As usual I agree with Ned - the question is an excellent one, and not that
easy to address. The key may lie in the mode of production - the wares made in
Philadelphia were industrial in nature, even if the "industry" was in its
nascent stages during the 18th century. Wares made in rural areas are vernacular in
nature. Thus redwares persist in the country potteries while the shift was
being made to whitewares and stonewares in urban potteries. So at a site on Long
Island you might first look at the greater context - are the ceramics in an
18th or 19th century context? I don't think vernacular potters travelled very
far to sell their wares, because the production was limited. Why risk
transporting fragile ceramics when your customers can come to you? The Philadelphia
wares were distributed by ship. Transportation is a key element here. In the
South, for instance, local pottery production ceased almost entirely within about
50 years of the coming of the railroads.... But as Ned says, excavations at
the local pottery kilns are essential. Clay analysis must begin with wasters.
Also, potters tend to use idiosyncratic touches that can be used to identify
even unmarked wares found at sites far away from the kiln. Once we learn to
recognize them we can fine tune our understanding of both chronology and
distribution.

A couple of comments are below.

In a message dated 6/25/2004 8:27:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:
Chris Pickerell wrote:

> For the last several years I have been studying local, 19th century
> potteries (i.e., Greenport and Sag Harbor) on the east end of Long
> Island, New York in an attempt to attribute wares.  I am especially
> interested in redware.  As you might imagine it is very difficult to
> tease local production from that of Connecticut, New Jersey and other
> nearby potteries, but I have had some limited success.
Presumably you have seen Sarah Turnbaugh and Lura Watkins books on
northeastern ceramics? Also, Susan Myers book "From Handicraft to Industry" would surely
shed some light on your questions....


Although you claim to be a nonspecialist  lurker, you clearly
understand archaeological problems we commonly address.

You have very clearly stated an issue that vexes us all the time.
Generally speaking, ceramics are most easily traced by analysis of the
potter's waster dumps and marked pieces found on sites or in the
marketplace.   These identifications are subjective and purely visual,
depending largely upon the analyst's expertise and experience.

Marked pieces give a quickie distribution, but chemical analysis of
paste could  define more sharply the origins of pottery found on a
particular site,

We have the situation here in lower Delaware that vexes us quite often.
  We are nominally in the historic Philadelphia market, but some parts
of Delaware are in the Chesapeake market.  A particular species of slip
decorated ware is colloquially called "Philadelphia" ware, even though
it was made in Alexandria, Virginia, and in local potteries elsewhere,
including Delaware.  If we could sort the "Philadelphia" potteries
found on a particular site according to origins,  we would learn a
whole lot about Colonial trade patterns.
>>>actually the potters called them "philadelphia" style wares.... Beth Bower
wrote a thesis on Phil. potters, and I wrote a thesis on philadelphia
earthenwares that entered the intercolonial trade...


It would be really great to know how much trade crossed the peninsula
between the Delaware and Chesapeake drainages, where we are working.
Locally made ceramics and imported goods should be a useful indicator
for that trade.  Right now, we are looking at the differences between
the two sides of the Delmarva Peninsula, and extrapolating them to
reflect influences on a larger scale.  For example, in Delaware one
sees few white clay pipe stems on a site, while they are ubiquitous on
Chesapeake sites.  If we find lots of pipe stems in a Delaware site, we
infer Chesapeake influences. It's a rough but useful marker, but it
would be nice to find markers that are more specific and more
definitive.



Edward F. Heite