Historical Archaeology

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 106–119 | Cite as

Provenience of eighteenth-century british porcelain sherds from sites 3b and 4e, fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia: Constraints from mineralogy, bulk paste, and glaze compositions

  • J. Victor Owen
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Twenty-six British porcelain sherds excavated from two properties at the Fortress of Louisbourg were analysed by electron microprobe with the objective of identifying the factories from which they originated (that is, their provenience). Nineteen of the samples are phosphatic; seven are magnesian. Sixteen of the phosphatic sherds have paste and glaze compositions consistent with Bow porcelain (ca. 1747 to 1776). This attribution is supported by underglaze blue patterns (Dragon, Cannonball, and Desirable Residence patterns) and famille rose overglaze polychrome designs that match the decoration used on Bow porcelain. A calcic plagioclase-bearing sherd has a composition suggesting derivation from the Gilbody works (Liverpool, ca. 1755 to 1761). Another unassigned sherd has a paste composition that resembles products of the Lowestoft factory (ca. 1757 to 1799), but contains plagioclase, a mineral not known to occur in Lowestoft porcelain, and its glaze contains small amounts of tin, a component unknown in analysed Lowestoft glazes. One highly porous sample has an anomalous composition (a lower phosphate content than any known bone-ash porcelain), and appears to have been chemically modified in the ground. It, too, remains unattributed. The magnesian sherds contain diopside and enstatite, and thus are mineralogically similar to another type of Liverpool porcelain (late Chaffers [ca. 1756 to 1765]) and its successor, the Christian/Seth Pennington works; ca. 1765 to 1799). Compositionally, the body and glaze of these samples resemble Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington porcelain. This attribution is further supported by their underglaze blue patterns, which match some of those (Liver Bird pattern) known to have been used at the Liverpool works. Contemporary documents record the fact that the Bow works exported significant amounts of its wares to North America. The discovery of Chaffers/Christian/Seth Pennington porcelain at Louisbourg and other archaeological sites in Atlantic Canada (Fort Beauséjour) indicates that some Liverpool factories also supplied colonial markets with porcelain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. De Jong, L. M., and J. Victor Owen 1999 Reproducibility of Bulk Microprobe Analyses of Fine-Grained Media: A Case Study Using Modern Bone China. Canadian Mineralogist, 37:239–246.Google Scholar
  2. Gabszewicz, Anton, and Geoffrey Freeman 1982 Bow Porcelain. Lund Humphries, London, England.Google Scholar
  3. Harris, Donald A. 1982 A Summary of the Archaeology of the Town Site of Louisbourg. Manuscript, Louisbourg National Historic Park, Louisbourg, N.S.Google Scholar
  4. Hood, Graham 1972 Bonnin and Morris of Philadelphia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Owen, J. Victor 1997 Quantification of Early Worcester Porcelain Recipes and the Distinction between Dr. Wall- and Flight-Period Wares. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24:301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 1998 On the Earliest Products (ca. 1751–1752) of the Worcester Porcelain Manufactory: Evidence from Sherds from the Warmstry House Site, England. On the Earliest Products (ca. 1751–1752) of the Worcester Porcelain Manufactory: Evidence from Sherds from the Warmstry House Site, England, 32(4):63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 2000a The Geochemistry of some Phosphatic- and Silicious/ Aluminous-Porcelain Sherds from the Coalport Factory Site. Post-Medieval Archaeology, 33:82–87.Google Scholar
  8. 2000b Mineralogical and Compositional Characteristics of Bonnin and Morris Porcelain (Philadelphia, c. 1770–72) and its Distinction from Contemporary British Phosphatic Wares. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
  9. Owen, J. Victor, and Terence E. Day 1994 Estimation of the Bulk Composition of Fine-Grained Media from Microchemical and Backscatter-Image Analysis: Application to Biscuit Wasters from the Bow Factory Site, London. Archaeometry, 26:217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 1998a Assessing and Correcting the Effects of the Chemical Weathering of Potsherds: A Case Study using Soft-Paste Porcelain Wasters from the Longton Hall (Staffordshire) Factory Site. Geoarchaeology, 13:265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 1998b Eighteenth Century Phosphatic Porcelains: Bow & Lowestoft: Further Confirmation of their Compositional Distinction. Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle, 16(3):342–344.Google Scholar
  12. Owen, J. Victor, and Denise Hansen 1996 Compositional Constraints on the Identification of 18th Century Porcelain Sherds from Fort Beauséjour (New Brunswick) and Grassy Island (Nova Scotia), Canada. Historical Archaeology, 30(4):88–100.Google Scholar
  13. Owen, J. Victor, and M. L. Morrison 1999 Sagged Nantgarw Porcelain (ca. 1813–1820): Casualty of Overfiring or a Fertile Paste? Geoarchaeology, 14:313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Owen, J. Victor, and John Sandon 1998 Petrology of Gilbody, Pennington and Christian/ Pennington (18th century Liverpool) Porcelains and their Distinction from some Contemporary Phosphatic and Magnesian/Plombian British Wares. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25:1131–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Owen, J. Victor, John Wilstead, Rheinallt Williams, and Terence E. Day 1998 A Tale of Two Cities: Compositional Characteristics of Some Nantgarw and Swansea Porcelains and their Implications for Kiln Wastage. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25:359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Owen, J. Victor, Brian Adams, and Roy Stephenson 2000 Nicholas Crisp’s “porcellien”: A Petrological Comparison of Sherds from the Vauxhall (London, ca. 1751–1764) and Indeo Pottery (Bovey Tracey, Devonshire, ca. 1767–1774) Factory Sites. Geoarchaeology, 15(1):43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sullivan, Catherine 1986 Legacy of the Machault. A Collection of Eighteenth-century Artifacts. Parks Canada, Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
  18. Tite, M. S., and M. Bimson 1991 A Technological Study of English Porcelains. Archaeometry, 33:3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Watney, Bernard M. 1979 English Blue and White Porcelain of the 18th Century. Faber and Faber, London.Google Scholar
  20. 1997 Liverpool Porcelain of the Eighteenth Century. Richard Dennis, Shepton Beauchamp, Somerset, England.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Historical Archaeology 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Victor Owen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeologySaint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations