we know, was being made in North America. By 

 1725, when Rogers sold earthenware to John Mercer, 

 the Duche family apparently had just succeeded in 

 making stoneware in Philadelphia. 42 Since we have 

 no documentary evidence of Rogers' first production 

 of stoneware, we do not know whether his stoneware 

 antedated that of the Duches; we know only that 

 after he died in 1739 numerous pieces of stoneware 

 were listed in what were obviously the effects of his 

 potter) shop. There is strong areheological evidence, 

 however, that it was made about 1730 (see p. 1 10). 



Although Rogers may not have been the first to 

 make stoneware in colonial North America, that he 

 was at least one of the first must have elevated him to 

 a position of prominence among colonial potters. 

 Far from being a poor potter who conducted a 

 business "with very little advantage to himself, and 

 without any damage to Trade," fie was supplying a 

 colonial market tfiat heretofore had been filled solely 

 from England and Germany. Tfiere is a hint that he 

 may have shipped his wares to North Carolina, be- 

 cause the Virginia Gazette announced on September 21, 

 1739: "Clcr'd out of York River . . . September 11. 

 Sloop Thomas and Tryal, of North Carolina, Jofin 

 Nelson, for Nortfi Carolina . . . some Stone Ware." 43 

 Three years before, Rogers had sued in court to 

 collect "a Bill Payable to him from one Richard 

 Saunderson of North Carolina." " The possibility 

 tfiat the stoneware in the sloop Thomai and Tryal had 

 been made by Rogers is highly conjectural, since 

 European imports often were redistributed and trans- 

 shipped in American ports. But, since its cargo as 

 a whole consisted of non-European materials, this still 

 remains a possibility. 



The most notable inference that Rogers' stoneware 

 may have infiltrated distant colonial markets is found 

 in the Petition of Isaac Parker to the Massachusetts 

 Court to establisfi a stoneware manufactory in 

 Charlestown, Massachusetts, hied in September 1742: 

 " . . there are large quantities of said ware imported 

 into this Province every year from New York, Phila- 



delphia, & Virginia, for which . . . returns are mostly 

 made in Silver and Gold by the gent" who receive 

 them here." ' ' 



Since there is no evidence that stoneware was being 

 made at this time in Virginia, other than at Yorktown. 

 it is reasonable to suppose that the "poor potter's" 

 heirs shipped stoneware all the way to New England 

 and that they were paid in hard cash, as distinct from 

 tobacco credits, which would have been the case with 

 local customers. However this may lie, the Rogers 

 enterprise, even if its products were confined to 

 Virginia, appears to have been extensive, wealth- 

 producing, and quite the opposite of Governor Gooch's 

 appraisal of it in his reports to the Board of Trade. 



As to the location of his kilns, we know tfiat Rogers 

 owned two lots, where he apparently lived, at the 

 northern boundary of the town. He also owned a 

 warehouse by the riverside and other lots on which he 

 was building dwellings when he died. He owned 

 land at ''Tarripin Point" and two lots in Williamsburg. 

 Governor Gooch repeatedly located the pottery in 

 Yorktown: ''We have here at York Town upon York 

 River one poor Potter's Work . . . ," or, "the 

 Potter continues his Business (at York Town in this 

 Colony)." This is rather good evidence that the 

 kilns were within the town limits rather than at some 

 outside location, such as "Tarripin Point." A 

 waterfront location would have been desirable for 

 many reasons, but, since a potter's kiln would have 

 been a fire hazard not to only Rogers' but to other 

 warehouses, it is questionable whether nearby kilns 

 would fiave been tolerated. English practice was 

 usually to locate potter's kilns at the far edges of towns 

 or outside their limits. Nevertheless, there were many 

 exceptions, and kilns sometimes were located neat 

 the water, especially when practical reasons of con- 

 venience in loading ships outweighed the dangers. 

 The North Devon potteries were heavily committed 

 to water transportation, and at least two of the kilns 

 at Bideford in North Devon in the 17th century, for 

 example, were located near the water in whit were 

 then densely settled areas. 46 The Nortfi Walk Pottery 

 in nearby Barnstaple was also on the water's edge, 



'-' "I In- Votes of Assembly of tin- Province of Pennsylvania," 

 vtvania Irchit i (Harrisburg), ser. 8, vol. ">, pp. 2047- 

 049 I i. mi Rudolf Hommel, in correspondence with Lura 

 Woodside Watkins.) 

 " Virginia Gazette microfilm, op. rit. (footnote 28), reel 1. 

 '< York County Records, Book lit: Orders, Wills, & Inven- 

 tories, |>. 290. 



15 "Petition of Isaac Parker, September, I7t_'," Massachus Us 

 Archives, vol. r >'*, pp. 332 133 (quoted in Lura Woodside 

 Watkins, New l\n>:liiii<l Pollers and Theit Wares [Cambridge: 

 Harvard University Press, 1950], p. 245). 



'■ Bidejord-in- Devon: Official Guide /<< Bideford and District, edit. 

 Sheila 1 lull Inns. ,n i Bideford, about 1961), p ; i 



fU 



BULLETIN 249: CONTRIBUTIONS KRoM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



