Material – Porcelain

Place of Origin – China

The Chinese developed the earliest porcelain ceramics during the Sui Dynasty (589-618). By the 9th century A.D., Chinese potters mastered the technology needed to create fine fully-vitrified porcelains. Chinese porcelains are high-quality, thin, white, translucent wares that are considered “the pinnacle of the potter’s art”.[i] Fine white-firing kaolin clays, mixed with quartz and feldspathic rock were fired at high temperatures (between 1208 to over 1400 degrees Celsius). During firing the feldspathic rock becomes molten creating a translucent ware with a thin high-gloss glaze. [ii]

Chinese porcelains are decorated with underglaze blue hand painted designs and sometimes overglazed designs. Overglazed porcelains are more expensive and tend to only be found on sites associated with more affluent individuals. During the 17th century, the city of Jindezhen dominated the porcelain industry. Political unrest in China during the 17th century led to the destruction of the Jingdezhen kilns in 1675 and subsequent reorganization of the porcelain industry by 1683 which led to further improvements to their technological expertise. A diagnostic characteristic seen on some Kangxi Dynasty (1662-1722) blue on white porcelains made prior to 1675 is a less refined body and blue-tinted glaze. Later Kangxi blue on white porcelains produced after the reorganization have a bright cobalt blue on a fully white bodied ceramic.[iii]

During most the 17th century porcelains were not being made in Europe and all porcelains were imported from China.[iv] The Dutch East India Company gained control of East Indian trade routes from the Portuguese in the late 16th century and dominated the porcelain trade market throughout the 17th century.[v] Chinese porcelain tea wares were imported luxury items that were expensive and relegated to aristocrats. As international trade networks continued to expand, by the early 18th century Chinese export goods became more readily available and affordable for the middle class. By the mid-18th century Chinese porcelains were among a variety of Chinese export goods that had become quite fashionable.[vi] Porcelains are fully vitrified making them more heat resistant and suitable for holding hot liquids and withstanding daily use. The increasing popularity of tea drinking in Europe led to an increased demand for Chinese porcelains.[vii]

Fine handle-less wine cups have been recovered from early seventeenth century archaeological contexts (c.1610-1640) along the James River in Virginia.[viii] Chinese porcelain is not readily available in the Charleston markets until after 1730-1740. Only four sherds were recovered from the c.1690-1739 colonial market contexts at the Charleston Beef Market in downtown, Charleston. In contrast, 208 Chinese export porcelains were recovered from the later 1739-1760 Beef Market contexts.[ix] By the mid-18th century Chinese porcelains comprise a large majority of the overall ceramic assemblage at many Charleston archaeological sites (up to 24%).[x] As of the spring 2023 excavations on the c.1670-1690s town lots at Charles Towne, we have identified 27 sherds that represent a minimum of three vessels. These include a thicker porcelain plate, a saucer with a scalloped lip, and hollow ware that is too small in size to determine if it is from a teacup or bowl. Three Chinese porcelain vessels were also identified at St. Giles Kussoe, the First Earle of Shaftesbury’s c.1674-1685 12,000-acre plantation site located outside of Charleston on the Ashley River.[xi] Both of these properties are associated with affluent property owners suggesting that the wealthy were able to obtain Chinese porcelains in the early years of the colony but it isn’t until after 1740 that the majority of Charlestonians are able to acquire it in the local markets. to acquire it in the local markets.

---

[i] Prudence M. Rice, Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1987), 6; Rice, “Pottery Analysis”, 6; Linda R. Shulsky, Chinese Porcelain at Old Mobile, Historical Archaeology 2002, 36(1):97.

[ii] Ivor Noel Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (Vintage Books, New York, NY, 1991), 258; Rice, “Pottery Analysis”, 6.

[iii] Shulsky, “Chinese Porcelain”, 97-98.

[iv] Rice, Pottery Analysis, 5-7.

[v] Howard Coutts, The Art of Ceramics: European Ceramic Design 1500-1830 (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2001), 64; Shulsky, “Chinese Porcelain”, 97; Beverly Straube, “European Ceramics in the New World: The Jamestown Example”. In Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI, 2001), 52; Charlotte Wilcoxen, Dutch Trade and Ceramics in America in the Seventeenth Century (Albany Institute of History & Art, Albany, NY, 1987), 78.

[vi] Robert A. Leath, “After the Chinese Taste”: Chinese Export Porcelain and Chinoiserie Design in Eighteen-Century Charleston, Historical Archaeology, 1999, 33(3):48-49, 52-56; Noel Hume, “A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America”, 257; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 78.

[vii] Coutts, ”The Art of Ceramics”, 70-71.

[viii] Straube, “European Ceramics in the New World”, 51-52.

[ix] Leath, “After the Chinese Taste”, 50; Martha A. Zierden and Elizabeth J. Reitz, Archaeology at City Hall: Charleston’s Colonial Beef Market (The Charleston Museum, Charleston, SC, 2005), 67,73,96.

[x] Leath, “After the Chinese Taste”, 50.

[xi] Andrew Agha, ”Shaftesbury’s Atlantis” (PhD diss., University of South Carolina, 2020), 236-237.