The problem with a "ware" called "colono" is that the term has been
applied to dozens of totally different ceramics, with totally
differrent histories.

Every ethnic (racial, national) group in Colonial America had a
tradition of hand-built, finished, unglazed, low-fired pottery.  A Dane
or an Irishman could make such a pot, drawing on his own national
tradition;  so could an African or a Native American.  Up and down the
coast of North America, fundamentally different pottery types have been
bunched under the label of "colono," even though they may have resulted
from different cultural origins.  Even within a single region,
different "colono" wares existed simultaneously but clearly came from
radically different sources.

Most importantly, we have totally failed to realize the possible
European origins of some "colono" traditions. Both Ferguson and Noel
Hume, to name but two of the researchers, dismissed the possibility of
European origins without so much as a glance at the record.   Europe
was thick with local hand-built pottery traditions during the
seventeenth century, and they are well documented.

I think it's been pretty well shown that, for example, the Virginia and
South Carolina "colono" traditions are as different as creamware from
porcelain. Yet we cram them into this same phony category.

Until we start treating each locality's pottery as a distinct craft
tradition with its own history, we are never going to even approach
understanding what these ceramics mean.




Edward F. Heite
Heite Consulting, Inc.
Archaeologists and Historians
P O Box 53, Camden, Delaware 19934
www.heite.org