A Quick Overview of Early American Redware and Stoneware

Redware can be simply defined as the oldest native-made American pottery. The vast majority of pre-Columbian, Native American and early colonist wares, were more-often produced from red clay than any other type. A proper clay source for redware was available all-over the county and as a result, the earliest seventeenth-century colonial wares from Virginia to New York and Massachusetts, and all other colonies in between, are believed to possibly be nearly exclusive to this one described clay. 

Stoneware was manufactured from a dense white clay and is considered scarce when compared to the abundance of red clay in America. White clay is only found in a few regions of the country. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia are known to all have had excellent clay beds for proper stoneware production. The most accomplished stoneware potters were arguably from New York and Pennsylvania.

Thomas Commeraw Stonware Jug - Manhattan, NY

Early 19th Century

Sold for $11,200 in 2012

Photo Courtesy: Skinner, Inc - Boston
Brandt Zipp of Crocker Farm is Writing a Book on Thomas Commeraw - website

The stoneware body is much stronger and durable when compared to a redware product, which is considered much-more fragile. It could be suggested that if white clay was more abundant in America, potters may have chosen that medium over redware. A potter's influence most-often came from England - and in that country, potters worked in both styles. From a utilitarian view, stoneware definitely lasts much longer and with this idea in mind, redware may be much rarer today than it already is - if white clay were more abundant in early American communities and regions.

Manufacturing of stoneware is believed to have first began in America during the eighteenth-century. Both Virginia and Pennsylvania are believed to have been two of the first pioneering colonies to begin stoneware production.

Here is a link to a very interesting archaeology report about an illegal stoneware operation that was setup in Yorktown, Virginia in the early years of the eighteenth-century. At the time, production of such a ware was considered completely illegal and an act of defiance against British rule.

The manufacture of fine ceramics was also not seen as a high achievement in America and especially within early New England. The native glacial clay was mainly serviceable for bricks and earthenware, but not for the making of more delicate ceramics. Many tried in the early years, but true success was not seen until the mid to latter years of the nineteenth-century during the Industrial Era.

Interesting about redware, it was fired at a low temperature, and as a result, redware could be glazed in a variety of wonderful colors. Reds, greens, yellows, browns, blacks and oranges are among the colors used, but of course the decoration is not limited to these colors. At higher temperatures, any of these described glaze colors would have been destroyed. The degree of heat varied depending on the type of ceramic. Porcelain for example is fired at a very hot temperature.

According to William Ketchum and his book, "American Antiques," collectors began looking for examples of early redware plates and bowls - with outstanding designs painted or incised on their surfaces, as early or before 1900. I almost want to disagree with this statement. The field of early American ceramics is still very unknown today. There is some knowledge, but some of the early books have proven to share some inaccurate information when compared to the latest archaeology research. It is assumed these early collectors were more-so likely seeking  the wonderful sgraffito examples in Pennsylvania and equal examples more - than lesser achieved makers.

Charles Cook was a notable early New England collector and he sought the finest New England examples with a primary focus on Southeastern, Massachusetts. I feel the best-of-the-best always finds a way to rise above the rest, but there is still much to be learned of the potters who did not consistently produce museum quality wares. It's assumed that Ketchum's statement was based on collector's desire for folk art, unlike some collectors today, who desire rare and unknown makers as much as design. Here is a previous report on Charles Cook.

Attributed to Conrad Mumbouer - Bucks County, Pa

Late 18th to Early 19th Century

Sold for $40,000 in 2007
Photo Courtesy: Pook and Pook Auctions - Downington, Pa

Southeastern, Ma or Rhode Island Redware Pitcher

Ex Collection of Charles Cook - Cape Cod, Ma

Sold for $10,000 in 2003

Photo Courtesy: Skinner, Inc - Boston

In early New England, the production of pottery stayed very-much true to the craft's earliest traditions of utility - when it first began in continental and European nations. This is not only seen in New England - it is very-much true throughout America. It is especially seen with the tulip decoration of the early German and Dutch-American settlers.  I have written extensively on this subject in past reports.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Much of the early American pottery is utilitarian in the simplest and most traditional utilitarian means, but through today's standards, it can also be viewed as early American folk ware or art - and this is what my interpretation and view of early American redware has become. It may have been at one time an unintentional form of art, but for many today, it has become a exceptional and occasionally misunderstood (by the general public) platform of art.

A long-time New England dealer and collector told me at the 2013 Connecticut Spring Antiques Show, that thirty or more years ago, an example of New England redware would never have found its way onto the showroom floor. He said as the years have past, fine examples began to appear, to where today nearly all dealers have at least one piece and for many, redware is the highlight of their booth. It's interesting to see where we are today. I, like others my age, wish I could go back in time and collect early redware and stoneware when it was not worthy of a dealer to showcase at a high-end show. Back then, the average owner had no idea what it was. In most cases, it had descended down through the family and outside of sentimental value, there was very little appreciation for early pottery. This is how many of the great long-time collections of today were assembled. Collectors used their knowledge in a field that very few possessed and as a result, some of the most-important collections of early American pottery were assembled. Unfortunately, those days are long gone.

More to come...possibly pictures from the Wayside Inn Antiques Show in Sudbury, Massachusetts and the Brimfield, Massachusetts shows...all next week.

Possibly Partial 18th Century Kiln Remains in Newburyport, Ma

The clay beds along the shores of the Merrimac River in Newburyport, Massachusetts likely served the needs of the early area potters that included - the Bayley Family during the eighteenth-century, William Pecker of the eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries and Thomas Nickerson at the turn of the twentieth-century. This short-list however, does not include all the area's potters - only the most well-known. The river likely provided, like the Mystic River near Charlestown, Massachusetts, a wonderful source of red clay for redware production. Proper clay beds for stoneware production did not exist. Potters tended to work with what their native environment provided for supplies and red clay was the abundant source within the greater Newburyport area.

Recently, I discovered a nineteenth-century terracotta flower pot on the Merrimac River at Cashman Park. It was likely made at the Moses Paige Pottery in Peabody, Massachusetts around 1890. Cashman Park is a large park that sits next to the river. It is used by boaters and for recreational activities. It is entirely filled-in land that began in the late nineteenth-century and continued through the 1950s and 60s.

Even more recently, a near exact flower pot in form and size was found in the Charlestown archaeological collection at the Boston Archaeology Department. This pot is also believed to have been made at the Paige Pottery around the same period. In previous reports, I discussed in detail, the idea of an export industry at the Paige Pottery to Newburyport and Boston. Links to both reports are below.

Moses Paige Pottery Report Part 1
Moses Paige Pottery Report Part 2

Yesterday, I re-visited the exact spot where the terracotta flower pot was found, partially submerged in mud at the edge of the Merrimac River. This exact spot is only visible during low-tide and when it is timed just right, the artifacts can be in abundance. At high-tide, the water covers the entire area. The sea grass also covers the shore in the summer, which hides any artifacts. Fortunately yesterday, the green sea grass had only just begun to grow for the year.

This particular spot, has especially peaked my interest - out of all the filled-in land within the Cashman Park area. To begin, the location is littered with bricks of different ages. Many of the bricks may be early twentieth-century, but there are surely examples that are eighteenth-century. The possible early examples match the form and style of what I am seeing in the Charlestown archaeology collection.

The shores of the Merrimac River in Newburyport extend for miles, but in this specific area of about a hundred feet, is where an enormous collection of bricks is demonstrated. As far as I can see, there is no other evidence along the Merrimac that contains bricks in such a large amount. 

Bricks at the Edge of the Merrimac River - Newburyport, Ma

More Bricks at the Edge of the Merrimac River - Newburyport, Ma

I have previously quietly questioned, why so many bricks are at this location. It is assumed the bricks are a part of the landfill. However, could there have been a building at this location at one time? It seems very odd seeing such a large collection of bricks in one area. The flower pot I discovered was not the only one. Aside from the bricks, there are shards of flower pots all over the ground. Most of the pots appear to be machine-made twentieth-century examples with a small amount of hand-turned wares from the nineteenth-century. This was the case with the nineteenth-century Moses Paige pot I discovered weeks earlier.

Flower Pot Shards at the Edge of the Merrimac River - Newburyport, Ma

After picking up many of the bricks and closely examining them, I realized that some are definitely closely similar to the eighteenth-century bricks from the Charlestown collection.

Far Left Brick Likely 18th Century

Very Similar to Early Bricks in Charlestown, Ma Collection

With even closer examination, many of the bricks appeared to have been burned or exposed to extremely hot temperatures. Could these possibly be the remains of a local potter's kiln?? Was there a building in the area that caught fire at one time?

Bricks that Were Exposed to High Temperatures

No Noticeable Glaze that Would Indicate Use in a Potter's Kiln

With the idea of all this potential early evidence, I became motivated to walk around the shores and basically give everything a good look, one-time over. After only a mere few moments of looking, I came across probably the coolest artifact that I have ever found on my own. It was a part of a brick that appeared to have a clay ball projecting out from it. I had seen a near-exact example at the seventeenth-century Smith site within the Charlestown collection only weeks before. That example is believed to be a partial kiln brick with a piece of kiln furniture and a kiln ball stuck to it. The brick found on the Merrimac River has what I believe to be, a similar kiln ball attached.

Brick with Likely Kiln Ball Attached - Newburyport, Ma

Possibly 18th Century

 Likely Kiln Brick with Kiln Ball Attached

17th Century Smith Family Site - Charlestown, Ma

Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department

Brick with Likely Kiln Ball Attached - Newburyport, Ma

Possibly 18th Century

Brick Has Been Noticeably Exposed to Hot Temperatures

 Brick with Likely Kiln Ball Attached - Newburyport, Ma

Possibly 18th Century 

Could this be the remains of a local early potter?

After seeing this, my thoughts really began to flow. I quickly rushed to my home - about a half mile up the road to do a little research.

Lura Woodside Watkins described her visit in 1934 to the Daniel Bayley Pottery Company site of Newburyport in her book, "Early New England Potters and Their Wares." She wrote that upon her arrival, construction crews had already begun removing the Bayley Pottery site for a new highway underpass. The pottery company was in operation from 1764-1799 through two generations of family potters.

The book reads, "Construction of the Route 1 bypass under High Street had occasioned the removal of many dwelling houses and shops, including the whole block bounded by Summer, High and Water Streets...The Bayley shop and house had stood close to the junction of High and Summer Streets."

"The quantity of earthenware that we managed to uncover in the short time at our disposal before the construction work was finished convinced us that an even larger amount had been removed by the steam shovel. In-fact, the operator of the steam shovel told us he'd been digging through pottery for days. This material had been dumped elsewhere on the road for fill."

It is assumed that the pottery artifacts and dirt were transported locally for fill, but who's to say Watkins was entirely correct in where "all" the excavated material was placed. In 1934, Cashman Park was in the midst of being filled-in. The park is only a few blocks from where this construction site was happening. I feel it is a safe bet that much of this landfill actually ended up at Cashman Park in Newburyport. I feel the brick and kiln ball I found are a small part of the remains from the eighteenth-century Daniel Bayley Pottery Company. Now that's very cool! I feel it is a great piece of history to own. To my knowledge, Watkins did not excavate any kiln furniture. It is not cited in her book. All of her artifacts are now a part of the Smithsonian's collection of early American redware. I have been working with the Smithsonian in my studies and they have not mentioned any Bayley Pottery kiln furniture in their possession.

A few weeks ago, I found a shard of what appeared to be an early redware dye pot not too far from the location I was at yesterday. With all the previous mentioned information about the Bayley Pottery Company, it is a safe bet to say that this is yet another example of the excavated material that Watkins wrote about. Further support: the Bayley Pottery Company is known for producing these described dye pots.

Redware Dye Pot Shard (left) - Found: Newburyport, Ma

Possibly Daniel Bayley Pottery Company - 18th Century

There were more than only bricks and flower pots at yesterday's site. I even found a lead glazed black redware shard that appears to be eighteenth-century. This too, may be the work of the Daniel Bayley Pottery Company. The company is known for working with this type of glaze.

More Redware and Terracotta Artifacts - Newburyport, Ma

Bottom: Lead Glazed Redware Shard, Possibly 18th Century

Top Left: Appears to be Unglazed Redware Pot or Jar Shard, Not a Flower Pot

With all the given facts above, it seems that some of the excavated artifacts from the Daniel Bayley Pottery site may have been moved to Cashman Park in Newburyport. It's the most logical answer, especially with finding kiln furniture that may date to the eighteenth-century. There are even possibly bricks that date to the colonial days. Was there a local brickmaker? It is assumed there had to have been with the many early brick structures in Newburyport. I had a feeling about this site when first I saw all the bricks a few weeks ago and my feeling is even stronger today, after briefly studying the area. There was definitely "something" happening within this area at one point. I just don't know exactly what at this time. The big question is why there are so many bricks in only this one small area. Maybe a little more research will reveal a florist shop was here at one time and under the florist shop are the partial remains of the Daniel Bayley Pottery Company. Who knows!? It's mere speculation, but surely fascinating.

Cashman Park would be a wonderful location for an archaeological dig. Who knows what kind of early artifacts are resting just below the surface level?

Any ideas? Comments? Opinions?

There will be much more on this location in the near future.

More research to come...

18th and 19th Century Kiln Furniture and Bricks

I have seen dozens of examples of kiln furniture while studying the Charlestown, Massachusetts archaeological artifact collection. Each piece, no matter the form or material, has served a similar purpose. According to Lura Woodside Watkins, "Early redware kilns were simple brick structures designed to burn wood, that were made from the same clay used for the ware itself." I do not know what her definition of "early" was, but it is assumed any type of kiln designed before the twentieth-century may be considered early.

The kiln furniture was intended for redware to be stacked on top of so the ware would not stick during the firing and drying process. It is believed that most potters used kiln furniture only once and then disposed of it. It can be suggested that some early New England potters may have used kiln furniture for other purposes around the business after it was no longer needed for use within the kiln. Beyond that, it can also be assumed there were dozens of kiln examples used each time a group of pottery was fired.

The following photos are examples of kiln furniture from early eighteenth-century Charlestown and later nineteenth-century Essex County, Massachusetts.

Early to Mid 18th Century Kiln Furniture - Charlestown, Ma

Pre Revolutionary War

Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department

Late 18th Century Kiln Furniture - Charlestown, Ma

Post Revolutionary War

Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department

19th Century Kiln Furniture - Essex County, Ma

Photo Courtesy: Peabody, Ma Historical Society

The first two examples are in-fact made, as Watkins suggested, from the same clay the redware was manufactured. However, the kiln furniture from the Peabody Historical Society's collection was likely not made from red clay. Its appearance suggests a different type of clay, possibly stoneware, but I do not believe it to be actually a stoneware product. The geographical landscape of Essex County does not contain proper native clay for a stoneware product. If the kiln furniture is in-fact made of stoneware, then the described clay would have been imported for use. That seems like an unnecessary business cost for such a simple tool. Stoneware is not believed to have ever been produced in Essex County.

The historical society does not indicate what potter may have used these examples. It is also not known if the kiln furniture was made in Essex County or if it was imported from another business. If it were an import, that would lead me to believe the furniture was from one of the later shops working in possibly South Danvers or Peabody, Massachusetts. The most recent shop in business was the Moses Paige Pottery that operated from the later nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries. It very-well could be kiln furniture from this shop. Its appearance also suggests it was created from a mold, while the redware examples from early Charlestown were without a doubt, hand made. If you look closely at the Charlestown examples, you can see they are covered in finger prints from the potter.

It's interesting to see the progression of such a simple tool as kiln furniture over more than a hundred year period. It is assumed that the latter of the kiln furniture likely served a more useful purpose with a smaller amount of wares permanently sticking to the bricks and kiln furniture.

Kiln Brick with Redware Stuck to It - Charlestown, Ma

Early to Mid 18th Century

Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeology Department

I have a great interest with my studies in early kiln furniture and bricks. Watkins wrote that from all the kilns she unearthed in her archaeological digs, she noticed a common feature where the kiln bricks were consistently larger than the bricks used for foundations in early American homes. I am going to slightly disagree with her. I have found the kiln bricks used in Charlestown to be both larger and the same size as the bricks used in architectural features of early buildings.

Kiln Bricks Found in Charlestown, Ma

Early to Mid 18th Century

Likely a Domestic Potter

Photo Courtesy: Boston Archaeological Department

The following photo is a slab of cement from Essex County that shows kiln brick and a number of types of possibly locally produced pottery attached to it. I am not sure what to make of it. It is large! It's tough to make any type of comparison between Essex County and Charlestown bricks, but it is still interesting to see.

Slab of Cement with Pottery Shards and Possibly Kiln Brick

Likely 19th Century

Possible of South Danvers, Ma Origin

Photo Courtesy: Peabody, Ma Historical Society

More research to come...

Oddly Shaped Early Southeastern, Massachusetts Redware Jar

This is arguably one of the neatest forms I have ever seen in the world of early American redware. It is my knowledge that fewer than a dozen examples are known to exist today. I personally only know of less than five and that includes the following example which resides in a Massachusetts museum collection. There very-well likely may be less-than five known. I am merely assuming more may exist.

Likely Southeastern, Massachusetts Redware Jar

Early 19th Century

Height: 9 3/4 Inches

Photo Courtesy: Old Sturbridge Village - Sturbridge, Ma

Old Sturbridge Village in Sturbridge, Massachusetts describes the jar as having a pinched waist that formed two bulges inside the jar's body. The jar is without a cover, but at one time one did exist. The museum does not give a proper attribution or is the area of origin mentioned. It is thought the jar may have been manufactured sometime during the early nineteenth-century.

This particular jar was pictured in the short booklet, "Early New England Pottery," that Old Sturbridge Village published in 1966. It was written by Lura Woodside Watkins. This booklet was written after Watkins authored her very important book, "Early New England Potters and Their Wares." Interestingly, Watkins does not mention this form in her book. It is assumed to be that rare.

In the collector world, these unique jars are thought to be associated with Bristol County or Southeastern, Massachusetts. The above mentioned jar is very similar in form to the covered ovoid redware jars that many have come to expect as a typical form of nineteenth-century Southeastern, Massachusetts.

Likely Southeastern, Massachusetts

Early 19th Century

Photo Courtesy: Skinner, Inc. - Boston

Likely Southeastern, Massachusetts

Early 19th Century 

Sold for $29,375 in 2007

Photo Courtesy: Skinner, Inc - Boston

Likely Southeastern, Massachusetts

Early 19th Century

Ex Hilarly and Paulette Nolan Collection - Cape Cod, Ma

Photo Courtesy: Samuel Herrup Antiques - Sheffield, Ma

The Southeastern, Massachusetts potters are believed to have worked in a variety of styles and forms that included, but were not limited to - pitchers, jugs, field jugs, mugs, milk pans, stew pots, covered ovoid jars, covered straight sided jars, plates, bowls, cups, saucers and such. I have heard some say the previous  pictured jars were used for ginger storage. Unfortunately, I am unable to say if that statement is completely accurate. However, it is interesting. I have never heard any other forms of New England redware suggested with the idea of ginger before. In-fact, I can not recall ever hearing the use of ginger and redware put in the same sentence before. It could make for an interesting future discussion.

There were as many as a dozen known and unknown potters who worked along the Taunton River during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth-centuries. It is not entirely known who made exactly what. The river provided these highly-accomplished potters a means of easy transportation to ship their wares to nearby communities that likely included New Bedford, Massachusetts. While many of these described Southeastern, Massachusetts examples have surfaced in New Bedford, it is not entirely known, if there was a potter or potters who worked in the maritime community.

I feel William Pecker of West Amesbury (today known as Merrimacport), Massachusetts and his pottery operation could be a fair comparison to the potters of Southeastern, Massachusetts. To begin, they all worked around the same period. Pecker worked only a matter of miles upriver from Newburyport, Massachusetts along the Merrimac River. It is assumed that many of his wares were shipped from West Amesbury to Newburyport, while working just outside the limits of the area's major city. Pecker never actually worked in the city, rather in the nearby countryside. I assume this same idea could be formed for the early potters working alongside the Taunton River.

The oddly shaped jar of discussion has left many with a misunderstanding of why its form was created. I understand the jar was likely used for dry-goods, much like the so-called described "ginger jars."  Aside from that, what possibly could the rare form's purpose been served for? It seems that adding the pinch would only take away from additional storage space. The wares of this period were solely about utilitarian needs and practical use. I'm left with mainly one answer - it was an experiment. The potters of Southeastern, Massachusetts are especially known for their experimentation with form and glaze. That's all this merely may have ever been. It may have been as little as a one-time firing with very-few examples to begin with. If that is the case, I find it amazing that any have survived. 

What do you think? Any thoughts? I really do not have any ideas or explanation for the form other than simple experimentation and artistic expression by the potter.

Today, most would likely view this jar as a platform for art. I wonder what went through the potter's mind when he or she first saw this jar leave the kiln and head to market. Did they like their creation or not? It is interesting. I have been fortunate to see a few of these examples in person and I am extremely impressed with them all.

The early American potters industry was really a business. That's why potters worked - it was their job. I have seen it first hand within the Charlestown, Massachusetts collection. Potters did not tend to experiment with form as much as they did with glaze. It would have been a waste of supplies and time to experiment with a form that the marketplace did not accept and this is why I question the idea behind this Southeastern, Massachusetts form, purpose, and use.

More research to come...

Essex County Wares, Newburyport and Charlestown, Massachusetts

Not too long ago, I wrote about a terracotta flower pot I discovered while walking along the shores of the Merrimac River at Cashman Park in Newburyport, Massachusetts. Cashman Park is entirely filled-in land. The pot was nearly exact in form and design as a similar, but larger flower pot I found at a flea market in 2012. Massachusetts potter, Rick Hamelin and Connecticut potter, Guy Wolf helped me properly attribute it to the work of Moses Paige Pottery in Peabody, Massachusetts. I soon learned this type of pot is known today in the reproduction world as a "Peabody Pot".

Guy Wolf actually makes historically inspired reproductions of early American and English terracotta forms. These forms include the Hartford Pot (Hartford, CT), the English Full Pot, the Peale Pot (Rubens Peale, Philadelphia) and the Peabody Pot (19th century North Shore).

The Peabody Pot

Guy Wolf Reproduction - Bantam, CT
21st Century

Photo Courtesy: Guy Wolf

The example I came across at the flea market was exact in form and style to the reproductions of Guy Wolf. The only difference was no potter's mark. Guy Wolf stamps his pieces. The discovery along the Merrimac River was similar in form, but the way it was produced was nearly identical. Both discoveries are believed to have been made at Moses Paige's Pottery in or around the late nineteenth-century.

Moses Paige Pottery - Peabody, Ma

Late 19th or Early 20th Century

Left: Discovered on Merrimac River in Newburyport, Ma

Right: Discovered at a Flea Market in 2012

Terracotta products and utilitarian redware were a part of the operation at Paige Pottery of the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries. The forms included both utilitarian wares and garden accessories.

Moses Paige Pottery Circa 1900
Peabody, Ma 

Photo Courtesy: The Magazine Antiques

In my previous report (Part 1), I questioned how the smaller flower pot found its way to the shores of the Merrimac River. The ideas of personal ownership versus export were compared. It may have been the property of a local florist or a home owner, but it too, may have been a part of an irregular or regular shipments from the pottery to Newburyport. At the time, I really had no answer - only speculation and opinion.

Even more recently, a wonderful redware bowl, likely of Essex County, Massachusetts origin appeared within the Boston Common archaeology collection owned by the Boston Archaeology Department.

Likely South Danvers, Ma Redware Bowl

Possibly of Osborn Family Origin
Likely Early to Mid 19th Century

Bottom of Bowl

With the help of long-time redware collector, Hilarly Nolan of Cape Cod, Massachusetts - we were able to narrow this bowl's origin down and possibly give it a South Danvers (today known as Peabody) attribution. From there, I assumed it was of Osborn family origin. The family is especially known for using this style glaze on its redware jugs. The Osborn shop was the dominate pottery in the area of the period. Coincidentally, Moses Paige eventually purchased the old Osborn shop for his business.

The excavation of the Big Dig happened in three parts:

Phase 1 - The study (Harvard University) of potential early archaeology sites in both Boston and Charlestown.

Phase 2 - Test digs or trenches with back hoes were dug of top soil to determine if the suspected spots were worthy of an archaeological dig.

Phase 3 - The archaeological dig occurred in the 1980s.

The majority of my studies will focus on the sites of Boston and Charlestown that were found as part of the Phase 3 project, but Phase 2 does have some interesting artifacts.

Yesterday, I was going through a small portion of the Phase 2 archaeology boxes and I came across a very interesting flower pot that resembled in style and form, to the smaller Moses Paige pot mentioned above. The exact district or location the pot was unearthed was not determined. I did not put much effort into researching that aspect, but I will tell you it was found at one of the historically important Charlestown sites that were eventually excavated.

Likely Moses Paige Pottery Flower Pot - Peabody, Ma

Late 19th or Early 20th Century

Bottom of Flower Pot

Aside from this, chamber pot shards in a similar glaze to the bowl found on Boston Common were also mixed in among the artifacts of the Phase 2 boxes. It is not known at this time if chamber pots were made in nineteenth-century Essex County. However, they were a part of production during the eighteenth-century in South Danvers, where glaze techniques are thought to have been much different than  these shards.

Left: Possibly Early Redware Chamber Pot - Origin Unknown
Potential for an Early Domestic-Area Potter

Likely 18th or Early 19th Century

While I do not have proof the chamber pot shards where made by the same skilled hands who made the bowl, I do believe all three flower pots were manufactured at the same shop.  The only really remaining major company producing terracotta wares of the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries was the Hews Pottery Company in North Cambridge, Massachusetts, but their terracotta wares were in no way similar in form to any of the above mentioned examples. Simple subtraction, elimination and careful examination leads me to the conclusion of a Moses Paige Pottery attribution.

With keeping all the cited facts and opinions in mind - do you think there is sufficient evidence to support the idea of an export industry of the nineteenth-century from the potters of Essex County to Newburyport in the north and Boston in the South? This is the idea I am leaning towards.

Is it possible? Likely. Do I have actual proof? Not entirely, but it is interesting seeing the flower pots of Moses Paige Pottery turning up in the unlikeliest of places. It makes me think about the possibilities and what was happening at this company. The company was likely serving the local-area's household and gardening needs, but beyond that - were their wares exported and if so, where to?

Moses Paige Pottery Company Sign
Likely 19th Century

Photo Courtesy: Peabody, Ma Historical Society

What do you think? Any ideas? Theories? Comments?

More research to come...

The World's View of the Tulip in Early Ceramics

The idea of the tulip and its importance was first introduced at some point during the sixteenth-century in Europe from Turkey. It is assumed the tulip is native to Turkey. For the preceding four-hundred years, the flower has spread the world-over and has become a mainstay in many international countries. Like previously described, the tulip was viewed as an exotic flower that many people living throughout the early Continental European nations and Great Britain had never seen.

With the notion of "tulip mania" came the idea of self-benefit. Potters the world-over began producing ceramics with the tulip motif often boldly and sometimes, subtly placed. Plain and simple, merchants and ceramists were looking to cash in on the tulip craze. England, Germany, America and the Netherlands receive most the credit today, but the design really first began in Turkey and possibly with the production Iznik Pottery.

Iznik Pottery is a type of ceramic that was first produced in the fifteenth and up through the sixteenth centuries. The pottery was named after the town it was produced in.

Iznik Pottery Dish - Turkey

Circa 1575-1580

Use of Tulip Decoration

Photo Courtesy: Bonham's - London

Iznik Earthenware Dish - Turkey

Circa 1575-1580

Use of Tulip Decoration

Sold for $29,400 in 2001

Photo Courtesy: Bonham's - London

The tulip's popularity and cultivation is suggested to have begun in the Netherlands. Ogier de Busbecq is reportedly credited with introducing the flower to Europe. According to Wikipedia, "the peak of tulip mania was in March of 1637 when bulbs purportedly sold for upwards or more than ten times the average salary of a skilled craftsman." That's incredible! The definition of a craftsman was not suggested, but it is assumed that included a potter, blacksmith, cobbler and such. How could a tulip bulb possibly be worth more than an accomplished artisan!? It wasn't only described as worth more, but with a suggestion as large as ten times more. That is a  tremendous amount. This really does speak to the flower's popularity and its involvement through obsession with the early European people. This also demonstrates the class-level associated with the tulip and what the wealthy were willing to spend for a variety of colors and rare styles. They may call it mania, but I call it passion. 

Dutch Delftware Lobed Dish - Netherlands

17th Century, Circa 1690

Photo Courtesy: Bonham's - London

Aside from the Dutch, the Germans and English are known to have produced an endless amount of ceramics which demonstrated the flower.

Tin Glazed Earthenware Plate - Germany or England

Late 16th or 17th Century

Photo Courtesy: Hyde Park Country Auctions - Salt Point, NY

English Delftware Charger

18th Century, Circa 1700

 Photo Courtesy: Bonham's - London

Romania is also known for manufacturing fine ceramic examples. The country's influence likely came directly from Turkey. They both are nearly neighboring countries and it is assumed the influence was from direct trade or early interaction.

Cobalt Decorated Earthenware Plate - Romania

18th Century, Circa 1780

Photo Courtesy: Dr. Fischer Fine Art Auctions - Germany

The use of the tulip as a means of design was even seen as far east as China and Japan within the early ceramic exports. Chinese exports are especially known for the decoration.

Chinese Export Earthenware Teapot

Early 18th Century, Circa 1700

Photo Courtesy: The Antiques Road Show, PBS

Potters and their use of tulips continued into the nineteenth-century in countries that included the Netherlands, Germany, England and America. I have previously reported on the decorative styles of England and America during the seventeenth thru early nineteenth centuries.

Part 3

Part 2

Part 1

Dutch Delftware Charger - Netherlands

19th Century

Photo Courtesy: Skinner, Inc - Boston

William Grueby used the flower at his art pottery and tile company in South Boston, Massachusetts during the American Arts and Crafts Movement. What is purportedly a flower in which may have first been introduced to the world of ceramics in the fifteenth-century in Turkey - was still in use at the turn of the twentieth-century by one of the most accomplished art potters of the era. That is certainly a long-lasting trend in the ceramics world and the style probably still stands true today with studio pottery.

William Grueby Art Pottery Tile - South Boston, Ma

Late 19th or Very Early 20th Century

Photo Courtesy: Craftsman Auctions - Lambertville, NJ

If you were to carefully examine all the cited examples of this report, you would notice (outside of the Grueby tile) none were made of red clay and resembled redware. There are known redware examples that were produced during the period in Germany, but the majority of the products developed in Continental Europe and the Far East were a much more refined ceramic. The English products were less predictable from the large group of potters who worked in the country. This is where the real Americanized transformation really took place. The use of tulips in eighteenth and nineteenth century America was mainly for utilitarian needs. It was used on both stoneware and redware products that were mainly found in Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina. Perhaps, the use may be found in West Virginia, too. It was really this region that embraced the flower and created wonderful and unique examples that are demonstrated in such a way that the rest of the world had never seen.

It appears Europe and the Far East's interpretation of the flower was designed much-more as a style used in fine tableware for formal settings - while America's use of the tulip really demonstrated what is expected and assumed from utilitarian wares of the Colonial and Federal Periods. The use of the flower in early America, transformed the basic utilitarian wares into works of art that are desired by museums, institutions and collectors, alike today. The American potters production method of manufacturing forms, in general did not change  from potter-to-potter, but what did was the decoration and glaze styles. To include the obvious: the tulip altered a plain ware into an example that all can be proud to own from the forms birth up through today.

Much more to come on tulips in early ceramics...

Early English Tulips in Ceramics

According to The General Shop Book or The Tradesman's Universal Director published in 1753 - the region of Staffordshire, England at the time was known for what is described as a considerable amount of a strong sort of earthenware potteries.

Small Slip Decorated Yellow Ware Mug

Probably Made in Staffordshire, England

Early to Mid 18th Century
Sold for $5,300 in 2008

Photo Courtesy: Skinner, Inc - Boston

English dotware (pictured above) is described on pages 55 to 56 of Leslie Grigsby's book, "English Slip-Decorated Earthenware of Williamsburg, Virginia."

"The use of dots, whether large or small, dark-on-light, or light-on-dark, was popular in the Midlands throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

These thrown hollowares, probably dating to the first half of the eighteenth century, show dots used alone or in combination with a type of decoration.

Large dots also decorated some slipware attributed to Bristol and undoubtedly that from other potteries as well.

Another late type of Staffordshire origin is a certain group of hollowares that were inexpensive in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This piece was typically decorated with simple diaper patterns of large dots of slip or slip dots with crudely combed parallel lines."

Staffordshire, England Slipware

Yellow Ware Products Manufactured Circa 1670 to 1795

Photo Courtesy: Saint Mary's University

Massachusetts antique dealer, curator, researcher and historian - Brian Cullity adds to this description in his book, "The Material Culture of Plymouth County, Massachusetts."

"The light, or nearly yellow color of the glazed redware is typical of the products from England in the Staffordshire district and other Midlands Counties.

The decoration was made from manganese slip over the body.

Large quantities of this type of redware were shipped to the American colonies. The product played a major role in the early American household."

It is believe earthenware or yellow ware plates, bowls, mugs, pitchers, posset pots, chamber pots and candlesticks were manufactured in Staffordshire.

The Boston Gazette from October 24 and 31 in 1737, advertises the sale of a yellow earthenware product that has just arrived at Faneuil Hall in Boston. Fourteen-years later, Nathaniel Loring advertised on March 11, 1751 in the Boston Evening Post, the sale of this same yellow earthenware. It is assumed the described "yellow" earthenware is a form of the Staffordshire product described above and Loring was likely a merchant working in or near the merchant's row area of Boston known today as Faneuil Hall.

Between the years of 1737 and 1751, Charlestown was an active area with many people calling the area their home. The City Square district of Charlestown was the central place of the town. It contained shops, homes and taverns. Three Crane Tavern was arguably the focus of the entire City Square area. I believe the tavern really spoke of the personality of Charlestown. Sadly, the tavern was lost as part of the fires at the Battle of Bunker Hill. As part of the Big Dig archaeology project, the tavern and five period privies which belonged to it, were excavated. The artifacts found were extensive. The following posset pot, likely made in Staffordshire, England of the eighteenth-century, was among the recovered material.

Slip Decorated Yellow Ware Posset Pot

 Possibly Stafforshire, England

Made Between 1710 and 1760

Photo Courtesy: Massachusetts State Archaeology Department

Brian Cullity describes in slight detail what a posset pot's purpose was in his book.

"Posset was a mixture of spiced hot milk or cream curdled with wine or ale and bread or crackers added to thicken. Variations include Pope's posset, royal posset, sack posset orange and lemon posset to name but a few."

In short, it was a British hot drink of milk, curdled with wine or ale.

Part of the slip decoration on the pot some-what resembles a trident, but aside from that - it also can be interpreted as a tulip. The tulip in the following example demonstrates an American version of tulipware. The blossoming tulip pictured in the middle does some what resemble the trident decoration on the Staffordshire example.

Redware Plate, Attributed to George Hubener, Pennsylvania
Dated 1785

Sold for $351,000 in 2008
(Auction Record for American Redware)

Photo Courtesy: Pook and Pook Auctions - Downington, Pa

It is understood that the use of tulips were popular in early Dutch, German and Continental European cultures, but this obviously does rule out its use in England. Some may argue that England was the central point of Europe during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. The following two examples demonstrate the English use of the flower.

Two-Handled Earthenware Bragget Pot

Likely Staffordshire, England

Dated 1698

Photo Courtesy: Christie's Auctions - London

Earthenware Pitcher

Possibly Staffordshire, England

Dated 1704

Photo Courtesy: Christie's Auctions - London

It's fascinating seeing the variations of style from country to county. I have previously written two reports about the Dutch and German influences of tulip use in American and more specifically, within the early Pennsylvania and North Carolina communities.

Part 1

Part 2

England's definition of the flower is however different from the Dutch and Germans. The style seen in the previous two examples is rarely seen in the American colonies outside of the imported wares. Of those, very few examples have survived above ground. The German and Dutch influence is most obvious among the eighteenth century domestic potters, but as far as I can see, the English style was not used. It could possibly be too early. It may have even proven too costly to produce such an artistic form for early domestic potters. Unfortunately, I do not have an answer for this. Between the posset pot, bragget pot and pitcher, are three different interpretations of the English tulip. It is assumed the interest manifested from the Continental European cultures use of the flower. The English may have first been introduced to the style and use through trade with both Germany and the Netherlands. Their use of the flower dates as far back as the sixteenth-century. The English may have first seen the style as imported utilitarian wares arrived on their shores.

Regardless of all this - I would like to ask for opinion on the slip decorated posset pot. Do you think those are tulips or merely a simple artistic or abstract design that can be left for interpretation? They do resemble the tulip form used in the George Hubener plate. Hubener was of German decent and a working-class potter of eighteenth-century Pennsylvania. It's interesting seeing how a tulip basically captivated the entire globe for more than two-centuries. The design is seen on both sides of the world, from America to China and Japan - and nearly all countries in between. Who would have thought a tulip of all plants would garner such an importance, no matter the origin - from country to country, the world over? It is amazing!

Tulips in early ceramics, the world-over - will be a topic of discussion for some-time.

More research to come....