Virginia History – ODU Special Collections Blog

Tracing History: Using Innovative Research Methods and Chemical Testing to Track the Origins of Colonial Pottery

by Special Collections and HIST 368 Intern Amber Kates

Amber Kates being interviewed in the ODU Chemistry Lab where the testing occurred

My favorite thing about working in archives is getting lost in the stories. The shelves are a treasure trove filled with others’ memories. Sifting through the pages reawakens moments long since passed. Some interconnect to form entire lives. Others are just snapshots of a single moment, bringing with them an air of mystery. They whisper out questions, begging you to discover their long hidden secrets. But these allurements do not belong solely to the two dimensional world. Artifacts contain their own stories; you just have to know how to read them.

In 2022, the ODU Special Collections was gifted a few pieces of pottery. They were just a small fraction of the 20,000 pieces found during the expansion of I64, headed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. After they were pieced back together by the team at William and Mary, they were placed in the possession of the Coastal Virginia Church – the owners of the property where the pieces were found. The Coastal Virginia Church graciously gave the pieces to the Special Collections. As the intern for the Fall 2022 semester, I was given the opportunity to research a large jug and tankard.

Not much was known about the pottery when it arrived at our Special Collections. They were accompanied by a report prepared by the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research. Based on this report, it appeared that these pieces were created around the 1730s by the William Rogers Pottery in Yorktown, VA. If everyone was correct, that meant the pieces were almost 300 years old, and a truly extraordinary find!

RickNickelColonialPottery — ODU Professor Rick Nickel explains the firing process that resulted in jug’s decorative surface to his Introduction to Ceramics Class.

Assuming that the experts were correct, I dove headfirst into my investigation. When looking at the pieces, they appeared to be common stoneware, consistent of the colonial period. The missing pieces in both the tankard and jug made their fragility obvious. Cracks slither across the jug, indicating places of reconstruction; both handles had been destroyed. The potter utilized a two-tone glaze technique on each piece. Artfully detailed ridges denote the deft hand of the maker. As I studied the jug, my eye was drawn to these drips of green glaze. Not only does the color not match any glaze used on either piece, but the finish is distinct. In contrast to the more matte, gritty-looking finishes, the green glaze is glossy and smooth. These markings are obviously unintentional.

After my initial observations, I began my research. I gathered as many sources as possible on William Rogers and colonial pottery. I read through the report that was sent with the pieces, but it was just a snippet of information. According to the report, the area in which the excavation was conducted was within the site of the old Newtown Colony. Like many colonies in the area, Newtown was an English settlement, and acted as a port for trade. However, by the early nineteenth century, the residents of the area moved on. They discarded whatever wares they couldn’t carry into a giant pit – a pit that wouldn’t be discovered for hundreds of years.

After immigrating from England, William Rogers was a resident of Yorktown colony until the mid-eighteenth century. Often referred to as the “poor potter”, Rogers was anything but. A natural businessman, Rogers had made quite the name for himself with several different ventures. Before building the factory, he was a brewer and merchant. The success from his various enterprises made him a prominent figure in the community, and a wealthy man.

So, why the nickname “poor potter?” Well, it stems from the lieutenant governor of the time, William Gooch. In a 1732 letter to the Board of Trade in London, Gooch mentioned Rogers’ pottery endeavor and stated that it was “of so little consequence.” Then, in 1739 he wrote “The Poor Potter’s operation is unworthy of your Lordship’s notice…” In reality, pottery from Rogers’ factory was transported up and down the east coast and to the West Indies. Gooch’s motivation for the way he handled the situation remains a mystery. After all, what Rogers was doing was illegal. At the time, English law made it clear that goods were to be manufactured in England and then transported to the colonies. Many have stated that Gooch must have been “on the take”. While there was probably some monetary incentive, I believe that the situation was far more complicated. Gooch’s position as lieutenant governor was a balancing act between keeping both Virginia and England happy. He was in charge overseeing the colony and its people while being a soldier for the English Crown. The success of Virginia was good for everyone involved, and Rogers’ pottery was a component of this success. Gooch also knew that he couldn’t turn a blind eye to it. Eventually the truth would be discovered, and there would be consequences.

During this portion of my research, I came across a book that proved to be surprisingly helpful. In, Yorktown, Virginia: A Brief History, author Wilford Kale has an entire chapter on William Rogers and the unearthing of his factory. Included in this chapter was the story of the initial discovery around 1970. According to Kale, the story goes that W.A. Childrey, a Yorktown resident, was sweeping the dirt floor of his garage when he noticed shiny green spots. Curious, Childrey dug a little further and revealed bricks covered in a green glaze. He contacted the College of William and Mary, and the real hunt began (Kale, pp. 30).

Inside an 18th Century Pottery Workshop.

My “spidey senses” were tingling. Was this, a brief mention of green glaze, my first clue? Steve Bookman, Head Archivist at the Special Collections, was kind enough to reach out to William and Mary for a copy of the original excavation report. This report described the kiln as being “coated by a thick (1-2 inches) accumulation of a lustrous light to dark green smooth and glass-like glaze” (Barka, 1973, pp. 14). I was like Nancy Drew gathering little fragments of information to solve a mystery.

I knew I needed to go on a field trip and see the site for myself. I reached out to the National Park Service and explained about the pottery and research. I was put into contact with Dr. Dwayne Scheid, Cultural Resources Program Manager and Archaeologist for the National Park Service. He was kind enough to invite me out to the site to discuss this project. I was excited, but nervous. Before I arrived, I emailed pictures of the pottery. Once there, he agreed that they looked like pieces of pottery found during the excavation of the property. However, the only way to really confirm was to get the pieces tested. Dwayne also pointed me to Lindsay Bloch’s work with testing historical ceramics.

I toured the space, which really is the size of someone’s garage. Looking down into the large kiln, it is easy to see the green glaze that was described by Barka. Just as I had hoped, visually it was a match to the drops on the large jug. Dwayne reiterated the need for testing. He explained that the best and easiest thing to do was to first get the pieces tested with an XRF machine. As an undergraduate intern who was clearly in over her head, I just nodded. There was no way that I was going to explain to this very knowledgeable man that I had not even the slightest clue what I was doing, though I’m pretty sure he caught on. I left feeling a little deflated. Was this the end of the road for my project? Nevertheless, I still had a few avenues of investigation to pursue.

20221019_132546 — Inside the Poor Pottery Kiln. Photo by Amber Kates, 2022

Overwhelmed but undeterred, once again, I began my research. Assuming the budget for student-led testing was practically nonexistent, I wanted to find out if the William and Mary’s Center for Archaeological Research had conducted testing during the preservation process. When the pottery was donated to the Special Collections, it was accompanied by a report prepared by William and Mary for VDOT. Reading the report, a second time, I realized that pages were missing. However, several names were listed, including Deborah Davenport. The report stated that she was in charge of “laboratory processing and artifact analysis.” I figured it would be best to go straight to the source and reached out to her with my questions. She informed me that due to their own budgetary constraints they had not performed any testing of the pieces but confirmed their belief that they were created by the William Rogers pottery in Yorktown. She was also kind enough to send me the full report – all 608 pages!

Realizing we were on our own in reference to the chemical analysis, I did a little digging to the basics of XRF testing. This was unknown territory. The Special Collections is not used to diving into the archaeological side of historical preservation. I was able to find a few different institutions who had the ability to help us out but wasn’t sure how many would be willing to assist us pro bono. I once again feared a dead end. On a whim, I contacted the department chair of the ODU Chemistry Department, Dr. Craig Bayse. I explained the situation and asked if we had the testing capabilities. To my surprise, not only did he have access to the equipment, but he was willing to conduct the tests himself.

This is where we are now. The chemical analysis is the final missing piece to confirm if all our work is correct. The wonderful Dr. Bayse conducted XRF testing on both pieces of stoneware. When the results are analyzed, we will be able to determine if the pieces are, in fact, part of the William Rogers collection. I am so lucky to have had the honor to work on this project. It has been an amazing example of different departments and institutions coming together to uncover the truth. Everyone served as an important piece of the puzzle. A special thank you to everyone in the Special Collections. You were all so supportive of me and provided a great learning experience. Jessica Ritchie in particular has been so amazing. She trusted me enough to allow me to run wherever the research led. This has been a truly remarkable hands-on experience.

Director’s Update: After graduating from ODU, Amber has continued to collaborate with the Poor Potter Site and ODU Libraries on a project to trace the pottery back to the site. Amber’s research and ODU’s pioneering chemical analysis methodology could help other repositories and museums officially trace their pieces back to the Poor Potter Site.

Hampton Roads LGBTQ+ Community Snapshot 1977

By Mel Frizzell, Special Collections Assistant

In December 1977, the Norfolk Unitarian-Universalist Gay Caucus (UUGC) undertook what may have been the first survey of the LGBT community in Hampton Roads. The survey was not intended to be a complete profile of the local gay community as those surveyed tended to be either bar goers or those active in the local Gay and Lesbian community. Questions pertaining to the local Trans community were virtually non-existent. Surveys were distributed in local gay bars including the Cue, the Nickelodeon, the Late Show, the Ritz, and at UUGC meetings. The results of the survey were released in the January, February, March, and April 1978 issues of Our Own Community Press. The January issue gave an overview of results. The February issue featured the results as they pertained to women / Lesbians who took the survey. The March issue shared results pertaining to gay and bisexual men. The April issue highlighted comments made by survey respondents.

According to the February 1978 issue of Our Own, “The typical woman who filled out one of the UUGC questionnaires… is between 18 and 24 years old, lives in Norfolk, is registered to vote, Protestant, makes between $5-10,000, rents, has some college education, considers herself exclusively gay, attends a gay bar once a week, and always feels good about her sexuality.” A total of 86 women responded to the survey.

Older women were not well represented in the survey. 69% of the women surveyed were under the age of 24, and an additional 29% were between the ages of 25 and 34. Only 2% of the women were over the age of 34. Half of these respondents were from Norfolk, and the rest were from other cities in Hampton Roads with ten respondents from outside the area. Two thirds of these women were registered to vote. Political affiliation was not reported, but religious affiliation was. Nearly half of the respondents identified as Protestant. Nearly a third were Catholic. A smaller number identified as Jewish, not religious, or other (including two who identified as witches). 48% of respondents had an annual income between $5,000-10,000, 29% had an income less than $5,000 a year. Very few respondents made over $15,000 a year. Only 14% of these women owned their own home; 68% rented, and 18% lived with parents, with a lover, or had other living arrangements. Only 14% of these women had college degrees, 43% had completed some college, 35% had only graduated high school. A very few women had advanced degrees or had not completed high school at all. The highest number of these women (20%) worked in service and blue-collar industries. 17.5% of respondents were students and another 17.5% worked in government jobs. Other jobs included healthcare, education, management, clerical jobs, merchandising, and artists. Very few women surveyed were lawyers, journalists, engineers, or housewives. 8% of those women surveyed were unemployed.

Of the women surveyed, 8% claimed to be exclusively heterosexual, 44% considered themselves exclusively homosexual, and others claimed varying degrees of bisexuality. Most of these women (84%) always or usually felt good about their sexuality. 14% had mixed feelings about their sexuality, and only one woman usually felt bad about her sexuality. No one claimed to always feel bad about their sexuality. 36% of the women surveyed went to gay bars once a week, 28% went to bars only once a month, and 25% went to gay bars more than once week. Only 22% of these women belonged to gay organizations, while 28% belonged to social groups; 20% to professional groups; 15% to political groups; 38% to special interest groups; and 13% to religious groups. 26% of the women surveyed did not belong to any organization at all.

Popular LGBT publications among women were Our Own Community Press, The Advocate, Gay Blade, and Gay Community News. Only a small number read Lesbian publications such as Lesbian Connection or Lesbian Tide.

A total of 440 men answered the survey. This was over five times the response rate for women. The typical profile for men answering the survey was very similar to that of the women. The typical man answering the survey lived in Norfolk, was between the ages of 18 and 24, was registered to vote, rented their housing, had some college education, was Protestant, had an annual income of $5,000-10,000, considered themselves exclusively gay, and always felt good about their sexuality.

While the “typical” snapshot of respondents was similar, actual percentages varied and there were some differences between the men and women surveyed. The typical male (49.2%) went to gay bars more than once a week whereas the largest number of women (36%) only went to bars once a week. There was a larger number of men than women over the age of 24 who responded to the survey. There were more men over the age of 35 and even some over the age of 50. Men were less likely to have a religious affiliation at all, or if they did – to have a non-Christian affiliation (Jewish, Humanist, Buddhist, Moslem, B’ai H’ai, etc.). Twice as many men than women had completed college, and men generally had higher incomes. Women were slightly more likely be registered voters. Men were more likely to consider themselves “exclusively” homosexual than women, but women tended to overall to feel better about their sexuality. Men were more likely to belong to a gay organization or conversely to no organization at all than were women.

As for men’s statistics, 51.5% of men lived in Norfolk. 34.5% lived in other Hampton Roads cities. The remainder came from other places in Virginia, Washington DC, or from out of state. 54% of men were aged 18-24; 34% were 25-34; 9% were 35-49; and 1.5% were over age 50. 45% of male respondents identified as Protestant; 25.5% as Catholic; 15.0% as none; 7.0% as other; and 4.5% as Jewish. The highest percentages of men worked in either government or service jobs (16.2% and 16.4% respectively). Other higher percentage occupations included students (9.7%); management (7.7%); healthcare (7.4%); merchandising (7.4%); and other professionals (7.0%). Only 4.9% of men surveyed were unemployed. 65% of male respondents were registered to vote. 37% of those men surveyed had annual incomes between $5,000-10,000; 23.3% had annual incomes of $10,000-15,000; 17% had incomes over $15,000; and 20% had incomes under $5,000. 29.8 percent of the men surveyed had college degrees; 35.6% had some college; 27.8% had only graduated high school; and 5.9% did not have a high school diploma. 52.5% of men rented their housing; 21.0% owned their own home; and 23.5% had other living arrangements.

Of the men surveyed, 43.6% identified exclusively homosexual; 1.6% claimed to be exclusively heterosexual; and the rest claimed varying degrees of bisexuality. 79.6% of the men always or usually felt good about their sexuality; 18.7% felt both good and bad about their sexuality; and only 1.1% usually or always felt bad about their sexuality. Nearly half the men surveyed (49.2%) visited gay bars more than once a week; 25.5% visited gay bars weekly; 18.2% visited gay bars once a month or less; and of these only .7% never visited gay bars. 26% of the men surveyed belonged to gay organizations; 37.3% belonged to no organizations at all. Men also took part in professional organizations (27.3%), social organizations (26.2%), political organizations (14.1%), religious organizations (18.0%), and special interest groups (24.4%).

Popular publications among men included Our Own Community Press, The Advocate, In Touch, Gay Blade, Blueboy, Cruise, Gay Community News, Christopher Street, Gay Times, Eagle, GPU News, Drummer, Mandate, Playgirl, and After Dark.

AdvocateCoverPride — Stot, 2013: https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/pride/2013/06/12/photos-remembering-birth-pride

While the demographics created a snapshot of LGBT bar goers and those active in the local LGBT community in 1977, the most revealing and sometimes entertaining portion of the survey were open-ended responses to the questions “What do you see as the greatest need of the lesbian/gay community of Tidewater?” Overall themes to these questions included the need for unity and a sense of gay community; gay and straight education on gay issues; politics and legislation for gay rights; acceptance and understanding; more and better bars; and social outlets other than the bars.

Comments included practical suggestions for the community – a Lesbian bar, live gay/lesbian music events, a gay military organization, a gay bookstore, a gay business association, an organization for aging gay men, a gay community center, and a gay church. All of these things have come to pass in Hampton Roads (at least at some point) since the 1977 survey. Some comments were idealistic like this one. “For them to learn to live together. To be friends no matter what color the person’s skin might be or what sex the person might be. To be openminded with everything, because being gay is hard enough without fighting each other.” Other idealistic responses included developing a unified gay/lesbian political philosophy, or ending division and labels within the community. Some comments focused on educating the public on gay/lesbian issues, helping gay and lesbian folks to feel better about themselves, and helping folks come out of the closet. There were also a few colorful comments by folks who obviously weren’t comfortable with segments of the gay/lesbian community at the time. “The flaunting of homosexuality is the major problem. The super “fags’ and ‘butch’ are what gives the rest of us bad names.” Another respondent suggested, “More Gay Bars!… Make anyone over 40 stay out! And have a special bar just for trolls.”

Since 1977, hopefully at least some things have changed for the better in the Hampton Roads LGBT community. Gay bookstores have come and gone, as have Lesbian bars. LGBT military organizations have formed, especially at the height of the gay military ban and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We have an organization for aging Gay men, an LGBT business organization, and an LGBT community center. There’s an LGBT church, and even room at the annual Pride month Interfaith event for non-Christians and LGBT folks involved in non-traditional religions such as Wicca and Paganism. We have an LGBT Pride organization, an annual Pridefest, a Pride Boat Parade, and even a whole month of local Pride events. While not well represented in the 1977 survey, we now have organizations and events for Trans folks in our community too.

While we may have lost some things this past year or more due to Covid, this Pride month consider all that we have gained and learned since the early days of the Hampton Roads LGBT community. What will the Hampton Roads LGBT community be like 44 years from now?

You can browse the issues of Our Own Community Press mentioned in this blog post, as well as all other issues of Our Own, in our digital collections: https://dc.lib.odu.edu/digital/collection/ourown

Spooky Rare Book Spotlight: “The Witch of Pungo” by Louisa Venable Kyle

by Jessica Ritchie, Head of Special Collections and University Archives

WPIllustration — Illustration of Grace Sherwood’s “ducking” from *The Witch of Pungo* *and Other Historical Stories of the Early Colonies* by Louisa Venable Kyle

If you have lived, visited, or grown up in Virginia Beach like I did, then you are probably familiar with the infamous Witchduck Road. The road was named after the site of the last “witch ducking” that took place in Virginia in 1706. According to historians, local townspeople were searching for answers as to why their crops were dying and, as was fashionable at the time, they blamed women. They were particularly suspicious of the farmer’s wife Grace Sherwood, who dared to wear trousers, worked as a midwife, and knew a little too much about the healing power or herbs. Neighbors accused Grace of bewitching their pigs and cotton crops, and even flying through a keyhole in the black of night! A judge agreed with Grace’s accusers and ordered her to be tried by ducking. On July 10th, 1706 Grace was bound by her toes and thumbs, and dropped into the Lynnhaven River. The judge decreed that if she drowned she would die an innocent woman, but if she survived, it was because she was a witch. Luckily, Grace managed to escape her bonds and swam to shore, but shortly thereafter was imprisoned for witchcraft. After approximately 7 long years in jail she was released and returned to her three sons, and eventually died at the age of 80 on her farm in Pungo (now a part of Virginia Beach) in 1740. Go Grace!

GraceStatue — A statue depicting her was erected near Sentara Independence on Independence Boulevard in Virginia Beach, close to the site of the colonial courthouse where she was tried. The statue depicts Grace standing near a raccoon and holding herbs, which represent her love of animals and her nursing skills.

As a child, I struggled to understand that there was a time in history where innocent women were blamed for society’s ills and drowned just to prove their innocence. I still struggle with that thought, but I am pleased to see that Grace Sherwood’s legacy has been preserved in the Sherwood Trail, including Witchduck Road and other landmarks in Virginia Beach. Her legacy has also been preserved in many stories, books, and news articles, including a children’s book by author Louisa Venable Kyle.

WPCover — *The Witch of Pungo* *and Other Historical Stories of the Early Colonies* by Louisa Venable Kyle, ODU Libraries’ Special Collections and University Archives Rare Book Collection

Born in Norfolk, Louisa Venable Kyle studied at Mary Baldwin Seminary and graduated from Lasell Seminary. She wrote for the Virginian-Pilot and The Portsmouth Star and was one of the founding members of the Princess Anne County Historical Society. Her children’s book The Witch of Pungo and Other Historical Stories of the Early Colonies is based on seven folktales from Princess Anne County, including the tale of Grace Sherwood. The book was published in 1973 by Printcraft Press, Portsmouth, Virginia, and was reissued in 1978 and 1988 by Four O’Clock Farms Publishing Company.

WPSignature — *The Witch of Pungo* author’s signature

ODU’s Special Collections and University Archives is fortunate to have a rare, autographed hardcopy of The Witch of Pungo. The books is in great condition with a vibrant orange color, and features a wonderful collection of illustrations and short historical essays related to each folktale. I am so pleased that we can keep the legacies of both Grace Sherwood and Louisa Venable Kyle alive and well by sharing this book with our students, faculty, and community members. It’s incredible to think that we have so much important history here in Hampton Roads, and I am glad authors like Kyle have kept those stories alive for future generations.

Sources:

“Louisa Venable Kyle”. The Virginian-Pilot. October 25, 1999. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
“Grace Sherwood (ca. 1660–1740)”. The Associated Press. 9 July 2013. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
Grace Sherwood (ca. 1660–1740)”. Encyclopedia Virginia. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
RoadsideAmerica.com: Virginia Beach, Virginia: Witch of Pungo Statue

Further reading:
“The Virginia Case of Grace Sherwood, 1706.” In Narratives of the New England Witchcraft Cases, ed. George Lincoln Burr, 433–442. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 2002.Davis, Richard Beale.
“The Devil in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 65 (April 1957): 131–149.Gibson, Marion.
Witchcraft Myths in American Culture. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2007.Kyle, Louisa Venable. The Witch of Pungo and Other Historical Stories of the Early Colonies. Portsmouth, Virginia: Printcraft Press, 1973.