A GUIDE TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC REFINED EARTHENWARES by Mary L. Kwas Arkansas Archeological Survey 1999 ‘TYPE DESCRIPTIONS (Creamware 3t-weight, thinly potted ware, exhibiting a yellow tint. May appear slightly green where it pools in crevices. Noel Hume (19692:47) describes creamware as having “an inherent yellowness and appears slightly ‘green where it has pooled in crevices." Miller (1991:5) says "early creamware has a deep yellow tint,” and later creamware is lighter in color after 1775. Creamware begins in the early 1760s and declines in the late 1790s (Miller 1991:1), but see comments on cc ware below. CC Ware ‘A ware exhibiting a cream colored body, contemporaneous with pearlware and whitewares, continuing to the present. The successor to early creamware, but demoted to the cheapest ware available after the development of pearlware and whitewares. Usually undecorated, but may appear with inexpensive decorations, I have seen cream colored, 20th-century sherds with decoration (decal?), which are probably " dime-store" wares. Miller (1980:27) says "Plain white creamware is available today in such places as dime stores and some department stores. ts color is slightly lighter than the creamware from the 1820s, but when it is held next toa piece of ironstone there is no doubt as to what itis." ‘After pearlware and whitewares enter the picture, creamware becomes the cheapest ware available, dating from the 1780s through the 19th century (Miller 1991:1). Manufacturers referred to it as ec ware, ‘meaning "cream colored ware," and Miller (1991:5) says it was undecorated. Garrow (1982:230) also recognizes ce ware, dating it 1820 to the present, but suggests that it was also used for cheap decorated wares, such as dipped, edged, sponged, blue painted, and polychrome, Notes: Garrow 1982, p. 230: 1820-present. Yellow tint in body. Garrow suggests that cheap decorated wares (ipped, edged, sponged, blue painted, and polychrome) are on cc ware bodies. Miller 1991, p. 1: 1780s through 19th century, cheapest ware available. p. 5: ce undecorated creamware/cream colored ware.Pearlware ‘The difficulty in distinguishing pearlware from later wares seems to be the result of relying solely on the appearance of cobalt blue in the glaze. As later whitewares and ironstone also can appear blue, this is insufficient to determine the ware. In addition, as Miller (1980:2) discusses, the continual improvements in ceramics of the 19th century have created a continuum from pearlware through later whitewares, which continues today. Early whiteware bodies may have been poured into Iate pearlware molds, and other overlaps of industry techniques can contribute to the confusion. In order to be more precise, I use several characteristics in combination to determine if a piece is pearlware. These are as follows: A whitish ware that exhibits blue pooling in crevices and should show an overall bluish color in the glaze; blue spots in the glaze may be present. The ware is thinly potted, with sharply defined foot rings, rims, and molded edges. Often has a brilliant glaze. There may be no or very fine crazing, Pearlware pieces are light in weight, compared to later wares, but this is only evident in nearly whole pieces or large sherds. Price (1979:15) suggests using the overall bluish cast, as well as the color palette in decoration, to distinguish pearlware from whiteware. Noel-Hume (1969a:129-130; 1969b:47) points out the blue pooling of the pearlware glaze, and specifies that this is a way to distinguish it from creamware, not later ‘whitewares, as has been misinterpreted (e.g, Price 1979:13). Noel-Hume (1969b:48) also describes the pearlware body as being thin with a well-molded rim. Miller (1980:16) says pearlware decoration was dominated by pseudo-Chinese motifs. Changes in body and glaze formulas gradually led to whiteware. There is no specific beginning date for whiteware, but by the 1820s it was developing out of pearlware (Miller 1980:2). Up to the 1820s, pearlware glaze had a "distinctly blue tint” (Miller 1980:18). ‘The best overall description of pearlware that I have seen is as follows: "Eighteenth century pearlware, in general, is characterized by a light, cream-white fabric, covered with a thin, soft, Blue- or blue/green-tinged glaze. The walls of the objects tend to be thinly potted and the edges especially at the foot ring, are sharply defined. The 19th ‘century pearlware is heavier and whiter with a harder, more brilliant glaze that may vary from deeply blue-tinged to almost colorless, The walls are thicker and the edges softer and more rounded. These 19th century traits are more noticeable after about 1810" Despite the consideration of the above characteristics, there does continue to be problems distinguishing pearlware from whiteware. Apparently early whiteware also can have a thin body, sharply defined edges, and a brilliant glaze. Therefore, it is also important to consider the age of the site and the changes in the color palette when attempting to separate pearlware from whiteware. Not Price 1979, p. 10-11: ¢. 1780s - c. 1830s Miller 1980, p. 2: 1780s - 1820s.Whiteware ‘A white-bodied ware, succeeding pearlware and continuing to present times. Includes ironstone, which is often not distinguished from general whiteware by many researchers. I use whiteware as a general category for white-bodied ware that is not porcelain, and cannot be confidently identified as either pearlware or ironstone, based on the criteria listed in those sections. This means that, undoubtedly, some pearlware and some ironstone winds up in the whiteware category, but I feel this is preferable to too readily specifying sherds, especially as pearlware. Early whiteware appears to resemble pearlware in body thinness, sharply defined edges, and brilliant laze, although it should be whiter overall. Majewski and O'Brien (1987:119) say "most whitewares are almost pure white in color." In decorated pieces, relying on changes in color palette and design motif may be of more use. See Miller (1980) for discussion of evolution of pearlware into whiteware. ‘Whiteware (and pearlware) can be decorated by a variety of techniques, and the changes in colors and designs can aid in dating (see Miller 1980, 1991; also Price 1979; Majewski and O’Brien 1987; Garrow 1982), For example, brown, purple, and red underglaze transfer prints occur only on whiteware (Majewski & O'Brien 1987:119); painted decoration on whiteware occurs in brighter colors, such as pinkish red, bright green, bright blue, dark blue-green, and black (Price 1979:212). See also notes on decorative techniques below. Modem reproductions can be found of virtually all 19th-century ceramic decorative techniques. Notes: Miller 1980, p. 2: whiteware developing from pearlware, 1820s Ironstone A type of whiteware that is thickly potted and heavy in weight, and often exhibits heavy crazing, It exhibits both a blue-tinted and a white body (Majewski & O'Brien 1987:122). Classic ironstone, dating from the late 1840s to c. 1900, was generally devoid of colored decoration and relied upon relief-molded designs for variety, but see below. Wetherbee (1996:23) divides ironstone into early (1840-1870) and late (1870-1900) varieties. Miller (1991:9-10) refers to classic ironstone as white granite, based on manufacturers invoices, and distinguishes earlier ironstone bodies (Mason's patent ironstone, etal.) as stone chinas. As the earlier ironstones were heavily decorated with painting, enameling, and printing there is good reason to make this distinction. Marks taken from white ironstone pieces, however, have been found to use a variety of names including various combinations of the words "ironstone," "granite," and "stone china.” Wetherbee (1996:17-18) lists 71 different names. In reference to classic ironstone, Majewski & O’Brien (1987:154) say “itis useful to view the varied relief motifs applied on the already shaped surface as secondary characteristics, with the shape designation itself being the primary classificatory attribute.” I believe there is some misunderstanding in this regard. Originally, colored decoration was applied over a ceramic "shape" that included any relief- molded decoration. The transfer prints for example, had their own pattern names. When "undecorated” (ie. non-colored) ironstone became the rage, the relief-molded patterns took on an increased importance. ‘Thus, for classi ironstone, shape names do include the relief-molded designs. This is obvious whenexamining the range of shape names applied to similar-appearing pieces. (See Wetherbee 1996; Sussman 1985; and even Majewski & O'Brien 1987:155). Be aware, however, that (in Wetherbee 1996) not all pattern names used by collectors are ones that were designated by manufacturers. To confuse matters even more, colored decoration was used over some classic ironstone. Hand painting of the molded designs as well as lustre motifs (e.g. copper tea leaf) can be found. For information on backmarks on American ironstone, see Gates & Ormerod (1982). will use the term "ironstone" to refer to classic, white, relief-molded ironstone, unless otherwise stated. Notes: Garrow 1982, p. 235: 1840-1885; recognizes white-, blue-, and gray-bodied varie M&O 1987, p. 154: "elaborately molded, otherwise undecorated forms,” 1840 - past 1900 p. 120: semi-vitreous ware p. 121: improvements in ironstone body during 1840s led to "classic ironstone" p. 123: molded white-bodied ironstones decline in popularity c. 1880, primarily British p. 123-124: 1870-1880, shift from heavy, plain or molded wares to lighter weight, molded semi- vitreous or vitreous ceramics with delicate floral or abstract motifs see Wetherbee 1996 for changes in ironstone designs) Wetherbee 1996, p. vi: Boote's 1851 Octagon/1853 Sydenham may have triggered popalarity mid-1850s, same price as, transfer prints aft 1870, less creative round & square shapes with plainer bodies ‘by 1900, age of white ironstone popularity gone, except for use as hotel/restaurant wares and sanitary wares 6: early stone chinas (Mason's) decorated with many colors . 9: some early shapes first used with flow blue/mulberry . 15: registration marks for dates p. 17-18: lists 71 names for ironstone bodies as taken from marks, includes various combinations of "ironstone," "granite," and "stone china” pp. 23: early ironstones, 1840-1870; late ironstones, 1870-1900 Miller 1991, p. 9-10: white granite wares (classic ironstone), 1850s - end of 19th century puts Mason's patent ironstone under stone chinas (heavily decorated combining painting or enameling with printing), which he considers different from white granite Miller 1980, p. 17: blue-tinted ironstone Smith 1976, p. 140: hard and porcelaneous, thick, with a crazed glaze Henry & Garrow 1982, p. 331-332: by mid 1890s, undecorated ironstone cheapest of wares p. 302: includes Fiesta and other late wares as ironstoney Hotel Ware ‘A ware with a totally vitreous body, covered with a fairly hard, resistant glaze, Basically, a 20th-century ‘ware that was available in three wall thicknesses. Commonly used in hotels and restaurants (Majewski & ‘OBrien 1987:124). Probably the same as Miller's (1991:7) "band-and-line wares." May sometimes be referred to as ironstone, but this would not be correct. ‘Notes: M&O 1987, p. 124: developed and made in U.S., 20th century, thick, vitrified (see Miller band-and-line ‘wares) 20th-Century Whiteware ‘These whitewares, which are no longer classic ironstones, are used throughout the 20th century to the present. Exhibit full range of decorative techniques. Use of decal decoration very common (Majewski & ‘OBrien 1987:146-147). Includes types such as Fiesta ware. Notes: Henry & Garrow 1982, p. 302: they include Fiesta ware and other late wares under ironstone, but I disagree with this. DECORATIVE TECHNIQUES Edged Wares (Shell-Rdge) Molded and/or painted edge. Commonly in blue, also found in green, and rare in other colors. Includes a variety of molded-edge pattems. Do not confuse shell edge with feather edge, the later is a distinctive molded design that is found on creamware and salt-glazed ceramics. Notes: Miller 1991, p. 5-6: blue, c. 1775-1860s, rare after 1860s, but continues to 1890s, areen, rare by 1840 ‘creamware to whiteware, cheapest decorated wares Hunter & Miller 1994, dating of shell-edge by rim shay (1) p. 437: asymmetrical undulating scallop with impressed curved lines, c. 1775-c. 1810; (2) p.437: even, symmetrical, scalloped rim, with straight or curved impressed lines, in blue and ‘green, almost exclusively on pearlware, c. 1800-18305; (3) p. 437: unscalloped rim with impressed lines, usually blue, 1840s-1860s; (4) p. 437: unscalloped rim with underglaze-painted blue lines, 1860s-1890s; (5) p.437: relief-molded florals, sprays, etc. on rim (“embossed edge”), 18208-18305; (©) p.434, 438: Rococo-style rims, c. 1780-aft 1810; (7) p.437-438: asymmetrical Rococo returns, early 1900s;(8) p. 440: hand-painted eagle in center of plate, c. 1815-1830; after 1840s, added center decoration rare See also Ward 1997. M&O 1987, p. 148: ¢. 1775, press molded shell edge on creamware, later on pearlware, shell edge on whiteware in 1800s, p. 151: shell edge to c. 1860 p. 152: 1780-1860 edge decorated vessels Price 1979, p. 18: pearlware and creamware, bef 1820 to aft 1851 Garrow 1982, p. 232: 1830-1860+ ‘Sponge Decorated W: Includes spatter (very small dots), sponged (larger dots), and cut-sponge stamping. The latter is made be ‘cutting a design into a sponge root and using it to stamp a repeated pattern on a vessel. Notes: Miller 1991, p. 6: seen on 17th century delft pre 1830s with pea fowl, into mid-19th century ccut-sponge, late 1840s (tea wares), cheapest wares M&O 1987, p. 161: spatter most popular 1830-1840 Price 1979, p. 19-20: late 1820s toc. 1850 or 1860, mostly on whiteware stamped, late 1840s-1850s Garrow 1982, p. 232: 1830-1871+ Slipware Also referred to as dipped ware, annular ware, or (popularly) mocha ware. The bands are made of slip and have a slightly raised appearance. Decorations include common cable (also called earthworm or finger trailed), cat's-eyes, mocha, twigging, fanning, marbling, engine-turning, dicing, and rouletting, among others. True “mocha” is a dendritic (tree- or fern-like) pattern, and the name should only be used to describe that particular decoration, not used for all slipware. Notes: Miller 1991, p. 6: mocha ware, common cable (mugs & jugs ware) blue-banded ware most common type after 18405 use "mocha" only for dendritic pattern; most popular 1795-1835, but made until 1930s slipware not common after 1840sSussman 1977, p. 59, 74: banded decoration especially dominant on whiteware, also on pearlware p. 60: mocha dominant on creamware;inlaid-slip and cable dominant on pearlware, but all appear on all ware types; indications from historical records: p. 47: marbling, ¢. 1760s (on tableware) -c. 1850s; pp. 48: inlaid-slip in vogue 1790s - 1820s (to 1850s); p.48: dicing, c. 1780 -c. 1810s, p.48: mocha, 1790s - c. 1895; Price 1979, p. 18: earlier: narrow bands, earthen blue, green, brown, yellow, black later: wide bands, brighter blue, yellow and white Garrow 1982, p. 231: 1830-1860 Band-&-Line Wares Underglaze painted with two lines at the vessel rim. Notes: Miller 1991, p. 7: usually associated with hotel wares; c. 1875-1950s Painted Wares Painted refers to underglaze painting; enameling to overglaze painting, Painted styles include Chinese motifs, as well as broadline or sprig florals. Miller 1991, p. 7 biue painted in Chinese style, ¢. 1775 - War of 1812 ¢. 1795-1820, new colors: brown, mustard, olive 1820s: blue with floral motifs 1830s: new colors: red, black, lighter blues and greens (on whiteware) later 1840s: sprig (on whiteware) 1870s: floral polychrome returns ‘enamel = overglaze; painted = underglaze M&O 1987, p. 159: 1840-1860, sprig and thick line peak . 160: 1880-1905, overglaze China painting, the "thing to do" Price 1979, p. 21: broadline, soft pastels or earthen, 1790-c. 1830 (on pearlware) brighter (red, black, brighter blues & greens), c. 1830-1860 (on whiteware) Garrow 1982, p. 233: 1830-1875+¢ Printed Wares (ransfer Prints) ‘Most commonly underglaze. Stipples were used for shading beginning in the early 19th century. Do not, confuse with decals. Notes: Miller 1991, p. 9: ©. 1783, underglaze blue printing introduced, Chinese patterns to War of 1812 early, line engraved with cruder, heavier designs and minimal shading early 19th century, begin use of stipples for shading 1809, brown on pearlware 1810, landscapes 1818-1820s, very dark blue 1830s, romantic views 1829-18405, red, green, brown, purple on whitewares 1840s, flow 1850s, declined, replaced by ironstone Price 1979, p. 19: before 1830s, blue predominates late 1820s, other colors . 1840s, multi-colored M&O 1987, p. 119: pearlware almost always has blue transfer prints p. 142: blue peak, 1820-1840; 1828, green, yellow, red, and black p. 143: multi-colored transfers, c. 1840 p. 144: Romantic, 1820s-1830s; Chinese, before 1820 . 145: (cites Lofstrom et al. 1982) black popular 1830-1860 p. 145: (cites Collard 1967) light blue after 1830 p. 120: whiteware almost always decorated, overglaze and underglaze handpainting and under glaze transfers in various colors Larsen 1975. p.2: greatest production of historical dark blue, 1818-1830; other colors, including light blue, green, brown, 1830s-1840s Garrow 1982, p. 233: 1830-1860 (whitewares) Henry & Garrow 1982, p. 300: c. 1885-aft. 1910, revival transfer prints Flow Garrow 1982, p. 234: 1844-1860; "Flow decoration appears to be the best mid-nineteenth century ceramic marker that has yet been identified." Henry & Garrow 1982, p. 302: c. 1900-1920s, revival flow blue Miller 1991, p. 9: lowing colors introduced in 1840~ Price 1979, p. 22: earlier flown decoration is distinguished from the c. 1900 version by the style of design, lack of gilding at the rim, and lack of raised rim designs (relief-molding). Relief-Molded Raised designs—often floral, wheat, or geometric, as well as body fluting and ribbing—that are molded in the body of the vessel. Sometimes referred to as "embossed" or “raised.” ‘Decals Decalcomania) M&O 1987, p. 137: very late in 19th century p. 146-147: sharp lines, natural colors, shading; usually applied overgiaze; floral motifs; after 1900, rapid rise in popularity Henry & Garrow 1982, p. 302: ¢.1902 begins use of decals on whitewares (porcelain earlier) pp. 324: not common before 1900 except on porcelain REFERENCES DiPiero, Diane 1993 Mad for Mocha Ware. Colonial Homes, February, pp. 80-85. Garrow, Patrick H. (ed.) 1982 Archaeological Investigations on the Washington, D.C. Civic Center Site. Prepared by Soil Systems, Inc., under contract to Historic Preservation Office, Department of Housing and Community Development, Government of the District of Columbia. Gates, William C. Jr, and Dana E. Ormerod 1982 The East Liverpool Pottery District: Identification of Manufacturers and Marks. Historical Archaeology \6(1-2): whole volume. Henry, Susan L., and Patrick H. Garrow 1982 The Historic Component. In City of Phoenix, Archaeology of the Original Townsite Blocks 1 and 2, edited by 1.8. Cable, S.L. Henry, and D.E. Doyel. Prepared for City of Phoenix, Central Phoenix Redevelopment Agency. Soil Systems Inc., Southwestern Division Office, Phoenix, Arizona, Hunter, Robert R. Jr, and George L. Miller 1994 English Shell-Edged Earthenware. The Magazine Antiques 145(3):432-443. Larsen, Ellouise Baker 1975 American Historical Views on Staffordshire China, 3rd edition. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O'Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:97-209. Academic Press, New York. Mcallister, Lisa S., and John L. Michel 1993 Collecting Yellow Ware: An Identification and Value Guide. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Miller, George L. 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical Archaeology 14:1-40. 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25. Noél Hume, Ivor 1969a A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 3rd printing 1974. 19696 Pearlware: Forgotten Milestone of English Ceramic History. The Magazine Antiques, March. Reprinted in English Pottery and Porcelain: An Historical Survey, edited by Paul Atterbury, Universe Books, New York, 1978, pp. 42-49. Price, Cynthia R. 1979 19th Century Ceramics...in the Eastern Ozark Border Region. Center for Archaeological Research, Monograph Series No. 1, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri Rickard, Jonathan 1993 Mocha Ware. The Magazine Antiques, August, pp. 182-189, Smith, Samuel D. 1974 4 Survey and Assessment of the Archeological Resources of Cadron Settlement, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Rescarch Report No. 1, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 1976 (ed.) An Archaeological and Historical Assessment of the First Hermitage. Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Archaeology, Research Series No. 2, Nashville, Tennessee. 1984 Excavation of a Mid-Nineteenth Century Trash Pit, Wynnewood State Historic Site, ‘Sumner County, Tennessee. Tennessee Anthropologist 8(2):133-181 Sussmann, Lynne 1977 Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware, 1780-1830. Historical Archaeology 11:105-111 1985 The Wheat Pattern: An Illustrated Survey. Parks Canada, National Historie Parks and Sites Branch, Studies In Archaeology, Architecture and History, Ottawa 101997 Mocha, Banded, Cat's Eye, and Other Factory-Made Slipware. Studies in Northeast Historical Archaeology, No. 1, Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology, Department of Archacology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, ‘Van Rensselaer, Susan 1966 Banded Creamware. The Magazine Antiques, September. Reprinted in English Pottery ‘and Porcelain: An Historical Survey, edited by Paul Atterbury, Universe Books, New York, 1978, pp. 240-244. Wetherbee, Jean 1996 White Ironstone: A Collector's Guide. Antique Trader Books, Dubuque, Iowa, Ward, Rufus Jr. 1997 Shell-Edge Decorated Ceramics. Mississippi Archaeology 32(1):27-39. Written: 12/10/96 Revised: 1/12/99 uN