provided by a single creampan in the Williamsburg 

 collection,' 17 which is both lead-glazed and heavily 

 incrusted with salt. It is possible, however, that, 

 knowing that there would be "cold" spots in the 

 kiln, 98 the potter tried to make use of every available 

 inch and inserted a few lead-glazed pieces along 

 with the stoneware. 



Documentary evidence relating to the distribution 

 of Rogers' products has been discussed by Mr. 

 Watkins (pp. 83-84), and, although some of it tends 

 to be equivocal, we are left with the impression that 

 both stoneware and earthenware were shipped for 

 trade elsewhere, but that such shipments were probably 

 infrequent and not of large quantities.'" When 

 seemingly comparable fragments are unearthed on 

 sites beyond the environs of the York and James 

 Rivers one must use extreme caution in attributing 

 them to Yorktown. Clay of a generally similar 

 character lies beneath much of Tidewater Yirginia, 

 and, since little serious historical archeology has 

 been undertaken in the state beyond the Jamestown- 

 Williamsburg-Yorktown triangle, it is much too 

 soon to assume that apprentices trained at Yorktown 

 did not set up their own kilns in other counties. 

 In short, techniques of manufacture such as are 

 exhibited by the shaping of earthenware rims and 

 handles should be the only acceptable guide for 

 identification, and even these are not infallible. As 

 for the stoneware, the manufacturing techniques are 



97 Archeological area 2B2, context unknown. 



9B Mr. Maloney has pointed out that a margin of 150°F. 

 is sufficient to make the difference between earthenware and 

 stoneware. 



99 Export records for the York River should lie treated with 

 some caution as goods often were imported from one place 

 and later exported to another. But if we accept the 17:59 and 

 1745 Virginia Gazette references (Watkins, footnotes 38 and 41) 

 as being to wares of Yorktown manufacture, by the same 

 token we must draw comparable conclusions from the Naval 

 Office Lists for Accomac (Eastern Shore of Virginia), which 

 show "1 shipment" cf "'stoneware" exported to Maryland in 

 1749. Similarly we would have to assume that there was an 

 earthenware factory operating near the James River in 1755 

 when the records list the exporting of "2 crates Earthenware" 

 to the Rappahannock. Such conclusions may, indeed, be 

 correct, though there is as yet no evidence to support them. 

 Naval Office Lists, Public Records Office, London; cf. Commod- 

 \nalysis of Imports and Exports, Accomac, Virginia, 1726-1769, 

 . u the Rappahannock, Virginia, 1726-1769 microfilm books 

 illed under the direction of John H. Cox, University of 

 I | (unpublished). 



so English in character that they are of no help. 

 Thus, once the Rogers stoneware was shipped out of 

 Yorktown. it must have lost its identity as totalk as 

 ( Jovernor ( Jooch presumably had hoped thai it would. 



Archeological evidence for the dace range oi the 

 Yorktown ware is not very conclusive. The Challis 

 site mug seems to have been thrown awaj around 

 1730, and this provides the earliest tightly dated con- 

 text in which the wares have been found. The largest 

 single assemblage of probable Yorktown products was 

 the extensive refuse deposit believed to have been 

 associated with John Coke's tavern in Williamsburg, 

 but this was not discarded before mid-century. 

 Other fragments of stoneware tankards, jars, and pip- 

 kins have been found at the Anthony Hay and New 

 Post Ollice Sites in Williamsburg in contexts ranging 

 from 1750 to 1770, while more, possibly Yorktown 

 pieces, were encountered in a rubbish deposit interred 

 in the period 1763-1772 at Rosewell in Gloucester 

 County. These are, of course, dates at or after which 

 the pieces were thrown away: they do not necessarily 

 have a close relationship with the dates of manufac- 

 ture. Nevertheless, the recovery of so many frag- 

 ments from late contexts does suggest that the factory 

 continued in operation after the last documented 

 date of 1745. 1 "" 



The most obvious source for dating evidence is 

 clearly at Yorktown itself, but, unfortunately, little of 

 the large National Park Service collection has any 

 acceptable archeological associations. The fragments 

 recovered from the roadway in front of the Digges 

 House were accompanied by no closely datable items. 

 While it is tempting to associate this deposit with 

 Rogers' tenure as "Surveyor of the Landings, Streets; 

 and Cosways" beginning in 1734, 1 " 1 it is also possible 

 that he provided the City of York with road metaling 

 before that date and that after his death his successors 

 continued to do so. The quantity of sagger frag- 

 ments from the vicinity of the Swan Tavern might 

 have been associated in some way with the fact thai 

 Thomas Reynolds (see Watkins, p. 83) occupied the 

 adjacent lot. More sagger fragments were found in 

 the backfilling of the builder's trench around the 

 recently restored Digges House on Main Street, 

 which the National Park Service believes to have been 



Virginia Gazette, June 20, 1745. 



'" Watkins, Part I, footnote i7. 



110 



M TIN 249: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MXJSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



