PRIMARY SOURCES—GLASSMAKING



PRIMARY SOURCES—GLASSMAKING

How Do We Know What We Know?

Did you ever wonder how historians know what happened in the past? Discovering the past is like trying to put together a gigantic puzzle with many of the puzzle pieces missing or scattered all around. Historians use different sources to find the pieces of the puzzle, in essence being history detectives. One of the best places to find information is from primary source material—official documents and records, diaries, letters, newspaper articles, drawings, paintings, etc.—created by people who were alive when a particular event occurred.. Sometimes all the pieces to the puzzle cannot be found and then historians have to give their opinions on what happened based on the information that is available.

Would you like to be a “history detective”? Then put your mystery solving skills to work and use the primary source documents given below to give your best answer to the following question:

Why were early industries not successful in Virginia?

In the following excerpts from The Complete Works of John Smith—Volume II The General Historie (Edited by Philip Barbour) John Smith gives us some clues as to why he thinks it was not practical at this time to expect the colonists to manufacture pitch, tar, glass, soap ashes and clapboard in any great amount.

Background information:

Pitch, tar, glass soap ashes and clapboard all require trees in some form or other.

• Pitch and tar come from the resin (a clear yellow or brown heavy, gluey substance) of the pine tree. Tar is made from the resin, and pitch is made by boiling tar to half its volume. In the 17th century tar was used for medicinal purposes, as a lubricant for wheels, to process rope and to protect wood from rotting. Pitch was used on the bottoms and sides of wooden ships to make them watertight.

• Potash, made from the ashes of hardwoods, was essential to glassmaking.

• Soap ash was made from the ashes of hardwoods and was needed in the manufacture of soap.

• Clapboard is a thin, wooden plank with one edge thicker than the other. It is used as siding on wooden houses. The boards are placed in an overlapping pattern with the thick edge of the top board overlapping the thin edge of the previous board helping to keep the house free from drafts and water. In the 17th century the boards were hand split from the logs of white pine, hemlock, spruce or cypress.

As you can see, each product required a specific kind of tree: pine for pitch and tar; oak, ash, poplar, hickory, elm, hazel and beech trees for potash and soap ash; and white pine, hemlock, spruce or cypress for clapboard. In 17th century England forests were declining forcing the English to import wood products from Russia, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

Note: Primary source documents are sometimes difficult to read. There was no standard spelling in the 17th century so people spelled words the way they sounded. A word might be spelled one way in one sentence and another in the next! If you have trouble figuring out what a word is, try sounding it out aloud. Definitions of some of the more unusual words are in bold and in brackets {}. There was also no standard for punctuation. You may find a number of run-on sentences.

The Copy of a Letter sent to the Treasurer

And Councell of Virginia from Captaine Smith,

Then President in Virginia

“In their absence I followed the new begun workes of Pitch and Tarre, Glasse, Sope-ashes, and Clapboard, whereof some small quantities we have sent you. But if you rightly consider, what an infinite toyle it is in Russia and Swethland {Sweden}, where the woods are proper for naught els, and though there be the helpe both of man and beast in those ancient Common-wealths, which many an hundred yeares have used it, yet thousands of those poore people can scarce get necessaries to live, but from hand to mouth. And though your Factors there can buy as much in a week as will fraught {full load} you a ship, or as much as you please; you must not expect from us any such matter, which are but a many of ignorant miserable soules, that are scarce able to get wherewith to live, and defend ourselves against the inconstant Salvages {savages}: finding but here and there a tree fit for the purpose, and want all things els the Russians have.”

Smith continues:

“…or yet to send into Germany or Poleland for glasse-men and the rest, till we be able to sustaine our selves, and relieve them when they come. It were better to give five hundred pound a tun for those grosse Commoditites in Denmarke, then send for them hither, till more necessary things be provided. For in over-toyling our weake and unskilfull bodies, to satisfie this desire of present profit, we can scarce ever recover our selves from one Supply to another.”

George Sandys was the resident treasurer of the colony and took over the management of the second attempt at glassmaking after the death of Captain Norton. Here is his assessment of the failure of that second attempt in 1621:

RECORDS OF THE VIRGINIA COMPANY: George Sandys. “Letter to Mr. Ferrar by Hopewell.”

March 1622/23:

“The ill successe of the glasse workes is almost equall unto this: first the coveringe of the house, ere fully funished, was blowne downe by a tempest {storm} and no sooner repaired but the Indians came upon us {March 22, 1622}, which for a while deferd the proceedings. Then they built up the furnace, which after one forthnight {two weeks} that the fire was put in, flew in peeces: yet the wife of one of the Italians (whom I have now sent home, haveinge received many wounds from her husband at severall times, & murder not otherwise to bee prevented, for a more damned crew hell never vomited) revealed in her passion that Vincentio crackt it with a crow of iron: yet dare wee not punish theise desperate fellows, least the whole dessigne {glassmaking attempt} through theire stubbornesse should perish. The summer cominge on Capt: Norton dyed with all saveing one of his servants, & hee nothinge worth: The Italians fell extremely sicke: yet recoveringe in the beginninge of the winter, I hyred some men for theire service, assisted them with mine owne, rebuilt the furnace, ingaged my selfe for provisions for them, & was in a manner a servant unto them. The fier hath now beene six weekes in the furnace, and yet nothinge effected {done}. They complaine that the sand will not run. (though themselves made choise thereof, and likt it then well enough) & now I am sendinge up the river to provide them with better, if it bee to bee had. But I conceave that they would gladly make the worke to appear unfeasible, that they might by that meanes be dismissed for England. Much hath beene my truble herein, and not a little my patience (haveinge beene called rascall to my face for reprovinge them of theire ryot, negligence & dissension) but, for the debt which I am in, for theire sustentation {maintenance} I hope the adventurers will see it discharged.”

LETTER TO KING JAMES I

FROM THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL OF VIRGINIA

Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series edited by Noel Stainsbury

February 20, 1623:

“Iron and glass works were in great forwardness (before the massacre {March 22, 1622}) but are now interrupted, and the people are forced to follow the contemptible weed, tobacco, to enable them to sustain their continual wars with the Indians and to support themselves.”

What do you think? Why were the early industries not successful in Virginia?

Another good source of information for the historian comes from archaeological excavations. Artifacts or things that people used long ago and features in the ground such as brick foundations or discolorations in the soil that indicate human activity give us good in-sight into the past.

We know there was a glassmaking industry established at Glasshouse Point near Jamestown because the remains of three furnaces were found there in 1948. But, was this the site of the first glasshouse or the second or both? The archaeological evidence gives us some clues, but no positive answers to these questions. Below is some information from the findings of J. C. Harrington, the archaeologist for the National Park Service:

The largest furnace was Structure 107 measuring roughly 2.5 feet by 11 feet. It was the only furnace that had a stone floor and may originally have been opened at both ends and then later remodeled. Harrington found that one end of the furnace had been closed up with small stones, stone fragments and broken crucibles or clay melting pots. The inside of the closure was fired hard and covered with slag (waste material from firing) which told him that the furnace was used after the end was closed up. Harrington came to the conclusion that Structure 107 was the main working furnace.

What do you think? Was the original furnace, which was opened at both ends, built by the first glassmakers and later remodeled by the 1621 glassmakers?

The next furnace is Structure 108, which is made up of two furnaces back to back. The two furnaces are not in alignment which made Harrington think that they had not been constructed at the same time. One of the furnaces, Structure 108-B had a brick hearth and a partially paved brick floor. The smallest furnace, Structure 109 also had a brick hearth and Harrington came to the conclusion that it had been built at the same time as Structure 108-B. He concluded that while Structure 107 was the main working furnace, Structures 108-A and B were possibly annealing and fritting furnaces and Structure 109, the smallest, was a pot kiln for making clay melting pots and other ceramics.

What do you think? What does the archaeological evidence lead you to believe?

There are more clues as to the location of the first glassworks in the written records. Below is some information from The Complete Works of Captain John Smith Volume I edited by Philip L. Barbour:

In early 1609 some of the non-glassblowers among the Dutchmen or Germans were sent to Powhatan’s village to build an English house for Powhatan in return for his generous gifts of food to the settlers. The Dutchmen conspired with some settlers in the fort to have guns and tools smuggled out of the fort so they could sell them to Powhatan. When one of the shipments did not arrive:

“…they {the Dutchmen at Powhatan’s village} sent Francis their companion (a stout young fellow) disguised Salvage {savage} like to the glasse-house, (a place in the woods neere a myle from James Towne) where was the randavus for all their suspected villany.”

Note: The remains of the three furnaces uncovered in 1948 at Glasshouse Point are “neare a myle” from the recently discovered site of the 1607 James Fort.

William Strachey, who came to Jamestown in May 1610 with the rest of the survivors of Sea Venture, wrote in The History of Travel, Caput 6: “…for glass they {the Indians} know not—though the country wants {lacks} not salsodiac {soda ash} enough to make glass of, and of which we have made some store in a goodly house set up for the same purpose, with all offices and furnaces thereto belonging, a little without the island where James Town stands…”

The written records tell us very little about the location of the glassworks of 1621. The Records of the Virginia Company Volume III tells the officials in Virginia that the Company, in regards to Captain Norton and the glassworkers:

“…we will expect your best helpes and advice, especially in making choise of a healthful place to plant himself in neare to the best inhabited towne, either in Charles Citty, Henerico, but by no meanes lower than James Cittie, nor remote from people;…”

Glasshouse Point is located on the mainland to the west of Jamestown Island and therefore not “lower” than James City, which was, of course, was on Jamestown Island.

After the Indian Uprising of 1622 a list was made of the people who were living in Virginia in February of 1623 by geographical location.

“At the Plantation over against James Cittie” (across the James River from Jamestown Island)

• List of residents

“The glass house”

• Vincencio

• Bernardo

• Ould Sheppard, his sonn

• Richard Tarborer

• Mrs. Barnardo”

“At Archer’s Hope” (located on the mainland east of Jamestown Island)

• List of residents

“James Island”

• List of residents

“The Neck of Land” (on the mainland to the north of Jamestown Island)

• List of residents.

The remains of the three furnaces were found at Glasshouse Point which is on the mainland to the west of Jamestown Island. Did the men who put the list of 1623 together group the sites geographically? Does the list tell you anything about the location of the glasshouse of 1621?

What do you think? Was Glasshouse Point the site of the first glasshouse? Or was it the site of the 1621 glasshouse? Was it the site of both?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download