ever, as an adjunct of re-search in cultural history — 

 especially in the historic areas of Jamestown, Williams- 

 burg, and Yorktown has produced substantial evi- 

 di iic c challenging both the accuracy of Gooch's reports 

 and the conclusions drawn from them, which, contrary 

 to Gooch's statements, proves that pottery making in 

 Yorktown was highly skilled and much at odds with 

 the concept of a "poor potter." 



The observation that a remarkably developed 

 ceramic enterprise had been conducted in or near 

 Yorktown was first made by Mr. Noel Hume, the 

 archeologist partner of this paper, in 1956 when he 

 identified fragments of saggers used in firing stone- 

 ware, which were excavated in association with 

 numerous stoneware waster sherds and a group of 

 unglazed earthenware sherds of good quality at the 

 site of the Swan Tavern in Yorktown. 2 The question 

 naturally arose, could these expertly made wares have 

 come from the kilns of the "poor potter"? Although 

 ultimate proof is still lacking, identification with him 

 is sufficiently well supported by documentary and 

 artifactual hints that —until further scientific findings 

 are forthcoming — it is presented here as a hypothesis 

 that the "poor potter" did indeed make them. This 

 portion of the paper considers not only the specifics of 

 artifacts and documents, but also the state of manu- 

 factures in Virginia before 1750 and their relationship 

 to the character and attitudes of Governor Gooch. 



The Crown and Colonial Manufacture 



It should lie noted that, in general, the history of 

 pottery making in colonial America is fragmentary 

 and inconclusive. Scattered documents bear hints of 

 potters and their activities, and occasional archeo- 

 logical deposits contain the broken sherds and other 

 material evidence of potters' products. Difficulty in 

 obtaining information about early pottery manufac- 

 ture may be related in large part to a reluctance on 

 the part of the colonists to rev eal e\ idence of manufac- 

 turing activity to the Crown authorities. It was the 

 established principle of the Mother Country to inte- 

 grate the colonial economy into her mercantile system, 

 which was run primarily for her own benefit. As a 

 consequence, there increasingly developed a contest 



between those who sought to protect English manu- 

 factures by discouraging production of colonial goods 

 and those who, in America, tried to enlarge colonial 

 self-sufficiency, the latter inevitably resorting to eva- 

 sion and suppression of evidence in order to gain then 

 advantage. 



The outlines of this struggle are suggested in tin- 

 laws and official reports relating to colonial manu- 

 factures. In Virginia, during the late 17th and 

 early 18th centuries, influential landowners encouraged 

 manufactures as a way to offset the dominance of 

 tobacco in the colony, while several acts were passed 

 in the Virginia Assembly to establish official port 

 towns which, it was thought, would result in flourish- 

 ing craft communities. Although, for a variety of 

 reasons inherent in Virginia's economy and geogra- 

 phy, most of these failed, the acts nonetheless were 

 consistently opposed by the Crown authorities. The 

 1 704 Act for Ports and Towns, for example, was vetoed 

 by the Crown in 1709 for the following reasons: 



The whole Act is designed to Encourage by great 

 Piiviledges the settling in Townships, and such settle- 

 ments will encourage their going on with the Woolen and 

 other Manufactures there. And should this Act be Con- 

 firmed, the Establishing of Towns and Incorporating of 

 the Planters as intended thereby, will put them upon 

 further Improvements of the said manufactures, and take 

 them off from the Planting of Tobacco, which would be 

 of very ill consequence, not only in respect to the Exports 

 of our Woolen and other Goods and Consequently to the 

 Dependance that Colony ought to have on this Kingdom, 

 but likewise in respect to the Importation of Tobacco 

 hither for the home and Foreign Consumption, Besides 

 a further Prejudice in relation to our shipping and 

 navigation. 3 



This forthright exposition of official English atti- 

 tudes reiterated the policy of colonial economic de- 

 pendence. The wording of the veto — "encourage 

 their going on with the Woolen and other Manufac- 

 tures" and "a further Prejudice in relation to our 

 shipping" [italics supplied] — shows that the dangers 

 feared by the Board of Trade regarding the establish- 

 ment of towns had already become a reality and a 

 threat to English economic policy. 



Victor S. Clark, in The History of Manufactures in 



- This materia] is located in tin- collection of tin- Colonial 

 National Historical Park, Jamestown, Virginia. 



' "Reasons for Repealing tin- Acts pass'd in Virginia and 

 Maryland relating to Ports and Towns," Calendar oj I irginia 

 State Papers and Other Manuscripts, edit. William P. Palmer 

 (Richmond, 1875), vol. I. vv . 1 S7 lid. 



76 



BULLETIN 249: CONTRIBUTION'S FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



