to its plan-
tation were men adept in iron-making, blacksmithing, carpentry,
coopering, shipbuilding and other trades." Thus, skilled artisans like
THE MARTIN S HUNDRED POTTER
potter Thomas Ward and bricklayer John Jackson would have been
considered important contributors to the community.' "
But tate intruded upon the Society oi Martins Hundreds careful-
ly laid plans. On Friday, March 2Z, 1622, when the Indians oi the
Powhatan Chiefdom made a concerted eflFort to drive the colonists
from their soil, Martins Hundred was one of the settlements hardest
hit.-" Among the seventy-three men, women, and children reported
as slain were four male servants in the household oi Thomas Ward's
master, fohn Jackson. During the melee at Martin's Hundred, nine-
teen women were captured by the Indians, who took them to a vil-
lage on the Pamunkey River.'' The minutes of the General Court
suggest that John Jackson's sister, Ann, who had arrived in the
colony only months before the massacre, was one oi the females the
Indians seized." It is uncertain whether Jackson's wife (also named
Ann) suffered the same fate. One man claimed that after the Indian
attack, only two houses "and a peece of a church" were left at Mar-
tin's Hundred. ' Miraculously, Thomas Wird survived.
In the wake of the 1622 Indian uprising, the Martin's Hundred
settlers were evacuated to Jamestown Island where they remained for
nearly a year.'' When they returned to their plantation early in 1623,
living conditions were bleak and fraught with danger. On March 20,
Richard Frethorne, an indentured servant, wrote to his parents, beg-
ging them to send food and clothing, for he was starving and clad in
rags. He also asked them to ship consumables that he could barter or
sell at a profit. He said that all but three of the twenty servants in his
group had perished and that only thirty-two people were then living
at Martin's Hundred.-' He claimed that his master, Mr. Harwood,
forced his servants to work from dawn to dusk, subsisting on water,
gruel, and a little bread, and threatened to turn them out into the
woods to fend for themselves if supplies ran out. Thomas Nicholls, a
surveyor sent to Martin's Hundred, also spoke of the community's
meager rations and recommended that no more women be sent over,
for they ate too much and worked too little!''
In February 1624, when a census was made of the "Virginia colony's
142 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
inhabitants, twenty-tour people were residing at Martin's Hundred
and Thomas Ward was a member oi John Jackson's household. Also
present were John Stephens and Jackson's wife, Ann. A year later,
when a muster was made ot the colony's communities, there were
twenty-nine people at Martins Hundred, excluding tour who had
died since the previous tabulation. John Jackson still headed a
household that included his wife, their twenty-week-old child, and
two indentured servants, forty-seven-year-old Thomas Ward and
thirty-five-year-old John Stephens. "A girl of Mr. Jacksons," perhaps
a maid servant, reportedly had died since February 1624. All oi the
adults in the Jackson household in February 1625 had come to Vir-
ginia aboard the Warwick in 1619. They shared one house and in
comparison with their neighbors, were relatively well provisioned
and prepared to defend themselves.'
But despite the Jackson household's relatively ample cache oi mil-
itary equipment and preserved tood, living conditions in Martin's
Hundred were stark, tor the plantation's leader, William Harwood,
had a well-earned reputation for hoarding the provisions and other
supplies the Society oi Martin's Hundred sent to its colonists.'" Some
local residents alleged that he sold the goods he stashed, sometimes
bestowing them upon triends and favorites to bolster his influence.-'
William Harwood's greed impelled Martin's Hundred potter
Thomas Ward to write his May 20, 1625, letter to Nicholas Ferrar,
treasurer oi the Society and a principal officer in the Virginia Com-
pany. The document was co-signed by bricklayer John Jackson.
Ward claimed that he and Jackson were unable to subsist on what
remained of their crops after the Society and William Harwood took
their share.'" Moreover, the price of corn and other essentials was so
high that they were obliged to go into debt for what they needed to
survive. He reminded Ferrar of his promise to provide each tenant
with "two servants a man and the milke of some cowse to helpe us, "
pointing out that "we find no such matter here. " Ward added that
there was "not soe mutch as a toole to work with but what we buy
oursellvees" nor powder nor shot to garde our l)'ves. " He said that
THE MARTIN S HUNDRED POTTER
f^// //.»-.
..y/-
»^^
1. The signature ot the Mar-
tin's Himdred potter
Thomas Ward as it appears
on his May zo. 162s. letter
to Nicholas Ferrar. Fcrrdi
Manuscript S69. Pepys
Librmy, Magdalene Cullegc.
Caiubrnigf i hiiimit)'.
i„, ^■•^-^^ ^'■'■''-
their ground was "in such a place that we can but one oi us worke
tor the other of us must gard or else wee shall be in danger to be
killed off." Moreover, their clothes and shoes were worn out and
thev had no means of replacing them. Ward closed his letter by as-
serting that "we will not indure this kind of living any longer," and
he added that he and Jackson had prepared a petition their friends
were going to submit to the king's council if something was not
done to remedy matters. Signing their letter "Your slaves in Vir-
ginia," Thomas Ward identified himself as a "pottmaker" and John
lackson, as a bricklayer (fig. 2).'^ The rwo men's complaints were
corroborated by Robert Adams' letter to John and Robert Ferrar, in
which he accused the miserly William Harwood of refusing to pro-
vide Martin's Hundred's inhabitants with the necessities and the am-
numition the\' needed to fend o'tk hostile Indians."
The names of Thomas Ward, John Jackson, and John Stephens
appeared in the minutes of the colony's General Court several times
144
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
during the mid- to late 1620s. By then, Virginia had become a crown
colony and the Societ>' of Martin's Himdred, whose financial prob-
lems mimicked those of the defunct Virginia Company, had faded
into extinction. Even so, Thomas Ward stayed on at Martin's Hun-
dred. On January u, 1627, he testified before the General Court that
while working in the woods he overheard two neighbors say that
certain members of the Council of State were unfit for office." He
was still at Martin's Hundred on January 20, 163^/^4, w'hen he wit-
nessed the signing of a neighbor's will." It is uncertain how much
longer the fifty-six-year-old potter managed to survive or whether he
left heirs. By 1635 planters had begun to patent and seat land within
the limits of the vast acreage formerly assigned to the Societ)' of
Martin's Hundred." "Ward, however, failed to claim land there or
elsewhere in the colony. Thus, he may have died, chosen to rent
land from another, or perhaps returned to his native England."
THE martin's hundred POTTER AND HIS WARES
Archaeological excavations undertaken at Martin's Hundred dur-
ing the mid- to late 1970s by noted archaeologist Ivor Noifl Hume
led to the identification of the site of Wolstenholme Town. Adjacent
to what he concluded were the remains of a fort or bawne were two
adjoining palisaded yards connected by a i5-by-6o-foot house. The
largest of the two enclosed yards contained a i5-by-25-foot building
that Noel Hume interpreted as a storehouse. Within the other was an
approximately 2i-bv-25-foot irregularly shaped potter's pond, a shed,
and a grave." The potter's pond at Martin's Hundred contained a
blunger (a tool used by potters for mixing clay) and several earthen-
ware wasters, which Dr. Stephen Clements of the College of William
and Mary's Geology Department concluded could have made from
local clay (fig. 3)." An almost intact locally made bucket-shaped pot
was found at the site that has a finger-impressed strap handle."' All of
these vessels most likely were produced by Martin's Hundred potter
Thomas Ward or apprentices working under his supervision.
THE MARTIN S HUNDRED POTTER
145
3- EartliL'iiware wasters from the potter's
pond at Martin's Hundred. Photograph
courtesy of the Colonial W'tlliamsburg
Foiiiitlatioii.
4. Slipware dish dated i6!i and made by
the Martin's Himdred potter.
Photograph courtesy of the Colonuil
\\ illia)>ishiirn hoiiiidation.
146
JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
WINTER 1995
Earthenware vessel fragments found in early cultural features at
Jamestown bear a strong resemblance to the wares produced at Mar-
tin's Hundred." This raises the possibility that between March i6z2
and early 1623, when Wolstenholme Towns inhabitants took refuge
on Jamestown Island, Thomas Ward trained another potter or pro-
duced some vessels himself It is also possible that one or more ap-
prentices, who studied under Ward at Martins Hundred, set up
shop at Jamestown. '^
Archaeological evidence at Martin's Hundred suggests that
Thomas Ward was in residence there in 1631 when he or an appren-
tice produced a relatively sophisticated, dated slipware dish that is
decorated with a bird motif According to Ivor Noel Hume, it was
fashioned from local clay and is perhaps North America's earliest
dated vessel made by a potter of European origin (fig. 4).^' Thus,
Thomas Ward's place in history is secured not only by the strokes of
his pen but by his — or an apprentice's — artistry in clay.
MARTHA MCCARTNEY, au historiaii, IS a research consultant with
the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
NOTES
1. The following people generously shared their time and expertise: Can- Carson, William
E. Pittman. Susan Shames, Catherine Groshls, and Mar)- Keeling of the Colonial Williams-
burg Foundation; David Barker of the Cic}' Museum and Art Gallery-. Stoke-on-Trent; Leslie
B. Grigsby, Richmond, Virginia, consultant; and Alain C. Outlaw of Cultural Resources. Inc.
Thanks also are due James N. Haskett and Jane M. Sundberg of the National Park Sen'ice.
whose cooperation made possible the publication of my research.
2. Thomas Ward and John Jackson to Mr. Ferrar, May 20, 1625, Ferrar Papers, Manuscript
No. 569. Pepys Library, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England. Because Cambridge
University's Magdalene College has allowed the Ferrar Papers to be filmed, these documents
are now readily available to scholars. Their accessibility has been enhanced greatly by the care-
ful work of Dr. David R. Ransome, who compiled a hand list ot the microfilmed works. For
convenience of reference, the Ferrar Manuscript numbers assigned during the filming process
are used in the discussion that follows.
3. Susan M. Kingsbury, comp.. Records of the Virginia Company of London (Washington,
D.C.. 1906-1935), III, S94; Virginia M. Meyer et at. Adventurers of Purse and Person,
i6o~-[624/2S (Richmond, igS-), 46. The Society- comprised a group of private investors who
banded together to underwrite the cost ot establishing a plantation in \'irginia.
THE MARTIN S HUNDRED POTTER
4- lackson's fjther, William, was a gardener in the Westminster area ot London, directly
across the Thames from the south bank's potter\'-making district (Young Maids who came in
the Marmaduke, August tfiii, Ferrar Manuscript No. 309). It is not known whether Thomas
Ward and John Jackson were acquainted before setting out for Virginia.
5. Argoll's name appears variously as Argoll and Argall in historical documents.
6. Kingsbury, Virginia Company, I, 350; III, IS4, ')94; IV, ss6.
7. Ibid., Ill, 247, 255.
8. Ibid. I, 151, 273, 580, 585.
9. Ibid.. Ill, 68, •594; Society of Martm's Hundred to William Harwood. June 7, 1622, let-
ter, Ferrar Manuscript No. 391.
10. Kingsbury, Virginia Company, III, so6, ■594.
11. Meyer et al.. Adventurers, 4s.
12. In August 1621 when Ann Jackson set sail trom Portsmouth, England, aboard the Mar-
maduke, its passenger list indicated that she was bound for Martin's Hundred to jom her
brother, John Jackson (Young Maids, Ferrar Manuscript No. 309).
13. Anonymous, Number of People in Virginia, Ferrar Manuscript No. 138; The number ot
men in Virginia according to their several places ot dwelling, Ferrar Manuscript No. 139; The
Sum total ot all ye persons, cattle, corn, arms, houses, and boats conteyned in the general
muster of Virginia taken in the beginning of March i6i9[/2o]. Ferrar Manuscript No. i';9-
14. Kingsbury, Virginia Company, I, 587.
\S. Agreement, May 18. 1622, by the associates in the Shipwrights and Henry, Earl of
Southampton, Ferrar Manuscript No. 378; Apprenticeship agreement with Thomas Robinson,
mason, of Waser in County of Stafiord, age 29. Ferrar Manuscript No. 380. Martin's Hun-
dred's tenants, who "worked at haltshares," were expected to return half ot their annual earn-
ings to the Society's investors.
16. Some of these youths were to serve a three-year apprenticeship followed by a tour-year
tenancy.
17. Several high-ranking Virginia Company officials were members of the Society of Mar-
tin's Hundred and/or the Society of Southampton Hundred. .As private investors they pooled
their resources to sponsor what were called "particular plantations. " The Societies of Martin's
Hundred and Southampton Hundred employed similar strategies ot development and some-
times collaborated when sending new immigrants and supplies to the colony. Ship manifests
reveal that .some workers were supplied with provisions, clothing and tools. Under the law, all
profits from commodities produced on particular plantations could be returned to their spon-
sors (Items sent to Virginia, August 1621, Ferrar Manuscript No. 308; Provisions sent tor Mr.
Southern and Mr. Stokes &c. in the George and the Warwick, 1621, for Southampton Hun-
dred, Ferrar Manuscript No. 321; Items sent to Virginia, August 1621, Ferrar Manuscript No.
332; Society of Martins Hundred to Lt. Keane and Mr. Harwood of Martins Hundred, De-
cember 1621, Ferrar Manuscript No. 339; Apprenticeship agreement with Thomas Robinson,
Ferrar Manuscript No. 380; Society of Martin's Hundred to Harwood, Ferrar Manuscript No.
391; Kingsbury, Virginia Company, III, 168).
18. Agreement, May 18, 1622, between the associates in the Shipwrights and Henry. Earl of
Southampton, Ferrar Manuscript No. 378; Items furnished to Robert Mattson, Ferrar Manu-
script No. 381; Funds to Nicholas Gillman, carpenter. Ferrar Manuscript No. 386; Funds to
Bartholomew Blake, Ferrar Manuscript No. 390; Kingsbury, Virginia Company. IV. 269. They
also made plans to establish a school there.
19. Governor George Yeardley's November 18, 1618, instructions trom the Virginia Compa-
ny authorized him to award four acres and a dwelling to any tradesman or artisan willing to
148 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER 1995
pursue his profession. In July 1621 the governor and council were ordered to compel all artisans
to work at their trades and to see that they were supplied with apprentices (Kingsbury. Vir-
ginia Company. III. 105, 476). A quarter century later, skilled workers still were highly prized
and capable of earning a good living (Peter Force, comp.. Tracts and Other Papers. Relating to
the Origin. Settlement and Progress of the Colonies in North America (Ciloucester, 196!], II. 8:3-9;
John Stirring to Mr. Ferrar, letter dated Januarj- 26, 1649/50, Ferrar Manuscript No. 1152).
20. Shortly before the massacre occured. the Socierv' of Martin's Hundred began making
plans to expand its holdings. In December 1621 a shipment of beads and copper was used in
purchasing new land from the Indians. Society of Martins Hundred to Lt. Keane, Dec. 1621.
Ferrar Manuscript No. 339.
21. Kingsbury, Virginia Company. III. s^o: IV. 232. Certam women presumed dead were
among the captives. Some ot them were ransomed the following spring.
22. H. R. Mcllwaine, comp.. Minutes of Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia
(Richmond. 1934). 181. It not. she was taken prisoner at a later date. After Ann Jackson's re-
lease, she was entrusted to her brother's care and given permission to return to England.
23. Kingsbury, Virginia Company. IV, 41. Richard Frethorne. who arrived m Virginia in
January 1623, on March 5 informed a Virginia Company official that 22 of the plantation's res-
idents came through the Indian uprismg {[bid.. IV, 58-62).
24. Kingsbur)-, Virginia Company. Ill, 612-613; Mcllwaine, Minutes. 131.
25. He said that two thirds of the 150 people from the ship that brought him to Virginia
had died. He may have been aboard the Abigail, where "stinking beer" was blamed for many
deaths and rampant infection (Kingsbury, Virginia Company, IV, 58-62).
26. Kingsbury, Virginia Company. IV, 41, 58-62, 231, 236-37. Bet\veen April 1623 and Feb-
ruary 1624 Frethorne, Nicholls and 26 others died at Martin's Hundred. John C. Hotten,
Original Lists of Persons of Qjiahty. /tfoo-/-oo (Baltimore, 1980), 193.
27. They had one-and-one-half barrels of corn and eight hundred fish and were equipped
with three armors, a coat of mail, four "fi,xed peeces" or guns, two pounds of shot, six pounds
of lead and three swords (Hotten, Original Lists. 181-82; Meyer et al. Adventurers. 46I.
28. The abundant supply of food and military stores attributed to William Har^vood dur-
ing the 1625 muster supports this claim (Meyer et ai. Adventurers, 45),
29. Robert Adams to Mr. Ferrar, fragmentar)' letter, [1625], Ferrar Manuscript No. 5-2.
30. The Society- was entitled to half of its tenants' yield and Harwood, to a percentage of
that.
31. Emphasis added.
32. Ward et. alio Ferrar. Mav 20. 1625, Ferrar Manuscript No. 569.
33. Adams claimed that while he and another man were working their ground, the Indians
attacked and he received a bullet in the leg. During the fray, his wife fled to Mr. Harvvood,
who reportedly locked himself in the storehouse with his guards and refused to let her in. She
took refuge in a wash-house, where she hid until the attack ceased (Adams to Ferrar, (1625].
Ferrar Manuscript No. 572).
34. Mcllwaine. Minutes. 135. Other Martin's Hundred residents corroborated his testimo-
ny.
35. John Creed's January 20, 1633/34 will, presented for probate on April 18, 1635. British
Public Records Office, Principal Probate Registry, Saddler 34, folio 5.
36. Nell M. Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of I 'irginia Land Patents and Grants
(Baltimore, 1969), I, 29-30, 33, 108, 114, 224.
37. A surgeon named Thomas Ward, who resided in Lower Norfolk Countv during the
164OS and 50s. seemingly had no connection with the Martin's Hundred potter.
THE MARTIN S HUNDRED POTTER
149
38. The grave contained the remains ot a large-boned adult Caucasian male, which Smith-
sonian Institution physical anthropologists determined showed evidence of a massive blow to
the cranium. Noel Hume interpreted the head wound as trauma inflicted during the 1621 mas-
sacre. Ivor Noel Hume, Martini ///(WW (Charlottesville: University' Press ot Virginia, 11)82),
211-13.
39. Specirographic analysis determines the presence/absence of elements which proportion-
al differences give clays distinctive properties. Microscopic examination of the pottery pro-
duced at Martin's Hundred revealed semi-fossilized root casts, which are found in Tidewater
Virginia clays (William E. Pittman, personal communication, September s, i99S; Noel Hume,
Martin's Hundred, 105-106, 186-8^, 193, 198-99)
40. Noel Hume, Martin's Hundred. 194-96.
41. Personal communication, Beverly Straub and Robert Hunter, August, 1995.
42. Fragments of locally made coarse earthenware vessels found on the Governor s Land at
the ca. 1630—1645 Pasbehay Tenement site may have been manufactured at Jamestown. Alain
(". Outlaw, Got'ernor's Land: Archaeology of Early Seventeenth Century l';rj;«M (Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia, 1990), 79. Appendix A.
43. Noel Hume, Martin's Hundred, 128. See also Leslie B. Grigsby, English Slip-Decorated
Earthenware at tt";7/;i;wj7'»r^ (Williamsburg, 1993), 54, plate 66.
150 JOURNAL OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS WINTER I995
THE MUSEUM OF EARLY SOUTHERN DECORATIVE ARTS
Hobart G. Cawood, IVesident, Old Salem, Inc.
Frank L. Horton, Director Emeritus
Sally Gant, Director of Education and Special Events
Ruth Brooks, Associate in Education
Paula Hooper, Coordinator of Membership Services
Paula W. Locklair, Director, Department of Collections, and Curator
Johanna M. Brown, Assistant Curator and Registrar
Michelle Fulp, Collections Assistant
Bradford L. Rauschenberg, Director, Department of Research
Nancy Bean, Office Manager
Jennifer Bean-Bowen, Prints and Slides Assistant
Martha Rowe, Research Associate
Virginia S. Hunt, Librarian
Wesley Stewart, Photographer
Cornelia B. Wright, Editor of Publications
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11