Tin-enameled earthenware (14th c. to 1852)
Material – Earthenware
Place of Origin – multiple European countries

A soft-paste earthenware with an opaque, white lead glaze that has a high tin oxide content. Clays used had a high calcium carbonate content that was less likely to shrink and crack during drying. Vessels were wheel-thrown or molded. After the vessel was formed, they were bisque fired at low temperatures. After firing paste colors range between buff, pink, and tan. An opaque white tin-enameled glaze was brushed or poured onto the bisque-fired vessel and allowed to fully dry. Decorations could be painted onto the dried white surface using metal oxide pigments that could withstand high firing temperatures. The vessel was fired again (between 900-1000 degrees Celsius) to fully fuse the glaze. During the firing process any painted decorations would become fused into the glaze itself. The tin oxide glaze had a similar shrinkage rate to the paste during the cooling process which kept it from cracking (crazing). The fusing of the glaze and decoration and resistance to crazing are qualities that allowed potters to create wares that outwardly mimicked the appearance of Chinese Porcelains. The most common decorative color used was blue from a cobalt oxide. Manganese oxide pigments created a purple color. Iron oxide pigments were used to create red designs. Yellows were created using antimony. Copper oxide pigments created green decorations. By combining cobalt and manganese oxide pigments together they could create black decorations. The general term tin-enameled earthenware is given to these wares since these popular wares were made in multiple countries and both the potters and their pottery were widely dispersed.  In some cases we can identify characteristics that are unique to their country of origin, but in many cases their origin cannot be reliably identified. The practice of importing foreign clays makes identification through chemical analysis difficult but sometimes possible. Decorations used throughout Europe were made using similar pigments and motifs making it difficult to discern even the larger region a ware was made in. 

In the 9th century, Mesopotamian potters developed a technique of adding tin oxide to their lead glazes allowing them to create a white-colored glaze. This allowed them to make white vessels that had a similar appearance to imported Chinese porcelains. Unlike the high fired porcelains, the glaze on tin-enameled wares were more easily flaked or chipped during use, especially on the rims. However, an advantage of tin glaze is that it allowed for the use of other mineral pigments to color and decorate the wares. A cobalt oxide overglaze created a blue color that they used to replicate the Chinese porcelains. In the 10th century copper and manganese were used to create green, purple, brown, and black decorations. These potting techniques were spread by Muslim craftsmen into North African and southern Europe. Italian potters expanded their decorative palette with the addition of iron, antimony and yellow pigments.  Spanish and Italian potters began making tin-enameled wares in the 14th century. In the early 16th century, this potting tradition was spread from potters that immigrated to Antwerp and later moved into other European countries. Tin-enameled wares made in Spain, Italy and Mexico are called Majolica. 

By the early 16th century potters were making tin-enameled wares in the Netherlands. The term delft is commonly used to refer to tin-enameled wares produced in England and the Netherlands. Although some scholars distinguish Dutch wares into fayence (thinner more refined Chinoiserie-inspired wares) and majolica (thicker Italianate wares) based on the form and decoration. A distinguishing feature seen on pre-1670 Dutch and English tin-enameled wares is the use of a thin, clear lead glaze on the exterior, or underside of a vessel. The lead glaze on early to mid-seventeenth century wares tend to have a copper green tint and is most often used on the majolica wares. European potters lacked the ceramic technology needed to produce porcelain, but the opaque white glaze of tin-enameled wares allowed them to create fayence as affordable wares that looked similar to the expensive imported Chinese porcelains. Dutch potters also made wall tiles that were used on the walls and fireplace surrounds in wealthy homes to create a colorful backdrop that was easy to clean.  Tin-enameled wall tiles were also useful for keeping out moisture in damp rooms, to line the base of walls to help keep out vermin, and in entrance halls to protect clothing from whitewash which was easily worn off. 

Around 1567 two Flemish immigrant potters, Jasper Andries and Jacob Janson, fled religious prosecution in Antwerp and began making tin-enameled wares in Norwich, England which later moved to London. Some of the earliest products they made were thick ornate floor tiles that were inspired by the ornate tilework in Ottoman mosques and palaces. The English made tin-enameled tiles were not durable and did not hold up to heavy foot traffic and quit being produced around 1625.  Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries additional tin-enameled potters were established in London and throughout England. Early tin-enameled vessels were ornate Italianate or chinoiserie designs. In the 1640s they began to make undecorated white vessels which remained popular throughout the Commonwealth era. After the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 there was a resurgence of decorated wares. These ornate wares were functional but also served as conspicuous consumption items that were prominently displayed on walls or cupboards in wealthy homes. Decorative plates commonly showed depictions of monarchs and Adam & Eve in the center with a dashed blue border. Everyday use items included mugs, bowls, wine bottles, candlesticks, flower vases, ointment pots, and chamber pots. Punch bowls and posset pots were used for serving wine. In the 1670s English potters begin making tiles again, but now they are thinner and used to decorate walls. English potters struggled to compete with the more popular Dutch-made tiles and they were never able to dominate the tile market. By the 1670s English potters, influenced by the white and blue imported Chinese porcelains also start incorporating chinoiserie-inspired designs, which continued to be popular to the mid-eighteenth century.  In an attempt to make wares that resembled the fine Chinese porcelains, late 17th century chinoiserie tin-enameled vessels are thinner and some potters added an additional lead glazed top coat to provide more of a sheen.  Unlike the fully vitrified Chinese Porcelains, tin-enameled wares were low-fired and not suited for use with hot liquids like tea. This did not mean that they weren’t used as cheaper versions of tea wares, but would make them susceptible to cracking when used for hot liquids. 

Starting in the mid-seventeenth century French potters were making a tin-enameled ware called Faience. Tin-enameled wares were also produced in Scotland and Ireland in the last half of the eighteenth century. Tin-enameled wares begin to fall out of popularity in the mid-eighteenth century when the Staffordshire potters begin making more refined earthenware vessels that were more durable and thermally-resistant.  

Examples from CTL:
Porringer Handle
These are fragments of a molded tin-enameled porringer handle found in c.1670-1690s Charles Towne contexts. Porringer vessels are small, shallow bowls that have a horizontal flat handle that protrudes outward from the lip of the vessel. Some porringers may have two handles, placed on opposing sides. Porringers were used to eat soups and spoons. The handles were useful for scooping and holding the vessel while eating, and they could be hung when not in use. Similar examples have been found at the Dutch operated Fort Orange c.1624-1676 in New York and Virginia c.1680-1710. 

Blue on White hand painted Decoration
Examples of tin-enameled wares from c.1670-1690s Charles Towne that are decorated with a cobalt blue pigment.

Polychrome hand painted Decoration
Examples of tin-enameled wares from c.1670-1690s Charles Towne that have polychrome hand painted decorations. (left to right: plate base with manganese purple and cobalt blue decoration, hollow ware body fragment with finely hand painted manganese purple and cobalt blue decoration, two small hollow ware sherds that have a robin’s egg blue tinted tin-enameled glaze that is decorated with cobalt blue and fine black hand painted decorations on the exterior)

Lead backed Decoration
This example has a thin, clear lead glaze on the underside or exterior of the vessel, a feature that is common to Dutch and English tin-enameled wares that were produced prior to 1670.

Powdered Decoration
Speckled or powdered decorations were created by tapping wet colored pigments from a brush onto the surface of a vessel. This decorative motif was popular during the 17th century, found most frequently on drinking vessels. Purple and blue are the most commonly used colors. 
Both blue and purple powdered Delft sherds have been recovered from Fort Ligonier, the Fortress of Louisbourg, Fort Michilimackinac, and the Tunica Indian Village in Louisiana 

Wall Tile
We have identified several fragments of tin-enameled wall tiles from c.1670-1690s contexts in the Charles Towne settlement. One reconstructed tile is 5 inches square, matching the smaller size of 17th century tiles. Later 18th and 19th century tiles tend to be 6 inches square. The corners have a “spider” motif that was common on early Dutch and later English tiles. Tiles were sold in sets of four that would create repeating patterns when grouped together. The corner motifs would create a repeating triangular pattern that separated the varied interior images.  The central image is incomplete, but depicts a standing girl in a long dress.

---

i. John Black, British Tin-Glazed Earthenware (Shire Publications Ltd., Buckinghamshire, UK, 2001), 5,11-14; Howard Coutts, The Art of Ceramics: European Ceramic Design 1500-1830 (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2001), 66; Aileen Dawson, English & Irish Delftware 1570-1840 (The British Museum Press, London, UK, 2010), 9,12; Jo Draper, Post-Medieval Pottery 1650-1800 (Shire Publications Ltd., Buckinghamshire, UK, 2001), 25; Ivor Noel Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America (Vintage Books, New York, NY, 1991), 105-106,110; Charlotte Wilcoxen, Dutch Trade and Ceramics in America in the Seventeenth Century (Albany Institute of History & Art, Albany, NY, 1987), 59-60.
 ii. Black, “British Tin-Glazed Earthenware”, 37; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 59.
 iii. Coutts, ”The Art of Ceramics”, 15; Draper, “Post-Medieval Pottery”, 25; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 57.
iv. Dawson, “English & Irish Delftware”, 9; Noel Hume, “A Guide to Artifacts”, 106; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 58.
v. Black, “British Tin-Glazed Earthenware”, 5-6, 11; Coutts, ”The Art of Ceramics”, 74; Dawson, “English & Irish Delftware”, 36,40,96,102; Ivor Noel Hume, Early English Delftware from London and Virginia (The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA, 1977), 1; Noel Hume, “A Guide to Artifacts”, 106-107; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 53-54,58,60,63,67-68, 70.
vi. Coutts, ”The Art of Ceramics”, 67-68.
vii. Black, “British Tin-Glazed Earthenware”, 4; Coutts, ”The Art of Ceramics”, 74; Dawson, “English & Irish Delftware”, 9; Noel Hume, “A Guide to Artifacts”, 105; Ivor Noel Hume, “Neither ‘Landskip’ nor ‘Scripture’: Collecting Dutch Maritime Tiles” In Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI, 2006), 217-220.
viii. Black, “British Tin-Glazed Earthenware”, 7-8, 22; John A. Burrison, “Fluid Vessel: Journey of the Jug” In Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI, 2006), 98; Coutts, “The Art of Ceramics”, 74-75; Dawson, “English & Irish Delftware”, 10,15,28-29; Draper, “Post-Medieval Pottery”, 27,30; Noel Hume, “A Guide to Artifacts”, 105-109; Noel Hume, “Neither ‘Landskip’”, 219-220.
ix. Coutts, ”The Art of Ceramics”, 67.
x. Dawson, “English & Irish Delftware”, 11.
xi. Black, “British Tin-Glazed Earthenware”, 8; Coutts, ”The Art of Ceramics”, 75; Dawson, “English & Irish Delftware”, 10-11; Draper, “Post-Medieval Pottery”, 26,32; Noel Hume, “A Guide to Artifacts”, 106-107; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 53-54.
 xii. Noel Hume, “Early English Delftware”, 90-91; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 82-84.
 xiii. Black, “British Tin-Glazed Earthenware”, 16-18; Dawson, “English & Irish Delftware”, 184.
xiv. Jeffrey P. Brain, Tunica Treasure, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 71 (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1979), 44; Coutts, “The Art of Ceramics”, 75; Wilcoxen, “Dutch Trade”, 57.
 xv. Noel Hume, “Neither:’Landskip’”, 220-221, 228.