Rachel Campbell on fri 16 feb 07
Hello all,
I'm looking for resources about the history of how potters lived and worked
in the US Colonial period.
I've been asked to participate in a Tricentennial celebration-- the 300th
anniversary of Queenstown, MD... it's going to be a big street fair, with an
artist's tent, and all the artists are supposed to dress in colonial-style
clothing and demo, as well as sell the work. It's actually the first "art
fair" kind of thing I've done (most of my selling at this point has been
through the local potter's guild and through a couple of local galleries).
But it sounded like fun, so I agreed, and now I'm working on figuring out
what I need to do to prepare.
They aren't TOO concerned about accuracy, since they have no problem with me
using an electric wheel for the demos. But I figured it would be good to
get some background as to how potters lived and worked in colonial times, to
answer questions etc.... were they usually men? families? (I'm assuming
there weren't tons of single women potters at the time...) did they throw
or use molds, etc? how did they fire, to what temps, with what atmosphere,
etc?
I can find a fair number of examples of colonial or colonial-style pots
online, but have not been successful at finding discussions of the lifestyle
things.
Oh, and of course, if you all have wonderful advice for the newbie art fair
participant, that's always welcome as well (although fairly well covered in
the archives).
Thanks much! Rachel in Odenton, MD
...where it is icy icy icy and the kids are out of school today for the 3rd
day in a row, but we have power so I'm happy and looking forward to
roadtripping with Mayssan and seeing everyone at NCECA in just 25 days!!!
:-) --RC
http://DownToThePottersHouse.com
Marcia Selsor on sun 18 feb 07
Studio Potter magazine started with a foundation based on the life of
a potter Daniel Clark
I think was his name. They published his diary. Over time his
handwriting degraded to
almost illegible and he died of lead poisoning. So much for colonial
potters.
In Philadelphia there was a good production in potteries after the
revolution. There were
restrictions about that type of production to benefit the factories
in England.
In western PA. farmers decided it was more efficient to bring corn
liquor to market rather than corn.
And they needed jugs for that. The whiskey trade led to the Whiskey
rebellion.
There are lots of stories like that.
Many colonial style Pa. Dutch pottery was earthenware with white slip
decoration with a lead glaze.
Marcia Selsor
http://marciaselsor.com
Kathryn on sun 18 feb 07
Rachel,
Kate in Glen Burnie here... I was a potter for a Pre-Revolutionary war fort
on the coast for Georgia for several years. I dressed as a man (wore the
hair in a pony tail like the guys)... Used a kick wheel that the fort built
for me. I used Georgia (red) clay and clear glazed BUT... salt glazed pots
would have been more accurate, according to the shards that were found in
the area of the fort (Williamsburg pottery is typical of what was found in
the ground).
Odenton is so close... look me up sometime!
Kate
www.earthenarts.com
They aren't TOO concerned about accuracy, since they have no problem with me
using an electric wheel for the demos. But I figured it would be good to
get some background as to how potters lived and worked in colonial times, to
answer questions etc.... were they usually men? families? (I'm assuming
there weren't tons of single women potters at the time...) did they throw
or use molds, etc? how did they fire, to what temps, with what atmosphere,
etc?
John Hesselberth on sun 18 feb 07
On Feb 16, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Rachel Campbell wrote:
> I'm looking for resources about the history of how potters lived
> and worked
> in the US Colonial period.
Hi Rachel,
There is a wonderful little book titled "The Potters and Potteries of
Chester County, Pennsylvania" by Arthur James. ISBN 0-916838-18-8. It
is hard to find although there may still be some copies of it at the
Chester County Historical Society in West Chester, PA. The heyday of
potteries in this part of the country was from about 1800 to the
Civil War or a little after. This book details every pottery the
author could learn of and give snippets of their lives when it could
be found.
Regards,
John
Ben Shelton on tue 20 feb 07
There was an excavation and very good documentation of a colonial settlement
called "Martins Hundred" that gives a wealth of detail about the ceramic
ware produced there. Most was earthenware and was lead glazed where not left
bare. A great deal of pottery used in the early colonies was imported as was
a great deal of all supplies. Find the Martins hundred books (there are two
I believe) through your library. They are chock full of information.
Apparantly the potter at this settlement was English and trained with an
English Slipware potter before coming to the colonies. I really enjoyed
reading the books.
Ben
Rachel Campbell on tue 20 feb 07
Hi all,=0AThanks to everyone who responded with pointers for information on=
US colonial potters.=0A=0AThis weekend, we took the kids to Williamsburg, =
VA for the long weekend (previously planned, but great timing anyway)... I=
asked folks there (since the area is fairly close to the Chesapeake Bay ar=
ea I'll be demoing in), and guess what the answer was? THERE WERE NO COLON=
IAL POTTERS! (At least not professionally, pre-revolution, in the Mid-Atla=
ntic area.) =0A=0AIt turns out that the English potters of the time didn't=
want compitition, and so the Royal government put enough taxes/tarrifs on =
sales of pottery from the colonies that it was cheaper to import! (Or so t=
hey say.) The pots found in the Williamsburg/Jamestown area were imports f=
rom England, Germany and the Netherlands.=0A=0AIt actually was kind of inte=
resting-- the Historical Williamsburg shops sell basically three kinds of p=
ots... There were Redware and salt-glazed reproductions done at Williamsbur=
g Pottery (those had sort of had something of the same feel as some of the =
work done at the Potters Guild English Connection workshop last June). The=
n there was blue and white Delft china, imported from the Netherlands, I be=
lieve, from a company that has been doing business and making the same work=
since Colonial days. And there was a good deal of gorgeous salt-glazed po=
ttery, imported from a pottery in Germany that has (so I'm told) been makin=
g the same exact salt-glazed pieces for the last 400 years... (So at least =
in theory, the pots are identical to those used in Williamsburg at the time=
.)=0A=0ASo go figure, maybe there's a good reason I couldn't find descripti=
ons of life in a colonial pottery. But at least I'll have a story to tell =
while I throw pots at the fair. ;-)=0A=0AAnyway, I thought you all might b=
e interested... And thanks again for the pointers-- sounds like there are s=
ome good books out there about potters north of here! =0A=0A:-) --Rachel i=
n Odenton, MD=0Ahttp://DownToThePottersHouse.com=0A=0A
Neal on wed 21 feb 07
>I asked folks there (since the area is fairly
>close to the Chesapeake Bay area I'll be demoing
>in), and guess what the answer was? THERE WERE
>NO COLONIAL POTTERS! (At least not professionally,
>pre-revolution, in the Mid-Atlantic area.)
I checked out the Old Salem website, because my
memory of our last visit a few years ago led me
to believe that the pottery started before the
Revolutionary War. It did.
"Gottfried Aust was the first potter to arrive
in Wachovia, the name of the tract of land in
North Carolina owned by the Moravians. As master
of the first Moravian Pottery in North Carolina,
Aust originally set up shop in Bethabara in 1755
and later moved to Salem in 1771."
http://www.oldsalem.org/a202b.html
A book I wanted to recommend earlier on in this
discussion is The Moravian Potters in North
Carolina by John Bivins Jr. It's out of print,
but your library may be able to get you a copy
through interlibrary loan.
Neal O'Briant
neal126@yahoo.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
Stephanie Wright on wed 21 feb 07
Hi Rachel!
Is it possible that 1) there was a huge tariff to discourage domestic
pottery, but 2) the tariff did not really work? In other words, perhaps
there were no 'official' potters, and to begin with they were producing on
the sly? This could explain the lack of common information. If yes, this
could give you more fodder for your stories. :-)
Stephanie
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on wed 21 feb 07
Possibly the Tarrifs or Taxes only applied to more
approximately formal Table Wares, 'China' and
Table Settings, and not to utilitarian forms or
Household items otherwise.
Phil
el v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephanie Wright"
> Hi Rachel!
>
> Is it possible that 1) there was a huge tariff
to discourage domestic
> pottery, but 2) the tariff did not really work?
In other words, perhaps
> there were no 'official' potters, and to begin
with they were producing on
> the sly? This could explain the lack of common
information. If yes, this
> could give you more fodder for your stories. :-)
>
> Stephanie
claystevslat on thu 22 feb 07
Phil --
Everything I've read about the colonial tariff has
related to imports. I've never read anything about
tariffs on locally produced goods. (I don't think
that the Brit. government of the time would even
have called such a tax a tariff in the first place.)
And while it was easy to have a customs house in a
port to collect a tariff, it would have been quite
difficult to acquire income from small producers.
Perhaps the comment that there were no colonial potters
because of a tariff is a misunderstanding of a valid
answer to a different question ... there were very
few importations of non-british manufactured goods
into the colonies *because of a tariff (very high for
non-British materials).*
If you ask the question "Why are most all of the remaining
examples of pottery from the colonial period of
British manufacture?" a correct and accurate answer
could be "Because of the tariff."
The reason for few examples of colonial-era pottery (though
I believe there are some) could include the use of very
low-temp firings and consequently weaker product, a lack
of knowledgable potential producers, and the undeniable
fact that exports from the colonies were bulk (largely
agricultural) whereas imports were high-value, thereby
guaranteeing lots of transport on ships TO the colonies
(and presumably lower shipping rates).
A colony with so much timber that they were exporting it
by ship might have found the masses happy with wooden bowls
-- while the upper classes may have imported fine ware from
England, given that it had a lower tariff rate than that
from Holland, France, or Italy.
I can't prove it, of course, but it's my theory.
-- Steve S
--- In clayart@yahoogroups.com, pdp1@... wrote:
>
> Possibly the Tarrifs or Taxes only applied to more
> approximately formal Table Wares, 'China' and
> Table Settings, and not to utilitarian forms or
> Household items otherwise.
>
>
> Phil
> el v
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephanie Wright"
>
>
> > Hi Rachel!
> >
> > Is it possible that 1) there was a huge tariff
> to discourage domestic
> > pottery, but 2) the tariff did not really work?
> In other words, perhaps
> > there were no 'official' potters, and to begin
> with they were producing on
> > the sly? This could explain the lack of common
> information. If yes, this
> > could give you more fodder for your stories. :-)
> >
> > Stephanie
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
_________
> Send postings to clayart@...
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your
subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@...
>
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sat 24 feb 07
Hi Steve,
Oye, Lol...I think that what was going on here is
that
my mind is almost completely shot these days and
whatever sense I thought I was making, was rather
confused. I was not making sense there at all..!
Thank you for your well composed AND sensible
mentions which do make sense!
(Dis) 'honest' old 'Abe' you know did Tax or
Tarrif the living hell out several of the Southern
States, Taxing their 'exports' and of course with
no right or consent by Congress or Law to do
so, and enforced it with violence...and with no
willingness to listen to reason from any quarter,
nor to cease and desist...so such things did
happen, when they did...
Risking more incoherancy, to ramble on somewhat -
I think what I was trying to say, or was trying to
recall or think, was that England appearently was
not making encouragements for domestic production
of 'finished' products or other ready to use
things, but rather prefered the Colonys to export
raw materials for English processing or use, while
obligeing them as much as possible to be
importing Taxed for-the-privelege things for their
own Colony use, even ( or especially, ) when made
from materials the
Colonys produced.
Somehow I got it fouled up...
To my own naive recollections, among the earlier
kinds
of items exported from the Colonys to England,
were Tobacco, some kinds of Timber ( suitable
White Pine
for Ship's Masts, North American Mahogany, some
Northern
White Oak ) , Sasafrass, Turpentine, Furrs and
Pelts of
Beaver and other Animals, and...
But on the matter of domestic Pottery production
back 'then', I would sure expect that there were
many small concerns, small Shops, scattered
widely, serving local needs of whatever
populations were reasonably near...making every
sort of item possible, especially utilitarian
items, if leaving the more fancy grades of wares
to the imports.
We were 'slow' in making for ourselves a great
many kinds of things, Tool Steel and products made
of it certainly being among them, and even well
into the middle of the 19th Century, Tool Steels
or their ready-to-go actual products, still
predominatly came from England to where American
Woodworking
Planes had English ( or sometimes German) Cutters
in them and were clearly stamped so. And the
provenance still remained into the 1920s for the
more favored brands of Carpentery and Wood Working
Tools cutters, Hand Saws and so on.
After that no one cared anymore.
Curiously, the last serious, continuous since the
mid 1700s of production, of 'Blister Steel' and
'Cast Steel' ( not what it means now, but was how
Steels were made at one time, ) was in Sweden and
it closed it's doors in the 1970s. This may have
been Charcoal Steels also.
England was a great Steel producer...
Somewhere here I have a wonderful Book called ( I
think ) "Maclure's Opinions" printed 1820
something, in which the author is wishing to
encourage more American production of everything,
as well as other matters. Appearently he got in
trouble for some of this and the Book was banned
for some years, which did not stop him getting it
printed in Paris. He was lamenting on how even the
many sorts of Straw Hats tended to be imported.
The allure or mystique however tended to
tenaciously remain, and of course does to this day
even, for imported goods to somehow be more
desireable. And they are when they are, just as
they always were, when they were.
One is not going to get a decent 'Panama Hat' made
here, and that is just the way it is. Fine with
me, I approve of sensible Trade. And endless other
examples of course, just as there are endless
examples of superior domestic items, or there used
to be anyway, if not much so now.
Poor England...
Poor us...
Poor Indians...
...sigh...
Anyway,
Love,
Phil
el v
----- Original Message -----
From: "claystevslat"
Phil --
Everything I've read about the colonial tariff has
related to imports. I've never read anything
about
tariffs on locally produced goods. (I don't think
that the Brit. government of the time would even
have called such a tax a tariff in the first
place.)
And while it was easy to have a customs house in a
port to collect a tariff, it would have been quite
difficult to acquire income from small producers.
Perhaps the comment that there were no colonial
potters
because of a tariff is a misunderstanding of a
valid
answer to a different question ... there were very
few importations of non-british manufactured goods
into the colonies *because of a tariff (very high
for
non-British materials).*
If you ask the question "Why are most all of the
remaining
examples of pottery from the colonial period of
British manufacture?" a correct and accurate
answer
could be "Because of the tariff."
The reason for few examples of colonial-era
pottery (though
I believe there are some) could include the use of
very
low-temp firings and consequently weaker product,
a lack
of knowledgable potential producers, and the
undeniable
fact that exports from the colonies were bulk
(largely
agricultural) whereas imports were high-value,
thereby
guaranteeing lots of transport on ships TO the
colonies
(and presumably lower shipping rates).
A colony with so much timber that they were
exporting it
by ship might have found the masses happy with
wooden bowls
-- while the upper classes may have imported fine
ware from
England, given that it had a lower tariff rate
than that
from Holland, France, or Italy.
I can't prove it, of course, but it's my theory.
-- Steve S
| |
|
