Boston Common Redware Bowl Part 2

It appears the American redware bowl of the Boston Archaeology Department's Boston Common collection discussed in yesterday's post, generated an overall interest, based on the feedback received from a group of interested persons. The bowl is large and despite its current condition, it gives the impression that at one time it was durable all while appearing delicate at the same time. Its the type of bowl I would enjoy owning as a part of my own personal collection. This particular redware bowl gives off a presence that sets it apart from many other bowls and something about its appearance and feel develops an aura about it that seems special.

As promised, here are additional photos for a better look.

 Likely 19th Century American Redware Bowl

Bottom of Redware Bowl

Interior of Redware Bowl

Close Up of Manganese Decoration with Traces of Yellow in Glaze

Close Up of Glaze with Traces of Green

Close Up of Base Inside Interior of Bowl

Notice the Slight Variation in Glaze Color

The bowl was excavated atop Flagstaff Hill on Boston Common in Massachusetts years back. Flagstaff Hill is considered the central point of the common area. It has been reported that the hill was the encampment at one time of the British Army during the American Revolution. It is assumed the hill has a strong native and prehistoric history with the shores of the Atlantic Ocean once reaching this area. The archaeology site of the common is not contained and its potential artifacts are not confined to one time period. Results can be broad - beginning with prehistoric artifacts and covering everything in between up through modern times.

The bowl was reportedly found an estimated sixty-centimeters below the surface level. To translate that into inches or feet, that would be nearly twenty-four inches or two feet - so it was buried well below the ground level.

I made reference yesterday that this bowl's glaze shared similarities with the glaze style of John Corliss and his pottery factory in the Days Ferry neighborhood of Woolwich, Maine. I still do feel there are legitimate comparisons. However, a long-time dealer and collector of American redware suggested a more proper attribution and directed me towards the many potters of Danvers, Massachusetts. Based on his opinion, I can see a strong likeness towards the many potters who worked in the South Danvers and Danvers factories of the late eighteenth and well into the nineteenth-century.

John Osborn Redware Pitcher - South Danvers, Ma

Circa Late 18th to Early 19th Century

The Osborn pottery shop of South Danvers (today known as Peabody) most-likely shares the most similar attributes in glaze of all the Danvers-area potters with the aforementioned bowl. The pitcher above does demonstrate a similar glaze style in both the reddish or deep orange body glaze and black manganese decoration carefully placed on top. The bowl likely does share a proper creation date with when the Osborn's were working in the South Danvers area (early 18th century to around 1870). Based on all these factors, I feel it is safe to say an Osborn Family attribution of South Danvers becomes extremely possible.

If the bowl is in-fact a product of Danvers, the questions appear as to how this bowl ended up on the Common, its use and travels to Boston and then the obvious additional questions of how, who, what, where when and why.

These same ideas I asked when I discovered the Moses Paige Pottery terracotta flower pot along the shores of the Merrimac River in Newburyport, Massachusetts two weeks ago. Interestingly, Moses Paige purchased the old Osborn shop in Peabody for his own pottery business that worked well into the twentieth-century.

Mose Paige Pottery Terracotta Flower Pots - Peabody, Ma

Made Circa 1900

Left: Discovered on the Shore of the Merrimac River in Newburyport, Ma in 2013

I do not believe there will ever be a complete documented answer as to how either of these Essex County examples made there ways north and south of where they were manufactured. The obvious assumption is each made its way to its destination of discovery today through means of a peddler selling the pottery in Newburyport and Boston or it was purchased by the owner in South Danvers/Peabody and brought to live in the area it was unearthed. There will never be a completely accurate and truthful answer, but it is fun to imagine and guess what was happening at the time of its use.

The study of early ceramics, no matter the origin, is a fascinating subject that can be both extremely frustrating and extremely rewarding. The frustrations result when nearly unlikely and in some cases, impossibly questions are asked, but the rewards are satisfying when a proper answer and attribution is found. This bowl is a wonderful example of both frustrations and rewards.

Was this redware bowl Danvers-made? Yes, it was more than likely, but a slight argument can still be made for Corliss, even though I have ruled that theory out. I have never personally seen this form before, but like I wrote yesterday - the day-to-day work of a utilitarian potter can be unpredictable.

Who's to say how many of these bowls were really made. There may have only been a few produced and this example could possibly be the loan remainder of these examples today. The scholarly discussions of American redware in this manner can go on forever and that is why I find it so interesting. Its art, history and education all grouped together in the world of American redware.

Early American redware milk pans is a topic I will write about in the near future. This was also a part of yesterday's discussion.

More research to come...