[Pg 19]

NORTH DEVON POTTERY
AND ITS EXPORT TO AMERICA
IN THE 17TH CENTURY

Ceramics shards discovered during archaeological digs at colonial sites serve multiple purposes. They help date the sites, reflect the cultural and economic conditions in the areas where they were used, and provide insights into manufacturing, trade, and distribution.

Satisfying examples of these uses were revealed with the discovery in 1935 of two distinct but unidentified pottery types in the excavations conducted by the National Park Service at Jamestown, Virginia, and later elsewhere along the eastern seaboard. One type was an elaborate and striking yellow sgraffito ware, while the other was a rough utilitarian kitchenware made from a red paste that was heavily mixed with coarse water-worn gravel or “grit.” This latter category included the parts of large earthen baking ovens. Among the literally hundreds of thousands of sherds found at Jamestown between 1935 and 1956, these types appeared with a relatively high frequency. For a long time, no connection between them was recognized, yet their histories have proven to be interconnected, reflecting the activities of a 17th-century English pottery-making center of unexpected size.

The sgraffito pottery is a red earthenware that’s covered with a white slip, and designs have been carved through it. An amber lead glaze gives a golden yellow color to the slip-covered areas and a brownish amber shade to the exposed red clay. The gravel-tempered ware is made from a similar red-burning clay and is notable for its lack of refinement, the pebbly texture from bits of gravel sticking out, and the rough and careless way the heavy amber glaze was applied to the inside surfaces. Once you see it, it's instantly recognizable and completely different from any other types of English or continental pottery. A fully restored oven (fig. 10), now at[Pg 20] Jamestown, is made from similar clay and has the same quality of temper. It has a roughly oval beehive shape with a trapezoidal framed opening that fits a pottery door securely.

Following the initial discoveries at Jamestown, there was a lot of speculation about these two types. Worth Bailey, who was a museum technician at Jamestown, was the first to identify the source of the sgraffito ware as “Devonshire.”[1] Henry Chandlee Forman, who claimed that this ware was “definitely made in England,” believed it “takes its inspiration from Majolica ware ... particularly that of the early Renaissance period from Faenza.”[2]

Bailey also observed that the oven and the gravel-tempered utensils were made from the same clay and temper. However, in an attempt to argue that the earthenware was produced locally, he assumed, possibly because of their rough quality, that the utensils were made in Jamestown. This led him to speculate that the oven, having similar ceramic characteristics, was also made locally. He supported this idea by doubting that “such a fragile object could have survived a risky sea journey.”[3]

Since these opinions were shared, additional archaeological work at colonial sites has shown that the two types are widely distributed. Bailey himself pointed out that a pottery oven is intact and located in the John Bowne House in Flushing, Long Island. A fragment of another pottery oven was recently identified among the artifacts dug up by Sidney Strickland from the John Howland House site near Plymouth, Massachusetts; and gravel-tempered utensil shards have been found at many sites. The sgraffito ware has been discovered in Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

Such a wide distribution of either type suggests a productive European origin for each, rather than a local American kiln in a struggling colonial settlement like Jamestown. Bailey’s attribution of the sgraffito ware to Devonshire was confirmed in 1950 when J. C. Harrington, an archeologist with the National Park Service, discovered certain evidence at Barnstaple in North Devon, England. This evidence appeared in the form of sherds displayed in a window at C. H. Brannam’s Barnstaple Pottery that were uncovered during excavation work at the site. These sherds are clearly related in technique and design to the American examples. A label under a fragment of a large deep dish (fig. 2) in the display reads: “Piece of dish found in site of pottery. In sgraffiato. About 1670.” This clue paved the way for the investigation conducted here, the results of which connect the sgraffito ware, the gravel-tempered ware, and the kilns to the North Devon towns and a thriving trade in earthenware between Barnstaple, Bideford, and the New World.

This study, initially conducted solely on the American side of the Atlantic, is acknowledged to be incomplete. In the future, there are plans to examine sherd collections in England, different types of sgraffito wares, and potential influences and sources of techniques and designs. For now, it is believed that the current evidence is enough to support the conclusions made here.

[Pg 21]

[Pg 22]The author is especially grateful to J. C. Harrington, chief of interpretation, Region I, National Park Service, who discovered the North Devon wares and whose encouragement inspired this paper. The author also sincerely thanks the following individuals for their help and cooperation: E. Stanley Abbott, superintendent; J. Paul Hudson, curator; and Charles Hatch, chief of interpretation, Colonial National Historical Park; Worth Bailey, Historic American Buildings Survey; Robert A. Elder, Jr., assistant curator, division of ethnology, U.S. National Museum; Miss Margaret Franklin of London; Henry Hornblower II and Charles Strickland of Plimoth Plantation, Inc.; Ivor Noel Hume, chief archeologist, Colonial Williamsburg, Inc.; Miss Mildred E. Jenkinson, librarian and curator, Borough of Bideford Library and Museum; Frederick H. Norton, professor of ceramics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Mrs. Edwin M. Snell of Washington.

Barnstaple and its neighbor Bideford are now quiet market towns and summer vacation spots. In the 17th and early 18th centuries, however, they were heavily involved in trade with America and the broader West of England's interest in colonial settlement. Bideford was home to Sir Richard Grenville, who, along with Sir Walter Raleigh, was among the first explorers of Virginia. As the prominent citizen of Bideford, Grenville secured a modern charter of incorporation for the town from Queen Elizabeth. As a result, according to the town’s 18th-century historian, “Bideford rose so rapidly as to become a port of importance at the latter end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign ... when trade began to open between England and America during the reign of King James the First, Bideford took part in it early on.”[4] For a long time, its focus was on America, and the well-being of its residents largely depended on commerce with the colonies.

In line with other ports in the West of England, Barnstaple and Bideford were deeply involved in the Newfoundland fishing trade. However, “the main part of foreign trade that Bideford was ever involved in was with Maryland and Virginia for tobacco.... Its ties with New England were also quite significant.”[5]

During the first half of the 18th century, Bideford’s tobacco imports were second only to those of London, but the wars with France led to a decline around 1760.[6] Barnstaple, located further up the River Taw, mirrored Bideford’s pattern of growth and decline, as well as the nature of its trade. Even though they were competitors, both towns effectively operated as a single port; ships from Barnstaple and Bideford would depart from each other’s wharves, and at times, both ports were listed together in the Port Books. As early as 1620, seven ships—some registered in Bideford and some in Barnstaple—sailed from Barnstaple to America,[7] but the peak of trade between North Devon and the colonies occurred after the Restoration and continued into the early 18th century. For instance, in 1666, the Samuel from Bideford and the Philip from Barnstaple set sail for Virginia, despite the risks posed by Dutch warfare.[8] The next year, on August 13, 1667, it was noted that 20 ships from the Virginia fleet, “bound for Bideford, Barnstaple, and Bristol, have entered the Severn to avoid Dutch men-of-war.”[9] Later, in 1705, we find that the Susanna from Barnstaple, along with the Victory, Zunt,[Pg 23] Devonshire, Laurell, Blackstone, and Mary and Hannah, all from Bideford, were anchored in Hampton Roads off Kecoughtan. They made up one-ninth of a fleet of 63 ships from various English ports.[10]

Aside from these signs of a well-established trade, the strong connections of North Devon interests in the colonies are shown in various ways. Before 1645, Thomas Fowle, a merchant from Boston, was conducting business with his brother-in-law, Vincent Potter, who lived in Barnstaple.[11] In 1669, John Selden, a merchant from Barnstaple, passed away after sending a shipment of goods to William Burke, a merchant from Chuckatuck, Virginia. John’s widow and executor, Sisely Selden, filed a lawsuit to recover these goods, which were “left to the said W^m Burke, &c., for the use of my late husband.”[12] Burke was clearly acting as an agent for Selden in Virginia. In Northampton County alone, there were six factors from Bideford, which is significant given the remote location of this county on Virginia’s Eastern Shore and its sparse population in the 17th century.[13] John Watkins, the historian from Bideford, provides more evidence of mercantile connections with the colonies, noting that “some of its chief merchants had very extensive possessions in Virginia and Maryland.”[14] In both New England and the southern colonies, local merchants served as resident agents for merchants from the mother country. Often connected to them through family ties, these factors facilitated the trade of American raw materials for the manufactured goods that their English counterparts specialized in.

The significant trade in earthenware from North Devon likely played a key role in the connections between Bideford, Barnstaple, and the colonies, yet this has largely gone unnoticed. In fact, the reality that these two towns were a major center for earthenware production and export in the 17th century has received little attention from ceramic historians, often only being viewed as sources of charming folk pottery. However, excavations at colonial sites and records from the British Public Records Office suggest that North Devon potters, for a certain period, were competitive with those in Staffordshire.

The earliest record of North Devon pottery being shipped to America is found in the Port Book entry for Barnstaple in 1635, when the Truelove, captained by Vivian Limbry, set sail on March 4 for New England with “40 dozen earthenware,” sent to merchant John Boole.[15] The next year, the same ship made another trip to New England with a similar quantity. After the Stuart restoration, larger shipments of earthenware were recorded, as shown by the sample listings (below) taken from the Port Books in the British Public Records Office.

Common Deliveries of Pottery from North Devon

(Sample entries from Port Books, verbatim)

BARNSTAPLE 1665[16]

BARNSTAPLE AND BIDEFORD, 1680 __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

[Pg 25]

BARNSTAPLE, 1681 __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

Bideford, 1681 __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

[Pg 26]

1682—BARNSTAPLE __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

Bideford 1682—Outwards __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

BARNSTAPLE/BIDEFORD OUTWARDS 1690[23]

[Pg 27]

BARNSTAPLE & BIDEFORD 1694[24]

Another source indicates that the Eagle of Bideford arrived in Boston from its home port on October 11, 1688, with a shipment of 9,000 parcels of earthenware. On July 28, 1689, the Freindship (sic) of Bideford brought in 7,200 parcels of earthenware and one hogshead of malt. Then, on August 24 of the same year, the Delight delivered a cargo of “9,000 parcels of earthenware and 2 fardells of dry goods” from Bideford.[25]

It’s clear that there was a strong relationship between the vessel, the shipmaster, and the factor, indicating that there might have been an equally close connection among all of them and the owners of the potteries. The Exchange, for example, appears to have been regularly used for transporting earthenware. In 1665, according to the records, it sailed to New England under the command of William Titherly. By 1681, Titherly had become a Maryland factor to whom the earthenware from the Exchange was sent then and in 1682. Similarly, Bartholomew Shapton sailed as the master of the Sea Faire in 1681 with earthenware to New England, and the following year he became the factor for the earthenware shipped on the same vessel under the command of John Titherly.

The ratio of earthenware cargo to the carrying capacity of typical 17th-century ocean-going ships, which ranged from around 30 to 50 tons, is hard to determine. A ton and a half of milk pans stacked neatly would be compact and take up only a little space. However, a similar weight of ovens might need a lot more room. When earthenware shipments are noted in terms of parcels, we are still uncertain since the parcel sizes aren't specified. We do know that the Eagle, a 50-ton ship, transported 9,000 parcels of earthenware as its only cargo in 1688, which is a lot compared to the much smaller quantities shown in the sample listings using the parcel standard. Even a standard shipment of 1,500 parcels, each containing an unknown number of pots, must have satisfied many kitchens when it arrived in Virginia in 1681. This type of shipment certainly indicates a strong production rate and an active trade.

The export of earthenware from North Devon wasn't just to America. As early as 1601, 100 dozen earthen pots of various kinds were shipped from Barnstaple to Dublin. In later years, just to highlight a few, the following shipments to Ireland from Barnstaple are recorded in the Public Record Office Port Books: 1617 - 290 dozen; 1618 - 320 dozen; 1619 - 322 dozen; 1620 - 508 dozen; 1632 - 260 dozen; 1635 - 300 dozen; 1636 - 480 dozen; 1639 - 660 dozen. Typical destinations included Kinsale, Youghal, Limerick, Cork, Galway, Coleraine, and Waterford. As the century went on, this trade grew immensely. In 1694, there were 17 separate earthenware shipments totaling 50,400 parcels sent from Barnstaple and Bideford to Dublin, Wexford, and Waterford.[26] It's possible that some of these cargoes went to America since only the first port of entry needed to be listed. However, the quick turnaround of many of the ships indicates this wasn’t usually the case.

Besides Ireland, Bristol and Exeter were popular stops in a bustling coastal trade. In 1681, for instance, substantial amounts of earthenware, tobacco pipes, and pipe clay were shipped to these locations.[27] Merchants in Bristol likely re-exported some of the earthenware to America.

The coastal trade seems to have decreased very little over time. In 1755, The Gentlemen’s[Pg 28] Magazine featured a report on Bideford, stating:[28]

John Watkins, in 1792, wrote:[29]

[Pg 29]

Not only was coastal trade in pottery sustained throughout the 18th century, but it actually continued until the final decline of the ceramics industry at the turn of this century.

Although the origins of North Devon pottery go back a long way—Barnstaple has had its Crock Street for 450 years[30]—the main evidence of early production dates to the second half of the 17th century. We've observed that a growing America created a larger market for North Devon’s ceramics. In 1668, Crocker’s pottery was established in Bideford, and it’s in the subsequent years that Bideford’s significance as a pottery center became clear. Crocker’s operated until 1896, with its dated 17th-century kilns still intact after producing items that changed little over the pottery’s 228 years of existence.[31]

In Barnstaple, the oldest pottery that still exists today was located on North Walk. When it was torn down in 1900, pieces from the second half of the 17th century were discovered nearby, along with a potter’s guild sign from 1675, which now hangs in Brannam’s pottery on Litchdon Street, Barnstaple. A pair of fire dogs, made in 1655 and shaped with molds similar to those from the North Walk site, was found near the North Walk pottery.

Both Bideford and Barnstaple had many potteries in addition to Crocker’s and Brannam’s. One, located on Potter’s Lane in the East-the-Water area of Bideford, was still producing “coarse plain ware” in 1906;[32] and its buildings were still standing in 1920. We have already noted that the Litchdon Street facility of C. H. Brannam, Ltd., continues to operate in a modern building on the site of its 17th-century predecessor. Beyond the boundaries of the two towns, there were “a number of small pot works in remote areas,” including the parish of Fremington, where Fishley’s pottery, founded in the 18th century, thrived until 1912.[33] Jewitt notes that the remains of five old potteries were discovered at the site of Fishley’s.[34]

The clay that all the potters used came from three similar deep clay deposits in a valley [Pg 30] running parallel to the River Taw in the parishes of Tawstock and Fremington between Bideford and Barnstaple. A geologist in 1864 stated that the clay is “perfectly homogeneous ... exceedingly tough, free from the slightest grit and soft as butter.”[35] When fired at too high a temperature, he noted, the clay would become so full of bubbles that it would float on water. The kilns were bottle-shaped and, according to tradition, originally open at the top, like lime kilns; the contents were covered with old pots.[36]

Apparently, all the potteries produced similar types of goods, with “coarse” or common earthenware making up most of their output. The practical red-ware was definitely rough, as it was heavily mixed with Bideford gravel to ensure durability and balance out the purity and softness of the Fremington clay. An anonymous historian wrote in 1755:[37]

Just above the bridge [over the River Torridge] is a small ridge of gravel with a unique quality, essential for the potters to create their products. There are many other gravel ridges within the bar, but only this one is suitable for their needs.

John Watkins wrote that Bideford earthenware “is generally thought to be superior to any other of its kind, which is usually attributed to the unique quality of the gravel from this river that helps bind the clay.” His assertion that “this is the real reason seems clear, since even though the potteries at Barnstaple use the same type of clay, their earthenware is not regarded as highly in Bristol, etc., as that of Bideford”[38] is hardly supportable, since the Barnstaple potters also used the same Bideford gravel. The fire dogs discovered in Barnstaple, dated 1655, mentioned earlier, were made with this gravel, as were “ovens, tiles, [Pg 31]pipkins, etc.,” to “harden the ware,” according to Charbonnier, who also noted that “The ware overall was poorly fired.... From the fragments, it’s clear that the firing was very uneven, with some parts being grey instead of a rich red, like the well-fired sections.” He observed that the potters used “native lead sulphide for the glaze, probably originally sprinkled onto the ware, just like older potters did elsewhere.”[39] A piece of gravel-tempered ware is showcased in the window of Brannam’s Barnstaple pottery, while a small pan from Bideford, likely from the 19th century, is part of the Smithsonian collections (USNM 394440).

The most notable form that uses gravel-tempered clay is the baking ovens, which have been a North Devon specialty for more than two centuries. These ovens come in various shapes and were made in different sizes. Most often, they are rectangular with domed tops, built in sections that were molded or “draped” together, resulting in seams that have either been tooled or reinforced with thumb impressions. An oven from Bideford has a flat top with no visible seams (USNM 394505; fig. 6).

An early example is found in Barnstaple, where a recently restored inn revealed an oven installed next to a fireplace that is “late sixteenth century in style.” After exposing the fireplace, pipes and a pair of women’s shoes, all from the first half of the 18th century, were discovered, indicating the period of its most recent use.[40] An oven that was discovered intact behind a wall during renovations of a Bideford house is thought to date from between 1650 and 1675.[41] That oven (figs. 7, 8) is now displayed in the Bideford Museum.

At the other end of the spectrum, C. H. Brannam from Barnstaple in 1890 was still producing ovens in the old North Walk pottery.[42] The next year, H. W. Strong mentioned Fishley’s Fremington pottery, stating that “shiploads of the large clay ovens in which the Cornishman bakes his bread ... sell quickly in[Pg 32] the fishing towns along the rugged coast of North Cornwall.”[43] Fremington ovens were also exported to Wales,[44] and, as Jewitt noted, those made at the Crocker pottery in Bideford “are, and have been for generations, highly regarded in Devonshire and Cornwall, as well as in the Welsh areas, and the bread baked in them is said to have a sweeter and more wholesome flavor compared to that baked in regular ovens.”[45]

Of ovens made in Barnstaple, there's a similar type of evidence. In 1851, Thomas Brannam[Pg 33] showcased an oven at the Crystal Palace, where it was described as “commonly used in Devonshire for baking bread and meat.”[46] In 1786, “Barnstaple ovens” were advertised for sale in Bristol at M. Ewers’ “Staffordshire, Broseley, and Glass Warehouse.”[47] Thirty-six years earlier, in 1750, Dr. Pococke, who tirelessly recorded all sorts of observations in his journal, noted that in Devonshire and Cornwall “they make extensive use of Cloume ovens,[48] which are earthenware of various sizes, shaped like an oven, and once heated, they close them up and cover them with embers to retain the heat.”[49] Pococke visited Calstock, “where they have a production of coarse earthenware, especially earthenware ovens.”[50] [Pg 34]We’ve only found one other instance of ovens being made outside the North Devon communities around the Fremington clay beds. Calstock is located about 35 miles southeast of Bideford in Cornwall, just over the Devon boundary.

As for the evidence about how these ovens were used in England, we’ve already seen that they were built into houses. Jewitt noted that they “are simply enclosed in raised brickwork, leaving the mouth open to the front.” They were heated until they glowed red by sticks or logs, which were then raked out with long iron tongs.[51] A bundle of gorse or wood, according to Jewitt,[52] was enough to “thoroughly bake three pecks of dough.” Pococke’s comments about the ovens being covered with embers to retain heat suggest that they were sometimes standalone. However, this could also have been the case when ovens were built into fireplaces.

From an aesthetic perspective, the pinnacle of the North Devon potters' work was their sgraffito ware, examples of which have already been mentioned in Brannam’s window display. Charbonnier discovered further evidence in the form of 17th-century sherds around the site of the North Walk pottery in Barnstaple. These included “plates and dishes of various sizes and shapes.... Given the extensive demand for these dishes, based on the pile of fragments, not a single piece has, to my knowledge, been found above ground.”[53] The apparent total disappearance of the sgraffito tablewares indicates that they stopped being produced around 1700. They seem to have been pushed out of the market by the more refined tastes that emerged in the 18th century, along with the delftware from Bristol, London, and Liverpool, which better matched those tastes.

However, certain types of sgraffito ware continued to be made without any breaks until the early 20th century. Instead of useful tableware, decorated with symbols and designs typical of 17th-century English folk art, we find that after 1700, only presentation pieces were produced, especially large harvest jugs. These harvest jugs were created for annual harvest celebrations, where farmers would pass them around among their field workers in a folk ritual that took place at the end of the harvest.[54] Unlike the sgraffito tablewares, where style and taste were key to their survival, these special jugs were meant to be used only in yearly ceremonies. Therefore, they were carefully preserved and handed down from generation to generation, resulting in a higher chance of survival than that of the sgraffito tablewares.

The design of the harvest jugs is really different from that of the tableware. The jugs are decorated with a lively mix of symbols representing fertility and prosperity, sometimes combined with images and references to the sea, especially on the jugs linked to Bideford. The oldest dated examples clearly show design features and techniques that connect them to the tableware, while later versions made in the 18th and 19th centuries reveal a growing divergence from the 17th-century style. One particularly intricate piece was created for display at the Great Exhibition of 1851 in the Crystal Palace.[55]

Less complicated pieces, with minimal carving, were made for everyday use, just like simple pieces that had slip applied to their surfaces without any decoration. The techniques of trailing and splashing slip designs on the surface of the pottery, which were common in Staffordshire and many of our colonial potteries, were apparently not used in North Devon.[56]

Except for the Bowne House oven and a 1698 jug (see p. 45), there are no known surviving examples of North Devon pottery used in America above ground. However, archaeological evidence offers a solid record of North Devon wares and the tastes and customs they represented. Below are descriptions of the main sites where these wares were discovered.

JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA: MAY-HARTWELL SITE.

The site of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America, has been dug up at different times by the National Park Service. The early digs were overseen by several[Pg 35] archaeological technicians who led Civilian Conservation Corps teams. In September 1936, J. C. Harrington became the supervising archaeologist for the project, and he continued the work until World War II as funding allowed. Aside from the privately funded excavation of the Jamestown glasshouse site by Harrington in 1947, no major archaeological work was done again until 1954, when John L. Cotter was appointed chief archaeologist. He was responsible for the thorough exploration of Jamestown until 1956.[57]

One of the most interesting areas of the Jamestown complex was the two and a half acres of land that belonged in turn to William May, Nicholas Merriweather, William White, and Henry Hartwell. The site was first explored in 1935. During this exploration, a winding brick drain was discovered, built on top of a layer of artifacts, mainly pottery fragments. The wealth of finds here was unmatched anywhere else in Jamestown; this is where our main evidence about the North Devon types sent to America comes from.

The May-Hartwell site was investigated more thoroughly in 1938 and 1939 by Harrington, who has an unpublished report on file with the National Park Service.[58] Harrington’s excavation, considering historical records, concluded that the brick drain was installed during Henry Hartwell’s time at the site[Pg 36] between 1689 and 1695. This was supported by the discovery of several bottle seals in the fill, marked with Hartwell’s initials, “H. H.” Hartwell was married to the widow of William White, who had bought the property from Nicholas Merriweather in 1677. That was the year after Bacon’s Rebellion, during which Merriweather’s house was likely destroyed.

There were hundreds of pottery fragments in the fill beneath and around the brick drain, as well as in other ditches on the site. The North Devon types were discovered here alongside various types of pottery. The most easily recognizable were pieces of English delftware in many shapes and decoration styles from the second half of the 17th century. There were also some earlier 17th-century examples, which was to be expected. No 18th-century items were found in the brick drain area, and only a few scattered in other sections; none were found alongside the North Devon fragments.

JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA: ADDITIONAL SITES.

North Devon ceramics are found at most sites in Jamestown, but it's not always possible to date them based on contextual evidence because precise archaeological records weren't consistently maintained during the early stages of the excavations. However, it's relatively easy to narrow down the dates in enough sites to propose date ranges for these ceramics.

The earliest evidence comes from a well (W-21) that was excavated in 1956[59]—which contained an unusual sgraffito sherd described below (p. 43). The sherd was found beneath a foot-deep layer that included Dutch majolica, Italian sgraffito ware, and tobacco pipes, all of which date to before 1650 based on their form or decoration. This sherd is unique compared to all others found at Jamestown, but it closely resembles North Devon work. It’s likely a precursor to the typical varieties found at the May-Hartwell site and elsewhere.

No gravel-tempered sherds have been found in contexts that can be definitively dated before 1675. A large[Pg 37] deposit of gravel-tempered sherds was discovered between one foot deep and the level of the cellar floor at the mansion house site (Structure 112), which is located near the pitch-and-tar swamp. This house was built before 1650 but was likely burned down during Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676.[60] The sherds were certainly part of the household items from that time. All other ceramic fragments, with one exception, were linked to objects that date before 1660.

In locations from before around 1670, no North Devon pottery is discovered, except for the early sgraffito shard mentioned earlier. This was true for a brick kiln (Structure 127) from the early 17th century and two sites (Structure 110 and Kiln C) near the pottery kiln. In Structure 110, all the ceramics are from before 1650.[61]

The latest example of gravel-tempered ceramics appears in contexts from the early to mid-18th century. A pit near the Ambler property (Refuse Pit 2)[62] contained a typical early 18th-century deposit with flat-rimmed gravel-tempered pans of a characteristic style. Alongside these were pieces of blue delft (before 1725), Staffordshire “combed” ware (produced throughout the 18th century, but mainly from about 1730-1760), Nottingham stoneware (throughout the 18th century), gray-white Höhr stoneware (last quarter of the 17th century), Buckley black-glazed ware (mostly 1720-1770), and Staffordshire white salt-glazed ware (1740-1770).

HAMPTON, VA: KECOUGHTAN SITE.

In 1941, Joseph B. and Alvin W. Brittingham, amateur archaeologists from Hampton, Virginia, dug up several trash pits at what they thought was an early 17th-century trading post on the original site of Kecoughtan, an Indian village[Pg 38] and colonial outpost that eventually became Elizabeth City, Virginia. The rich artifacts they found, which resembled those discovered at Jamestown on a smaller scale, indicate continuous habitation from the start of settlement in 1610 until about 1760.[63] The collection was donated to the Smithsonian Institution in 1950.

JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA: GREEN SPRING PLANTATION.

In 1642, Sir William Berkeley arrived in Virginia to become its governor. Seven years later, he built Green Spring, which is about five miles north of Jamestown. The house stood until after 1800. Its site was excavated in 1954 by the National Park Service, supervised by Louis R. Caywood, a Park Service archaeologist.[64] The project was jointly supported by the Jamestown-Williamsburg-Yorktown Celebration Commission and the Virginia 350th Anniversary Commission, conducted under the supervision of Colonial National Historical Park in Yorktown, Virginia.

WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA: EARLY 1700s DEPOSITS.

A small amount of North Devon gravel-tempered pottery was found at sites excavated in Williamsburg by Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. These digs have been conducted as part of the Williamsburg restoration program over a span of 30 years. Very few of the North Devon fragments discovered can be precisely dated, as they were mainly found in undocumented ditches, pits, and similar deposits. However, it's unlikely that any of the material is from before the early 18th century since Williamsburg wasn't officially established as a town until 1699. In light of this, it’s notable that North Devon pan fragments in the Williamsburg collection have features similar to those from other 18th-century sites. Also [Pg 39], it’s important to point out that there is no sgraffito pottery found here. A gravel-tempered pan (fig. 23) from the Coke-Garrett House site was discovered in a context that can be dated around 1740-1760.

WESTMORELAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA: LOCATION OF THE JOHN WASHINGTON HOUSE.

In 1930, the National Park Service took over as the caretakers of “Wakefield,” the site where George Washington was born, located on Pope’s Creek in Westmoreland County. About a mile west of “Wakefield,” still within the Park area, is the site of Bridges Creek Plantation, which John Washington purchased in 1664. He was the earliest member of the Washington family in America. John lived there at least until his death in 1677, and likely Lawrence Washington also occupied it for a few years after that. A lot of artifacts were excavated from the plantation house site, including the largest collections of North Devon types found outside of Jamestown.[65]

STAFFORD COUNTY, VA: MARLBOROUGH SITE.

A brief town was created in 1691 at the junction of Potomac Creek and the Potomac River on Potomac Neck. The town was deserted by 1720, but six years later it became the home of John Mercer, who established a plantation there. The location of his house was excavated by the Smithsonian Institution in 1956. Two small pieces of North Devon gravel-tempered pottery were discovered there in a mainly mid-18th-century layer.

[Pg 40]

CALVERT COUNTY, MARYLAND: ANGELICA KNOLL SITE.

Since 1954, Robert A. Elder, Jr., assistant curator of ethnology at the United States National Museum, has been studying a plantation or small settlement called Angelica Knoll located on the Chesapeake Bay. This research has uncovered a wide variety of gravel-tempered utensil forms, including styles from both the 17th and 18th centuries. The assortment of related artifacts suggests that the site dates from the late 17th century to around 1765.

Kent Island, Queen Anne County, Maryland.

A small collection of materials from the late 17th century and early 18th century—collected by Richard H. Stearns near the shore of Kent Island, a quarter-mile south of Kent Island Landing—includes both North Devon types. The collection was donated to the United States National Museum.

LEWES, SUSSEX COUNTY, DELAWARE: TOWNSEND SITE.

The Townsend site was excavated by members of the Sussex County Archeological Society in 1947. This was mainly an Indian site, but a pit or well contained European artifacts, including a North Devon gravel-tempered jar (fig. 25). The village of Lewes, originally the Dutch settlement of Zwaanandael, was destroyed by the British, who took over the area in 1664.[66] The European materials from the Townsend site were donated to the United States National Museum.

PLYMOUTH, PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS: “R.M.” SITE.

A site of a house thought to have belonged to Robert Morton, situated south of Plymouth, was dug up by Henry Hornblower II. It had North Devon gravel-tempered shards. The collection is now housed in the archaeological lab of Plimoth Plantation, Inc., in Plymouth.

ROCKY NOOK, KINGSTON, PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS: LOCATIONS OF JOHN HOWLAND HOUSE AND JOSEPH HOWLAND HOUSE.

The John Howland house was built between 1628 and 1630; it burned down around 1675. The site was excavated from September 1937 to July 1938 under the supervision of the late Sidney T. Strickland.[67] Several pieces of gravel-tempered utensils were found here, along with a fragment of an oven (see fig. 26). Artifacts from this site and the next one are kept at the Plimoth Plantation laboratory.

The foundations of the Joseph Howland house, next to the John Howland house site, were dug up in 1959 by James Deetz, an archaeologist at Plimoth Plantation. This is the only site in New England that we know of that has produced North Devon sgraffito ware. Two successive houses apparently[Pg 41] stood on the site. Statistical evidence from pipe-stem-bore measurements suggests that the first main period of occupancy was from 1680 to 1710.[68]

MARSHFIELD, PLYMOUTH COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS: WINSLOW SITE.

This site, dug up by Henry Hornblower II and roughly dated between 1635 and 1699, produced a significant amount of gravel-tempered pottery. The cultural artifacts mainly date from around 1675.

FLUSHING, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK: THE JOHN BOWNE HOUSE.

The John Bowne House is a historic house museum located at Bowne Street and Fox Lane in Flushing, Long Island, and is maintained by the Bowne House Historical Society. Bowne was a Quaker from Derbyshire who built his house in 1661. A North Devon oven remains in place, with its opening situated at the back of the fireplace.

Yorktown, Virginia.

The National Park Service has dug in several places in Yorktown, including the nearby battlefield sites and the town itself. Yorktown, like Marlborough, was founded by the Act for Ports in 1691. In some of the areas that were excavated, a few pieces of North Devon gravel-tempered ware were found. In the waste behind the Swan Tavern, which opened as an inn in 1722 but was likely occupied earlier, a large piece of a 15-inch sgraffito platter was uncovered. No other pieces of this type were found, and the associated artifacts were mostly from the 18th century.

North Devon Sgraffito Pottery

Sites: Jamestown, Kecoughtan, Green Spring, John Washington House, Kent Island, Yorktown, Joseph Howland House.

Paste

Manufacture: Wheel-turned, using templates to shape the collars of jugs and to form the edges and sometimes ridges where the rims of plates meet the bezels.

Temper: Fine, almost microscopic, water-worn sand grains.

Texture: Fine, smooth, well-mixed, sharp, even cleavage.

Color: Dull pinkish-red, usually with a gray core.

Firing: Two firings, one before glazing and one after. Typically, there’s incomplete oxidation, indicated by a gray core. Some pieces have surface breaks or flaking that occurred during firing, and most display warping (suggesting that “rejects,” which couldn’t be sold in England, were sent to the colonists, who had no choice but to accept them).

Surfaces

Treatment: The inner surfaces of plates and bowls and the outer surfaces of jugs, cups, mugs, chamber pots, and other utensils are coated with white kaolin slip. Designs are scratched through the slip while it's wet and into the surface of the clay, revealing the underlying material. The undersides of plates and chargers are often scraped to create irregular flat areas of [Pg 42]surface. Portions covered with slip are coated with amber glaze by sifting on powdered galena (lead sulfide). Containers that have slip on the outside are also glazed on both the outside and inside. The slip and glaze do not cover the lower parts of jugs, but instead run down unevenly.

Color: Slipped surfaces are white where they're exposed without glaze. Unglazed surfaces are a dull terracotta. The glaze comes in tones from honey-colored to a dark greenish amber. When it's applied over the slip, the glaze ranges from lemon to a dull brown-yellow, or, at best, a sparkling butter color. When applied directly over the paste and over the carved and scratched designs, the glaze shows up as a rich mahogany brown or dark amber.

Forms

Dishes, serving trays, and chargers:

All have wide rims, but they come in different widths, with raised bezels and thick, curved edges.

Baluster wine cups: Height 3¾″-4″. Made with a slip finish and decorated on the outside; glazed on both the inside and outside. (Figs. 12, 14.)

Concave-sided mugs: Height around 4″. They were slipped and decorated on the outside; glazed on the inside and outside. (The only complete specimen, found in Jamestown, had an incised band around the rim.) (Fig. 14.)

Jugs: Height 6½″ and 8″-8½″. Round bodies, with vertical or slightly turned-out collars shaped in a series of ridged bands, and with shaped rims at the top. Some have spouts, while others do not. Coated, decorated, and glazed on the outside above an incised line around the waist; glazed on the inside. (Figs. 13, 14.)

Eating bowls: Diameter, including handle, 9″-10″; depth 3¼″-4″. Straight, outwardly curved sides, flat rims, with slightly raised edges, one small flat loop handle attached to the rim. Slipped, decorated, and glazed on the inside and rim.

Chamber pots: Height 5½". Curving sides that end in a thick, raised, rounded band topped with a concave, outwardly flared rim. The rim is 1" wide and flat. Finished with a slip, decorated, and glazed on both the outside and inside. (Fig. 15.)

Candlestick: One of a kind. Height 6″. Bell-shaped base with a flange and a shaft above that has a socket on top. Handle runs from the bottom of the socket to the bottom of the shaft. The upper part is slipped, decorated, and glazed.

Ripple-edged, shallow dish: Unique piece. Diameter 9¼″. Concave, rimless dish or plate with an edge crimped like a pie or tart plate. Upper surface slipped, decorated, and glazed.[Pg 43]

Decor

Technique: (1) Cutting into wet slip with a pointed tool for straight-line effects. (2) Removing small sections to expose the paste and enhance the tonal qualities of the designs. (3) Using multi-pointed tools that have three to five points to create multiple-lined stripes. (4) Dabbing with the same tools.

Motifs: The motifs are diverse and never appear in the same combination more than once. There are two main categories of design, geometric and floral, although in some instances, these are combined in the same piece.

In the geometric style, most plate rims are decorated with quickly drawn spirals and guilloches. The centers might feature circles within squares, circles that enclose compass-drawn petals, or circles surrounded by a series of swags embellished with lines. One plate has its border decorated with triple-lined chevrons. A chamber pot is adorned with diagonal stripes made of multiple lines, with wavy lines interrupted by small cut-out rectangles in between. Some cups, jugs, and the candlestick have simple decorations of vertical stripes, with wavy lines, stippling, and cut-out blocks between them.

The floral category features detailed and stylized floral and vine designs: tulips, sunflowers, leaves, tendrils, hearts, and four-petaled flowers. One plate (fig. 11) blends the geometric aspect of the first category with the floral elements of the second in its swag-and-tassel rim and swagged band, which surrounds a sunflower rising from a stalk between two leaves.

The design motifs are unique compared to those found on other English pottery from the 17th century. The geometric patterns and spiral decorations, which also appear in Hispanic majolica, have a Moorish influence. Christian symbols—especially tulips, sunflowers, and hearts—are common, as they are in contemporary West-of-England furniture, pewter, and embroidery, as well as in the carved chests and crewel work of Puritan New England. There is good reason to believe that there was a connection between North Devon sgraffito-ware production and design on one hand and the arrival of Huguenot and Netherlands Protestant artisans in southern and southwestern England on the other. Low Country immigrant potters were behind two other ceramic innovations in England—stoneware and majolica.

Atypical Sample

Already mentioned is a large piece of a dish found in a context no later than 1640, which is cruder and simpler in design than the other North Devon sgraffito ware we've seen so far. It still belongs to the same category. Its clay has the same[Pg 44] characteristics of color and breakage, while the firing has left the same recognizable gray core found in a large number of North Devon sherds. The surface treatment techniques are similar to those found in typical dish fragments—glazed slip over the red clay on the inside; unglazed, scraped, and abraded surfaces on the bottom. The yellow color is lighter, and the glazed surface is less shiny. The rim has a thinner edge and lacks the heavy raised bezel that usually appears on standard plates and chargers. The design motifs—rough and basic compared to those mentioned earlier—feature a series of stripes on the rim, drawn at right angles to the edge with a four-pointed tool, along with crude hook-like decorations traced with the same tool in the bowl of the plate. This can be seen as a precursor to the more developed sgraffito ware produced in the second half of the 17th century.

Unique Feature

The flat rim of a chamber pot from Jamestown (fig. 15) has “WR 16 ..” scratched into the surface. It's likely that the initials stand for “William Rex,” referring to William III, who became king in 1688. The reason for commemorating the king in such a lowly way might be linked to the fact that Barnstaple and Bideford were strong Puritan and Huguenot areas. Even though William was a popular ruler, he was still the head of the Church of England, and an anti-royalist, Calvinist potter might have shown his disdain in this manner. Later on, in the 18th century, George III seems to have been similarly disrespected by Staffordshire potters, who created salt-glazed chamber pots styled after Rhenish Westerwald drinking jugs, proudly displaying “GR” emblems on the sides. Initials or names of owners don’t appear on any of the North Devon wares found in American sites, nor do the potters' initials. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the only exception would be on the rim of a chamber pot.

[Pg 45]

Comparative Evidence

Sherds owned by C. H. Brannam, Ltd., and dug up at the Litchdon Street pottery site in Barnstaple.—The largest piece is a section of a deep dish (fig. 2). Its border design appears to be a simplified version of a beetle-like motif seen on Portuguese majolica from that time. From a rough oval with a dotted line running along it, a spiral scroll extends, ending in a bold dot that resembles the tendrils on the Portuguese pieces. Small linear "hooks" can be found from incised lines near the rim and on the edge of the bezel. The inside features sunflower petals next to a short, stylized palmette, with another stalk and pair of leaves above, reaching up to what might have been a detailed floral center, which is now missing. This decoration closely resembles the interiors of floral-type plates and chargers found at Jamestown. A section of the plate rim is similar to typical rims found at American sites. The surface color is the butter yellow characteristic of the best Jamestown pieces. The paste color also matches.

Sherds from the North Walk pottery in Barnstaple, described by Charbonnier. These were found near the site, on the banks of the Yeo and in a pasture. They include plates and dishes, some completed and others discarded in the biscuit state. Charbonnier shows a plate with a zig-zag or chevron border and an incised bird in the center. The chevron appears on Jamestown specimens, but the bird does not.

Harvest jugs.—18th-century North Devon harvest jugs analyzed by the author show the same characteristics of paste, slip, and glaze as the Jamestown shards. However, the jugs differ in style to a noticeable degree, indicating that later potters were not influenced by the earlier work (fig. 16). The earliest harvest jug known to us is an unrecorded example, dated 1698, currently in the collection of Charles G. Dorman. This is the only harvest jug encountered that has a documented history of use in America and the only North Devon sgraffito piece known to have survived above ground on this continent. It is an impressively bold pot, featuring a large rounded body, a high flaring collar, and a lengthy inscription (see fig. 17). A female figure under a pomegranate wreath serves as the central motif. Her head is depicted in left profile, with hair flowing down to her shoulders. The bust is highly stylized in an oval shape, filled with intersecting curved lines creating areas decorated with diagonal incising or short dashes. The design is strongly reminiscent of the geometric decorations on Jamestown plates and deep dishes. A pair of unicorns flanks the central figure, with a dove and a swan positioned behind each unicorn, to the left and right respectively. Beneath these are sunflowers and tulips, while a tulip rises above rows of leaves on a stem below the handle. Feather-like leaves embellish the lower part of the handle. At the junction of the shoulder and collar is a narrow band of incised tulips. Above this is a prominent ridge from which the flaring collar extends. Beneath the spout is a male head, wearing a wig depicted similarly to the pomegranates on the wreath, along with a stylized hat and a stock-like collar. One might suspect that the man is a clergyman, even though his eyes are cast down in a rather worldly manner at the lady below. He is flanked by a pair of doves; behind each dove is a vertical tulip with its stem and leaves.

Some of the shading is done with a four-pointed tool, like in many of the Jamestown pieces, although this tool was smaller. The handle shows the same features as those on jugs found at Jamestown—the same uneven ridge and the same wide, upward-thrust reinforcement at the base of the handle. Unlike the Jamestown jugs, this one is completely covered on the outside with slip and glaze. However, since this was a presentation piece, we can expect it to be made with more care than pots that were made for commercial sale.

The jug has been passed down through a family in Sussex County, Delaware—on the female side, interestingly. Family history suggests it was owned since the early 19th century, with an unverified story that it was used by British soldiers during the Revolutionary War. We can at least conclude that the jug isn’t a recent import and speculate that it was likely brought to America as a family heirloom by a Devon family emigrating, possibly before the Revolution. Sussex County has a stable population, mostly of long-established English descent. It was settled in the second half of the 17th century and the first half of the 18th century. Therefore, there’s a strong possibility,[Pg 47] that the jug was brought to Delaware at a relatively early time.

Many other harvest jugs have been similarly valued in England. A nearly identical version of the Delaware jug, clearly made by the same potter, is in the Glaisher collection in Cambridge. This jug, dated “1703/4,”[69] shows some differences, like the absence of the male head and a different inscription. Another jug, featuring a hunting scene but with a similar neck and collar design, also appears to be by the same hand; it is dated “1703.”[70]

From the perspective of identifying and dating the archeologically recovered sgraffito ware, these jugs are significant in demonstrating certain traits similar[Pg 48] to those found in the sherds, while also showcasing other features that are clearly distinct. They reinforce the archeological evidence that the Jamestown pieces are older than the jugs and that new design ideas were emerging by the turn of the century in a new type of presentation piece.

North Devon Plain Slipware

This is a simple version of the sgraffito ware, differing only in the lack of decoration and in some of the shapes.

Site: Jamestown.

Forms

Plates: Diameter 7″-11½″. Profiles like sgraffito plates. Top surface slipped and glazed.

Eating bowls: Diameter 9″; height 3½″. The shape and handle are the same as in sgraffito bowls. Slipped and glazed on the inside and over the rim.

Porringers: Diameter 5½″; height 2¾″. Ogee profiles. Horizontal loop handle attached ¾″ below the rim on each. Slipped and glazed on the interiors. (Fig. 22.)

Drinking bowls: Rim diameter, including handle, 5″; height 2¾″-3″; base diameter 2″. These bowls are shaped like mazer bowls, featuring narrow bases and straight sides that end in raised, decorated bands where they meet the vertical or slightly inverted rims, which are 1″ high. Each bowl has a horizontal looped handle attached at the bottom of the rim. The interiors are slipped and glazed. (Fig. 22.)

Wavy-edge pans: Diameter 9″-10″; height 2″. Flat round pans with straight sides shaped into wide scallops or waves. Purpose unknown. Slipped and glazed on the inside.

North Devon Gravel-Tempered Pottery

Sites: Jamestown, Kecoughtan, Green Spring, Williamsburg, Marlborough, John Washington House, Kent Island, Angelica Knoll, Townsend, John Bowne House, “R. M.,” Winslow, John Howland House.

Paste

Manufacture: Wheel-turned, except for ovens and rectangular pans, which are “draped” over molds. (See “Forms,” below.)

Temper: Very rough water-worn quartz and feldspar gravel up to half an inch long; also some occasional sherds. The proportion of temper is 15-25 percent, except in ovens, where it was about 30 percent.

Texture: Not well-kneaded, bubbly, and porous, with poorly mixed temper. Temper particles can be easily rubbed out of the matrix. Very irregular and angular cleavage due to coarse temper. Hard and resistant to impacts, but crumbles when fractured.

Color: Dull pinkish-red to deep orange-red. Almost always gray at the core, except in ovens.

Firing: It was done carelessly, with the paste not fully oxidized.

Surface

Treatment: Coated with powdered galena on the inside of containers, never on the outside. The glaze was applied very carelessly, with a lot of evidence of dripping, running, and accidental spilling.

Texture: Very rough and uneven, with bits of gravel sticking out.

Color: Unglazed surfaces vary from bright terra cotta to reddish buff. Glazed surfaces on well-fired pieces are a clear yellow-green with frequent orange splotches. Overfired pieces turn a dark olive-amber, sometimes nearly black. Rare specimens have slipped interiors that are later glazed, showing a similar butter-yellow effect as in sgraffito and plain slip-coated types.

Forms

All forms are not fully represented, as many rims are not shown through complete or reconstructed pieces. The following are the recognized forms.

Round, flat-bottomed pans: Diameter 16″, height 4″; diameter 16″, height 5″; diameter 18″, height 4″; diameter 15″, height 4½″; diameter 13¼″, height 4⅜″. Heavy rounded rims. Glazed inside just below the rims. These were likely milk pans, but they might have also been used for cooking and washing. The ones lined with slip could have served as wash basins. (Figs. 18, 23.)

Round, flat-bottomed pans: Diameter about 19″, height not known. (No complete example.) Heavy rims, strengthened with added strips of clay under the outer edge of the rim. Reinforcement strips are fixed with thumb marks or square marks made by the end of a flat tool. (Figs. 28, 29.)

Cooking pots: Diameter 12", height 6"; diameter 8", height 5". Curved sides, ending with a crafted concave band and a slightly curved, flat rim on top. Glazed on the inside.

Bowls: Diameter 8 inches, height 5 inches. Sides are curved, with flattened-curve rims, and detailed bands below the rims. Glazed on the inside. (Fig. 19.)

[Pg 49]

Cooking pots: Diameter (including handles) 9½″, height 6″. The shape is a segmented curve, with the rim matching the diameter of the base. There’s an outside flange to hold the cover. Small horizontal loop handles. A band of three incised lines wraps around the waist. (Fig. 18.)

Cooking pot lids: Sizes 7″, 10″, 10½″, 11″. Flat lids with rims turned downwards. Off-center loop handles, likely meant to make it easier to [Pg 50]check the contents of the pot by allowing you to lift one side of the lid. Lids may sometimes have incised numbers. Unglazed. (Fig. 18.)

Pipkins: Diameter 7″, height 3″; diameter 8½″, height 3½″; diameter 8¼″, height 4″; diameter 8″, height 5″. Curved sides that end at a decorative concave band with a flattened, slightly curved rim on top. Three short legs. The handle is roughly shaped and casually attached at an upward angle. Glazed on the inside. Used as a saucepan to sit in the coals. (Fig. 19.)

Rectangular basting or baking pans: Length 15″, width 11¾″ (dimensions of a single restored item at Jamestown; many fragments also found at Jamestown and Plymouth). Drape-molded. Reinforced scalloped rim. Heavy horizontal loop handles are sometimes on the sides, sometimes on the ends. Glazed inside. (Fig. 21.)

Storage jars: Available in various sizes. The only fully restored example (Lewes, Delaware) has a rim diameter of 8″ and a height of 12½″. The rims of the largest jars (diameters 7″, 10″, 12″) have reinforcement strips added below the outer edge. They feature heavy vertical loop handles, with the tops attached to the rims.[Pg 51] Most of them have interior flanges to hold lids. They are glazed on the inside. These jars were essential for storing and pickling food, as well as for brewing beer. (Fig. 25.)

Plate warmer or chafing dish: A unique item. Diameter (including handle) 11", height 7". Heavy, flared pedestal foot supports a wide bowl, glazed on the inside. The flat rim has a slight elevation on the outer edge. Three lugs or supports extend vertically from the rim to hold plates. Vertical loop handles extend from the rim to the lower sides of the bowl. “Spirits of wine” were likely burned in the bowl to heat the plate above. (Fig. 20.) Fragmented pedestals, similar in shape to this one (but smaller, with step turnings around the base) may have been parts of smaller chafing dishes. (Fig. 31.)

Ovens: (1) One completely rebuilt oven at Jamestown. It was made in sections using drape molds: a base, two sides, two halves of the top, an opening frame, and a door. The side and top sections are connected with seams that are reinforced by finger impressions, meeting at the top of the trapezoidal opening. The opening was molded separately and reinforced with thumb impressions. A flat door with a heavy vertical handle, rounded in shape, fits tightly into the opening. The thickness ranges from ¾″ to 1½″. It’s unglazed, although drips of glaze during firing suggest that the oven was fired with glazed utensils stacked above it. (Fig. 10.)

(2) Oven set up in Bowne House, Flushing, Long Island. It's similar in shape to the oven in Jamestown. The opening is arched.

(3) Body sherds and handle sherds found at Jamestown, from one or more additional ovens.

(4) Body sherd from a dome-top oven similar to those at Jamestown and Flushing. John Howland House site, Rocky Nook, Kingston, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. (Fig. 26.)

[Pg 52]

Comparative Evidence

Paste color, texture, and composition looks the same when viewed under a microscope. The oven sherds from the Jamestown and Howland house sites are very similar, as well as resembling a large chip obtained from the Smithsonian’s oven that was bought in Bideford. Apart from a slightly lower amount of temper, the utensil sherds from different sites match the oven fragments well. The Smithsonian’s 19th-century Bideford pan is also very similar to these, with the exception of having a slightly lower amount of temper. Additionally, there is a close similarity in form between the Jamestown and Flushing ovens and those in the Bideford Museum. (Figs. 7, 9.)

In 1954, Frederick H. Norton, a professor of ceramics at MIT, conducted comparative tests. Jamestown clay was used as a control. Thin sections made from sherds found at Jamestown were fired at various temperatures, and the results were documented in photomicrographs. Regarding the gravel-tempered sherd submitted for these tests, Professor Norton remarked, “The clay mass looks quite different from the Jamestown clay.”

No other recognizable English pottery from this time matches the gravel-tempered pottery, which seems to be unique to North Devon. Gravel can be found in red earthenware fragments from Spanish colonial sites and in olive oil jars of Hispanic origin, but both the quality and amount of temper vary, along with the characteristics of the paste, so there's no chance of confusing them with the North Devon ware.

The North Devon potteries produced gravel-tempered ovens that were likely unique in England. Other ceramic ovens were made elsewhere; Jewitt describes and shows an oven made in Yearsley by the Yorkshire Wedgwoods in 1712, but it’s not related to the North Devon style. We've mentioned Dr. Pococke’s reference to “earthenware ovens” made in the mid-18th century at Calstock on the Cornish side of the Devon border, about 35 miles from Bideford. However, one might assume that these were influenced by the North Devon center, if they even resembled the North Devon ovens at all.

The closest comparisons to the North Devon ovens can be found in Continental sources. A woodcut in Ulrich von Richental’s Concilium zu Constancz (fig. 35), printed in Augsburg in 1483, shows an oven that looks similar to the one from Jamestown. The oven in the woodcut is on a two-wheeled cart pulled by two men. A woman is taking a tart out from the flame-licked opening while a couple sits at a table in front of a shop nearby. A century later, Le Moyne illustrated the Huguenot Fort Caroline in Florida.[71] Just outside the stockade, on a raised platform under a thatched lean-to, there's an oven that resembles typical North Devon examples (fig. 36). It's reasonable to assume that the ovens in both Richental’s and Le Moyne’s scenes were ceramic, as both were used outdoors in a portable or temporary way. No other material would have worked for such a purpose.

This portable use supports Bailey's theory that the Jamestown oven might have been used indoors during the winter and outside in the summer. He observed that carbon had been ground into the base, as if the oven had been resting on a fireplace hearth.[72] Sidney Strickland, discussing his excavation of the John Howland House site, pointed out that the stone fireplace foundation there had no space for a built-in brick oven of the usual type.[73] Not recognizing the earthen oven fragment, he thought that bread was baked on the stone hearth. The pottery oven could have been placed on the hearth or set up in a separate building. The existence of some sort of ovens, whether ceramic or brick, away from houses is supported by occasional documentary evidence. In 1662, John Andrews of Ipswich, Massachusetts, left behind a "bake house" valued at 2 pounds, 10 shillings. In 1673, Henry Short of Newbury specified in his will that his widow should have "free egress and regress into the Bakehouse for baking & washing." In 1679, the inventory of Lt. George Gardner’s estate in Salem included his "dwelling house, bake house & out housing."[74] Bailey references the records of Henrico County, Virginia, to demonstrate a similar use in the South.[75]

[Pg 53]

The only clear proof of how these ovens were used is in the Bowne House, where the oven is built into the back of the fireplace. Originally, the oven extended outdoors from the back of the chimney.[76]

Archaeological, documentary, and literary evidence shows that yellow sgraffito ware, gravel-tempered earthenware utensils, and gravel-tempered pottery ovens were produced in various potteries in and around Barnstaple and Bideford in North Devon. Clay from the Fremington clay beds was utilized.

The North Devon potteries produced goods for export, sending their products to Ireland as early as 1600 and to America by 1635. The trade significantly increased in the years after the Stuart Restoration and was connected to the influential 17th-century West-of-England trade with America. New England, Maryland, and Virginia received numerous shipments of North Devon pottery, with an entire cargo delivered in Boston in 1688.

Sgraffito ware discovered at colonial sites in Virginia and Maryland comes from a shared origin. The decorative style is distinctive to English pottery and incorporates elements of Continental design. It resembles the decoration seen on English and colonial New England furniture and embroideries. The only similar examples of this ware—matching it in style, paste color, and technique—are found among 17th-century fragments excavated from two potteries in Barnstaple. The North Devon sgraffito ware from the 18th and 19th centuries that still exists above ground differs significantly in style and form, but in other ways, it is the same as the ware found archaeologically in Virginia and Maryland. The stylistic differences, evident in a piece from the Glaisher collection dated as early as 1704 (where traces of the earlier style remain), emerged at the turn of the century, reinforcing the conclusion that the sgraffito tablewares found archaeologically in this country must date from before 1700.

[Pg 54]

[Pg 55]

[Pg 56]

[Pg 57]For kitchen utensils, tiles, and other items that can be heated or broken, the same Fremington clay was mixed with fine pebbles or gravel, collected from a specific spot in the River Torridge near Bideford. The use of gravel was mentioned by 18th-century writers and later historians. As seen in America, the gravel-tempered ware seems to be one-of-a-kind among the products of both English and colonial American potters.

A specialty of the North Devon potteries was making ovens from the same gravel-tempered clay used for kitchen utensils. The look of these ovens and the way they were made stayed almost unchanged from the 17th to the 19th centuries. At Jamestown, a completely reconstructed oven showcases typical North Devon features throughout, while a piece of an oven from the John Howland House site near Plymouth shows, under a microscope, the same qualities of paste and temper found in a fragment of an oven collected in Bideford by the Smithsonian Institution. Sherds of gravel-tempered utensils from several American sites also match the oven fragments. The paste characteristics, excluding the temper, are identical in the sgraffito ware, gravel-tempered ware, and the ovens. Furthermore,[Pg 58] the gravel-tempered ware is sometimes found with a plain coating of slip, which, under the glaze, has the same yellow color as the sgraffito ware, while a plain variant of the sgraffito ware also appears with a similar plain slip.

All these goods, including the ovens, are interconnected—the items found in America were shipped in a busy North Devon-North American trade. Additionally, the North Devon towns were a key pottery-making hub for export markets in the West of England, Ireland, and North America. Thousands of packages of earthenware were sent to the American colonies from Bideford and Barnstaple during the 17th century. Any doubts that ovens were part of these overseas shipments are cleared up by the fact that they were consistently shipped in the English coastwise trade, as well as by the intrinsic and comparative evidence that oven fragments found at American sites come from North Devon.

The only known counterparts to the North Devon ovens are from Continental Europe. A 15th-century example shows up in a woodcut from Augsburg, and a 16th-century piece is illustrated in De Bry’s engraving based on Le Moyne’s painting of Fort Caroline, the Huguenot settlement in Florida. There are numerous indications of Huguenot and Low Country influences on North Devon pottery. Bideford and Barnstaple were both strongholds of Puritanism in the 17th century and later became centers for French Huguenots, particularly after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685.

The style of sgraffito decoration changed significantly after around 1700. After that time, decoration was mostly limited to harvest jugs and presentation pieces. Gravel-tempered utensils and ovens were still produced, but the North Devon trade with America stopped by 1760.

Archaeological evidence shows that gravel-tempered pottery was used in America from around 1675 to about 1760. An isolated example of sgraffito pottery, marked by its rough design and glaze, dates back to before 1640. The typical sgraffito pottery is exemplified by pieces found in the fill beneath and around the brick drain at the May-Hartwell site in Jamestown. This pottery dates from 1677 to 1695. No other sites offer a more accurate dating than this. Sgraffito pottery discovered at Bridge’s Creek, Virginia (John[Pg 59] Washington house site), could date as early as 1664, but it might also date as late as 1677 or a few years after that.

The May-Hartwell oven was found in the drain fill, so it likely was used before 1695. The oven piece from the John Howland house dates from around 1630 to about 1675, which is during the house's existence. The oven in the Bowne House is from no earlier than 1664, the year it was built.

Typical sgraffito pottery, therefore, dates from 1664 to 1695, plus or minus a few years. Gravel-tempered pottery dominates during the same time but continues well into the 18th century, probably until about 1760. The ovens date from between 1664 and 1695. The concentrations of pottery found at the May-Hartwell drain site roughly match records of heavy shipments of these wares between 1681 and 1690. The earliest recorded shipment was to New England in 1635.

The sgraffito pottery was probably used as much for decoration as for practical purposes. Each piece had its own unique design, featuring intricate patterns that added a splash of color to a court cupboard or dresser, complementing the carved woodwork or crewel embroidery typical of late 17th-century furniture. While sgraffito pottery showcased a level of richness and vibrant color, it couldn't quite compete with the sophistication of contemporary majolica, which was styled after Chinese porcelain. Heavy and rough, sgraffito pottery was basically a version of English folk pottery, reflecting the simpler tastes of rural West England. It faded from use in the colonies after 1700, as it was replaced in popular preference by the more elegant majolica.

Gravel-tempered pottery was clearly valued as kitchenware, similar to how we view modern “ovenware” or Pyrex today. Because gravel-tempered ovens were popular in the West of England, they were embraced by settlers in America, especially in areas that didn’t have built-in brick ovens.

Unlike those in Staffordshire or Bristol, the North Devon potteries didn’t keep up with new techniques or adapt to changing tastes. The delftware from London and Bristol and the yellow wares from Bristol and Staffordshire became more popular than the soft and imperfect sgraffito ware. Similarly, the kitchenware from Staffordshire and the decent red wares from American potters made the heavy, unattractive, and extremely crude gravel-tempered ware obsolete. American bricklayers, who started building brick ovens into fireplaces, rendered the portable ovens from North Devon outdated after 1700. Any chance for a revival of North Devon’s potteries was dashed by the blockade of its ports in the mid-18th century. After that, the potteries continued in a traditional manner, with their markets gradually shrinking at home due to modern production elsewhere. Today, only Brannan’s Litchdon Street Pottery in Barnstaple remains.

[Pg 60]

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1960

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. Price 35 cents.

Notes:

[1] Worth Bailey, “About Jamestown Pottery—Its History and Current Status,” Ceramic Age, October 1939, pp. 101-104.

[2] H. C. Forman, Jamestown and Saint Mary’s, Baltimore, 1938, p. 133.

[3] Worth Bailey, “A Jamestown Baking Oven of the Seventeenth Century,” William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 1937, ser. 2, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 496-500.

[4] John Watkins, An Essay Towards a History of Bideford in the County of Devon, Exeter, 1792, p. 56.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., pp. 65, 67-68.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., p. 70.

[7] Port Book, Barnstaple, 1620, Public Record Office, London (hereinafter referred to as Port Book), E 190/947.

[8] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 1911, vol. 19, p. 31.

[9] Same source., quoting Sainsbury Abstracts, p. 184.

[10] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 1901, vol. 9, pp. 257-258.

[11] Bernard Bailyn, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1955, p. 87.

[12] Isle of Wight County (Virginia) records, quoted in William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 1899, ser. 1, vol. 7, p. 228.

[13] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, New York, 1895, vol. 2, p. 334.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Watkins, same source (footnote 4), p. 65.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Port Book, E 190/959/6.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., E 190/954/6.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., E 190/959/6.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ibid., E 190/960/10.

[19] Richard Corkhill was one of the six Bideford agents living in Northampton County. Bruce, op. cit. (see footnote 13).

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Port Book, E 190/959/6.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., E 190/960/8.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., E 190/960/3.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ibid., E 190/966/10.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., E 190/968/10.

[25] Colonial office shipping records about Massachusetts ports, typescript in Essex Institute, Salem, Massachusetts, 1931, vol. 1, p. 78.

[26] Port Book, E 190/939/14; 942/13; 944/8; 951.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., E 190/959/5.

[28] “A Brief Overview of Biddeford, Responding to the Questions Regarding the Natural History of England,” The Gentlemen’s Magazine, 1755, vol. 25, p. 445.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Watkins, same source (footnote 4), pp. 74-75.

[30] T. M. Hall, “On Barum Tobacco-Pipes and North Devon Clays,” Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art, Devon, 1890, vol. 22, pp. 317-323.

[31] T. Charbonnier, “Notes on North Devon Pottery from the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries,” Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art, Devon, 1906, vol. 38, p. 255.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., p. 256.

[33] Bernard Rackham, Catalogue of the Glaisher Collection of Pottery and Porcelain in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 1950, 2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 10-11.

[34] Llewellyn Jewitt, The Ceramic Art of Great Britain, London, 1883, 2nd ed., pp. 206-207.

[35] George Maw, “On a Supposed Deposit of Boulder-Clay in North Devon,” Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1864, vol. 20, pp. 445-451.

[36] Charbonnier, op. cit. (footnote 31), pp. 255, 259.

[37] “Supplement to the Account of Biddeford,” The Gentlemen’s Magazine, 1755, vol. 25, p. 564.

[38] Watkins, op. cit. (footnote 4), p. 74. However, the “bylaws” of Barnstaple from 1689 show that materials for tempering were also sourced locally: “Anyone who takes sand from the sand ridge shall pay for each horse yearly 1^d, and for every boat of Crock Sand 1^d., according to the ancient custom.” (Joseph B. Gribble, Memorials of Barnstaple, Barnstaple, 1830, p. 360.)

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Charbonnier, same source (footnote 31), p. 258.

[40] B. W. Oliver, “The Three Tuns, Barnstaple,” Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art, Torquay, Devon, 1948, vol. 80, pp. 151-152.

[41] Mildred E. Jenkinson in a personal letter from Bideford, April 20, 1955.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Hall, op. cit. (footnote 30), p. 319.

[43] H. W. Strong, “The Potteries of North Devon,” Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art, Devon, 1891, vol. 23, p. 393.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Charbonnier, same source (footnote 31), p. 257.

[45] Jewitt, op. cit. (footnote 34), vol. 1, pp. 205-206.

[46] Great Exhibition 1851. Official, Descriptive, and Illustrated Catalogue, London, 1851, p. 776, no. 131.

[47] W. J. Pountney, Old Bristol Potteries, Bristol, n.d., pp. 153-154.

[48] Cloume = clay: “In Old English, mud, clay. Therefore, in modern dialect usage: earthenware, clay ... b. attribute or adjective” (J. A. H. Murray, ed., A New English Dictionary on Historic Principles, Oxford, 1893, vol. 2, p. 509.)

[49] J. J. Cartwright, ed., The Travels through England of Dr. Richard Pococke, Camden Society Publications, 1888, new ser., no. 42, vol. 1, p. 135.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source, vol. 1, p. 131.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Jenkinson correspondence (see footnote 41).

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Jewitt, same source (footnote 34), pp. 206-207.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Charbonnier, op. cit. (footnote 31), p. 258.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Jenkinson correspondence (footnote 41).

[55] Made in Devon. An Exhibition of Beautiful Objects Past and Present, Dartington Hall, 1950, p. 9.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Charbonnier, op. cit. (footnote 31), p. 258.

[57] John L. Cotter, Archeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia. Archeological Research Series, no. 4, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 1958.

[58] J. C. Harrington, Archaeological Report, May-Hartwell Site, Jamestown: Excavations at the May-Hartwell site in 1935, 1938, and 1939 and Ditch Investigations East of the May-Hartwell Site in 1935 and 1938.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Cotter, same source (footnote 57), p. 158.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source, pp. 112-119.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., pp. 102-112.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., pp. 151-152.

[63] Joseph B. Brittingham and Alvin W. Brittingham, Sr., The First Trading Post at Kicotan (Kecoughtan), Hampton, Virginia, Hampton, 1947.

[64] Louis R. Caywood, Excavations at Green Spring Plantation, Yorktown, 1955.

[65] J. Paul Hudson, “George Washington Birthplace National Monument, Virginia,” National Park Service Historical Handbook Series, no. 26, Washington, 1956.

[66] Virginia Cullen, History of Lewes, Delaware, Lewes, 1956; C. A. Bonine, “Archeological Investigation of the Dutch ‘Swanendael’ Settlement under de Vries, 1631-1632,” The Archeolog. News Letter of the Sussex Archeological Association, Lewes, December 1956, vol. 8, no. 3.

[67] S. T. Strickland, Excavation of Ancient Pilgrim Home Reveals Insights into Pottery and Other Aspects of Daily Life, typescript, n.d.

[68] James Deetz, Excavations at the Joseph Howland Site (C5), Rocky Nook, Kingston, Massachusetts, 1959: A Preliminary Report. Supplement, The Howland Quarterly, 1960, vol. 24, nos. 2, 3. The Pilgrim John Howland Society, Inc.

[69] Rackham, op. cit. (footnote 33), vol. 2, p. 11, fig. 8 D, no. 58.

[70] John Eliot Hodgkin and Edith Hodgkin, Examples of Early English Pottery, Named, Dated, and Inscribed. London, 1891, p. 59.

[71] J. Le Moyne, Brief Account of What Happened in Florida ..., Frankfort, 1591, pl. 10.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Bailey, same source (footnote 3), pp. 497-498.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Strickland, op. cit. (footnote 67).

[74] The probate records of Essex County, Massachusetts, Salem, Massachusetts, 1916, vol. 1, p. 378; vol. 2, p. 346; vol. 3, p. 328.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Bailey, same source (footnote 3), p. 498.

[76] Bowne House; A Shrine to Religious Freedom, Flushing, New York. Pamphlet of The Bowne House Historical Society, Flushing, NY, n.d.