“The best clay for Potters was ‘digged up’ at Fremington” [Risbon observed in 1630]
“it has been used for generations by all North Devon Potters, it is chocolate in colour, fires a beautiful teracotta and matures at 1000 degrees centigrade which is a great advantage, combined with its strength for throwing and pulling handles. I know of no other clay which can be thrown so thin when one has acquired the necessary experience” – (W F Holland, over 300 years later than Risbon’s quote).
The big ongoing debate for archaeologists, potters and curators of collections is this – is the clay used in North Devon pottery gravel free or not gravel free and if it does have gravel is it in the clay naturally or added and mixed in?
In the 17th and 18th centuries “the materials of which the weare is composed cost little or nothing” (1792 John Watkins, Bideford historian]. Body clay – local red clay, white clay for slip – ball clay, gravel to temper the coarse wares, lead ore for glaze – merchants supplied this from Chester, Aberdovey and Bristol; fuel, wood for firing the kiln and some coal.
Lots of North Devon pottery has been found in Nova Scotia, New England and Virginia as England provided all the plainware needs for the colonists. The first settlement was at Roanoke Island in present day North Carolina. The tall jar is the most common North Devon ware found up to 1620. Roanoke, Newfoundland, Maine, New England, Maryland and Jamestown all have these pots. Some are plain Fremington clay, some are gravel tempered, or ‘calcareous’, as described by Merry Abbit-Outlaw curator at Jamestowne Rediscovery in Virginia. These particles are not always visible. Sometimes they are in the pots referred to as ‘gravel free’.
Bly Straube, Senior Curator at Jamestowne Settlement and the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown has observed that this is most common in earlier contexts; the earlier it is, the more gravel is in the clay.
I am reading W Fishley Holland’s book ‘50 years a Potter’, 1958, which is a fascinating read. Despite the date of this book, I am very interested in what he has to say about his practice and the use of gravel. I am pretty sure that the following description would have applied to North Devon potters in earlier centuries as W Fishley Holland adopted long-standing traditions handed down through the generations from his Great Grandfather, George Fishley (17771-1865) who set up Fremington Pottery.
“At the pottery, when our old horse driver passed on, I was detailed to the job , and so learnt to mix the various clays for different kinds of pots: as dug, for small pots and pitchers, some fine Bideford grit for large pots and pitchers, and more grit for the cooking pots. The clay was wet down, chopped and slapped before being put through the pugmill twice.” (p10-11)
“To get our gravel, barges went above Bideford bridge and worked the tides so that they got to Muddlebridge on the next high tide to unload. When Bideford pottery was working they loaded back with clay.” (p11)
So it seems to be a possible combination of factors – it could be inherent within the Fremington body clay but not very visible to the eye; it can be added to pot forms to make them stronger (and able to be fired at a slightly lower temperature), as it is more visible and plentiful in larger pots; and also it could be which time period a pot was made, as a pot from early 1600s has been found to contain more gravel than later ones.
In which case was the clay washed to remove the gravel particles? When Virginian Ceramicist Michelle Erickson visited Bideford in 2013 and was a resident potter for the Cargo Project, Michelle did observe that when the clay she was working with in Bideford was washed, gravel came out of it.
The debate continues …………..comments and insights are welcomed!