Full download ebook at ebookgate.

com

The Potter s Eye Art and Tradition in North

Carolina Pottery 1st Edition Mark Hewitt

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-potter-s-eye-
art-and-tradition-in-north-carolina-pottery-1st-
edition-mark-hewitt/

Download more ebook from https://ebookgate.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Waterman s Song Slavery and Freedom in Maritime

North Carolina 1st Edition David S. Cecelski

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-waterman-s-song-slavery-and-
freedom-in-maritime-north-carolina-1st-edition-david-s-cecelski/

Cosmos and Perception in Plato s Timaeus In the Eye of

the Cognitive Storm 1st Edition Mark Eli Kalderon

https://ebookgate.com/product/cosmos-and-perception-in-plato-s-
timaeus-in-the-eye-of-the-cognitive-storm-1st-edition-mark-eli-
kalderon/

North Carolina in the Connected Age Challenges and

Opportunities in a Globalizing Economy 1st Edition
Michael L. Walden

https://ebookgate.com/product/north-carolina-in-the-connected-
age-challenges-and-opportunities-in-a-globalizing-economy-1st-
edition-michael-l-walden/

How to Start a Business in North Carolina 3rd Edition

Jacqueline D. Stanley

https://ebookgate.com/product/how-to-start-a-business-in-north-
carolina-3rd-edition-jacqueline-d-stanley/
Zeb Vance North Carolina s Civil War Governor and
Gilded Age Political Leader 1st Edition Gordon B.
Mckinney

https://ebookgate.com/product/zeb-vance-north-carolina-s-civil-
war-governor-and-gilded-age-political-leader-1st-edition-gordon-
b-mckinney/

Mark Twain s Own Autobiography The Chapters from the

North American Review 2nd Edition Mark Twain

https://ebookgate.com/product/mark-twain-s-own-autobiography-the-
chapters-from-the-north-american-review-2nd-edition-mark-twain/

Time Typology and Point Traditions in North Carolina

Archaeology Formative Cultures Reconsidered 1st Edition
I. Randolph Daniel

https://ebookgate.com/product/time-typology-and-point-traditions-
in-north-carolina-archaeology-formative-cultures-
reconsidered-1st-edition-i-randolph-daniel/

Myths and Mysteries of North Carolina True Stories of

the Unsolved and Unexplained 1st Edition Sara Pitzer

https://ebookgate.com/product/myths-and-mysteries-of-north-
carolina-true-stories-of-the-unsolved-and-unexplained-1st-
edition-sara-pitzer/

Moments of Despair Suicide Divorce and Debt in Civil

War Era North Carolina 1st edition, Edition David
Silkenat

https://ebookgate.com/product/moments-of-despair-suicide-divorce-
and-debt-in-civil-war-era-north-carolina-1st-edition-edition-
david-silkenat/
Classic North Carolina stoneware
pots—with their rich textures,
monochromatic glazes, and minimal
decoration—belong to one of
America’s most revered stoneware
pottery traditions. In a lavishly
illustrated celebration of that tradition,
Mark Hewitt and Nancy Sweezy
trace the history of North Carolina
pottery from the nineteenth century
to the present day. They demonstrate
the intriguing historic and aesthetic
relationships that link pots produced
in North Carolina to pottery traditions
in Europe and Asia, in New England,
and in the neighboring state of South
Carolina.

With hundreds of color photographs

highlighting the shapes and surfaces
of carefully selected pots, The Potter’s
Eye honors the keen focus vernacular
potters bring to their materials, tools,
techniques, and history. It is an
evocative guide for anyone interested
in the art of North Carolina pottery
and the aesthetic majesty of this
resilient and long-standing tradition.
 § ar^.
Pf V 'ffjffipgPvP?yHI . '• .^llpf§
13py -^flp ’; aBR ''sgL :AV .J
• **gr
ffjfe ' J-fL "jPI^Jll

;V/V-*'
Art and Tradition in North Carolina Pottery Mark Hewitt & Nancy Sweezy

Tx Potto Eye
PHOTOGRAPHY BY JASON DOWDLE With additional photography by Sam Sweezy

Published for the

NORTH CAROLINA MUSEUM OF ART

by the

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS

Chapel Hill
Published on the occasion of the © 2005 Frontispiece: Detail of salt-glazed surface

exhibition The Potter's Eye: Art and The University of North Carolina Press of Pot 4, One and a Half-Gallon Jug, made

Tradition in North Carolina Pottery, All rights reserved by Solomon Loy.

organized by the North Carolina Designed by Richard Hendel

Museum of Art and on view Set in The Serif types by Eric M. Brooks

October 30,2005-March 19,2006

Printed in China by C&C Offset Printing Ltd.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for

permanence and durability of the Committee
on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of
the Council on Library Resources.

Library of Congress
Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Hewitt, Mark, 1955—
The potter's eye: art and tradition in North
Carolina pottery/Mark Hewitt and Nancy
Sweezy; photography by Jason Dowdle, with
additional photography by Sam Sweezy.

P- cm.
Catalog of an exhibition at the North Carolina
Museum of Art.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
isbn 0-8078-2992-7 (cloth: alk. paper)

1. Pottery, American—North Carolina—

Exhibitions. 2. Folk art—North Carolina—
Exhibitions. I. Sweezy, Nancy. II. Dowdle,
Jason. III. North Carolina Museum of Art.
IV. Title.
NK4025.N8H49 2006

738'.09756'07475656—dc22 2005010246

09 08 07 06 05 54321
Contents

Lender List vii

Donor List viii

Director's Word Lawrence J. Wheeler ix

Foreword George Holt xi

Preface Nancy Sweezy and Mark Hewitt xv

Introduction Mark Hewitt and Nancy Sweezy 1

Tradition and the Individual Potter Mark Hewitt 3

New Perspectives on Old North Carolina Pots Mark Hewitt 9

The North Carolina Folk Pottery Tradition Mark Hewitt 41

Flistorical Antecedents of the North Carolina Salt Glaze Tradition 41

North Carolina Salt Glaze 57

Flistorical Antecedents of the North Carolina Alkaline Glaze Tradition

North Carolina Alkaline Glaze 129

The North Carolina Tradition in the Twentieth Century Mark Hewitt 165

Contemporary North Carolina Potters Nancy Sweezy 171

Kim Ellington 174

Mark Hewitt 189

Ben Owen III 204

Pam Owens 218

Vernon Owens 233

David Stuempfle 248

Exhibition Checklist 263

Photographers’Notes 269

Index 271
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2018 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/potterseyearttraOOOOhewi
Lender List

Ackland Art Museum, The University The Mint Museums, Charlotte,

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill North Carolina
Anonymous North Carolina Pottery Center
Mary Griggs Burke Old Salem Inc., Museum of
Mary and Jackson Burke Foundation Early Southern Decorative Arts
The Cleveland Museum of Art Ben Owen III
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Pam Owens
Stephen C. and Camille Yorkey Vernon Owens
Compton Philadelphia Museum of Art
Tommy and Ann Cranford L. A. Rhyne
Kim Ellington Danny Richard
Terry and Stephen Ferrell Arthur M. Sackler Gallery,
Gary and Joyce Fields Smithsonian Institution
Susan Frankenberg Quincy and Samuel Scarborough
Arthur F. and Esther Goldberg Scott and Wendy Smith
Rex Hamlet Smithsonian Institution, National
Mr. and Mrs. Troy M. Hancock Museum of American History,
Mark Hewitt Behring Center
Robert and Jimmi Hodgin David Stuempfle
Rob Hunter Trinity Methodist Church/Laney
William Ivey Family Cemetery
McKissick Museum, University of Mr. and Mrs. William H. Trotter
South Carolina
Donor List

The Potter’s Eye: Art and Tradition And by: Dr. James A. McCool
in North Carolina Pottery has been Claire and Ed Alexander Charles W. Millard III
made possible by the generous gifts Bruce C. Anderson Susan G. Myers
of the following organizations and Lisa and Dudley Anderson Mr. and Mrs. Major Charles Newsom III
individuals: Anonymous North Carolina Pottery Collectors’ Guild
Marilyn M. Arthur Dr. and Mrs. Hayne Palmour III
The National Endowment for the Arts Joan Bass Donald Parrish
Rhoda L. and Roger M. Berkowitz Cynthia S. Payne
James Bernstein Mary and Robert Peet
NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT
Judy and Jim Boyd Jane and John Riley
FOR THE ARTS
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Busick Russ Roeller
The Michael Warner and Elizabeth Mr. and Mrs. Monty Busick Susan Rosenthal and
Craven Fund of Triangle Community Mr. and Mrs. Rob Busick Michael Hershfield
Foundation Ms. Blanche Capel Connie and Robert Shertz
Country Roads, Inc. Linda and John Charlesworth Joyce and Fred Sparling
Abby Rockefeller Ann and Tommy Cousins Martha Stokes
Ann and James Goodnight Joseph DeAngelo Thomas Lane Stokes Jr.
BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina Shirley Drechsel and Wayne Vaughn Sissy Thomas
Dr. Julia R. Fielding and E. John Elmore Deborah and George Viall
Dr. Keith P. Mankin Entrepreneurs Philanthropic Venture
Fund of Triangle Community
Foundation
Dan Finch
Margaret Pepper Fluke
Carolyn and Charles Fricke
Jane and Tomme Gamewell
Sharon Goldenberg and Jeffrey LaRiche
Susan and Ronald Grudziecki.
Robin Harris and Jack Arnold
Michael Hensley
Dwight M. Holland
Fran and Wayne Irvin
Karen and David Jessee
Kenneth L. Klein
Bonnie Layman and Gordon Jameson
Cedric and Gil Lumsdon
Joy Martorell and Robert Green
Director’s Word

North Carolina's pottery tradition is one of the state's cultural treasures. Few
among us have not made the pilgrimage to the Seagrove area or acquired by gift or
purchase a North Carolina pot or two. More than a few of us have built significant
collections with no intentions of slowing down. The more you learn about the re¬
markable heritage of pottery making in the state and the better you come to know
your favorite potters, the more pottery you want to own. It is perhaps our most
affordable and popular native art form, though nowadays prized pieces can com¬
mand big prices at the auction house.
The Potter’s Eye marks the North Carolina Museum of Art's first major exhibition
of North Carolina pottery. It has been a long time coming, but we wanted to be sure
that we could bring a fresh perspective to a subject that has been ably dealt with in
many fine exhibitions at museums and galleries throughout the state.
We believe our exhibition and catalogue indeed offer the connoisseur and the
general public an invaluable new look at some old and familiar forms. The show is
co-curated by two of our most respected and accomplished North Carolina pottery
experts—the former director of Jugtown Pottery, Nancy Sweezy, and the potter
Mark Hewitt. In addition to years of hands-on experience, each of these thought¬
ful and articulate curators possesses an artist's eye and sensibility and a scholarly
knowledge of the subject. George Holt of the North Carolina Museum of Art staff
served as coordinating curator for the project. George came to the Museum from
the North Carolina Arts Council, where he served for many years as the agency's
first folk arts specialist. He was also instrumental in the creation of the North Caro¬
lina Pottery Center at Seagrove.
While much has been written and recorded about the colorful history, heritage,
and methods of traditional pottery making in North Carolina, our principal concern
is with the aesthetic qualities of the work created by some of our state's greatest pot¬
ters. Our aim is to allow the viewer to contemplate and enjoy the pieces that have
been selected for exhibition as fully realized objects of art. To this end, Mark Hewitt
offers a whole new vocabulary of critical evaluation that will enhance the experi¬
ence and pleasures of even the most sophisticated pottery lover. Nancy Sweezy has
masterfully given voice to the thoughts of the contemporary potters whose work is
featured in the show, adding a warmth of personality to the endeavor.
Though not unprecedented, it is somewhat unusual for an artist to have his own
work in a show for which he has curatorial responsibilities. Mark's curatorial role,
however, was restricted to the historical aspect of the exhibition. Nancy Sweezy
curated the contemporary component of the show and selected Mark's pots and
those of the other living potters represented in The Potter's Eye.
 We hope our pride in North Carolina pottery will ring through in our exhibition
and in this beautiful catalogue. And we hope the perspectives represented through¬
out will stimulate even greater appreciation of this wonderful art form in the years
to come.

Lawrence J. Wheeler
Director
North Carolina Museum of Art

x director’s word
Foreword george holt

As the former director of the folk arts program at the North Carolina Arts Council,
and as an early proponent and planning director of the North Carolina Pottery
Center at Seagrove, it has been a labor of love to help organize the exhibition and
catalogue The Potter's Eye: Art and Tradition in North Carolina Pottery. Serious con¬
sideration of the state’s pottery tradition by the North Carolina Museum of Art is
much welcomed and long overdue.
The tradition has never been stronger. Within a fifteen-mile radius of Seagrove
(population 246), which has become something like the pottery capital of the state,
there are more than one hundred family-owned and -operated shops. The Catawba
Valley has also resurged as a deeply rooted pottery center. And one must not forget
that the Cherokee and Catawba Indians have strengthened their own proud tradi¬
tions of coiled and wood-fired pottery making that have been practiced over several
millennia!
The exhibition’s path has been a long and winding one and has been largely
made possible by the good works of exhibition co-curator Nancy Sweezy with
substantial support from the National Endowment for the Arts Folk and Traditional
Arts Program. The story goes as follows.
Sweezy, a native New Englander, moved to Moore County, North Carolina, from
Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1968 to revive the beloved but foundering Jugtown
Pottery. Located about eight miles from Seagrove, Jugtown had lost its way with the
passing of its visionary founders, Jacques and Juliana Busbee. Quite the cosmopoli¬
tan couple from Raleigh, the Busbees had established the pottery in 1921, guiding
the now legendary turner Ben Owen (grandfather to Ben Owen III) in the creation
of a magnificent body of ware that exerts its influence today. For many years the
Busbees displayed and sold Jugtown pottery at a small tearoom in Greenwich
Village.
Sweezy applied her Yankee ingenuity and work ethic to quickly restore Jugtown’s
fame and fortune. After the death of Juliana Busbee in 1963, the pottery had been
kept alive by Vernon and Bobby Owens, the sons of third-generation potter Melvin
Owens and distant relations of Ben Owen. Ben had by this time established his own
independent shop. Sweezy readily recognized and nurtured the tremendous abili¬
ties of the Owens brothers. Vernon had been raised at the wheel by his father and is
one of North Carolina's greatest turners. Bobby's experience lies in the mixing and
application of glazes and other finishing work.
During Sweezy’s tenure from 1968 to 1981, Jugtown was owned by a small non¬
profit association named Country Roads, Inc. Formed in 1966 by Sweezy and a cadre
of northerners, the organization devoted itself to the preservation of traditional
music and crafts from the American South. Chief among the organizers was Ralph
Rinzler, soon to be the architect of the Festival of American Folklife and the Center
for Folklife and Cultural Heritage at the Smithsonian Institution. It was Rinzler who
discovered the availability of the Jugtown property and recommended that it be
purchased by Country Roads and operated under Sweezy's direction.
Country Roads sold Jugtown Pottery to Vernon Owens in 1983, and Sweezy
returned to Boston to undertake a series of exemplary public and academic folk
arts projects for the organization. In 1984 she curated an exhibition of southern tra¬
ditional pottery for the Smithsonian and wrote a companion book, Raised in Clay:
The Southern Pottery Tradition, which remains in print with the University of North
Carolina Press.
In the late 1990s the National Endowment for the Arts, a longtime admirer of
Sweezy's work, encouraged her and Country Roads to apply for funding to produce
a comprehensive exhibition of traditional crafts. The show was to represent and
celebrate the breathtaking diversity of America’s cultural communities at the be¬
ginning of the new century and to open at the Smithsonian’s Renwick Gallery. Ulti¬
mately and unfortunately, the ambitious project failed to gather sufficient financial
support to come to fruition.
But every cloud has its silver lining. The National Endowment for the Arts has
been gracious enough to allow the North Carolina Museum of Art to use some of
the money it had granted for the larger effort to underwrite a majority of the costs
of our exhibition.
Once the decision was made to refocus the project, Sweezy and I invited potter
Mark Hewitt to take a leading curatorial role. I first met Mark in the course of orga¬
nizing the British American Festival at Duke University in 1984. The English-born
potter and son of a Spode China executive had recently moved to North Carolina to
establish his own pottery business in close proximity to the state's pottery center.
It was evident then he was embarking on a brilliant career. Twenty years hence,
Hewitt’s promise has been amply fulfilled. Renowned for the large ware he burns
in his enormous cross-draft wood-burning kiln, he has become a potter of national
reputation and influence.
Hewitt possesses an academician’s zeal for learning about the craft he has
mastered and loves. His own work reveals a wealth of ideas and influences gleaned
from his travels and studies in Asia and Africa, Europe and America.
It is therefore fitting that the North Carolina Museum of Art turned to Nancy
Sweezy and Mark Hewitt to co-curate the Museum's first major exhibition of North
Carolina pottery. Both bring an impeccable eye and matchless passion and knowl¬
edge to the subject at hand. And both are ideally suited to fulfill the mission of the
show: to signal and celebrate the artistry of North Carolina's greatest production
potters.
The task is perhaps not as easy as it may sound. Pottery making is a deeply
indigenous and familiar art form in North Carolina. Its background is humble and
utilitarian and easy to take for granted. However, few would deny the transcendent
power and presence of timeless forms created by human hands out of the essential
elements of nature—earth, air, fire, and water. The Potter’s Eye is a tribute to those
who have sublimely wrought this synthesis of elemental form and function with
the forces of nature.
The production potter and part-time farmer/potter flourished in North Carolina
during the 19th century, when there was high demand for sturdy food and drink
containers—-jugs, churns, and jars, mainly—from the yeoman farm families that
predominated in the state before the coming of the textile industry. The potters'
trade thrived during the Civil War, when demand for their products was at its peak.
The Potter’s Eye pays homage to the master potters of this era who displayed
in their work obvious concern for the aesthetic qualities of their ware. These men
clearly delighted in creating forms of exceptional grace and elegance, and they
reveled in what could be done to the surface of a pot by the hands of man and by
Mother Nature. Mark Hewitt is superb in calling attention to the rich complexities
of color and texture that play upon the faces of the vessels chosen for exhibition.
As Hewitt points out to us, the Japanese have cultivated a tradition of connoisseur-
ship in pottery and ceramics that goes back many centuries. Comparable scrutiny
reveals a wealth of wonders in our own North Carolina tradition.
As we all know, pottery making is as old as civilization itself, and the ceramic
traditions of East Asia, particularly those of China, Japan, and Korea, are among the
deepest and most distinguished in the world. Hewitt notes in this exhibition the
aesthetic similarities among ancient Asian pottery forms and glazes and those of
the North and South Carolina traditions. Thanks to the generous loans of exquisite
Asian pots from other institutions, the viewer may for the first time behold these
kinships close at hand.
The picture is further enlarged with the inclusion of early pieces of stoneware
from New England, New York, and South Carolina. With these examples, the context
of North Carolina’s evolving tradition may be more fully realized.
Sweezy shows us how the regional 19th-century styles and methods of pottery
making and those of China, Japan, and Korea have influenced and inspired North
Carolina potters today. The six contemporary potters who are represented in the
exhibition are directly linked to the older traditions through family and study. They
have built upon the knowledge of their forebears and the classical pottery of Europe
and Asia while continuing many of the centuries-old fundamentals—the use of in¬
digenous clays, the old salt and ash glaze recipes, and, of course, the firing of their
cross-draft kilns with wood. It is unlikely that alternative methods can ever yield so
spectacular a result.
Just as Hewitt's essays and pot descriptions will reward the careful reader, so
too will he or she benefit from close readings of the wonderful interviews with the
contemporary potters that were conducted and edited by Sweezy. Sweezy is so well
regarded by her subjects that she has been able to elicit many gems of insight from
the artists themselves.
The book is further enriched by the contributions of the photographers. Jason
Dowdle of Alamance County, North Carolina, has made the stately images of the
objects that are featured in the exhibition and a few that are not. Sam Sweezy of
Arlington, Massachusetts, who has worked with his mother on a number of out¬
standing folk arts projects, has captured the makers and their workplaces.
Thanks are due to North Carolina Museum of Art director Lawrence J. Wheeler
and many members of the A/Iuseum staff. John Coffey, Deputy Director for Col¬
lections and Programs, was an early advocate for the exhibition. Registrar Carrie
Hedrick and her assistants Marcia Erickson and Michael Klauke did an outstanding
job of securing the loans and handling the objects. Chief Exhibition Designer Jane
McGarry designed the exhibition with creativity and care. Emily S. Rosen, Deputy
Director for Marketing and Operations, ably coordinated the catalogue project with
the University of North Carolina Press. Assistant Curator of Exhibitions Lauren
Harry Ryan provided indispensable support throughout the planning and produc¬
tion of the show", as did my own assistant, Gweneth Hastings.
The exhibition would not have been possible without the support of the Na¬
tional Endowment for the Arts and Country Roads, Inc. We are particularly indebted
to Barry Bergey, the director of the National Endowment for the Arts Folk and
Traditional Arts Program, and other major financial contributors, including Abby
Rockefeller and the Michael Warner and Elizabeth Craven Fund of the Triangle
Community Foundation.
We hope your experience of our exhibition and catalogue offers discoveries and
pleasures that deepen your interest and appreciation of North Carolina's contribu¬
tions to the worldwide heritage of pottery making.
Preface NANCY SWEEZY & MARK HEWITT

I was a latecomer to pottery. My connection with clay began only after I had worked
in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in Washington, D.C., and Europe during World
War II and had returned to the United States to marry Paul Sweezy, with whom I had
three children. In 1952 a rapid sequence of events opened the door to my future as
a potter. First, I glimpsed and bought some clunky pottery coffee cups that grabbed
my attention because I was not familiar with pottery. Then I wandered into a pot¬
tery class taught by Vivika Heino at the New Hampshire League of Arts and Crafts
Center in Sharon, where I felt instantly comfortable and challenged by the clay in
my hands. Finally, with Paul’s help, I set up a pottery in a tiny building behind our
house that had been a hatter’s shop in the 19th century. By luck, my neighbor was
the renowned teacher Isobel Karl. She guided me through the essentials, and my
career of making, teaching, and writing about pottery was launched.
Later, in the 1960s in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I collaborated with Ralph Rinzler
and Norman Kennedy to form the nonprofit organization Country Roads. The first
project of Country Roads was to reintroduce traditional southern crafts to Cam¬
bridge, just as the popular folk music coffee house, Club 47 (where I would eventu¬
ally become chair of the board of directors), was reintroducing traditional music. To
this end we opened a store that carried pottery from Jugtown, the Meaders, Coles,
Bybee, and other southern potteries, as well as many Appalachian handcrafts. In
its short life, the shop created quite a stir, but we nevertheless closed it when Ralph
moved to Washington to start the Office of Folklife Programs at the Smithsonian
Institution. Norman then took his Scottish-weaving and ballad-singing talents to
Colonial Williamsburg and continues them today in workshops around the United
States. And, while maintaining my connection to Club 47,1 began to puzzle how to
pursue this whole new area of interest. The Smithsonian was concerned about the
preservation of Jugtown Pottery, which seemed headed for demise. With Ralph’s
help, Country Roads bought Jugtown in 1968, and 1 moved to North Carolina to
live in the Busbees’ unusual log cabin. Here my children also made their home at
various times. The goal of Country Roads was to resuscitate this important pottery,
and we did so in collaboration with its master potter, Vernon Owens, his brother
Bobby, their sister Viola Brady, their neighbor Charles Moore, and another neighbor
Jeanette Hussey Moore. Over the next several years, we succeeded in making neces¬
sary changes in the ware and in promotion and marketing procedures so that the
pottery was on a firm footing when Vernon bought it in 1983.
Ralph then asked me to document the still extant traditional southern potteries.
This extensive fieldwork, covering thirty-five potteries, led to an exhibition at the
National Museum of American History and to the book Raised in Clay, published in

XV
1984 by the Smithsonian Institution Press and reissued in 1994 by the University of
North Carolina Press, where it remains in print.
On a pottery trip to England in 1976, Vernon Owens and I joined upstate New York
potter Bill Klock to visit the famous potteries of Bernard Leach and Michael Cardew,
among others. As Mark Hewitt reports, the small round salt-glazed jug we took to
Michael Cardew was Mark's first sight of North Carolina pottery. We took a similar
jug to Bernard Leach, by then blind, who fondled it constantly during our teatime
visit, saying, "This is the tradition. I told them at Alfred [University] in 1952 when
[Shoji] Hamada and I were on the lecture tour that Jugtown was important, but I
don’t think they listened to me. And now I tell you that to keep this tradition is the
most important thing that can happen in pottery in America." Upon learning that
Vernon had begun turning pots when he was four years old, Bernard said, "There it
is. You are the tradition.” He then confided to us that, having come to making pots
late, he never was much of a thrower. "My contribution was calligraphy and even
more than that, writing—getting a message across about pottery.” He suggested to
me, "Maybe you’ll have to do as I did. Do what you can with pots, but also write and
try to increase understanding." And that, in a more modest way, is what I have done.
Before we left St. Ives, Bernard asked me to put Vernon’s pot "where it looks best in
my collection, and there it will stay.”
My interest in traditional pottery has never waned, although I have been in¬
volved in several other Country Roads projects since I returned to Massachusetts in
the 1980s. These projects included work with the traditional arts of Southeast Asian
refugees in New England, with the material culture of the newly independent
Republic of Armenia, and with the textile arts of America. I also devoted blocks of
time to the work of the National Endowment for the Arts doing site visits, assessing
apprenticeship programs, and participating in grant panels.
I am gratified to be rounding out my career with traditional pottery by work¬
ing with colleagues on The Potter’s Eye exhibition mounted by the North Carolina
Museum of Art and on this, the accompanying book, published by the University
of North Carolina Press. It has been a pleasure to work with my co-curator Mark
Hewitt, with my longtime colleague and friend George Holt at the Museum, and
with my prior publisher David Perry at the Press. Thanks to each of you, to the
National Endowment for the Arts for making it all possible, and to the potters who
have given us their time so generously. Thanks to my children Sam, Lybess, and
Martha for their encouragement and support.
NANCY S WE E ZY

The first time I saw a pot made in North Carolina was in 1976, when I was lucky
enough to begin an apprenticeship with the British studio potter Michael Cardew
at his pottery in Wenford Bridge, a small hamlet on the Camel River in rural North
Cornwall, England. Michael, an Oxford classics scholar, had been Bernard Leach's
first pupil at the St. Ives Pottery in the early 1920s, and he had had a fascinating
career making earthenware in England during the 1930s and stoneware in West
Africa for twenty-five years in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Larger than life, he cut
a figure that was a cross between Paul Gauguin, Albert Schweitzer, and E. F. Schu¬
macher, and he had written one of the seminal studio pottery texts, Pioneer Pottery,
in which he described establishing a self-reliant pottery, gathering and refining
local materials, and using his thorough understanding of geology, clay, and glaze
chemistry to create what are now considered some of the most luxuriant functional
pots of the twentieth century.1
Two months prior to my arrival at Wenford, Nancy Sweezy, then director of Jug-
town, and its head potter, Vernon Owens, had visited Michael. They left behind as
a memento a small, gray, salt-glazed jug with a blue and brown flower painted on
its side. It sat among many other pots on the big Welsh dresser that dominated the
dining room at Wenford. These other pots included plates inscribed with the names
of Michael's three sons and a huge North Devon earthenware charger made by Ed¬
win Beer Fishley and decorated with rampant lions and the Royal Seal. The jug was
in exalted company, especially considering the fate that most gifts of pots received.
Michael was famously scathing, and occasionally violent, toward pots he did not
like, but this friendly little jug sat safely on the dresser, half-hidden but recognized
as a legitimate and intriguing presence in the room. It had passed the test.
Little did I realize that seven years later, in 1983,1 would move to North Carolina
with my wife Carol to set up a pottery near Pittsboro, in Chatham County. When I
made the move, I knew little about North Carolina pottery and its history, although
I of course went straight down to Jugtown, where Vernon and his wife Pam had
assumed the mantle of ownership from Country Roads, the nonprofit organization
with which Nancy Sweezy had brought Jugtown back to life after the death of Jug-
town's founders, Juliana and Jacques Busbee. I had also visited Burlon and Irene
Craig over in Vale, Lincoln County, and felt a strong kinship with these potters in
their rural workshops. Spending time with them, I was filled with admiration for
their pots, wit, capacity for hard work, deft making skills, and large groundhog kilns.
I also remember feeling as humble as a religious supplicant as I stood on Burlon’s
clay pile outside his workshop, aware of a spirit emanating out of the ground. I felt
exhilarated to be working in a part of the world where potters were still making
pots from scratch, gathering materials locally and firing in old wood-burning kilns,
in much the same way that Michael had at Wenford.
Gradually I began to learn more about the history of North Carolina pottery, es¬
pecially once I got to know Walter and Dorothy Auman in Seagrove and spent time
studying the 19th-century pots they displayed in their small private museum. Early
on I also had the opportunity to visit the extensive collection of Catawba Valley
alkaline-glazed pottery acquired by Roddy Cline in Lincolnton, North Carolina, and
was dazzled by the power of these magnificent pots, about which I had previously
known nothing.
My curiosity piqued, I began exploring literature on the subject. Charles (Terry)
G. Zug III remains the key individual responsible for paving the way to understand¬ 1. Michael Cardew, Pioneer Pottery (London:
ing the history and folklore of the North Carolina pottery tradition. Central to this Longmans, 1969).

preface xvii
 subject is his book Turners and Burners: The Folk Potters of North Carolina, a wonder¬
fully comprehensive study of the tradition, which was published in 1986 and gets
better with every reading.2 His friendship and encouragement have been a great
gift to me. His earlier catalogue to the exhibition The Traditional Pottery of North
Carolina, organized at the Ackland Museum in 1981, is another wonderful resource.3
Other valued scholars and publications include Daisy Wade Bridges's Potters of
the Catawba Valley, her more recent Ash Glaze Traditions in Ancient China and the
American South, and Quincy Scarborough's monograph, North Carolina. Decorated
Stoneware: The Webster School of Folk Potters-, both writers cover their subjects in
great depth.4 Collectors and enthusiasts across the state have shared their passion
for these pots and their extensive knowledge with me, and I am most grateful to
them all.
In the twenty-two years I have been in North Carolina, my understanding and
appreciation of the local pottery tradition has deepened. I am. entranced by the
beauty of the old pots that have been made here, stimulated, to be in the embrace
of the tradition in the present, and intrigued by the ways it nudges its way into the
future.
I would like to dedicate this book to my father and mother, Gordon and Sybil
Hewitt, and to my wife, Carol, and daughters, Emma and Meg.
I could not have undertaken this project without the help of these people:
Nancy Sweezy, George Holt, Jason and Laura Dowdle, Terry Zug, Louise Cort, Gerry
Williams, Holly Peppe, Ruth and Sherman Lee, Charlie Millard, David Perry, Pam
Upton, Rich Hendel, Paula Wald, Bethany Johnson, Susan Myers, Sam Sweezy,
Henry Glassie, John Vlach, Stephen and Terry Ferrell, Daniel Johnston, James Olney,
Zac Spates, Chris Early, Joe Cole, Mark Shapiro, Jeff Shapiro, Terry Childress, Linda
Carnes-McNaughton, Cindy and Tommy Edwards, Monte Busick, Meredith and
Mark Heywood, Clyde Overcash, Bob Hart, David Springs, Jason Harpe, Ken Propst,
Allan Huffman, Jim Wittk.owski, David Ward, Bryan Adams, David Blackburn, the
late Howard Hinshaw, the late W. D. Morton, all the lenders, all the donors, the
2. Charles G. Zug III, Turners and Burners:
The Folk Potters of North Carolina (Chapel Hill: North Carolina Arts Council, Joe Newberry, Brad Rauschenberg, Denny Mecham,
University of North Carolina Press, 1986). Daisy Wade Bridges, Barbara Perry, Atork Leach, Melissa Post, Anna Sims, Kristen
3. Charles G. Zug III, The Traditional Pottery
Watts, Gratia Williams and Stephanie Wada, Bonnie Lillienfeld, David Burgevin, Ja-
of North Carolina (Chapel Hill: University
nine Skerry, Mary Suzor, Cory Grace, Felice Fischer, Holly Frisbee, Dean Walker, Larry
of North Carolina Printing and Publications
Department, 1981). Wheeler, John Coffey, Dan Gottlieb, Emily Rosen, Lauren Harry, Carrie Hedrick, Bill
4. Daisy Wade Bridges, The Potters of the Hamlet, and Jane A4cGarry. Thank you one and all!
Catawba Valley, Journal of Studies of the
MARK HEWITT
Ceramic Circle of Charlotte, vol. 4 (Charlotte,
N.C., 1980); Daisy Wade Bridges, Ash Glaze
Traditions in Ancient China and the American
South, Journal of Studies of the Ceramic Circle
of Charlotte, vol. 6 (Robbins, N.C.: Southern
Folk Pottery Collectors Society, 1997); Ouincy
Scarborough Jr., North Carolina Decorated
Stoneware: The Webster School of Folk Potters
(Fayetteville, N.C.: Scarborough Press, 1986).

xviii PREFACE
The Potter’s Eye
 Introduction Mark Hewitt & Nancy Sweezy

All potters have an "eye," a sensibility toward what they make, a dream they make
real. The Potter’s Eye is about the beauty of simple utilitarian pots, a beauty that
began in the mind's eye of the potters who made them. This book and the accompa¬
nying exhibition at the North Carolina Museum of Art are celebrations of the ways
traditional potters look at shape, color, and decoration, and they honor the keen
focus that these potters bring to their materials, tools, techniques, and history.
We will cover substantial ground here as we examine the genesis of North Car¬
olina’s stoneware pottery tradition, trace its evolution in the 19th century, and look
at its contemporary expression. We will also present descriptions of individual pots,
chosen for their historic significance and aesthetic similarities. Both the book and
exhibition are designed to complement the excellent research already published
about North Carolina pottery and to stimulate new debate about the power and
mystery of its past and current forms. We will direct our gaze toward the aesthetic
core of these pots, both old and new, as we admire the art and beauty that lies
within the folk pottery tradition of North Carolina.
North Carolina is home to a venerable regional vernacular tradition that con¬
tinues to flourish today. An identifiable set of ceramic characteristics distinguishes
pots made in North Carolina from pots made in other centers of ceramic activity,
for instance, in Delft, Arita, Stoke-on-Trent, or Sevres. Our study will examine the
particular character and beauty of North Carolina’s 19th-century pottery and will
show its historic and aesthetic connections to other pottery traditions, placing it,
if you will, in a global context. Some of the pots made here are American ceramic
masterpieces, and we have endeavored to select and describe several of the finest
examples. By looking closely at the clays from which they were made, the details of
their shapes, the kilns in which they were fired, and the finished surface qualities
of these distinctive utilitarian pots, we hope to provide an additional poetic and
evocative perspective on these deceptively simple and useful items.
While North Carolina pottery can be approached from many different angles, we
have chosen to concentrate on the links between the very old and the very new, to
see what vestiges of the 19th century are left, and why. To tell our story clearly we
have bypassed much of the 20th-century North Carolina pottery that was subject
to a different set of influences. This approach misses all the glories of early Jugtown
and Ben Owen, the North State Pottery, Royal Crown, and the many Cole potteries—
opposite
names that may be more familiar to the reader than those of Daniel Seagle, Isaac
Detail of salt-glazed surface of Pot 4,
Lefevers, Chester Webster, J. A. Craven, Solomon Loy, Timothy Boggs, and others, One and a Half-Gallon Jug, made by
whose pots we are featuring to represent the 19th century. The 20th-century pot- Solomon Loy.

1
ters and their vibrant pots should have their own day in the sun soon, in a similarly
prestigious setting.
The six potters selected for the contemporary section have been chosen because
their work is closely connected to historical North Carolina pots through the ma¬
terials they use, the shapes they make, and the kilns they fire. Three of the potters
are connected directly by family lineage to the older tradition (Vernon Owens, Pam
Owens, and Ben Owen III), and three are connected through geographic proximity
and their deliberate choice to work with local clays and glaze materials, wood-
burning kilns, and formal reference to older North Carolina pots (Kim Ellington,
Mark Hewitt, and David Stuempfle). As we will illustrate, the contemporary inter¬
pretation of the older 19th-century tradition takes many forms, the present echoing
the past with exciting new inflections.
This book is divided into two main sections: the first, written by Mark Hewitt,
includes a discussion of the nature of tradition and a historical study of the connec¬
tions between old North Carolina pottery and pots from different times and places;
the second section, compiled and written by Nancy Sweezy, looks at the contempo¬
rary manifestation of the tradition, based on interviews with the six potters. Our
individual voices in the book are distinct but complementary. Woven throughout
the text is the interplay between the past and present that connects the pots and
the potters together, providing the continuity that is one of the hallmarks of tradi¬
tion. We are both potters, born and raised outside the state, who are intrigued by
the enduring ceramic heritage of North Carolina. We too have an "eye" for pots, and
we marvel at the beauty of the old and new work made here. Because we are not
dispassionate curators, we bring our own vision and sensibilities to the selection
and interpretation of the pots featured here and in the exhibition. Our goal is to
share our enthusiasm for these pots as we observe the tenacious tradition of North
Carolina pottery moving into the future.
It is a great honor to have been invited to curate this exhibition and contribute
to this book, and we would like to thank the North Carolina Museum of Art, and
especially George Holt, for giving us the opportunity. The entire project could not
have been undertaken without the support of the National Endowment for the Arts
and Country Roads, Inc. We thank them very much for their thoughtfulness and
generosity.
Special thanks are also directed to Jason Dowdle, whose inspired photographic
images of all the pots tie the book together and enable us to see the North Carolina
pottery tradition in a new way. The stunning images he captures are tributes to his
talents and his own well-trained "eye.”
 Tzadition and the Individual Pottez Mark Hewitt

Tradition is good, tradition is beautiful, tradition is valuable. To say so is unconven¬

tional and a little dangerous, for as T. S. Eliot wrote in his essay "Tradition and the
Individual Talent,” "Seldom, perhaps, does the word appear except in a phrase of
censure." Indeed, tradition is often perceived as a hindrance to individualism and
artistic originality. But I agree with Eliot that the opposite is true. In his words, "No
poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his ap¬
preciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists.”1 Thus
we must look to the past, to the very roots of our art, to guide us toward new forms
of self-expression. Potters and ceramic artists use ceramic history and particular
traditions to inform their work, and those traditions inspire rather than discourage
innovation.
In Eliot's words, tradition "cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must
obtain it by great labour." What we potters obtain through this hard labor is a "per¬
ception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence," a perception of the
length and flow of history and an awareness of our place within it. Tradition is a
retrospective of our ancestors’ brilliant ideas and fabulous creations; it is an archive
we consult to guide our own endeavors toward excellence and meaning.
The making of a pottery tradition requires action in the form of artistic commu¬
nication within small groups over time. Not solely confined to particular geographic
regions, traditions link individuals across oceans and continents—take ash and ce¬
ladon glazes, or the salt glaze, or anagama firing. Tradition is a collective search for
quality, identity, and value. As folklorist Henry Glassie wrote in The Spirit of Folk Art,
"Tradition remains wholly in the hands of its practitioners. It is theirs to remember,
change, or forget."2 In this context it is important to recognize that following tradi¬
tion is a choice. Absorbing the essence of tradition enables a potter or ceramic artist
to shape it into contemporary relevance, to manipulate its core, allowing works to
evolve and progress in new ways that deepen our understanding of both the past
and the present.
Potters and ceramic artists all belong to certain ceramic traditions. I am happy to
1. T. S. Eliot, "Tradition and the Individual
acknowledge the traditions that have contributed to my artistic identity. I belong to
Talent,” in The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry
the ancient, resilient tradition of the production thrower and the functional potter:
and Criticism (London: Methune, [1920]),
the traditions of Bernard Leach and Michael Cardew, North Carolina folk pottery, <www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.htmb (1 March
and the "learned craftsman." These are the artistic and historical contexts I know 2005). All Eliot quotations in this chapter are
taken from this source.
best, and with which I am most familiar and most practiced. I remain entranced by
2. Henry H. Glassie, The Spirit of Folk
the technologies, materials, skills, and glorious manifestations of these constantly
Art: The Girard Collection at the Museum of
evolving traditions. I am given power by their strength and am enlightened when I International Folk Art (New York: Harry N.
reach into their depths. They are mine for however long I choose. Abrams, 1989), 31.

3
 I believe my individualism is served by my acceptance of a place within these
traditions. Eliot explains, ' What happens [to a poet] is a continual surrender of
himself... to something which is more valuable. The progress of an artist is a con¬
tinual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.” Here he suggests that the
work is more important than the maker, that what artists produce is greater than
their individual personalities and feelings. Eliot continues, "Poetry [or in our case,
pottery] is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the
expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those
who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from
these things.” This is why when we look at pots, old or new, we don't need to know
the potter's name or station or place of origin, for the work will communicate to us
directly, appearing with an unbidden clarity before our eyes, engaging and inspir¬
ing as it draws us in.
Most of the potters who made the world's great traditional thrown functional
pots are nameless to us. We don’t know the makers of the 12th-century Khmer jar
(Pot 53) or the 16th-century Tokoname jar from Japan (Pot 1), but they were known
and admired by their colleagues, peers, neighbors, families, and friends. The mak¬
ers themselves undoubtedly valued their own labors and expression, for the work
clearly reflects what was in their hearts and souls. To my mind, their work is as de¬
liberate and refined an artistic expression as any work emanating from more elabo¬
rate and technically sophisticated traditions or even contemporary art schools.
Tradition evolves from each artist’s use of what has gone before, the submis¬
sion of one’s personality and emotion to the lessons of history, to the lessons of
our ancestors. It is characterized by self-expression within the context of one's
place in time and space and by a particular set of talents and skills. Every potter's
tradition merges the ancient and modern, the old and the very new, the tried and
the unproven. Whether the tradition one draws from is late Chinese porcelain,
Southern Sung dynasty (1127-1279) celadons, 18th-century Sevres porcelain, Momo-
yama period (1568-1615) unglazed ware, Japanese folk ceramics, or 20th-century
Scandinavian industrial design, all are worthy of reevaluation, reinterpretation, and
cross-pollination. Independent creative thinking is a key component in the ongoing
process of creating vibrant artistic traditions.
Today, in my twenty-eighth year as a potter, I am most closely allied with the
North Carolina folk pottery tradition. I was unaware of its riches when first I moved
to the state twenty-two years ago, but once I saw how wonderful North Carolina
pots were, I found myself captivated by their power and beauty, and their geo¬
graphic proximity was intoxicating. One might say the local pottery tradition is
stronger than I am, as it has influenced both my attitude toward form, color, and
texture and my approach to throwing, decorating, and firing. Yet I am also strong
enough to subject the past to my contemporary reality. I come from outside, with
opposite
eyes that have been informed by my upbringing, apprenticeship, and travels else¬
Detail of alkaline-glazed surface of Pot 65,
where. Because I bring all my sensibilities and passions into the tradition, I feel Five-Gallon Jar, unknown maker, Catawba
free to change it when and if I choose, and if I am able. It is a responsibility I do not Valley.

TRADITION AND THE INDIVIDUAL POTTER 5

take lightly. There are no diplomas that qualify me, but there is a set of the highest
unspoken, continuous expectations that mark the privilege of guiding a tradition
toward excellence.
I am not the only one reshaping the world of North Carolina pottery, as there
are other kindred souls here engaged in a delightful syncopation of perception and
expression, nudging the old world into the present, including, but of course not lim¬
ited to, the other contemporary potters profiled in this book. We are, if you will, like
members of a jazz orchestra: our individual voices are clear and distinct within a
beautiful melody, each taking the lead, each inspiring the others. It is a privilege for
us to contribute to our beloved North Carolina pottery tradition; it is our brief turn
to bring fresh expression, to established ideas. Our quest is not for "authenticity," for
that has been long established, but rather for quality. Because regional traditions
are especially fragile, even inclined to disappear over time, we willingly accept
this responsibility. Most important, we support one another, proudly showing off
the best we can do and suggesting, by diligent and graceful example, new ways
forward.
Tradition is a mirror, reflecting who we are and how we measure up. It is the
voice of our pottery forebears, encouraging, revealing, holding our feet to the fire.
Tradition is one of the voices of the divine. Henry Glassie writes, "Tradition is the
unification of the creative individual with the collective through mutual action.”3
Traditions pose questions—-not answers—which makes them, as Eliot suggests,
both humbling and valuable to every artist. In the end, perhaps what matters most
to each of us is not what characterizes our individual work, but how that work en¬
riches both the history and future of pottery, of ceramics, of art.

opposite
Detail of salt-glazed surface of Pot g,
Canning Jar, made by Timothy Boggs.

3. Ibid., 34.

TRADITION AND THE INDIVIDUAL POTTER 7

 New Perspectives on Old North Carolina Pots Mark Hew i

The North Carolina stoneware tradition has two major components: the salt glaze
and the alkaline or ash glaze. Each emerged from venerable potting traditions in
Europe and Asia. The early settlers of the coastal colonies brought knowledge of salt
glazing with them from Germany and England, which they and their descendants
fused into an American stoneware style, largely in New England and New York.
Gradually, the bearers of this tradition moved south to the gently undulating Caro¬
lina Piedmont, where they found good deposits of stoneware clay. The 19th-century
potters used this clay to make sturdy and elegant stoneware, appropriate for the
pioneering settlers. As the general population grew, the number of potters also
increased, and a powerful and distinctive local idiom evolved that is a central focus
of our book and exhibition. Today the salt glaze tradition continues in the Seagrove
area of central North Carolina.
The alkaline glaze tradition arrived in the South quite differently. The glaze is
thought to have come to the South through a translation of a French missionary's
letters that contained information about the processes and glazes that potters
were using at the time in China.1 Simple glazes made of ash, lime, clay, feldspar,
and flint were formulated in Edgefield, South Carolina, most likely between 1810
and 1820, which replicated their Asian counterparts. With continued experimen¬
tation, Chinese celadon, lime, and ash glazes were transformed into the southern
alkaline glaze. The South Carolina tradition has been called a "Crossroads of Clay,”
for not only did it fuse Asian glazes with English vernacular forms, but an African
American presence in the pottery "factories” also gave this tradition many unique
characteristics.2 Use of the alkaline glaze soon migrated to the western Piedmont
of North Carolina, where the other powerful and distinct idiom evolved. Today the
alkaline glaze tradition continues in the Catawba Valley of North Carolina.
Before we scrutinize the history and aesthetics of the North Carolina pottery
tradition, it may be helpful to note the parallels between the blending of ceramic opposite
traditions in South and North Carolina and the blending of musical traditions that Detail of salt-glazed surface of Pot 32,
Half-Gallon Jug made by Nicholas Fox.
produced the myriad of musical forms found throughout the American South.
We instantly recognize gospel, the blues, jazz, bluegrass, country, rockabilly, and
1. Jean Baptiste du Halde, The General
the music of Elvis, for instance, and acknowledge the cultural cross-pollination of History of China, translated by R. Brookes, 4 vols.
influences that produced these musical forms we continue to enjoy today. A similar (London: Published for John Watts, 1736),
2:309-55.
cross-pollination occurred in the 19th century to create the pottery traditions of
2. Catherine Wilson Horne, ed„ Crossroads
South and North Carolina, and it is to these that our attention is directed. These
of Clay: The Southern Alkaline-Glazed Stoneware
traditions are less familiar to mainstream America than their musical equivalents, Tradition (Columbia, S.C.: McKissick Museum,
but the pots resonate today with the same intensity as their musical counterparts 1990).

9
 NORTH CAROLINA POTTERY CENTERS

CURRITUCK

ALLEgHANY
warren; GATES
SURRY
STOKES.; ROCKINGHAM CASWELL PERSON.
HERTFORD

VVATAUGA HALIFAX
WILKES YADKIN FORSYTH GUILFORD ALAMANCE

Winston-Salem* Greensboro ORANGE FRANKLIN

BERTIE
Burlington/
NASH
CALDWELL ALEXANDEi DAVIE Snow Camp EDGECOMBE
IREDELL; DAVIDSON RANDOLPH
MARTIN TYRRELL DARE
Asheboro Silk Hope/
BURKE
/•Hickory; WILSON
lUNCOMBfi / MCDOWELL CATAWBA ^ ROWAN
Coleridge' CHATHAM /
WAKE
BEAUFORT
Asheville
"iSeagrove,
! Vale* Lincoln JOHNSTON HYDE
Lincolnton* CA3ARRUS
^HENDERSON RUTHERFORD| HARNETT WAYNE
\ GASTON r3 STANLY MOORE
MONT¬ LENOIR
cleveland^i charlotte, GOMERY CRAVEN

iC0N-sd VANIA MECKLKN*

CHEROKEE .BURG /
CUMBERLANI SAMPSON
HOKE
UNION; ANSON
DUPLIN;
SCOT¬
LAND ONSLOW
CARTERET

ROBESON.

I Salt glaze

r~8 Alkaline glaze COLUMBUS

NEW HANOVER

BRUNSWICK
Mountain High Maps® USA Relief Copyright © 2001 Digital Wisdom®, Inc.
and continue to fascinate the imaginations of many resident potters, as well as
historians, pottery collectors, and other ceramics enthusiasts.
Wonderful historical and folkloric accounts of the vernacular stoneware tradi¬
tions of North America have been published, but this book endeavors to present
two new perspectives to the way that these traditions are perceived. First, the
traditions have not received the photographic treatment they so richly deserve, and
Jason Dowdies inspired images of these wonderful vernacular pots shine dramatic
new light on the details of their shapes and surfaces, as well as on their overall
beauty. Visual images travel farther than the pots themselves, and this portrait
of North Carolina's ceramic heritage creates a permanent visual record that will
inform and inspire potters, collectors, and historians far and wide. Second, by using
descriptive models of ceramic appreciation found primarily in Japan and apply¬
ing them loosely to North Carolina pots and their historical antecedents, I hope
to expand the aesthetic appreciation and understanding of these local pots. It is
fascinating to examine American stoneware traditions through a lens provided by
scholars and connoisseurs of Japanese ceramics. Recent critical writing concerning
the way Westerners have interpreted Asian ceramics and how indeed they perceive
the "Orient," particularly Edmund de Waal's Bernard Leach and Yuko Kikuchi’s
Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory: Cultural Nationalism and Oriental Ori¬
entalism, are apposite cautions against endowing these pots, indeed any pots, with
patronizing attributes of superiority, authenticity, "mysteriousness,” and romance.3
However, Asian pots remain beautiful, as do American vernacular pots. The purpose
of this exercise is not to engage in a competitive or theoretical cross-cultural analy¬
sis—southern pots need no help, as they stand happily on their own—but rather to
share some aesthetic perspectives from another culture concerning the nature of
ceramic beauty, and to show how pots from North Carolina, and indeed from other
vernacular traditions, can benefit from similar poetic and evocative description. My
focus is on the pots, not the theory.
A fascinating aesthetic correlation connects pots from different times and places,
for old southern pots from North and South Carolina, both salt- and alkaline-glazed,
share many characteristics with certain pots from Japan and Southeast Asia. These
similarities are a function of the types of clay and glaze materials potters used, the
shapes they created, the ways the pots were fired, and the purposes for which these
pots were made. In a sense, these similarities are superficial—the pots merely look
alike—but underlying these surprising associations is a beauty that is far from
shallow, a beauty to which all human cultures are drawn, signifying a species-wide
admiration.
An extensive vocabulary of scholarship and connoisseurship has developed in
Japan over the course of about five hundred years to describe the qualities and at¬
3. Edmund de Waal, Bernard Leach (London:
tributes of pots. For instance, Kaneko Naoki discusses how jars from the medieval
Tate Gallery Publishing, 1997); Yuko Kikuchi,
kilns in Shigaraki have become objects of the scholar’s and connoisseur's interest.
Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory:
"It is fascinating to note that there are a number of superbly introspective writings Cultural Nationalism and Oriental Orientalism
which do not stop at a simple physical assessment of the works, but rather consider (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004).

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 11

 the land which produced the wares, the people and environment surrounding
them, their cultural background and indeed, the authors’ own psyches.”4
The sophisticated relationship between makers of pots and consumers has ex¬
isted for a very long time in Japan. Central to this relationship is the Japanese tea
ceremony. Louise Cort, curator of ceramics at the Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M.
Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, writes:

A remarkable collective, first-person narrative of the emerging Japanese con-

noisseurship of ceramics began to be written in the sixteenth century, when
urban-based participants in the new cultural practice known as chanoyu (the
tea ceremony) began keeping diaries of gatherings they hosted or attended.
From the outset, chanoyu encompassed a complex combination of elements,
satisfying many different goals. As one contemporary document summarized,
some participants were drawn by the taste of tea, some by the aesthetic ex¬
perience and the philosophical underpinnings, and some by a love of utensils.
The utensils used to prepare tea or to adorn the [tea] room included Chinese,
Korean, Southeast Asian, and Japanese vessels. Tea diaries recording Japanese
appreciation of ceramic utensils present an unparalleled primary source on the
role of ceramics in this domain of Japanese culture.
As the earliest entries reveal, Japanese appreciation of ceramics centered on
the clay itself, rather than on the more obvious attractions of glaze. Notations
about glazed Chinese jars used to store tea seldom fail to characterize the un¬
glazed clay at the base of the jar. This is symptomatic of the manner in which
chanoyu connoisseurs had first discovered beauty and meaning in the appear¬
ance of unglazed stoneware jars from regional Japanese kilns, particularly from
Shigaraki (southeast of Kyoto, in modern Shiga Prefecture) and Bizen (west of
Kyoto, in Okayama Prefecture). A famed document written by the early chanoyu
teacher and innovator Murata Juko (1421-1502) equates the rough, irregular
appearance of wood-fired Bizen and Shigaraki clays—grayed with smoke,
encrusted with ash, randomly stroked by the flames—with the properties of
"chilled and withered" (hie-karuru) or "chilled and lean” (hie-yase), terms intro¬
duced to Japan through Chinese poetry criticism.
The notion of unglazed clay's capacity to embody mood—especially a
mood of wintry austerity—has endured in Japanese approaches to ceramics.
4. Kaneko Naoki, "Odes to Old Jars: A Brief With that notion has persisted a widespread awareness of the distinctive ap¬
History of Commentary on Ko-Shigaraki,” in Ko-
pearances of regional clays. The first potters to make tea utensils at regional
Shigaraki: Jars from Shigaraki's Medieval Kilns
kilns continued to use unadorned clay to celebrate the grainy, golden red of
(Shigaraki, Japan: Miho Museum, 1999), 256.
5. Louise Allison Cort and Bert Winther- Shigaraki or the dense, burnt brown of Bizen.5
Tamaki, Isamu Noguchi and Modem Japanese
Ceramics: A Close Embrace of the Earth
While North Carolina has neither a ceremony similar to the Japanese tea ceremony
(Berkeley: The Arthur M. Sackler Gallery,
nor such an ancient clay culture, the vernacular pots produced in the 19th century
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.,
in association with University of California are admired in much the same way as their Japanese counterparts. Examining the
Press, 2003), 107-8. clay and glaze qualities of 19th-century North Carolina pots, and recognizing the

12 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS

poetic and evocative attributes that lie within them, will illuminate the souls of
these magnificent works of art.
The regional clays of North Carolina provide the substance out of which the
pots are made and also embody their moods. Michfield or Auman Pond clay from
near Seagrove, for instance—the best-known Randolph County salt glaze clay—has
been used by many of the area's salt glaze potters. Although quite "short” and hard
to work, it fires into a strong clay body that takes salt well, and it is still used by
some contemporary potters, in conjunction with other, more plastic clays from the
Seagrove area and elsewhere, to produce wares that are clearly related in color and
texture to the old 19th-century salt-glazed pots. Michfield and other highly siliceous
stoneware clays from the eastern Piedmont fire many shades of gray, occasionally
with mottled patches of brown, resembling the dappled light of the deciduous
forests of North Carolina (Pots 26, 32, 34, 35). The gray of North Carolina pots can
vary from the soft gray of an early morning mist to the enervating gray of a wilting
summer sky (Pots 24,27,29). While gray is often atmospheric, it is also terrestrial, the
color of many kinds of rocks. Slippery and wet with salt glaze and wood ash drips,
these pots often appear to be the color of granite boulders drenched by rain. Gray
is neutral, quiet, and modest—a background color. Adding a somber note to the list
of color attributes of North Carolina salt glaze, the gray of some grave markers is
deathly (Pots 39,40).
Depending on the purity of the vein the potters mined and the amount of refin¬
ing they gave the clays, occasional pink spots develop on the surface of salt-glazed
pots, the result of small quartz stones in the clay that give oxygen a passage under
the clay surface, which causes an attractive nimbus of color in the clay immedi¬
ately around the small stone (Pots 3, 38,40). In Japan these markings are described
charmingly as "fireflies,” or "deer spots” from the pelt of a fawn. "Kisses” record
where salt-glazed pots touched during the firing, producing blushed markings and
shadows (Pots 31, 38). Looking closely at the surface of a North Carolina pot is like
looking at the surface of a painting: its color, markings, and textures are decipher¬
able and entrancing, redolent with meaning. By stepping out of the way at the
right time, potters can, if they so choose, let the clay and the fire provide their own
sophisticated decoration and set their own mood.
Describing the surface of Japanese pots from Shigaraki, where unglazed ana-
gama-fired pots are also made, the influential photographer Domon Ken, whose
photographic treatment of Shigaraki ware is credited with helping to revive
worldwide interest in Japanese unglazed wood-fired wares beginning in the 1960s,
writes:

For me there is nothing more fascinating in Japanese ceramics than

Shigaraki.
The sheer, frank openness of mountain clay can be seen in its unaffected
surface.
The refreshing quality of its surface, sealed in the fierce flames of the kiln.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 13

 The cute "crab-eyes" of white feldspar, sticking up here and there from the
well-fired surface.
The clear red of the clay surface reminiscent of dawn.
The discordant stones bursting through the clay surface, that allow glimpses
of a face emerging from that skin.
The white of ash covering, like a spring snow shower.
The glorious flow of vitreous glaze. The warm dark roundness of the dragon¬
fly eye-shapes formed when that glaze stops mid-stream.
The unexpected original color that emerges in areas where adjoining pots in
the kiln prevented direct contact with the flames.
The ground tremors of ash glaze that hint at its heavenly construct.
The deeply redolent "scorches" of the ceaseless, layered flow of ash glaze.6

Such descriptions, parts of which are directly transferable to North Carolina

pots, illustrate the devotion and reverence given by the Japanese to these rugged,
unglazed stoneware pots and suggest a descriptive correlation with North Carolina
pots.
One aspect that commands great pride among North Carolina potters is the
lightness and balance of the pots they make. This is a function of the excellent mak¬
ing skills fostered here, as well as the plasticity of the local clays. Very strong and
plastic clay from the Rhodes clay hole in Lincoln County was the primary clay used
by the alkaline glaze potters of the western Piedmont, and while this vein is largely
worked out, nearby seams continue to be mined for similar clays by Kim Ellington
and other local potters. Lincoln County pots are particularly well made, and the
clays are very tough and plastic. While Catawba Valley clays are elegantly sheathed
in their camouflaged olive green finery (Pots 52, 58), they are still visible at the base
of these pots and underneath, where, often, the glaze has been hurriedly wiped off
to leave expressive markings of dynamic action.
Early pots made by Daniel Seagle, patriarch of the Lincoln County tradition,
were made out of well-refined clays with finer particle sizes and few quartz stone
impurities. Some later Lincoln County makers seem to have refined their clay less, or
else the good seams had been exhausted (or both), so their pots tend to have more
quartz blowouts. In the alkaline glaze tradition, these quartz pebbles shining out of
the surface are known enchantingly as “pearls" (Pots 60, 65).
In addition to correlations of clay quality, the ash glazes on these Catawba Valley
pots, and many South Carolina pots, are also very like the ash glazes on some pots
from Southeast Asia and Japan (Pots 41, 44, 53, 54) because they were made from
the same combination of glaze ingredients and fired in similar sorts of kilns. The
dark, shiny, olive green glaze is redolent with associations to nature, particularly to
the profligate foliage of the sultry South, so often steaming after a summer deluge.
6. Domon Ken, "Atogaki, Waga Shigaraki,"
Many Southeast Asian ash-glazed pots were made in the even more sweltering
in Shigaraki Otsubo (Tokyo: Chunichi Shimbun
Shuppankyoku, 1965), quoted in Ko-Shigaraki, tropics, and they too display a visual connection to their surrounding vegetation.
257. Unglazed Japanese pots fired in high temperature cross-draft kilns often have

14 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS

attributes of season and landscape ascribed to them; in the case of some Muro-
machi Period (1392-1573) pots, like the jar from Tokoname in the exhibition (Pot 1),
for instance, or from some of the other great medieval kilns in Shigaraki, Iga, Tamba,
Echizen, and Bizen, they are described as being like autumnal mountainsides for
their glowing colors of red, green, and yellow. As Louise Cort writes:

The landscapes on Shigaraki jars have seasons also. Some jars are as bright and
vivacious as a spring morning, with green glaze cascading over a warm orange
surface. Others are moody and withdrawn, barely touched with color—streaks
of lavender and blue—against dry gray clay. The fifteenth-century tea men who
first brought those jars into their tearooms knew how to read the landscape,
just as they could read the shadings of ink on paper and see mountains and
streams. In their mind's eye, they saw the valley that had made these jars.7

7. Louise Allison Cort, Shigaraki, Potters'

Valley (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1979), 5.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 15

 jars such as this, Kamitsukasa Kai’un, a
Japanese Buddhist priest who acquired
the nickname "Jar Priest,” wrote, "Old pots
always evoke a familiar sense of the earth,
the warmth of human skin. Every time I
face an old jar, I encounter the truth, good¬
Unknown maker, Tokoname ware, Japan, ness and beauty of people not things and
8. Kamitsukasa Kai'un, "Tsubo Hoshi," Nihon
Muromachi Period, 1392-1573, Large Jar, naturally my heart is purified, calmed, Bijutsu Kogei, no. 338 (Nihon Bijutsukogeisha,
n.d. Stoneware with natural ash glaze, warmed.”8 1966), quoted in Naoki, "Odes to Old Jars,” 256.

22 x 18 in. Property of Mary Griggs Burke.

Photograph by Sheldan Collins.

This pot, probably from Tokoname, is em¬

blematic of many of the qualities admired
in this style of pottery, and it has been
selected for its clear formal and surface
relationship to some of the 19th-century
North Carolina pots that are at the heart
of this exhibition and book, like the Ches¬
ter Webster jars (Pots 2, 23) made in Ran¬
dolph County, North Carolina, in 1850. The
aesthetic connection between these pots
is intriguing: a pot from one place and
time is echoed in a pot from a completely
unrelated place and time, which speaks
of the universal congruence between pot¬
ters, their materials, tools, and aesthetic
sensibilities toward form and function.
The Tokoname pot has a sureness of
form, with a narrow base, an exquisite
profile, and a sensible neck, with a large
kiss that is more beauty mark than scar.
A heavy coating of fly ash, accumulated
during a lengthy firing, has melted into
a thick, honey-colored coating of glaze,
which has dripped down over the belly
of the jar. The radiant red of the fired clay
complements the mellifluous ash drips,
creating a natural tonal harmony and giv¬
ing the pot the overall impression of being
a "found object,” of being an expression of
an ancient natural order.
Indicative of the reverence given to

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 17

Chester Webster, Randolph County, N.C.,
1779-1882, Five-Gallon Jar, 1850. Salt-glazed
stoneware, 15 x 11 in. Collection of William
Ivey.

Though smaller than the Tokoname jar

(Pot i), the Webster jar has much in com¬
mon with its Japanese counterpart. Their
congruence, based on no anthropological
connection, is the product of similar clays
and kilns, and the comparable "eye" and
skill of the individual potters who made
them. Chester Webster and the Japanese
potter shared a sensibility toward the
materials they were using, the shapes
needed for food preservation in their
agrarian communities, and by a curious
coincidence, the types of kilns they fired.
The Webster pot evokes the colors of a
freshly plowed Piedmont field, as well as
a glorious autumnal landscape. Amid the
fall foliage, in the case of the Webster jar,
sits a bird singing out the date.
Japanese anagama, or single-
chambered kilns, are cross-draft kilns
with a firebox at one end, where wood
is stoked, and a chimney at the other to
draw the flames and heat through the rectangular; their Japanese counterparts to produce the dramatic drips on the
setting of the pots. Anagama kilns tend to are also low, though streamlined, resem¬ shoulders and bellies of these pots. The
have side-stoking holes to help even out bling the hulls of overturned boats. comfortable strap handles that are tucked
the temperatures from front to back, and In both types of kiln, pots were set on under the rim of Webster's jar have caught
these kilns are often fired for several days. the floor (kiln furniture was rudimentary their own share of ash. The ash drips on
North Carolina groundhog kilns operate at best), and the heat and flames passed both the Tokoname jar and the Webster
on a very similar principle, except they do directly over the pots, leaving a caress jar are direct testaments to the heat of the
not have the side-stoking capability and of "fly ash" on the shoulders of the pots, fire and the sweat of the potters during
the firings are shorter, usually no more particularly those closest to the front fire¬ firing; they record the cathartic process
than a day. Groundhog kilns are squat and box. At high temperature this ash melted out of which the pots were born.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 19

 There is an unmistakable qualitative difference between pots made from clays that have
been dug and refined by the potters themselves and clays that have been bought ready-to-
go at a supply company. Just as wines from different regions vary according to the soil in
which various grapes were grown, pots vary depending on the particular clays from which
they are made. Clays are regional identifiers, with subtle but telling differences between,
for instance, Randolph County clays and Alamance County clays. Furthermore, locally
mined and refined clays have a more elaborate and variable microaesthetic, a warmth and
complexity that overrefined clays have had removed from them for the sake of consistency
and reliability, in much the same way that jugged blends of wine deliver a dependable
product with little of the nuance and sophistication of a particular vintage and varietal.
Some contemporary North Carolina potters, including the ones represented here, continue
to use different types and proportions of native clays in their endeavors to make pots that
are alive and vibrant.
At first glance it may appear that such an obsession with materials is romantic and
quaint, given that more reliable and consistent clays are so readily available. On closer
inspection, however, this keen focus on raw material quality is an aesthetic choice some
potters make based on a finely tuned perception of what they think constitutes ceramic
quality and a reluctance or unwillingness, despite the hard work involved, to give control
of the very substance the pots are made from to someone else, whose aesthetic values are
unknown or suspect. Like the older potters, these potters and their pots speak through their
clay; they don’t care to have others do the speaking for them.
It is not only the clay and glaze that determines the appearance of the surface of North
Carolina pots; it is also the kilns and firings. North Carolina salt-glazed and alkaline-glazed
pots were fired in so-called groundhog kilns, which in many ways are similar to the ana-
gama kilns in which unglazed pots from Japan were fired—another reason why the North
Carolina and Japanese connection is so pertinent. Both kilns have a firebox at one end of the
kiln and a chimney at the other and so are classified as cross-draft kilns. Pots stacked openly
on the floor of these low-ceilinged kilns are exposed to volatile wood ash that flies thro ugh
the kiln after combustion and settles on the exposed shoulders, rims, and handles of the
pots. At high temperature this wood ash begins to fuse into a glass and melts down the side
of the pots, leaving characteristic ash runs (Pots 1, 2, 3, 28, 33, 89, 96). These ash drips accent
the pots with dramatic and lyrical marks—pots are quite literally "painted by the fire.”
In the case of the alkaline glaze, made from a watery suspension of wood ashes, clay,
and a glassy frit into which, the pot is dipped before firing, much of the volatile wood ash
flying through the kiln becomes absorbed into the glaze as it melts, leaving some, but not
significant, markings because they are so similar to the glaze itself. Wood in this case is only
a fuel, unlike in salt glaze groundhog kilns and anagama kilns where the "fly” ash provides
its own distinctive decoration.
Firing wood kilns is a strenuous task. Charles G. Zug III describes the process:

Burning the kiln is surely the most dramatic phase of the potter's art. Few scenes are
more stirring than the roiling black smoke and the massive sheet of flame erupting
9. Charles G. Zug III, Turners and
Burners: The Folk Potters of North
from the chimney of a fully heated groundhog kiln. And the sight of the potters, drip¬
Carolina (Chapel Hill: University of ping with sweat as they stoke the firebox, attests to the human strength and endur¬
North Carolina Press, 1986), 199. ance that lies behind this special event.9

20 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS

 In a related description, Fujiwara Yu, a Japanese potter from Bizen, one of the main cen¬
ters of unglazed pottery, speaks to the transcendental essence of firing with wood:

Around the clock the pine wood must be fed before Bizen is born.... One feels like faint¬
ing and becomes dizzy before it is over. All the more for this hard work a burning desire
to fight arises within me, challenging me to make better, always more desirable Bizen
ware. How splendid the beauty of Bizen ware is, forever imprinted with the fire's mark¬
ings, the madly dancing flames of the fire, which have burned so intensely for such a
long time.... Once man has developed a passion for Bizen ware, he is stunned by the
thought that he has become a drug addict. Is there any other pottery than Bizen which
drives man to such a degree of madness?10

Introducing salt into a kiln's atmosphere at high temperature only adds to the complex¬
ity, for it causes silica in the clay to begin to melt. The sodium in salt acts as a flux on the
silica on the surface of the pots, causing the silica to melt into a glaze that has a stippled
quality often characterized by its resemblance to orange peel. The textural quality of salt
glaze, along with the tonal range that this volatile process creates, adds tactile and visual
complexity to the surface of North Carolina salt-glazed pots, qualities that have long been
admired in the irregular surfaces of some Japanese and Southeast Asian pots.
Salt glaze kilns themselves also begin to melt. All kilns deteriorate over time, depending
on the quality of the materials used in their construction, frequency of firing, and the tem¬
perature to which they are fired. Modern kilns made from sophisticated refractory materi¬
als deteriorate more slowly, but old North Carolina salt glaze groundhog kilns were made
out of clays gathered locally, often red clays mixed with sand, and were fired to extremely
high temperatures (around 2,350 degrees Fahrenheit). The result of this severe treatment
was that the poor-quality kiln bricks soon began to melt and drop onto the pots beneath,
leaving distinctive marks that are known as "kiln drips," or sometimes "potters' tears"(Pots
4,5,29,30,38). As the surface of the bricks begin to melt, globs of hot sticky brick form a type
of glaze that begins to ooze down from the ceiling, suspended on an ever-thinning strand of
glaze, like sticky molasses dripping off a spoon. When the drip finally parts company with
the kiln, the glob falls onto the pot, and its long tail follows, often flopping over onto the
pot at a grotesque angle, giving the surface of the pot an additional quirky linearity (Pot 5).
Some kiln drips are darker, depending on the type of clay used in the bricks (Pots 2, 23, 29);
other drips, in conjunction with the bleaching action of salt on the iron content in the kiln
drip, melt into a limpid, clear blue-green celadon color (Pots 4, 5, 8), sometimes even turning
a rare soft lilac (Pots 4, 8).
Pots from Alamance County, North Carolina, have the distinction of exhibiting the most
numerous and lively of these kiln drips. The markings left on these pots may look at first
to be unfortunate accidents, the mere residues of chance, appearing messy and incoherent
and detracting from the pots’ beauty, but with quiet observation these abstract configura¬
10. Quoted in Gerry Williams,
tions can be viewed as dynamic accents, the remnants of a rare process that marked the
review of Wood-Fired Stoneware and
pots with an elaborate intricacy.
Porcelain, by Jack Troy (Radnor, Pa.:
Chilton Book Company, 1995), in Studio
Potter Network Newsletter, Autumn
1995-

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 21

 color of the clay neighboring the ash drips checker the crown of a typical groundhog
is warm and radiant, creating a luminous kiln.
color combination alongside the yellow A sweet peach preserve deserves as
drips. This jar missed being heavily salted, glorious a container as this, although the
hence its redder color, and it may have jar is rather narrow-necked, making the
been placed at the front of the kiln, to tempting contents all the harder to reach.
Timothy Boggs, Alamance County, N.C., one side, away from the salting ports that
1849-?, Canning Jar, n.d. Salt-glazed
stoneware, 12 x 6 in. Collection of Robert
and Jimmi Hodgin.

In order to examine the relationship

between Japanese ceramic appreciation
and North Carolina pots more closely, I
have chosen as an example to look at 19th-
century Alamance County pots in detail,
scrutinizing their qualities and drawing
parallels with another regional Japanese
tradition of unglazed pottery, namely Iga
ware.
Of all the smaller satellite salt glaze tra¬
ditions removed from the main salt glaze
center in Randolph County, the Alamance
County salt glaze potteries are the most
distinct and self-contained. Members of
the Loy and Boggs families were the main
potters in the Snow Camp area of Ala¬
mance County, an area originally settled
by Quakers from Pennsylvania. Clays
found there produced tight bodies that
usually appear almost porcelaneous in
quality after having been salted. This clas¬
sic Alamance County preserve jar made
by Timothy Boggs, however, has a darker
beauty and is similar to both the Toko-
name jar (Pot 1) and the Chester Webster
jar (Pot 2) in clay and firing quality, and in
its autumnal feel.
An aureole of bright yellow bordering
the ash drips shows the ash eating into
the iron in the clay, darkening the inner
edges of the drips, which developed in a
fiercely hot fire. The wondrous quality and

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 23

 the brilliant and bracing air of perpetual selves may not have thought so, for the
winter, for the combination of colors from quicker the kilns deteriorated, the quicker
the clay, firing, and kiln make it appear they needed replacing.
glacially white, as if blushed by an Antarc¬ In addition to the kiln drips, fly ash
tic dawn. drips add exclamations to the surface
The icy blue-green pools on the surface complexity, three of which run down from
Solomon Loy, Alamance County, N.C., of this shimmering jug are a profusion the base of the handle to create what
1805-ca. i860, One and a Half-Gallon of kiln drips that oozed down from, the looks like a languid stick figure. If this
Jug, n.d. Salt-glazed stoneware, 13 x 7 in. crown of the kiln onto the pot at the were used as a whiskey jug, the surface
Collection of Robert and Jimmi Hodgin. climax of the firing. High temperatures would have provided any number of vivid
and salt deteriorated the poor-quality red associations to a demented tippler. For
If some pots are described as resembling clay bricks, causing the kiln to cry "potters’ even without added stimulation, visions
autumnal landscapes, a few others, like tears.” Given how beautiful these mark¬ of distant universes can be seen, not to
this spectacular Alamance County master¬ ings are, it is tempting to describe them mention all manner of sensual pleasures
piece made by Solomon Loy, travel on into as tears of joy, although the potters them¬ in the juicy intermingling flows.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON OLD NORTH CAROLINA POTS 25

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER XXIII
Assuming the first part of the history of Job as having actually taken
place, the five, viz., Job and his friends, agreed that the misfortune
of Job was known to God, and that it was God that caused Job’s
suffering. They further agree that God does no wrong, and that no
injustice can be ascribed to Him. You will find these ideas frequently
repeated in the words of Job. When you consider the words of the
five who take part in the discussion, you will easily notice that things
said by one of them are also uttered by the rest. The arguments are
repeated, mixed up, and interrupted by Job’s description of his acute
pain and troubles, which had come upon him in spite of his strict
righteousness, and by an account of his charity, humane disposition,
and good acts. The replies of the friends to Job are likewise
interrupted by exhortations to patience, by words of comfort, and
other speeches tending to make him forget his grief. He is told by
them to be silent; that he ought not to let loose the bridle of his
tongue, as if he were in dispute with another man; that he ought
silently to submit to the judgments of God. Job replies that the
intensity of his pains did not permit him to bear patiently, to collect
his thoughts and to say what he ought to say. The friends, on the
other hand, contend that those who act well receive reward, and
those who act wickedly are punished. When a wicked and rebellious
person is seen in prosperity, it may be assumed for certain that a
change will take place; he will die, or troubles will afflict him and his
house. When we find a worshipper of God in misfortune, we may be
certain that God will heal the stroke of his wound. This idea is
frequently repeated in the words of the three friends, Eliphaz,
Bildad, and Zofar, who agree in this opinion. It is, however, not the
object of this chapter to describe in what they agree, but to define
the distinguishing characteristic of each of them, and to elucidate
the opinion of each as regards the question why the most simple
and upright man is afflicted with the greatest and acutest pain. Job
found in this fact a proof that the righteous [300]and the wicked are
equal before God, who holds all mankind in contempt. Job therefore
says (ix. 22, 23): “This is one thing, therefore I said it, He
destroyeth the perfect and the wicked. If the scourge slay suddenly,
he will laugh at the trial of the innocent.” He thus declares that when
a scourge comes suddenly, killing and destroying all it meets, God
laughs at the trial of the innocent. He further confirms this view in
the following passage: “One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at
ease and quiet. His vessels are full of milk, etc. And another dieth in
the bitterness of his soul, and never eateth with pleasure. They shall
lie down alike in the dust, and the worms shall cover them” (ibid.
xxi. 23–26). In a similar manner he shows the good condition and
prosperity of wicked people; and is even very explicit on this point.
He speaks thus: “Even when I remember I am afraid, and trembling
taketh hold on my flesh. Wherefore do the wicked live, become old,
yea, are mighty in power? Their seed is established in their sight
with them,” etc. (ibid. 6–8). Having thus described their prosperity,
he addresses his opponents, and says to them: “Granted that as you
think, the children of this prosperous atheist will perish after his
death, and their memory will be blotted out, what harm will the fate
of his family cause him after his death? For what pleasure hath he in
his house after him, when the number of his months is cut off in the
midst?” (ibid. 21). Job then explains that there is no hope after
death, so that the cause [of the misfortune of the righteous man] is
nothing else but entire neglect on the part of God. He is therefore
surprised that God has not abandoned the creation of man
altogether; and that after having created him, He does not take any
notice of him. He says in his surprise: “Hast thou not poured me out
as milk, and curdled me like cheese?” etc. (ibid. x. 10, seq.). This is
one of the different views held by some thinkers on Providence. Our
Sages (B. T. Baba B. 16a) condemned this view of Job as
mischievous, and expressed their feeling in words like the following:
“dust should have filled the mouth of Job”; “Job wished to upset the
dish”; “Job denied the resurrection of the dead”; “He commenced to
blaspheme.” When, however, God said to Eliphaz and his colleagues,
“You have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant
Job hath” (xlii. 7), our Sages assume as the cause of this rebuke, the
maxim “Man is not punished for that which he utters in his pain”;
and that God ignored the sin of Job [in his utterances], because of
the acuteness of his suffering. But this explanation does not agree
with the object of the whole allegory. The words of God are justified,
as I will show, by the fact that Job abandoned his first very
erroneous opinion, and himself proved that it was an error. It is the
opinion which suggests itself as plausible at first thought, especially
in the minds of those who meet with mishaps, well knowing that
they have not merited them through sins. This is admitted by all,
and therefore this opinion was assigned to Job. But he is
represented to hold this view only so long as he was without
wisdom, and knew God only by tradition, in the same manner as
religious people generally know Him. As soon as he had acquired a
true knowledge of God, he confessed that there is undoubtedly true
felicity in the knowledge of God; it is attained by all who acquire that
knowledge, and no earthly trouble can disturb it. So long as Job’s
knowledge of God was based on tradition and communication, and
not on research, he believed that such imaginary good [301]as is
possessed in health, riches, and children, was the utmost that men
can attain; this was the reason why he was in perplexity, and why he
uttered the above-mentioned opinions, and this is also the meaning
of his words: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but
now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent
because of dust and ashes” (xlii. 5, 6); that is to say, he abhorred all
that he had desired before, and that he was sorry that he had been
in dust and ashes; comp. “and he sat down among the ashes” (ii. 8).
On account of this last utterance, which implies true perception, it is
said afterwards in reference to him, “for you have not spoken of me
the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”

The opinion set forth by Eliphaz in reference to Job’s suffering is

likewise one of the current views on Providence. He holds that the
fate of Job was in accordance with strict justice. Job was guilty of
sins for which he deserved his fate. Eliphaz therefore says to Job: “Is
not thy wickedness great, and thine iniquities infinite?” (xxii. 5). He
then points out to him that his upright actions and his good ways, on
which he relies, need not be so perfect in the eyes of God that no
punishment should be inflicted on him. “Behold, he putteth no trust
in his servants; and his angels he chargeth with folly: how much less
in them that dwell in houses of clay,” etc. (iv. 17–18). Eliphaz never
abandoned his belief that the fate of man is the result of justice, that
we do not know all our shortcomings for which we are punished, nor
the way how we incur the punishment through them.

Bildad the Shuhite defends in this question the theory of reward and
compensation. He therefore tells Job that if he is innocent and
without sin, his terrible misfortunes will be the source of great
reward, will be followed by the best compensation, and will prove a
boon to him as the cause of great bliss in the future world. This idea
is expressed in the words: “If thou be pure and upright, surely now
he will awake for thee, and make the habitation of thy righteousness
prosperous. Though thy beginning was small, yet thy latter end will
greatly increase” (viii. 6–8). This opinion concerning Providence is
widespread, and we have already explained it.

Zofar the Naamathite holds that the Divine Will is the source of
everything that happens; no further cause can be sought for His
actions, and it cannot be asked why He has done this and why He
has not done that. That which God does can therefore not be
explained by the way of justice or the result of wisdom. His true
Essence demands that He does what He wills; we are unable to
fathom the depth of His wisdom, and it is the law and rule of this
wisdom that whatever He does is done because it is His will and for
no other cause. Zofar therefore says to Job: “But oh that God would
speak, and open his lips against thee; and that he would show thee
the secrets of wisdom, for wisdom hath two portions! Know,
therefore, that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity
deserveth. Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out
the Almighty unto perfection?” (xi. 6–7).

In this manner consider well how the Book of Job discusses the
problem, which has perplexed many people, and led them to adopt
in reference to Divine Providence some one of the theories which I
have explained above; all possible different theories are mentioned
therein. The problem is described either by way of fiction or in
accordance with real fact, as having [302]manifested itself in a man
famous for his excellency and wisdom. The view ascribed to Job is
the theory of Aristotle. Eliphaz holds the opinion taught in Scripture,
Bildad’s opinion is identical with that of the Muʻtazilah, whilst Zofar
defends the theory of the Asha’riyah. These were the ancient views
on Providence; later on a new theory was set forth, namely, that
ascribed to Elihu. For this reason he is placed above the others, and
described as younger in years but greater in wisdom. He censures
Job for his foolishly exalting himself, expressing surprise at such
great troubles befalling a good man, and dwelling on the praises of
his own deeds. He also tells the three friends that their minds have
been weakened by great age. A profound and wonderful discourse
then follows. Reflecting on his words we may at first thought be
surprised to find that he does not add anything to the words of
Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zofar; and that he only repeats their ideas in
other terms and more explicitly. For he likewise censures and
rebukes Job, attributes justice to God, relates His wonders in nature,
and holds that God is not affected by the service of the worshipper,
nor by the disobedience of the rebellious. All this has already been
said by His colleagues. But after due consideration we see clearly
the new idea introduced by Elihu, which is the principal object of his
speech, an idea which has not been uttered by those who spoke
before him. In addition to this he mentions also other things set
forth by the previous speakers, in the same manner as each of the
rest, viz., Job and his three friends, repeat what the others have
said. The purpose of this repetition is to conceal the opinion peculiar
to each speaker, and to make all appear in the eyes of the ordinary
reader to utter one and the same view, although in reality this is not
the case. The new idea, which is peculiar to Elihu and has not been
mentioned by the others, is contained in his metaphor of the angel’s
intercession. It is a frequent occurrence, he says, that a man
becomes ill, approaches the gates of death, and is already given up
by his neighbours. If then an angel, of any kind whatever, intercedes
on his behalf and prays for him, the intercession and prayers are
accepted; the patient rises from his illness, is saved, and returns to
good health. This result is not always obtained; intercession and
deliverance do not always follow each other; it happens only twice,
or three times. Elihu therefore says: “If there be an angel with him,
an interpreter, one among a thousand, to show unto man his
uprightness,” etc. (xxxiii. 29). He then describes man’s condition
when convalescent and the rejoicing at his recovery, and continues
thus: “Lo, all these things worketh God twice, three times with man”
(ibid. 29). This idea occurs only in the words of Elihu. His description
of the method of prophecy in preceding verses is likewise new. He
says: “Surely God speaketh in one way, yea in two ways, yet man
perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep
sleep falleth upon man, in slumberings upon the bed” (ibid. 14, 15).
He afterwards supports and illustrates his theory by a description of
many natural phenomena, such as thunder, lightning, rain, and
winds; with these are mixed up accounts of various incidents of life,
e.g., an account of pestilence contained in the following passage: “In
a moment they die, and at midnight; the people become tumultuous
and pass away” (xxxiv. 20). Great wars are described in the following
verse: “He breaketh in pieces mighty men without number, and
setteth others in their stead” (ibid. 24). [303]There are many more
passages of this kind. In a similar manner the Revelation that
reached Job (chap. xxxviii., chap. xli.), and explained to him the
error of his whole belief, constantly describes natural objects, and
nothing else; it describes the elements, meteorological phenomena,
and peculiarities of various kinds of living beings. The sky, the
heavens, Orion and Pleiades are only mentioned in reference to their
influence upon our atmosphere, so that Job’s attention is in this
prophecy only called to things below the lunar sphere. Elihu likewise
derives instruction from the nature of various kinds of animals. Thus
he says: “He teacheth us through the beasts of the earth, and
maketh us wise through the fowls of heaven” (xxxv. 11). He dwells
longest on the nature of the Leviathan, which possesses a
combination of bodily peculiarities found separate in different
animals, in those that walk, those that swim, and those that fly. The
description of all these things serves to impress on our minds that
we are unable to comprehend how these transient creatures come
into existence, or to imagine how their natural properties
commenced to exist, and that these are not like the things which we
are able to produce. Much less can we compare the manner in which
God rules and manages His creatures with the manner in which we
rule and manage certain beings. We must content ourselves with
this, and believe that nothing is hidden from God, as Elihu says: “For
his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings.
There is no darkness nor shadow of death, where the workers of
iniquity may hide themselves” (xxxiv. 21, 22). But the term
management, when applied to God, has not the same meaning
which it has when applied to us; and when we say that He rules His
creatures we do not mean that He does the same as we do when we
rule over other beings. The term “rule” has not the same definition
in both cases; it signifies two different notions, which have nothing
in common but the name. In the same manner, as there is a
difference between works of nature and productions of human
handicraft, so there is a difference between God’s rule, providence,
and intention in reference to all natural forces, and our rule,
providence, and intention in reference to things which are the
objects of our rule, providence, and intention. This lesson is the
principal object of the whole Book of Job; it lays down this principle
of faith, and recommends us to derive a proof from nature, that we
should not fall into the error of imagining His knowledge to be
similar to ours, or His intention, providence, and rule similar to ours.
When we know this we shall find everything that may befall us easy
to bear; mishap will create no doubts in our hearts concerning God,
whether He knows our affairs or not, whether He provides for us or
abandons us. On the contrary, our fate will increase our love of God;
as is said in the end of this prophecy: “Therefore I abhor myself and
repent concerning the dust and ashes” (xlii. 6); and as our Sages
say: “The pious do everything out of love, and rejoice in their own
afflictions.” (B. T. Shabb. 88b.) If you pay to my words the attention
which this treatise demands, and examine all that is said in the Book
of Job, all will be clear to you, and you will find that I have grasped
and taken hold of the whole subject; nothing has been left
unnoticed, except such portions as are only introduced because of
the context and the whole plan of the allegory. I have explained this
method several times in the course of this treatise. [304]

[Contents]
 CHAPTER XXIV
The doctrine of trials is open to great objections; it is in fact more
exposed to objections than any other thing taught in Scripture. It is
mentioned in Scripture six times, as I will show in this chapter.
People have generally the notion that trials consist in afflictions and
mishaps sent by God to man, not as punishments for past sins, but
as giving opportunity for great reward. This principle is not
mentioned in Scripture in plain language, and it is only in one of the
six places referred to that the literal meaning conveys this notion. I
will explain the meaning of that passage later on. The principle
taught in Scripture is exactly the reverse; for it is said: “He is a God
of faithfulness, and there is no iniquity in him” (Deut. xxxii. 4).

The teaching of our Sages, although some of them approve this

general belief [concerning trials], is on the whole against it. For they
say, “There is no death without sin, and no affliction without
transgression.” (See p. 285.) Every intelligent religious person should
have this faith, and should not ascribe any wrong to God, who is far
from it; he must not assume that a person is innocent and perfect
and does not deserve what has befallen him. The trials mentioned in
Scripture in the [six] passages, seem to have been tests and
experiments by which God desired to learn the intensity of the faith
and the devotion of a man or a nation. [If this were the case] it
would be very difficult to comprehend the object of the trials, and
yet the sacrifice of Isaac seems to be a case of this kind, as none
witnessed it, but God and the two concerned [Abraham and Isaac].
Thus God says to Abraham, “For now I know that thou fearest God,”
etc. (Gen. xxii. 12). In another passage it is said: “For the Lord your
God proveth you to know whether ye love,” etc. (Deut. xiii. 4).
Again, “And to prove thee to know what was in thine heart,” etc.
(ibid. viii. 2). I will now remove all the difficulties.

The sole object of all the trials mentioned in Scripture is to teach

man what he ought to do or believe; so that the event which forms
the actual trial is not the end desired; it is but an example for our
instruction and guidance. Hence the words “to know (la-daʻat)
whether ye love,” etc., do not mean that God desires to know
whether they loved God; for He already knows it; but la-daʻat, “to
know,” has here the same meaning as in the phrase “to know (la-
daʻat) that I am the Lord that sanctifieth you” (Exod. xxxi. 13), i.e.,
that all nations shall know that I am the Lord who sanctifieth you. In
a similar manner Scripture says:—If a man should rise, pretend to be
a prophet, and show you his signs by which he desired to convince
you that his words are true, know that God intends thereby to prove
to the nations how firmly you believe in the truth of God’s word, and
how well you have comprehended the true Essence of God; that you
cannot be misled by any tempter to corrupt your faith in God. Your
religion will then afford a guidance to all who seek the truth, and of
all religions man will choose that which is so firmly established that it
is not shaken by the performance of a miracle. For a miracle cannot
prove that which is impossible; it is useful only as a confirmation of
that which is possible, as we have explained in our Mishneh-torah.
(Yesode ha-torah vii. f. viii. 3.)

Having shown that the term “to know” means “that all people may
know,” we apply this interpretation to the following words said in
reference to the [305]manna: “To humble thee, and to prove thee, to
know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldst keep his
commandments, or not” (Deut. viii. 2). All nations shall know, it shall
be published throughout the world, that those who devote
themselves to the service of God are supported beyond their
expectation. In the same sense it was said when the manna