J-
Fort Michilimackinac as it probably looked through the final 

years of British occupation, 1774-1781. Courtesy oj the Mackinac 

Island State Park Commission. Drawn by Victor Hogg. 
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CERAMICS 

FROM FORT MICHILIMACKINAC 

A Study in Historical Archeology 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

NUMBER 4 
Eighteenth-Century Ceramics 

From Fort Michilimackinac 

A STUDY IN HISTORICAL ARCHEOLOGY 

. .,.»rwrTTTTiH.mnrF'nTTmirt»^,— 

-r^TfTmnnfTTTtnffrrTTmnnmmmT: mimniIT.niiniMrimffi^ 

J. JEFFERSON MILLER II 

and LYLE M. STONE 

X / 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS 

City of Washington 1970 
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.25 
Contents 

Page 

Foreword vii 

Acknowledgments ix 

Introduction 1 

I. History of Fort Michilimackinac and the Present Program of Archeology 

and Reconstruction 7 

II. Ceramics at Fort Michilimackinac 25 

III. Interpretation of Historical Site Ceramics 95 

Bibliography 102 

Appendixes 

A. Sherd Frequencies Il l 

B. Related Material from the Fortress of Louisbourg, Cape Breton Island, 

Nova Scotia 115 

C. Related Material from Two Mid-Eighteenth-Century Pennsylvania Sites 

Occupied by the English Army 119 

D. Table of Ceramic Types from Other Eighteenth-Century North American 

Historical Sites 125 

Index 127 

Illustrations 

Page 

1. Ma p of Mackinac Straits 9 

2. Ma p of the upper Great Lakes 10 

3. Anonymous map of Mackinac Straits, circa 1717 12 

4. Ma p drawn by Lieutenant Perkins Magra, 1766 15 

5. Ma p drawn by Lieutenant John Nordberg, 1769 16 

6. Anonymous map of Fort Michilimackinac, about 1760-1770 17 

7. Air view of Fort Michilimackinac, 1966 20 

8. Reconstruction of French period row house, 1967 21 

9. Michigan State University archeology students excavating in the area of 

the priest's house, 1966 22 

10. View of the Fort Michilimackinac reconstruction, 1966 23 

11. Blue and white English delft and French faience 27 

12. White English delft and French faience 29 

13. Blue and white English delft; decorative motifs 31 

14. Blue and white French faience; decorative motifs 33 

15. Polychrome English delft 35 

16. Polychrome French faience 37 

17. French brown and white Rouen-type faience (exterior views) 39 

18. French brown and white Rouen-type faience (interior views) 39 

19. English delft with powdered grounds 41 

V 
VI 

Illustrations—Continued 

Page 

20. English cream-colored earthenware 43 

21. English cream-colored earthenware 45 

22. English polychrome and transfer-printed cream-colored earthenware . . 47 

23. English cream-colored earthenware; molded details 49 

24. Coarse red earthenware 52 

25. Coarse red earthenware; reconstructed drawings 53 

26. Coarse earthenware 54 

27. Earthenware; section drawings of rim sherds 55 

28. Coarse earthenware 57 

29. Coarse earthenware bowl; section drawing 58 

30. Coarse earthenware plate; section drawing 58 

31. Coarse earthenware bowl; section drawing 59 

32. Miscellaneous coarse earthenware 61 

33. English slip-decorated earthenware 62 

34. English W^hieldon-type fine earthenware 65 

35. English fine earthenware decorated with fruit and vegetable motifs . . 67 

36. English white saltglazed stoneware 69 

37. English white saltglazed sherds from a teapot with molded decoration. 70 

38. English white saltglazed stoneware teapot 71 

39. English scratch blue and polychrome decorated white saltglazed stoneware 73 

40. Rhenish stoneware 75 

41. Rhenish stoneware; detail 76 

42. English brown stoneware 78 

43. English red stoneware teapot 79 

44. Impressed mark on English red stoneware teapot 79 

45. English red stoneware 80 

46. Blue and white Chinese export porcelain 83 

47. Blue and white Chinese export porcelain; border patterns 84 

48. Blue and white Chinese export porcelain 85 

49. Polychrome Chinese export porcelain 87 

50. Polychrome Chinese export porcelain 89 

51. English blue and white porcelain 92 

Appendix B 

1. French blue and white faience plate decorated with the arms of one of the 

governors of Louisbourg 115 

2. Representative sherds from the excavations at the Fortress of Louisbourg . 117 

3. Earthenware bowl with a pronounced rim 118 

Appendix C 

1. Representative sherds from Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania (1758-1766) . . 121 

2. Representative sherds from the Great Crossing of the Youghiogheny River, 

Pennsylvania (mid-eighteenth century) 123 
Foreword 

I am delighted that Mr. Stone and Mr. Miller have completed a study of 

ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac and am honored by their invitation to contribute 

a foreword. Along with many others, I have awaited with anticipation a detailed 

description of the Michilimackinac ceramics. 

The report which follows is a welcome addition to the sparse literature on 

archeological samples of European and Oriental ceramics excavated from sites in 

the New World. As the authors recognize, their effort is only a step toward the 

ultimate creation of an inclusive ceramics taxonomy adaptable to the divers purposes 

of historical archeology; but it is surely a substantial step that will stand as a major 

pioneering achievement in the field. 

Having discussed problems with both authors while the report was in preparation, 

I am aware that initially there was a decided element of mutual skepticism between 

Jeff Miller (a ceramics specialist of the art history school) and Lyle Stone (an anthropologically trained archeologist) regarding approaches to ceramics classification. 

But after months of collaboration, skepticism gave way to mutual respect: Mr. 

Stone discovered that art history can treat ceramics typology in a way that is complementary to the methods and purposes of anthropology, while Mr. Miller found that 

the objective methods of anthropology are not incompatible, after all, with the more 

subjective approach of the art historian. Together they have demonstrated that 

archeological data from historic sites can be studied fruitfully by both the anthropologist and the historian. The view that such data should properly be studied exclusively 

by one or by the other—a view that has been expressed in print recently by adherents 

to both sides of the argument—has been laid, we trust, to permanent rest by Mr. 

Stone and Mr. Miller. 

EDW^ARD B. JELKS 

Illinois State University 

August 1968 

vn 
Acknowledgments 

During the preparation of this publication, opinions and advice were sought 

from a number of specialists in various fields; such requests invariably were honored. 

We wish to acknowledge our indebtedness to these specialists and to express our 

particular appreciation to the following persons. 

Mrs. Marian Adams, editor, Canadian Collector; Dr. David Armour, assistant director, 

Mackinac Island State Park Commission; John C. Austin, curator of ceramics. 

Colonial Williamsburg; Kenneth J. Barton, curator, Portsmouth Museum; Silvio A. 

Bedini, assistant director, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution; Dr. Philip W. Bishop, chairman, Department of Arts and Manufactures, 

National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution; Dr. James A. 

Brown, assistant professor of anthropology. Department of Anthropology, Michigan 

State University; Robert J. Charleston, keeper, Department of Ceramics, Victoria 

and Albert Museum; Dr. Charles E. Cleland, curator of anthropology. The Museum, 

Michigan State University; Carl C. Dauterman, associate curator. Western European 

Arts, Metropolitan Museum of Art; John Dunton, chief conservator. Fortress of 

Louisbourg National Historic Park; Paul V. Gardner, curator. Division of Ceramics 

and Glass, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution; 

Jacob L. Grimm, curator. Fort Ligonier Memorial Foundation, Inc.; Dr. Edward B. 

Jelks, professor of anthropology, Illinois State University; Dr. Walter Kenyon, 

curator of anthropology. Royal Ontario Museum; Miss Emily Manheim, D.M. &P. 

Manheim, New York, New York; Dr. Moreau S. Maxwell, chairman. Department 

of Anthropology, Michigan State University; Ivor Noel Hume, director. Department 

of Archaeology, Colonial Williamsburg; Dr. Eugene T. Petersen, director. The 

Mackinac Island State Park Commission; Dr. John A. Pope, director, Freer Gallery 

of Art; Miss Rodris Roth, associate curator. Division of Cultural History, National 

Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution; Miss Vivian J. 

Scheidemantel, associate curator, Department of Decorative Arts, The Art Institute 

of Chicago; Ross E. Taggart, senior curator, William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art; 

C. Malcolm Watkins, chairman, Department of Civil History, National Museum of 

History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution; Donald Blake Webster, curator, 

Canadiana Gallery, Royal Ontario Museum. 

Also, we wish to express our gratitude to Miss Jennifer Oka, museum technician, 

Division of Ceramics and Glass, National Museum of History and Technology, 

Smithsonian Institution, for executing the line drawings and to thank Mrs. Sheila 

Machlis Alexander, museum technician. Division of Ceramics and Glass, National 

Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, for supervising the 

photography of the sherds from Fort Michilimackinac. For the typing of the manuscript, we wish to thank Mrs. Joseph Kelly, Smithsonian Institution, and Mrs. 

J. Jefferson Miller II. 

IX 
Introduction 

J. C. HARRINGTON, of the National Park 

Service, writing in 1955, on "Archaeology as an 

Auxiliary Science to American History," pointed out 

that archeologists working on historical sites "have 

recovered a great store of data which should be of 

use in historical studies, but, with rare exception, 

they have not taken the next step—analysis and 

synthesis." ^ Although significant advances have 

been demonstrated in the analysis, interpretation, 

and synthesis of historical site data since 1955, the 

shortcomings cited by Harrington still exist to a 

material extent. This may be due to several persistent 

characteristics in the field of historical archeology.^ 

First, the objectives of this research have changed 

little. The definition and interpretation of structural 

detail for reconstruction and restoration purposes is 

frequently stressed, while a comprehensive evaluation 

of the artifacts associated with structural features 

often is neglected.^ This priority of restoration over 

' J. C. HARRINGTON, "Archaeology as an Auxiliary Science 

to American History," American Anthropologist, vol. 57, p. 1126. 

2 Historical archeology is concerned with the excavation 

and interpretation of sites v^^hich have been occupied since 

the time of recorded European history. It is traditional that 

these sites bear evidence of European occupation or influence. 

It is assumed that documentary evidence be available which 

may be called upon to assist in interpreting the archeological 

findings. The site location need not be restricted to North 

America, but may be in any other area where Europeans or 

American colonials had established themselves since the time 

of recorded European history. Historical archeology has its 

counterpart in Europe as postmedieval archeology. 

3 Published reports on the sites of Womack (HARRIS and 

BLAINE, 1965), Rosewell (NOEL HUME, 1962), Clay Bank 

(NOEL HUME, 1966), Tutter's Neck (NOEL HUME, 1966), 

Fort Michilimackinac (MAXWELL and BIN FORD, 1961), 

Gilbert (JELKS, 1966), Pearson (DUFFIELD and JELKS, 1961), 

and Johnny Ward's Ranch (FONTANA and GREENLEAF, 1962) 

are examples of noteworthy exceptions (for full citations, see 

bibliography). But for comments on the continuing emphasis 

on restoration, see IVOR NOEL HUME, "Historical Archaeology 

in America," Post-Medieval Archaeology, vol. 1, p. 105. 

evaluation frequently is due to a lack of funds or 

research time rather than a failure of historical 

archeologists to recognize the significance of detailed 

artifact analysis. As a result, the techniques of 

historical site artifact analysis have not developed 

apace with analytic procedures designed to produce 

structural data. Second, the analytic complexity of 

historical site artifact assemblages continues to grow 

as each new site is excavated and reported. Conse 

quently, the historical archeologist and artifact 

specialist are increasingly confronted with large and 

complex artifact assemblages manufactured, distributed, and deposited during very short periods 

of time. The problems of analyzing and describing 

these complex assemblages are obvious to anyone 

who has worked in this field. The identification of 

some eighteenth-century ceramic types, for example, 

is difficult owing to the lack of adequate descriptive 

reports. The archeologist often is forced to refer to 

ceramic publications, catalogs, or collection indices 

which identify only the best specimens of select 

ceramic types. Unfortunately, these "museum 

quality" items are found infrequently in an archeological context.'* Furthermore, the descriptive criteria 

* For examples of this quandary, see NORMAN FORTHUN 

BARKA, Historic Sites Archaeology at Portland Point, New Brunswick, 

Canada, 1631-1850, p. 4. See also CURTIS TUNNELL, "A Description of Enameled Earthenware from an Archeological Excavation at Mission San Antonio de Valero (The Alamo)," State 

Building Commission Archaeological Program Report no. 2, p. 19. 

The authors: J. Jeff"erson Miller II is Curator,Section of 

Ceramics History, Division of Ceramics and Glass, National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560. Lyle M. Stone is 

Head of Archaeological Research, Mackinac Island 

State Park Commission, Stevens T. Mason Building, 

Lansing, Michigan 58926. 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

presented in many of the published sources are 

seldom helpful. 

In view of these problems, it is our opinion that 

reports stressing the analysis, description, and interpretation of historical sites artifacts are badly needed— 

not only to test conclusions based largely on structural evidence, but also to provide comparative 

data applicable to the interpretation of contemporaneous historical sites. 

This publication is the result of a combined elTort 

by The Museum at Michigan State University and 

the Smithsonian Institution. The ceramic artifacts 

described were excavated between 1959 and 1965 

from the eighteenth-century site of Fort Michilimackinac (MS2), Emmet County, Michigan.^ Fort 

Michilimackinac is administered by the Mackinac 

Island State Park Commission, presently under the 

direction of Dr. Eugene T. Petersen. Since 1959 the 

Department of Anthropology and The Museum at 

Michigan State University have engaged in a continuing program of archeological investigation at 

Fort Michilimackinac. Their program, undertaken in 

cooperation with the Mackinac Island State Park 

Commission, has three basic objectives: 

1. To produce a scholarly study of the site. This 

study, utilizing archeological and documentary 

materials, is intended to provide detailed information pertinent to a better understanding of the 

history of Fort Michilimackinac. 

2. To provide the Mackinac Island State Park 

Commission with accurate guidelines for the 

reconstruction and interpretation of Fort Michilimackinac on its original site. 

3. To provide a field laboratory for the training 

of students in the techniques of archeological 

research. 

5 MS^ refers to Mackinac Straits area site number 2. The 

term Michilimackinac, pronounced Mish la mack ah naw, 

has been associated with a variety of meanings and has been 

spelled in many different ways. Walter Havighurst, for example, 

notes that at least 68 different spellings of the word were recorded between 1681 and 1855. WALTER HAVIGHURST, Three 

Flags at the Straights, pp. X and XI. Spellings such as Mithinimackenucs, Michilimaquinay, Mishinimakinang, Eshelemackinac, and Mochenemockenugong were common during the 

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Jesuits spelled the 

word in 13 different ways in The Jesuit Relations. . . . The 

word means variously the "great turtle," "a place of dancing 

spirits," and "turtle spirits," and has been used to refer to the 

Mackinac Straits area in general, to the seventeenth-century 

Fort De Baude at St. Ignace, to the Fort on the south side of 

the Straits which is the subject of this report, and to the 1781-

1895 Fort on Mackinac Island. 

An interest in reporting the ceramic artifacts from 

Fort Michilimackinac began late in the summer of 

1965 when J. Jefferson Miller II, associate curator 

of the Division of Ceramics and Glass, National 

Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian 

Institution, visited the site and viewed a sample of 

the ceramics recovered during the 1965 field season. 

Mr. Miller's inspection of this collection prompted 

him to initiate plans for an analysis of the Fort 

MichiUmackinac ceramics and to suggest a joint 

publication with Lyle M. Stone, then director of 

field archeology for the Michigan State University 

Museum Fort Michilimackinac Project. Subsequently, 

arrangements were made with Mr. Stone and with 

the Michigan State University Museum to conduct 

a study of the Fort Michilimackinac ceramic collection. During the winter of 1965 and throughout 1966 

and 1967, Mr. Miller and Mr. Stone conducted the 

ceramics analysis and related historic research and 

decided upon a publication format which would 

include historical, descriptive, and interpretative information. Research on the ceramic artifacts from 

the Fort has been carried out at the site, at the 

Michigan State University Museum, and at the 

Smithsonian Institution. Other comparable artifact 

collections have been visited and studied, the most 

important of these being the ones at Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia; Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania; 

and the Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia. Numerous consultations were conducted with archeologists and ceramic specialists in the United States, 

Canada, and Europe. 

The primary objective of this publication is a 

detailed description of the Fort Michilimackinac ceramics collection (1959-1965), including comments on 

the manufacture, importation, use, and dating of 

each ceramic type described. The term "ceramics" 

as used in this report excludes aboriginal ceramics 

and kaolin pipes. It is hoped that the descriptions 

will contribute to the research of the following 

specialists: (a) the historical archeologist, by providing a documentation of datable ceramic types for 

comparative purposes; ^ (b) the artifact historian, 

6 One aim of this publication is to provide a useful reference 

for those conducting investigations of historical sites where 

ceramics specialists are not readily available for consultation. 

With this purpose in mind, some general background material 

has been included and the annotations are deliberately extensive in order to supply an immediate working reference to 

the type of ceramic under consideration. 
NUMBER 4 

by providing data derived from a region and period 

relatively unknown from the standpoint of ceramic 

importation and use; and (c) the cultural historian, 

by providing evidence indicating the level of socioeconomic life maintained at Fort MichiUmackinac 

and presumably at other comparable frontier military 

posts. 

A second objective is to illustrate the interpretative 

value of historical sites ceramics. By presenting several 

interpretative problems to which ceramics data may 

be applied, we hope to facilitate the evaluation of 

historical sites upon which ceramics are found. The 

relationships between ceramic change and changing 

patterns of social life through time in view of diff"erent 

historical and geographical factors must also be 

studied. For example, ceramic data may reflect 

diverse functional activities on a site, the presence of 

various status or socioeconomic groups, and the locus 

and importance of different trade routes.^ Information 

ii"om sites in addition to Fort Michilimackinac has 

been presented to support many of the interpretations 

posited. 

In consideration of these objectives, this study has 

been organized as follows. Chapter I: outline of the 

history of Fort Michilimackinac and the program of 

archeological research. Chapter II: description of 

ceramic types from the site. Chapter III: interpretation of historical sites ceramic data. 

A basic problem of ceramics classification and 

description was confronted during the course of 

research. As the taxonomic system selected is a key 

element in the structure of this publication, it bears 

consideration at this time. 

The difficulty arises in attempting to present a 

ceramics classification which is useful and acceptable 

to both the ceramics historian and the archeologist, 

who—quite naturally—frequently hold different views 

with respect to research objectives and the purpose of 

classification. The ceramic artifacts from Fort Michilimackinac have been analyzed from two points of 

view, not necessarily incompatable yet distinct in 

perspective and objective—one archeological and the 

other that of the ceramics specialist. The ceramics 

specialist is concerned primarily with presenting a 

ceramics catalog for technological, historical, and 

descriptive purposes. The archeologist may, on the 

other hand, be concerned primarily with ceramic 

artifacts as they reflect the social life and culture of the 

occupants of a historical site. As a result, the purposes 

and results of classification are diff'erent. Both approaches are valid and we wish to emphasize that 

these differences in orientation exist and that they 

cannot be (nor should they be) arbitrarily reconciled 

in a publication of this type. Each orientation has 

something unique to contribute. The ceramics 

specialist contributes his detailed knowledge of ceramics history, technology, and identification. The 

archeologist contributes from the standpoint of 

taxonomic procedure and interpretative methodology. 

Regarding the problem of classification, we have 

found that the two views do not necessarily diff"er with 

respect to the techniques of analysis employed or the 

definition of ceramic attributes which are relevant for 

taxonomic purposes. The two approaches differ, 

however, in the degree of analytic objectivity maintained during the course of research. The traditional 

archeological approach to analysis relies upon a 

number of established criteria for the classification and 

description of ceramics. For example, the traditionally 

trained archeologist confronted with a collection of 

eighteenth-century ceramics would consider these 

artifacts in the light of attributes such as method of 

manufacture, temper, hardness, color, surface finish, 

form, and decoration and would search for clusters of 

diagnostic attributes in an attempt to define historically 

and culturally valid ceramic types. The types identified 

would then be evaluated in the light of any additional 

archeological evidence.* This approach is exemplified 

in a paper published by B. Bruce Powell ^ in which he 

proposes a rigorous classification of seventeenth-nineteenth-century European ceramics. In so doing, 

Powell criticizes South, Maxwell and Binford, 

Caywood, and Cotter for not adhering to three basic 

rules of taxonomy: (1) there should be a single basis 

of division between ranks (classes), (2) classes should 

be mutually exclusive, and (3) classes should be 

exhaustive. Powell's system of classification represents 

a thoughtful (and admittedly tentative) attempt to 

solve this difficult problem, but a number of dis-

•^ In considering the interpretive aspects, we have assumed 

that a number of factors commonly interact to determine the 

presence and context of ceramic types on a site. Factors such as 

transportability, trade logistics, functional necessity, expense, 

and historic contacts are all related to the nature of ceramics 

importation and use. 

^ For example, evidence derived from the distribution and 

association of ceramic types with other artifacts and structures. 

^ B. BRUCE POWELL, "Classification of Ceramics from 

Historic Sites," special issue of the Southeastern Archaeological 

Conjerence Newsletter, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 34—35. 
SMITHSONM N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

crepancies in his taxonomy illustrate the complications 

involved. Thus, the existence of an understandable 

and reasonable difference in approach between 

archeologists and ceramic historians is eclipsed by 

complicated variances among historical archeologists 

confronted with the necessity of creating some sort of 

workable taxonomy that will facilitate comparisons of 

results obtained at the ever-increasing number of 

sites under study. 

Essentially, the ceramics historian employs the 

same process as the archeologist by identifying attributes and attribute clusters, although such classification is carried out in a less mechanical or objective 

fashion, with the ceramics historian usually relying 

upon his accumulated knowledge to distinguish 

ceramic types. The objective means of the archeologist 

are not always easily applied to the analysis of 

eighteenth-century ceramics, owing primarily to the 

complexities of eighteenth-century ceramic production and distribution.^'' Moreover, information 

contained in the available documentary material or 

in published works may either override or reinforce 

the evidence produced by archeologically objective 

means. Ivor Noel Hume, director of the Department 

of Archaeology at Colonial Williamsburg, has been 

a consistent critic of the traditional archeological 

approach to classification: 

The absence of knowledge on the part of the student 

prompts him to seek it in the only way he knows 

how—through the methods of anthropology and 

prehistory. Thus, he wastes time and funds laboriously 

compiling useless pottery typologies in the quest for 

dating and nomenclatures that should be sought amid 

the vast corpus of material already published on the 

subject. But not being acquainted with these sources, 

he proceeds on the assumption that in digging an 

historical site he is plunging into totally uncharted 

waters.11 

On the other hand, the methodology of the ceramics 

historian is weak in certain respects. The comparative 

lack of a precise, objective method of ceramics identification is reflected in the rather broad ceramics 

>o Some studies in qualitative analysis have been made, but 

constant changes and experimentation in eighteenth-century 

manufacturing methods and body formulae tend to limit the 

usefulness of chemical analysis for attribution purposes. For 

a basic study of the properties of eighteenth-century European 

neramics, see ARTHUR HURST, "Ceramics Construction," 

Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 28-42. 

"IVO R NOEL HUME, "Historical Archaeology in America," 

Post-Medieval Archaeology, vol. 1, pp. 104—105. 

categories (usually distinguished by country of origin 

and type of ware) defined by the ceramics historian. 

It is our view that, for the present, it is unnecessary 

to rely totally on either approach to the exclusion of 

the other. Rather, we have sought a workable format 

that has, we believe, provided a symbiotic basis for 

our study. Consequently, in an attempt to achieve 

some degree of taxonomic consistency and to define 

procedures and results which are acceptable to the 

cultural historian, the ceramics historian, and the 

historical archeologist, we have adopted an intermediate stance to the problem of classification. In so 

doing, an endeavor Ijas been made to use certain 

objective means where the nature of the data warrant 

their use and reliance has been placed upon more 

subjective means in other cases. As a result, some of 

the attributes utilized to distinguish ceramic types 

possibly will seem simplistic or even naive to the 

ceramics historian. We ask the ceramics historian to 

bear with this divergence and to recognize that the 

type of evidence which might seem superfluous for 

his purposes may be of significance to the historical 

archeologist. As we have stated, one of our aims is to 

provide a source which will facilitate the identification, 

by the working archeologist, of eighteenth-century 

ceramics. Concomitantly, some of our descriptive 

means and criteria may appear unorthodox or even 

meaningless to the archeologist, whereas it is viewed 

as significant data to cultural and ceramics historians' 

The ceramics classification adopted in this report 

consists of three levels of taxonomic differentiation— 

the class, group, and type. No attempt, however, has 

been made to be consistent in the definition of interlevel differentia. Classes (earthenware, stoneware, 

and porcelain) are distinguished by differences in 

paste and certain physical properties resulting from 

firing. Groups (tin-glazed earthenware, English creamcolored earthenware, coarse earthenware, fine earthenware, English white saltglazed stoneware, other 

stonewares, Chinese export porcelain, and English 

porcelain) are distinguished on the basis of physical 

and/or stylistic properties. Types are distinguished on 

the basis of style and/or technique of decoration. 

Consequently, in our classification of the ceramics 

from Fort Michilimackinac we have been less systematic than we would have by following the recommendations of Powell. Our classification is exhaustive 

(with respect to the Fort Michilimackinac ceramics) 

and attempts to define classes which are mutually 

exclusive. This system does not, however, adhere to 
NUMBER 4 

a single basis of division between ranks. Our basis 

for division (taxonomic criteria) may vary in distinguishing two taxonomic units on the same level 

of differentiation. This course has been adopted for 

several reasons. First, adherence to an inflexible set 

of diagnostic criteria would produce misleading 

results with respect to the sample and would serve 

to confuse our presentation. Second, we feel that the 

more complicated a historical site ceramics classification becomes, the less easily are we able to fulfill 

two of the major purposes of classification: providing 

a format for communication between scholars as an 

efficient and adaptable means of comparative research, and allowing the investigator to interpret a 

site and its ceramics in terms of the society which 

produced them. Third, the availability of documentary evidence, which may identify the country of 

origin or even the specific manufacturer of a given 

ceramic type, allows the choice of relevant taxonomic criteria in many cases, whereas a dependence 

on inflexible criteria and a disregard for historical 

evidence would produce a classification which does 

not approximate the historically known situation. 

On the other hand, historical evidence is not always 

available as a basis for meaningful distinctions. In 

such cases (the coarse earthenware group in particular) we have attempted to be more systematic in our 

definition of taxonomic differentia. 

Although we do not profess to have solved this 

classificatory problem, we hope that we have contributed to the realization that it exists and that 

historical site artifacts of all kinds patently require 

a more efficient and meaningful approach to analysis 

and classification.'2 The ceramics classification presented in this paper includes only the ceramics 

produced from the site of Fort Michilimackinac. We 

feel that, at present, this represents the most effective 

means of describing the ceramic artifacts and allowing 

12 Several published and unpublished works have grappled 

with this problem. For example, see STANLEY A. SOUTH, 

"The Ceramic Types at Brunswick Town, North Carolina," 

Southeastern Archeological Conjerence Newsletter, vol. 9, no. 1, 

pp. 1-5; EDWARD B. JELKS, "Ceramics From Jamestown," 

included as Appendix B in Archeological Excavations at Jamestown 

by JOHN L . COTTER, pp. 201-209; BARKA, Historic Sites Archaeology at Pordand Point, New Brunswick, Canada, 1631-1850, 

p. 493. Classification for data retrieval systems also offers some 

promise. For this approach (designed for use at Louisbourg), 

see RENEE H . MARWITT, "Punch Card Design for Ceramic 

Analysis," The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 

1965-1966, vol. 1, pp. 19-26. 

the investigator to interpret the ceramics and the 

site in terms of the society that produced them. Our 

system does not purport to represent a final product; 

and it should not be viewed as such. On this point, 

we concur with Iain C. Walker, formerly of the 

Canadian Historic Sites Commission, "A n artifact 

typology is a hypothesis which may or may not 

prove true and is occasioned by a lack of knowledge 

on a subject; it is the starting point of a study, not 

the end result."^^ Our system stands for the present, 

only to be reevaluated in the light of additional 

archeological and historical evidence. 

An admitted weakness of this study lies in the 

fact that no comprehensive attempt has been made 

to correlate the identified ceramic types with additional artifact classes and structural evidence from 

Fort Michilimackinac. Essentially this is because a 

detailed analysis of the Fort Michilimackinac archeological data has not been completed at present.'* 

In acknowledging the problems encountered in preparing this report, we remain convinced that our 

work represents a worthwhile contribution to the 

respective disciplines of historical archeology, cultural history, and ceramics history. In terms of 

artifact description and interpretation, socioeconomic 

history, and comparative data, we have presented 

a large amount of heretofore unpublished information. Hopefully, the ensuing years will see a continuing program of publication on the artifact collections from many North American historical sites. 

Such a program should result in a more comprehensive understanding of eighteenth-century North 

America and in a clearer delineation of the complex 

social and economic patterns of the period. 

We assume equal responsibility for the preparation 

of this report. Each read and consulted upon the 

revision of the other's contributions. Mr. Miller was 

primarily responsible for Chapter II and Mr. Stone 

was primarily responsible for Chapters I and III. 

13 IAIN C. WALKER, "Historic Archaeology—Methods and 

Principle," Historical Archaeology 1967, pp. 23-34. 

1* The task of analyzing the Fort Michilimackinac artifactual 

and structural remains is presendy being undertaken by 

Lyle M. Stone and will be presented as a part of his Ph.D 

dissertation for the Michigan State University Department of 

Anthropology. This study hopefully will yield results which 

will facilitate the interpretation of several of the more complex 

ceramic categories presented in this publication, i.e., coarse 

earthenwares. 
Chapter I 

History of Fort Michilimackinac 

and the Present Program of 

Archeology and Reconstruction 

F

ORT MICHILIMACKINAC is located on the 

south side of the Mackinac Straits, 

which separate lower and upper Michigan and join 

Lakes Michigan and Huron (Figure 1).^ To the 

south and west is Lake Michigan and the headwaters 

of the Mississippi drainage system. To the east and 

south are Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, links in 

the westward flow of trade goods and equipment 

from the lower Great Lakes-Detroit-Lake Huron 

route or the Ottawa River-Lake Nipissing route 

(Figure 2). Mackinac Island, on which Fort Michilimackinac was relocated in 1781, lies eight miles to 

the northeast of the original site. To the north of 

the straits are the Sault Ste. Marie passage and the 

entrance to Lake Superior. The straits provided an 

economically and militarily strategic position for the 

location of a fort. Fort Michilimackinac served as 

a focal point for the upper Great Lakes fur trade 

and was in a position to regulate water travel between 

Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. The site rests upon 

windblown beach sand and Algoma stage sand and 

gravel deposits at an elevation of between 595 and 

609 feet above sea level. 

1 The history of the Mackinac Straits area is somewhat 

vague, especially during the years preceding British occupation (1760). To date, no in-depth history of this region has 

been written, although numerous primary documents relating 

to this problem are available. The history given in this publication is based on primary documents and a number of secondary accounts which have dealt with limited aspects of Mackinac 

Straits and upper Great Lakes history. 

Fort Michilimackinac was established about 1715.^ 

Between 1650 and 1715 the upper Great Lakes 

underwent a rapid settlement by French missionaries, traders, and soldiers. This period of expansion 

and settlement had been paralleled farther to the 

east between 1610 and 1650. With the partial exhaustion of fur resources to the east and south of 

Georgian Bay by 1650 and with the exploration and 

settlement of the upper Great Lakes, the focus of 

the fur trade shifted to the west. One of the earliest 

trading expeditions to the upper Great Lakes was that 

of two French traders—Pierre Espirit Radisson and 

Medard Chouart, Sieur de Groseilliers. Radisson 

made his first trip to the Lake Superior region in 

1654 and returned to Quebec in 1656 with many 

high quality beaver furs. Groseilliers accompanied 

Radisson on a second trip to the area between 1658 

and 1660.^ These early trading expeditions established valuable contacts for the French and prompted 

the government of New France to expand its trading 

interests to the west. French traders were operating 

near Sault Ste. Marie, at the mouth of Lake Superior, 

by 1660.'' The first permanent missionary settlement 

- The approximate date of 1715 was defined through the 

research of Moreau S. Maxwell and Lewis R. Binford. See 

MAXWELL and BINFORD, "Excavation at Fort Michilimackinac, 

Mackinac City, Michigan: 1959 Season,'' Michigan State 

University Museum Cultural Series, 1961, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 

10 and 113. 

3 HAROLD A. INNIS, The Fur Trade in Canada, p. 36; CLEVER 

F. BALD, Alichigan in Four Centuries, p. 26. 

* OTTO FOWLE, Sault Ste. Marie and Its Great Waterway, 

p. 89. 

7 

359-962 O - 70 
SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

in the region was established at Sault Ste. Marie 

by Fathers Louis Nicolas and Jacques Marquette in 

1668.^ This mission and the French traders centered 

at Sault Ste. Marie attracted the settlement of the 

Ottawa who had occupied areas along the southern 

shore of Lake Superior. By 1669, the mission was 

referred to in The Jesuit Relations .. . as that of the 

Ottawa^ although the Chippewa were also important occupants of the Sault at this time.'' The Sault 

also served as a trading center for Indians inhabiting 

the Green Bay area to the west. This contact with 

Green Bay produced a further extension of the French 

fur trade and the introduction of trade goods to 

tribes such as the Potawatomi, Sioux, and Miamis.^ 

Shortly after the movement of French traders to the 

west and into the Lake Superior region, British trading interests were secured to the north. The Hudson's 

Bay Trading Company was established in 1670 and 

soon came to represent numerous small trading posts 

in the James Bay area. The Hudson's Bay enterprise, 

backed up by cheaper goods and higher fur prices, 

rapidly became a serious threat to French traders 

in the south.^ The French attempted to counter this 

threat by creating changes in Indian trade patterns 

and alliances and by establishing new trading posts 

along the northern shore of Lake Superior. 

By 1670 European influence in the upper Great 

Lakes extended southward to the Mackinac Straits 

area. A mission, established by Father Jacques Marquette in 1671 on the north side of the straits at St. 

Ignace, served as a focal point for groups of Ottawa, 

who had entered the area from the Chaquamegon 

Bay region of southwestern Lake Superior, for Chippewa from the north, and for Huron from the east. 

By 1683 the mission at St. Ignace had also begun to 

serve as a French military post and was garrisoned by 

30 soldiers under the command of Daniel de Grosollon, 

Sieur dul'Hut (Dulhut).^" Fort de Baude was established adjacent to the mission by Louis de la Porte, 

5 Ibid., p. 98. 

^ R. G. THWAITES, editor. The Jesuit Relations and Allied 

Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Alissionaries in 

New France, 1610-1791, vol. 51, p. 61. 

^ W. VERNON KINIETZ, The Indians oj the Western Great 

Lakes: 1615-1760, p. 318. 

" INNIS, pp. 44-45. 

8 The British at Hudson Bay were operating under a reduced 

transportation overhead and thus were able to supply the same 

or higher quality trade goods at a lower price. 

10 FOWLE, p. 177. 

Sieur de Louvigny, in 1689. " The maintenance of a 

fortified post at this strategic location was in response 

to King William's War (1689-1697) and the intrusion 

of British traders from Albany, New York, into the 

Mackinac Straits after 1686. This competitive threat 

is documented in a letter dated 1686 in which M. de 

Denonville, governor general of Canada, noted that: 

Missilimakinac is theirs. They have taken its latitude; 

have been to trade there with our Outawas and 

Huron Indians, who received them cordially on account 

of the bargains they gave, by selling their merchandise 

for Beaver which they purchased at a much higher 

price than we.'-

Although this encounter was short-lived and took 

place at a time when the French post was undermanned, it did demonstrate that British traders could 

penetrate French territory and establish favorable 

trade contracts with the Indians. 

Antoine de Lamonthe Cadillac succeeded as commandant of Fort de Baude in 1695. To control the 

oversupply of furs accumulated by the increased 

trading activity in the upper Great Lakes, Louis XI V 

in 1696 ordered the upper Great Lakes closed to the 

fur trade. As a result, Cadillac abandoned Fort de 

Baude in 1698. By 1701 Cadillac having secured 

permission to establish a fort at Detroit (Fort Pontchartrain)—although this was a direct exception to 

the stipulations of the 1696 decree—was able to 

convince many of the Indians remaining in the Straits 

to join him at Detroit.^^ The Jesuit missionaries, left 

at St. Ignace with only a small parish, abandoned the 

mission in 1705 and returned to Quebec. " Between 

1705 and 1715 the population and fur trade activity 

of the Mackinac Straits area declined owing to the 

abandonment of Fort de Baude and the Jesuit 

11 BALD, p. 43. See also N. M. MILLER SURREY, Calendar oj 

Manuscripts in Paris Archives and Libraries Relating to the History oj 

the Mississippi Valley to 1803, vol. 1 (1581-1739), pp. 30-31. This 

reference contains a statement "of the amounts due certain men 

for the erection of posts at Detroit and Michilimackinac," 

recorded 25 July 1689 at Montreal. See also "An Account of 

the Military Operations in Canada from the month of November, 1691, to the month of October, 1692," in Documents Relative to the Colonial History oj the State oj New Tork, edited by E. B. 

O'CALLAGHAN, vol. 9, p. 537. 

12 M. DE DENONVILLE to M. DE SEIGNELAY, dated September 

1686, from Missilimackinac, Documents Relative to the Colonial 

History oj the State oj New lork, edited by E. B. O'CALLAGHAN, 

vol. 9, p. 297. 

13 FOWLE, p. 189. 

14 SURREY, pp. 118-119. 
NUMBER 4 

6 

I 

Q 

^ 

U 

I 

o 

2 

f5 
10 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
NUMBER 4 11 

Mission, th e decre e of 1696, an d Quee n Anne's Wa r 

whic h lasted from 1702 until 1713.15 

By 1710 the Governmen t of Ne w Franc e recognized 

the importanc e of maintainin g military control of the 

Mackina c are a an d initiated plans to reestablish a 

post a t th e Straits.^^ Monsieu r de Lignery, a captai n 

of th e Frenc h army , wa s dispatched to Michilimackina c in 1712 for the purpos e of securing the 

allianc e of the local Indian s against the Fo x an d 

Iroquois. 1^ Th e Fo x ha d disrupted trad e relations 

wit h India n allies of the Frenc h by stimulating intertriba l conflicts. Th e Iroquois wer e trad e allies of the 

British an d wer e viewed as competition to the Frenc h 

trad e system. Th e strategy in reoccupyin g the Straits 

sought to curtail the activity of British traders an d 

Iroquois middleme n in the uppe r Grea t Lake s an d 

to strengthe n India n alliances whic h ha d bee n 

weakene d by the Fox. 

D e Ligner y apparentl y spent several years in the 

Straits before the post wa s actually constructed. 

T h e proposed establishment of this post is agai n 

referred to in a letter writte n by Captai n d e la 

Forest in I714.i* Morea u S. Maxwell an d Lewis R. 

Binford not e tha t 

the original plan for the expedition against the Fox 

was to send 20 troops under Captain D'Eschaillons, 

Lieutenant Lanour, and Ensign Belestre from Montreal 

to Michilimackinac to arrive early in August, 1715.— 

However, the supplies and troops from Montreal did 

not arrive at the Straits in time for the coordinated 

15 Although the mission was abandoned in 1705, there is 

some evidence to indicate that a new mission or fort wais 

established in 1706. See SURREY, p. 125, and Letter from 

FATHER MAREST to the MARQUIS DE VAUDREUIL, 14 August 

1706, Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, vol 33 , p . 265 . 

In addition, we know that Father Marest returned to Michilimackinac in 1706 and that the area continued to be frequented 

by French traders and Indians during this period. See M. DE 

VAUDRELTIL to M. DE PoNTCHARTRAiN, Qucbcc, 28 April 1706, 

and M. DE PONTCHARTRAIN to M. DE VAUDREUIL, Versailles, 

9 Jun e 1706, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State 

of New "iork, edited by E. B. O'CALLAGHAN, vol. 9, pp. 775 and 

779: 

18 M. DE VAUDRELTIL to M. DE PONTCHARTRAIN, Quebec, 

31 Octobe r 1710, Documents Relative to the Colonial History oj 

the State oj New Tork, edited by E. B. O'CALLAGHAN, vol. 9, 

p. 849. 

17 Ibid, p. 865. 

1^ "Memoirs on Detroit," supposed to have been written by 

CAPTAIN DE LA FOREST, 1 October 1714, Quebec, Documents 

Relative to the Colonial History oj the Slate of New 2"ork, edite d by 

E. B. O'CALLAGHAN vol. 9, pp. 866-867. 

operation, although presumably they did arrive later 

that year." 

Maxwell an d Binford suggest tha t 

it appears likely that sometime between 1715 and 1720 

De Lignery w4th several hundred men on his hands 

waiting for supplies from Montreal put them to 

work in the time-honored military tradition by building 

a stockaded fort on the other side of the river, meaning 

the south shore of the straits.^" 

A n anonymou s ma p in the Aye r Collection, Newberr y 

Library, believed to dat e from 1717, is also referred to 

by Maxwell an d Binford (Figure 3). Th e ma p 

shows a stockade, square, with square corner bastions, 

on the south side of the Straits, as well as a fort and 

mission on the north side of the Straits. The caption, 

indicating the fort on the south side of the Straits, 

states that the former fort (at St. Ignace) has been 

abandoned; that the fort on the south side of the 

straits has a commandant, a few settlers, and even 

some French women, and that in 1716 about 600 

Coureurs-de-bois were gathered there during trading 

time. 21 

A late r reference gives the yea r 1717 for the founding 

of Fort Michilimackinac . This dat e is mentione d in a 

letter by Joh n Porteous, a n English trader, from 

Michilimackina c in 1767 in whic h he states tha t 

Michilimackinac is Situated on [a large cape which 

form[s] the] Southern [side of the] Straits between 

the Lakes Huron and Michigan, has Lake Huron on 

the E. and S.E., and on the S. and W., Lake 

Michigan, . This post was first established upon 

an Isld on the E. enterance of the Straits, from thence 

moved to the east point of the northern cape, and 

afterward moved westwards, about 2 Miles, about 

the middle of the Straits; and in the year 1717, by 

request of the Ottawas whose village then stood 

here, was again moved over where it now stands to 

protect them from some of the Nations they were 

then at war with.22 

Charlevoix's journa l clearly illustrates tha t Fort 

Michilimackina c wa s in existence on the south side of 

the Straits by 1721.^^ Th e founding dat e of Fort 

19 MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, p. 14, defend this statement 

by reference to letters from RAMEZAY and BEGON to French 

Minister, September and November, 1715, and reproduced in 

Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, vol. 16, 

pp. 314 and 327. 

20 MAXWEL L an d BINFORD, 1961, p . 10. 

21 Ibid., pp. 11-12. 

22 Letter from JOHN PORTEOUS to his father in Scotland, 

Michilimackinac, summer 1767, "From Niagara to Mackinac 

in 1767," CLEVER F . BALD, editor. Historical Bulletin, No. 2, 

The Algonquin Club, p. 12. 

23 L E P . D E CHARLEVOIX , Journal d^un Voyage fait par Ordre 

du Roi dans UAmerique Seplentrionnale: Adresse a Aladame la 

Duchess de Lesdiquieres, vol. 3, p . 279 . 
12 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

o U 

< 

(A 

u 

-73 

w 

O 

«5 

O 

IS 

^ ^ 

O 

H 

C/3 

O 

< 

o 
NUMBER 4 13 

Michilimackinac on the south side of the straits is thus 

narrowed to between 1714 and 1721, with the most 

probable date, based on evidence above, falling 

between 1715 and 1717. Maxwell and Binford, using 

essentially the same evidence, concluded that the post 

was established about 1715.^-^ 

A number of factors contributed to the establishment of this post. With the close of Queen Anne's War 

in 1713, finances once again were available to support 

renewed trading interests and military control of the 

upper Great Lakes.^^ Although anticipated Fox conflicts gave impetus to the construction of the fort, other 

long-term reasons were extremely relevant to its 

establishment. A post was necessary at the Straits to 

discourage competition from the Hudson's Bay 

Company to the north; to control the activity of the 

unlicensed French traders, the Coureurs-de-bois; to 

secure the alliance of the local Indians; and to serve as 

focal point for anticipated fur-trading expeditions. 

The Fox War of 1716 was undertaken under the 

command of Sieur de Louvigny. Louvigny left 

Montreal in May 1716 and arrived at Michilimackinac 

during July or August with at least 300 Frenchmen.^^ 

There, he combined forces with De Lignery to produce 

a total troop contingent of nearly 800 French and 

Indians.^^ This force proceeded to the fortified Fox 

settlement near Green Bay, Wisconsin, and subdued 

the Fox within three days. Louvigny immediately 

departed for Quebec upon his return to the Straits, 

leaving the command of the Fort to De Lignery with a 

garrison of no more than 23 soldiers.^* 

In 1720 De Lignery relinquished his command at 

the post to Monsieur Daneil Lienard de Beaujeau. 

From 1715 until 1760, Fort Michilimackinac was 

governed by the following French commandants: 

Charles Regnault, Sieur Dubuisson 

Jacques Testard, Sieur de Montigny 

Pierre Le Gardeur, Sieur de Repentigny 

1729-1730 

1730-1733 

1733-1734 

2* MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, p. 113. 

25 Memorial written by CLAUDE MICHEL BEGON, Intendent of 

Canada, dated at Quebec, 20 September 1713. Collections oj 

the State Historical Society oj Wisconsin, vol. 16, pp . 295-297. 

2^ Letter of GOVERNOR DE VAUDREUIL to Council of Marine, 

dated 14 Octobe r 1716. Collections oj the State Historical Society oj 

Wisconsin, vol. 16, p . 342. 

27 Ibid., p. 343. 

28 The conflict of 1716 discussed here was one of several 

which took place between the French and Fox between 1712 

and 1728. See WILLIAM JONES, "Ethnography of the Fox 

Indians," Margaret Welpley Fisher, editor. Bureau oj American 

Ethnology, Bulletin 125, pp. 3-5, for a discussion of the Fox 

Wars of this period. 

Pierre Celoron, Sieur de Blainville 

Jean Jarret, Sieur de Vercheres 

Louis de La Corne 

Charles Joseph De Noyelles 

Jacques Legardeur, Sieur de St. Pierre 

Nicholas De Noyelles, Sieur de 

Fleurimont 

Francois Lefebre, Sieur Duplessis-Fabert 

Louis Lienard, Sieur de BeaujeuVillemonde 

Louis Herbin 

Louis Lienard, 

Villemonde 

Sieur de Beaujeu1734-1742 

1742-1745 

1745-1747 

1747 

1747 

1747-1750 

1750-1753 

1753-1754 

1754-1757 

1758-176029 

During this period the size of the post garrison underwent little change. In 1729 there were no more than 

35 soldiers, including officers, at the Fort; in 1747 

the troops numbered only 28. In addition to the 

military personnel and their families, the Fort housed 

traders, craftsmen such as blacksmiths, missionaries, 

Coureurs-de-bois, and voyageurs during certain 

seasons of the year. Local groups of Ojibwa and 

Ottawa frequented the Fort to trade. 

Owing to British competition and fluctuations in 

the supply and demand of the fur market, the fur 

trade grew slowly at Fort Michilimackinac between 

1720 and 1760.^" The Fort continued to serve as a 

supply depot for French traders arriving from the 

east in the spring or autumn. Once provisioned with 

food, the traders left for areas to the west and north, 

returning to Fort Michilimackinac for provisions the 

following spring and then going to Montreal with 

their load of furs.^^ The fur trade thus provided a 

livelihood for the nonmilitary residents of the Fort. 

The period from 1744 until 1760, during the King 

George's war and the French and Indian W^ar, was 

one of economic depression. During these years, the 

British were able to blockade effectively the St. 

Lawrence River which was the major supply route 

for French trade goods to the upper Great Lakes. 

By 1760 the fur trade had led to the rapid acculturation of the Indians occupying the upper Great 

Lakes. The continual shifting of tribal groups (due in 

part to European and intertribal conflicts and alliances) accompanied by the introduction of European 

trade goods and ideas had a direct elTect on the socioeconomic systems of the contacted groups. The European, by 1760, had become an integral and necessary 

part of the native life. The Indians had become dependent on a continual supply of European trade 

28 Old Fort Michilimackinac at Mackinaw City, Michigan, p . 12. 

30 IDA AMANDA JOHNSON, The Michigan Fur Trade, p . 581 . 

31 INNIS, p. 59. 
14 SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

goods with which to meet their subsistence needs, and 

in turn, much of Indian society had become oriented 

toward fulfilling the necessities of European traders; 

i.e., Indians produced the furs for the trade market, 

supplied French traders with provisions, and acted as 

middlemen between the French and outlying Indian 

groups.^2 

The early French post at Michilimackinac is 

thought to have consisted of a small square stockade 

with bastions, a mission, two guardhouses, and a 40-

foot-long structure to house military personnel.^^ 

By 1760 the area within the stockade had been expanded to nearly three times its original size during 

at least five phases of construction.^* The first phase 

(1725-1735) saw the expansion of the original stockade 

to 200 feet per side, the addition of row houses, a well, 

and at least three single-unit French inhabitant's 

houses.^^ During the second expansion (1730-1740), 

a new row house unit was added, the west wall was 

expanded, and the north wall was moved 65 feet to 

the north to accommodate structures added during 

this phase. During the third phase (1740-1745) 

another set of row houses was added, the commanding 

officer's house was constructed, the west stockade was 

expanded, and the church was rebuilt.^'' The fourth 

phase of expansion (1751) saw the building of a provisions storehouse and the rebuilding of a guardhouse 

which had been burned. The final stage of expansion 

must have taken place prior to 1766, at which time 

the stockade was expanded to its maximum size of 

360 feet north-south by 333 feet east-west, as suggested 

32 See HAROL D HICKERSON, "Th e Southwestern Chippewa : 

An Ethnohistorical Study, " American Anthropological Association, Memoir 92, vol. 64, no. 3, part 2, for a discussion of the 

effects of the fur trade upon the Chippewa . 

33 I n 1720 CAPTAI N DE LIGNER Y wrote a letter to COUN T 

DE TOULOUZ E asking for reimbursement for expenses acquired 

while building " a fort for the garrison, with two guardhouses; 

a nd a 40 foot house, " Collect icns oj the State Historical Society oj 

Wisconsin, vol. 16, pp . 386-387 . 

3* Th e hypothetical expansion phases were defined by 

LEWI S R . BINFORD in the 1961 Fort Michilimackinac Preliminary 

Report (mimeographed report, Department of Anthropology, 

Michigan State University) and represent refinements of the 

original phases proposed by MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, 

pp. 27-38. 

35 LEWIS R . BINFORD notes in his 796/ Preliminary Report 

that the original De Lignery Fort has not been identified. 

36 In the "Mackinac Register of Interments (1743-1806)," 

we note that Marie Coussante, daughter of Joseph Hins, 

"Died August 10, 1743; she was the first one buried in the 

new church built by her father, under the holy water font." 

Collections of the State Historical Society oj Wisconsin, vol. 19, p. 

150. 

by three English military plans of the Fort—the 

Magra Ma p of 1766 (Figure 4), the Nordberg Ma p 

of 1769 (Figure 5), and the anonymous (Crown Collection) map of circa 1760-1770 (Figure 6).^' 

The French garrison was involved in little military 

activity from 1715 until 1760, serving primarily to 

protect traders and maintain friendly relations with 

the nearby Ojibwa and Ottawa. The Indians occasionally were mustered along with the French 

garrisons to fight against the British and allied 

Iroquois to the east.^^ In 1739 commandant Sieur 

de Celoron and the post garrison accompanied 

Baron Longuevil with a combined force of 442 

Canadians against the Chickasaw in the Yazoo 

country of Mississippi. This campaign against the 

Chickasaw was relatively ineflfectual owing to Indian 

desertions, lack of supplies, bad weather, illness, and 

poor leadership. The expedition terminated after 

several skirmishes with the Chickasaw which resulted 

in meaningless negotiations.^' 

During the later part of the French period, there 

were several shifts of location by Indians allied with 

the French at Fort Michilimackinac. In 1741 the 

local Ottawa moved a few miles south to L'Arbre 

Creche (now Cross Village) on Lake Michigan. ^° 

The Ojibwa also began moving at about this time to 

occupy areas near Detroit and Saginaw.''^ 

Capitulation of the French forces at Montreal to 

General JefTery Amherst in September 1760 ended 

the French and Indian War, and gave control of 

the upper Great Lakes to the British. After receiving 

news of the end of hostilities, the French garrison at 

Michilimackinac under Captain Louis de Beaujeu 

37 The Nordberg Map was drafted by LIEUTENANT JOHN 

NORDBERG in 1769. The Magra Map was drafted by LIEUTENANT PERKINS MAGRA in 1766. These English officers were 

both in the 60th Regiment, commonly referred to as the 

"Royal American" Regiment. Although these maps are of 

limited use for exact measurement purposes, they do show the 

approximate position of many of the buildings which existed 

between 1760 and 1780 and indicate the position of many of 

the remaining French period structures. Both maps are in the 

collections of the William L. Clements Memorial Library, 

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The third 

map is anonymous and is in the Crown Collection of Maps, 

British Museum. 

38 HAVIGHURST, pp . 51-57 . 

39 NORMAN W . CALDWELL. "The Chickasaw Threat to 

French Control of the Mississippi in the I740's," The Chronicles 

oj Oklahoma, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 465-492. 

« KINIETZ, p. 230. 

" Ibid., p. 319. 
NUMBE

R 4 

15 

^ 

c 

a 

ha 

IS 

5^ p •5 >^ o b § 2 4« —J o ^ < l ^ U H < ^ W S < o 
16 

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

a«m4igs«i«^^^^^^^ 
NUMBE

R 4 

17 

^.^^• i *. V , J 

^-s'^-: i ^' ^* i H ^ > ' 

- \; ""v^' 

"^ ^ , * * j >i 

vv V* 

: 1? ^v v 

i N^^..'v- - ^ • *t' v^ '''. • •• ; ••• N > s : •*-., 

'/r>"i^-^ 

ij' . 

J'-.' \' ^, 

"•. '^t 

4 '^^ * • 4-

••- ^ ' > i*« . 
18 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

left to join French settlements in Illinois.'*^ Charles 

de Langlade, second in command, remained at the 

post and turned it over to British forces under Captain Henry Balfour in September 1761. Balfour 

immediately departed, leaving the post under the 

command of Lieutenant Leslye and a garrison of 40 

troops from the 60th Regiment.'*^ 

The articles of capitulation agreed upon in Montreal 8 September 1760 were very favorable to the 

remaining French inhabitants of Fort Michilimackinac. Religious freedom was guaranteed and the 

French traders and inhabitants were permitted to 

retain possession of their property and goods.^* The 

latter provision proved to be a matter of concern to 

the British commandants who were forced to rent 

troop quarters from the French inhabitants. 

Documentary information pertaining to the British 

occupation of Fort Michilimackinac between 1761 

and 1781 is much more complete. As each of eleven 

succeeding commandants took command, records 

were made of the structural repairs and additions 

which had been authorized. The British maintained 

the Fort more strictly as a military post than as a 

trading post or "fortified settlement," as had been 

the case during the French period.*^ During the 

British period, there was no further expansion of the 

Fort perimeter, but occupants and traders built cabins 

outside of the Fort enclosure. 

Both the fur-trade activity and the population of 

Fort Michilimackinac increased during the period 

of British control. The change from French to British 

trade policies was in part responsible for this growth. 

Prior to 1761 the French had administered the fur 

trade through the sale of monopolies and trade permits. This system was never satisfactory, as the 

existence of monopolies tended to increase the cost 

of trade goods.'^'^ The British government removed 

all monopolies and previous trade restrictions and 

thereafter confined the fur trade in the Great Lakes 

to five licensed posts: Kaministiquia, Michilimackinac, LaBaye, Detroit, and Ouiatanon. A license 

^2 HAVIGHURST, p. 58. 

^3 MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, p. 13. 

^* CAMERON NISH, editor, "The French Regime," Canadian 

Historical Documents Series, vol. 1, pp. 153-155. 

^5 LEWIS R . BINFORD, "A Discussion of the Contrasts in the 

Development of the Settlement at Fort Michilimackinac under 

British and French Rule," Southeastern Archaeological Conjerence 

Newsletter, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 50-52, 1962. 

^8 MARJORIE GORDON JACKSON, "The Beginning of British 

Trade at Michilimackinac," Minnesota History, vol. 11, no. 3, 

pp. 235-236. 

system was implemented which permitted anyone to 

carry on trade from the licensed posts. The Indians 

were then required to carry their furs to one of the 

five posts and were not extended credit for trade 

goods as had been the practice during the French 

period.'*^ Besides the increase in private traders at 

the Fort, the number of troops increased after 1761 

to a garrison of over 100 soldiers in 1781. 

Fort Michilimackinac was attacked and captured 

by a group of local Ojibwa on 2 June 1763 as a part 

of the Fontiac uprising. Twenty-one of the 35 British 

soldiers and one British trader were massacred. 

Nearby Ottawa released the surviving soldiers and 

traders and took them to Montreal and safety.*^ 

The post was not reoccupied by British forces until 

1764 when Captain William Howard arrived with a 

contingent of 80 troops. Howard was relieved by 

Major Robert Rogers and 68 men in 1766. The 

succeeding commandants were: *^ 

Captain-Lieutenant Frederick Speismacher 

December 1767-July 1768 

Captain Beamsley Glazier July 1768-May 1770 

Captain George TurnbuU May 1770-July 1772 

Captain John Vattas July 1772-June 1774 

Major Arent S. DePeyster June 1774—October 1779 

Lieutenant-Governor Patrick Sinclair 

October 1779-1781 

Numerous buildings were constructed and rebuilt 

at the Fort after 1766. A new barracks to house at 

least 30 men was built in 1769. The powder magazine 

and provisions storehouse were rebuilt by 1773. Th e 

civilian community of the Fort grew outside of the 

stockade enclosure after approximately 1765. John 

Askin, a resident trader, noted in 1778 that "ther e is 

near one hundred houses in the Subarbs."^" The 

Revolutionary War had immediate effects upon the 

post and resulted in the repair of the stockade with 

wood from dismantled houses, the construction of 

an internal stockade to enclose the soldiers' barracks, 

and the leveling of sand dunes to the west of the 

Fort which might shield attackers.^^ With the arrival 

of Sinclair in 1779, the decision was made to rebuild 

the Fort at a more defensible position. During the 

<' Ibid., p. 244. 

*^ DAVID A. ARMOUR, editor. Massacre at Mackinac—1763, 

pp. 43, 59, 67. 

^^ See MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, pp. 14—16. 

50 MiLO M. QuAiFE, editor, The John Askin Papers, 1747-1795 

vol. 1, p. 69. 

5' A. S. DEPEYSTER to CAPTAIN BREHM, Michilimackinac, 

20 June 1779. Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, vol. 9, 

p. 387. 
NUMBER 4 19 

winter of 1780-1781 and through the following year, 

the Fort was dismantled and removed to Mackinac 

Island, eight miles to the northeast. 

Contrasts between the French and British occupations of Fort Michilimackinac are many. Differences 

have been noted between the French and British 

garrison population size and governmental trading 

policies. Although many French traders remained at 

the Fort after 1761, life at Michilimackinac during the 

British period diflfered from that of the French period. 

Under British control, the Fort became an outpost of 

the eighteenth-century British way of life; status 

differences were recognized between craftsmen, officer's 

families, traders, and so on. The accoutrements of 

day-to-day living were refined with the importation of 

fine ceramic tablewares, furniture, and household 

goods. Also, the use of domestic animals such as 

cattle, swine, and sheep during the British period was 

greatly increased. The French had relied primarily on 

wild animals for their subsistence.^^ 

After 1781, when the garrison was moved to Mackinac Island, the remains of Fort Michilimackinac 

deteriorated and eventually were covered over by 

drifting beach sand. A section of land enclosing the 

original site of the Fort and a portion of the outlying 

eighteenth-century village were set aside as a local 

park by the Village of Mackinaw City in 1857. This 

enclosed area was transferred to the State of Michigan 

in 1904, to be administered by the Mackinac Island 

State Park Commission. 

The first limited archeological work at the site was 

undertaken by the park superintendent, Chris 

Schneider, in 1932. As a result of this early work, the 

1760-period stockade walls were located and reconstructed. Subsequent archeological investigation has 

confirmed the accuracy of their location. By 1959 the 

reconstructed stockade had fallen into disrepair and 

plans were made by the Mackinac Island State Park 

Commission to begin a program of archeological and 

historical research aimed at the eventual complete 

reconstruction of Fort Michilimackinac. An agreement was reached between the Mackinac Island State 

Park Commission and the Michigan State University 

Museum to begin an archeological program immediately. Excavations were sponsored by the Commission 

and were directed and carried out by personnel 

associated with the Michigan State University 

Museum and the University's Department of Anthropology. The excavations in 1959 produced data 

which allowed the subsequent reconstruction of four 

structures: the Commanding Officer's House, the 

King's Storehouse, a British trader's house, and a 

soldiers' barracks. Excavations between 1960 and 1964 

have provided evidence for the reconstruction of the 

church and a French period row house. The Commission is planning the reconstruction of additional 

structural units, including a guardhouse and the 

priest's house. Responsibility for the quality of the 

archeological project has been carried by the curator 

of anthropology at the Michigan State University 

Museum (Dr. Moreau S. Maxwell from 1959 through 

1964 and Dr. Charles E. Cleland from 1965 to the 

present). Field excavations have been directed by 

Dr. Moreau S. Maxwell, Dr. Lewis R. Binford, Dr. Carl 

Jantzen, Ronald Vanderwall, Lyle M. Stone, and 

Dr. James A. Brown. The archeological crew has been 

composed of anthropology students from Mighican 

State University since 1966. This student training 

program has been partially supported by the National 

Science Foundation Undergraduate Research Participation Program (Grant GY-760). Prior to 1966 

the work force was supplied by the Michigan 

Corrections Department, Pellston Corrections Camp. 

The excavation procedures adopted by Dr. Maxwell 

in 1959 have been used until the present with consistently reliable results.^^ Excavations normally are 

carried out in units of contiguous 10-foot squares. 

Vertical excavation units consist of 3-inch-deep 

arbitrary levels. Horizontal and vertical control has 

been maintained by reference to the original grid and 

vertical datum established by Dr. Maxwell in 1959. 

Stratigraphic excavation is conducted in areas where 

the eighteenth-century deposits have remained relatively undisturbed. As each 3-inch level or stratum is 

excavated, written and photographic records are 

taken of the exposed soil surface. The soil from each 

excavation unit is then sifted through }^-inch hardware 

mesh screen and the artifacts collected and sacked 

according to provenience unit. All artifacts are washed 

and cataloged during the course of the field season. 

Features such as refuse pits, basements, fireplaces, wall 

foundations, and wall trenches are excavated, recorded, and sifted separately through )*s-inch hardware 

mesh screen. Additional records maintained throughout the season include drawings of wall profiles, field 

''2 CHARLES E. CLELAND, A Comparison oj French and British 

Subsistence Systems at Fort Michilimackinac, Emmet County, 

Michigan. 53 MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, pp. 19-20. 
20 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 7.—AIR VIEW OF FORT MICHILIMACKINAC, 1966. Courtesy of the Mackinac Island 

State Park Commission. 
NUMBER 4 21 

I 

/ 

// 

•*~^. «^-. > 

•-^- 1-^^W 

FIGURE 8.—RECONSTRUCTION OF A FRENCH PERIOD ROW HOUSE, 1967. Courtesy of Mackinac 

Island State Park Commission. 

notes, summaries of each 10-foot square, and excavation-feature maps.^* 

A very complex pattern of deposition has been 

produced by the various construction phases and 

numerous structural remains at the site. At least 

four major, distinct soil strata have been recognized 

and interpreted. One of these zones represents a 

pre-1715 historic Indian component. Although stratification is common on the site, it is unusual to find 

an undisturbed unit of soil zones. Numerous structural features representing original buildings, those 

added during phases of expansion, and structural 

modifications and additions have served to redeposit 

the major strata in many cases. Problems of inter-

^ The Fort Michilimackinac field records are on file at 

The Museum, Michigan State University. 

pretation are compounded further by the fact that 

many of the French inhabitants continued to live at 

the Fort during the period of British control. Post1775 deposits, for example, commonly yield both 

French and British artifacts. Consequently, the 

demonstration of what Maxwell has termed an 

"Isolated Associational Context" is infrequent and 

has hindered chronological control based on structural-artifactual associations. ^^ 

Approximately 300,000 artifacts have been recovered and analyzed at The Museum since the first 

55 MOREAU S. MAXWELL, "Methods of Identification and 

Some Products of Those Methods," pp. 57-60. Maxwell 

maintains that an Isolated Associational Context is present 

when "valid associations between individual artifacts and 

structures or other features" can be made. 
22 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 9.—MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY archeology students excavating in the area of 

the priest's house, 1966. Courtesy Michigan State University Museum. 

excavations in 1959. Field records total some 2,300 

square sheets and profile drawings; 410 10-foot 

squares have been excavated to an average depth of 

3 feet 9 inches, representing approximately 153,750 

cubic feet of earth. Four hundred and twenty features 

have been excavated and recorded. 

T h e archeological study of Fort Michilimackinac 

has resulted in the definition of at least 48 eighteenthcentury structures and structural components. A 

majority of the artifacts recovered have been analyzed, 

classified, and stored in the Anthropology Laboratory 

of the Michigan State University Museum. A number 

of these artifacts have been placed on exhibit at 

Fort Michilimackinac. 

This continuing program of historical and archeological research has been documented with a series 

of publications. The results of the 1959 season have 

been reported by Maxwell and Binford.^® Less extensive reports (listed in the bibliography) stressing 

specific artifact types or methods of analysis and 

interpretation have subsequently appeared. Each 

season's excavation is concluded with the preparation 

of a preliminary report which is placed on file at 

The Museum at Michigan State University and with 

the Mackinac Island State Park Commission. Th e 

Commission also has edited and published a series 

of monographs relating to the historical and cultural 

significance of the Fort.^'' 

5« MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961. 

57 DAVID A. ARMOUR, editor, Massacre at Mackinac-1763 and 

Treason? At Michilimackinac. 

GEORGE S. MAY, editor, The Doctor's Secret Journal. 
FIGURE 10.—VIEW OF THE FORT MICHILIMACKINAC reconstruction from the southwest 

bastion. Mackinac Straits and Mackinac Bridge in the background, 1966. Courtesy 

Michigan State University Museum. 

-962 O - 70 - 3 
Chapter II 

Ceramics at Fort Michilimackinac 

T 'HE EXCAVATION YEARS 1959-1965 

yielded 14,407 ceramic artifacts. 

After classification and dating, one salient fact 

emerged. A remarkably wide variety of ceramics were 

used at Fort Michilimackinac during its approximately 65 years of active existence. The ceramic artifacts indicate a standard of living, for at least some of 

the Fort's occupants, well above the austere conditions 

that supposedly prevailed on the frontier prior to the 

American Revolution. The ceramic evidence also 

suggests that the English, after taking possession in 

1761, enjoyed far more of the amenities of life than 

did their French predecessors.^ This, of course, 

confirms the established view of the disparity between 

the French and English adaptations to North America's wilderness environment during the seventeenth 

and eighteenth centuries. 

In considering the material presented in this 

chapter a few cautionary thoughts are in order. 

First, a simplistic approach is to be avoided. Though 

the French capitulated in 1760, French traders and 

ex-soldiers continued to live in and near the Fort, 

and French Canadians continued to visit there. 

Thus, 1760-1761 does not represent a neat line of 

demarkation for cultural distinctions. Second, the 

sherd frequencies accompanying this chapter (Appendix A) provide a mathematical approach that 

has only relativistic significance. It is reasonable to 

assume that, over the years, acts of abandonment 

and incidents of breakage roughly evened out insofar 

as sherd type, size, and number were concerned. 

The imponderables, however, are many and these 

frequencies only reflect what was found during 

excavation. Bearing this caveat in mind, the sherd 

frequencies remain of considerable value in any 

1 See BINFORD, "A Discussion of the Contrasts in the Development of the Settlement at Fort Michilimackinac Under British 

and French Rule," Southeastern Archeological Conference Newsletter, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 50-52. 

attempt to assay the material culture at Fort 

Michilimackinac. ^ 

In the following pages the various types of ceramics 

found at Fort Michilimackinac during the excavation 

years 1959-1965 are discussed and illustrated.^ The 

classification of a wide variety of ceramics into meaningful categories inevitably results in some anomalies. 

The system of classification used in this paper was 

specifically designed to deal with the materials at 

hand.^ 

The ceramic artifacts have been divided into three 

basic classes; earthenware, stoneware, and porcelain. 

From these three classes eight groups have been 

defined, each group consisting of ceramics which 

share certain physical and/or stylistic properties. 

These eight groups have been further subdivided 

into types based on decorative style and technique. 

Classification purely on the basis of physical properties 

has been avoided (see Introduction, pp. 3-5). 

Rather, the eight groups represent an attempt to 

categorize the ceramics within the context of the 

eighteenth-century culture that produced them. In re2 Problems in artifact count and seriation at Fort Michilimackinac are discussed in MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, 

pp. 86-87. 

3 The context in which ceramic artifacts were found as well 

as other types of artifacts recovered in conjunction with ceramic 

sherds are described in the yearly reports filed by the Michigan 

State University archeologist in charge. For example, see 

LYLE M . STONE, Preliminary Report—1965, Archaeological Investigation of Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinaw City, Michigan, pp. 

13 and 15. 

* Problems of analysis, description, and classification are 

considered in detail in ANNA O . SHEPARD, Ceramics for the 

Archaeologist. This excellent volume is concerned with prehistoric and classical archeology. Some of the suggested 

criteria are applicable to historical archeology, others are not. 

For another study of descriptive and analytic techniques, see 

BENJAMIN MARCH, Standards of Pottery Description. For specific 

approaches to this problem in historical circheology, see the 

Introduction, iniira. 

25 
26 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

jecting a taxonomy relying on physical criteria alone, 

we concur with Anna O. Shepard's reasoning that: 

In a sense, we [archeologists] have been too objective 

in our attitude toward pottery; we have treated it 

as a simple physical thing and, as I have said before, 

we have well nigh forgotten the role of the potter. 

Even though we are interested in pottery primarily 

as one of the expressions of culture, we should be 

more conscious of the human factor than we generally 

are, and we will be reminded of it continually as 

long as we question the meaning of ceramic properties, 

seek to understand techniques, and study style in its 

entirety. 5 

It is hoped that the arrangement of ceramic groupings 

in this study will present facts and conclusions in an 

orderly manner. Detailed sherd type frequencies are 

set forth in Appendix A. Pertinent qualitative and 

quantitative data and some historical information are 

presented in parts of the text and in the captions to the 

illustrations. Other comparative material is included 

in Appendixes B, C, and D. Unresolved problems and 

areas of uncertainty are discussed in the text in the 

hope that further scholarship will lead to greater 

clarification. 

Class A—Earthenware 

GROUP I— 

TIN-GLAZED EARTHENWARE 

In the eighteenth century, tin-glazed earthenware 

was manufactured throughout most of Western 

Europe. Called majolica in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, 

faience in France, and delft in Holland and England, 

these ceramics often differed stylistically but shared 

basic similarities. All were made of earthenware, and 

were covered with an opaque, whitish glaze. This socalled "tin-glaze" was essentially a basic lead-glaze 

to which tin oxide was added, thereby producing a 

white opaque surface that proved particularly suitable 

as a ground for painted decoration. During the excavations of 1959-1965 at Fort Michilimackinac, tinglazed earthenware comprised the largest category of 

ceramic artifacts recovered: 4,220 sherds were found. 

The numerical preponderance of this type is attributable, to a certain degree, to the fact that both French 

and English occupants of the Fort possessed tin-glazed 

earthenware. Indeed, the evidence indicates that 

s SHEPARD, p. 322. 

FIGURE 11.—BLUE AND WHITE ENGLISH DELFT AND FRENCH 

FAIENCE, a, French faience chamber pot. Light red body 

covered with a grayish-white glaze. Considerable crazing. 

Diameter of base, 5 inches. Eighteenth century, h, English 

delft bowl. Buff body covered with a bluish-white glaze; 

decorated in blue with flowers and vines. Diameter 7 

inches. Probably Lambeth, mid-eighteenth century, c, 

French faience plate. Flat base with no foot ring. Thickly 

potted buff body covered with a bluish-white glaze; 

decorated with a single, blue band. % inch in section at 

base, diameter, 8)4 inches. Eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 27 
28 SMITHS0NL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

during the French period of occupation, faience was 

the predominate kind of European ceramic in use at 

the Fort. On the basis of decorative style and technique, the tin-glazed earthenware found at Fort 

Michilimackinac has been divided into four types. 

TYPE A. BLUE and WHITE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: England and France.^ 

Description: Earthenware covered with an opaque, 

tin-glaze. Plain white or white decorated 

with blue.^ 

COMMENTS: A total of 3,764 sherds of this type were 

recovered. As the principal factors in assigning these 

wares a country of origin are form and decorative 

style, specific attribution to England or France was 

frequently uncertain as most of the sherds were small 

with no, or limited, blue decoration.* For this reason, 

no inclusive attempt was made to subdivide this 

group. Where definite attribution was possible, it was 

found that English delft was far more common than 

French faience.^ Though it is not practical to include 

in this publication the complex question of differentiations between typical French and English blue and 

white tin-glazed earthenware decoration, some gen8 Small sherds of blue and white tin-glazed earthenware 

with a minimum of decoration frequently defy precise attributions as to place of origin. Thvis, the possibility that some 

of the sherds in this group came from Dutch, German, Spanish, 

or Portuguese ceramics cannot be completely discounted. No 

blue and white tin-glazed sherd was found that definitely 

cotild be attributed to these countries. 

7 All plain, white sherds are included in this group. A certain 

percentage of these represent undecorated fragments from 

Class A, Group I, Type B. 

8 Body materials and glazes of English delft and French 

faience vary extensively. Multiple ranges of texture, hardness, 

and color occur from region to region and from factory to 

factory. French faience tends to craze more frequently but no 

general rule is applicable. On the basis of a limited sample, the 

body material of French faience proved slightly harder than 

that of English delft. AU fell between 2 and 4, Moh's scale, with 

most of the English lying between Moh's scale 2 and 3, while 

much of the French yielded values of 3 or 3—4. At this time, the 

most reliable method of attribution lies in comparative studies 

of the decorative style and form of known pieces of English 

and French tin-glazed earthenware. 

9 There is some evidence that tin-glazed earthenware was 

made in the colonies. See FREDERICK H . GARNER, English 

Deljtware, p. 37. As no examples of North American origin 

during the colonial period have been identified, this possible 

source has been excluded from consideration. 

FIGURE 12.—WmTE ENGLISH DELFT AND FRENCH FAIENCE. 

a, French faience sherd, probably from a plate. Light 

pink body covered with a white glaze. Slight crazing. 

Eighteenth century, b, French faience pitcher handle 

section. Buff body covered with a white glaze. Considerable 

crazing. Eighteenth century, c, English delft chamber pot 

rim sherd. Thinly potted, buff body (%6 inch in section) 

covered with a grayish-white glaze. Slight crazing. Eighteenth century, d, English delft drug ja r base section. 

Cylindrical shape with a flat bottom. Light buff" body 

covered with a grayish-white glaze. Approximate diameter, 

3% inches. Mid-eighteenth century, e, Bowl base section, 

probably French or English. Buff" body covered with a 

white glaze with a faint greenish tinge. Slight crazing. 

Eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 29 
30 SMITHSONL\N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

eral remarks on decorative style may prove helpful. 

Though the usual motifs (geometric, foliate, landscapes, chinoiseries) are fouad on the tin-glazed wares 

of both countries, the style of painting is frequently 

different. This is especially true in the foliate designs 

(Figures 13 and 14). The polychrome wares discussed 

in the following section can often be distinguished in 

the same manner as well as by the palette. Since 

illustrated publications on these wares are limited, the 

best way to achieve some degree of proficiency in 

identification is to visit museums, dealers, and private 

collections and to handle as much English delft and 

French faience as possible. 

Useful wares were found exclusively.^^ The more 

common forms of faience and delft in use at the 

Fort were plates, platters, punch bowls, pitchers, 

chamber pots, and pill pots (Figures 11 and 12). 

Decorative themes on the English blue and white 

delft included foliate patterns, geometric designs, and 

chinoiseries (Figure 13). Rim sherds were decorated 

with a wide variety of conventionalized border designs 

with no specific motif prevailing. Such diversity 

suggests a continuing pattern of importation of these 

wares in small amounts. ^^ Indeed, delft wares were 

a mainstay of the English export trade in ceramics 

during the first three quarters of the eighteenth 

century. It is of interest that much of the English 

delft found at the Fort that can be assigned a probable 

provenance was manufactured at Liverpool or Bristol 

(Figures 13 and 15), the two major English seaports 

serving the American trade. ^^ The problem of attributing English delft to specific manufacturing 

centers is a difficult one. Some archeological work 

has been done, but many uncertainties remain.^^ 

The isolated outpost of Fort Michilimackinac seems 

1° In all of the ceramics uncovered at Fort Michilimackinac 

to date, no evidence has been found of the presence of purely 

decorative ceramic artifacts such as figure groups or wall 

plaques. 

" The extensive importation of English delft during the 

colonial period is evidenced by finds at numerous historical 

sites. For example, see IVOR NOEL HUME, "Excavations at 

Rosewell in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959," pp. 

184-186, fig. 12; C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "The Cultural 

History of Marlborough, Virginia," pp. 136-138. 

12 For an article on Bristol delft pointing out that the delft 

industry there did not die until after 1780, see: SIR GILBERT 

MELLOR, "Bristol Delftware," Transactions oj the English 

Ceramic Circle, vol. I, no. 2, pp. 22-28. 

"3 See FREDERIC H . GARNER, "Lambeth, Bristol or Liverpool?" Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, vol. 2, no. 10, 

pp. 248-255. 

FIGURE 13.—BLUE AND WHITE ENGLISH DELFT; DECORATIVE 

MOTIFS, a, Bowl rim sherd. Thinly potted buff" body 

covered with a bluish-white glaze; decorated with a flower 

in blue. Probably Liverpool, mid-eighteenth century. 

b, Bowl rim sherd. Thinly potted baff body covered with 

a grayish-white glaze; decorated with a Chinese landscape 

scene in blue. Probably Bristol, mid-eighteenth century. 

c, Plate body sherd. Buff body covered with a grayish-white 

glaze; decorated with a landscape scene in blue. No foot 

rim; sunken base. Probably Bristol, mid-eighteenth century. 

d, Plate rim sherd. Buff body covered with a bluish-white 

glaze; decorated with a foliate border in blue. Probably 

Lambeth, mid-eighteenth century, e, Plate rim sherd. 

Buff body covered with a bluish-white glaze; decorated 

with a bell flower border in blue. Probably Lambeth, 

about 1770. /, Bowl rim sherd. Buflf body covered with a 

bluish-white glaze; decorated with a geometric border in 

blue, mid-eighteenth century, g, Plate rim sherd. Light 

buff body covered with a grayish-white glaze; decorated 

with a bell flower border in blue. Probably Bristol or 

Lambeth, mid-eighteenth century, h, Large plate rim 

sherd. Buff body covered with a bluish-white glaze; 

decorated with a geometric border and with palm trees 

in center, all in blue. No foot rim, sunken base. Probably 

Liverpool, mid-eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 31 
32 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

to hav e received English delft tha t differed bu t 

little from th e delft ware s importe d in large amounts 

b y th e colonists of pre-revolutionar y Williamsburg , 

Virginia.^^ I n the qualit y an d variety of English 

delft o n han d (as well as othe r types of English 

ceramics), Fort Michilimackina c ca n claim n o excep -

tiona l position. Th e English outpost a t Fort Ligonier, 

Pennsylvani a (1758-1766), ha s yielded English ce -

ramics, includin g blu e an d whit e English delft, tha t 

closely paralle l the finds a t Fort Michilimackinac.^ ^ 

T h e blue an d whit e faience sherds of Frenc h manu -

facture , for th e most part, wer e from utilitarian pieces 

such as plates, pitchers, an d platters (Figur e 14). 

Especially noteworth y ar e 20 fragments from a globula r pitche r recovered durin g th e 1962 excavatin g 

season. Man y of th e blue an d whit e Frenc h faience 

sherds from Fort Michilimackina c ar e decorate d wit h 

foliate motifs of th e type particularly associated wit h 

Roue n an d St. Clou d faience of th e early eighteent h 

century . ^^ 

Materiall y relevant to th e wor k a t Port Michilimackina c is th e archeologica l projec t presentiy bein g 

carried ou t on th e site of th e eighteenth-centur y 

Frenc h Fortress of Louisbourg , Cap e Breto n Island, 

Nov a Scotia.^^ This fortress an d nava l base , whic h 

guarde d th e entranc e to th e St. Lawrenc e River, wa s 

operationa l from abou t 1720 to 1760. Louisbourg's 

forty-year period, of course, paralleled th e Frenc h 

occupatio n of Fort Michilimackina c (circa 1715-1761). 

1* See IVOR NOEL HUME, Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's 

View oj Colonial Lije and History, pp. 290-296, for a discussion of 

English delft in Colonial Virginia. 

15 Consultation with Jacob L. Grimm, curator, Fort Ligonier, 

Pennsylvania. The extensive range of ceramic ardfacts from 

Fort Ligonier can be seen in the comprehensive exhibition of 

archeological finds from the site displayed in several of the 

reconstructed buildings and in the Fort's museum. It is hoped 

that a detailed study of the ceramics from Fort Ligonier can 

be made in the near future. For representative ceramics from 

Fort Ligonier, see Appendix C, Figure 1. A brief account of 

the project at Fort Ligonier is contained in CHARLES M . 

STOTZ, Fort Ligonier Outpost oj the French and Indian War. 

'8 See Y. BRUNHAMMER, La Faience Franqaise, plates 7 and 8; 

JEANNE GIACOMOTTI, French Faience, figs. 19, 20, 34, and 35; 

ARTHLTR LANE, French Faience, plates 18 and 19. 

1^ Archeological investigations have accompanied a restoration project at Louisbourg, begun in 1961. This great French 

bastion (1720-1760) has yielded much important archeological 

evidence to date. For representative ceramics from Louisbourg, 

see Appendix B, and RENEE MARWITT, "A Preliminary Survey 

of Seven Coarse Earthenwares from the Fortress of Louisbourg," 

The Conjerence on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1965-1966, 

vol. 1, pp. 53-59. 

FIGURE 14.—^BLUE AND WHITE FRENCH FAIENCE; DECORATIVE 

MOTIFS, a. Body sherd, probably from a bowl. Thickly 

potted, ){ inch in section. Salmon body covered with a 

bluish-white glaze; slight crazing. Decorated with a 

scrolled band in dark blue. Possibly Rouen or St. Cloud, 

early eighteenth century, b. Body sherd from a small 

bowl or cup. Light salmon body covered with a glossy 

white glaze; decorated with raised blue dots over the 

glaze. Eighteenth century, c. Pitcher handle section. 

Light buff body covered with a white glaze; decorated 

with a blue foliate pattern. Early eighteenth century. 

d. Bowl body sherd. Buff" body covered with a grayishwhite glaze; heavily crazed. Decorated with a blue foliate 

pattern. Eighteenth century, e. Bowl body sherd. Buff 

body covered with a glossy white glaze; decorated with a 

blue foliate pattern. Possibly Rouen, early eighteenth 

century. / . Platter rim sherd. Buff" body covered with a 

grayish-white glaze; heavily crazed; decorated with a 

blue foliate and geometric border. Possibly Rouen, early 

eighteenth century, g. Rim sherd from a mug. Buff 

body covered with a white glaze; slight crazing. Decorated 

with a blue foliate border. Possibly Rouen, early eighteenth 

century. 
NUMBER 4 33 
34 SMITHS0NL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Thus, artifacts from the two sites have mutual significance in any assessment of the culture at military 

posts in French Canada. In general, the quality of 

the blue and white faience from Louisbourg is superior 

to that found at Fort Michilimackinac. Elegant plates 

bearing the arms of several of Louisbourg's governors 

(Appendix B, Figure I), elaborate platters, and 

flower holders all testify to a more refined standard of 

living at Louisbourg. This, of course, is to be expected 

as Louisbourg was one of France's great bastions in the 

New World, while Michilimackinac, despite its 

strategic importance, was a remote outpost hundreds 

of miles west of the nearest center of provincial 

civilization. A number of the simpler types of blue 

and white French faience have been found at both 

sites. The Michilimackinac plate with the blue border 

line (Figure \\c) is the counterpart of many such 

plates recovered at Louisbourg and the rim sherd 

from the Michilimackinac platter (Figure 14/') is 

similar to one from Louisbourg (Appendix B, Figure 

2e).^^ 

TYPE B. POLYCHROME 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: England and France. 

Description: Tin-glazed earthenware decorated in one 

or more colors (plain blue and white 

(Type A) excepted). 

COMMENTS: A total of 176 sherds of this type were 

recovered.^^ Decorative themes were foliate or geometric and there are no indications of the presence 

of any elaborate polychrome delft or faience at Fort 

Michilimackinac. The English polychrome delft 

dates from around the mid-eighteenth century. As in 

the case of the plain blue and white, much of the 

^s Sherds from similar French faience plates decorated with a 

single band of blue near the rim have been recovered at the 

eighteenth-century Spanish-American site of the Presidio of Los 

Adais (near present-day Robeline, Louisiana). The Spanish at 

Los Adais traded with the nearby French, and quantities of 

French faience have been found on the site. This information 

was provided by Dr. Edward Jelks, professor of anthropology, Illinois State University. 

1° The small number of sherds of this type clearly indicates 

that the blue and white delft and faience predominated. The 

ratio of the blue and white to the polychrome should be adjusted downward, as plain white or white and blue sherds 

from pieces with polychrome decoration were classified and 

counted in the blue and white category. 

FIGURE 15.—POLYCHROME ENGLISH DELFT, a, Sherd from 

the bottom of a small bowl. Buff" body covered with a 

bluish-white glaze; decorated with blue and green leaves 

in the "Fazackerly" style. Probably Liverpool, about 1750. 

b, Rim sherd from a small bowl. Buff body covered with 

a bluish-white glaze; decorated on the exterior with green 

leaves and, on the interior rim, with a geometric border 

in blue, green, and dark purple. Probably Liverpool, 

mid-eighteenth century, c, Body sherd from a bowl. 

Buff body covered with a bluish-white glaze; decorated 

with a foliate pattern in blue and purple. Probably Bristol, 

mid-eighteenth century, d, Rim sherd (with flange) from 

a teapot or sugar bowl cover. Buff body covered with a 

bluish-white glaze; decorated with a geometric border in 

blue and red. Probably Bristol, mid-eighteenth century. 

e, Punch bowl rim sherd. Buff-colored body covered with 

a grayish-white glaze; decorated with a geometric border 

in blue and brown-red, with a yellow flower immediately 

beneath the border. Probably Bristol, mid-eighteenth 

century. /, Foot ring and base fragment from a punch 

bowl (possibly from the same bowl as e, above). Buff 

body covered with a grayish-white glaze; decorated with a 

foliate pattern in brown-red and green. Probably Bristol, 

mid-eighteenth century, g, Foot ring and base fragment 

from a small bowl. Buff body covered with a grayishwhite glaze; decorated with geometric and foliate patterns 

in purple. Probably Bristol, mid-eighteenth century. 

h. Punch bowl rim sherd. Buff body covered with a grayishwhite glaze; decorated with a foliate design in blue, purple, 

green, and yellow. Interior of rim has a blue border. Probably 

Bristol, mid-eighteenth century, i, Cup, partially restored 

from eight sherds. Buff body covered with a bluish-white 

glaze; decorated with a geometric pattern in blue, red, 

and green. Possibly Lambeth, mid-eighteenth century. 
NUMBE

R 4 

35 
36 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

polychrome English delft probably was manufactured in 

Liverpool and Bristol, the two ports closely involved 

in trade with North America. Of special interest 

are fragments from an English delft cup and saucer 

decorated with an overall lattice pattern in blue, 

iron red, and green (Figure 15z).^° Also, noteworthy 

is the presence of Liverpool delft of the Fazackerly 

type, dating about 1760 (Figure I5a).^^ The forms of 

the English polychrome delft from the Fort were 

more varied including plates, punch bowls, mugs, 

and tea services. The French polychrome faience 

sherds from the Fort are from plates, platters, and 

small jars (Figure 16). 

Analogous polychrome English delft has been found 

at Fort Ligonier and the Great Crossings of the 

Youghiogheny River, Pennsylvania (Appendix C).^^ 

Also, polychrome English delft has been excavated in 

quantity at the French Fortress of Louisbourg 

(Appendix B, Figure 2;).^^ The presence of English 

ceramics at Louisbourg resulted from two brief 

American colonial and British occupations and from 

intermittent illegal trade between Louisbourg and the 

colonies.^* The polychrome French faience from 

Louisbourg is generally finer than that from Fort 

Michilimackinac. For example, beautifully painted 

Mustiers-type dinnerwares recovered at Louisbourg 

have not been found at Michilimackinac. The less 

elaborate polychrome faience from Louisbourg, 

however, is very similar to faience from Michilimackinac. (Compare Figure \6a with Appendix B, 

Figure 2b.) 

2" For a mug decorated in this pattern see GARNER, English 

Deljtware, fig. 36a. A similar cup has been recovered at Louisbourg and is presently on exhibition in the museum on the 

park grounds. 

21 English delft decorated in the colorful style associated 

with a plate supposedly given to one Thomas Fazackerly of 

Liverpool is prized today both for its rarity and distinctive 

floral painting. Such pieces are dated about 1760. See GARNER, 

English Deljtware, color plate D and pp. 26 and 33. For similar 

sherds from excavations at Liverpool pottery sites, see FREDERIC H. GARNER, "Liverpool Delftware," Transactions oj the 

English Ceramics Circle, vol. 5, part 2, plate 64. 

22 Artifact collection. Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania. 

23 Artifact collection, Fortress of Louisbourg. 

2^ Mr. John Dunton, conservator. Fortress of Louisbourg, is 

presently engaged in a series of studies of the ceramic artifacts 

from Louisbourg. This important work will contribute a great 

deal of information toward our understanding of the complex 

distribution of various types of ceramics in North America 

during the eighteenth century. 

FIGURE 16.—POLYCHROME FRENCH FAIENCE, a. Rim sherd. 

White body covered with a tannish-white glaze; decorated 

with a crude foliate border in blue, brown, orange, and 

green. Eighteenth century. For a rather similar sherd 

from Louisbourg, see Appendix B, Figure 2b. b. Body 

sherd from a small bowl. Buff body covered with a grayishwhite glaze; decorated in blue and yellow, eighteenth 

century, c. Body sherd from a plate. Buff body covered 

with a tannish-white glaze; decorated in blue, purple, and 

brown. Eighteenth century, d, Body sherd from a plate. 

Buff body covered with a glossy, white glaze; decorated 

with a foliate pattern in black, blue, red, and green. 

Possibly Rouen, early eighteenth century, e. Body sherd 

from a plate. Thickly potted buff body covered with a 

tannish-white glaze; decorated in blue and yellow. Eighteenth century. Sherds a, e, and c shown here have similar 

glazes and painted decoration, but the body compositions 

and colors differ. /, Body sherd from a plate. Buff-colored 

body covered with a glossy, white glaze; decorated with a 

foliate pattern in black, blue, and green. Possibly Rouen, 

early eighteenth century, g, Rim sherd from a platter or 

large dish. Buff-colored body covered with a glossy, white 

glaze; decorated with a foliate border in black, blue, red, 

and green. Possibly Rouen, early eighteenth century. Same 

type as d and / above, h, Rim sherd from a small jar or 

pitcher. Buff body covered with a dull white glaze; decorated 

with blue and yellow bands. First half of the eighteenth 

century. 
NUMBE

R 4 

37 
38 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TYPE C. BROWN and WHITE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: France. 

Description: Earthenware with white, tin-glazed interior and brown, lead-glazed exterior 

surfaces. The white interior glaze is 

frequently crazed and occasionally decorated with simple blue foliate or geometric 

designs. 

COMMENTS: This type is, perhaps, the most interesting variety of tin-glazed earthenware found at Fort 

Michilimackinac. Clearly intended for everyday 

kitchen and table use, the brown and white wares 

that produced these sherds raise a number of provocative questions pertinent to American historical 

archeology. A total of 149 sherds of Type C were 

recovered at Fort Michilimackinac during the excavating years 1959-1965. Some were found in context 

with early French features (the northwest corner of 

the original French stockade) and the remainder 

were found in random groupings distributed in French 

and English areas of the Fort. In form, utensils for 

kitchen use predominate. Fragments from platters, 

storage jars, and bowls were found (Figures 17 and 18). 

The probable origin of this ware has been ascertained by Ivor Noel Hume, director. Department 

of Archaeology, Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia. 

Noting the ubiquity of brown and white sherds of 

this type in American archeological sites of the 

Revolutionary War period, Mr. Noel Hume proceeded to trace their probable place of manufacture 

to Rouen.^^ An oval, brown and white dish marked 

"DELAMETTAIRE ROUEN " is in the collections 

of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Further, 

several newspaper advertisements offering ceramics 

and glass in Baltimore and Philadelphia papers of 

the period 1778-1784 offered "Roan " wares for sale 

to the public. 

The sparsity of this brown and white ware in a 

colonial prerevolutionary context has led Mr. Noel 

Hume to propose that 

on the basis of this accumulative evidence it seems 

reasonable to suggest that Rouen faience of the type 

discussed here was not imported into America until 

the Revolutionary period, at which time the French 

seized an opportunity to grasp at a market that they 

expected to be relinquished by the British.^s 

2 5 IVOR NOEL HUME, "Rouen Faience in Eighteenth-Century 

America," Antiques, December, 1960, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 559-561. 

28 Ibid, p. 560. 

The appearance of Rouen-type faience at Fort 

Michilimackinac does not necessarily contradict Mr. 

Noel Hume's tentative theory, but it does give an 

additional dimension to the picture. Though some 

of the Rouen-type sherds were found in association 

with features of the French period of occupation, 

many were found within the context of English 

occupation (1761-1780). This raises several questions. 

Were these wares owned by the French who stayed 

on under the English? Were these wares imported 

by the French and/or by the English after 1760? It 

seems that a reasonable explanation for the presence 

of this Rouen-type faience can be based on the fact 

that the major trade routes serving Fort Michilimackinac went through parts of Quebec and Ontario, 

which continued to maintain a French culture after 

1760. It is also significant that this brown and white 

faience has been found in considerable quantitites 

during the excavations at the Fortress of Louisbourg 

(Appendix B, Figure 2OT).^^ Further, none of this 

brown and white ware has been found at Fort 

Ligonier, Pennsylvania (1758-1766), an English outpost isolated from French trade.'^ Thus, the presence 

27 Artifac t collections. Fortress of Louisbourg. 

28 Consultation with Jacob Grimm, curator. Fort Ligonier; 

examination of artifact collection, Fort Ligonier. 

FIGURE 17.—FRENCH BROWN AND W^ITE ROUEN-TYPE 

FAIENCE (exterior views), a, Body sherd from a small bowl. 

Light red body covered on exterior with a dark brown lead 

glaze. Eighteenth century, b, Rim sherd from a plate or dish. 

Light red body covered on exterior with a dark brown lead 

glaze; rim covered with a white tin-glaze. Hole (for repair) 

drilled just below rim. Eighteenth century, c, Base section 

and one foot from a pipkin or footed pot. Pinkish-buff body 

covered on exterior with a dark brown lead glaze. Eighteenth 

century, d, Rim sherd from a large plate or dish. Light red 

body covered on exterior with a dark brown lead glaze. 

Hole (for repair) drilled just below rim. Eighteenth century. 

(Also see Figure 21a.) 

FIGURE 18.—-FRENCH BROWN AND WHITE ROUEN-TYPE 

FAIENCE (interior views). a. Same as 17a. Interior covered 

with a white tin-glaze; heavily crazed, b, Same as 17^. 

Interior covered with a white tin-glaze; heavily crazed. 

c, Same as 1 Ic. Interior covered with a white tin-glaze; some 

crazing. d, Same as 1 Id. Interior covered with a white tinglaze; heavily crazed. Stylized border in black and blue. 
NUMBER 4 39 

^^vvnm--

XCH . 

I IN . 

359-962 O - 70 - 4 
40 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

of Rouen-type faience at Michilimackinac may be 

attributed to general trade patterns before and after 

the French and Indian War that predated any 

French attempt to obtain part of England's ceramic 

market in the colonies during the Revolution. 

Attention is directed to the small holes drilled in the 

brown and white faience rim sherds (Figures lib, d 

and 18^, d). These holes were made for a rivet 

(probably iron or lead) used to repair the piece. Crude 

repairs were often necessary in a place such as Michilimackinac where usable ceramics were difficult to 

obtain.^^ A number of pieces showing evidence of 

similar repairs have been found at Louisbourg. 

TYPE D. PovvERED BLUE or PURPLE 

Date: Second half of the eighteenth century. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Tin-glazed earthenware decorated with 

powdered blue or powdered purple 

grounds. 

COMMENTS: One distinctive decorative category of 

eighteenth-century English delft was produced by 

sifting blue or purple (aubergene) pigments over the 

white surface of the pieces. Geometric reserves, from 

which this powdered decoration was excluded, were 

painted with landscapes, chinoiseries, or foliate designs.^° Mottled or powdered decoration of this general type was probably produced by at least four different centers of delft manufacturing in England.^^ 

Most of the 131 sherds with powdered decoration 

found at Fort Michilimackinac were from plates or from 

small bowls (Figure 19). The proportionately small 

amount of this type reflects its comparative rarity. 

Powdered blue and purple English delft also has been 

found at the English Fort Ligonier and at the French 

Fortress of Louisbourg.^^ Of special interest at Louis29 See STANLEY A. SOUTH , "Repaire d Ceramics from 

Eighteenth Century Sites," Brunswick County Historical Society 

Newsletter, vol. 8, no. 3. 

30 See GARNER , English Deljtware, plates 60 an d 61 , an d p . 29. 

A similar technique was used on the Continent. See FRIEDRICH 

H . HoFMANN, Geschicte Der Bayreuther Fayencefabrik, plates 22 

and 23. 

3' For comparable English delft from a Virginia site see 

IVOR NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Clay Bank in Gloucester 

County, Virginia, 1962-1963," pp. 15-16, fig. 8(3). 

32 Artifact collections: Fort Ligonier and Fortress of Louisbourg. 

FIGURE 19.—ENGLISH DELFT WITH POWDERED GROUNDS. 

a, Body sherd from a small bowl. Buff body covered with 

a bluish-white tin-glaze. The exterior is decorated with a 

powdered, purple ground containing a reserve with a 

blue decoration, probably of a landscape scene. Probably 

Bristol or Wincanton, mid-eighteenth century, b, Body 

sherd from a small bowl. Buff body covered with a bluishwhite tin-glaze. The exterior is decorated with a powdered 

blue ground. Probably Bristol, mid-eighteenth century. 

c, Base fragment from a small bowl. Buff body covered 

with a bluish-white tin-glaze. The exterior is decorated 

with a powdered purple ground. Probably Bristol, mideighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 41 

^,iii(ife<*>-<«<'^-^.i«^--

a 

^ ^ ; 
42 SMITHS0NL\ N STUDIE S I N HISTOR Y AND TECHNOLOGY 

bourg is a fine tile, decorated with a purple powdered 

ground and blue landscape scenes in white reserves. 

Tiles were often used for fireplace borders. The 

absence of decorative pieces such as this at Michilimackinac demonstrates a major difiference between 

the material culture of the Fort and that of the more 

advanced areas along the eastern seaboard ranging 

from Williamsburg to Louisbourg. 

GROUP IT -

ENGLISH CREAM-COLORED 

EARTHENWARE 

Major technical and stylistic developments mark 

the entire course of English cerami- history during 

the eighteenth century. One sif^riih.ant trend of 

this period encompassed the efforts of many potters 

to improve and perfect the processes for manufacturing a cream-colored, lead-glazed earthenware.^^ 

By 1760 fine white clays were being used to produce 

a white or bufT body which was covered by a liquid 

lead-glaze which imparted a clear, slightly yellow, 

sparkling finish to the wares. Ten years later, creamcolored wares had become a major ceramic export, 

increasingly replacing delft and white saltglazed 

stoneware as a staple in the trade.^^ Josiah Wedgwood, 

in 1767, wrote to his partner, Thomas Bentley, that: 

I am rejoyced to know you have shipped off the 

green and gold— May the winds and seas be propitious 

and the invaluable Cargo be wafted in safety to their 

destined Market, for the emolument of our American 

Bretheren and friends . . The demand for this said 

cream-colour, alias Queens Ware, alias Ivory still increases. 

It is really amazing how rapidly the use of it has 

spread allmost over the whole globe, and how universally it is liked.^^ 

Though cream-colored earthenware was manufactured in many English potteries, two major areas 

of production centered in StalTordshire and Yorkshire. Perhaps the most important manufacturers of 

33 For a history of eighteenth-century cream-colored wares, 

see DONALD C. TOWNER, English Cream-Coloured Earthenware. 

^* For a discussion of cream-colored ware's rise in popularity 

in Williamsburg and the attendant declines of delft and of 

saltglazed wares, see NOI'L HUME, Here Lies Virginia: An 

Archeologist's View of Colonial Life and History, pp. 295-299. 

35 Excerpt from a September 1767 letter from JOSIAH WEDGWOOD to THOMAS BENTLEY; Ann Finer and George Savage, 

editors. The Selected Letters oj Josiah Wedgwood, p. 58. 

this ware were the Leeds Pottery in Yorkshire and 

Josiah Wedgwood's firm in StafTordshire.^*^ 

A total of 3,549 cream-colored earthenware sherds 

were recovered during the excavations of 1959-1965. 

Nearly all were found within an EngHsh context.^^ 

Though some cream-colored earthenware was manufactured prior to 1760, it is reasonable to assume that 

these wares were not introduced to Fort Michilimackinac until well after the beginning of the period 

of English occupation. In attempting to ascertain 

with some degree of precision the years in which 

cream-colored earthenware first began to be imported 

in volume, it is of interest to note that comparatively 

small amounts of this ware have been found at Fort 

Ligonier, Pennsylvania, which was decommissioned in 

1766.^* Further, practically no cream-colored earthenware has been recovered at the Fortress of Louisbourg 

which was destroyed by the English and colonials in 

1760.^9 The English remained at Louisbourg until 

about 1768, but little cream-colored earthenware 

36 For a comprehensive study of the Leeds Pottery, see 

DONALD C. TOWNER, The Leeds Pottery. 

37 English cream-colored earthenware was imitated by the 

French and Germans during the late eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries. It is highly unlikely that any of these 

wares found their way to Fort Michilimackinac. 

38 Artifact collections. Fort Ligonier. 

39 Artifact collections. Fortress of Louisbourg. 

FIGURE 20.—ENGLISH CREAM-COLORED EARTHENWARE, a. 

Base fragment from a mug. Cream-colored body covered 

with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with a 

relief diamond pattern, circa 1765-1780. b, Plate rim 

sherd. Cream-colored body covered with a clear, yellowish, 

lead-glaze, circa 1765-1780. c, Plate rim sherd. Creamcolored body covered with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; 

decorated with a rib and groove "Queen's pattern" relief 

border, circa 1765-1780. d, Plate rim sherd. Creamcolored body covered with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; 

decorated with the "feather" relief border, circa 1765-1780 

e, Small bowl. Cream-colored body covered with a clear, 

yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with a beaded border in 

relief. Probably Leeds, circa 1765-1780. /, Rim sherd 

from a small plate or stand. Cream-colored body covered 

with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with a pierced 

border and a foliate pattern in relief, circa 1765-1780. 

g, Upper portion of a mug. Cream-colored body covered 

with a clear, yellowish lead-glaze; decorated in relief 

with an alternating bead and gadroon border. Possibly 

Leeds, circa 1765-1780. 
NUMBER 4 43 
44 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

seems to have been present. As the ceramic finds from 

Fort Michilimackinac (during its English period) and 

Fort Ligonier and the Fortress of Louisbourg are 

roughly similar in most other categories, the dearth 

of cream-colored earthenware at Fort Ligonier and 

Louisbourg suggests that the majority of Michilimackinac's cream-colored wares were imported after 

about 1770. 

Again, no fragments of figures or other purely 

decorative pieces were found, indicating a strictly 

utilitarian function for these wares. The implications, 

based on the evidence at hand, are twofold. First, the 

volume and variety of cream-colored wares in use 

after about 1770 indicates a material culture (at least 

for some of the Fort's inhabitants) well above subsistence levels. Second, the wide variety of designs and 

types encountered suggests a pattern of repeated 

importation in comparatively small lots. In these two 

respects the findings with regard to the tin-glazed 

wares discussed in Group I and the cream-colored 

wares are consistent and mutually reinforcing. 

The breakdown of the cream-colored wares into the 

types listed below is arbitrary, but it is hoped that this 

arrangement adequately distinguishes the varieties of 

cream-colored wares encountered. 

TYPE A. PLAIN 

Date: Circa 176S-1780. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Cream-colored earthenware covered with 

a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; no relief or 

painted decoration. 

COMMENTS: A total of 2,874 plain, cream-colored 

earthenware sherds were found during the excavation years 1959-1965. Though some cream-colored 

ware was produced without any relief or painted 

decoration (Figure 20b), most had some decoration, 

usually molded in relief. Such relief decoration was 

generally sparse and most frequently utilized as 

border or rim motifs. For this reason, the majority of 

the sherds in this group are body sherds from reliefdecorated, cream-colored wares. Forms encountered 

(with or without relief decoration) included standardsize dinner plates, soup plates, platters (Figure 21), 

and tea services or part tea services. To this list of 

forms provided by archeological evidence can be 

added large pitchers as " 2 Large Queen Wair Juggs " 

were scheduled in the 1778 inventory of the trader, 

John Askin.**^ 

The abundance of cream-colored earthenware at 

Fort Michilimackinac indicates a substantial use of 

these wares by the British Army. The archeological 

findings confirm this. During the 1959 excavations, 

387 creamware sherds were found in association 

with features (completed after 1770) relating to the 

British military occupation.*^ The recovery of creamcolored wares in this context raises the question of 

whether it was usual for officers to include ceramic 

dinner and tea services in their personal luggage? *^ 

The evidence at Fort Michilimackinac suggests an 

affirmative answer to this question. The fact that 

some of the Fort's civilian population owned and 

used dinner and tea services raises the difficult 

problem of ascertaining to what degree these artifacts represent the material culture of each group. 

Certainly, the more affluent civilians observed traditional English amenities. In 1778 John Askin, the 

^ojohn Askin's Inventory of 31 December 1778, p. 10. MS. 

Ontario Archives, Toronto. "Queen's Ware,'' a term introduced 

by Josiah Wedgwood (see Wedgwood's letter quoted on page 

42, infra), quickly became practically synonymous with the general term "creamware." 

^i MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, pp. 93-94. 

^2 Surprisingly little research has been done on the social 

(as opposed to military) history of the English army in colonial 

America. Inquiries to a number of military historians as to 

pertinent information, published or otherwise, resulted in 

negative replies. 

FIGURE 21.—-ENGLISH CREAM-COLORED EARTHENWARE, a, 

Plate, 9% inches in diameter. Cream-colored body covered 

with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with "feather 

pattern" relief border, circa 1765-1780. b, Plate, 9)^ 

inches in diameter. Buff body covered with a clear, yellowish, 

lead-glaze; decorated with a rib and groove relief border. 

No foot ring, circa 1765-1780. c. Platter, 19 inches in 

length, 14}^ inches in width. Cream-colored body covered 

with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with a rib 

and groove relief design ("Queen's pattern"), circa 1765-

1780. 
NUMBER 4 45 
46 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

trader, commenting on short supplies at the Fort, 

wrote to a friend in Detroit that: 

Mrs. Askin still has some tea and loaf sugar and at 

once a day for herself will be able to hold out, the 

rest of us have chocolate for Breakfast and Barley 

substituted in the noon or Coffee for the afternoon. 

Spirits and spruce we have and can't much do without 

for the present.*^ 

TYPE B. RELIEF BORDERS 

Date: Circa 1765-1780. 

Origin: England 

Description: Cream-colored earthenware covered with 

a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze and decorated with various molded relief borders. 

COMMENTS: Much eighteenth-century cream-colored, 

useful ware had as its sole decoration a narrow relief 

border. A total of 561 sherds with relief borders 

were found at Fort Michilimackinac during the excavating years 1959-1965. Six border patterns were 

represented (Figure 2Qa, c-g). A numerical breakdown of these patterns is given in Appendix A, 

Table 2. 

The plain, beaded border (Figure 20(?) was probably used by many different manufacturers including 

the Leeds Pottery.'*•' Some of the polychrome decorated 

cream-colored earthenware sherds from the Fort also 

contained this relief pattern. The second kind of relief 

pattern (Figures 20c, 21 b and c), used prir^arily on 

dinner services, consists of single or parallel grooves 

and ribs. Josiah Wedgwood, with his penchant for 

vivid nomenclature, probably first designated the 

single rib and groove as the "Royal " pattern and the 

double rib and groove as the "Queen's " pattern.^^ 

After supplying services of cream-colored earthenware 

to Queen Charlotte, Wedgwood called his creamcolored wares "Queen's Ware. " The name soon 

became a general one for cream-colored earthenware 

regardless of the manufacture. John Askin, the wealthy 

trader at Fort Michilimackinac, used the term "queens 

wair" as did the Detroit merchants, Alexander and 

^5 Letter from JOHN ASKIN to SAMPSON FLEMING, 20 April 

1778. The John Askin Papers, Milo M. Quaife, editor, vol. 1, 

p. 79. 

** See TOWNER, The Leeds Pottery, figs. 30a and 30b. 

<5 See WOLF MANKOWITZ, Wedgwood, p. 56. TOWNER, The 

Leeds Pottery, facsimile reproduction of Leeds pattern book, 

p. 1, nos. 2 and 3; plate 1, no. 2; and plate 2, no. 2. 

William Macomb, who sold ceramics to Askin.^^ 

Leeds used a number of the same pattern names as 

Wedgwood, and it is probable that other manufacturers also conformed. Wedgwood, the Leeds Pottery, 

and other English potteries also produced creamcolored wares with a "feather" relief border."*^ A total 

of 248 rim sherds from the Fort were found to be 

decorated with variations of the feather edge (Figures 

20rfand 21a). 

Four other relief border patterns were found in 

considerably smaller quantities. Dominant among 

these were a geometric, diamond pattern (Figure 20a) 

which occurred in three variations and an alternating 

bead and line border (Figure 20^). More elaborate 

pieces of cream-colored earthenware often had pierced 

borders, and a few sherds of this type were recovered 

(Figure 20/). 

« John Askin's Inventory, pp. 10 and 15; Macomb Account 

Book, 1776-1778 Ms. (Burton Historical Collection, Detroit 

Public Library), p. 50. 

^^ Josiah Wedgwood's first pattern book (1770) showed two 

types of feather borders. The pattern designated "feather edge 

shape No. 1" (which was widely copied) predominated at 

Fort Michilimackinac. Both feather designs are illustrated in 

JOHN M . GRAHAM II and HENSLEIGH C. WEDGWOOD, Wedgwood, p. 58, plate 67. 

FIGURE 22.—ENGLISH POLYCHROME AND TRANSFER-PRINTED 

CREAM-COLORED EARTHENWARE, a, Saucer rim sherd. 

Cream-colored body covered with a clear, yellowish, 

lead-glaze; decorated over the glaze with foliate designs 

in black and iron-red. Possibly Leeds, circa 1765-1780. 

b, Cup or tea bowl rim sherd. Cream-colored body covered 

with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with a 

beaded border in relief and with a black transfer print 

over the glaze. The print shows part of a bird. Probably 

printed in Liverpool, circa 1765-1780. c, Cup or tea 

bowl rim sherd. Cream-colored body covered with a 

clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with a beaded 

border in relief and, over the glaze, with black flowers 

against an iron-red background. Possibly Leeds, circa 

1765-1780. d, Saucer, approximately 4:% inches in 

diameter. Cream-colored body covered with a clear, 

yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated in the center with a 

bead and line relief border and over the glaze with flowers 

in red, black, blue, purple, and green. Circa 1765-1780. 
NUMBER 4 47 
48 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TYPE C. POLYCHROME 

Date: Circa 1765-1780. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Cream-colored earthenware covered with 

a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated 

over the glaze with polychrome enamel 

colors. 

COMMENTS : English eighteenth-century cream-colored 

wares decorated in hand painted colors over the glaze 

were less common than the plain wares. This comparative rarity is reflected in the findings at Fort 

Michilimackinac where only 65 sherds of this type 

were recovered during the years 1959-1965.*^ All were 

from parts of tea services. These sherds, for the most 

part, are painted with foliate designs primarily in red, 

black, blue, and green (Figure 22a, c, d). The work is 

unpretentious, and at this time there is no evidence 

that more elaborately decorated cream-colored wares 

were present at the Fort. 

TYPE D. HANDLES, FINL\LS, SPOUTS 

Date: Circa 1765-1780. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Handles, finials, and spouts from elements 

of tea and coffee services. All creamcolored earthenware covered with a 

clear, yellowish, lead-glaze. 

COMMENTS: Sculptural (molded) elements such as 

finials or fragments of twisted handles do not properly 

comprise a separate stylistic type, and the sherds 

described here also belong to one of the other categories of cream-colored ware in this section. Such 

sherds, however, are sometimes particularly useful in 

pinpointing the place of manufacture and for this 

reason are treated separately. A total of 31 sherds of 

this type were found. All of them were from small 

pieces such as mugs, tea or coffee cups, teapots, and 

sugar bowls (Figure 23). Especially noteworthy are 

a handsome mug with twisted, reeded handles 

secured by flowered terminals (Figure 23^) and the 

molded base of a teapot spout (Figure 23(3). Both of 

*^ This ratio of polychrome to plain sherds is only of relative 

value. The true ratio of polychrome pieces to plain ones was 

probably slightly lower, as undecorated areas of polychrome 

wares yield plain body and rim sherds. 

FIGURE 23.—ENGLISH CREAM-COLORED EARTHENWARE; 

MOLDED DETAILS, a, Base section of a teapot spout. Creamcolored body covered with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; 

decorated with a molded acanthus leaf pattern. Probably 

Leeds, circa 1765-1780. b. Sherd from the top of a caster. 

Cream-colored earthenware covered with a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze. Circa 1765-1780. c, Body sherd and part 

of a finial from a sugar bowl or teapot cover. Creamcolored earthenware covered with a clear, yellowish, leadglaze; applied finial of foliate design. Circa 1765-1780. 

d, Small cup. Cream-colored earthenware covered with a 

clear, yellowish, lead-glaze. Circa 1765-1780. e. Upper 

section of a mug. Cream-colored earthenware covered with 

a clear, yellowish, lead-glaze; decorated with a bead and 

line border in relief and with applied, foliate handle 

terminals. Probably Leeds, about 1765-1780. 
NUMBER 4 49 
50 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

these pieces can be attributed with some certainty 

to the Leeds Pottery.*^ 

T he archeological evidence tends to indicate that 

the cream-colored earthenware at the Fort was 

generally confined to tea and coffee services and to 

dinner services. Certainly, some "polite" society 

existed side by side with the rougher elements during 

the English occupation. Writing to a friend in 

Montreal in 1778, the English trader, John Askin, 

complained of the dull winters at the Fort and 

compared Michigan's social life with that of London. 

Your friends in this quarter have thought themselves 

very happy to have a dance once a week. I entertain 

their Company with tea & humble Grogg during the 

last winter, whilst you at London could have all your 

wants and wishes supplied, as well as your wanton 

wishes. 50 

TYPE E. TRANSFER PRINTED 

Date: Circa 1765-1780. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Cream-colored earthenware decorated 

with a black transfer print over the glaze. 

COMMENTS: Transfer printing, as a process for decorating ceramics and enamels, was initiated in several 

parts of England during the mid-eighteenth century. 

The precise origin of the art is still unclear. One 

pioneer in the development of this speedy means of 

decoration was John Sadler of Liverpool.^^ By the 

mid-1760s Sadler, in partnership with Guy Green, 

was printing large amounts of creamware for potteries 

in Liverpool as well as for Josiah Wedgwood.^-

It was not until the final quarter of the eighteenth 

century that transfer printing achieved a major posi-

^8 Compare the handle and handle terminals in Figure 23^ 

to TOWNER, The Leeds Pottery, plate 15. Note that the identical 

bead and line border is also found on both pieces. Also, compare the tea spout base (Figure 23a) with Towner, English 

Cream-Coloured Earthenware, p. 74, fig. II, nos. 4 and 5, and 

note Towner's comments, p. 66. 

50 Letter from JOHN ASKIN to CHARLES PATTERSON, 17 June, 

1778. The John Askin Papers, Milo M. Quaife, editor, vol. 1, 

p. 135. 

5' For an explanation of the transfer printing process, see 

ELLOUISE B.'VKER LARSEN, American Historical Views on Staffordshire China, pp. 285 and 286. 

•>- See MANKOWITZ, Wedgwood, rev. ed., p. 52. Also see 

JOSEPH MAYER, "On Liverpool Pottery," Transactions of the 

Historic Society oj Lancashire and Cheshire, vol. VII, pp. 184—189. 

tion as a cheap means of decoration. Thus, it is not 

surprising that comparatively few transfer-printed 

cream-colored earthenware sherds have been found 

at Fort MichiUmackinac. A total of 18 sherds were 

discovered to have some printed decoration, all in 

black overglaze (Figure 22^). As in the case of the 

polychrome cream-colored wares, the printed sherds 

came from elements of a tea service. 

GROUP III— 

COARSE EARTHENWARE 

Perhaps any attempt to classify the diverse ceramics 

found at Fort Michilimackinac will result, at some 

point, in a more or less arbitrary demarkation between wares that seemingly have much in common. 

Such is the case with the earthenware artifacts. Tinglazed earthenware and cream-colored earthenware 

have been discussed in the preceding pages (Groups 

I and II). The remaining earthenware is divided, we 

believe with some logic, into two categories, the first 

being coarse earthenware. For the purposes of this 

study, coarse earthenware is defined as low fired, crude 

pottery with a minimum of decoration, glazed or 

unglazed, produced for house and kitchen use. This 

coarse earthenware comprises the most humble class 

of household wares. Other finer, more decorative 

earthenwares manufactured for the tea and dinner 

table are included in Group IV as fine earthenware. 

Simply conceived and produced earthenwares and 

stonewares were probably the only ceramics available 

to most of the Fort's occupants.^^ Coarse earthenware 

probably also was used in the kitchens of the more 

affluent traders of the English period, as well as in the 

officers' messes. The most common forms of these 

kitchen ceramics found were dishes, large plates, and 

bowls. The exigencies of life at Fort Michilimackinac 

resulted in the active practice of a number of crafts. 

Though there is good evidence of brickmaking, to 

date no pottery kiln site or other evidence of pottery 

making at the Fort has been discovered.^^ The tentative conclusion must be that the coarse earthenwares, 

as well as the finer ceramics, were all imported. 

^ Indian and colono-indian cerainics are excluded from this 

study. For a brief survey of Indian artifacts from the Fort, 

including ceramics, see MOREAU S. MAXWELL, "Indian Artifacts 

at Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinaw City, Michigan," Michigan 

Archaeologist, June 1964, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 23-30. 

5^ See DAVID A. ARMOUR, "Mad e in Mackinac, Crafts at 

Fort Michilimackinac," Mackinac History, Leaflet no. 8. 
NUMBER 4 51 

The identification of these coarse earthenwares 

presents a number of thorny problems, many of 

which cannot be resolved at this time. There are 

few, if any, documented pieces of eighteenth-century 

Canadian pottery. Little is known about coarse 

eighteenth-century French earthenware. These gaps 

in our knowledge do not cause problems unique to 

Fort Michilimackinac. Archeologists working on the 

extensive exacavations at the Fortress of Louisbourg 

have been confronted with similar difficulties. Renee 

H. Marwitt, in a report on seven types of coarse 

earthenware from Louisbourg, has noted that: 

While a great deal is known about English, German, 

and Chinese ceramics of the period, litde work of an 

archeological nature has been done with French 

ceramics, the common earthenware in particular, and 

it is these wares that make up the bulk of the ceramic 

assemblage. Thus, it became imperative that these 

wares be systematically recorded and grouped into 

meaningful types.^s 

In the descriptions accompanying the figures which 

illustrate sherds considered in this section (Figures 

24—28), specific body and glaze color designations 

are given in accordance with the Munsell Soil Color 

Charts.^^ The Munsell values have been given in 

order to relate this study to preliminary work describing the coarse earthenwares from the Fortress 

of Louisbourg.^'' Though the Munsell system has 

undeniable merit in archeological typology involving, 

for example. Southwest Indian studies, this system's 

value in eighteenth-century historical archeology is, 

to an extent, debatable. The complexity of manufacturing processes, trade patterns, and the mobility 

of eighteenth-century potters defies any neat typology. 

For example, a Canadian potter who might have 

made wares that found their way to Louisbourg or 

Michilimackinac probably would have worked with 

a variety of clays, colors, and glaze materials. Further, diff'erent kilns, firing temperatures, and conditions of reduction all affect body and glaze colors. 

Thus, seemingly unrelated wares may well have 

close associations. Having noted the above reserva55 MARWITT, "A Preliminary Survey of Seven Coarse Earthenwares from the Fortress of Louisbourg," p. 53. On page 54, 

Mrs. Marwitt comments, regarding these coarse earthenwares, 

that "The cultural associations and chronological range is 

unknown at the present time." 

59 Munsell Soil Color Charts (Baltimore: Munsell Color Company, Inc., 1965). 

57 See MARWITT, "A preliminary Survey of Seven Coarse 

Earthenwares from the Fortress of Louisbourg," p. 54. 

tions, it is nevertheless clear that reference to the 

Munsell chart does enable individual sherds or pieces 

to be more accurately described. 

TYPE A. UNGLAZED RED WARE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: Probably North America. 

Description: Thick red earthenware, unglazed or slipcovered on interior surfaces only. 

COMMENTS: A total of 50 sherds of low fired, red, 

unglazed earthenwares were uncovered at Fort 

Michilimackinac during the years 1959-1965. These 

were not colono-indian ceramics and could have 

originated nearly anywhere. Soft (Moh's scale 2-3) 

and permeable, such ceramics would not be suitable 

for use as shipping containers. Most of the sherds of 

this type show no evidence of surface covering, though 

a few are covered with a brown slip on the interior 

surfaces only. 

The 50 sherds came from wheel-thrown dishes and 

bowls that were comparatively thick in section, 

averaging about % inch. No other forms were discerned. It is possible that some of these ceramics 

served as containers for dry materials such as corn. 

Most of the sherds were completely without decoration, but a few were embellished with single or 

double incised lines (Figure 24(f). Body color varies 

slightly; most have a slight orange cast and lie in 

the range of Munsell 2.5 YR 6/8-2.5 YR 5/6. 

TYPE B. BROWN GLAZED RE D WARE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: England, France, or North America. 

Description: Variants of red earthenware covered on 

one or both sides with a brown leadglaze. 

COMMENTS: A total of 267 sherds of this type were 

recovered. There was a considerable variety in the 

quality and color of both glaze and body, indicating 

that brown glazed useful wares came to Fort Michilimackinac from a number of different sources. As is 

frequently true of the simple, coarse pottery of the 

eighteenth century, in most instances no precise place 

of origin can be assigned with any certainty. Some of 

these sherds are possibly French, or possibly French 

Canadian, while others of this type give evidence of 
52 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 24.—COARSE RED EARTHENWARE, a. Rim sherd from a plate or dish. Orange-red, coarse-grained body covered 

with a brown slip. Possibly North American, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 2.5 YR 6/8; slip, Munsell 10 YR 5/3. b. 

Base from a small footed jar or bowl. Bottom is flat and unglazed. Orange-red, coarse-grained body covered with a dark 

brown lead-glaze. Possibly French, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 2.5 YR6/8; glaze, Munsell 5 YR 2/2. See Figure 

253. c, Pipkin handle. Pinkish-tan body covered with a brown lead-glaze. English, second half of the eighteenth century. 

Body, Munsell 7.5 YR 6/6; glaze, Munsell 5 YR 3/3. d. Body sherd from a bowl or jar. Light red body; unglazed exterior 

and grayish brown slip covered interior. Exterior decoration of parallel incised lines. Possibly North American, eighteenth 

century. Body, Munsell 2.5 YR 6/8; slip, Munsell 10 YR 5/2. e, Handle and rim section from a covered dish. Orange-red, 

coarse-grained body covered with an orange-brown lead-glaze. The applied handle is awkwardly pinched. Possibly French, 

eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 5 YR 6/8; glaze, Munsell 2.5 4/8. See Figure 25c. /, Base section from a cylindrical 

mug. Brownish-red body covered with a very dark brown glaze. The bottom is flat and unglazed. Probably North American or English, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 2.5 5/4; glaze, Munsell 5 YR 2/1. See Figure 25a. 
NUMBER 4 53 

FIGURE 25.—COARSE RED EARTHENWARE; RECONSTRUCTED DRAWINGS (full scale), a, Section and suggested reconstruction 

of base fragment from mug, Figure 24/. b, Section and suggested reconstruction of base fragment from a small footed ja r 

or bowl, Figure 2Ab. c, Rim section and profile from above of handle and rim sherd from a covered dish. Figure 2\e. 
54 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

a 

I IN 

FIGURE 26.—COARSE EARTHENWARE, a, Body sherd, probably from a small bowl. Light red body covered on exterior with 

a cream-colored slip and on interior with a very thin yellowish-pink slip or wash. The exterior is covered with a clear, leadglaze splashed in places with tan coloring. Possibly English, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 2.5 YR 6/6; exterior slip, 

Munsell 2.5 Y 8/2; exterior splash coloration in glaze, Munsell 2.5 Y 6/4. b. Rim sherd from a plate. Red body covered 

with a light brown lead-glaze splashed with dark brown. Possibly French, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 2.4 Y R 4/4; 

glaze, Munsell 5 YR 4/6 and 2.5 YR 2/2. c, Rim sherd from a plate. Red body covered with a brown lead-glaze splashed 

with dark brown. Possibly French, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 2.5 YR 4/4; glaze, Munsell 10 R 3/4 and 2.5 YR 

2/2. d, Rim sherd from a plate. Red body covered with a cream-colored slip; decorated on interior with a border of a 

wavy purple line and a green rim line, under a thin lead-glaze. Probably French, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 2.5 

YR 6/6. 
NUMBER 4 55 

d ^ 

FIGURE 27.—^EARTHENWARE; section drawings of rim sherds (full scale), a, Section and inner border of French 

"Rouen " type ware, Figures \7d and ISd. b. Rim section from plate, Figure 24fl. c, Rim section from plate. Figure 26c. 

d, Rim section from a large dish, Figure 32^. e, Rim section from a plate, Figure 26a'. / , Rim section from a plate, 

Figure 266. 

359-962 O - 70 - 5 
56 SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

English manufacture or of having been made in 

North America by potters working in the English 

tradition. 

A number of different forms were encountered and 

nearly all were consistent with kitchen or hearthside 

use. Sherds from small jars, pipkins, large covered 

jars, deep dishes, plates, and dishes were discovered 

(Figure 24). A few sherds from mugs also were 

found. The body materials range from medium 

grained to coarse and, in color, from brownish-red to 

orange-red. The glazes also varied from light tan to 

dark, black-brown. 

One distinctive type of brown glazed ware included in this group has a granular, red clay body 

covered with a lead-glaze ranging in color from yellowbrown to red-brown, splashed 'with areas of deep 

brown (Figure 26^ and c). Of this type, only sherds 

from dinner plates have been found at Michilimackinac 

to date. Similar wares have been excavated at 

Williamsburg where they are tentatively assigned a 

Pennsylvania or New England origin, though the 

possibility of French or English manufacture is not 

excluded.^^ A number of New England pieces decorated in this manner and dating from the early nineteenth century can be found in American collections. 

This same general type of ware has been recovered 

in a great variety of forms at Louisbourg (Appendix 

B, Figure 2k) .^^ The Louisbourg finds include a number 

of rather complete pieces that are in forms associated 

with French manufacture, and for this reason are 

assigned a French provenance. It is hoped that further 

scholarship will develop more information relevant 

to the origin and distribution of this particular kind 

of brown glazed, red earthenware. 

TYPE C. GREEN and PURPLE DECORATED REDWARE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: Probably France. 

Description: Red earthenware covered with a white 

slip and decorated with green and purple 

colored lead-glaze. 

COMMENTS: Only two sherds of this type were recovered, both in 1959. As the decoration of these 

sherds differed so from the other coarse earthenware 

from the Fort, it has been necessary to classify them 

separately. Comprising adjacent rim fragments from 

58 Conversation with IVOR NOEL HUME, director. Department of Archaeology, Colonial Williamsburg. 

58 MARWITT, "A Preliminary Survey of Seven Coarse 

Earthenwares from the Fortress of Louisbourg," Ware 4, Fig. 2>c. 

a plate (Figure 26^), the sherds are covered with a 

thin white slip. The interior border is decorated with 

a rim line of green and a wavy border design in 

purple. This find is significant as it represents yet 

another variety of ceramics of probable French 

origin and as similarly decorated wares have been 

excavated at Louisbourg (Appendix B, Figure 2^).^** 

TYPE D. GREEN GLAZED EARTHENWARE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: Probably France or England. Possibly 

North America. 

Description: Variants of low fired earthenware covered 

with a green lead-glaze. 

COMMENTS: A total of 170 sherds of low fired earthenware glazed on one or both sides with a green leadglaze were recovered at the Fort during the excavation years 1959-1965. The material ranges in body 

color from brown-red through buff to tan-gray. The 

potting is often crude and most of the sherds appear 

to have come from chamber pots, jars, and bowls. 

Thirteen sherds excavated in 1959 were found to come 

from a single bowl which has been partially restored 

(Figures 28c and 29). The sherds from this bowl, as 

well as others of the same type, were found within a 

French context predating 1740.^^ A French or FrenchCanadian provenance is reasonably confirmed by the 

shape of the vessel, and, at the present time, it can 

only be said that the bowl is of a French type, as it is 

possible that it was manufactured in Canada by a 

potter working in the French tradition. A similar, but 

larger bowl has been reconstructed from sherds excavated at Louisbourg (Appendix B, Figure 3).®^ 

Some sherds with a buff-gray body and light-tomedium green lead-glaze on both sides (Figure 32^) 

are similar to sherds from chamber pots recovered at 

Louisbourg (Appendix B, Figure 21) and Colonial 

Williamsburg. These green glazed sherds are presently 

given an English attribution by the Williamsburg 

archeologists.^^ As English and North American coarse 

earthenwares are found in Louisbourg along with 

French ceramics, the exact provenance of these ubiquitous green glazed wares is still unclear. 

60 Ibid, p. 56, Ware 3, fig. 51. 

61 MAXWELL AND BINFORD, 1961, pp. 94-95. 

82 Artifact collections. Fortress of Louisbourg. 

83 Conversation with IVOR NOEL HUME, director. Department of Archaeology, Colonial Williamsburg. 
NUMBER 4 57 

FIGURE 28.—COARSE EARTHENWARE, a. Section of a plate with a flat baise, no foot ring. Wheel thrown pink body with 

inclusions of small pebbles; covered with a green lead-glaze with brown splashes. Probably French or French Canadian, 

first half of the eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 7.5 YR 8/4; green glaze, Munsell 7.5 6/7. (See Figure 30.) h. Bowl with 

a flat base, pronounced rim, and an abbreviated pouring lip. Light red body covered on interior with a mustard yellow 

lead-glaze. Probably French or French Canadian, first half of the eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 5 YR 6/6; glaze, Munsell 

2.5 Y 6/6. (See Figure 31.) c. Bowl with a flat base and pronounced rim. Light red body covered on rim and interior with 

a dark green lead-glaze. Probably French or French Canadian, first half of the eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 5 YR 

6/4.5; glaze, Munsell 5 Y 3.52. (See Figure 29.) 
58 SMITHSONL^N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 29.—COARSE EARTHENWARE BOWL; section drawing 

{Ys scale). Section of bowl, Figure 28c. 

colored, soft (Moh's scale 2-3), and contains scattered impurities in the form of small pebbles. Turning 

marks show the plate was thrown on a wheel. There 

is no foot ring. A light green lead-glaze, dappled 

with brown (probably manganese) is applied to the 

interior of the plate, but the exterior is unglazed 

except in areas where glaze from the interior has run 

over the rim and down the back. These sherds are 

not English in form or decoration, and a number were 

found in a French context.^^ Thus, it is probable 

that this pottery is French or French-Canadian and 

that it dates from the first half of the eighteenth 

century. As rather similar wares have been recovered 

at Louisbourg, this attribution does not seem unreasonable (Appendix B, Figure 2h).^^ There is an 

interesting difference between the Louisbourg examples and the ones from Michilimackinac. The 

brown and green wares from Louisbourg are glazed 

over a thin, white slip while the Michilimackinac 

sherds disclose that no underglaze slip was used. 

TYPE E. BROWN and GREEN GLAZED EARTHENWARE 

Date: First half of the eighteenth century. 

Origin: Probably France or French Canada. 

Description: Low fired earthenware covered with a 

mixed brown and green lead-glaze. 

COMMENTS: Twelve sherds of this distinctive earthenware were recovered in the years 1959-1965. The 

largest piece is about one-fifth of a plate (Figures 

28(3 and 30). The body material is light salmon 

TYPE F. YELLOW GLAZED EARTHENWARE. 

Date: First half of the eighteenth century. 

Origin: Probably France or French Canada. 

Description: Low fired earthenware covered with a 

yellow lead-glaze. 

COMMENTS: Related to the coarse green glazed wares 

are a group of 32 yellow glazed sherds. The majority 

of these sherds was recovered in 1959 and found 

within a French context predating 1740.^^ From ten of 

these sherds, a wheel-thrown bowl with a pouring 

spout has been reconstructed (Figures 28b and 31). 

The clay is red and the glaze, applied to the inside 

only, is mustard yellow. Crudely potted and thick in 

section (averaging ji inch at the base and ji inch on 

the sides), this pouring bowl is probably French or 

French-Canadian. Though the clays differ, the forms 

of this bowl and the green glazed bowl are essentially 

the same. Both have flat bottoms and truncated, 

conical shapes with pronounced upper rims. 

FIGURE 30.—COARSE EARTHENWARE PLATE; section drawings (Ys scale). Sections of plate. Figure 28a. 

^* MAXWELL AND BINFORD, 1961, pp. 94—95. 

"5 MARWITT, "A Preliminary Survey of Seven Coarse 

Earthenwares From the Fortress of Louisbourg,'' p. 55, Ware 

lA. 

68 MAXWELL AND BINFORD, 1961, pp. 94-95. 
NUMBER 4 59 

FIGURE 31.—COARSE EARTHENWARE BOWL; section drawing 

(/^ scale). Section of bowl. Figure 28^. 

As our knowledge of seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury Canadian pottery is virtually nonexistent 

at this time, no meaningful conclusions can be made 

concerning these finds. A French provenance is indicated, but French Canada remains as a possible place 

of origin. Though more sophisticated wares of the 

period under consideration have been studied in 

depth, the common, low fired pottery has received 

minimal attention. As a practical matter, we may 

never acquire more information for so httle of this 

common pottery has survived and its documentation 

is so scanty. In determining place of origin, microscopic examination and quantitative analysis (including new and more sophisticated techniques such as 

neutron irradiation) may prove helpful in certain 

limited ways.^^ Common clay deposits, however, of 

essentially similar composition can be found on both 

sides of the Atlantic. The main avenue to increased 

information about these common earthenwares lies in 

archeological studies on the sites of seventeenth- and 

eighteenth-century potteries. 

TYPE G. CARMEL GLAZED EARTHENWARES 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: Probably England or France. 

Description: Granular, low fired, red earthenware 

covered on the exterior surfaces with a 

cream-colored slip and a lead-glaze containing tan (caramel) splashes. 

COMMENTS: A total of 25 sherds of this type were 

recovered during the years 1959-1965. All were 

small, and frequently it was not possible to ascertain 

the exact form of the pieces from which the sherds 

came. As the sherds were wheel thrown, thinly potted, 

and were glazed only on the exterior, it seems probable 

that they came from small containers or jars with 

covers or narrow necks. Throwing rings and the 

discernible curvatures of some sherds tend to confirm 

this. The caramel glaze color was applied vertically 

(Figure 26a). Relatively similar sherds have been 

recovered at Bishop's Waltham, Hampshire, 

England.^* Exact counterparts to the Michilimackinac 

caramel glazed wares have not, however, to date 

been discovered by the authors in either inuseum or 

archeological collections. 

TYPE H. SLIP-DECORATED EARTHENWARE 

Date: Eighteenth-century. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Buff-colored earthenware covered with a 

yellow slip and decorated with brown slip 

lines or dots. Overall, a clear lead-glaze. 

COMMENTS: The technique of slip decorating was 

utilized by many eighteenth-century English potters. 

Earthenware pieces were covered with either brown 

or yellow slip (a watery clay) and then decorated 

with lines or dots of contrasting slip. A liquid leadglaze was then applied and the pieces fired. One 

method of applying slip lines of contrasting color is 

termed "combing" and pieces decorated in this manner are often referred to as "combed wares." Sixtyseven English slip decorated sherds were recovered 

at Fort Michilimackinac. In all instances the decoration consisted of brown slip upon a cream or yellow 

87 See H. W. M. HODGES, "The Examination of Ceramic 

Materials in Thin Section Slides," The Scientist and Archaeology, 

Edward Pyddoke, editor, pp. 101-110. 

68 Communication with KENNETH J. BARTON, curator, 

Portsmouth City Museum, Portsmouth, Hampshire. 
60 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

slip ground (Figure 33). Drinking cups, dishes, and 

possibly jugs and bowls were the forms represented. 

Of special interest is a large fragment from a yellow 

drinking cup decorated with combed lines of brown 

slip (Figure 33^) recovered in 1964. Slip decorated 

English earthenware has been found at many 

eighteenth-century English colonial sites as well as 

at Louisbourg (Appendix B, Figure 2c).^^ 

69 For eighteenth-century English combed and dotted slipwares firom colonial sites, see NCEL HUME, "Excavations at 

Rosewell in Gloucester County, Virginia 1957-1959," pp. 188-189, 

no. 2, fig. 14; JOHN L . COTTER, Archaeological Excavations at 

Jamestown (Washington: National Park Service, 1958), p. 185, 

plate 83; NOEL HUME, "Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's 

View oj Colonial Life and History," fig. 119; C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "The Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia," p. 128, 

fig. 64. Also, see artifact collections: Fort Ligonier, and the 

Fortress of Louisbourg. 

FIGURE 32.—-MISCELLANEOUS COARSE EARTHENWARE, a, 

Body sherd, possibly from a chamber pot. Light pink body 

covered with a cream-colored and orange slip or wash and 

with a clear lead-glaze splashed with light green. Probably 

French, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 5 YR 7/4; 

cream slip, Munsell 5 Y 8/3. b, Body sherd, possibly from 

a chamber pot. Gray body covered with a light green leadglaze. Possibly English, eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 

10 YR 6/2; glaze, Munsell 5 Y 4.5/4. c, Body sherd, probably from a large bowl or jar; J^-inch thick in section. Light 

red body covered, on exterior only, with a dark green 

lead-glaze. Probably French or French Canadian, first half 

of the eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 5 YR 6/4.5; glaze, 

Munsell 5 Y 3.5/2. d, Body sherd from a bowl. Light red 

body covered on interior with a mustard yellow lead-glaze. 

Probably French, first half of the eighteenth century. Body 

Munsell 5 YR 6/6; glaze, Munsell 2.5 Y 6/6. e. Rim sherd 

from a large dish. Light red body covered with a light green 

lead-glaze. Probably French, first half of eighteenth century. Body, Munsell 5 YR 7/4; glaze, (Nickerson Color Fan) 

Munsell 7.5 GY 8/7. / , Handle from a drinking vessel or 

small pitcher. Cream-colored body covered with a green 

lead-glaze. Probably French, eighteenth century. Body, 

Munsell 5 Y 7.5/1; glaze, (Nickerson Color Fan) Munsell 

5 GY 5/6. 
NUMBER 4 61 
/ 

a 

FIGURE 33.—ENGLISH SLIP-DECORATED EARTHENWARE, a, Rim sherd from a cup. Buff body decorated with a yellow slip 

and (on exterior surface) brown slip dots; covered overall with a clear lead-glaze. Eighteenth century, b. Body sherd from 

a cup or small bowl. Buff body decorated with a yellow slip and combed, brown slip lines; covered overall with a clear 

lead-glaze. Eighteenth century, c, Rim sherd from a cup. Buff body decorated with a yellow slip and brown slip dots; 

covered overall with a clear lead-glaze. Eighteenth century, d. Body sherd from a dish, ){ inch in section. Buff body decorated with a cream-colored slip and combed, brown slip lines; covered overall with a clear lead-glaze. Eighteenth century. 

e Section of a cup. Buff body decorated with a yellow slip and combed, brown slip lines; covered overall with a clear leadglaze. Eighteenth century. / , Body sherd, probably from a dish. Red body decorated on interior only with a cream-colored 

slip and combed, brown slip lines; covered with a clear lead-glaze. Eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 

GROUP IV— 

FINE EARTHENWARE 

The utilitarian, coarse earthenwares considered in 

the previous section were practically necessities in the 

life at Fort Michilimackinac. The social organization, 

both civilian and military, required some basic kitchen 

equipment. Metal, bone, wood, and ceramic utensils 

filled these essential needs. But, as has been pointed 

out, during the period of English occupation, life was 

far from primitive for some of the Fort's inhabitants. 

The ceramic evidence in support of this assertion is 

considerable. The fine English earthenwares that have 

been recovered at the Fort to date comprise one part 

of this evidence. 

In making the admittedly arbitrary distinction between coarse and fine earthenware, it can be stated 

that fine earthenware of the eighteenth century was, 

in general, more delicate, more finely grained, and 

more sophisticated in decoration. In most instances 

its use was designated for the tea and dinner table 

rather than the kitchen. Nearly all of the sherds of 

fine earthenware from Fort Michilimackinac came 

from part or whole tea services.TM Though comparatively few sherds of fine earthenware were recovered, 

the significance of these finds should not be underestimated. The types discussed in this section serve to 

enlarge the spectrum of ceramics known to be present 

at the Fort. This information, in turn, adds to the 

overall picture of a more complex material culture; 

one, indeed, that contains elements closely analogous 

to the material culture enjoyed in the more affluent 

parts of the colonies. 

Some of the fine earthenwares discussed in this 

section could as well have been listed in "Group II, 

English Cream-Colored Earthenware." After consideration, it was decided that the special glazes applied 

to these wares justified separate treatment. 

63 

TYPE A. WHIELDON TYPE (Brown and Green 

Splashed Glaze) 

Date: About 1755-1775. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Cream-colored earthenware with a yellowish, clear lead-glaze on interior surfaces and splashed brown and green 

lead-glazes on the exterior surfaces. 

CO:M:\IENTS: Sixteen sherds of finely potted (about 

}i6 inch in section) cream-colored earthenware from 

parts of a tea service were recovered. All were 

decorated on the exterior in soft brown and green 

colors. Neatly but irregularly applied (splashed) 

brown and green lead-glaze of this type is associated 

with Thomas Whieldon (1719-1795), one of eighteenth-century England's pioneering potters and a 

mentor of Josiah Wedgwood. As Whieldon's wares 

were unmarked and as other English potters quickly 

adopted his techniques, it is preferable to use the 

term Whieldon type in descriptions of most ceramics 

traditionally ascribed to Thomas Whieldon. 

Examination of a sherd from a teapot of this type 

(Figure 34c) discloses that the piece was made from 

typical English cream-colored earthenware. In addition to the fine, light green and brown glaze, the 

teapot was decorated with closely spaced (about 

){(, inch) incised, concentric lines.'^ 

TYPE B. WHIELDON TYPE (Tortoise-shell Glaze) 

Date: About 1755-1775. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Cream-colored earthenware covered with 

a mottled brown, cream, gray, and green 

lead-glaze. 

COMMENTS: Perhaps most closely associated with 

Thomas Whieldon are the wares decorated with a 

TM For an informative monograph on eighteenth-century tea 

drinking in England and the Colonies, see RODRIS ROTH, "Tea 

Drinking in 18th Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage," Washington: United States National Museum Bulletin 

225, pp. 61-91. 

^1 This type of glaze is rarer than the "tortoise-shell," see 

Type B. For a small bowl glazed in this manner which is also 

decorated with incised, concentric lines, see CYRIL EARLE, 

The Earle Collection of Staffordshire Pottery, fig. 260. To differentiate from the "tortoise-shell," the "Earle catalog" designates 

this type of glaze as "variegated" or "clouded." 
64 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

mottled, so-called "tortoise-shell" lead-glaze.'^^ Again, 

caution dictates the use of "Whieldon type" when 

describing these ceramics. Whieldon's wares were 

unmarked and Wedgwood, as well as other potters, 

used tortoise-shell glazes.^^ Sixty-eight sherds of 

cream-colored earthenware decorated with a tortoiseshell glaze were recovered at Fort Michilimackinac. 

Most were from parts of at least three separate tea 

services or part tea services, though sherds from plates 

were also found. Of the three tea services, one had a 

brown and light green mottled glaze (Figure 34rf); 

another was decorated with a mottled brown and 

blue-green glaze (Figure 34/)), and the third was plain 

mottled brown (Figure 34e). Typical Whieldon applied 

foliate relief designs were found on a number of the 

sherds (Figure 34fl, d). 

Whieldon type tortoise-shell glazed wares have been 

recovered from many eighteenth-century sites including Fort Ligonier (Appendix C, Figure \b), Colonial 

Williamsburg, and the Fortress of Louisbourg.^'' 

forms of vegetables and fruit. The body of these wares 

was usually cream-colored or buff, essentially the 

same as the body material of the cream-colored earthenware described in Group II of Class A. 

So-called pineapple wares were produced during 

the 1760s by Whieldon, Wedgwood, and probably a 

number of other English potters.^^ Only three sherds 

of this pineapple ware were found at the Fort, all from 

a teapot (Figure 35^:). Sherds from a similar pineapple 

ware teapot have been found at Fort Ligonier.''^ 

Closely related to the pineapple wares were the 

pieces molded in imitation of cauliflowers and cabbages (Figures 35 d, e, g, h, and7). Of special interest 

is a fragment from a cabbage-molded teapot cover 

with a rabbit finial (Figure 35A)." A total of 19 sherds 

from cauliflower and cabbage decorated wares were 

found and all of these were from parts of tea services. 

Again, the significance of these finds lies in the increased range of ceramics proved to be represented in 

the material culture at Fort Michilimackinac. 

TYPE C. WHIELDON-WEDGWOOD TYPE (Fruit and 

Vegetable Motifs) 

Date: Circa 1755-1775. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Cream-colored earthenware molded in 

pineapple, cauliflower, and cabbage relief 

patterns and decorated with green, yellow, 

and white lead-glazes. 

COMMENTS: During their brief partnership (1754— 

1759), Thomas Whieldon and Josiah Wedgwood I 

worked to develop new decorative motifs and glazes 

in order to expand the market for their earthenwares. 

Wedgwood was especially interested in perfecting a 

green glaze. The extensive experimentation of this 

period resulted in improved green and yellow leadglazes that particularly enhanced pieces molded in the 

" For colored illustrations of Whieldon type, tortoise-shell 

glazed pieces, see CYRIL EARLE, The Earle Collection of Staffordshire Pottery, plate VI; and GEORGE SAVAGE, English Pottery and 

Porcelain, fig. 51. The popularity of the tortoise-shell wares in 

England roughly coincided with the English occupation of 

Fort Michilimackinac. By the early 1780s, the vogue for the 

tortoise-shell glazes had practically died out. See G. BERNARD 

HUGHES, "Animals with a Whieldon Glaze," p. 947. 

73 A marked Wedgwood tea caddy decorated with a tortoiseshell glaze is illustrated in MANKOWITZ, plate III. 

74 Artifact collections: Fort Ligonier, Colonial Williamsburg, 

and Fortress of Louisbourg. 

75 A yellow and green pineapple teapot attributed as possibly 

from the Whieldon-Wedgwood partnership is illustrated in 

MANKOWITZ, plate III. 

76 Artifact collection. Fort Ligonier. 

77 A cabbage leaf teapot with a similar rabbit finial is illustrated in FRANK TILLEY, Teapots and Tea, plate VIII, no. 31. 

FIGURE 34.—ENGLISH, WHIELDON TYPE FINE EARTHENWARE. 

a, Body sherd, probably from a teapot. Cream-colored body 

covered with a mottled brown lead-glaze and decorated 

with a relief foliate design. So-called tortoise-shell glaze. 

Whieldon type, circa 1755-1775. b. Rim sherd from a 

saucer. Thinly potted cream-colored body covered with a 

mottled brown and green lead-glaze. Whieldon type, 

circa 1755-1775. c, Body sherd, probably from a teapot. 

Cream-colored body covered on interior with a clear leadglaze and on exterior with a brown and green lead-glaze. 

Exterior is also decorated with fine, incised lines. Whieldon 

type, circa 1755-1775. d. Body sherd from a cover, probably from a sugar bowl or teapot. Cream-colored body 

covered on both sides with a brown, motded lead-glaze 

containing small splashes of light green. The leaf is applied 

and was part of the base decoration for the finial. So-called 

tortoise-shell glaze. Whieldon type, circa 1755-1775. e, 

Rim sherd from a saucer. Thinly potted cream-colored 

body covered with a mottled brown lead-glaze. So-called 

tortoise-shell glaze. Whieldon type, circa 1755-1775. / , 

Finial, probably from a teapot. Cream-colored body covered 

with a mottled brown and green lead-glaze. Finial molded 

in shape of a flower. Whieldon type, circa 1755-1775. 
NUMBER 4 65 

\ IN 
66 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

One thematic variation of the fruit and vegetable lead-glazed earthenwares frequently associated 

with Josiah Wedgwood I is decorated with alternating 

vertical green and yellow bands and overall, evenly 

spaced black or dark green dots.'^^ This decorative 

scheme was probably intended to imitate a melon. 

Three sherds from a teapot and a saucer of this type 

were recovered (Figure 35&). Fragments of simflar 

dotted green and yellow wares have been found at 

the Great Crossing of the Youghiogheny, Pennsylvania (Appendix C, Figure 2b).'^'^ 

It is probable that entire tea services were fairly 

uncommon at Fort Michilimackinac. Rather, those 

who li.ed well enough to enjoy tea, coffee, or chocolate probably often possessed sets of cups (or tea 

bowls) and saucers that were used with other nonmatching pieces. The archeological evidence of this 

practice is confirmed by some documentary sources 

that reveal teapots, milk jugs, and sugar bowls sold as 

separate items. For example, in May of 1776 the 

trader John Askin purchased from the Detroit 

merchants, Alexander and William Macomb, several 

ceramic pieces including a teapot for twelve shillings.^° 

When Askin iTiade an inventory of his effects at 

Michilimackinac in 1778, he listed no tea services. He 

did list numerous cups, saucers, milk jugs, and sugars, 

however. Two separate entries scheduled "6 Tea 

Potts" and "3 Tea Potts."^^ 

Closely related to the green glazed wares discussed 

in the preceding paragraphs, and perhaps rarer than 

the vegetable and fruit imitations, is a finely grained, 

buff-colored earthenware decorated with foliate relief 

patterns and a green glaze covered with an overall 

design of dotted circles in dark green. The distinctive 

decorative motifs that set these wares apart have been 

sometimes attributed to William Greatbatch, a 

skilled Staffordshire potter who occasionally worked 

for both Whieldon and Wedgwood.*^ Four green 

78 Wedgwood's green and yellow glazes are discussed in 

MANKOWITZ, pp. 25-39, and a green and yellow glazed piece 

of the melon type is illustrated in color in Plate II. Excellent 

color illustrations of the cauliflower arc in Ross TAGGERT, 

The Burnap Collection oj English Pottery, facing p . 144. 

70 Artifact collections. Fort Ligonier. 

80 Macomb Account Book, 1776-1778, p. 50. 

81 John Askin's Inventory of 1778, pp. 12, and 14. 

82 See DONAL D TOWNER , "William Greatbatc h an d the Early 

Wedgwoo d Wares, " Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle, 

vol. 5, part 4, plate 177a. 

glazed sherds of this type were found at the Fort 

(Figures 35c, and i). One has a leaf in relief molded 

in the same manner a? found on intact pieces of this 

type that have survived in various collections of 

eighteenth-century English ceramics.^^ The green 

dotted sherds from Fort Michilimackinac are from 

dinner plates or platters. 

83 TWO platters of this type are in the Smithsonian's collections, catalog no. 62.756A, B. 

FIGURE 35.—ENGLISH FINE EARTHENWARE DECORATED WITH 

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MOTIFS, a, Rim sherd from a teapot. 

Cream-colored body molded in form of a pineapple. Interior covered with a clear lead-glaze, exterior covered with 

a bright yellow lead-glaze. Whieldon-Wedgwood type, 

circa 1755-1775. b, Rim sherd from a saucer. Creamcolored body covered with a green lead-glaze, decorated 

with regular lines of dark green or black dots. Wedgwood 

type, circa 1755-1775. c, Body sherd from a plate or small 

platter. Cream-colored body covered with a green leadglaze; decorated with a molded foliate pattern and an 

overall design of dotted circles; circa 1755-1775. d, Body 

sherd from a teapot. Cream-colored body molded in form 

of a cabbage. Interior covered with a clear lead-glaze, 

exterior covered with a bright green lead-glaze; circa 1755-

1775. e, Body sherd from a teapot. Cream-colored body 

molded in imitation of a cauliflower. Interior covered with 

a clear lead-glaze, exterior covered with a green and whitish 

lead-glaze; circa 1755-1775. / , Base section from a saucer. 

Cream-colored body covered on exterior with a clear leadglaze and on interior ^vith a green and yellow lead-glaze 

and regular lines of dots, probably in imitation of a mellon; 

Wedgwood type, circa 1755-1775. g, Rim sherd from a 

plate or small platter. Cream-colored body molded in the 

form of a cabbage leaf and covered with a green lead-glaze; 

circa 1 755-1775. /;, Section of a teapot cover with a rabbit 

finial. Cream-colored body molded in imitation of a cabbage 

leaf and covered with a green, yellow, and brown leadglaze; circa 1755-1775. i, Body sherd from a plate or 

small platter. Cieam-colored body with a green lead-glaze; 

decorated with an overall design of dotted circles; circa 

1755-1775. j, Rim sherd from a small bowl. Creamcolored body molded in imitation of a cauliflower, covered 

with a clear, green and white lead-glaze; circa 1755-1775. 
NUMBER 4 67 

Ijik 

^"^-^^ 

a 

J 

1 »N 

C 
68 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Class B—Stoneware 

GROUP I— 

ENGLISH WHITE SALTGLAZED 

STONEWARE 

Stoneware occupies a roughly defined place midway between earthenware and porcelain. Stoneware 

is a hard, high fired ceramic that, during the process 

of manufacture, has attained some degree of vitrification rendering it generally impermeable to liquids. 

Manufacturing methods and materials used varied 

greatly in the eighteenth century, resulting in a wide 

range of ceramics that can be described as stoneware. 

Porcelain, which is also vitrified, is excluded from 

the category of stoneware by virtue of its special 

ingredients, translucency, and usual slightly higher 

firing temperatures. 

A major segment of mid-eighteen-century English 

production consisted of fine white stoneware covered 

with a clear saltglaze. Wares of this type are frequently 

categorized under the general term "saltglaze." 

Though varying in body composition from fragile to 

more substantial, English white saltglazed stoneware 

logically comprises a generic group.^^ A distinctive 

glaze was achieved by placing common salt in the 

kiln. The ensuing reaction produced a glassy, slightly 

rough surface that could be over-painted or left 

plain. Fine, white saltglazed stoneware flourished in 

England for a comparatively short period—roughly 

1730-1770. Its dechne can be attributed in part to 

the spectacular rise in popularity of the cream-colored 

wares in the years following 1760. ^^ 

Most of the more common types of English saltglaze of the period circa 1740-1770 were found at 

the Fort. A total of 2,465 saltglazed sherds were 

counted; the majority of which represented fragments from dinner services. As in the case of the 

8* Heavy, dark-bodied, utilitarian stonewares are discussed 

in Class B, Group II. Most of these stonewares were also 

saltglazed. For an excellent discussion of various types of 

English saltglazed stoneware, see W. B. HONEY, "English 

Saltglazed Stoneware," Transactions of the English Ceramics 

Circle, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12-22. 

86 By 1770, saltglaze "was hardly being made at all for the 

wider market." W. B. HONEY, English Pottery and Porcelain, p. 84. 

Some was being produced for export as late as the 1780s, however. A scratch blue mug in the Smithsonian Institution (Lloyd 

E. Hawes Collection, catalog 65.88) is decorated in relief with 

the Great Seal of the United States. 

delft and cream-colored wares, utilitarian considerations predominated. Comparable saltglazed stoneware, representative of the types discussed in this 

section, were found at Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania, 

and at the Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia 

(Appendix B, Figure \d, and Appendix C, Figure 

\d).^^ The varieties (in form and decoration) of the 

saltglazed white stonewares from Louisbourg exceed 

those from Michilimackinac. The presence of substantial quantities of fine English saltglaze at Louisbourg reinforces the suggestion that, in addition to 

the wares brought in during the two English invasions, established trade connections between the 

French fortress and the colonies existed prior to (and 

during?) the French and Indian War.^^ 

Practically no eighteenth-century English white 

saltglaze is marked and rarely can a piece be ascribed 

to a specific maker. Much of it was manufactured in 

Staffordshire. 

TYPE A. PLAIN WHITE 

Date: About 1740-1770. 

Origin: England. 

Description: White stoneware covered with a clear 

saltglaze. 

COMMENTS: A total of 1,687 sherds of this type were 

found. Most of these plain sherds represent interior 

fragments from pieces decorated with relief borders 

88 Artifact collections: Fort Ligonier, and the Fortress of 

Louisbourg. 

8' Conversation with Mr. John Dunton, chief conservator, 

Fortress of Louisbourg. 

FIGURE 36.—ENGLISH WHITE SALTGLAZED STONEWARE, a, 

Plate rim sherd. White body covered with a clear saltglaze; 

molded scroll and diaper border. Circa 1750-1770. b. 

Handle section from a small cup. White body covered with 

a clear saltglaze. Circa 1750-1770. c, Plate rim sherd. 

White body covered with a clear sailtglaze; molded trellis 

border. Circa 1750-1770. d, Plate rim sherd. White body 

covered with a clear saltglaze. Circa 1750-1770. e, Plate 

rim sherd. White body covered with a clear saltglaze; 

molded pattern of lozenges and wavy lines. Circa 1750-

1770. /, Rim sherd from a platter or large dish. White 

body covered with a clear saltglaze; molded diaper and 

basket weave pattern with scrolls. Circa 1750-1770. g, Rim 

section from a tureen cover. White body covered with a 

clear saltglaze. Molded gadroon border. Circa 1750-1770. 
NUMBER 4 69 
70 SMITHSONL\N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

(TYPE B) . There were, however, some undecorated 

saltglazed wares at the Fort including dinner plates 

(Figure 36d). White saltglazed tea services or part 

services were used at Fort Michilimackinac (Figure 

36^), but tea services of Chinese porcelain or creamcolored earthenware were predominant. Most of the 

white saltglazed stoneware sherds represented pieces 

from dinner plates or other parts of dinner services. 

This experience is also reflected in the finds from 

other colonial excavations. 

TYPE B. RELIEF DECORATED 

Date: About 1740-1770. 

Origin: England. 

Description: White stoneware covered with a clear 

saltglaze and decorated with molded relief 

patterns. 

COMMENTS: A total of 519 relief-decorated, white saltglazed sherds were found. Nearly all were rim sherds 

from parts of dinner services. Though plates predominated, larger serving pieces also were represented. 

Sherds from platters, round serving dishes, and tureen 

covers (Figure 36) were found with borders matching 

the plates. It is reasonable to conclude that some 

occupants of the Fort brought with them, or imported, 

extensive services. Again, the evidence suggests a material culture surprising for the place and time. 

The molded relief patterns were the common ones 

used on English white saltglaze in about 1760.^^ The 

repertoire of the English manufacturers was a restricted one, and most of the usual relief designs for 

these wares are represented by rim sherds from the 

Fort (Figure 36). Taken in conjunction with the other 

ceramic artifacts from Fort Michilimackinac (espe88 Evidently the same molds were also used to make English 

lead-glazed earthenware table wares manufactured at about 

the same time as the saltglazed stoneware. See CYRIL EARLE, 

The Earle Collection oj Staffordshire Pottery (catalog), nos. 249, 251, 

and 252; English Pottery and Porcelain, catalog of 1948 Exhibition 

of the English Ceramic Circle, plate 14, no. 62. 

FIGURE 37.—BODY SHERDS, recovered at Fort Michilimackinac, from an English white saltglazed stoneware 

teapot with molded decoration similar to the one shown 

in Figure 38. 
NUMBER 4 71 

cially the cream-colored ware and the Chinese export 

porcelain), these saltglaze sherds ofTer sound evidence 

of the extensive use of good table services during the 

period of English occupation. The variety of relief 

patterns represented (conventionalized diaper, basketwork, gadroon, and trellis designs) again suggests a 

repeated pattern of importation in small lots.^^ 

89 For similar saltglaze sherds from other colonial sites, see 

NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester County, 

Virginia, 1957-1959," p. 206, fig. 27, nos. 13 and 14; NOEL 

HUME, Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's View oj Colonial Lije 

and History, p. 296; BARKA, vol. II, plate 137; BESSIE M . 

HENRY, "English Ceramics in the British Virgin Islands," 

Antiques, vol. 71, no. 6, p. 548, fig. 3; STANLEY SOUTH, "Russellborough, the Royal Governor's Mansion at Brunswick Town," 

The Conjerence on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1965—1966, vol. 

I p. 117; C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "The Cultural History of 

Marlborough, Virginia," p. 133, fig. 67; artifact collections: 

Fort Ligonier, and the Fortress of Louisbourg. 

If the common, relief-decorated sherds discussed 

above indicate the norm for ceramics of this type at 

the Fort, several sherds provide evidence of the 

presence of a far rarer piece of English saltglaze in 

northern Michigan. These fragments (Figure 37) 

are from a fine, relief-decorated teapot with a design 

depicting a pastoral scene. Few similar pieces have 

survived intact (Figure 38), and it is probable that 

comparatively few were made.^° In the mid-eighteenth 

'" See BERNARD RACKHAM, The Glaisher Collection oj Pottery 

and Porcelain (catalog), vol. II, plate 36B. Rackham dates this 

teapot from 1760 and notes that this design has been attributed 

to William Greatbach. An earthenware teapot covered with a. 

green lead glaze over this same relief design is illustrated in 

FRANK TILLEY, Teapots and Tea, plate VIII, no. 29. Also see 

TOWNER, "William Greatbach and the Early Wedgwood 

Wares," Transacticns oj the English Ceramic Circle, vol. 5, part 4, 

plates 175, 179. 

FIGURE 38.—ENGLISH WHITE SALTGLAZED STONEWARE TEAPOT decorated with a pastoral 

scene. Five inches high. Collection of Mrs. Elizabeth Chellis. 

359-962 O - 70 - 6 
72 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

century, teapots such as this were often not made as 

parts of tea services, but rather were manufactured 

and sold as separate items. ^^ An analogous discovery 

of a sherd from an exceptional, relief-molded saltglazed teapot was made by Ivor Noel Hume during 

his archeological investigations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia.9-

Of interest are several entries in John Askin's 

inventory of 31 December, 1778. In scheduling his 

efTects, Askin listed "18 White Plates," "5 Large 

White Cups and Saucers," and "1 Small White 

Bowl." ®^ As Askin distinguished his cream-colored 

earthenware as "Queens Wair," it seems probable 

that the trader's "White" ceramics were white 

English saltglazed stoneware. Askin could have been 

referring to delft, but the delft dinner wares at the 

Fort were, from the evidence, blue and white or 

polychrome. Only the delft pill pots and chamber 

pots seem to have been entirely white. 

TYPE C. SCRATCH BLUE 

Date: Circa 1740-1770. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Gray ish-white stoneware with incised 

decoration; the incised lines colored blue, 

and the piece covered overall with a clear 

saltglaze. 

COMMENTS: A distinct type of English saltglazed 

stoneware is termed, for convenience, "scratch blue." 

The decorative technique employed was a simple one. 

Stylized geometric or foliate designs were scratched 

(incised) on the formed pieces prior to firing. Cobalt 

was applied to the incised lines and then the pieces 

were fired and saltglazed. Thus, the blue from the 

cobalt emphasized the incised decoration. Unfortunately, the cobalt blue tended to diffuse and impart 

a grayish tone to the entire piece. In comparison to 

the plain white and white relief-molded saltglaze, 

relatively little scratch blue was made. 

A total of 190 sherds of scratch blue saltglaze were 

recovered at Fort Michilimackinac during the excavation years 1959-1965. As far as can be ascertained. 

all were fragments from tea services (Figure 39<s).^ 

Delicate, indeed dainty, such services again suggest a 

milieu during the English period of occupation far 

different from the stereotyped concept of rough 

frontier living. Though less prevalent than the white 

relief wares, scratch blue has been found in many 

comparable historic sites.^^ Scratch blue sherds from 

the Fortress of Louisbourg and Fort Ligonier are 

illustrated in Appendix B, Figure 2d, and Appendix 

C, Figure \h and Figure 2e. 

TYPE D. POLYCHROME 

Date: Circa 1740-1770. 

Origin: England. 

Description: White stoneware covered with a clear 

saltglaze and decorated in enamel colors 

over the glaze. 

COMMENTS: Sixty-nine sherds of polychrome saltglaze were recovered. This low figure reflects the 

situation in eighteenth-century England where comparatively small amounts of white, saltglazed stoneware were decorated with overglaze colors.^^ In all 

cases where form could be determined, these polychrome sherds from the Fort were found to come from 

tea services or part tea services. Outstanding in this 

group are a partially restored milk jug and cup 

(Figure 39^ and c). Overpainted in enamel colors, 

with iron red and blue predominating, these pieces 

*' See TOWNER, English Cream-Coloured Earthenware, p. 17. 

"2 NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester 

County, Virginia, 1957-1959," pp. 169-170, fig. 8. 

83 John Askin's Inventory of 1778, pp. 12 and 14. 

9< A scratch blue mug (dated 1752) with a chevron border 

similar to the teabowl from the Fort (Figure 39a) is illustrated 

in BERNARD RACKHAM, Early Staffordshire Pottery, plate 55. This 

mug is part of the Schreiber collection in the Victoria and 

Albert Museum. See BERNARD RACKHAM, The Schreiber Collection (catalog), vol. II, no. 82. This chevron border has been 

found on scratch blue wasters from Thomas Whieldon's pottery 

at Fenton Low (circa 1740-1759). See A. T. MORLEY HEWITT, 

"Early Whieldon of the Fenton Low Works," Transactions oj the 

English Ceramic Circle, vol. 3, part 3, plate 61b. 

95 For scratch blue from other historic sites see BARKA, vol. II, 

fig. 138; WATKINS, p. 133, fig. 67. Artifact collections of Colonial 

Williamsburg, Fort Ligonier, and of the Fortress of Louisbourg. 

^^ At Rosewell, where English white saltglaze wares were 

". . , plentiful and generally of good quality including tankards, 

teapots, cups, saucers, bowls, and plates. Only one small 

fragment was found to be ornamented with applied enamels." 

NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester County, 

Virginia, 1957-1959," p. 169. A few sherds of enameled saltglaze were found at Portland Point, New Brunswick. See 

BARKA, vol. II, fig. 138. 
NUMBER 4 73 

I I N 

FIGURE 39.—ENGLISH WHITE SALTGLAZED STONEWARE; POLYCHROME AND SCRATCH BLUE DECORATION, a. Tea bowl. White body covered with a clear saltglaze; decorated with incised swag 

and chevron patterns colored with blue under the glaze. Circa 1760. b. Rim and side section of a cup from the same service as c below, c, Milk jug, approximately, 5% inches high. 

White body covered with a clear saltglaze; decorated in enamel colors over the glaze with 

a garden scene in black, red, and blue. Circa 1750-1770. 
74 SMITHSONL\N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

ar e decorated with a Chinese-style garde n scene. " 

Polychrome saltglaze sherds in limited numbers have 

bee n found at Fort Ligonie r an d Louisbourg."^ 

T h e proportion to the mor e common , plain whit e 

saltglaze wa s roughly the same a t Michilimackinac , 

Louisbourg , an d Fort Ligonier. 

GROUP II— 

STONEWARE, MISCELLANEOUS 

Considered her e ar e a miscellany of eighteenthcentur y stonewares found at Fort Michilimackinac . 

Because of its special characteristics an d numerica l 

preponderance , English whit e saltglazed stoneware 

ha s been treated separately in the preceding section. 

T h e materials discussed in this section continue to 

suggest a complex patter n of cerami c use an d importa -

tion, especially durin g the period of English occupa -

tion. 

TYP E A. RHENIS H STONEWARE 

Date: Eighteent h century. 

Origin: Germany . 

Description: Saltglazed, gray stonewar e decorate d 

with incised, molded, stamped, or applied 

designs. Some pieces also decorated with 

cobalt blue unde r the glaze. 

COMMENTS : Seventy-thre e sherds of this type wer e 

found a t Fort Michilimackina c durin g the excavation 

years 1959-1965. Th e only discernible forms repre -

sented wer e mug s or tankard s (Figur e 40), thoug h 

the possibility tha t some of the smaller sherds wer e 

from chambe r pots canno t be excluded. Drinking— 

for Indian s an d European s alike—wa s a preoccupatio n 

a n d pastime a t the Fort. Numerou s contemporar y 

records refer to this practically essential activity. 

Pete r Pond, a trade r wh o frequented Fort Michilimackina c in the 1770s, reminisced tha t in the summe r 

'^ The painting of the chinoiserie fence on these pieces is 

distinctive. For a similar treatment on English white saltglaze, 

see English Pottery and Porcelain, catalog of 1948 exhibition of 

the English Ceramic Circle, no. 94, plate 20. Also, The Earle 

Collection (catalog), no. 109, p. 47. 

98 Artifact collections: Fort Ligonier, and the Foitress of 

Louisbourg. 

FIGURE 40.—RHENISH STONEWARE, a.- Body fragment, 

probably from a tankard or jug. Gray stoneware covered 

with a clear saltglaze; decorated with foliate patterns in 

relief and with cobalt blue. Circa 1725-1775. b. Body 

fragment, probably from a jug. Gray stoneware covered 

with a clear saltglaze; decorated with incised lines and 

applied flowers. Circa 1725-1775. c. Body fragment, probably from a tankard or jug. Gray stoneware covered with a 

clear saltglaze; decorated with incised lines and bands of 

cobalt blue. Westerwald type, circa 1725-1775. d. Body 

fragment from a tankard or jug. Gray stoneware covered 

\vith a clear saltglaze; decorated with an incised geometric 

pattern and horizontal bands of cobalt blue. Circa 1725-

1775. e. Body fragment, probably from a tankard or a 

jug. Similar decorations as d above, but from a different 

artifact. / . Body fragment from a tankard or jug, showing 

place where one handle terminal was attached. Gray stoneware covered with a clear saltglaze; decorated with a 

molded, geometric pattern. Possibly Hoehr, late seventeenth 

or early eighteenth centuries, g. Rim section of a tankard. 

Gray stoneware covered with a clear saltglaze; decorated 

with an incised foliate pattern and cobalt blue, "io " incised 

on rim. Westerwald type, circa 1725-1775. h. Body fragment from a tankard or jug. Gray stoneware covered with 

a clear saltglaze; decorated with a stylized, incised foliate 

pattern and cobalt blue. Westerwald type, circa 1725-1775. 
NUMBER 4 75 

• _-. ..:.».«d,.-i*K'- d ^ 

^ 

y 

« h ^ . 

''-"'iii» 

Xx1.,> 

/ 
76 SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

season, when the fur traders converged on the Fort, 

some attended to business— 

While Others ware amusing themselves in Good 

Company at Billiards, Drinking fresh Punch Wine 

& Every thing thay Please to Call for While the 

More Vulgar Ware fiting Each other. Feasting was 

Much attended to—Dansing at Nite with Respectable 

Parsons.89 

Mugs made from tough German stoneware were 

particularly suitable for tavern use. Indeed, German 

stoneware mugs were common throughout the English 

colonies in the mid-eighteenth century."^" The majority 

of German stoneware sherds at Fort Michilimackinac 

were found within areas containing materials relating 

to the English period of occupation. As large amounts 

of German stoneware were exported to both France 

and England in the eighteenth century, the context 

in which the sherds were discovered becomes 

important. ^°^ 

Durable, gray stoneware jugs and drinking vessels 

were a speciality of a number of small potteries that 

flourished in the Rhineland in the seventeenth and 

eighteenth centuries. Many of these stoneware manufacturers were located in the Westerwald. The technique of combining various types of plastic decoration 

with some cobalt coloring (Blauwerk) was well established by the advent of the seventeenth century. The 

increase of the export trade in these wares in the 

eighteenth century evidently resulted in a general 

deterioration of quality that is quite evident in the 

stylized geometric and foliate designs on a majority of 

the sherds from the Fort.^°^ 

There were a few exceptions to the mediocre quality 

of the Rhenish stoneware at Fort Michilimackinac. 

99 CHARLES M . GATE.«, editor. Five Fur Traders oj the Northwest: "Narrative of Peter Pond," p. 47. 

"0 Many sherds from German stonewaire mugs have been 

recovered in the archeological excavations at Williamsburg, 

Virginia. Three mugs of this type from Williamsburg are 

illustrated in IVOR NOEL HUME, "Rhenish Gray Stonewares in 

Colonial America," Antiques, vol. XCII, no. 3, p. 352, fig. 6. 

This excellent article discusses in some detail the origin and 

development of these wares, the German export trade, and the 

use of these wares in the colonies. 

'91 For remarks on the export of German stoneware in the 

eighteenth century, see EMIL HANNOVER, Pottery and Porcelain, 

A Handbook for Collectors, vol. 1, p. 221. 

102 For similar sherds from three colonial Virginia sites, see 

NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester County, 

Virginia, 1957-1959," pp. 186-187, figs. 13 and 26; NOEL 

HUME, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck," p. 68, no. 23 and 

fig. 18(23); WATKINS, p. 133, fig. 66. 

Several sherds contain no traces of blue and are 

meticulously decorated with applied flowers (Figure 

40^) or molded geometric designs (Figure 40/).^^^ Of 

special interest is a small rim sherd impressed with a 

fleur-de-lis (Figure 41). This decorative motif has 

been associated with German stoneware made 

specially for the French market.^"^ It is not unreasonable to conclude that some German stoneware came 

to the Fort during the period of French control. 

Similar eighteenth-century Rhenish stoneware has 

been found at the French Fortress of Louisbourg, and 

at the English outpost of Fort Ligonier.^°^ 

'03 A seventeenth-century jug from Hoehr decorated with the 

same molded, geometric patterns as the sherd in figure 40/' is 

illustrated in HANNOVER, vol. I, p. 221, fig. 235. 

104 Writing of the export of German stonewares of the 

Westerwald type, Hannover notes that as a decorative 

device, " . . the lilies of France, . . . witness to the connection 

we have suggested so far as France is concerned." HANNOVER, 

vol. I, p. 221. 

'95 Artifact collections: Fortress of Louisbourg, and Fort 

Ligonier. 

FIGURE 41.—RHENISH STONEWARE. Rim sherd (enlarged) 

from a stoneware mug covered with a clear saltglaze and 

decorated with an impressed fieur-de-lis. First half of the 

eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 77 

TYPE B. BROWN STONEWARE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: Probably England. 

Description: Heavy stoneware decorated in brown 

colors and saltglazed. 

COMMENTS : This type includes a broad class of utilitarian stoneware that was in general use in Europe and 

North America during the eighteenth century. 

Heavy, strong, and particularly suitable for the storage 

of liquids, the ubiquitousness of this stoneware is 

attested to by its presence in most colonial sites.-"^^ 

High fired and varying in degree of vitrification and in 

granular quality, the bodies of these pieces range in 

color from dark buff to dark gray. Some sherds have 

distinctly pinkish interiors. ^°'' Exterior coloration is 

essentially monochromatic, ranging from dark brown 

to cream and grayish-brown tones. Usually the darker 

browns, sometimes mottled (so-called "Tiger Ware"), 

appear at the top of the pieces while the lower parts are 

decorated in lighter tones. All are saltglazed. The 

determination of the place of manufacture of this type 

of stoneware is sometimes difficult and uncertain. 

Much of it was produced in Germany. Similar wares 

were also made in England and in the colonies.^''* 

The opinions of several authorities who have had 

extensive experience in this specialized field lead to the 

tentative conclusion that the sherds from Fort 

'99 See NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester 

County, Virginia, 1957-1959," p. 208, nos. 1 and 4, fig. 28, 

nos. 1 and 4, and pp. 210, 211, nos. 1 and 2, fig. 29, nos. 1 and 

2; NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Tutter's Neck," pp. 67-68, 

nos. 18-22, fig. 18, nos. 18-22; BARKA, vol. 1, p. 371 (found in 

association with seventeenth-century French occupation). 

Also, artifact collections: Fort Ligonier, and the Fortress of 

Louisbourg. 

'9' Though the sherds from Fort Michilimackinac are 

probably all English, this characteristic resulting from firing 

conditions also has been noted by Noel Hume on some pieces 

tentatively attributed to Yorktown, Virginia. See NOEL 

HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester County, Virginia, 

1957-1959," p. 208, no. 2. 

108 Por a discussion of the close relationship between the 

English and German stonewares of this type, see W. B. HONEY, 

English Pottery and Porcelain, pp. 53-59. An important early 

reference to the German export trade in these wares and to 

English manufacturing of a similar stoneware is contained in 

ROBERT PLOT, The Natural History of Oxford-shire (London: 

1677), p. 250. Colonial Virginia stoneware of this type is 

documented in an excellent, recent monograph, C. MALCOLM 

WATKINS and IVOR NOEL HUME, "The 'Poor Potter' of Yorktown," pp. 75-111. 

Michilimackinac are probably of English origin.^°' 

An important industry specializing in the manufacture 

of brown saltglazed stoneware of this type was 

centered in the London area, especially at Fulham 

and Lambeth.^^^ 

During the years 1959-1965, 205 sherds of this 

brown stoneware were recovered at the Fort. In all 

cases where the form of the original object could be 

ascertained, it was determined that the fragments 

were from storage vessels. The small number of 

sherds found might be misleading in any attempt to 

infer that stoneware of this type was rare at the Fort. 

Saltglazed stoneware storage vessels were so strong 

and durable that breakage probably was negligible. 

A few sherds of a related stoneware are included in 

this group (Figure 42a and b). Readily distinguishable 

by the fine, deep brown glaze with a faintly metalHc 

sheen, these sherds are smooth to the touch, rather 

finely grained, and comparatively light in weight. 

Such stoneware usually is attributed to Nottingham 

and dated in the period circa 1690-1765.^" This 

Nottingham type represents a finer stoneware which 

was often used for drinking cups, jugs, and bottles. 

Most of the sherds from Fort Michilimackinac are 

fragments from narrow-necked bottles. Nottingham 

type sherds have also been recovered at many colonial 

sites and at Louisbourg. 

TYPE C. RE D STONEWARE 

Date: Mid-eighteenth century. 

Origin: England. 

Description: Unglazed, finely grained red-brown stoneware. 

COMMENTS: A distinctive English stoneware seems 

to have been developed in the late seventeenth 

century by the brothers John and David Elers, 

Dutch potters, who immigrated to England and 

began manufacturing various kinds of stoneware at 

•99 A number of sherds were examined by Ivor Noel Hume, 

director. Department of Archeology, Colonial Williamsburg, 

and Robert Charleston, keeper of ceramics, Victoria and 

Albert Museum, London, England. 

"9 See JOHN DRINKWATER, "Some Notes on English SaltGlaze Brown Stoneware," Transactions of the English Ceramic 

Circle, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 31-32, Mr. Drinkwater suggests this 

stoneware should be called "Thames-side." 

' " See W. B. HoNE^•, European Ceramic Art, vol. I, p. 454; 

RACKHAM, The Glaisher Collection of Pottery and Porcelain (catalog), 

vol. II, plates 79 and 80. Similar stoneware probably was also 

made in Staffordshire. 
78 SMITHSONL\N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

d 

fe,i 

/ 

I »N 
NUMBER 4 79 

FIGURE 43.—ENGLISH RED STONEWARE TEAPOT. Unglazed, decorated in relief with chinoiseries, 

circa 1760. Excavated at Fort Michilimackinac in 1959. 

FIGURE 42.—ENGLISH BROWN STONEWARE, a. Body sherd, 

probably from a jug. Gray stoneware body of extremely 

light weight covered with a brown slip and a clear saltglaze; 

decorated with a molded rib pattern. Nottingham type, 

circa 1725-1765. b, Rim sherd from a bottle-shaped 

storage vessel. Gray stoneware body of light weight covered 

with a brown slip and a clear saltglaze. Nottingham type, 

circa 1725-1765. c, Rim sherd from a bottle-shaped storage 

vessel. Gray body covered with a mottled brown slip and a 

clear saltglaze. This type is associated with the London area 

stoneware manufacturing centers of Fulham and Lambeth, 

circa 1725-1775. d. Body sherd from a storage vessel. 

Gray body covered with a mottled brown slip and a clear 

saltglaze. Interior surface unglazed. Fulham and Lambeth 

type, circa 1725-1775. e. Body sherd from the side of a 

large storage vessel, }2 inch thick in section. Gray body with 

an unglazed pinkish interior. Exterior covered with a gray 

slip and a clear saltglaze. Circa 1725-1775. / , Body sherd 

from the side of a large storage vessel, % inch thick in section. Buff-gray body with an unglazed interior. Exterior 

covered with a light tan slip and a clear saltglaze. Circa 

1725-1775. g. Base section from a large storage vessel, 

^8 inch thick in section at widest part. Gray body with an 

unglazed, pink interior. Exterior covered with a gray and 

tan slip and a clear saltglaze. Circa 1725-1775. 

FIGURE 44.—STAMPED MARK ON BOTTOM OF THE ENGLISH 

RED STONEWARE TEAPOT shown in Figure 43 (enlarged). 

Fulha m an d later in Staffordshire. Fine-graine d an d 

unglazed, this redwar e often wa s given simple applie d 

relief decorations. Stonewar e of this type achieved 

a t least limited acceptance , an d its manufactur e 

continue d in StafTordshire throughou t the eighteenth 

centur y an d into the early nineteent h century . Elers' 

pieces ar e extremely rare , an d the makers of the 

late r red ware s ar e for the most part unidentified. ^^^ 

"2 It is incorrect to refer to mid-eighteenth century, English 

red stoneware as "Elers ware." 
80 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

b 

a 

FIGURE 45.—ENGLISH RED STONEWARE, a, Body sherd from a teapot. Body of fine-grained 

red stoneware; unglazed. Relief decoration, evidently part of a cartouche. Circa 1760. b, 

Shoulder section from a teapot. Body of fine-grained red stoneware; unglazed. Molded border 

decoration of beads separated by double lines. Circa 1760. c, Teapot spout. Body of finegrained red stoneware; unglazed, circa 1760. 

Fourteen sherds of English, red stoneware were 

recovered in the years 1959-1965. Included in this 

material is a fine teapot, circa 1760-1770 (Figure 43), 

that must be considered one of the major ceramic 

finds at the Fort. Cylindrical in shape, the pot has 

a gadroon border at base and shoulder, a twisted 

handle, and straight spout. The relief decoration 

consists of elaborate and delicate chinoiseries framed 

in rococo demicartouches. The phoenix-like bird at 

the upper left of one side and, indeed, the entire 

composition is markedly similar to the decoration 

on a red stoneware coffeepot in the Glaisher Collection in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, England."^ The applied chinoiserie is identical to that 

"3 RACKHAM, The Glaisher Collection oj Pottery and Porcelain 

(catalog), vol. I, no. 463; vol. II, plate 34A. 
NUMBER 4 81 

on a red stoneware teapot in the Hanley Museum. 

The relief decoration was stamped on the piece, 

probably from brass molds that were commonly used 

for this purpose. The base of the teapot from the 

Fort is impressed with a pseudo-Chinese seal mark 

(Figure 44). This same mark has been found on an 

English red stoneware teapot that also contains an 

inscription (possibly the potter's) "Joseph Edge 

1760.."ii* Other details of the handle and rehef 

borders indicate the possibility that this piece was 

manufactured at Leeds."^ 

The significance of this find lies in the added 

dimension given to our knowledge of ceramics used 

at Fort Michilimackinac. In a larger sense, this 

comprises further evidence of the pervasion of some of 

the more refined aspects of English culture on the 

distant frontiers of North America. Comparatively 

small amounts of English mid-eighteenth century red 

stoneware have been recovered at Louisbourg.^^^ 

(Figure 45.) Analagous to the experience at Michilimackinac, the outstanding find of this type to date 

at Louisbourg has been an exceptional red stoneware 

teapot molded in imitation of joined bamboo stalks. 

Class C—Porcelain 

GROUP I— 

CHINESE EXPORT PORCELAIN 

The preceding sections of this chapter have dealt 

with earthenware and stoneware. This section and the 

following one will consider porcelain. Porcelain, as a 

ceramic material, is high fired, vitrified, and more or 

less translucent."^ It was first made in China, probably during the T'ang Dynasty (A.D. 618-907). The 

vast majority of oriental porcelains are so-called true 

or hard paste porcelains, essentially made of but two 

materials—kaolin, a fine clay basically composed of 

1'^ The identical mark and a redware teapot with the same 

relief decoration, but with a plain handle, have been reproduced in an article on English red stoneware. See 

ROBIN PRICE, "Some Groups of English Redware of the MidEighteenth Century," Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, 

vol. 4, part 5, plates 1 and 2. 

"5 Imitation Chinese seal marks were used on red stoneware 

made at Leeds. For a rather similar Leeds mark, see TOWNER, 

The Leeds Pottery, p. 145, fig. 6(31) and text, p. 146. 

"8 Artifact collections. Fortress of Louisbourg. 

"7 For an excellent definition of porcelain in general terms, see 

HONEY, European Ceramic Art, vol. I, pp. 495^97. 

feldspar, and petuntse, a fusible feldspathic rock-— 

fired at about 1400° centigrade. The resuldng porcelain, when glazed, varied in color from nearly pure 

white to shadings of gray-white, blue-white, and 

green-white. Chinese hard paste porcelain is very hard 

(about 9 Moh's scale) and when broken reveals a 

conchoidal fracture. Potting quality ranged, during 

the 18th century, from superb, thin "eggshell" to 

clumsey, thick, warped pieces. Some Chinese porcelain (due to defective firing) has a bubbly glaze 

frequently termed "orange peel." The foot rings of 

many pieces are unglazed, slightly rough, and often 

show a distinct orange color. 

During the eighteenth century, the China trade 

supplied increasing amounts of porcelain to Western 

Europe. Prior to the American Revolution, Chinese 

porcelain came to the colonies and Canada via 

Europe. There was no established trade between 

North America and the Orient."^ Chinese porcelain 

was imported quite early in the colonial period. Blue 

and white sherds of Chinese porcelain have been recovered in excavations at seventeenth-century Jamestown, Virginia."^ By the mid-eighteenth century, 

Chinese porcelain comprised an important segment of 

the China trade and was generally of good quality, 

yet reasonably priced. Though the secret of manufacturing both hard paste porcelain and soft paste 

porcelain spread through Europe from about 1700-

1775, the Chinese porcelains remained competitive.^^'^ 

A total of 3,082 sherds of Chinese export porcelain 

were recovered at Fort Michilimackinac during the 

excavation years 1959-1965. The majority of these 

sherds were found in an English context, though at 

least some Chinese porcelain was at the Fort during 

the French period, possibly as early as 1740.^^^ Sherds 

from tea services or part tea services constitute approximately 90 percent of the Chinese porcelain 

found. Several large punch bowls and a few dinner 

plates represent the other forms encountered. 

"8 The China trade in porcelain is discxissed in J. A. LLOYD 

HYDE, Oriental Lowestoft, pp. 4—27; and JOHN GOLDSMITH 

PHILLIPS, China Trade Porcelain, pp. 34—41. Types of Chinese 

porcelain made for specific European markets are illustrated 

in MICHEL BEURDELEY, Porcelain of the East India Companies. 

The China trade of the early republic is treated specifically in 

JEAN M . MUDGE, Chinese Export Porcelain for the American Trade. 

"9 COTTER, p. 195, plate 83. 

'20 For a documented study of English imports of Chinese 

porcelain in the eighteenth century, see: AUBREY J. TOPIN, 

"The China Trade and Some London Chinamen," Transactions 

of the English Ceramic Circle, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 37-56. 

'21 MAXV/ELL and BINFORD, 1961, p. 94. 
82 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TYPE A. BLUE and WHITE 

Date: Eigtheenth century. 

Origin: China. 

Description: White, hard paste porcelain decorated in 

underglaze blue. 

COMMENTS: The 2,784 blue and white Chinese porcelain sherds recovered are from pieces of generally 

good quality. The potting is thin and the painting in 

underglaze blue is delicate and precise. Decorative 

motifs include landscape scenes, geometric and foliate 

patterns, and representations of people, birds, deer, 

and dragons (Figures 46, 47, and 48). Border designs 

were conventional, and at least 15 different rim 

patterns were found (Figure 47). The less fine, stereotyped blue and white export wares of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries of the so-called 

"Canton" and "Nanking" types were (as expected) 

unrepresented at the Fort. 

The preponderance of blue and white over polychrome Chinese export porcelain at Michilimackinac 

reflects the experience at other eighteenth-century 

colonial sites.^'^ The extensive range of blue and 

white decorative patterns found at the Fort adds to 

the evidence of continuous importation of small lots 

of ceramics for the private use of traders and army 

personnel. 

We have some documentary confirmation of the 

presence of Chinese procelain at the Fort. The trader 

Joh n Askin at the time of his 1778 inventory owned 

"1 small China Tea Canister," "Sett of New China," 

" 1 Sett of New China," " 1 Box with 2 Setts of China," 

and "1 large China Bowl." ^^^ Though the Askin 

inventory lists a number of ceramic items, only a few 

of them are identified as "China. " In the eighteenth 

century, Chinese porcelain was often called "India 

China." Askin's use of the term "China, " when considered in connection with the forms he listed, rather 

strongly suggests that his "China " was in fact Chinese 

export porcelain. This same distinction was observed 

by Alexander and William Macomb, the Detroit 

merchants who sold general merchandise to John 

Askin. In 1776, the Macombs forwarded a variety 

'22 See NOEL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester 

County, Virginia, 1957-1959," pp. 179-194, figs. 11 and 12; 

WATKINS, figs. 76, 77. Also see BARKA, vol. I, p. 388; and 

artifact collections at Colonial Williamsburg, Fort Ligonier, 

and the Fortress of Louisbourg. 

'23 John Askin's Inventory, pp. 10, 13. A base fragment from a 

"large China bowl," possibly John Askin's, is illustrated in 

Figure 50a. 

FIGURE 46.—CHINESE EXPORT PORCELAIN. All examples 

are white, hard paste porcelain decorated in underglaze 

blue, circa 1725-1775. a, Body sherd, probably from the 

base section of a punch bowl; foliate decoration, b, Base 

section with foot ring (on reverse side) from a small bowl; 

decorated with a Chinese garden scene with figures, c. 

Rim sherd from a bowl; foliate decoration, d, Body sherd, 

probably from the center of a saucer; decorated with a 

Chinese figure and willow trees, e, Base section from a tea 

bowl decorated on interior with a bird and flowers. Exterior 

covered with an overall brown glaze (Type C). /, Shoulder 

and upper rim sherd from a teapot; decorated with a Chinese figure and a willow tree. Probably from the same service as d above, g, Rim sherd from a saucer; decorated with 

a dragon. 
NUMBER 4 83 
84 SMITHS0NL\ N STUDIE S I N HISTOR Y AN D TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 47.—CHINESE EXPORT PORCELAIN. All examples are white, hard paste porcelain 

decorated in underglaze blue. Chinese, circa 1725-1775. The rim sherds shown here are from 

saucers and tea bowls. They are illustrated to indicate the variety of stylized foliate and geometric border designs on the Chinese porcelain tea wares from Fort Michilimackinac. 
NUMBER 4 85 

FIGURE 48.—CHINESE EXPORT PORCELAIN. All examples are white, hard paste porcelain, 

circa 1725-1775. a and b. Tea bowl and saucer decorated with Chinese landscape scenes in 

underglaze blue, c. Saucer decorated with a Chinese landscape of a boat and figures in 

imderglaze blue. 
86 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

of ceramics to Askin and recorded each transaction in 

their account book. In three instances they specifically 

noted the sale of " I Sett China Cups & Saucers," 

"3 China Muggs," and "1 Sett China Cups & Saucers." ^^^ Again, it seems probable that the Macomb's 

"China " was in fact Chinese export porcelain. 

The only marked Chinese porcelain sherd found to 

date at Fort Michilimackinac is a segment from the 

bottom of a blue and white tea bowl. This mark, in 

underglaze blue, upon examination, proved to be a 

pseudo seal mark consisting of meaningless Chinese 

characters. ^-^ Blue and white Chinese export porcelains of the eighteenth century were occasionally 

marked in this manner, though most Chinese export 

porcelain was unmarked. 

TYPE B. POLYCHROME 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: China. 

Description: White to grayish-white, hard paste 

porcelain decorated with enamel colors 

over the glaze. 

COMMENTS: While blue and white pieces were the 

bread and butter of the eighteenth-century trade in 

Chinese porcelains, a great amount of polychrome 

wares were also imported into Europe. As the overglaze decoration required special artists and additional 

firings, the polychrome porcelain cost more to produce. At mid-eighteenth century London auctions, 

blue and white dinner services from Canton sold at 

consistendy low prices, while the less common polychrome Chinese procelains were more expensive.^^^ 

The comparative rarity of the polychrome procelains 

is reflected by the finds at Fort Michilimackinac, 

where only 256 sherds of polychrome-decorated 

Chinese porcelain were recovered in the excavation 

years 1959-1965. The predomination of the blue and 

white type at the Fort duplicates the experience to 

date in other colonial sites.^" 

All the polychrome sherds recovered were from parts 

'24 Macomb Account Book, 1776-1778, pp. 49, 51. 

'25 This mark was examined and interpreted by Dr. John A. 

Pope, director, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. 

'2« GERALD REITLINGER, The Economics of Taste, vol. II, pp. 

202, 320. Also see PHILLIPS, China Trade Porcelain, pp. 38-41. 

'27 See NOEL HUME, Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's 

View of Colonial Life and History, p. 304; artifact collections: 

Colonial Williamsburg, Fort Ligonier, and the Fortress of 

Louisbourg. 

FIGURE 49.—CHINESE EXPORT PORCELAIN. All examples 

are white, hard paste porcelain decorated with overglaze 

enamel colors. Chinese, circa 1725-1775. a, Rim sherd 

from a bowl. Thinly potted; decorated with the face of a 

Chinese figure in black, red, and gold, b. Rim sherd from 

a tea bowl. Very thinly potted; decorated with flowers, 

drapery, and a chain border in brown, green, red, and gold. 

c. Rim sherd from a tea bowl. Thinly potted; decorated 

with a foliate design in red, green, and yellow, d, Body 

sherd from the center of a saucer dish (foot ring is on 

reverse). Decorated with green leaves outlined in black, e. 

Rim sherd from a tea bowl. Very thinly potted, decorated 

with an interior diamond and chain border in red and gold. 

/, Rim sherd from a bowl; decorated with polychrome flowers within a vine-formed cartouche painted in blue and 

gold, g, Rim sherd from a tea bowl. The exterior is 

decorated with a glossy, brown ground (so-called "deadleaf"). 
NUMBER 4 87 

1 

a 

b 

0^^^^^ 

g 

ctn, \ \ N 

359-962 O - 70 - 7 
88 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

of tea services or punch bowls. There were at least 

four polychrome Chinese export porcelain whole or 

part tea services at Fort Michilimackinac. The 

borders on these services were simple geometric 

patterns painted in red or in red and gold (Figures 49 

and 50). Landscapes, foliate designs, and Chinese 

figures supplied the decorative motifs for these services. The quality of the painted decoration was good 

but not exceptional for wares of this type.^^^ Te a 

bowls, rather than tea cups (with handles) prevailed. 

Two part services are specially worthy of comment. 

The rim sherd illustrated in Figure 4:9b is from a tea 

bowl of great delicacy. The porcelain is of excellent 

quality and the potting is very thin—so-called "egg 

shell porcelain." The pieces in this dainty set were 

decorated with polychrome flowers and a partial 

background of finely penciled, brown-red lines. The 

border design represents a chain in red and gold.^^^ 

One tea bowl (Figure 50^) is painted with humoroulsy 

conceived Chinese figures, delineated in the manner 

of European chinoiseries.^^" 

A fragment of a small section of the base and foot 

rim of a punch bowl (Figure 50a) is of extreme interest. The foot rim of this bowl measures %6 of an 

inch in cross section at its edge, widening to K inch 

at the point where it joins the bottom of the bowl. 

The bottom of the bowl is % of an inch thick in 

cross section at its widest point. Using the 2% inch 

arc of the foot ring of this sherd, it is possible to 

compute the outside diameter of the foot ring as 

approximately 6 inches. The measurement of a 

number of Chinese export porcelain punch bowls 

indicates that the diameter of these bowls is roughly 

twice the outside diameter of the foot rings. Thus, 

the bowl at Michilimackinac had a diameter of 

about 12 inches. The bowl itself is of grayish-white 

porcelain, decorated with geometric diaper patterns 

in black and red which surround cartouches that 

probably contained landscape scenes.'^^ 

'28 The quality of body glaze and decoration in eighteenth 

century Chinese export porcelain varied considerably. 

129 For a similar rim design on Chinese export porcelain made 

for the English market, see PHILLIPS, plate 25. 

130 This tea bowl is also illustrated as part of the cover design, 

EUGENE T. PETERSON, Gentlemen on the Frontier. 

131 Diaper patterns of this type are often found on the famille 

rose porcelains of the K'ang Hsi (1662-1722), and Yung 

Cheng (1723-1735) periods. See G. C. WILLIAMSON, The Book 

oj Famille Rose, plates XX and XXI. The quality of the porcelain, however, and the less precise decoration on the Michilimackinac sherd suggests a dating in the Ch'ien Lung period 

(1736-1795). This particular diaper pattern has been termed 

"Octogon and Square." See EDWIN A. BARBER, The Ceramic 

Collector's Glossary, p. 53. 

FIGURE 50.—CHINESE EXPORT PORCELAIN. All examples are 

white, hard paste porcelain decorated with overglaze 

enamel colors, circa 1725-1775. a, Base fragment from a 

large punch bowl, K inch in section at thickest part. Decorated with polychrome landscapes in reserves divided by a 

geometric diaper pattern painted in black and red. b. Tea 

bowl. Decorated with polychrome landscape scenes and 

Chinese figures. The inner border design is in red. c, 

Saucer dish. Decorated with polychrome flowers. The 

border design is in red. 
NUMBER 4 89 
90 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TYPE C. BROWN GLAZE 

Date: Eighteenth century. 

Origin: China. 

Description: Hard paste porcelain with blue and white 

interior decoration and with an overall 

brown glazed exterior. 

COMMENTS: One variety of Chinese export porcelain 

was decorated on the exterior with an overall brown 

glaze. This brown glaze is sometimes identified as 

'dead leaf."^'^-The interior of this type was decorated 

in the usual manner of blue and white export porcelain with conventional flowers, birds, or landscapes. 

Forty-two sherds of brown glazed Chinese porcelain 

were found at the Fort, all from tea bowls and saucers 

(Figure 49_^). This type also has been found in limited 

quantities at Louisbourg. ^^^ 

In attempting to assess the probabilities of ownership of Chinese porcelain tea sets, it has been noted 

that several references in John Askin's inventory and 

the Macomb account book specify teapots or tea sets 

as "China. " If the wealthier traders owned Chinese 

porcelain, there is also archeological evidence that 

some of the British military possessed tea services or 

part services of Chinese manufacture. The excavations 

of 1959 revealed Chinese export porcelain sherds on 

the site of the fireplace and storage closet floor of the 

soldiers' barracks in use during the 1770s.^^^ 

GROUP II— 

ENGLISH PORCELAIN 

During the seventeenth and early eighteenth 

centuries, increasing imports of Chinese and Japanese 

porcelain stimulated Europeans to numerous attempts 

at manufacturing porcelain. By the mid-eighteenth 

century true (hard paste) porcelain was being 

produced by several German factories. A second type 

of porcelain, termed artificial or soft paste porcelain, 

was being made in France and England. This soft 

paste porcelain differed from the hard paste in 

formula. The basic ingredients varied from country to 

country and from factory to factory. In essence, the 

hard paste, made primarily of kaolin and petuntse. 

was expensive to produce and required a great deal 

of technical know-how, especially in the area of kiln 

construction. Most European hard paste porcelain 

factories operated under royal patronage and few 

made money. The soft paste variety, which contained 

additional ingredients such as ground glass (frit) or 

bone ash, proved (in many instances) commercially 

feasible. Soft paste porcelain is vitrified and translucent, but not as hard as the hard paste porcelain. 

Further, when examined under a glass, the fracture 

of soft paste shows as granular, rather than conchoidal 

as in the case of hard paste porcelain. 

Eighteenth-century English soft paste porcelain 

varies considerably in body color, glaze color, weight, 

and color obtained by transmitted light. ^^^ The 

simple, blue and white English porcelain considered 

here can be, with some practice, easily distinguished 

from the blue and white Chinese hard paste porcelain. 

In addition to the considerations outlined above, the 

English porcelain's glaze frequently is marred with 

minute imperfections and with sparse, tiny dots of 

underglaze blue that have become detached from the 

decorated areas. 

Only 61 sherds of English porcelain were found at 

Fort Michilimackinac during the excavation years 

1959-1965. This small count is not surprising when 

factors of price and supply are considered. As noted 

in the last section, good quality Chinese porcelains 

flooded Europe during the eighteenth century. The 

cost in China was so low that the considerable shipping 

expenses involved did not prevent Chinese porcelains 

from competing in the marketplace with European 

porcelains. Fine porcelains from major European 

factories such as Meissen, Sevres, and Chelsea were 

very expensive.^^^ Though the decoration on the 

better European services was often superior, the 

Chinese porcelain body was generally as good as the 

porcelain produced on the Continent (hard or soft 

paste) and was, in many cases, markedly finer than 

the soft paste porcelains manufactured in England 

prior to about 1800. 

For these reasons, English porcelain (and indeed 

all European porcelain) did not occupy a major place 

132 Se e W . B. HONEY , Guide to the Later Chinese Porcelains, 

(catalog of the Victoria and Albert Museum), p. 19, plate 116. 

133 Artifact collections. Fortress of Louisbourg. 

134 MAXWELL and BINFORD, 1961, p. 94. 

'35 For short r6sum6s of characteristics of eighteenth-century 

English porcelains, see J. L. DIXON, English Porcelain oj the 

Eighteenth Century, pp. 46-67. 

136 PQI- sale prices of dinner services from a number of European factories during the 1770s, see REITLINGER, vol. II, pp. 

548-558. 
NUMBER 4 91 

in the material culture of the colonial period. On the 

other hand, these negative factors lend special interest 

to the limited amount of English porcelain found at 

Fort Michilimackinac. Within this context it is of considerable significance that all of the English porcelain 

sherds found at the Fort to date are blue and white. 

Generally, the English porcelain decorated in underglaze blue was the cheapest, as it required less labor 

for decoration and fewer firings. 

TYPE A. LIVERPOOL 

Date: About 1770. 

Origin: Liverpool, England. 

Description: White, soft paste porcelain decorated in 

underglaze blue. 

COMMENTS : Liverpool was a major center of England's 

ceramic industry during the eighteenth century. 

Cream-colored earthenware, delft, and porcelain 

were all manufactured there by a number of small 

factories. Porcelain was first made in Liverpool on a 

commercial basis in about 1755, and before 1800 

about ten difTerent potteries had engaged to some 

extent in the manufacture of porcelain. Attribution 

to specific Liverpool factories is sometimes conjectural, 

but new scholarship is enabling Liverpool porcelain 

to be assigned to a known maker with some degree of 

assurance. Much Liverpool porcelain shares certain 

characteristics and for this reason can be given the 

generic name "Liverpool." 

Forty-one sherds from Liverpool porcelain teacups 

and saucers have been recovered at Fort Michilimackinac (Fig. 51a and /) . These sherds were all 

from the same tea service or part service of white 

porcelain decorated in relief with vertical ribs and 

foliate patterns. The exterior borders of these pieces 

were painted with a rather distinctive floral design 

in a dark, underglaze blue, and the interior borders 

were painted with a simple, geometric pattern in the 

same dark blue. This particular decoration is a wellknown one that is represented in several important 

collections of Liverpool porcelain.'^^ Pieces in this 

pattern have been attributed to the Liverpool pottery 

of Richard Chaffers, but Chaflfers died in 1765 and a 

pitcher in this same pattern is dated 1773.^^^ 

In considering the presence of Liverpool porcelain 

at Michilimackinac, the matter of geography cannot 

be ignored. Liverpool and Worcester porcelain comprise a rather large percentage of the English porcelain found in colonial sites. Worcester was close to 

Bristol which shared most of the American trade 

with Liverpool. The proximity of pottery and seaport 

probably explains the relatively substantial representation of Worcester and Liverpool porcelain in 

colonial sites. This pattern of blue and white porcelain 

in small amounts, and frequently of Worcester and 

Liverpool origin, can be discerned at Colonial Williamsburg, Fort Ligonier, and Louisbourg. ^^^ 

TYPE B. WORCESTER PORCELAIN 

Date: About 1765-1775. 

Origin: Worcester, England. 

Description: White, soft paste porcelain decorated in 

underglaze blue. 

COMMENTS : Eleven sherds of blue and white Worcester 

porcelain were recovered. The small number of sherds 

of this type belies its importance as the fragments 

came from three separate pieces from three different 

tea services or part tea services. The shoulder and 

neck of a gently lobed teapot decorated with flowers in 

underglaze blue (Figure 51(f) and a foot ring and base 

from a slop bowl (Figure 5\e) represent the first of 

these Worcester designs. A body fragment of a teapot 

with flowers and scrolls in relief framing a chinoiserie 

design of a man fishing (Figure 516) is from a second 

and entirely different Worcester pattern. The third 

Worcester design has no molded relief decoration. 

The saucer rim (Figure 5\c) is painted with a chinoiserie landscape and bordered with an alternating 

design of flowers and geometric cross-hatching.^**^ 

137 See KNOWLES BONEY, Liverpool Porcelain, p. 173, plate 

12H; BERNARD RACKHAM and W. B. HONEY, "Liverpool 

Porcelain," Transactions oj the English Porcelain Circle, no. II, 

plate VIII 1. 

138 The Chaffers' attribution is in STANLEY W. FISHER, 

English Blue and Mhite Porcelain oj the 18th Century, pp. 148— 

149, plate 44B. The pitcher dated 1773 is illustrated in The 

Connoisseur, vol. LXXIX, p. 89. 

139 Artifact collections: Colonial Williamsburg, Fort Ligonier, 

and the Fortress of Louisbourg. Interestingly, to date only one 

piece of eighteenth-century French porcelain (a knife handle, 

probably St. Cloud) has been recovered at Louisbourg. 

no This border is ascribed to Lowestoft by FISHER, pp. 178-

179. An examination of this sherd disclosed a number of 

Worcester characteristics that justify its attribution to Worcester 

rather than Lowestoft. 
92 SMITHSONL^^ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 
NUMBER 4 93 

Worcester was one of the great English porcelain 

factories. The sherds from the Fort date from the first 

period of the factory's existence (1751-1783)—the socalled "Dr. Wall period." Worcester did a large 

business in the cheaper blue and white tablewares 

which, to at least some extent, were exported to the 

colonies. ^^^ The pattern of material culture at Fort 

Michilimackinac was, in fact, similar to that in the 

seaboard colonies insofar as porcelain was concerned. 

In both areas Chinese porcelain predominated, while 

the English porcelain was mostly of the simple blue 

and white variety. 

FIGURE 51.—-ENGLISH PORCELAIN. All examples are white, 

soft-paste porcelain, circa 1760-1780. a, Rim sherd from 

a cup or tea bowl (exterior view). White body covered with 

a gayish-white glaze. Decorated with a molded relief pattern of ribs and vines and with a foliate border in underglaze blue. Liverpool, circa 1770. b. Body sherd from a 

teapot. White body covered with a bluish-white glaze. 

Decorated with a molded relief pattern of scrolls and with 

a Chinese fisherman in underglaze blue. Worcester, circa 

1765-1775. c. Rim sherd from a saucer. White body covered with a bluish-white glaze; decorated with a Chinese 

landscape scene in underglaze blue. Worcester, circa 1765-

1775. d, Shoulder and neck fragment from a teapot. White 

body covered with a bluish-white glaze; decorated with 

flowers in underglaze blue. Worcester, circa 1765-1775. e, 

Base section, probably from a slop bowl. White body covered with a bluish-white glaze; decorated with a molded 

lobe pattern. Worcester, circa 1765-1775. /, Rim sherd 

from a tea bowl or cup (interior view). From same service 

as a above, g. Front and base section of a sauce boat. 

White body covered with a bluish-white glaze. Decorated 

with a molded relief pattern of broad leaves and pears and 

with flowers in underglaze blue. Probably Liverpool, 

about 1770. 

TYPE C. BLUE and WHITE (Miscellaneous) 

Date: 1760-1780. 

Origin: England. 

Description: White, soft paste porcelain decorated in 

underglaze blue. 

COMMENTS: Nine sherds of blue and white English 

porcelain from Fort Michilimackinac cannot be 

precisely identified as to place of manufacture. The 

most significant of these finds is a large fragment from 

a sauceboat (Figure 51^). The sauceboat has a flat 

base and molded decoration of broad leaves and 

clusters of pears. A stylized flower is painted below 

the pouring lip. The presence of this sherd from a 

sauceboat suggests that at least one English porcelain 

dinner service (or part service) was at the Fort, thereby 

enlarging the area of known usage for English 

porcelain at Michilimackinac. This important sherd 

is probably Liverpool, but possibly could be the 

product of several other factories which manufactured 

blue and white porcelain in England during the 

second half of the eighteenth century. ^^^ 

1^1 For Worcester from an eighteenth-century Virginia site, see 

NOEL HIIME, "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester County, 

Virginia, 1957-1959," pp. 181 and 183, fig. 11, no. 21. English 

porcelain from eighteenth-century Virginia sites is predominately blue and white. See NOEL HUME, Here Lies Virginia: An 

Archaeologist's View of Colonial Life and History, p. 304. Also see. 

SOUTH, "Russellborough, the Royal Governor's Mansion at 

Brunswick Town," p. 117 for a description of a marked blue 

and white Worcester teacup recovered at Brunswick, North 

Carolina, from a feature dating 1766-1776. 

1^2 Similar, but not identical, sauceboats are in the collections 

of the Chicago Art Institute and the Henry Ford Museum. The 

Chicago piece is presently identified as possibly Lowestoft 

and the Detroit piece is presently attributed to Plymouth. 
94 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Conclusion 

Our examination of the ceramic artifacts recovered 

from 1959-1965 at Fort Michilimackinac has, we 

believe, produced useful information relevant to 

several areas of American studies. 

First: On a taxonomic basis, the ceramics from the 

Fort have been classified and counted in order to 

present a reasonably clear description of this particular 

class of artifacts. When this information eventually 

is integrated with the work on other types of artifacts 

froin the Fort, a more comprehensive understanding 

of this complex site will be possible. 

Second: Our study has produced solid evidence that, 

during the Fort's English period, at least a few of the 

occupants (both traders and the military) were using 

ceramics that varied but little from those used in the 

more established areas of the colonies. Thus, for some, 

the social life as reflected by the material culture at 

Fort Michilimackinac was on a considerably Jiigher 

level than the heretofore stereotyped view of existence 

at a wilderness outpost. Other types of artifacts from 

the Fort as well as the surviving documentary evidence 

confirm this interpretation. 

Third: Particular finds described in this paper have 

contributed to a more complete understanding of 

the trade and distribution of Chinese and European 

ceramics in eighteenth-century North America. Many 

problems remain unsolved, but new evidence has 

been accumulated. A case in point is the discovery 

at the Fort of the brown and white French (Rouentype) ware (Class A, Group I, Type C). 

Fourth: Negative results, though at times discouraging, serve to point out areas in particular need of 

further scholarship. This study has demonstrated to 

the authors that considerable uncertainty exists in 

the identification of coarse earthenwares of the 

eighteenth century. The field of eighteenth-century 

Canadian pottery has been virtually untouched. 

Fijth: Historical archeology is a comparatively 

new discipline. It is hoped that this in-depth study 

will serve as an indication of possible ways to approach some of the problems represented by a major 

eighteenth-century historical site. Perhaps, as historical archeology achieves a more applicable methodology, this attempt will appear, in retrospect, to 

be a clumsy one. Regardless, a great deal of pertinent 

information has been compiled here. And this data, 

when combined with the work of other historical 

archeologists and cultural historians, should serve to 

add to an understanding of the material culture of 

colonial North America. 
Chapter III 

Interpretation of Historical Site Ceramics 

T: 'HE PRECEDING DESCRIPTION of ceramic 

artifacts from Fort Michilimackinac 

has illustrated several interpretative problems to 

which ceramics data are applicable. Datable ceramic 

artifacts may be used by the archeologist to define the 

temporal dimension and chronology of the site under 

investigation. The association of datable ceramic 

artifacts with structures and structural components 

may assist in the dating of these units and the identification of structural phases and changing construction 

techniques through time. The definition and context 

of different ceramic functional categories (i.e., general 

utility earthenware as distinct from fine porcelain tea 

services) may suggest the occupancy of different 

structures or structural components by persons 

performing certain tasks or engaging in different social 

activities. We also have seen that the presence and 

context of ceramics on a site may serve as a measure of 

certain historical activities which affected its development; for example, European trade logistics, 

economics, and fur-trade policies. 

The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate some of 

these problem applications with data froin Fort 

Michilimackinac and other historical sites. The discussion is divided into two sections, each of which is 

devoted to a class of interpretative problem to which 

ceramics data may be applied. The first such class is 

temporal and chronological and the second is socioeconomic. Here and in the preceding chapter we 

have attempted to demonstrate, to a limited extent, 

these interpretative applications. Of perhaps more 

importance, they are presented for consideration in 

future research. 

Temporal and Chronological Interpretations 

The terms temporal and chronological are often 

used interchangeably to express the same class of 

phenomenon. For the purposes of this discussion we 

distinguish the two as follows. Temporal denotes time 

in general. We may speak of the temporal dimension 

of a site as the segment of time during which it was 

occupied. Chronological refers to a time scale, or to 

the ordering of specific events, sequences, or phases 

of events within a temporal dimension. A site such 

as Fort Michilimackinac is defined by a temporal 

dimension of approximately 66 years (circa 1715 to 

1781) consisting of chronologically ordered events 

(i.e., phases of construction or the French-British 

occupation sequence.) 

The methods and implications of placing a historical site in its temporal dimension with the use 

of datable ceramic artifacts are well known and 

straightforward. The accuracy and importance of 

temporal interpretations based on ceramic evidence 

may vary with the complexity of the site, the presence 

of other datable historic artifacts, and the availability 

of documentary evidence pertaining to the site. For 

example, if a site can be closely dated by historical 

means, the dating derived from ceramics analysis 

assumes less importance, but does serve as a means 

of corroborating the validity of historical sources. 

Unfortunately, in many instances we see the elaborate 

technical description of ceramic artifacts but an inadequate concern with dating the ceramics other 

than for the purpose of assigning the site a temporal 

dimension. Even worse, the ceramics often are overlooked or described in such general terms as to be 

meaningless. 

95 
96 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Examples of temporal interpretations based on 

ceramic evidence occur frequently in the literature. 

Patricia Gall, in reporting the Fort Pic Site, Ontario, 

used ceramic evidence to support conclusions drawn 

largely from structural, historical, and other artifactual 

evidence.^ No attempt was made to distinguish the 

ceramic artifacts in terms of the known chronology 

of the site (1789-1798, 1799-1821, 1821-1865, and 

post 1865). H. G. Omwake and T. D. Stewart in 

reporting the Townsend Site near Lewes, Delaware, 

concluded on the basis of ceramic, kaolin pipe, and 

brick artifacts that the nonaboriginal component of 

the site dates to the latter half of the seventeenth 

century.- Charles H. Fairbanks in describing the 

European ceramics from New Echota, Georgia, was 

able to confirm the very tight historical dating of 

this site (1825-1838) with ceramic evidence.^ An 

excellent, detailed description of ceramic artifacts 

from the Anderson's Mill Site, Texas, has been reported by E. Paul Durrenberger, although a chronological evaluation of the site (circa 1850-1914) was 

not attempted on the basis of ceramic evidence.'* 

The chronological interpretation of historical site 

ceramics is less frequently encountered in the literature. Several notable reports have appeared, however, 

which exemplify the type of useful information which 

can be derived from a detailed chronological analysis 

of ceramic artifacts. The Custer Road Dump Site, 

Mackinac Island, Michigan, reported by David S. 

Brose, presents the results of an extensive historical 

evaluation of the ceramics as a means of interpreting 

the chronology of the site.^ Stanley A. South's interpretations of structure chronology from the site of 

Brunswick Town, North Carolina, on the basis of 

the comparative frequency of dated ceramic types, 

provides an excellent example of chronological 

1 PATRICIA L. GALL, "The Excavation of Fort Pic, Ontario, 

Ontario Archaeology, publication no. 10. 

2 H. GEIGER OMWAKE and T. D. STEWART, editors, "The 

Townsend Site Near Lewes, Delaware." The Archeolog, vol. 15, 

no. 1. 

3 CHARLES H . FAIRBANKS "European Ceramics from the 

Cherokee Capitol of New Echota," pp. 10—16. Papers presented 

at the First and Second Conferences on Historic Site Archaeology, a special issue of the Southeastern Archaelological Conference 

Newsletter, edited by Stanley A. South. 

4E. PAUL DURRENBERGER, "Anderson's Mill (41TV130): 

A Historic Site in Travis County, Texas," Bulletin of the Texas 

Archeological Society, vol. 36, pp. 1-69. 

5 DAVID S. BROSE, "The Custer Road Dump Site: An Exercise in Victorian Archaeology," The Michigan Archaeologist, vol. 

13, no. 2. 

analysis.6 Likewise, Bert Salwen, in interpreting the 

chronology of the Fort Shantok Site, Connecticut, in 

part on the basis of ceramic evidence, was able to 

adequately identify the sequent periods of site occupation from 1000 B.C to A.D. 1750.^ 

There are, of course, logical reasons in some cases 

why chronological interpretations based on ceramic 

evidence have not been attempted. Often, ceramic 

dating is not precise enough to reflect chronological 

events in a short-term occupation site. It would be 

difficult, for example, to segment a temporal dimension 

of say 10 or 15 years on the basis of different ceramic 

types. This does not mean, however, that the dating 

of ceramics from such a short-term occupation site 

should be overlooked altogether. Ceramics which 

are derived from poor or questionable contexts or 

structural associations are of Httle use in interpreting 

contextural chronology. Such factors as culture lag 

or the discrepency between manufacture and importation date often may invalidate the use of ceramic 

artifacts as chronological indicators, if other artifacts 

are present which can be more readily dated. 

Conversely, assuming good contextual and chronological control of ceramic artifacts, there are several 

interpretative problems which may be evaluated 

from the standpoint of ceramics. These are discussed 

below under the headings of stratigraphic, structural, 

and artifact assemblages. 

Stratigraphic Context 

The stratigraphic context of dated ceramic types 

may allow the investigator to assign a time sequence 

to individual stratum and to series of related strata. 

The association of these strata with certain occupational features, structures, or structural episodes would 

then facilitate the chronological interpretation of 

these units or periods. One of the major soil strata at 

Fort Michilimackinac, a brown, highly organic 

refuse deposit, contains white saltglazed stoneware, 

Englsh cream-colored earthenware, stoneware, tinglazed earthenware, and Chinese export porcelain 

in quantity. The presence of cream-colored earthenware, however, places a lower limit on the date which 

may be assigned this stratum (post about 1765). The 

horizontal limits of this stratum conform to the bounds 

^ STANLEY A. SOUTH, "The Ceramic Types at Brunswick 

Town, North Carolina," pp. 1-5. 

^ BERT SALWTN, "European Trade Goods and the Chronology of the Fort Shantok Site," Bulletin oj the Archeological Society 

oj Connecticut, no. 34, pp. 5—39. 
NUMBER 4 97 

of structures known to have existed after 1769. The 

vertical position of the stratum suggests that it was 

deposited very late during the period of site occupation, perhaps 1775-1780. In this case we have dated 

a stratum on the basis of both ceramic composition 

and spatial distribution. The association of this stratum 

with post-1769 structures is supported on the basis of 

concurrent ceramics dates assigned independently. 

Other less easily interpretable strata at the site have 

been assigned provisional dates on the basis of ceramics 

evidence alone. 

Structural Elements 

Often the dates and length of occupation of buildings can be determined by ceramic analyses. For 

example, a structure at Fort Michilimackinac yielding 

ceramic associations consisting of large quantities of 

English white saltglazed stoneware and a small 

quantity of English cream-colored earthenware would 

be placed chronologically between 1761 and about 

1770. Features such as fireplaces, basements, and 

refuse pits could then be associated with the unit on 

the basis of similarities in the relative proportions of 

the same ceramic types, or by means of direct comparison of dates. Phases of stockade expansion at Fort 

Michilimackinac can be roughly dated on the basis 

of distributional evidence of ceramics. Since the Fort 

grew in size with each stockade expansion, we would 

expect earlier dated ceramic types to exhibit the most 

restricted range of spatial distribution. Ceramics dating 

after 1765 would be distributed laterally to the maximum size of the Fort enclosure. Thus, the length of 

time between any two expansion phases could be 

defined as the time difference between the ceramics 

characteristic of two "expansion assemblages." 

Artifact Assemblages 

Ceramic dating at Fort Michilimackinac has permitted the chronological arrangement of poorly 

dated artifact types and assemblages on the basis of 

ceramic associations. Ceramics are often a means of 

determining the chronology of artifact types which 

cannot be directly dated by comparative or historical 

means. To carry this point to the next logical implication, it may also prove feasible to chronologically 

seriate artifact assemblages by comparing the frequencies of datable ceramic types which the assemblages share in common. Datable ceramic types from 

Fort Michilimackinac have provided a means of 

evaluating the significance of kaolin pipe stem bore 

diameter date determination. For example, a sample 

of 60 kaolin pipe stem fragments from the refuse 

deposit described above has yielded a date of 1754, 

using Binford's regression equation. On the basis of 

ceramic and structural evidence, however, we have 

determined that this stratum was deposited after 

1769. We conclude that the pipe stem sample date 

does not adequately reflect the time of deposition, 

but does give an indication of the chronological 

range of artifacts which one might expect to find in 

this stratum (i.e., about 1740-1775). The stratum 

apparently represents an accumulation of trash over 

a 25- to 35-year period which was deposited rapidly 

sometime between 1775 and 1781. Pipe stem dates, 

therefore, must be evaluated relative to other datable 

artifacts, in this case ceramics, if the date defined is 

to be understood. 

Socioeconomic Interpretations 

Under the general heading of socioeconomic 

interpretations, the following four subjects are discussed : trade and transportation, sociocultural change, 

status and social level, and functional interpretations. 

Distinctions are based on the nature of the socioeconomic interpretations which may be derived 

from the analysis of historical site ceramic data. 

Under trade and transportation are included such 

topics as supply and distribution sources, trade 

routes and networks, and the economics and media of 

ceramics transportation. Sociocultural change includes the subjects of acculturation and changing 

material values. Status and social level include both 

snychronic and diachronic dimensions of the diff"erential use of ceramic types. Functional interpretations 

include the study of ceramic forms as they reflect 

different social or economic activities. 

Trade and Transportation 

That several types of trade and transportation 

phenomena are reflected in the ceramics from Fort 

Michilimackinac has been demonstrated in the preceding chapter. For example, in discussing the 
98 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

ceramic type described as brown and white tinglazed earthenware (Rouen type, Class A, Group I, 

Type C, pp. 38-40), we concluded that the presence 

of this French ceramic type at the Fort indicated 

that some established French trade routes were continued via Canada during the period of British occupation, or, after 1761. As the Rouen type is of French 

origin, we reasoned that its most logical North 

American source was French rather than British. 

Since some of this type was found in a context postdating 1761, it most likely passed from France to 

England and then to Fort Michilimackinac via 

Montreal, in accordance with British navigation acts 

which permitted the importation of European manufactured goods into the colonies only by way of 

England. This is further supported by noting the absence of this type at Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania, an 

English outpost dating between 1758 and 1766. It 

appears that the French trade network which had 

existed prior to 1761 was maintained, at least to some 

extent, after that date and served to supply French 

goods to the occupants of Fort Michilimackinac. 

Similar types of conclusions have been drawn from 

the artifactual remains at other historical sites in 

North America. It may often be possible to identify 

the source and route or direction from which any 

given type of artifact was introduced to a site, in the 

absence of documentary evidence. Viewed in this 

light, ceramics or other artifacts may be a valuable 

means of determining the type of external influences 

to which a site or an area was exposed. For example, 

Gregory Perino, in describing French clasp knives 

from Kaskaskia, Illinois, notes that they were introduced from the north, rather than through New 

Orleans.* This conclusion is based on the knife 

makers' marks, which are identical to those reported 

from Fort Michilimackinac. In other cases where 

documentary evidence is available but defines alternate or conflicting sources, artifactual evidence may 

be used to identify the most logical source. 

The distribution of eighteenth-century ceramics on 

North American sites is a good indicator of the complex and extensive trade networks which existed between and within different countries at that time. The 

extent of the Chinese export porcelain trade system is 

partially reflected in the presence of this type of cerams GREGORY PERINO, "The Kaskaskia Indian Village Site, 

1700-1832," The Conjerence on Historical Site Archaeology Papers 

1965-1966, \'o\. 1, pp. 127-131. 

ics on many North American historic sites. ^ Manufacture and export patterns of a worldwide scope are 

reflected in the presence at Fort Michilimackinac of 

ceramics from China, France, England, Germany, 

probably French Canada, and possibly the colonies. 

As we have seen, particularly in the case of English 

porcelain sherds from the site, it is sometimes possible 

to identify the most probable manufacturer of a given 

ceramic type. Such information in turn may relate to 

broader conclusions of some importance. For example, 

the fact that much of the English porcelain found at 

the Fort originated in the west of England near the 

major ports of Bristol and Liverpool stands as supportive and additional evidence of the nature of 

England's complex trade with its North American 

colonies. Further, the precise scope of this trade has 

been more clearly defined. The evidence of place of 

manufacture may in turn provide source material as a 

basis for more extensive qualitative-comparative research on the part of the ceramics analyst. Evidence 

derived from the above kinds of study—some of which 

is often not recorded in documentary sources—can 

make a valuable contribution to the student of ceramic 

history and technology. 

Several recent authors have considered historical 

sites ceramics from the standpoint of economics and 

transportation media. Interpretations in these areas 

are based on the supposition that the quality and 

variety of ceramics found on a site are a measure of 

the logistics required to efficiently and economically 

transport a variety of ceramic types, and of the relative 

economic level of the population receiving the 

ceramics. 

In reporting the ceramics from the Johnny Ward's 

Ranch site in south-central Arizona, Bernard L. 

Fontana and J. Cameron Greenleaf noted the relative 

value and durability of'Tronstone China." 

Considering its remarkable qualities it is not surprising 

that ironstone was also used by the United States Army 

and carried throughout the West as military posts 

were established. Nor is it surprising that 299 of the 

369 Ward's Ranch sherds were ironstone. Here was a 

ware that met the requirements of the western frontier: 

it was cheap, it could withstand the rigor of overland 

hauling by wagon or train; it was reasonably handsome 

and "respectable." '" 

9 See for example KAMER .\GA-OGLU, "Late Ming and Early 

Ch'ing Porcelain Fragments from Archaeological Sites in 

Florida," The Florida Anthropologist, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 99-110. 

Also see Appendix D of this publication. 

'"BERNARD L. FONTANA and J. CAMERON GREENLEAF, 

"Johnny Ward's Ranch: A Study in Historic Archaeology," 

The Kiva, vol. 28, no. 1, p. 92. 
NUMBER 4 99 

David S. Brose, in reporting the nineteenth-century 

Custer Road Dump Site ceramics, considers the types 

described to reflect the impact of improved intraregional communications in the upper Great Lakes 

area during the last quarter of the nineteenth century 

. the civilian ceramics at Mackinac are drawn from 

greater and greater distances and directions through 

the last quarter of the 19th century. This correlates well 

with the increased variety of types present at each 

succeeding level of the site. In general most of these 

ceramics are drawn from areas in the Great LakesOhio River Drainage or the Atlantic Coast. I would 

consider this period when railroad transportation 

achieved a position equal in importance with waterborne transportation (Langer 1948; Bald 1961) as 

marking the end of more regional historic archaeological complexes. The rather similar assemblages of the 

late nineteenth century sites, as seen in variations of 

decorated earthenwares, indicate that early water 

transportation alone was less effective in the distribution of newer styles, and in creating homogeneity, than 

the railroad-water transportation combination.'' 

Similar factors are reflected in the ceramics data 

from Fort Michilimackinac. A review of the ceramics 

described indicates that there were two distinct 

categories of ceramics in use at the post: forms 

which served everyday utilitarian purposes and forms 

of higher quality and greater expense which were 

used in more sophisticated social contexts. This 

distinction is interpreted both in cultural and 

chronological terms. The French period occupants 

of the Fort were using few ceramic types which 

characterized a high level of social life. First, these 

ceramics were probably too expensive to have been 

afforded by the majority of French period occupants—a population of traders, trappers, and soldiers 

existing more or less on a subsistence level. Second, 

the fragile nature of these expensive ceramics did not 

permit their extensive importation by means of a 

canoe-portage system of transportation. It is during 

the British period that we find the introduction and 

extensive utilization of such fine ceramic types. The 

British introduced a more efficient means of transportation and communication, thus making it possible 

to import fragile goods, such as ceramics, in larger 

quantities. Moreover, during the British period, 

there was a greater market for fine quality and 

expensive ceramic items. Status differences at the 

post were more rigidly defined and the population 

was composed of more individuals maintaining a 

relatively high level of social life (e.g., the families of 

"BROSE, pp. 81-82. 

military officers, successful craftsmen, and traders). 

The demand for fine quality ceramic items was thus 

met by an increasingly efficient transportation system. 

It is evident from the archeological remains that many 

of the British period occupants were maintaining a 

higher level of social life than that of the French period 

occupants. Indeed, this higher level of social life at the 

Fort (always qualified by the fact of geographical 

isolation) seems to have been similar in many respects 

to that of the upper middle classes in the seaboard 

colonies and in England. 

Ceramic artifacts are thus viewed as particularly 

sensitive indicators of differences in transportation 

media and economics. This type of evidence, although 

independently available to a very limited extent 

through historical research in the case of Fort 

Michilimackinac, is of obvious interest to students of 

cultural and ceramic history. Moreover, it allows 

the archeologist to explain the presence and distribution of other types of artifacts in similar terms. 

Sociocultural Change 

Several recent authors have pointed out some of 

the potential implications of interpreting evidence of 

culture change from the material remains of both 

aboriginal and Euro-American historical site occupations. Since phenomena of this sort often are 

reflected in the presence and context of dated ceramic 

types, a brief examination of the implications involved in this type of study is in order. 

The majority of research in this area is based on 

the assumption that a change in the material possessions of a society is accompanied by changes in the 

culture of that society. Thus, the historic artifacts 

recovered from an aboriginal site give some indication 

of the type of change-producing influence to which the 

society was exposed. If one can then determine the 

quantity and quality of material goods introduced to a 

population over a period of time, a measure of the 

type, rate, and extent of culture change which the 

population underwent may be derived. Unfortunately, 

this line of reasoning has produced few significant 

findings. Many authors express the opinion that their 

artifacts tell us to what extent a society was acculturated, without explaining the implications of their 

findings. The theoretical potential of acculturation 

study through historic artifact research has been often 

pointed out, but few attempts have been made to 
100 SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

conduct the research.^- Several other authors (L. Ross 

Morrell, and W^arren L. Wittry, for example) have 

attempted to study the process of acculturation from 

the standpoint of historic artifactual remains.'^ The 

potential value of acculturation studies through the 

means of historic artifact research has perhaps best 

been expressed by Bernard L. Fontana. 

If one is interested in understanding the impact of 

European culture upon American Indian villages, he 

can choose a contact or postcontact site in which to 

dig. If one is interested in knowing what happened to 

Indians who developed a symbiotic relationship with 

non-Indians (as on a folk-urban continuum), he can 

pick a frontier site for excavation. If the objective is to 

study the impact of European material culture on 

villages of a specific tribe and compare this with subsequent Europeans themselves, then the archaeologist 

should look for both protohistoric and contact sites 

and dig both. 

Other questions involving rates, kinds, and amounts 

of culture change, levels of sociocultural integration, 

and many more— all in terms of their relation to material culture—may best be examined in historic sites if 

they are to be examined archaeologically at all. This 

is because we have artifactual data and data from 

documentary sources, often both historic and 

ethnographic. I'' 

We concur with this view and add only that ceramics are particularly useful to this type of research, in 

view of their demonstrated analytic value. This is 

obviously one area of potential interpretative importance which has not been sufficiently exploited in the 

past, and which holds great promise for future historical archeologists. 

The subject of changing material values also is 

considered to be an aspect of sociocultural change. 

This type of interpretation has been most precisely 

demonstrated by David S. Brose in the Custer Road 

Dump Site report. Brose, in considering the large 

variety of ceramic and glass types identified in a 

1- See for example, RODERICK SPRAGUE, "Post-1800 Historical 

Indian Sites," Historical Archaeology, 1967, p. 70, and GEORGE 

IRVING QUIMBY, "Indian Culture and European Trade Goods," 

pp. 11, 12. 

'3 L. Ross MORRELL, "The Woods Island Site in Southeastern Acculturation 1625-1800," Notes in Anthropology (Florida 

State University, 1965), vol. 11; and WARREN L . WITTRY, 

"The Bell Site, Wn9, An Early Historic Fox Village." The 

Wisconsin Archaeologist, n. s., vol. 44, no. 1. 

'* BERNARD L . FONTANA, "On the Meaning of Historic 

Sites Archaeology,'' American Antiquity, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 61-65. 

twenty-year-period trash dump (1876-1896), was 

able to "approximate the popularity of these artifact 

types (particularly ceramics, pressed glass and crockery) recovered throughout the area within a few 

years." ^^ This statement and its demonstration by 

Brose is of considerable theoretical importance. We 

should be able to apply this reasoning to ceramic artifacts recovered from seventeenth- and eighteenthcentury historic sites as well. It may be that this factor 

of changing popularity may have equal importance 

over aspects such as transportation media and 

economics in explaining the presence of ceramics on 

many sites. 

Status and Social Level 

In discussing the economic implications of historical 

site ceramics above, we pointed out that ceramics are 

sensitive and reliable indicators of status differences. 

In the case of Fort Michilimackinac, the French and 

British adapted to living at the post in very different 

ways, both socially and economically. These different 

adaptations are readily reflected in the ceramic remains assigned to the two occupations. This interpretative approach is usually equally applicable to the 

ceramics from other historical sites. In many cases we 

should be able to establish the relative socioeconomic 

level of a population and define any major status differences which existed at a site by means of the distributional analyses of ceramics. 

Functional Interpretations 

The functional interpretation of ceramics assumes 

that different types and forms of ceramic artifacts 

served different social or economic purposes, or that 

they were common to different contexts of utilization. 

It should then be possible to identify the nature and 

locus of specific activities and tasks by studying the 

distribution of various ceramic forms. 

At Fort Michilimackinac, for example, we should be 

able to distinguish structures occupied by soldiers and 

those occupied by wealthy traders by studying the 

distribution and clustering of specific ceramics in 

diff'erent structural contexts. Certain ceramic forms 

are "task specific" in being a part of the artifact assemblage that is common to a certain task, such as 

15 BROSE, p. 72. 
NUMBER 4 101 

storage, blacksmithing, food serving, and cooking. By 

carefully considering the distribution of these "task 

specific" forms, it may be possible to determine the 

different locations in which the tasks were carried out. 

Although this type of analysis has not been attempted on the Fort Michilimackinac ceramic remains 

we consider its potential interpretative value to be of 

importance in future studies. 

Conclusion 

Ceramics are viewed in this chapter as particularly 

reliable and sensitive indicators which may assist in 

resolving interpretative problems confronting the 

historical archeologist. As such, an attempt has been 

made to demonstrate the value of ceramics as interpretative resources which apply to both practical and 

theoretical problems. Although several of the interpretations suggested may seem simplistic and rather 

obvious, we feel that this type of study can contribute 

significantly to the understanding of any historical 

site upon which ceramics are found. A large body of 

evidence exists in ceramic artifacts which has received 

little attention in the literature of historical archeology. 

A broadened interest by historical archeologists in the 

potential applications of ceramics analysis will, we 

believe, materially advance work in the field. 
Bibliography 

HISTORY 

ARMOUR, DAVID A., editor. Massacre at Mackinac—-1763. Mackinac Island, Michigan: 

Mackinac Island State Park Commission, 1966. 

—•——•. Treason'^ At Michilimackinac. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State 

Park Commission, 1967. 

ASKIN, JOHN. Unpublished Inventory of 31 December 1778. Ontario Archives, Toronto. 

BALD, CLEVER F . Michigan in Four Centuries. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. 

, editor. "From Niagara to Mackinac in 1767." Historical Bulletin, no. 2. Detroit: 

The Algonquin Club, 1938. 

CALDWELL, NORMAN W . ''The Chickasaw Threat to French Control of the Mississippi in the 

1740's." The Chronicles oj Oklahoma, vol. 16, no. 4. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Historical Society, 1938. 

CHARLEVOIX, L E P. DE. Journal d'un Voyage jail par Ordre du Roi dans L' Amerique Seplentrionnale: 

Addresse a Madame la Duchess de Lesdiquieres. Volume 3. Paris: Nyon Fils, 1744. 

Collections oj the State Historical Society oj ]Visconsin. Madison, Wisconsin: 1902. 

GATES, CHARLES M. , editor. Five Fur Traders of the Northwest: '•'Narrative oj Peter Pond." 

Toronto, Canada: University of Minnesota Press, 1933. 

FowLE, OTTO . Sault Ste. Marie and Its Great ]Vaterway. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 

1925. 

HAVIGHURST, WALTER. Three Flags at the Straits. Englewood, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 

1966. 

HiCKERSON, HAROLD. "Th e Southwestern Chippewa: An Ethnohistorical Study." Memoir 

92. Vol. 64, no. 3, part 2. American Anthropological Association, Jun e 1962. 

INNIS, HAROLD. The Fur Trade in Canada. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 

1965. 

JACKSON, MARJORIE GORDON. "Th e Beginning of British Trade at Michilimackinac." Minnesota History, vol. 11, no. 3. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society, 1930. 

JOHNSON, IDA AMANDA. The Michigan Fur Trade. Lansing, Michigan: Historical Commission, 

1919. 

JONES, WILLIAM. "Ethnography of the Fox Indians.' ' Margaret Welpley Fisher, editor. 

Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 125. Washington, D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 

1936. 

KINIETZ, W . VERNON. The Indians of the Western Great Lakes: 1615-1760. Ann Arbor: Th e 

University of Michigan Press, 1965. 

MACOMB, ALEXANDER and WILLIAM. Unpublished Account Book. Burton Historical 

Collections, Detroit Pubhc Library. 

MAY , GEORGE S., editor. The Doctor's Secret Journal. Mackinaclsland, Michigan: Mackinac 

Island State Park Commission, 1960. 

Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections. Lansing, Michigan: Pioneer and Historical Society 

of Michigan, 1886. 

NISH, CAMERON. "Th e French Regime." Canadian Historical Documents Series, vol. 1. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall of Canada, 1965. 

O'CALLAGHAN, E . B., editor. Documents Relative to the Colonial History oj the State oj New Tork. 

Albany, New York: 1853-1887. 

Old Fort Michilimackinac at Mackinaw City, Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of 

Michigan Press, 1938. 

102 
NUMBER 4 10 3 

PETERSON, EUGENE T . Gentlemen on the Frontier. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park Commission, 1964. 

^ QUAIFE, MIL O M., editor. The John Askin Papers, 1747-1795. Volume 1. Detroit, Michigan: Burton Historical Records, Detroit Library Commission, 1928. 

ROTH , RODRIS. "Te a Drinking in 18th Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. " 

United States National Museum Bulletin 225; Contributions jrom the Museum oj History and 

Technology, Paper 14. Washington, D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 1961. 

SURREY, N . M . MILLER. Calendar of Manuscripts in Paris Archives and Libraries Relating to the 

History oj the Mississippi Valley to 1803. Volume 1, 1581-1739. Washington, D.C : 

Carnegie Institution of Washington, Department of Historical Research, 1926. 

THWAITES, R . G. , editor. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations oj 

the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610-1791. Cleveland, Ohio: The Burrows Brothers 

Co., 1896-1901. 

CERAMICS 

Published Books and Catalogs 

BARBER, EDWIN ATLEE. The Ceramic Collector's Glossary. New York: The Walpole Society, 

1914. 

Edwin Barber was the leading authority on American ceramics. Though somewhat 

dated, his numerous publications on American ceramics (eighteenth to early twentieth 

century) still comprise the most substantial body of work on the subject. 

BEURDELEY, MICHEL. Porcelain oj the East India Companies. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 

1962. 

Profusely illustrated, this book is especially helpful in its stylistic differentiation of Chinese 

export porcelains produced for various European markets. 

BONEY, KNOWLES. Liverpool Porcelain. London: B. T. Batsford, Ltd., 1957. 

The studies of the late Knowles Boney helped to clarify many of the problems involved 

in the complex production of porcelain in Liverpool. This book, in conjunction with 

several articles cited in this bibliography, is an important one for historical archeologists 

as experience indicates Liverpool supplied substantial amounts of blue and white porcelain 

to the colonies. 

BRUNHAMMER, Y . La Faience Franqaise. Paris: Charles Massin, no date. 

CooK, CYRIL. The Lije Work of Robert Hancock. London: Chapman & Hall, 1948. 

Contains helpful explanations of the transfer printing process. 

DIXON, J. L. English Porcelain oj the Eighteenth Century. London: Faber and Faber, 1957. 

Contains a useful section listing diagnostic aides in determining the place of manufacture 

of eighteenth-century English porcelain. 

EARLE, CYRIL. The Earle Collection oj Staffordshire Pottery (catalog). London: A. Brown & 

Sons, Ltd., 1915. 

Text is not always reliable, but valuable for its many illustrations of important pieces. 

English Pottery and Porcelain (catalog of 1948 exhibition of English Ceramic Circle). London: 

Roudedge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1948. 

FINER, ANN, and GEORGE SAVAGE, editors. The Selected Letters oj Josiah Wedgwood. New 

York: The Born and Hawes Publishing Co., 1965. 

FISHER, STANLEY W . English Blue and White Porcelain oj the 18th Century. London: B. T. 

Batsford, Ltd., 1947. 

AS most English porcelain from colonial sites is blue and white, this book should be 

consulted for general background material on the subject. 

GARNER, FREDERICK H . English Deljtware. London: Faber and Faber, 1948. 

The standard, general work on the subject. 

GIACOMOTTI, JEANNE. French Faience. New York: Universe Books, Inc., 1963. 

Beautifully illustrated and informative. The problem (insofar as historical archeology is 

concerned) is that this—-and most other books on faience—deals with fine quality wares 

seldom encountered by the archeologist. 

359-962 O - 70 - 8 
1 0 4 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

GRAHAM, JOHN M. , II, and HENSLEIGH C WEDGWOOD. Wedgwood (catalog). Brooklyn, 

New York: The Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, The Brooklyn Museum, 1948. 

HANNOVER, EMIL. Pottery and Porcelain, A Handbook jor Collectors. 3 vols. New York: Charles 

Scribner's Sons. 1925. 

HOFMANN, FRIEDRICH H . Geschichte der Bayreuther Fayencejabrik. Augsberg: Benno Filser, 

1928. 

Useful for comparing German decorative styles on tin-glazed earthenware to those of 

other countries. 

HONEY, WILLIAM B . English Pottery and Porcelain. London: A. & C Black, Ltd., 1933. 

——•—. Guide to the Later Chinese Porcelains (catalog). London: The Victoria and Albert 

Museum, 1927. 

—• . European Ceramic Art. 2 vols. London: Faber and Faber, Ltd., 1952. 

The most useful general reference work on the subject. 

HYDE, J. A. LLOYD. Oriental Lowestojt. 2nd edition. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 

1936. 

LANE, ARTHUR. French Faience. London: Faber and Faber, 1948. 

LARSEN, ELLOUISE BAKER. American Historical Views on Staffordshire China. Revised edition. 

Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1950. 

Contains step by step illustrations of the transfer printing process. 

MANKOWITZ, WOLF . Wedgwood. Revised edition. London: B. T. Batsford, Ltd., 1953. 

Well illustrated; an excellent general account of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century 

wedgwood. 

METEYARD, ELIZA. The Lije oj Josiah Wedgwood. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1865. 

MUDGE, JEAN M . Chinese Export Porcelain jor the American Trade. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press, 1963. 

Covers post-revolutionary period. Though most of the porcelains discussed and illustrated 

are "museum pieces," the chapters on trade itself will prove valuable to the historical 

archeologist. 

MuNDY, ROBERT G. English Delft Pottery. London: Herbert Jenkins, Ltd., 1928. 

PHILLIPS, JOHN GOLDSMITH. China Trade Porcelain. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 

University Press, 1956. 

PLOT, ROBERT. The Natural History oj Oxjord-shire. London: 1677. Contains contemporary 

observations on stoneware manufacturing in England. 

RACKHAM, BERNARD. The Schreiber Collection (catalog). 2 vols. Revised edition. London: 

The Victoria and Albert Museum, 1930. 

One of the great English ceramic collections. The extensive illustrations and brief, but 

scholarly, text provides a great deal of useful information. 

—• . Early Staffordshire Pottery. London: Faber and Faber, 1951. 

This excellent book points to a continuing problem for the archeologist in that scant 

attention is paid to the utilitarian, coarse earthenwares. 

. The Glaisher Collection oj Pottery and Porcelain (catalog). Cambridge, England: Gambridge University Press, 1935. 

The Schreiber Collection catalog (above) and this book comprise two of the most important catalogs of English ceramics. 

REITLINGER, GERALD. The Economics oj Taste. 2 vols. London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1963. 

A general work containing a number of pertinent references to ceramic prices and the 

market in antique ceramics. 

SAVAGE, GEORGE. English Pottery and Porcelain. New York: University Books, 1961. 

SMITH, ALAN. Liverpool Pottery. Liverpool: City of Liverpool Museums, 1968. 

A recent, short survey, with some illustrations, of the ceramic industry in Liverpool. See 

comments above on Knowles Boney's Liverpool Porcelain. 
NUMBER 4 105 

TAGGERT, Ross. The Burnap Collection oj English Pottery. Revised edition. Kansas City: 

Nelson-Atkins Gallery of Art, 1967. 

TILLEY, FRANK. Teapots and Tea. Newport, England: The Ceramic Book Co., 1957. 

TOWNER, DONALD C English Cream-Coloured Earthenware. New York: Pitman Publishing 

Co., 1957. 

The standard work on this subject. 

—•. The Leeds Pottery. London: Cory, Adams & Mackay, 1963. 

A detailed study of one of the major producers of cream-colored earthenware. 

WILLIAMSON, G . C The Book oj Famille Rose. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1927. 

Out of print, but contains many excellent illustrations of fine eighteenth-century Chinese 

export porcelains. 

Articles in Periodicals 

BARBEAU, MARIUS. "Canadian Pottery." Antiques, June 1941, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 296-299. 

Generally helpful only in area of nineteenth-century Canadian pottery. 

BUYER, SUSANNE DE. "Faience de Franche-Comte. XVIII siecle. Poligny au Bailliage d'Avol." 

Cahiers de la Ceramique de Verse, no. 34, 1964, p. 104. 

DRINKWATER, JOHN. "Some Notes on English Salt-Glaze Brown Stoneware." Transactions 

oj the English Ceramic Circle, 1939, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 31-39. 

GARNER, FREDERICK H . "Lambeth, Bristol or Liverpool?" Transactions oj the English Ceramic 

Circle, 1948, vol. 2, no. 10. 

This and the following two articles should be read in conjunction with Garner's English 

Deljtware. 

—•——•. "Lambeth Earthenware." Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, 1937, vol. 1, 

no. 4, pp. 43-66. 

—•—•—•. "Liverpool Delftware." Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, 1961, vol. 5, part 2, 

pp. 67-73. 

HEWITT, A. T. MORLEY. "Early Whieldon of the Fenton Low Works." Transactions oj the 

English Ceramic Circle, 1954, vol. 3, part 3, pp. 142-154. 

HONEY, WILLIAM B. "English Saltglazed Stoneware." Transactions oj the English Ceramic 

Circle, 1933, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12-22. 

HUGHES, G . BERNARD. "Animals with a Whieldon Glaze." Country Lije, April 20, 1962, p. 947. 

HURST, ARTHUR. "Ceramics Construction." Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, 1937, 

vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 28^2 . 

Chemical analysis applied to English ceramics. 

LOTHIAN, AGNES. "Vessels for Apothecaries." The Connoisseur Tear Book, London, 1953. 

MAYER, JOSEPH. "On Liverpool Pottery." Transactions oj the Historic Society oj Lancashire 

and Cheshire, vol. VII, pp. 178-210. London: J. H. Parker, 1855. 

MELLOR, SIR GILBERT. "Bristol Delftware." Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, 1934, 

vol. I, no. 2, pp. 22-28. 

NOEL HUME, IVOR. "Rhenish Gray Stonewares in Colonial America." Antiques, vol. XCII, 

no. 3, September 1967. 

PRICE, ROBIN. "Some Groups of English Redware of the Mid-Eighteenth Century." Transactions oj the English Ceramic Circle, 1959, vol. 4, part 5. 

Deals primarily with marked pieces. 

RACKHAM, BERNARD, and WILLIAM B. HONEY. "Liverpool Porcelain." Transactions oj the 

English Porcelain Circle, 1929, no. II. 

TOPPIN, AUBREY J. "The China Trade and Some London Chinamen." Transactions oj the 

English Ceramic Circle, 1935, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 37-56. 

Concerns eighteenth-century London dealers in Chinese export porcelain. 

TOWNER, DONALD. "William Greatbatch and the Early Wedgwood Wares." Transactions 

oj the English Ceramic Circle, 1963, vol. 5, part 4, pp. 180-193. 
1 0 6 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

ARCHEOLOGY 

AGA-OGLU, KAMER. "Lat e Ming and Early Ch'ing Porcelain Fragments from Archaeological 

Sites in Florida." The Florida Anthropologist, 1955, vol. 8, no. 4. Gainesville, Florida. 

An objective appraisal of Chinese export porcelain sherds found on select North American 

sites. 

ARMOUR, DAVID A. "Fort Michilimackinac, the Archaeology and Restoration: A Progress 

Report. " The Conjerence on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1965-1966, Stanley A. South, 

editor, vol. 1, May 1967. 

—• . "Mad e in Mackinac: Crafts at Fort Michilimackinac." Mackinac History, 1966, 

Leaflet no. 8. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park Commission. 

BARKA, NORMAN FORTHUN. Historic Sites Archaeology at Portland Point, New Brunswick, Canada. 

1631-1850. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1965. 

Although apparently unavailable in printed form except by visiting the Harvard University library, this study should be of interest to everyone in the field of historical archeology. Two historic components were revealed at the Portland Point site: Fort La Tour 

(1631-1645) and The Simonds, Hazen, and White trading post (1762-late eighteenth 

century). 

BINFORD, LEWIS R . "A Discussion of the Contrasts in the Development of the Settlement at 

Fort Michilimackinac under British and French Rule. " Southeastern Archeological Conjerence Newsletter, 1962, vol. 9, no. 1. 

This well-known paper points out some of the sociological interpretations which can be 

derived from the analysis of historic site artifacts. 

—. "A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples." Southeastern Archaeological Conjerence Newsletter, 1962, vol. 9, no. 1. 

The dating technique outlined in this report has now been generally adopted and is in 

use by many workers in the field. 

—•—•—•. 1961 Fort Michilimackinac Preliminary Report. Mimeographed report, Department of 

Anthropology, Michigan State University. 

BROSE, DAVID S. "Th e Custer Road Dump Site: An Exercise in Victorian Archaeology.'' 

The Michigan Archaeologist, 1967, vol. 13, no. 2. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of 

Michigan. 

This publication suggests certain types of sociological information which may be derived 

from the analysis of historic artifacts in their proper historical perspective. An appendix 

on nineteenth-century glass is particularly useful for comparative research. 

CLELAND, CHARLES E . A Comparison oj French and British Subsistence Systems at Fort Michilimackinac, Emmet County, Michigan. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Northern Resources and 

Indian Affairs, in press. 

Cleland demonstrates differences in French and British subsistence at Fort Michilimackinac 

through the analysis of faunal remains from French and British storage and refuse pits. 

COTTER, JOHN L . Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown. Washington, D.C : National Park 

Service, 1958. 

DUFFIELD, LATHEL F. , and EDWARD B . JELKS. "Th e Pearson Site: A Historic Indian Site in 

Iron Bridge Reservoir, Rains County, Texas." Archaeology Series, 1961, no. 4. Austin, 

Texas: Department of Anthropology, University of Texas. 

The Pearson site report is well known for its detailed descriptions of historic artifacts, 

particularly glass beads. 

DURRENBERGER, E . PAUL. "Anderson's Mill (41 T V 130): A Historic Site in Travis County, 

Texas. " Texas Archaeological Society Bulletin, 1965, vol. 36. Austin, Texas. 

The nineteenth-century glass and ceramic descriptions in this report are very useful for 

comparative study. 

FAIRBANKS, CHARLES H . "European Ceramics from the Cherokee Capitol of New Exchota." 

Southeastern Archaeological Conjerence Newsletter, 1962, vol. 9, no. 1. 
NUMBER 4 10 7 

FONTANA, BERNARD L . "O n the Meaning of Historic Sites Archaeology." American Antiquity, 

1965, vol. 31, no. 1. Salt Lake City, Utah: Society for American Archaeology. 

This brief study is of great importance to those interested in the anthropological perspectives of historic archeology. 

FONTANA, BERNARD L. , and J. CAMERON GREENLEAF. "Johnny Ward's Ranch: A Study in 

Historic Archaeology." The Kiva, Journal oj the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society, 

1962, vol. 28, nos. 1-2. Tucson, Arizona. 

This report represents one of the first complete descriptions and interpretation of materials 

recovered from a nineteenth-century ranch site. 

GALL, P.ATRICIA L . "Th e Excavation of Fort Pic, Ontario." Ontario Archaeology, June 1967, 

Publication no. 10. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Archaeological Society. 

Reports the excavation of a ninetheenth-century site in Ontario. 

GRIMM, JACOB L . "Excavations at Fort Ligonier, Pennsylvania, 1960-1963." Bulletin 23. 

Eastern States Archaeological Federation, 1964. 

HARRINGTON, J. C "Archaeology as an Auxiliary Science to American History.'' American 

Anthropologist, 1955, vol. 57. 

A well-known paper on the relationship between archeological and historical research. 

The ideas expressed should remain of current importance for many years to come. 

HARRIS, R . K. , INUS MARIE HARRIS, JAY C BLAINE, and JERRYLEE BLAINE. "A Preliminary 

Archeological and Documentary Study of the Womack Site, Lamar County, Texas." 

Bulletin oj the Texas Archeological Society, 1965, vol. 36. Dallas, Texas. 

This report on a historic Indian village of the Norteno Focus contains excellent sections 

on both gun parts and beads and is a must for anyone doing comparative research on 

eighteenth-century European trade goods. 

HENRY, BESSIE M . "English Ceramics in the British Virgin Islands.'' Antiques, June 1957, 

vol. 71, no. 6. 

HODGES, H . W . M . "Th e Examination of Ceramic Materials in Thin Section Slides." The 

Scientist and Archaeology, Edward Pyddoke, editor. London: Phoenix House, 1963. 

JELKS, EDWARD B. "Ceramics from Jamestown." Appendix B to Archeological Excavations at 

Jamestown by John L. Cotter. Washington, D.C . National Park Service, 1958. 

The Jamestown report's ceramics appendix contains one of the most useful descriptions of 

ceramics technology and manufacture that the archeologist has available. Jelks' classification of European ceramics provides a. generally reliable scheme which continues in 

present usage. 

, editor. "Th e Gilbert Site: A Norteno Focus Site in Northeastern Texas." Bulletin 

oj the Texas Archeological Society, 1966, vol. 37. Dallas, Texas. 

This volume contains a wealth of information on both European and Indian historic 

artifacts from Texas. 

KIDD, KENNETH E . The Excavation oj Ste. Marie I. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto 

Press, 1949. 

MARCH, BENJAMIN. Standards oj Pottery Description. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of 

Michigan Press, 1934. 

MARWITT, RENEE. "A Preliminary Survey of Seven Coarse Earthenwares from the Fortress 

of Louisbourg." The Conjerence on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1965-1966, vol. 1. 

——•—•. "Punch Card Design for Ceramic Analysis.'' The Conjerence on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1965-1966, vol. 1. 

MAXWELL, MOREAU S. "Methods of Identification and Some Products of Those Methods." 

Diving into the Past, June D. Holmquist and Ardis H. Wheeler, editors. St. Paul, Minnesota: Historical Society, and the Council of Underwater Archaeology, 1964. 

. "Indian Artifacts at Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinaw City, Michigan." Michigan 

Archaeologist, June 1964, vol. 10, no. 2. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Archaeological 

Society. 
1 0 8 SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

MAXWELL, MOREAU S., and LEWIS R . BINFORD. "Excavation at Fort Michilimackinac, 

Mackinaw City, Michigan: 1959 Season." Michigan State Museum Cultural Series, 1961, 

vol. 1, no. 1. East Lansing, Michigan. 

This is the first major report on the excavation of Fort Michilimackinac. The descriptive 

sections are particularly useful for comparative research. 

MORRELL, L . Ross. "Th e Woods Island Site in Southeastern Acculturation, 1625-1800." 

Notes in Anthropology, 1965, vol. 11. Talahassee, Florida: Florida State University. 

The Woods Island site report provides detailed descriptions and interpretations of historic 

Creek materials dating between 1650 and 1715. 

NOE L HUME, IVOR. "Excavations at Clay Bank in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1962-1963." 

United States National Museum Bulletin 249; Contributions jrom the Museum oj History and 

Technology, Paper 52. Washington, D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 1966. 

Contains detailed identifications and descriptions of a range of historic artifacts from an 

early eighteenth-century colonial site in Virginia. 

—•——•. "Excavations at Rosewell in Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959." United 

States National Museum Bulletin 225; Contributions jrom the Museum oj History and Technology, 

Paper 18. Washington, D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 1962. 

Excavations at the eighteenth-century colonial site of Rosewell revealed a trash pit which 

had been filled between 1763 and 1772. The excellent artifact descriptions, particularly 

of glass and ceramics, has increased the number of reliable comparative sources available 

on this subject. 

—• . "Excavations at Tutter's Neck in James City County, Virginia, 1960-1961." 

United States National Museum Bulletin 249; Contributions jrom the Museum oj History and 

Technology, Paper 53. Washington, D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 1966. 

Another of the series of excellent descriptive reports by Noel Hume . Tutter's Neck is a 

mid-eighteenth-century colonial site in Virginia. 

—•- Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist's View oj Colonial Lije and History. New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf, 1963. 

An informative and witty book on historical archeology in Virginia. Written for the general public, but also most valuable for people working in the field. Well illustrated. 

— . "Historical Archaeology in America." Post-Medieval Archaeology, 1967, vol. 1. 

— . "Rouen Faience in Eighteenth-Century America." Antiques, December 1960, 

vol. 78, no. 6. 

OMWAKE, H . GEIGER, and T. D. STEWART. "Th e Townsend Site Near Lewes, Delaware." 

The Archeolog, vol. 15, no. 1. Seaford, Delaware: Sussex Society of Archeology and History, 1963. 

PERINO, GREGORY. "Th e Kaskaskia Indian Village Site, 1700-1832." The Conjerence on 

Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1965-1966, vol. 1. 

PETERSEN, EUGENE T . "Clay Pipes: A Footnote to Mackinac's History." Mackinac History, 

1963, Leaflet no. 1. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park Commission. 

. Gentlemen on the Frontier. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park 

Commission, 1964. 

. Michilimackinac: Its History and Restoration. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac 

Island State Park Commission, 1962. 

Provides a summary of the archeological research and restoration activities current at 

Fort Michilimackinac. 

"Some Eighteenth-Century Clay Pipes Found at Mackinac." Michigan Archaeologist, 

1963. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

POWELL, BRUCE B . "Classification of Ceramics from Historic Sites." Special issue of the 

Southeastern Archaeological Conjerence Newsletter, edited by Stanley A. South, Jun e 1962, 

vol. 9, no. 1. 
NUMBER 4 10 9 

QtriMBY, GEORGE IRVING. Indian Culture and European Trade Goods. Madison, Wisconsin: The 

University of Wisconsin Press, 1966. 

Quimby continues his earlier "Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes 11,000 B.C. to A.D. 

1800" with a detailed presentation of the historic period. This publication represents a 

useful and current synthesis of the archeologically known historic occupations of the Great 

Lakes region. 

SALWEN, BERT. "European Trade Goods and the Chronology of the Fort Shantok Site." 

Archaeological Society oj Connecticut Bulletin no. 34, 1966. New Haven, Connecticut. 

This article is most useful in exemplifying the method of evaluating the chronology of a 

complex historic site. 

SHEPARD, ANNA O . Ceramics jor the Archaeologist. Washington, D.C : Carnegie Institution 

of Washington, 1965. 

This up-dated reprint of Shepard's original volume (1956) includes a discussion of the 

more recent techniques of ceramics analysis. Although based primarily on the study of 

prehistoric ceramics, this book contains much of importance to the historical archeologist and the ceramics specialist. 

SOUTH, STANLEY A. "The Ceramic Types at Brunswick Town, North Carolina." Southeastern Archaeological Conjerence Newsletter, 1962, vol. 9, no. 1. 

South demonstrates that the comparison of percentage relationships between diff'erent 

ceramic types from different structures on a site is a useful technique of chronological 

analysis. 

. "Russellborough, the Royal Governor's Mansion at Brunswick Town. " The Conjerence on Historic Site Archaeology Papers, 1965-1966, vol. 1. 

. "Repaired Ceramics from Eighteenth Century Sites." Brunswick County Historical 

Society Newsletter, vol. 8, no. 3. Winnabow, North Carolina. 

SPRAGUE, RODERICK. "Post-1800 Historical Indian Sites." Historical Archaeology, I'iSl. The 

Society for Historical Archaeology. 

STONE, LYLE M . "Archaeology at Fort Michilimackinac." Mackinac History, 1967, Leaflet 

no. 9. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park Commission. 

Although of a general nature, this pamphlet describes the current techniques and results 

of archeological research at Fort Michilimackinac. 

. Preliminary Report—1965, Archaeological Investigation oj Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinaw 

City, Michigan. Mimeographed report. The Museum. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1965. 

This and the following report represent preliminary statements on the 1965- and 1966-

season excavations at Fort Michilimackinac. 

. Preliminary Report—1966, Archaeological Investigation oj Fort Michilimackinac, Mackinaw 

City, Michigan. Mimeographed report, The Museum. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1966. 

STOTZ, CHARLES M . Fort Ligonier, Outpost oj the French and Indian War. Ligonier, Pennsylvania: Fort Ligonier Memorial Foundation, 1967. 

TUNNELL, CURTIS. "A Description of Enameled Earthenware from an Archeological Excavation at Mission San Antonio de Valero (The Alamo).'' Archaeological Program Report, 

1966, no. 2. Austin, Texas: State Building Commission. 

VANDERWAL, RONALD L . "Fort Michilimackinac: Dating Techniques." Michigan Archaeologist, 

1966, vol. 12, no. 3. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Vanderwal's report emphasizes the various analytic tools which contribute to the 

chronological evaluation of a structure from Fort Michilimackinac. 

WALKER, IAIN C "Historic Archaeology—Methods and Principle." Historical Archaeology, 

1967. The Society for Historical Archaeology. 

WATKINS, C MALCOLM. "Th e Cultural History of Marlborough, Virginia." United States 

National Museum Bulletin 253. Washington, D.C . Smithsonian Institution Press, 1968. 
1 1 0 SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

WATKINS, C MALCOLM, and IVOR NOILL HUME. "Th e Too r Potter' of Yorktown." United 

States National Museum Bulletin 249; Contributions jrom the Aluseum oj History and Technology, 

Paper 54. Washington, D.C : Smithsonian Institution, 1967. 

This report illustrates the types of detailed conclusions which can be drawn from a correlation of documentary and archeological evidence. 

WITTRY, WARREN L . "Th e Bell Site, Wn9, An Early Historic Fox Village." The Wisconsin 

Archaeologist, new series, 1963, vol. 44, no. 1. The Wisconsin Archaeological Society. 

Historic artifacts from a Fox village site occupied during the period 1680-1730 are described and interpreted. This is a key report for anyone doing research on historic Indian 

sites in the Great Lakes region. 
Appendix A 

Sherd Frequencies 

TABL E 1.—Sherd frequency oj Class A, Group I, tin-glazed earthenware, found at Fort Michilimackinac 

Excavatioi 

Tear 

1959 

1960. .. . 

1961 

1962... . 

1963 

1964 

1965... . 

Undated. 

Total 

TYPE A 

BLUE AND 

W^HITE 

836 

440 

450 

251 

618 

310 

757 

102 

3, 764 

Sherds 

TYPE B 

POLY -

CHROM E 

28 

20 

23 

7 

45 

21 

31 

1 

176 

TYPE C 

BROW N 

AND 

WHITE 

44 

36 

23 

5 

18 

9 

14 

0 

149 

TYPE D 

POWDERED 

BLUE AND 

POWDERED 

PURPLE 

13 

7 

4 

1 

22 

18 

21 

45 

131 

Excavation 

Tear 

1959 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

Undated 

Total 

TABLE 2.-—Sherd frequency of Class A, Group II, cream-colored earthenware, found at Fort Michilimackinac 

Sherds 

TYPE A 

PLAI N 

404 

411 

411 

202 

410 

321 

675 

40 

2,874 

TYPE 

1. Beaded 

Edge 

31 

21 

11 

29 

39 

8 

73 

15 

227 

2. Groove 

and Rib 

4 

7 

3 

0 

3 

11 

9 

1 

38 

a RELIE F BORDERS 

3. Feather 

15 

10 

47 

8 

54 

26 

68 

20 

248 

4. Diamond 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

2 

15 

0 

21 

5. Bead 

and Line 

2 

4 

4 

7 

8 

2 

0 

0 

27 

TYPE C 

POLYCHROME 

16 

1 

2 

3 

9 

13 

13 

8 

65 

TYPE D 

HANDLES, 

FINIALS, 

SPOUTS, ETC. 

4 

4 

0 

3 

6 

2 

10 

2 

31 

TYPE E 

TRANSFER 

PRINTED 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

18 

0 

18 

111 
112 SMITHS0NL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

TABLE 3.^—Sherd frequency oj Class A, Group III, coarse earthenware, jound at Fort Michilimackinac 

Excavation 

Tear 

1959 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

Undated 

Total 

Sherds 

TYPE A 

UNGLAZED 

REDWARE 

5 

0 

1 

0 

8 

13 

0 

23 

50 

TYPE B 

BROWN 

GLAZED 

REDWARE 

39 

10 

54 

19 

58 

50 

37 

0 

267 

TYPE C 

GREEN AND 

PURPLE 

DECORATED 

REDWARE 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

TYPE D 

GREEN 

GLAZED 

EARTHENWARE 

42 

26 

14 

22 

60 

6 

0 

0 

170 

TYPE E 

BROWN AND 

GREEN 

GLAZED 

EARTHENWARE 

5 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

12 

TYPE F 

YELLOW 

GLAZED 

EARTHENWARE 

21 

0 

4 

0 

3 

1 

0 

3 

32 

TYPE G 

CARAMEL 

GLAZED 

EARTHENWARE 

5 

1 

1 

0 

4 

2 

12 

0 

25 

TYPE H 

SLIP-DECORATED 

EARTHENWARE 

16 

7 

2 

5 

19 

15 

3 

0 

67 

TABLE 4.—Sherd jrequency oj Class A, Group IV, fine earthenware, 

jound at Fort Michilimackinac 

TABLE 5.—Sherd jrequency of Class B, Group I, English saltglazed 

earthenware, found at Fort Michilimackinac 

Excavation 

Tear 

1959 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

Undated. . . 

Total. . 

Sherds 

TYPE A 

WHIELDON 

TYPE (BROWN, 

GREEN, AND 

YELLOW GLAZE) 

1 

7 

1 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

16 

TYPE B 

WHIELDON 

TYPE (TORTOISESHELL GLAZE) 

37 

8 

1 

1 

6 

9 

6 

0 

68 

TYPE C 

WHIELDONWEDGWOOD 

TYPE (FRUIT 

AND VEGETABLE 

MOTIFS) 

23 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

3 

29 

Excavation 

Tear 

1959 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

Undated 

Total 

Sherds 

TYPE A 

PLAIN 

329 

146 

244 

68 

430 

189 

271 

10 

1,687 

TYPE B 

RELIEF 

DECORATED 

124 

30 

62 

13 

100 

104 

86 

0 

519 

TYPE C 

SCRATCH 

BLUE 

35 

20 

22 

7 

34 

30 

39 

3 

190 

TYPE D 

POLYCHROME 

22 

11 

10 

0 

4 

4 

18 

0 

69 
NUMBER 4 113 

TABL E 6.—Sherd frequency of Class B, Group II, stoneware, found 

at Fort Michilimackinac 

Sherds 

Excavation 

Tear 

TYPE A 

RHENISH 

TYPE B 

BROWN 

TYPE C 

RED 

1959 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

Undated 

Total 

13 

6 

12 

1 

29 

4 

8 

0 

73 

76 

50 

25 

39 

15 

0 

0 

0 

205 

2 

2 

a8 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

14 

TABL E 7.—Sherd frequency of Class C, Group I, Chinese expor 

porcelain, found at Fort Michilimackinac 

Excavation Tear 

Sherds 

TYPE A 

BLUE AND 

WHITE 

TYPE B 

POLYCHROME 

TYPE G 

BROWN 

GLAZED 

1959 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

Undated 

Total 

649 

227 

241 

76 

653 

457 

471 

10 

2,784 

20 

12 

38 

2 

37 

32 

111 

4 

256 

1 

0 

2 

1 

12 

14 

12 

0 

42 

a Teapot. 

TABL E 8.—Sherd frequency oj Class C, Group II, English porcelain, 

jound at Fort Michilimackinac 

Sherds 

Excavation 

Tear 

TYPE A 

LIVERPOOL 

TYPE B TYPE C 

WORCESTER BLtJE AND WTIITE 

(Miscellaneous) 

1959 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

Undated 

Total 

3 

0 

31 

1 

1 

3 

2 

0 

41 

5 

0 

2 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

11 

2 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

9 

Appendix B 

Related Material from the Fortress of Louisbourg. 

Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia 

FIGURE 1.—FRENCH BLUE AND WHITE FAIENCE PLATE decorated with the arms of one of the 

governors of Louisbourg only (approximately 9% inches in diameter). Photograph, courtesy 

Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Park. 

115 
116 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 2.—REPRESENTATIVE SHERDS FROM THE EXCAVATIONS AT THE FORTRESS OF LOUISBOURG. 

a, French earthenware plate rim sherd. Red body covered with a white slip decorated on the 

interior only with a border of a wavy purple line between two green bands; overall clear 

lead-glaze on interior only. Eighteenth century (Marwitt, Ware 3). b, French faience base 

section and part foot ring from a small bowl. Buff body covered with a tannish-white tin-glaze, 

decorated with blue and yellow. Eighteenth century, c, English earthenware body sherd 

from a bowl or jug. Light red earthenware body covered on the exterior with a yellow slip 

and decorated with tooled-in lines of brown slip; covered overall with a clear lead-glaze. 

Probably Staffordshire, mid-eighteenth century, d, English white stoneware base section from 

a small bowl. White body covered with a clear saltglaze; decorated with incised lines filled 

with cobalt blue (so-called scratch blue). Probably Staffordshire, circa 1740-1760. e, French 

faience rim sherd from a large plate or platter. Light buff body covered with a grayish-white 

tin-glaze; heavily crazed and decorated with a blue foliate and geometric border. Possibly 

Rouen, early eighteenth century. / , Chinese export porcelain body sherd from a plate. White, 

hard paste porcelain body covered with a bluish-white glaze and decorated, over the glaze, 

with foliate and geometric designs in blue, red, and gold. Eighteenth century, g, French 

earthenware body sherd from a dish or plate. Light pink body decorated with a brown slip 

foliate pattern and covered overall with a light green lead-glaze. Eighteenth century (Marwitt, 

Ware IB), h, French or French-Canadian earthenware rim sherd from a deep plate or dish. 

Thickly potted light salmon body containing small pebbles and covered with a thin white 

slip. Over the slip is a mottled dark brown and light green glaze. Eighteenth century (Marwitt, 

Ware IC). i, French earthenware rim sherd from a large plate or a platter. Light red body 

decorated with trailed lines of cream-colored slip and covered overall (interior only) with a 

brown lead-glaze. Eighteenth century (Marwitt, Ware 7). j , English delft base section from a 

punch bowl. BufT body covered by a bluish-white tin-glaze; decorated with a polychrome foliate 

design. Probably Liverpool, mid-eighteenth century, k, French or French-Canadian earthenware rim sherd from a plate. Red earthenware covered with a brown lead-glaze decorated 

with splashes of deep brown. Eighteenth century (Marwitt, Ware 4). /, English or French 

earthenware rim sherd from a chamberpot. Buff body covered with a green lead-glaze. Mideighteenth century, m, French earthenware base section from a small jar. Red body covered 

on exterior with a dark brown lead-glaze and on interior with a white tin-glaze. Probably 

Rouen, mid-eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 117 
118 SMITHSONL\ N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 3.—EARTHENWARE BOWL WITH A PRONOUNCED RIM. Decorated on interior and on 

rim with a green lead-glaze. French or possibly French-Canadian, eighteenth century. Compare with text. Figure 28c. Photograph, courtesy Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic 

Park. 
Appendix C 

Related Material from Two Mid-Eighteenth-Century Pennsylvania 

Sites Occupied by the English Army 

119 
120 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 1.—-REPRESENTATIVE SHERDS FROM FORT LIGONIER, PENNSYLVANIA (1758-1766). 

a, English earthenware rim sherd from a small bowl. Cream-colored body molded in the shape 

of a pineapple. Clear lead-glazed interior and yellow lead-glazed exterior. Whieldon-Wedgwood 

type, about 1760. b, English earthenware body sherd from a tea bowl. Cream-colored body 

covered on interior with a clear lead-glaze and on exterior with a mottled brown lead-glaze 

(so-called tortoise-shell glaze). Whieldon type, mid-eighteenth century, c, English delft body 

sherd, probably from a small bowl. Buff body covered with a white tin-glaze, decorated with a 

foliate pattern in black and green. Probably Liverpool, mid-eighteenth century, d, English 

white saltglazed stoneware body sherd from a plate. White body with molded foliate and geometric decoration, covered with a clear saltglaze. About 1740-1760. e, English porcelain 

base section from a saucer. White, soft paste porcelain body decorated with a landscape scene 

in underglaze blue. Worcester, about 1765. / , English white saltglazed stoneware rim sherd 

from a tea bowl. Thinly potted white body covered with a white saltglaze and decorated, over 

the glaze, with polychrome flowers. About 1740-1760. g. North American earthenware rim 

sherd from a cup. Red body decorated with brown and cream slip and covered overall with a 

clear lead-glaze. Probably Pennsylvania, mid-eighteenth century, h, English white saltglazed 

stoneware base section from a small bowl. White body decorated with incised lines picked out 

in cobalt blue, and covered overall with a clear saltglaze (so-called "scratch blue")- About 

1740-1760. i, English delft body sherd from a bowl. Buff body covered with a white tin-glaze, 

decorated with flowers in blue. Probably Liverpool, mid-eighteenth century, j , Chinese 

export porcelain rim sherd from a tea bowl. White, hard paste porcelain body decorated, over 

the glaze, with a red and blue foliate pattern. Mid-eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 121 

/ 

a 

h 
1 2 2 SMITHSONIA N STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 2.—REPRESENTATIVE SHERDS FROM THE GREAT CROSSING OF THE YOUGHIOGHENY 

RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA (MID-EIGHTEENTH CENTURY), a, English delft body sherd, probably 

from a small bowl. BuiT earthenware body covered on interior with a grayish-white tin-glaze 

and on exterior with a white tin-glaze decorated with powdered purple. Probably Bristol, 

mid-eighteenth century, b, English earthenware body sherd, probably from a cup. Creamcolored body covered on interior with a clear lead-glaze and on exterior with a green leadglaze decorated with regularly spaced dark green dots. About 1760. c, English handle section, 

probably from a teapot. Cream-colored body with relief-molded cabbage leaf pattern and 

covered with a green lead-glaze. About 1760. d, Chinese export porcelain rim sherd from a 

cup or tea bowl. White, hard paste porcelain body decorated with a geometric border in underglaze blue. Mid-eighteenth century, e, English white stoneware base section from a small 

bowl. White body decorated with incised lines picked out in cobalt blue, and covered overall 

with a clear saltglaze (so-called "scratch blue"). About 1740-1760. / , English delft body sherd 

from a bowl. Buff earthenware body covered with a bluish-white tin-glaze and decorated with 

a foliate design in blue. Possibly Bristol, mid-eighteenth century, g, German stoneware body 

sherd from a mug or tankard. Gray body with molded bands and incised foliate designs and 

cobalt blue bands all under a clear saltglaze. Rhenish, probably Westerwald, eighteenth 

century, h, English delft body sherd from a bowl. BufT earthenware body covered with a 

bluish white tin-glaze and decorated with a foliate design in black and green. Probably Liverpool, mid-eighteenth century. 
NUMBER 4 123 

/ 

0 

cn. \ \ M 
Appendix D 

Ceramic Types from Other Eighteenth-Century 

North American Historical Sites 

A checklist 

Site 

Louisbourg, Nova Scotia 

Santa Rosa, Pensacola, Florida 

Rosewell, Virginia 

Russellborough, North 

Carolina 

Portland Point, New Brunswick 

Pemaquid, Maine 

Ligonier, Pennsylvania 

Williamsburg, Virginia 

Jamestown, Virginia 

Tutter's Neck, Virginia 

Clay Bank, Virginia 

Michilimackinac, Michigan 

Great Crossings, Pennsylvania 

Presidio San Agustin de 

Ahumada, Texas 

Brunswick Town, North 

Carolina 

of some French faience v 

V 

V 

V 

V 

ceramic types f English delft V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

^ 

V 

V 

V 

V 

English cream- colored earthen- ware 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

rom eighteenth-century English white saltglaze stoneware 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

Rhenish stoneware V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

Chinese export 

porcelain 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

North Americar English porcelain V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

English, brown 

saltglaze stoneware 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

historical sites French porcelain V English slip- decorated earthenware 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

Date 

Circa 1720-1768. 

1722-1752. 

1763-1772. 

1758-1776. 

1631-1850. 

1630-1775. 

1758-1766. 

18th century 

I7th-18th 

century. 

1701-1710; 

1730-1740. 

Late 17th 

century-18th 

century. 

Circa 1715-1781 

Circa 1750-1800. 

1756-1771. 

1726-1776. 

125 
Index 

Albany, New York, 8 

American Revolutionary War. See Revolutionary War. 

animals, domestic, 19 

arms, governors of Louisbourg, 115, 34 (illustr.) 

Askin, John (trader), 18, 44, 46, 50, 66, 72, 82, 90 

Ayer Collection (Newberry Library) Chicago 11, 12 

Barton, Kenneth J., 59n 

Begon, Claude Michel, lln, 13n 

Bentley, Thomas, 42 

Binford, Lewis R., 3, 7n, 11, 13, 19, 22, 97 

Bishop's Waltham, Hampshire, England, 59 

bottles, 77 

British Museum, 17 

Brose, David S., 96, 99, 100 

Brown, James A., 19 

Cadillac, Antoine de Lamonthe, 8 

Canadian Historic Sites Commission, 5 

Canadian pottery, 51, 59 

"Canton," Chinese porcelain, 82 

Caywood, Louis, 3 

ceramic artifacts, 25-94, 111-125 

analysis of, 1-5, 21, 22 

comparative data, 5 

classification of, 3-5, 25 

decorative (figures, etc.), 30n, 44 

description of, 5 

interpretation of: 

sociocultural, 99, 100 

socioeconomic, 5, 97 

temporal and chronological, 95, 96 

repair, 40, 40n 

sherd frequencies, 25, 26, 111-125 

types, 125 

Chaffers, Richard (potter), 91 

Chaquamegon Bay, 8 

Charlevoix, le pere de, 11, ll n 

Ch'ien Lung period, 88n 

Chellis, Elizabeth, 71 

Chicago Art Institute, 93n 

Chinese porcelain, periods of 

Ch'ien Lung, 88n 

K'ang Hsi, 88n 

Yung Chen, 88n 

See also porcelain. 

Cleland, Charles E., 19 

Clements (William L.) Memorial Library, University of 

Michigan, 15, 16 

Colonial Williamsburg. See North American historical sites: 

Williamsburg. 

combed wares See earthenware: slip-decorated. 

Commandants (at Fort Michilimackinac) 

British: 

Amherst, Jeffery (General), 14 

Balfour, Henry (Captain), 18 

DePeyster, Arent S. (Major), 18 

Glazier, Beamsley (Captain), 18 

Howard, William (Captain), 18 

Leslye (Lieutenant), 18 

Rogers, Robert (Major), 18 

Sinclair, Patrick (Lt.-Governor), 18 

Speismacher, Frederick (Captain), 18 

Vattas, John (Captain), 18 

French: 

Beaujeu-Villemonde, Louis Lienard, Sieur de, 13, 14 

Belestre (Ensign), 11 

Blainville, Pierre Celoron, Sieur de, 13 

Celoron, Sieur de, 14 

Dubuisson, Charles Regnault, Sieur, 13 

Dulhut (Sieur dul'Hut), Daniel de Grosollon, 8 

Duplessis-Fabert, Frangois Lefebre, Sieur de, 13 

Eschaillons (Captain), 11 

Fleurimont, Nicholas deNoyelles, Sieur de, 13 

Forest, Captain de la, 11 

Herbin, Louis, 13 

LaCorne, Louis de, 13 

Langlade, Charles de, 18 

Lanour (Lieutenant), 11 

Lignery, Monsieur de (Captain), 11, 13, 14n 

Louvigny, Louis de la Porte, Sieur de, 8, 13 

Montigny, Jacques Testard, Sieur de, 13 

Noyelles, Charles Joseph de, 13 

Repentigny, Pierre L., Sieur de, 13 

St. Pierre, Jacques Lagardem, Sieur de, 13 

Vercheres, Jean Jarret, Sieur de, 13 

Cotter, John L., 3 

coureurs-de-bois, unlicensed French traders, 11, 13 

Coussante, Marie, 14n 

cream-colored earthenware (English), 4, 42-50, 63, 64—67, 111, 

125 

handles, finials, spouts, 48-50 

plain, 44-46 

polychrome, 48 

relief borders, 46, 47 

transfer printed, 50 

whieldon type, 63, 64 

whieldon-wedgwood type, 64—67 

"dead leaf" (glaze), 90 

delft. See tin-glazed earthenware. 

Denonville, M. de (Governor-General of Canada), 8 

Detroit. See trade: posts. 

"Dr. Wall period." See potteries: Worcester. 

Dunton, John, 36n, 68n 

127 
128 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Durrenberger, E. Paul, 96 

Earle Collection (Staffordshire Pottery), 70n 

earthenware: 

brown and green glazed, 58 

carmel glazed, 59 

coarse, 4, 5, 50-62, 112 

fine, 4, 63-67, 112 

green-glazed, 56, 57 

redware, 51-56 

slip-decorated, 59-62 

yellow-glazed, 58 

See also cream-colored earthenware, and tin-glazed earthenware. 

Elers, John & David (potters), 77, 79, 79n 

Emmet County, Michigan, 2 

English delft. See tin-glazed earthenware. 

English porcelain. See porcelain. 

English stoneware. See stoneware. 

Fairbanks, Charles H., 96 

faience. See tin-glazed earthenware. 

Fazackerly, Thomas, 36n 

Fazackerly-type delft. See tin-glazed earthenware, 

feather edge. See cream-colored earthenware: relief borders. 

Fontana, Bernard L., 98, 100 

Fort Ligonier. See North American historical sites. 

Fort Michilimackinac: 

administration of, 2 

archeological research 2, 22, 19 

British occupation, 7n, 8, 14, 18, 19, 44, 99 

ceramic artifacts, 25-94, 125 

contrasts between French and British occupations, 19, 25, 99, 

100 

elevation, 7 

establishment of, 7, 11, 13 

excavations, 19, 21, 22, 23 (illustr.) 

field records, 2In, 22 

French occupation, 7—14, 19 

history of, 7-23 

pronunciation and spelling, 2n 

transportation, 99 

view of, 20(illustr.), 22(illustr.) 

See also maps. 

Fort Pontchartrain, 8 

Fortress of Louisbourg. See North American historical sites. 

Fox War, 13, 13n 

French and Indian War, 13, 14, 40, 68 

French faience. See tin-glazed earthenware, 

fur trade, 7, 8, 13, 18 

competition, 13, 14 

removal of monopolies, 18 

See also trade. 

Gall, Patricia, 96 

Georgian Bay, 7, 10 (illustr.) 

Glaisher Collection (England), 77n, 80 

Great Lakes, the upper (Huron, Michigan, Superior) 

history of, 7, 7n, 8, 11, 13 

map, 9, 10 (illustr.) 

Greatbatch, William (potter), 66, 71n 

Green Bay, Wisconsin, 8, 13 

Green, Guy, 50 

Greenleaf, J. Cameron, 98 

Grimm, Jacob L., 32n, 38 

Groseilliers, Medard Chouart, Sieur de (fur trader), 7 

Hanley Museum (England), 81 

hard-paste porcelain, 90 

Harrington, J. C , 1, In 

Henry Ford Museum, 93n 

Hins, Joseph, 14n 

historical archeology, 1-5, 94 

historical sites artifacts, analysis of; 1, 2, 25 

See also ceramic artifacts. 

Hawes (Lloyd E.) Collection, 68n 

houses, 14, 18 

reconstruction of, 19, 21 (illustr.) 

Hudson's Bay Trading Company, 8, 13 

Huron, Lake. See Great Lakes, the upper. 

Indians: 

acculturation of, 13, 14, 100 

artifacts, 50n 

trade, 8 

tribes: 

Chickasaw, 14; Chippewa, 8, 14n; Fox, 11, 13; Huron, 8; 

Iroquois, 11, 14; Miamis, 8; Ojibwa, 13, 14, 18; 

Ottawa, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18; Potawatomi, 8; Sioux 8 

"Ironstone China," 98 

Jacques Marquette, Jesuit priest, 8 

James Bay, 8 

Jantzen, Carl, 19 

Jelks, Edward, vii, 34 

K'ang Hsi period, 88n 

King George's War, 13 

King William's War, 8 

knives, clasp (French), 98 

L'Arbre Croche (Cross Village), Michigan, 14 

lead-glazed earthenware. See cream-colored earthenware. 

Ligonier. See North American historical sites: Fort Ligonier. 

Longuevil, Baron, 14 

Louisbourg. See North American historical sites: Fortress of 

Louisbourg. 

Louis XIV, 8 

Louis Nicolas, Jesuit priest, 8 

MS2, 2n 

Mackinaw City, the Village of, 19 

Mackinac Island, 7, 19 

Mackinac Island State Park Commission, 2, 19, 20, 21, 22 

Mackinac Straits, 2n, 7 

history of, 7n 

map of, 9, 12 

Macomb, Alexander and William (merchants), 66, 82, 83, 90 

majolica. See tin-glazed earthenware, 

maps: 

anonymous map, 14, 17(illustr.) 

Great Lakes, the upper, 10(illustr.) 

Mackinac Straits, 9(illustr.) 

Mackinac Straits, anonymous map, 11, 12(illustr.) 

Magra Map, 14, 14n, 15(illustr.) 

Nordberg Map, 14, 14n, 16(illustr.) 

Marest, Jesuit priest, 1 In 

Marquette, Jacques (Jesuit priest), 8 

Marwitt, Renee H., 51, 51n 

Maxwell, Moreau S., 3, 7n, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22 

Michigan Corrections Department, 19 
NUMBER 4 129 

Michigan, Lake. See Great Lakes, the upper. 

Michigan State University Museum, 1, 2, 19, 22, 23 

Michilimackinac, Fort. See Fort Michilimackinac. 

military posts: 

British, 18 

French,8 

missionary settlement (French Jesuit), 7, 8 

Mississippi drainage system, 7 

Montreal, 13, 18, 98 

Morrell, L. Ross, 100 

Munsell Soil Color Charts, 51, 5In 

Mustiers-type wares (French faience), 36 

"Nanking" (Chinese porcelain), 82 

National Museum of History and Technology, 2 

National Park Service, 1 

National Science Foundation Undergraduate Research Participation Program, 19 

Nicolas, Louis (Jesuit priest), 8 

Nippissing, Lake, 7, 10(illustr.) 

Noel Hume, Ivor, 4, 38, 56n 

North American historical sites, 5, 125 

Anderson's Mill Site, Texas, 96 

Brunswick Town, N.C, 93n, 96, 125 

Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, 32 

Clay Bank, Virginia, In, 125 

Custer Road Dump, Mackinac Island, 96, 99, 100 

Fort de Baude, 2, 8 

Fort Ligonier, Pa., 2, 32, 32n, 36, 38n, 40, 42, 44, 64, 68, 72, 

74, 76, 91, 98, 120 (illustr.), 125 

Fort Michilimackinac. See Fort Michilimackinac. 

Fort Pic, Ontario, 96 

Fort Shantok, Connecticut, 96 

Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, 2, 32, 32n, 34, 36, 36n, 

40, 42, 44, 51, 56, 58, 60, 64, 68, 72, 74, 76, 77, 90, 91, 116 

(illustr.), 125 

Gilbert, Texas, In 

Great Crossings, Pennsylvania. See Youghiogheny River, 

Pennsylvania (North American historical sites) 

Jamestown, Virginia, 81, 125 

Johnny Ward's Ranch, Arizona, In, 98 

Kaskaskia, Illinois, 98 

New Echota, Georgia, 96 

New Orleans, Louisiana, 98 

Pearson, Texas, In 

Pemaquid, Maine, 125 

Portland Point, New Brunswick, 125 

Presidio of Los Adais, Louisiana, 34n 

Presidio San Augustin de Ahumada, Texas, 125 

Rosewell, Virginia, In, 72, 72n, 125 

Russelborough, North Carolina, 125 

Santa Rosa, Pensacola, Florida, 125 

Townsend Site, Delaware, 96 

Tutter's Neck, Virginia, In, 125 

Williamsburg, Virginia, 2, 4, 32, 38, 42, 56, 64, 76n, 91 

Womack, Texas, In 

Yorktown, Virginia, 77n 

Youghiogheny River, Pennsylvania, 36, 66, 122(illustr.), 125 

Nova Scotia, 32 

Omwake, H.G., 96 

Ottawa River, 7, 10(illustr.) 

Pellston Correction Camp, 19 

Perino, Gregory, 98 

Petersen, Eugene T., 2 

pineapple wares, 64 

pipes (kaolin), 2, 97 

Pond, Peter (fur trader), 74, 75, 76n 

Ponchartrain, M. de ll n 

Pontiac Uprising, 18 

Pope, John A., Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C, 86n 

porcelain, 4 

Chinese export, 70, 81-90, 113, 125 

English, 90-93, 113, 125 

French, 90, 125 

German, 90 

Japanese, 90 

Porteous, John (English trader), 11, ll n 

potteries (and their geographical locations) 

English: 

Bristol, 30, 98 

Chelsea, 90 

Fulham, 77, 79 

Lambeth, 77 

Leeds, Yorkshire, 42, 42n, 46, 50, 81 

Liverpool, 30, 50, 91, 36, 36n, 93, 98 

Nottingham, 77 

Wedgwood (Joshiah), Staffordshire, 42, 46, 50n, 64, 66, 

68, 79 

Whieldon (Thomas), 63, 64, 66, 72n 

Worcester, 91, 93 

French; 51, 56, 58, 59 

Rouen, 32, 38, 98 

St. Cloud, 32 

Sevres, 90 

German; 74, 74n 

Hoehr, 76 

Meissen, 90 

Westerwald, 74 

Powell, B. Bruce, 3, 3n, 4 

Quebec, 8 

Queen Anne's War, 11, 13 

"Queen's Ware," 44n 

See also cream-colored earthenware: relief borders. 

Radisson, Pierre Espirit (fur trader), 7 

Ramezay, 1 In 

redware. See earthenware. 

Revolutionary War, 18, 25, 38 

Rhenish stoneware, German. See stoneware. 

Sadler, John, 50 

St. Ignace, the Mackinac Straits, 2n, 8 

saltglazed stoneware, 68-77 

See also stoneware. 

Sault Ste. Marie, 7, 8 

Schreiber Collection, London, 72n 

Shepard, Anna O., 26 

shred frequencies. See ceramic artifacts, 

slip-decorated earthenware. See earthenware. 

Smithsonian Institution, Wash., D.C, 1, 2, 66 

soft-paste porcelain, 90 

South, Stanley A., 3, 96 

Staffordshire. See potteries: English. 

Stewart, T. D., 96 
130 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

stoneware, 4, 113, 125 

brown, 77 

English, 68-73, 77-81, 125 

German, 74-76, 125 

plain white, 68-70 

polychrome, 72 

red, 77-81 

relief decorated, 70-72 

Rhenish, 74 

scratch blue, 72 

Superior, Lake. See Great Lakes, the upper. 

T'ang Dynasty, 81 

"tiger ware." See stoneware: brown, 

tin-glazed earthenware, 4, 26—4-2, 111 

also called majolica, faience, delft, 26 

blue and white, 28-34 

brown and white, 38-40 

English delft, 28-36, 40--i2, 125 

Fazackerly-type, 36, 36n 

French faience, 28-40, 125 

polychrome, 34—37 

powdered blue or purple, 40-4^2 

tortoise-shell glaze. See cream-colored earthenware: whieldontype. 

Toulouze, Count de, 14n 

trade: 

British, 8, 13, 18 

French, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 98 

goods, 7, 8 

See also fur trade, 

posts (licensed): 

Detroit, Kaministiquia, LaBaye, Michilimackinac, 

Ouiatanon, 18 

routes: 

lower Great Lakes-Detroit-Lake Huron route, 7 

Ottawa River-Lake Nippissing route, 7 

St. Lawrence River, 13, 32 

transfer printing, 50, 50n 

Vanderwall, Ronald, 19 

Vaudreuil, Marquis de, lln, 13n 

Victoria and Albert Museum, 38, 72n 

Walker, Iain C 5 

Wedgwood, Josiah. See potteries. 

Whieldon, Thomas. See potteries. 

Williamsburg, Virginia. See North American historical sites. 

Wittry, Warren L., 100 

Yazoo County, Mississippi, 14 

Yorkshire. See potteries. 

Yung Cheng period, 88n 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970 0-359-96 2 
jL'--—-

J' 
Fort Michilimackinac as it probably looked through the final 

years of British occupation, 1774—1781. Courtesy of the Mackina

Island State Park Commission, Drawn by Victor Hogg.