Ceramics. In Pendery, ed. (2012)

Chapter 8

Ceramics

Steven R. Pendery

He on the 7th Day of this Instant July went to said Doccas Island… In Diging he found Charcoalin a perfect State, only it was easily Crumbled to pieces in handling… he also found part of aStone pitcher in full preservation. (Pagan 1797:2)

Robert Pagan’s pioneering project in historical archaeology included the search for artifacts as well asbuilding remains. Several of the artifacts he found, such as the stoneware pitcher fragment, strengthened hiscase that the island had once been occupied by the French. Twentieth-century excavations on Saint CroixIsland would later reveal the largest ceramics assemblage from any early French colonial site in NorthAmerica.1 This chapter explores the types and distribution of these ceramics and what they tell us aboutFrench use of the island between 1604 and 1613. We end with a brief discussion of some of the American-period stonewares. Pre-contact ceramics are discussed by David Sanger in Appendix 2 and a possible Frenchcrucible is described in Chapter 7 in the context of metals and metallurgy.

RECOVERY, CONSERVATION, AND ANALYSIS

Wendell Hadlock found numerous fragments of stoneware and earthenware at Saint Croix Island in1950, but he was unable to correctly identify their type and origin. He visited the site of the Port-Royalexcavation and reconstruction in Nova Scotia to improve his understanding of early colonial Frencharchitecture and material culture. There was little to be learned there. Only recently has it emerged that thoseexcavations and reconstruction took place at the wrong site and that any of the artifacts he viewed wereprobably from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His 1954 article in Old Time New England on SaintCroix Island made few references to the artifacts he found (Hadlock 1954).

Jacob Gruber’s assistant for his 1969 excavations, Charles Tremer, may be credited with creating abaseline catalogue of the collection (Tremer 1970). He distinguished between artifacts dating to the Frenchperiod and those which post-dated it. He correctly identified the numerous brown stoneware fragments asbeing of French origin and plotted their distribution on a site plan. The full significance of Saint CroixIsland’s ceramic assemblage was first realized by John L. Cotter after he read Jacob Gruber’s site report. InOctober 1971, Cotter contacted R. J. Charleston, Keeper of the Department of Ceramics at the Victoria andAlbert Museum in London and sent him examples of the Saint Croix Island stoneware and glass (Cotter1971). John Hurst, the foremost expert in European post-medieval ceramics from archaeological contexts,identified some of them as Normandy stoneware (Charleston 1972). Hurst was intrigued with the range offorms represented in the profile drawings Cotter sent and made specific references to the significance of theSaint Croix Island stoneware in his publications (Hurst et al. 1986:100-102).

Cotter updated Gruber’s report with this information for the version intended for publication. Asbackground for his own article published in Dossiers de l’Archéologie (Cotter 1978), Cotter viewedcomparative collections at the Fortress of Louisbourg in Nova Scotia. He also sent some Saint Croix Islandsherds for chemical analysis to Daniel Dufournier, head of the Ceramic Study Laboratory, University of Caen.

108 Chapter 8: Ceramics

Dufournier concluded that the stoneware was made near Ger, in Normandy (Cotter 1978:69). The presenceof Beauvaisis and Loire Valley stoneware in the assemblage remained unrecognized. Cotter also contactedOdette and Jean Chapelot, who observed from photographs of the artifacts that the earthenware did not appearto be from Saintonge (Cotter 1972).

The inclusion of a Saint Croix Island component in the Maine State Museum archaeology exhibit, 12,000Years in Maine, triggered the conservation of artifacts going on exhibit, including four ceramic objects. Theseconsisted of a restored Beauvaisis pot and a restored lead-glazed buff earthenware handled pot or pitcher, bothof which had already been featured in a Boston Museum of Fine Arts exhibit, New England Begins (Museumof Fine Arts 1982 (2):231-232). The other two objects were apparently de-salted, and one may have beenre-mended (Maine State Museum 1989). The remaining ceramics were sub-loaned to the AnthropologyDepartment of the University of Maine. Here, graduate student John Guilfoyle sorted and re-catalogued thecollection into the department’s system. Guilfoyle was the first to correctly identify the presence of theBeauvaisis stoneware. A fellow graduate student, Matthew Palus, prepared an excellent series of ceramicprofiles which provide the basis for those presented in this chapter.

By 1993 the collection and associated documentation was dispersed among the exhibits and storagefacilities of the Maine State Museum, the University of Maine, Orono, Acadia National Park, and the AbbeMuseum. In 1994 the collection was recalled by the NPS for cataloging into the ANCS system and forrehousing and consolidation at the collection facility for Acadia National Park at Bar Harbor. The return ofthe collection to the NPS marked the first time that the artifacts and associated documentation from allexcavations were united in a secure and staffed collection facility. It was at this point that the collection cameto the attention of the author, who was struck by its dissimilarity with other colonial French assemblages.Even more surprising was the fact that such an important collection had never been adequately reported. Theauthor’s visits to Bar Harbor in conjunction with a Saint Croix Island reburial project led to a detailed analysisof the ceramic and metal collections. Loans of small samples of the Saint Croix Island ceramics were madefor transportation to France to facilitate identification by Dr. Dufournier at Caen and by Jean Cartier atBeauvais. Visits were made to view comparative ceramics collections at the Musée des Antiquités in Rouen,the Musée de la Ville de Dieppe, Musée de la Céramique at La Chapelle-aux-Pots near Beauvais, at theMusée Régional de la Céramique at Ger, at the district archeology depot at St. Denis, at the INRAParchaeology depot for Burgundy, and at the Museum at St. Amand-en-Puisaye. I visited the Musée Nationaldes Arts et Traditions Populaires in Paris as well as the important excavations conducted at the town of Fossespotteries by their archaeologist, Rémy Guadagnin. Two visits were made to examine the archaeologicalcollection from the Louvre excavations curated by their Department of Sculpture and History.

PHASES

Ceramics from four different phases of occupation are represented at Saint Croix Island (Table 8.1). Theearliest ceramics are those of Native American origin, which date to the Ceramic Period (anywhere from2,200 to 1,600 years ago until the present) and are discussed by Dr. David Sanger in Appendix 2. The secondperiod of occupation is early French colonial,represented archaeologically by the de Mons-Champlain occupation of 1604-1605 and byCaptain Platrier’s occupation from 1611 to1612. The third period of occupation mayinclude sporadic visits by the British. Theisland may have been briefly used, perhaps byRobert Sedgwick’s troops during his attack onAcadia in 1654, as evidenced by the presenceof a small number of red earthenware tobacco

Period Dates Locationon Island

Ceramics

Pre-Contact 2000-400 years ago South YesFrench 1604 to 1613 Entire YesEnglish 1613-1635;

1756 - 1775Entire Red Clay

Pipes onlyAmerican 1783- present Entire YesLighthouse 1854-1949 North Yes

Table 8.1 Ceramic phases at Saint Croix Island.

Saint Croix Island, Maine 109

pipes which are often associated with Maine sites from this period. The 1796 and 1797 Pagan and Wrightexpeditions apparently left no ceramic evidence, but the post-1800 American period of occupation is reflectedby a varied assemblage at the south end of the island. After 1856 occupation shifted again to the north of theisland where the lighthouse was occupied until 1957. The post-1800 sample of ceramic artifacts recoveredby Gruber is considered in a summary fashion here because the provenience of most sherds was notadequately documented.

CERAMIC TYPOLOGY

The classification system used in this study incorporates prevailing French and Canadian typologies ofceramic form and fabric. The majority of French stoneware sherds conform with five types established byFrench archaeologists and ceramics experts (Table 8.2). Few of the earthenwares could be identified withrespect to origin, so they were classified based on ceramic attributes: fabric type, plastic decoration, slipdecoration, and glaze. Chemical or petrographic analysis may help trace their origins, research which isbeyond the scope of this study.

The presence of ceramics at Saint Croix Island is due to a complex interplay of factors includinggastronomy, trade, provisioning, and archaeological preservation. The uses of earthenware and stonewarewere established long before the era of French overseas exploration and were based on popular dietary logicdenoting the proper match between a vessel and its intended use. There were popular prohibitions againstthe use of some metals, such as iron, in cooking for sanitary and aesthetic reasons (Alexandre-Bidon2005:171-215). Aristocratic cooking, in particular, required a constant turnover of earthenware utensils tomaintain quality.

Table 8.2 Type and function of ceramics recovered from the habitation by Hadlock and Gruber (minimum number ofvessels).

FUNCTION TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE

COOK-ING

SERVICE INDUS-TRIAL

OTHER TOTAL %

TYPE

Foo

d/ B

utte

r Ja

rSi

not/

Salo

ir

Oli

ve J

ar

Bot

tle/

Fla

skB

oute

ille

Jar/

Arb

orel

loJa

rre/

Alb

arel

le

Cos

trel

Gou

rde

Ste

w P

otC

oque

mar

Bow

l/C

upC

oupe

lle

Pit

cher

Cru

che

Sm

all P

otP

etit

Pot

Bas

inB

asin

Met

allu

rgic

alM

etal

urgi

e

Uni

dent

ifie

dN

on-i

dent

ifié

STONE

DOMF 19 9 1 29 40.9

BES.-COT 1 1 1 1 4 5.6

BEAUV 2 7 9 12.7

LOIRE 4 1 1 1 7 9.9

UN-ID 2 2 2.8

EARTHEN

BUFF L.G. 1 1 1 2 1 6 8.4

BUFF UNG 1 2 1 4 8 11.3

RED LG. 1 1 2 2.8

RED UNGL 3 1 4 5.6

TOTAL 24 5 10 5 9 1 1 3 2 2 1 8 71

% 34 7 14 7 12.6 1.4 1.4 4.2 3 3 1.4 11 100%


At Saint Croix Island,with the exception of someIberian storage jars, the major-ity of containers for food andpharmaceutical storage andtransportation were of stone-ware (Table 8.2). Stonewarewas the container of choice forpreserved foods such as saltedmeat, butter, and conserves,imparting no taste to its con-tents. Stoneware bottles mayhave been transported empty ascanteens, or filled, quite possi-bly, with alcoholic beverages.Some stoneware tablewareforms, a possible pitcher andsome jars, were also present.

The earthenware includethe categories of coarse, un-glazed storage wares, some ofIberian origin, and finer table-ware, glazed and unglazed. Notin-glazed wares were recov-ered; such wares were still rela-tively scarce in western Francein the early seventeenth cen-tury. If present at Saint CroixIsland, they would have beenfound near the house of Pierre

Dugua or the chapel, but these two structures had poor archaeological visibility. Another explanation for theabsence of precious tin-glazed earthenware is that they were highly curated. If broken, they would have beenmended and later taken to Port-Royal.

STONEWARE

Lower Normandy, Domfrontais:Paste color, interior: often black, grey, brown/buff core, Munsel 10YR 5/3 (brown), 7.5 YR 4/0 (dark grey),2.5 YR 6/2 (pale red), 5YR 5/1 (gray)Paste color, exterior: may be black, dark brown or gray, 7.5 YR 4/2 dark brown, 10YR 4/2 (dark brown),10YR 5/2 (grayish brown).Inclusions: generally none, but white mineral inclusions are occasionally present.Glaze or surface treatment: None detected.Forms: Minimum Numbers of Vessels (MNV): 19 handled preserved food containers (sinots, saloirs), 9flasks (gourdes) and 1 unidentified tableware or possible pharmaceutical jar (albarello) (see Figure 8.1).Ravoire’s forms C11, C12, C13, C14; F1;X1 (Ravoire 2006).Functions: Storage and transportation of food and liquids.Distribution: Central and western France, Newfoundland, Lower St. Laurence Bay, Western Bay of Fundy,Quebec, Montréal, E. Lake Ontario, Chesapeake.References: Hurst et al. 1986; Ickowicz 1993; Chrestien and Dufournier 1995; Fajal 1998, 1999; Décarie1999; Bernouis and Fajal 2000; Trombetta 2001, Straube 2009; Fajal (in press).

Figure 8.1 Location of production centers for French stoneware found at SaintCroix Island. (Map by the author)


The most common type of ceramic found at Saint Croix Island consisted of the Domfrontais variety ofLower Normandy stoneware, which usually has a warm grey or beige paste with darkened exterior surface.It may be distinguished from stoneware produced to the northwest, in Bessin and Cotentin, which has avisibly redder fabric due to a higher proportion of iron. This distinction was first made on the basis ofchemical analysis of samples from both regions (Chrestien and Dufournier 1995: 97). In 1976, Dufourniertested stoneware sherds from Saint Croix Island and verified the presence of Domfrontais Normandystonewares (Cotter 1978:69). In 2001 he inspected another sample from Saint Croix Island and identified bothDomfrontais and Bessin Cotentin stoneware. This reference collection was used by the author to identify therest of the island’s stoneware collection, housed at Bar Harbor.

Stoneware was produced in Lower Normandy since at least the end of the thirteenth century. Thisindustry was made possible, in part, by the presence of seams of stoneware clay upon which various potteryworkshops, including the center of Ger and many workshops near Domfront, were established (Figure 8.1).Bessin Cotentin stoneware could be produced with firing temperatures under 1200 degrees centigrade, whilethe Domfrontais ware required a higher firing temperature. Modern period Domfrontais stoneware potterieshave been excavated, but little is known about the temporal depth and variation of these wares (Dufournier1996). Those found at Saint Croix Island provide new insight into the Normandy stoneware export marketof the early modern period. Easily recognizable forms include jars for preserved meat and butter, ointmentand preserves jars, and stoneware bottles probably used as canteens (Figure 8.2).

Figure 8.2 Domfrontais stoneware forms represented at Saint Croix Island: a, b, preserved food jars (saloirs)in two sizes; c, bottle (gourde bouteille); d, unidentified lidded jar (jarre). (Drawing by the author, form a basedon original by Matthew Palus)


Jars (saloirs, sinots)Elongated and handled stoneware jars were produced as containers for both the butter and meat packing

industries of Normandy since the Middle Ages. Their contents were layered with salt, although some meatswere apparently preserved in brine. A kitchen still life painted in Paris in the early seventeenth century byWillem Kalf (1619-1693) shows one of these jars (Figure 8.3). Impermeable Normandy stoneware was idealfor this purpose. The terms saloir and sinot are sometimes used interchangeably to describe these jars. Fabienne Ravoire (2006:127-129) reserves the use of the term sinot strictly for single-handled butter potsranging from cylindrical to bulbous in profile and classifies this as form C1. This same form is referred toas a pot à beurre by archaeologists who uncovered several examples at the Rue Philippe Auguste site inRouen. Dufournier and the Québec community of archaeologists maintain that this same form represents asaloir (Chrestien and Dufournier 1995). Bruno Fajal of the Université de Caen asserts that the term sinot hasbeen used in modern times to describe the butterpots produced in the Bessin region (Fajal in press, 1999,1998). The typical Domfrontais saloir from early seventeenth century Saint Croix Island had a tall andslightly tapered body, flat, broad rim and equally broad, ridged handle which diminished in width at itsconnection with the jar body (Figures 8.4 to 8.16). The vessel mouth may have been covered with fabric,parchment, or even a pig’s bladder (Ravoire 2006:129).

Figure 8.3 Still life by Willem Kalf showing Normandy saloir in background. (Courtesy, Directions des Musées deFrance, 1986; photo: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Franck Raux)


Sherds from a minimum number of 24 jars were found on the island,representing 34 percent of all of the identifiable ceramic vesselsrecovered in 1950 and 1969. The saloirs account for 28.2 percent of theLower Normandy stoneware. Two sizes of vessel are represented, oneabout 12.5 litres (3.3 gal) and the other about 5.5 l (1.3 gal) (Figures 8.2,8.5). Saloirs are found at seventeenth-century contexts at Fort Latour inNew Brunswick and at the site of the first and second Québec habitations(Niellon and Moussette 1995:490; Décarie 1999:30-40). The re-use of asaloir as a storage container is documented at Champlain’s Petite Fermeat Cap Tourmente and at the Louvre excavations in Paris (Duguay1996:44,70 ,71; Trombetta 2001:132). These jars appear to diminish infrequency toward the interior of New France during the seventeenthcentury, signaling diminishing quantities of imported meat and butterand the establishment of colonial husbandry. However, preserved foodstorage jars are found in later period maritime sites reflecting theprovisioning of fisheries by the French (St. John 2009).2

Figure 8.6 Broken section of Dom-frontais stoneware preserved food jarrim (1215).

Figure 8.5 Domfrontais stoneware preserved food jar(saloir) rims: a (624); b (781); c (1215); d (2273); e(762); f (1293). (Drawing by the author after originals byMatthew Palus)

Figure 8.4 Domfrontais stoneware preserved food jar(saloir) rims: a (1327); b (149); c (1322). (Drawings bythe author after originals by Matthew Palus)


Figure 8.12 Domfrontais stoneware handlebase fragment of preserved food jar (518).(NPS photograph)

Figure 8.11 Domfrontais stoneware handle fragment ofpreserved food jar (2277). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.9 Domfrontais stoneware jar or Figureware bases:a (1323); b (6); c (628). (Drawing by the author afteroriginals by Matthew Palus)

Figure 8.8 Domfrontais stoneware preservedfood jar (saloir) bases: a (2419); b (749); c (623);d (1295). (Drawing by the author after originalsby Matthew Palus)

Figure 8.7 Domfrontais stoneware preserved food jar (saloir)shoulders: a (519); b (9); c (1305); d (107); e (1060). (Drawingby the author after originals by Matthew Palus)


Figure 8.15 Rim of Domfrontais stoneware jar(783). (Drawing by the author after originals byMatthew Palus)

Figure 8.16 Rim sherd of Domfrontais stonewarejar (783). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.14 Domfrontais stoneware handle attachment andbody (1296). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.13 Domfrontais stoneware handle andbody fragments of preserved food jar (saloir): a,handle detail, b, reconstructed section (1321).(Photograph and drawing by the author afteroriginals by Matthew Palus)

Figure 8.10 Domfrontais stoneware handle fragments for preservedfood jars (saloirs): a, recto and verso (2277); b (63,1326); c (1268);d (518); e (1296, 1297); f (1061); g (2273). (Drawing by the authorafter originals by Matthew Palus)


Small lidded jar (jarre, albarello)Two fragments of a single Domfrontais stone-

ware lidded jar were found in adjacent test units.This vessel seems to have the same shape andfunction of an albarello and may have served as adrug or medicinal container (Figures 8.2, 8.17,8.18).

Bottle (gourde)The bottle or gourde shape is represented by

more than a dozen body fragments which may beevidence for a minimum of nine individual vessels(Figures 8.2, 8.17, 8.18). These distinctive globularbottles were fabricated in parts, includingseparately-thrown sides and neck. They first cameto the attention of English archaeologists in the1960s due to their extensive distribution across theUnited Kingdom. They are commonly attributed tothe upper Normandy hamlet of Martincamp, nearDieppe, where some examples have been unearthed(Ickowicz 1993:51). Because of the variety offabrics ranging from buff and red earthenware tobrown stoneware it is likely they have diverseNormandy origins. Chemical analysis of a sampleof these flask sherds from Québec by Dufournierled him to suspect an origin in Noron, althoughvisual inspection of one of the Saint Croix Islandbottle sherds (see Figure 8.17e) suggested to him aDomfrontais origin (Décarie 1999:49-50).

The contexts of these stoneware bottles suggesta function similar to that of the military canteen.Perhaps they were put into service on campaigns

where fresh water sources were not assured. An example of a beige stoneware bottle documented by Ickowicz(1993:Figure 3.4) shows a wicker covering. Three bottles, one of stoneware, were recovered from the wreckof the Mary Rose in Southampton Harbor, which sank in July, 1545. Two of these were preserved in theiroriginal wicker covers, one example having intact wicker handles (Brown and Thomson 2005:467-469). Thiscovering is similar to that used for Italian glass flasks, which would facilitate use as a canteen or costrel(Straub 2009). A 1640 engraving of a Parisian purveyor of eau-de-vie shows the use of a similar wicker-covered bottle (Brebiette 1997:77 [1640]). The presence of a substantial number of stoneware bottles in earlyseventeenth-century contexts at Jamestown further supports the conjecture that they served as flasks orcanteens for military expeditions and campaigns. Distribution of these vessels in New France includes anearly intact example found outside the walls of Champlain’s Québec second habitation, fragments from

inside the habitation, and a fragment found inside the Maison Chinique at Place-Royal (Décarie 1999: 49-51).

Lower Normandy, Bessin CotentinPaste color, interior: Munsel 2.5YR 4/6 (red), 2.5YR 6/4 (light reddish brown), 5YR 4/2 (dark reddish gray)Paste color, exterior: 10YR 4/2 (dark grayish brown),Inclusions: None detected.

Figure 8.17 Domfrontais bottle (gourde) body fragments:a, (593); b, (475); c, (912), d, (312); e, (888). (Drawing bythe author)

Figure 8.18 Fragments of Domfrontais stoneware bottles(gourdes): left, (593); right, (475). (NPS photograph)


Glaze or surface treatment: Nonedetected.Forms: MNI: 1 possible pitcher, 1handled jar (sinot, saloir), 1 uniden-tified jar, 1 small drug or preservesjars (albarello) (Figure 8.19).Functions: Storage and transporta-tion of food and pharmaceuticals.Distribution: Western France, New-foundland, Lower St. LaurenceBay, Western Bay of Fundy, Que-bec, Montreal, E. Lake Ontario,Chesapeake.References: Chrestien and Dufour-nier 1995, Décarie 1999, Brassardet Leclerc 2001.

The second variety of LowerNormandy stoneware defined byDufournier was made in Bessin andCotentin in the northwest of thedepartment of Calvados and northpart of the department of Manche(Chrestien and Dufournier 1995:92). The body core is of a redderhue than the Domfrontais variety.Chemical analysis has helped tocharacterize these wares, althoughadditional sampling and analysis isneeded to clarify their exact pro-venience. A program of excavationsat a sample of Bessin potteries(Flambard Hèricher 2002) has help-ed to clarify the sequence of medi-eval and post-medieval vesselforms produced there.

Evidence for at least oneBessin-Cotentin preserved food jarwas recovered at Saint Croix Island(Figure 8.20b). Its form, reconstructed in Fig. 8.19b, isspeculative, but the sherds suggest a bulbous type of jarwith constricted neck (Décarie 1999:26-29). A handlefragment, identified by Dufournier as an example ofBessin-Cotentin stoneware, may have belonged to thisvessel (Figures 8.20f, 8.21). Delicate base and body sherdsmay represent a pharmaceutical jar (Figure 8.20d). Limitednumbers of Bessin-Cotentin stonewares have been found atseventeenth-century sites in North America, including anointment jar found at the remote mission of Sainte-Marieamong the Huron on Lake Huron.

Figure 8.21 Handle of Bessin Cotentinstoneware vessel (447). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.19 Conjectural vessel forms of Bessin Cotentin stoneware vesselsfound at Saint Croix Island: a, pitcher (pichet); b, preserved food jar; c,unidentified jar; d, unidentified tableware form. (Drawing by the author)

Figure 8.20 Bessin Cotentin stoneware vessel fragments found at Saint CroixIsland: a, pitcher (pichet) rim (457); b, jar (jarre) shoulder (62, 278); c, basewhich may be same vessel as 457 (458); d, unidentified tableware base (915);e, jar (jarre) body (1313); f, handle (447). (Drawing by the author)


Lower Normandy stoneware isconcentrated at the west extension ofthe storehouse (Figure 8.22). As thepredominate use of this stoneware wasfor transportation and storage of food-stuffs, this provides further support forthe identification of this structure as thestorehouse, used periodically by theFrench between 1605 and 1613.

Beauvaisis StonewarePaste color, interior: Munsel 10YR 7/4to 10YR 8/4 (very pale brown)Paste color, exterior: 7.5YR 6/2 to7.5YR 6/4 (light brown)Inclusions: NoneGlaze or surface treatment: NoneForms: MNV: 2 pharmaceutical orpreserves jars (pots à onguent), 7 cos-trels, or handled bottles (gourds bouteil-les à deux anses) (Figure 8.23)Functions: storage of liquids, preserves,pharmaceuticalDistribution: Central and westernFrance.References: Chrestien and Dufournier1995, Hurst et al. 1986, Straube 2009,Décarie 1999, Cartier 2001.

Beauvaisis stoneware is yellow-buff colored. Frequently its exterior willdisplay a light brown or reddish tinge

from the firing. Its source is a surface deposit of low-iron Middle Cretaceous clay in the Pays de Bray, whichsupported numerous potteries including those in La Chapelle-aux-Pots and Savignies. Here, the productionof earthenware dates back to the tenth century, supplemented by the production of stoneware in the fourteenthcentury when kilns were developed that could fire up to 1,280 degrees centigrade (Cartier 2001:50). Somespecialty wares produced in this area for the aristocracy were both molded and decorated withcobalt.Beauvaisis stoneware was distributed across the Pays de Bray, northern Normandy, the Île-de-France, andsouth to the Loire in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Our knowledge of the production of these waresis due to local excavations conducted by the Groupe de Recherches et d’Études de la Ceramique duBeauvaisis (GRECB) initially led by Henri Morisson and more recently by their president, Jean Cartier.Cartier kindly identified a sample of Saint Croix Island specimens on park-loan brought to Beauvais by theauthor in 2001.

Handled costrel (gourde bouteille à deux anses)The predominant vessel form in this ware series found on Saint Croix Island consists of the handled

costrel (gourde bouteille à deux anses) (Figures 8.23a,b). These containers had a constricted neck, bulbousbody with twin horizontal handles and tapering base (Figures 8.24, 8.25, 8.26, 8.27, 8.28) While only threenecks were recovered (one of which, Figure 8.24a,b, was distorted during firing), there is evidence for at least

Figure 8.22 Distribution of Lower Normandy stoneware fragments at theSaint Croix Island habitation.


ten individual handles (Figure 8.28). Thediminutive sizes of these containers suggestthat they were exported to Acadia containingsome type of beverage, perhaps Calvados, oranother regional eau-de-vie specialty. Exactanalogies for the Saint Croix Island costrelsfrom seventeenth-century contexts may befound in the Musée Grès at La Chapelle-aux-Pots near Beauvais. These forms are alsodistributed across central and western Franceand are represented archaeologically by threeexamples recovered from seventeenth-centurycontexts at excavations at the Cour Napoleonof the Louvre in Paris.3

Pharmaceutical and preserves jars (albarello)The second most common form in Beau-

vaisis stoneware was the small jar (Figure8.23c, d). Some had everted rims evoking the

Figure 8.23 Reconstructions of Beauvaisis stoneware vessel forms recovered at Saint Croix Island; a, costrel (gourdebouteille à deux anses); b, small costrel (gourde bouteille); c, cylindrical pharmaceutical or preserves jar (pot à l’onguentou à conserves); d, pharmaceutical or preserves jar (pot à l’onguent ou à conserves). (Drawing by the author)

Figure 8.24 Beauvaisis stoneware, necks of costrels (gourdebouteille): a, b, two profiles of same vessel, distorted during firing(1302); c, costrel neck (619); d, costrel neck (621). (Drawing bythe author after originals by Matthew Palus)


Figure 8.27 Beauvaisis stoneware costrel(gourde bouteille) bases: a, (461); b, (1300).(Drawing by the author after originals byMatthew Palus)

Figure 8.28 Beauvaisis stoneware costrel (gourde bouteille)handles: a-g (399,unknown,826,1267,unknown, unknown,2286);i-k (302,unknown,620,); h, possible handle of pitcher or pichet,(402). (Drawing by the author after originals by Matthew Palus)

Figure 8.26 Beauvaisis stoneware costrel (gourdebouteille) (1324). (Drawing by the author afteroriginals by Matthew Palus)

Figure 8.25 Fragments of Beauvaisis costrel (gourdebouteille) (1322). (NPS photograph)


form of the albarello (Figure 8.29, 8.30,8.31). The forms of two examples fromthe island may be reconstructed on thebasis of comparative examples fromSaint-Chapelle-aux Pots in the Beauvaisis. Traditionally this vessel form was used fortransporting and storing two differentsubstances: preserves and ointment(Chrestien and Dufournier 1995: 93). Areference to the use of ointment by the sieur de Poutrincourt’s ship’s surgeon todress the wounds of his companions wasmade by Champlain (Champlain 1922:431[1613]). Similar jars have been recoveredfrom seventeenth-century sites in theBeauvaisis (Cartier 2001: 73), Paris(Trombetta 2001: 140, 141), in QuébecCity at Place-Royale and at the ChateauSt.-Louis (Décarie 1999:55-59), and atPentagoet (Faulkner and Faulkner 1987:210, 211). An eighteenth-century examplewas found at the Fortress of Louisbourg(Chrestien and Dufournier 1995: Figure2). A second type of pharmaceutical orpreserves jar with cylindrical sides wasalso found at Saint Croix Island (Figure8.32, next page).

The Saint Croix Island assemblage ofBeauvaisis stoneware is notable for theabsence of some distinctive forms includ-ing variants on the bottle such as thebouteille and gourde crapaud and table-ware forms such as the pitcher (cruche),and cup (coupelle). This latter form ap-pears at Charlesfort in South Carolina(1562), but is absent at the ca. 1544Cartier-Roberval site near Québec City.

The distribution of Beauvaisis stone-ware at the Saint Croix Island habitationreveals three clusters with a concentrationat an apparent structure to the southwest ofthe storehouse (Figure 8.33, next page).The possible significance of these clustersis discussed in Chapter 11.

Loire StonewarePaste color, interior: Munsel 5YR 6/2pinkish grey; 10YR 8/2 white; 2.5Y 7/4pale yellow; 7.5YR 8/2 pinkish white.

Figure 8.31 Base of Beauvaisis stoneware pharmaceutical orpreserves jar (pot à onguent ou à conserves) (499). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.30 Rim sherds of Beauvaisis stoneware pharmaceutical orpreserves jar (pot à onguent ou à conserves): left, (460), right,(459). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.29 Beauvaisis stoneware pharmaceutical or preserves jar(pot à onguent ou à conserves): a, base (499); b, rim (459,460).(Drawing by the author)


Paste color, exterior: 5YR 3/3 darkreddish brown; 10YR 8/3 very palebrown; 2.5Y 5/0 greyInclusions: occasionally fine sand.Glaze or surface treatment: laitierglaze may have orange or white flecksForms: MNV: four variations on pos-sible salted-food storage forms (saloir),one bottle (gourde); one possible pitch-er (pichet), and one unidentified table-ware.Functions: Food storage, tablewaresDistribution: Central and westernFrance, Québec City, Fortress ofLouisbourg (Nova Scotia), Trudeausite (Louisiana)References: Brain 1979; Faulkner andFaulkner 1987; Chretien and Dufour-nier 1995; Niellon and Moussette1995; Décarie 1999; Poulet 2000.

A stoneware industry began in themid-fifteenth century in the area nowcomprising the departments of Haut-Berry and Puisaye (Poulet 2000:17;Figure 8.1). The presence of familiesoriginating from Beauvaisis may havecontributed to this development. Un-like the Beauvaisis, where stonewarepotters worked side-by-side with localearthenware potters, the Loire valleypotters quickly displaced or absorbedthem and began to specialize in stone-ware containers for export. In the earlymodern period empty stoneware con-tainers were shipped down the Loire toNantes. They also reached Paris andthe coast by an overland route to theupper reaches of the Seine River.

Puisaye and Haut-Berry stone-wares resemble those of the Beauvaisisbecause of their buff-colored bodies,but four distinctions are to be noted.The first is the lighter, buff-coloredbody and slightly coarser texture of theLoire stonewares in comparison with ayellower tone and finer texture of theBeauvaisis stoneware bodies. Thesecond attribute is the frequent appear-ance of a laitier glaze on the Loire

Figure 8.33 Distribution of fragments of Beauvaisis stoneware at theSaint Croix Island habitation. (Plan by the author)

Figure 8.32 Beauvaisis stoneware pharmaceutical or preserves jar (pot àl’onguent ou à conserves); a, profile (150); b, photograph of reconstructedjar. (Drawing and photograph by the author)


stonewares. This consisted of local iron foundry residue (Poulet 2000:196). In appearance, it is frequentlypooled with a mottled brown-black hue.

The third distinction, for late Renaissance specialty wares only, was the application of manganesedecoration, frequently on molded surfaces. The fourth characteristic consists of region-specific variations invessel form (Figure 8.34). For example, differences in handles allow a distinction to be made between waresproduced in Puisaye and Haut-Berry.

Post-2000 analysis of the Saint Croix Island ceramic collection revealed at least seven highly-fragmentedstoneware vessels of likely Loire valley origin (Figure 8.35). The Loire stonewares are small in number andthe vessels are dissimiliar to those from the Beauvaisis. This suggests that they served as containers forfoodstuffs or other substances from another region of France.

Salted food container (saloir)The majority of Puisaye and Haut-Berry stoneware sherds shown in Figure 8.35 may be from containers

for salted food. These include the mouth of a jar (a), the mouth of a second jar (b), a third jar with evertedrim (c), a handled jar or possibly a pitcher (d), a body sherd of either a saloir or pitcher with the remains ofa thumb-impressed ribbon of clay (e), and possible lower body of a saloir (g). Figure 8.36 shows the slightlyporous nature of the vessel in Figure 8.34c. The exterior body plastic decoration shown in Fig. 8.34eandinterpreted in Figure 8.33a is well-documented from the Puisaye and Loire Valley (Poulet 2000:315). The body sherd shown in Figure 8.34d shows evidence for a vertical handle attachment; both vertical andhorizontal handles were employed on these Loire valley salted food containers.

Figure 8.34 Conjectural reconstructions of Puisaye and Haut-Berry stoneware vessels recovered from Saint CroixIsland: a, salted-food jar (saloir); b, bottle (gourde); c, unidentified small jar; d, unidentified large jar, possibly a saloir.(Drawing by the author)


Bottle (gourde)A single stoneware fragment may have originated from the center of the body of a bottle (Figures 8.34b,

8.35f; Poulet 2000: 325).

Unidentified containerAt least one container was covered with the laitier glaze distinctive of Puisaye and Haut-Berry stoneware

(Figure 8.37; Poulet 2000:279).

Site DistributionA small number of sherds is concentrated in the southeast corner of the habitation, clearly defining thepresence of a residence (Figure 8.38).

Unidentified Grey StonewarePaste color, interior: Munsel 10YR 7/2 (light grey)Inclusions: body vitrified.Glaze or surface treatment: None evident

Figure 8.37 Shoulder of Puisaye and Haut-Berrystoneware showing laitier glaze (590). (NPSphotograph)

Figure 8.36 Rim fragment of Puisaye- HautBerry stoneware jar (543). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.35 Puisaye and Haut-Berry stoneware jars (jarres): a,b, unidentified (642,1645); c, unidentified (543); d, handleattachment (396); e, body sherd with vertical clay band withthumb impressions (497); f, body of bottle or gourde (432); g, jarbody (714). (Drawings by the author, some after originals byMatthew Palus)


Figure 8.39 Stoneware of unknown origin: a, lower body(1083); b, base (2285). (Drawing by the author after original byMatthew Palus)

Figure 8.38 Distribution of Loire stoneware at the Saint Croix Islandhabitation.

Forms: MNV: 2 jugs or costrels (gourdebouteille) (Figure 8.39)Functions: container for liquids

Two fragments of unidentified greystoneware were recovered from SaintCroix Island, one (1083) from a possibleearly seventeenth-century context on thecobbled extension of the store house (Fig-ures 8.39, 8.40). The provenience of thesecond sherd (2285) is not documented.Both exhibit exposure to high tempera-tures possibly resulting from direct contactwith fire. The sherds appear to be basalfragments of costrels or jugs.

Anglo-American StonewarePaste color, interior: Munsel 5YR 7/1(light grey)Surface color, exterior: 5YR 5/4 (reddishbrown)Inclusions: NoneGlaze or surface treatment: Exterior saltglazeForms: MNV: 2 (jug) (Figure 8.41)Functions: container for liquidsDistribution: Test VReferences: Consistent with North Ameri-can stoneware, ca. 1790-1900.

The two examples of Anglo-Amer-ican stoneware found on the island arefrom unknown proveniences. A base and neckof the same bottle, or possibly of two bottles,were found, the former in Test Pit V (whichdoes not appear in Gruber’s maps), and theother with unknown provenience (Figure 8.41,next page). While there were scattered Ameri-can stoneware potteries in the eighteenth cen-tury (in Boston, in New York and NorthernNew Jersey, Philadelphia, and Yorktown,Virginia), the industry only gained a footholdin North America during the first quarter of the nine-teenth century. These two examples of stoneware areprobably associated with either the early nineteenth-century settlement on the south of the island or with the1857 lighthouse to the north. They may also have beenintroduced to the island by visitors.

Figure 8.40 (right) Stoneware of unknown origin (1083).(NPS photograph)


EARTHENWARE

Buff Earthenware, Lead-glazedPaste color, exterior: Munsel 10YR 7/4, 10YR 7/3 (very palebrown)Inclusions: fine-grain paste, fine buff-colored inclusionsGlaze or surface treatment: Interior green glaze ranging from dullto bright apple-greenForms: MNV: 4: Handled pot (Coquemar) (Ravoire form F1),small jar, potFunctions: cooking, heating water, food containerDistribution: Île-de-France, NormandyReferences: Flambard Hericher 2002

Only six lead-glazed buff earthenware containers could beidentified from sherds still in the collection and from 1960sdocumentation of ceramics no longer in the NPS collection(Figure 8.42b, c, d, g; Figures 8.43 and 8.44 a and d). Two Koda-chrome slides taken by Cotter in 1969 are the only record we haveof five earthenware sherds (Figures 8.43, 8.44). Lead glaze wasapplied directly to the body, without engobe. These buff-colored

Figure 8.42 Earthenware found at Saint Croix Island: a, small red earthenware pot rim with interior green lead-glaze(597); b, cooking pot or coquemar with green lead-glazed interior (151); c, unidentified pot rim with interior green leadglaze (308); d, unidentified pot rim with interior green lead glaze (1241); e, lower body of light red earthenware jar(possible tinaja or anfora) with apple-green interior lead glaze (902); f, buff earthenware rim of pot with appliqué(Temple 20-791-69); g, lead-glazed buff earthenware rim (882); h, unglazed buff earthenware rim, possibly of a marmiteor cooking pot (505); i, unglazed buff earthenware body sherd showing evidence of painting (397). (Drawings by theauthor)

Figure 8.41 American stoneware Albany-slipped bottle fragments: a, neck and handle(unknown provenience); b, base (test pit V).(Drawing by the author after originals byMatthew Palus)


earthenware sherds may have origi-nated anywhere in France where light-firing clays are found, but the mostlikely sources are Normandy, Brittany,and the Île-de-France. Jean Chapelot’sinitial response in seeing photographsof Saint Croix Island earthenwaresherds was that they were probably notfrom the Saintonge region. Their spe-cific origins may have to be deter-mined based on chemical analysis ofbodies and glaze.

Cooking pot (coquemar)Ravoire defines the coquemar as

a closed ovoid ceramic form with ahandle fastened to the rim and flattenedbottom (2006:133). The verb coquerein latin means ‘to heat’ and commonlythe side opposite the handle of thecoquemar shows evidence of exposureto fire. This appears to be the case withthe restored example from Saint CroixIsland (Figures. 8.42b, 8.45). Its formis generally consistent with those oflate-medieval French examples withtwo differences. The Saint Croix Islandcoquemar has a proportionately largerbase and more ovoid form, and it has abanded rim (la lèvre en bandeau) thatevokes the rim of the medieval oule(Nicourt 1986:105).

Small potThis interior green lead-glazed

vessel may have had a storage or table-ware function (Figure 8.42c). It wasfound at the extreme southeast end ofthe habitation.

Small bowl or cup (coupelle)This green-glazed rim may have

had a diameter of about 15 cm (5.9 in)and suggests the profile of a cup orsmall bowl (coupelle) (Figure 8.42d,8.46). Figure 8.44 Photograph of Saint Croix Island earthenwares taken by John

L. Cotter in 1969 (shows, with exception of g and e, the reverse sides ofsherds in Figure 9.43). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.43 Photograph of Saint Croix Island earthenwares taken byCotter in 1969: a, “20-72-69 …with partial green glaze over appliqué;” b,“20-35-69…possible crucible;” c, “20-36-69 and 20-31-69 Tanearthenware fragment of presumed vessel handle with hole at the end. Intwo pieces. Made in 2 longitudinal pieces and matched. Unglazed;”d, “20-191-69 Tan earthenware rim with appliqué fillet [?] unglazed;” e, “St.Croix 1969 (not numbered). Buff earthenware, interior green glaze;” f,“20-760-69 Red earthenware, well-fired, unglazed, expanded, flattenedrim;” g, “ 20-343-69 Tan earthenware rim sherd, unglazed.” (NPSphotograph)


Small potThis rim sherd is from an interior green

lead-glazed buff earthenware vessel of un-known form and function (Figure 8.42g, 8.47)

Possible pitcherThis body sherd is known only from Cot-

ter’s 1969 photograph. It appears to have abroad, vertical thumb-impressed clay ribbon(nervure dentelée au doigt/ bande appliquée)covered with a green lead glaze (Figures 8.43aand 8.44a).

Cooking pot or pitcherThis green lead-glazed rim sherd is known

only from Cotter’s 1969 photograph (Figures8.43e, 8.44e). The vessel mouth appears to beabout 10 cm in diameter, which is close to thesize of vessel (151) (Figure 8.42b, 8.45).

Site DistributionThe green lead-glazed buff earthenware

sherds are concentrated at the likely site of ahouse at the western side of the habitation, with

some sherds also present at the storehouse (Figure 8.48).

Buff Earthenware, UnglazedPaste color, interior: Munsel 7.5YR 6/4 (light brown); 10YR8/1, 8/2 (white); 10YR 7/4 (very pale brown)Paste color, exterior: 10YR 4/2; interior: 10YR7/4 (very palebrown)Inclusions: paste is fine grain with some buff-colored inclusionsGlaze or surface treatment: one sherd shows evidence forpainting (397), another has thumb-impressed decoration(missing from collection).Forms: MNV=8 (four unidentified, two basins, one jar, onepossible metallurgical vessel).Functions: storage, food preparation, possible metallurgical use.Distribution: Western EuropeReferences: Hurst et al. 1986.

The small sample of eight vessels is quite varied. Foursherds are known only from Cotter’s 1969 photograph.

Unidentified vesselThis may represent the unglazed rim of a vessel that isotherwise glazed (Figure 8.42h).

Vessel with possible painted decorationThis unglazed body sherd has two dark horizontal bands

Figure 8.47 Interior lead-glazed buffearthenware rim (882). (NPS photograph)

Figure 8.45 Reconstructed green lead-glazed earthenwarecooking pot (coquemar) from habitation (151). (NPS photo-graph)

Figure 8.46 Interior lead-glazed buff earth-enware rim of possible cup (1241). (NPSphotograph)


Figure 8.48 Distribution of green lead-glazed earthenwares found at theSaint Croix Island habitation.

that may represent iron oxide or othermineral painting (Figures 8.42i, 8.49).A high proportion of early seventeenth-century Parisian earthenware was stillbeing decorated in this manner, a carry-over from the Middle Ages (Nicourt1986:135-139). The horizontal bandingof the Saint Croix Island example isconsistent with Nicourt’s “PD” classifi-cation of banding which wraps aroundthe shoulder of a vessel such as a pitch-er or cooking pot (Nicourt 1986:136,137).

Broad rimmed pot or basin with appli-qué rims

Of the two vessels that fall into thiscategory, one is known to us only onthe basis of a profile and drawing byMuriel Kirkpatrick done for Gruber’s(1970) report, and by photographs takenby Cotter in1969. A basin documentedat a Bessin pottery site by FlambartHericher (2002:144, 145, 146) has simi-lar impressed appliqué banding beneaththe rim. Cotter’s photograph (Figure8.43g, 8.44g) appears to show the inte-rior of this vessel. A second vessel(Figure 8.42d) shows a similar plastictreatment although this vessel was not profiled for Gruber’s report.

Handle of unidentified vesselThe only evidence for this sherd is from photographs taken by

Cotter (Figures 8.43, 8.44). This unusual handle was 4.5 cm across andwas described by Cotter as “20-36-69 and 20-31-69 Tan earthenwarefragment of presumed vessel handle with hole at the end. In two pieces.Made in 2 longitudinal pieces and matched. Unglazed.”

Jar or botijaThe lower body sherd of a conical jar was recovered, possibly a

fragment of an Iberian olive jar or botija (Figures 8.50b, 8.51, nextpage). The body color was Munsel 10YR 8/1 to 10YR8/2 white, with aslightly pinkish core. In the late sixteenth century, Iberian earthenwarevessels were used by several nationalities for transporting both wine andoil (Marken 1994:47). In referring to the bitterly cold winter of 1604 to1605, Champlain wrote, “During this winter our beverages all frozeexcept the Spanish wine” (Champlain 1922:306 [1613]).

Figure 8.49 Body sherd of unglazedpainted buff earthenware (397).(NPS photograph)


Neck of burned vesselThe burned shoulder and neck of a small

container measuring approximately 10 cm (3.9 in)in diameter was recovered at far west side of thehabitation (405).

Possible metallurgical vesselFragments of an unglazed buff earthenware

vessel were found in 1969 which Cotter photo-graphed and described as a “…metallurgical vesselsherd with flange on rim interior. Thick fire clay.Possible crucible” (Figure 8.43b, 8.44b). Only aportion of this vessel is preserved in the Saint CroixIsland collection. Inspection of these remaining twosherds indicates that there may be a sound basis forCotter’s attribution of function. For this reason theceramic vessel is described at length in Chapter 7 inthe context of evidence for metallurgy found on theisland.

Site distributionWhile few in number, the buff earthenware

sherds at Saint Croix Island cluster at the southeastcorner of the habitation (Figure 8.52). This maymark the former location of a third structure withinthe excavated area of the habitation.

Red Earthenware, Lead-glazedPaste color, interior: may have reduced or oxidizedcore or both, so color ranges from grey to buff tosoft red.Paste color, exterior: often oxidized red, but some-time reduction grey.Inclusions:generally, none, but some sherds haveoccasional white (calcite?) and red inclusions 1-2mm diameter.Glaze or surface treatment: Munsel 5Y 5/4 (olive)MNV:2Functions: food containerDistribution: Iron is a common constituent of claysacross North America and Europe. Consequentlyred-bodied earthenware is perhaps the most com-mon ceramic type from the English and Frenchcolonial periods in North America. Distinguishingbetween local products and imports remains a major

challenge. A project of chemical characterization of post-1680 Québec earthenware has been undertaken byYves Monette (2007). While it is likely that there were earlier potters working in New France, our assumptionis that the red earthenware found at Saint Croix Island is European. Chemical characterization may yet specifyits origins.

Figure 8.50 Buff and red unglazed earthenware from thehabitation: a, shoulder of unidentified red earthenware jar(443); b, possible Iberian jar body sherd (1055); c, lowerbody and base of high-fired red earthenware jar (443); d,lower body sherd of high-fired red earthenware jar (440); e,body of unglazed red earthenware, possibly Iberian (439);f, unglazed high-fired red earthenware body sherd (444).(Drawings by the author)

Figure 8.51 Possible body fragment of Iberian olive jar(botija) (1055). (NPS photograph)


References: Monette 2007, Hamel2009, Moussette 1996,

Few lead-glazed red earthenwarevessels are represented at the habita-tion.

JarThis vessel has a band of green

glaze inside the lip of the rim, otherwiseit appears to have been unglazed andmay represent an albarello or smallstorage jar (Figure 8.42a).

Jar or bottleThis body sherd appears to be from

an area near to the base of the vessel,which may have been pointed. The lightbrown body has small red and whiteinclusions and a green lead glaze (Fig-ure 8.53).

Red Earthenware, UnglazedPaste color, interior: Munsel 2.5YR6/8 (light red), 2.5YR 5/6Paste color, exterior: 2.5YR 5/6 (red)Inclusions: few, but the clay is slightlyvariegated with a lighter clayGlaze or surface treatment: NoneMNV: one small unidentified pot, threepossible Iberian jarsFunctions: storageDistribution: Western Europe, North AmericaReferences: Hurst et al. 1986.

JarThe majority of sherds appear to be from a

single large jar with a high-fired red earthenwarebody of variegated color Munsel 2.5YR 5/6 (red)with white non-micaceous inclusions found on thewest side of the habitation (Figure 8.50c,d). It isdifficult to attribute this ware with any certainty,but it may represent a low-fired Bessin-Cotentinstoneware vessel.

UnidentifiedPossibly Iberian jars (Figure 8.50a,e,f)

Unidentified thin-bodiedThe sides of this vessel appear to have been trimmed (Figure 8.54, next page)

Figure 8.52 Distribution of buff earthenware at the habitation.

Figure 8.53 Body sherd of green lead-glazed redearthenware (902), 55 mm across. (NPS photograph)


Site distributionSee discussion (above) for lead-

glazed red earthenware. At Saint CroixIsland, site distribution of red earthen-ware sherds clearly shows a concentra-tion at the southwest corner of the habi-tation, possibly corresponding with anindividual structure (Figure 8.55). Al-most all vessels described above aretableware, further suggesting that thisstructure may have been a residence. The absence of red earthenware at thelikely location of a house site in thesoutheast corner of the habitation issurprising, since buff earthenware is present (Figure 8.52). This suggests that there may have been somedifference in status of the occupants of the different residences. Questions concerning status and ceramicsat Saint Croix Island are discussed in Chapter 11 in the context of diet.

DISCUSSION

Saint Croix Island’s French ceramic assemblage is distinctive as one of the earliest and most tightly-dated in the Americas. Its comparative value was diminished until now by the absence of a typology andsystematic approach to quantification. Simple sherd counts used by Tremer and Gruber over-emphasized theimportance of larger vessels that tend to break into more pieces than smaller ones (Orton 1980: 161-167).This chapter presents minimum numbers of vessels (MNV) counts, which approximate the relative numbersof ceramic vessels at the habitation.

These data support an observation first made by Décarie (1999:111) that the early sites of Saint CroixIsland and Champlain’s habitation in Québec yielded predominantly Lower Normandy stoneware, unlike latersites which contained more regionally diverse French wares. Nearly 70 percent of all Saint Croix Islandceramic vessels were of stoneware. Sixty-two percent of these vessels served for the transportation andstorage of foodstuffs and most of these were Lower Normandy stoneware. An explanation is offered byChrestien and Dufournier (1995:93): the French ports of Dieppe, Rouen, Honfleur and Saint-Malo were most

Figure 8.55 Distribution of red earthenware at the habitation.

Figure 8.54 Sherd of thin-bodied unglazedred earthenware (1076). (NPS photographand drawing)


active in colonization in the early seventeenth century. After the failure of the One Hundred AssociatesCompany in 1632, La Rochelle took a more active role, and the products of the nearby ceramic-manufactur-ing Saintonge become more plentiful on American sites (Mock 2006). Until recently, the absence of standardearly modern French ceramic typologies for form and fabric prevented this hypothesis from being system-atically tested on American sites.

Normandy stoneware diminishes in relative frequency on American sites over time but the dynamics ofceramic trade and use are often more complex than meets the eye. The Saint Croix Island assemblage revealsa robust component of Beauvaisis stoneware vessels, 12.7 percent, and Loire Valley stoneware, 9.9 percent(Table 8.2). Relative quantities of these stonewares to other ceramic types in North American assemblagesappear to be highly variable (Décarie 1999: Tables 3, 4). Are these wares linked with distinctive foodstuffsfrom these two regions, or were empty containers being extensively marketed by potters? These questionspoint us back in the direction of France, and the need for research on ceramic trade in the early modernperiod.

The high proportion of preserved meat and butter storage containers at Saint Croix Island introduces adietary theme to be picked up in Chapters 11 and 12. The distribution of these and other ceramics at thehabitation provides important clues to the relationship between provisions and health of the French occupantsof Saint Croix Island. Reliance on these provisions may have contributed to the numerous cases of scurvythat threatened the health of the colony over the winter of 1604-1605.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my colleagues Fabienne Ravoire and Armelle Clorennec of the InstituteNationale de Recherches de l’Archéologie Preventive (INRAP) who identified repositories and facilitated visits toseveral key ceramics collections in France. I also thank Bruno Fayal of the Université de Caen for sharing his knowledgeof Lower Normandy stoneware and for offering comments on this chapter Thanks as well as to Anne Bocquet-Liénardfor providing the results of chemical analysis of some Saint Croix Island stonewares and to Daniel Dufournier for helpingto visually identify some of the samples. Jean Cartier of Beauvais identified examples of Beauvaisis stoneware fromSaint Croix Island brought to him for examination in 2001. Pierre Ickowicz, Château-Musée de la Ville de Dieppe hasalso freely shared his knowledge of ‘Martincamp flasks,’ on which he is the authority. Geneviève Bresc and EmilieLeverrier of Louvre Museum Department of Sculpture and History facilitated access to ceramic collections from thevarious phases of excavations near the museum. Marcel Poulet was especially generous with his time discussing Loirestoneware with me. I would like to also thank Nathalie Roy and Florence Carré of the Service Regional de l’Archéologieof Haute Normandie in Rouen for making available for study local collections of ceramic artifacts, and to ElizabethLeclerc of INRAP. Nicole Meyer-Roderigues of the Unité d'Archéologie de la Ville de St. Denis facilitated the studyof their ceramic collections. I give special thanks to Remy Guadagnin of the Musée des Arts et Traditions Populairesin Paris for discussing his work and for showing me excavations in progress at the Fosses potteries. I have also benefittedfrom discussions about ceramics with Geneviève Duguay of Parcs Canada and with Hélène Côté of the Province ofQuébec archaeology program. Matthew Palus was the first to systematically document the Saint Croix Island ceramicsand I thank him for allowing me to use his drawings as the basis for several of the profiles used in this chapter. Finally,I thank the staff of Acadia National Park including Rebecca Cole-Will, Bret Achorn and former staff members Lee Terzisand John McDade for providing access to the Saint Croix Island archeological collections. This chapter is dedicated tothe memory of my undergraduate advisor at Brown University, James F. Deetz (1930-2000) whose preparations forwriting In Small Things Forgotten (1977) stimulated my interest in ceramics.

NOTES

1. This observation, first made by Jacob Gruber (1970:104), is still true today.2. The French fishing station at Forillon has yielded several rims of salted food jars (Geneviève Duguay, personalcommunication 2005.3. Inv. 7.301/7443,7444, 7445. See Trombetta 2001:141.


REFERENCES

Alexandre- Bidon, Danièle 2005 Une Archéologie du Goût. Picard, Paris.Bernouis, Philippe and Bruno Fajal 2000 L’Artisanat du Grès a l’Époque Moderne à Ger (Manche), l’Atelier de Perroux. In L’Archéologie dans la

Manche: Fouilles et Recherches Récents (1990-1999), Textes Rénuis par Dominique Cliquet, Actes de laJournée Archéologique du 15 Décembre 1997. Études et Documents 13 Publiés par la Société d’Archéologieet d’Histoire de la Manche, Saint-Lô. Pp. 213-221.

Brain, Jeffrey P. 1979 Tunica Treasure. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University, and Peabody Museum

of Salem.Brassard, Michel and Myriam Leclerc 2001 Identifier la Céramique et la Verre Anciens au Québec. Cahiers d’Archéologie Du CELAT 12.Brebiette, Pierre 1997 [1640] Marchand d’Eau-de-Vie. In Les Petites Métiers à Paris au XVIIe Siècle, edited by Charlotte Lacoeur-

Veyranne, pp. 76, 77. Editions des Musées de la Ville de Paris, Paris.Brown, Duncan H. and Robert Thomson 2005 Pottery Vessels. In Before the Mast: Life and Death Aboard the Mary Rose, edited by Julie Gardiner with

Michael J. Allen, pg. 462-467. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose 4. The Mary Rose Trust, Portsmouth.Cartier, Jean 2001 Céramiques de l’Oise. La Collection du Musée Departemental de l’Oise, Beauvais.Champlain, Samuel de 1922 [1613] The Works of Samuel de Champlain. Volume I, 1599-1607. Translated and edited by H.H. Langton and

W. F. Ganong. The Champlain Society, Toronto.Charleston, R. J. 1972 Letter to John L. Cotter on file, Saint Croix Island International Historical Site Archives, Acadia National Park,

Bar Harbor.Chrestien, Jean-Pierre and Daniel Dufournier 1995 French Stoneware in North-Eastern North America. In Trade and Discovery: The Scientific Study of Artefacts

from Post-Medieval Europe and Beyond, edited by Duncan Hook and David Gaimster, pp. 91-103. Departmentof Scientific Research, British Museum Occasional Paper 109.

Cotter, John L. 1971 Letter to R. J. Charleston, Victoria and Albert Museum, 20 December. Unpublished letter on file, St. Croix

Island International Historical Site Archives, Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor. 1972 Letter to Technical Publication Editor, WASO, October 18. Unpublished letter on file, St. Croix Island

International Historic Site archives, Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor. 1978 Prémier Établissement Française en Acadie: Sainte-Croix. In Dossiers de l'Archéologie 27 (March-April): 60-

71.Décarie, Louise 1999 Le Grès Français de Place-Royale. Collection Patrimoines, Les Publications du Québec. Québec, Canada.Deetz, James 1977 In Small Things Forgotten. Anchor Books, Garden City, New York.Dufournier, Daniel 1996 Les Fours de Potiers de Ger. De Terre et de Feu. Le Viquet 112:98-104.Duguay, Geneviève 1996 Par les Routes du Nord: Des Terres Cuites Communes pour la Ferme de Champlain. In La Petite-Ferme du Cap

Tourmente, by Jacques Guimont, pp. 70-74. Les Éditions du Septentrion, Québec.Duguay, Geneviève 2005 Personal communication.Fajal, Bruno In pressThe Production of Stoneware in Southern Normandy: the Example of Ger (16th-18th-Century). In Exploring

New World Transitions: From Seasonal Presence to Permanent Settlement, edited by Peter Pope. Post-medievalArchaeology.


1999 Quelques Observations Sur le Conditionnement du Beurre, et Notamment du Beure en Pot, en Basse-Normandie (Fin du Moyen-Age-XIXe Siecle). In Boire et Manger en Normandie, Actes du XXXIIIe Congrèsdes Sociétés Historiques et Archéologiques de Normandie, Argentan, 23 au 26 Octobre 1998. Cahiers desAnnales de Normandie, Vol. 4, 1999, pp. 77-92.

1998 Une Communauté de Potiers Normands du XVe au XIXe Siecle (Manche), Statuts et Reglements du Centredu Ger. Histoire et Sociétés Rurales 10:239-263.

Faulkner, Alaric and Gretchen Faulkner 1987 The French at Pentagoet 1635-1674: An Archaeological Portrait of the Acadian Frontier. Occasional

Publications in Maine Archaeology, no. 5. The Maine Historic Preservation Commission and the MaineArchaeological Societey, Augusta.

Flambard Héricher, Anne-Marie 2002 Potiers et Poteries du Bessin. Publications du CRAHM, Caen.Gardiner, Julie, with Michael J. Allen (eds) 2005 Before the Mast. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose (4), Portsmouth.Gruber, Jacob W. 1970 The French Settlement on St. Croix Island, Maine: Excavations for the National Park Service, 1968-1969.

Contract no. 14-10-5-950-23. Unpublished report on file, National Park Service, North Atlantic RegionalOffice, Boston.

Guimont, Jacques 1996 La Petite-Ferme du Cap Tourmente. Les Éditions du Septentrion. Sillery, Québec.Hadlock, Wendell S. 1954 Recent Excavations at De Monts’ Colony. Old-Time New England 44(4):93-99.Hamel, Dany 2009 Les Modes de Fabrication des Terres Cuites Communes de Production Locale à Québec à la fin du XVIIe

Siècle. Cahiers d’archéologie du Celat 27, Québec.Hurst, John G., David S. Neal and H. J. E. Van Beuningen 1986 Pottery Produced and Traded in North-West Europe, 1350-1650. Rotterdam Papers VI. CIP- Gegevens

Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag.Ickowicz, Pierre 1993 Martincamp Ware: a Problem of Attribution. Medieval Ceramics 17:51-60.Maine State Museum 1989 Condition Report and Treatment proposal for Loan Artifacts from St. Croix Island, National Park Service, for

12,000 Years in Maine Exhibit. Unpublished report on file, Acadia National Park.Marken, Mitchell W. 1994 Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks, 1500 – 1800. University Press of Florida, Gainsville.Mock, Kevin 2006 An Analysis of the Morphological Variability Between French Ceramics from Seventeenth-Century

Archaeological Sites in New France. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of History, University ofMaine, Orono.

Monette, Yves 2007 Les Productions Céramiques du Québec Méridional, c. 1680-1890: Analyses, Caractérisation et Provenances.

British Archaeological Reports (BAR) S1490, Archeopress, Oxford.Moussette, Marcel 1996 Les Terres Cuites Communes des Maisons Estèbe et Boisseau. Collection Patrimoines Dossiers, Les

Publications du Québec, Québec.Museum of Fine Arts 1982 New England Begins: The Seventeenth Century. Volume 2, Mentality and the Environment. Museum of Fine

Arts, Boston.Nicourt, Jacques 1986 Céramiques Médiévales Parisiennes. Jeunesse Préhistorique et Géologique de France, Ermont.Niellon, Françoise and Marcel Moussette 1995 L’Habitation de Champlain. Les Recherches Arkhis, Inc. Les Publications du Québec, Québec.Orton, Clive 1980 Mathematics in Archaeology. Collins, England.


Pagan, Robert 1797 Deposition of Robert Pagan. Collection 26, Box 9, Maine Historical Society, Portland.Poulet, Marcel 2000 Poteries et Potiers de Puisaye et du Val de Loire, XVIème – XXème S. Imprimerie Fostier, Saint-Julien-du-Sault.Ravoire, Fabienne 2006 Typologie Raisonée des Céramiques de la Fin du Moyen Âge et du Début de l’Époque Moderne Provenant du

Beauvaisis, de Paris, et d’Ailleurs Retrouvées sur les Sites de Consommation Parisiens et Franciliens. RevueArchéologique de Picardie 3(4):105-202.

Straub, Bly 2009 Martincamp. Jamestown Rediscovery. Online at:

http://www.preservationvirginia.org/rediscovery/page.php?page_id=321.St. John, Amy 2009 Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on Northeast Historical Archaeology,

Québec.Tremer, Charles Walter 1970 Appendix to Archaeological Report on the French Settlement on St. Croix Island. Unpublished report on file,

Acadia National Park, Bar Harbor, Maine.Trombetta, Pierre-Jean 2001 La Céramique. In Le Quartier du Louvre au XVIIe Siècle. Les Dossiers du Musée du Louvre. Éditions de la

Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris. Pp. 130-161.

Ceramics. In Pendery, ed. (2012)

Documents

Transcript of Ceramics. In Pendery, ed. (2012)