Lisa Hudgins
Staffordshire in America: The Wares of John Bartlam at Cain Hoy, 1765–1770

Ceramics in America 2009

Full Article
Contents
  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Teapot, Staffordshire, 1765–1775. Lead-glazed earthenware. H. 4 1/2". (Courtesy, Chipstone Foundation; unless otherwise noted, photos by Gavin Ashworth.)

  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Map showing locations related to the activities of John Bartlam and William Ellis. (Artwork by Wynne Patterson.) 

  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Waster fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    Waster fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Bisque-fired earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    Bowl and mug fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Bisque-fired and lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.) These fragments show clear evidence of lathe-turning. The four mug fragments at far right are virtually identical to a popular decorative technique used on Staffordshire hollow wares in the 1770s. 

  • Figure 6
    Figure 6

    Teapot fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.) Note the incorporation of the molded Barleycorn design on the panels of the vessel.

  • Figure 7
    Figure 7

    Teapot fragments, attributed to John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware and unglazed red stoneware. (Courtesy,p> South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.) This form in red stoneware has not been seen in English examples.

  • Figure 8
    Figure 8

    Bowl fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Bisque-fired and lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 9
    Figure 9

    Dish fragments, attributed to John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 10
    Figure 10

    Dish, Staffordshire, 1765–1775. Lead-glazed earthenware. H. 8 3/8". (Courtesy, Chipstone Foundation.)

  • Figure 11
    Figure 11

    Teabowl fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Soft-paste porcelain. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 12
    Figure 12

    Waster fragment, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.) This fragment clearly shows a collapsed vessel, the result of overfiring in the kiln.

  • Figure 13
    Figure 13

    Bowl fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.) The tortoise-glazed fragment on the left shows a rouletted rim pattern. 

  • Figure 14
    Figure 14

    Plate and hollow ware fragments in the Barleycorn design, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Bisque-fired and lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 15
    Figure 15

    Plate fragments in the Dot, Diaper, and Basket design, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Bisque-fired and lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 16
    Figure 16

    Plate fragments in the Ring and Dot design, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.) 

  • Figure 17
    Figure 17

    Bowl and saucer fragments in the molded Cauliflower pattern, attributed to John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 18
    Figure 18

    Fragments in the molded Pine­apple pattern, attributed to John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware and unglazed red stoneware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 19
    Figure 19

    Hollow ware fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Bisque-fired and lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 20
    Figure 20

    Jug fragment, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 21
    Figure 21

    Tortoise-glaze fragments, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 22
    Figure 22

    Hollow ware fragment, John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

  • Figure 23
    Figure 23

    Figural fragments, attributed to John Bartlam, Cain Hoy, South Carolina, 1765–1770. Lead-glazed earthenware. (Courtesy, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.) These fragments might be from wares Bartlam produced using molds that were widely available in the Staffordshire ceramic industry.