Early Charlestown and Boston Stoneware Sold in New Hampshire

Previous Report on Charlestown, Ma Stoneware
Previous Report on Early Charlestown, Ma Lard and Dye Pots at NH Auction

According to Josiah Wedgwood and Thomas Ormsbee's 1947 book, "Staffordshire Pottery," "All the early master potters were hardy men of many trades. They made their pots in sheds at the "backsides" of their dwelling houses, alongside the cow shed. They dug their own clay, often in front of their own front doors...It was a peasant industry, carried on by the family, among the pigs and fouls; and when they were not making show pieces for presentation they made (such simple) wares that included butter pots...The peasant farmers "fired" and "drew out" one over a week. They drew the cold over on Monday; refilled it with new ware about Thursday, and fired it on Friday, giving it a last stocking up on Saturday morning, after which it cooled till Monday again...The ware produced was sold to the traveling packman, and, at great cost, distributed on horse back throughout the country. Everything was course and elementary."

Pottery production was extremely limited in colonial America. "During the 17th and 18th centuries, locally produced redware was usually utilitarian and sometimes of poor quality. From the 1680s through Revolutionary War, potters were restricted by the British from making fancier wares and could only make the more basic forms such as chamber pots, pans, butter pots and other common pieces found in the kitchen and pantry. These types of wares were not economical to ship from Europe and so local production was tolerated." (American Potter - Julia Smith)

All other forms of ceramics were imported into the American colonies from foreign countries. The imports were a global effort. Stoneware was a major import that eventually helped contribute to the demise of redware. If stoneware production were not banned for much of the years that made up colonial America, redware may never have emerged as an American industry.

After America's independence was earned, redware potters had the freedom to produce what they wanted. The design and form were not limited. With independence, Charlestown, Massachusetts' stoneware industry emerged. Clay was imported from nearby New York state. A stoneware industry in Charlestown had been attempted fifty-years prior, but the duties and taxes really prevented such a venture's success. With the cost to import proper clay at a much lower expense - Charlestown potters Jonathan Fenton and Frederick Carpenter began a business in 1793. Fenton worked in a German stoneware style - while Carpenter's technique was English. The company closed in 1796 and Carpenter worked on his own in Charlstown from this point on.

Carpenter and Fenton are described as having both a decorative freehand and stamp technique in the Colonial Williamsburg book, "Salt-Glazed Stoneware in Early America."

It is suggested that Fenton and Carpenter's pieces were spelled "Boston" in upper case letters of equal size from 1793 to 1796. Carpenter's work from 1796 to 1799 spelled the word "Boston" with a larger "B" than the rest of the letters. Examples with the word "Charlestown" spelled are also known. Carpenter's area work continued into the nineteenth-century - while Fenton had disappeared from the area.

Carpenter and Fenton Stoneware Jar with Original Lid

Likely Made Between 1793-1796

Notice the Word "Boston" Spelled With Same Size Letters

As part of Gary Wallace Auctions sale last weekend in Ossippee, New Hampshire - were a few examples of early Boston and Charlestown stoneware, likely made by both Fenton and Carpenter. I feel the hammer prices were reasonable. The prices cited below are before premiums were added on at the checkout.

Early Boston, Ma Stoneware Jug

Likely Frederick Carpenter - 1796-1799

Sold for $975

Close Up of "Boston" - Notice the "B" Is Larger Than the Rest of the Letters
This particular jug reminds of the Bellarmine style with its short neck.

Charlestown, Ma Made Stonware Jug

Marked with a Less Common Cross Mark

Likely Made Between 1793-1799

Sold for $650

 Charlestown, Ma Made Stoneware jug

Marked with a More Common Heart Stamp

Likely Made Between 1793-1799

Sold for $500

Charlestown, Ma Made Miniature Stoneware Jug

Very Unusual Size

Likely Made Between 1793-1799

Sold for $575

Additional and lesser early examples of Boston and Charlestown stoneware sold for $110, $250 and $475.

Aside from the early Charlestown dye and lard pots that I wrote about on Monday - a Thomas Seymour pie plate brought $310, a matching pair of South Danvers, Massachusetts redware jugs went for $290 and a very common milk pan brought $65. There were a few more examples of early Massachusetts redware that I will save for a later report.

The collection also included the following redware jugs - both of which had basic, but interesting style glazes. The jug pictured to the top appears to have been from a Maine or New Hampshire maker, while the bottom jug may have been an eighteenth-century Massachusetts maker. Both were in decent condition.

Jug Top: Possibly 19th Century Maine or New Hampshire - Sold for $275

Jug Bottom: Probably 18th Century Massachusetts - Sold for $475

There will be more research and results of this auction to come...

Pair of Rare Samuel Bell Redware Whippets Coming to Auction this July!

Crocker Farm Auctions, based in Sparks Maryland - has been consigned, possibly the only pair of intended Bell Family redware whippets or greyhound figures. The dogs will be a part of the family-operated business' July 20, 2013 sale. Both examples are incised on the underside, "Samuel Bell, Winchester - September 21, 1841." Additionally, the example pictured below to the right is stamped twice "S. Bell" - with what Crocker Farm suggests "is a small-sized font, a rare early mark used by Samuel Bell during his Winchester period."

Each dog figure mentioned below is roughly of the same size - 6.5 inches in height and 10 inches in length.

Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Auctions - Sparks, Md

Pair of Samuel Bell Redware Molded Whippets - Winchester, Va

Both Signed by Bell and Dated - September 21, 1841

Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Inc - Sparks, Md

To Be Sold July 20, 2013

Base with Signature

Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Inc - Sparks, Md

Base with Signature

Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Inc - Sparks, Md

Crocker Farm describes the dogs as newly discovered. The figures apparently descended down through the Williams family - a prominent family of landowners and woolen mill owners of Winchester, Virginia. 

"To our knowledge, the two figures represent the only matched pair of whippets produced by members of the Bell family in Virginia. Possibly the most significant discovery in Shenandoah Valley pottery of the past several years."

The Bell family of potters are arguably one of, if not the most important family of American utilitarian redware and stoneware potters of the nineteenth-century. The family operated from a number of mid-Atlantic states that included Virginia (Shenandoah Valley area), Maryland and extended well-into Pennsylvania. Their work is highly collectible today and represented in museums all over the country. Many important pieces were produced in a number of forms and uses.

The Pennsylvania-German potters, who worked near the Bell family are known for inheriting a love for ornamental kitchenware which reflected an old world technique and tradition. I feel the style of the Bell family and Shenandoah Valley, Virginia potters are unusually unique to nineteenth-century America. An old world influence is not apparent to me, but that's just me. Many of the Shenandoah Valley wares can be compared as a some-what of a crossover product. Utilitarian means were still applied, but a visual experience can be compared to the products of the later twentieth-century art pottery movement. The area also continued to produce redware products when many other parts of the country had discontinued production due a decline in demand created by what were seen as emerging better and more durable products.

The auction highlight pages of Crocker Farm and Pook & Pook provide a solid understanding of the importance of this family's work.

Crocker Farm - Shenandoah Valley

Crocker Farm - John Bell

Pook and Pook - Bell Family Redware

It is reasonable to consider the brothers - Samuel, Solomon and John the most accomplished of the family. All three began working and trained under their father, Peter Bell in Winchester, Virginia. 

John Bell eventually moved to Waynesboro, Pennsylvania where he ran his own company - which when examined today, can be considered a largely financially successful business. John is likely the most prominent of the family. He made utilitarian wares for all levels of society and so did the entire family. John Bell is reportedly credited with introducing the first use in America of tin glaze and mocha style decoration. His stoneware is known for use of both cobalt decoration and a salt glaze technique.

Samuel Bell moved to Strasburg, Virginia and like his brother, John - he began his own company. The pottery produced in the Stasburg-area is well-known for a polychrome (multi-color) style glaze. The forms of this region were broad, but unique at the same time.

The remaining brother, Solomon - left Winchester and joined John in Waynesboro before leaving to work with Samuel in Strasburg. It is believed that Solomon learned his molding technique while working with John in Waynesboro. Solomon is known for creating some of the most important examples known today of the Bell family.

Each brother used a company stamp that demonstrated their name to symbolize their work. Interestingly, a number of hand-crafted figures have appeared over the years attributed to the Bell family. The Bell's are known for stamping nearly all of their work - everything from the simplest of wares up through the most detailed and elaborate designs.

John Bell Stamped Redware Dye Pots - Waynesboro, Pa
Very Utilitarian and Common Forms

Mid 19th Century

Sold in 2009: $180

Photo Courtesy: Pook and Pook Auctions - Downington, Pa

Redware Figure of a Seated Dog with a Basket

Attributed to the Bell Family of Pottery

Sold in 2008: $7,020

Photo Courtesy: Pook and Pook Auctions - Downington, Pa

I am putting this idea out for discussion and its really not even my idea - a well-known dealer and collector has casually suggested it to me before - an idea of which I will not get into since it is his to take credit for, but I will state that he has valid evidence.

With the idea of the Bell family known for virtually stamping all of their work - could it be possible that an unknown potter may have made some of these figures. I agree many are very similar in design and technique. It seems many redware figures from the Pennsylvania and Virginia areas have been attributed to the Bell family over the years - and some attributions may be correct, while others could potentially be wrong.

Kelly Young (Texas Oil) had arguably one of the greatest assembled collections of early figures before Crocker Farm sold his collection in 2010. It is believed that none of the figures in his collection were attributed to the Bell family by Crocker Farm - while others may have believed otherwise. I feel it is tough to determine who manufactured what. It is my belief that some of the known early figures may have been made by the Bell family, while others by separate unknown nineteenth-century Pennsylvania potters. I have been told some very interesting stories, that are credible - of who these potters may have been, but it's not for me to share. Ask around! The story is fascinating and very truthful of how lesser known or unknown potters are potentially not given any credit for their own work - while the better known potters inaccurately are.

Kelly Young Figures Page 1

Kelly Young Figures Page 2

Massachusetts and New York dealer, Samuel Herrup obtained a Solomon Bell redware whippet last fall that he sold privately at the 2012 Delaware Antiques Show. The form and decoration were wonderful. I had the honor of personally handling it and I was very impressed with how well made and accomplished the craftsmanship were in the figure. It was my first time handling such an example.

Solomon Bell Redware Molded Whippet - Winchester, Va

Second Quarter 19th Century

Price: Undisclosed - Sold in 2012

Photo Courtesy: Samuel Herrup Antiques - Sheffield, Ma

Backside of Solomon Bell Whippet

Photo Courtesy: Samuel Herrup Antiques - Sheffield, Ma

Winchester, Ma Scratched Onto Base

Solomon Bell Signed His Name Too
Photo Courtesy: Samuel Herrup Antiques - Sheffield, Ma

The John Bell made, Rockingham glazed redware whippet pictured below was discovered at an American flea market for $3. That's not a typo - $3! It later sold at Crocker Farm Auctions in 2005 for more than $40,000.

John Bell Redware Molded Whippet in Rockingham Glaze - Waynesboro, Pa

Circa 1880 - Period When Rockingham Glazes Were Most Prominent

Sold in 2005: $41,800

Bell Family Auction Record

Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Inc - Sparks, Md

The Bell family appears to have shared the same or similar mold pattern among each other. It is assumed they shared more than only the discussed whippet molds. However, the glaze and paint styles appear to have differed from brother to brother and potter to potter.

It could be assumed that these whippet figures were produced on a made-to order basis. The form appears to be extremely rare and the only purpose I see is solely decorative. With the idea of decoration versus utilitarian wares - it would be assumed many more would have survived since the figure was not a part of everyday household use. The owner would likely have taken better care of a dog figure - more so than the everyday intended wares. These dogs are agreeably rare and with that idea in mind - they do not appear to have been mass produced like other Bell family household forms. Maybe the dogs were exclusively made for monumental reasons? Could they have been exclusively produced on a per order basis? Did only certain class levels or household types own them? That would be an interesting study - figuring out who the majority owner of these dogs were.

 John Bell Redware Molded Whippet - Waynesboro, Pa
Circa 1850
Sold in 2010: $14,950
Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Inc - Sparks, Md

 

In 2008, Crocker Farm sold a Samuel Bell dog that was very plain in glaze when compared to all the previously cited Samuel Bell examples. The figure still did very-well at auction achieving more than $12,000 - especially considering the muzzle had been replaced.

Samuel Bell Redware Molded Whippet - Strasburg, Va

Dated 1844

Sold in 2008: $12,075
Muzzled Had Been Restored

Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Inc - Sparks, Md

It should also be noted that the Samuel Bell whippets are in much higher demand than are the examples made by John Bell.

It is assumed the Bell family produced figures of a similar size and mold style aside from just the dogs. Below is a figure of what I perceive to be a molded redware mother and baby lamb that Crocker Farm attributed to the hands of Solomon Bell. It brought more than $11,000 in 2005. This too, was likely strictly a means of decorative use. These decorative forms were extremely rare and not often seen from New England makers. Decorative forms of pottery are much more seen in nineteenth-century Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Solomon Bell Attributed Redware Molded Lamb Group - Likely Shenandoah Valley, Va

Not Signed or Dated

Sold in 2005: $11,550

Photo Courtesy: Crocker Farm Inc - Sparks, Md

It will be fascinating to see the pair of whippets sell in July. With the history and importance behind the dogs - I would personally hope for a price between $45,000 and $55,000. Individually, each should be worth more than what the John Bell dog sold for in 2010 ($15,000 - auction price, not retail). A pair of this importance is extremely rare. The two nearly identical examples just may be one of a kind. Each demonstrates a signed production date, form and glaze suggesting they were solely intended to be a pair. Did the Williams family purposely order a pair? It's likely they did and the family may have been the only to ever place such a request.

A price above $50,000 would not be unreasonable for the importance of this lot. We'll have to wait for July to see the end result!

There are a few very-good books defining the work of the Bell family and Shenandoah Valley potters. A quick search on Amazon.com will reveal at least four books. If you would like to read more about the work of the potters from this region - the Comstock book is by far the best.

Let me add that a pair of Solomon Bell figures just realized $73,000 at a Berryville, Virginia auction house recently. I feel the whippets made by Samuel Bell are much better and more attractive! The cats, however appear to be hand-formed and not molded. It will be an interesting comparison to see if this a comparable standard for what the whippets will bring in July. Stay tuned!

Solomon Bell Cats Sell for $73,000 

Maine Antique Digest Article
Photo Courtesy: Maine Antique Digest and Headley's Auctions - Berryville, Va

More to come...

Redware Dye and Lard Pots of Charlestown, Ma - Important Discoveries Come to Auction

These could potentially be two of the most important American lard and dye pots known to exist today - if not on a national stage, at least on the New England level. Why? They were likely made in colonial Charlestown, Massachsuetts - lonely survivors of an industry that once stood as the dominate redware community of possibly all of colonial America. The entire industry was destroyed at the Battle of Bunker Hill - and with it, nearly all evidence of Charlestown's redware industry was lost.

Left: 18th Century Redware Lard Pot

Right: 18th Century Redware Dye Pot

Interior of Both Lard and Dye Pots

This past Saturday night, Gary Wallace Auctions of Ossippee, New Hamphshire sold off a lifelong collection of early New England antiques, mostly collected in New Hampshire and Maine. Maine antique dealer, Bill Kelly told me the couple resided in Brownfield, Maine and much of the collection had a Portsmouth, New Hamphire and York, Maine provenance. I have not attended many auctions over the past six months, but I felt this one was well-worth attending because of the amount of early redware and stoneware that was offered. The collection has not been seen publicly in a marketplace for decades. There was a wonderful collection of late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Boston and Charlestown stoneware made by both Frederick Carpenter and Jonathan Fenton that did very well. Additionally, there were examples of Maine and Massachusetts redware. There will be more on this auction to come.

Both myself and Portsmouth dealer, Hollis Broderick were impressed when we saw these pots. They were large and strongly demonstrated eighteenth-century characteristics. Fortunately, they were not advertised properly or pictured in any of the pre-auction advertisements.

One noticeable characteristic of the hollow ware produced in Charlestown was a distinctive heavy weight that is rarely seen by other early American potters. We have joked at the Boston archaeology lab that some of the excavated broken dye and lard pots could have been fired from cannons by either the British or American military at the Battle of Bunker Hill. The wares were that heavy! It is a characteristic I have only seen with a few eighteenth-century American potters' wares. The major manufactories in eighteenth-century New England were Charlestown, Braintree, Massachusetts, the Germans in Quincy, Massachusetts, the Bayley's of Essex County, Massachusetts and Samuel Marshall in Portsmouth. The Bayleys, Charlestown and Marshall are believed to have produced the most utilitarian wares with Charlestown, by far - being the most productive and important industry. Peter Clark of Braintree and Germantown in Quincy are thought to have worked closer to the American Revolution and afterwards - while the others mentioned are regarded as having longer standing careers who began their work or industry much earlier. Very little is known about Quincy or Clark's work in Braintree. With that, it is very doubtful that their wares were shipped to the Portsmouth area. Charlestown dominated all of colonial New England with its wares. Plain and simple, it was at the center of the region's redware industry.

The Bayley's of Newburyport are not thought to have produced lard and dye pots of this weight (notice the weight of both pots indicated in the photo captions below). I have been through the archaeological remains of Samuel Marshall's Pottery in Portsmouth and his products do not appear to be anywhere near as heavy. Without getting into the specifics - Marshall did have strong ties to Charlestown's industry. Apparently, his wares and production style was influenced by early Charlestown.

Of the two pots above - the dye pot to the right shares the most characteristics of eighteenth-century Charlestown. Be sure to read all the information provided in the captions below.

Probably Charlestown, Ma Redware Dye Pot

Circa 1740-1775

Notice the Aqua Colored Dye that Still Remains

Height: 9 3/4 Inches in Height

Diameter: 10 Inches at Top

Diameter 7 1/4 Inches at Base

Weight: 9.2 Pounds

Interior of 18th Century Redware Dye Pot

Base of 18th Century Redware Dye Pot

The most interesting characteristics of this early dye pot are the aqua colored dye that still remains from use centuries ago and the use of incised decoration. The incised design is seen all over the Charlestown redware archaeological remains found in the City Square district. All of the following photos were likely made by a domestic eighteenth-century Charlestown potter. I do know more, but I am not ready to release anymore information in terms of an attribution at this time. The potter's technique in all of these examples are similar.

Charlestown, Ma Found Redware Chamber Pot

Circa 1740-1775

Likely Domestic Made and Possibly Charlestown, Ma in Origin
Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department - West Roxbury, Ma 

Charlestown, Ma Found Redware Dye Pot

Circa 1740-1775

Likely Domestic Made and Possibly Charlestown, Ma in Origin
Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department - West Roxbury, Ma 

Charlestown, Ma Found Redware Hollow Ware

Circa 1740-1775

Likely Domestic Made and Possibly Charlestown, Ma in Origin
Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department - West Roxbury, Ma 

Charlestown, Ma Found Redware Hollow Ware, Likely Dye Pot

Circa 1740-1775

Likely Domestic Made and Possibly Charlestown, Ma in Origin
Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department - West Roxbury, Ma 

I have also found in many of the Charlestown wares that the interior glaze stops about an inch from the lip as seen in the dye pot I purchased over the weekend.

The lard pot identified below has a very slick texture to it, likely caused by the amount of fat that it was exposed to while preparing foods. This type of use is less seen in nineteenth-century pots. Its weight and feel is unique and like nothing I have seen outside of Charlestown.

Possibly Charlestown, Ma or Portsmouth, NH Redware Lard Pot

Circa 1740-1775

Height is Unusual: 9.5 Inches and 9 1/4 Inches - Not Even on Both Sides

Diameter: 9.5 Inches at Top

Diameter: 6 Inches at Base

Weight: 9 Pounds

Base: Notice the Kiln Furniture Stuck to the Base

This is typically seen in early 18th century pottery - much less in 19th century

Close Up of Kiln Furniture

The major characteristics of this example that lead me to believe a Charlestown attribution is likely are the form, unusual weight and kiln furniture that is stuck to the base.  I have seen many examples of Charlestown wares (from my studies) with kiln furniture remaining at the base. The Charlestown archaeology reports from the Big Dig excavation have cited that Charlestown's makers exported their wares to areas north, south and west of Charlestown that included Portsmouth. Both of these pots were found in the Portsmouth area. Like already indicated, the major redware manufacturers of eighteenth-century Massachusetts were the potters working along the Mystic River in Charlestown, the Bayley Family working on the Merrimac River in Newburyport and Samuel Marshall on the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth. It is not believed that the Bayley family made lard or dye pots of this weight. Their pots weighed much less. A Samuel Marshall attribution may be possible, but he was out of business by 1750. His pots are not believed to have been comparable in such a weight, but anything is possible.

Samuel Marshall Redware Dye Pot - Portsmouth, NH

Circa 1720-1750
Photo Courtesy: Strawbery Banke Archaeology Department - Portsmouth, NH

Charlestown, Ma Found Redware Hollow Ware
Circa 1740-1775
Likely Domestic Made and Possibly Charlestown, Ma in Origin
Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department - West Roxbury, Ma 

 Charlestown, Ma Found Redware Hollow Ware

Circa 1740-1775

Likely Domestic Made and Possibly Charlestown, Ma in Origin
Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department - West Roxbury, Ma 

The ensuing redware sherd was just discovered at the Clough House in Boston last week. The sherd appears to be of eighteenth-century origin. Boston did not have much of a colonial redware industry. The majority of its wares were imported from nearby Charlestown. It is likely that this sherd maybe a product of one of Charlestown's potters (more than 40 at one time). Notice the use of incised decoration that is similar in technique like all the previous incised examples.

Redware Artifact Found at Clough House (Dates 1711-1715) in Boston

Likely 18th Century and From a Domestic Potter
Possibly Made in 18th Century Charlestown, Ma
Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department - West Roxbury, Ma

I feel the dye and lard pots may be the lone surviving examples of the extreme utilitarian wares of Charlestown. I personally know of three mugs, a handled jar and a couple pitchers that have all survived, but nothing in such an early manner that speaks to a colonial lifestyle as these pots. These just may be the earliest surviving examples! This is extremely encouraging to see from a collector's, historian's and researcher's view. I also feel a Charlestown attribution, based on what I have seen with the archaeological remains, is very possible. I have very little doubt about the dye pot's origin.

I will be bringing six examples of possible Charlestown made redware with me to Dish Camp in New York next month. I will be one of the special guest speakers talking about my studies, Ceramics in America articles and future book. I encourage others to bring potential Charlestown examples, too. It is obvious that some examples may certainly exist.

Most importantly, these pots may be living proof (that is not seen today outside of books) of a ceramic export industry that once was - from Charlestown to Portsmouth years ago. I am extremely  excited over these two finds and both humbled and honored to have as a part of my collection!

There will be much more to come...

Archaeology of the Clough House, Boston - Report 2

The redware artifacts thus far excavated at the Clough House in Boston's North End have mainly been confined to simpler unglazed  and plan glazed domestic utilitarian examples (both 18th and 19th century) in small quantity and size. The overall ceramics found are not great either. It is hopeful that much more important pottery and possibly porcelain artifacts will be found in the next few weeks.

The Clough House is one of Boston's earliest homes. It dates between 1711 and 1715 - when it was originally built. The structure is believed to be entirely period.

Clough House - Boston, Ma (North End Neighborhood)

Property and House Date Circa 1715

Sign Attached to Clough House - Boston, Ma

The Property is on the National Historic Register

Next door to the Clough house, once stood a home that Benjamin Franklin purchased for his sister. The building no longer exists and instead - a small park has replaced it. Behind both of these sites - is the Old North Church - which happens to be Boston's oldest church. The church's property has never been dug before. It is hopeful that a dig at this site may happen later this summer, in the meantime - we are working at the Clough House, which predates the church and all other neighboring properties. The Paul Revere House is not too far away either. That home and property have been dug before and the Paul Revere collection is kept at the Boston Archaeology Department in West Roxbury, Massachusetts. Those artifacts are a part of my ongoing studies.

Open Park is Where Ben Franklin's Sister's Home Once Stood

Building in Background Behind the Trees is the Old North Church

Both Sites Date 18th Century

Excavation Underway at the Clough House

Photo Taken: May 23, 2013

I was carefully examining the redware artifacts from the Clough House yesterday and I found what appeared to be an early redware roof tile. I am sorry in advance for the picture quality. I was in a dark basement and I didn't realize my camera was out of focus. Regardless, you still get the basic idea from the photo.

Possible Remain of a Single Redware Roof tile

Likely 18th Century and Domestic

Hole May Have Marked Where the Nail Was Intended

It has been suggested that redware roof tiles were first manufactured in New England, by at least one potter working in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. American colonists began making bricks and redware tiles as early as 1612 in Virginia. Reportedly, brick making and tile making went together and by 1629 - there were purportedly makers working in Salem - later followed by at least one Boston potter in 1635. It should be noted that I have found a small amount of redware tile sherds through my studies of the Charlestown, Massachusetts archaeological collection. It is not currently known if there was an industry or an economic demand for tile production in Charlestown, but a brick industry is known. I assume both were manufactured. However, I am still studying the Charlestown collection for actual proof.

Are there any thoughts if this artifact, indeed resembles a redware roof tile? Most of the structures in the area of the Clough House are brick. There have been great amounts of slate discovered. We have found slate in a few different thicknesses - which may indicate use on both early roofs and gardens.

This is the only artifact I have seen so far that resembles a redware roof tile. None of the current nearby properties appear to have roofs  made with redware or terracotta-like tiles. Could Ben Franklin's sister have lived under a roof made of redware tiles? Could this artifact represent the house that once stood next to the Clough House? It has peaked my interest as to why it ended up where it did - only to be unearthed in our recent archaeological studies. What was this artifact's use? Is it even a tile? I am currently left with many questions and very few answers.

We also came across this interesting artifact that is some-kind of a redware or terracotta type product. I am lost for words in what it may be. I had assumed it may have had some sort of use in a foundation, but I cannot be sure. Again, I apologize for the photo quality.

Mystery Redware

Possibly Early 19th Century (Maybe As Late as Early 20th Century)

Potentially a Domestic Potter or Local Company

Any ideas? I feel I have seen these before used in nineteenth-century foundations. An idea of a sewerage or drainage system could also likely be developed for its use.

The privy that I thought we had found earlier in the week has actually turned out to be a complicated early cistern and water drain system. It is assumed to be nineteenth-century, but the idea of an eighteenth-century attribution is not completely out of the question. Have a look! We are still very hopeful for at least one privy!

Top Right: Drain for Cistern (Iron Drain Removed)

Bottom Right: Cistern

Right of Cistern: Additional Feature Attached to Cistern - Not Sure of Its Purpose

Iron Drain Cover (Top)

Likely 19th Century

I looked carefully for a maker's mark on the drain cover, but it appears there never was an impression placed. With a mark, we could have easily put a date range on the entire feature. It is assumed that it could be as late as mid to latter nineteenth-century when iron work really took off during the industrial period.

Iron Drain Cover (Bottom)

Likely 19th Century

Bottom of Cistern

Interesting, pipes are visibly heading away from the cistern to areas of the property that are still undiscovered underground. It appears the cistern may have included drains (like the one seen) all over the property from the number of run-off features seen. It was apparently a complicated and well-thought-out structure that was built centuries ago for unwanted water.

Bottom of Drain

Bottom of Feature to the Right of the Cistern

Plenty more to come...

Haig Pottery or Philadelphia Versus Crafts Pottery - Could There Be AnAttribution?

Previous reports on the origin of this teapot:
Report 1
Report 2

To begin - punch pot versus teapot? I say punch pot - while others say teapot.

Thomas Crafts nineteenth-century Whately, Massachusetts pottery is discussed in the August edition of the 1938 magazine, "American Collector." Thomas Crafts apparently first owned and operated a redware kiln in Whately during the very early years of the nineteenth-century before converting to stoneware. He purportedly manufactured a number of redware forms, but not a lot is known today of the wares.

Another Whately potter, Sanford S. Perry reportedly made redware teapots between 1817 and 1820. Perry is credited with introducing the production of teapots to the Whately area according to Henry Baldwin's 1999 book, "A Guide to Whately Pottery and Their Potters: 1778-1873." Perry eventually left Whately to work in Troy, New York where he purportedly also made a similar formed redware teapot.

Near the time of 1820, Thomas Crafts pottery eventually began producing their own line of teapots. Crafts was likely influenced by Perry's design and possible success.

(Here is a link to a teapot attributed to Whately in Old Sturbridge Village's early American pottery collection.)

According to the magazine "American Collector," "Little is known about the redware that was first produced (Thomas Crafts/Whately)...The black teapots, while they may not be a distinctive product of the Crafts pottery, are important because they mark the transition from the country workshop type of ware (Crafts company prior to teapot production) to the styles (company type) that were already the standard the world over."

Thomas Crafts pottery is credited with producing at least a few known teapot designs. The use and purpose did not differ, but the body, handle, lid and spout may have varied slightly in design.

Massachusetts potter, Rick Hamelin and Massachusetts author, David Graci have both suggested that most, if not all the Crafts teapots had seven holes punched at the spout inside the pot's body. They have both dug at the old Crafts site and have seen an extensive amount of excavated ceramic material. This idea can be an easy way to possibly attribute or rule out a Crafts example. Of course, form is usually the number one indicator. The Crafts teapot glazes are described as a rich, dark black glaze with a metallic streaking. This type of glaze is also seen in early South Danvers, Massachusetts (today known at Peabody) wares.

"American Collector" describes the teapots as wheel turned and round or rectangular shaped and molded. These teapots were reportedly marketed and mostly made for the New York City and Philadelphia markets.

Leigh Keno's (Keno Auctions - New York City) college thesis as part of his Fellowship at Historic Deerfield in 1978 - also suggests that Thomas Crafts teapots were sold locally. This idea is supported by local period advertising informing the public of the "Tea Pot Factory."

Interestingly, "No two (teapots) are exactly alike or of the same measure."

Thomas Crafts Teapots - Whately, Ma

"Round Shape"

Photo Courtesy: American Collector Magazine - August, 1938

Thomas Crafts Teapots - Whately, Ma

"Rectangular Shape"

Photo Courtesy: American Collector Magazine - August, 1938

Harvard Professor and author, Lura Woodside Watkins suggests (Early New England Potters and Their Wares) that the rectangular shaped teapots may have been designed after a similar form made in eighteenth-century Staffordshire, England.

Thomas Crafts had a number of sons, brothers and nephews who trained and worked at his Whately pottery. Over-time, family members are believed to have established their own companies in at the least - parts of Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine.

By 1833, Thomas Crafts company had completely changed its product line to adapt to the ever changing market. The redware industry was in the decline and the use of stoneware was emerging. To commemorate the company's transformation, James Crafts (Thomas' son) produced the ensuing stoneware pitcher. The unique form represented the start of Thomas Crafts' stoneware works with his sons - Martin, James, Eldridge and Thomas Spencer.

James Crafts Stoneware Face Pitcher - Whately, Ma

Dated 1833

Photo Courtesy: Early American Pottery and China (1926) - Plate 56

The face pitcher is described in John Spargo's 1926 book, "Early American Pottery and China." Spargo writes that it was made of stoneware and probably a product of a mold. Its existence is not known today. I assume it is safe in one of the country's premier collection's of early American pottery.

By the 1840s, James Crafts was working in Nashua, New Hampshire. His son, Martin Crafts was operating the state's first stoneware company. Thomas Crafts brother, Caleb Crafts and Thomas' son, Thomas Spear Crafts were all reportedly employed at the Nashua business that operated from 1839 to 1852.

(I have previously written a report on the Crafts stoneware of Nashua.)

Martin Crafts worked under his father for many years in Whately before moving to Portland, Maine in the 1830s to establish a stoneware company. He eventually sold that company out to another Crafts family member so he could move to Nashua.

James Crafts (working in Nashua) also trained under Thomas in Whately and is a known and documented redware potter. It is believed that the focus was stoneware in Nashua, but there may have been a redware operation too.

Another face pitcher is pictured in Henry Baldwin's 1999 book, "The Stoneware Potters of Ashfield, Massachusetts: 1845-1856."

James Crafts Stoneware Face Jug - Nashua, NH

Made Between 1839 and 1852

Photo Courtesy: The Stoneware Potters of Ashfield, Ma - Page 63, Figure 89

Like the first face pitcher, this too, may have been made by James Crafts at the Nashua stoneware company. It is described as having an Albany glaze and is assumed to be a stoneware product. The word, "Nashua" is impressed on the pitcher.

By 1849, Martin had moved to Boston (while his family members remained in Nashua) to establish a means of distribution for his company in the city. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors - the company failed three years later.

Following the company's collapse, James Crafts moved back home to work in Whately and Martin has been cited in numerous publications as either moving to California or New Jersey. It is a safe assumption that Martin's whereabouts after Nashua are questionable. He is believed to have died in 1861 in New Jersey.

On pages 154-155 of Baldwin's book, "A Guide to Whately Pottery and Their Potters: 1778-1873," a redware butter pot is discussed (no picture). The author describes it as an experimental piece by James Crafts after returning home from the Nashua, New Hampshire works in 1952.

Old Sturbidge Village also owns in its collection - a redware pan that is signed by James Crafts and is described as an experimental piece from Whately.

It appears that James Crafts did his share of experimentation with both redware and stoneware. Who is to say that the thirteen by eight in inch teapot that was recently discovered in a Nashua, New Hampshire home is not the product of James Crafts while working in Nashua. Could James Crafts be responsible? I feel I have an argument! Could it have been a presentation piece made for a special occasion? Could it have been for a window display? Could it have held some kind of significance for the Crafts pottery of either Whately or Nashua? The fact that this teapot came from a Nashua home with such a well-documented family working in the same area around the expected time of the teapots production - does raise quite a few questions.

The teapot in both form and weight are extremely unusual. Its weight reminds me much more of an example of hollow ware rather than the finely potted teapots of this period that are known today.

Interesting about the teapot, it has no hole punched in the lid - which is a common characteristic for steam to escape. New Hampshire antiquarian, Hollis Broderick called it a punch pot over the weekend. Could he have been correct with his attribution for the form's use?

Teapot versus punch pot? Any thoughts?

Left: Nashua, NH Discovered Teapot - Circa 1820-1850

Measure 13 Inches Across and More Than 8 inches to the Top of the Lid

Right: Possibly Thomas Crafts Teapot - Whately, Ma

Likely Made Before 1833

Crafts-TypeTeapot is Extremely Thin
Teapot May Have Also Been Made by Sanford Perry in Either Whately, Ma or Troy, NY

Handle and Lid of Nashua, NH Found Teapot

 Spout and Lid of Nashua, NH Found Teapot

However, there are people involved with the Pennsylvania redware scene who feel a Philadelphia attribution could be possible. The bead work seen on the teapot is not considered common, but it is often seen within Philadelphia with a number of city's early potters. Thomas Haig's pottery is among those known for using this technique. Here is a link to a teapot made at Haig's pottery that is now part of the Philadelphia Museum of Art's early ceramics collection.

I feel this teapot may have been produced in Philadelphia due to its characteristics, but a strong argument can probably be made for a Nashua and Crafts family tie due to where the pot was found.

Haig versus Crafts? Is there an argument for either? An unknown or documented Philadelphia potter? What do you think??

It's also interesting knowing that the Crafts were possibly selling their teapots in Philadelphia. This found teapot was in a known area the Crafts family worked, but it has a similar form to the wares that are more expected from Philadelphia.

Through all of this - I am merely trying to make an argument for both a Pennsylvania and a Crafts family attribution.

I have an update to this week's report in regards to the mystery feature found at the Clough House excavation in Boston's North End. The capped off feature turned out to be a cistern and not a privy. I am slightly disappointed! A cistern is used for water storage and the drain could likely be tied in with this. Hopefully we will find a privy on another part of the property! The cistern and the surrounding features are definitely early.

Early Cistern - Cough House - Boston, Ma
Possibly Period to the 1711-1715 Property

Photo Courtesy: City of Boston Archaeology Department

Much more to come...