Colonial Ceramics - Porcelain

This week we go back to our series on early historic ceramics recovered from archaeological sites and their significance in interpreting the historic and archaeological record. Previous posts have included both European and locally produced ceramics of the three main categories: Earthenware, Stoneware and Porcelain. Archaeological research of fragments of broken pottery have led to a better understanding of the pottery industry in the colonies, as well as insightful stories related to the individuals who created, purchased, and used these vessels. Our focus on porcelain is another example of the story a broken piece of pottery can tell us about our past.

Chinese porcelain was imported to England in the fourteenth century as very high end, luxury items often mounted in gilt silver. By the sixteenth century, commercial trade had increased and a greater quantity of porcelain, specifically created for trade, was available, although it was still considered a luxury. Chinese porcelain was the highest quality porcelain produced and was what others attempted to create. It was made from a combination of kaolin clay and finely ground feldspathic rocks, characterized by its high gloss glaze, highly vitreous body of white to light gray and a thin translucent glaze. Decoration in the form of underglaze blue designs of scenery or flowers, and in the late 1700s, the inclusion of red overglaze with gilding on vessels copied from the popular Japanese porcelains. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English potters attempted to produce these various vessel forms and patterns, but never captured the translucency and quality of the Chinese porcelains. However, porcelains of both sources were considered high-end, expensive furnishings that were not obtainable by many households. 

Chinese porcelain cup recovered from excavations by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission at Fort Loudoun (36FR0107). In the collections of The State Museum of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia was the largest colonial city until 1790 and was an important center for commerce. Its location along the Delaware River and in close proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, allowed for shipments from industries across the region. Imported wares from England and the West Indies were stocked by  merchants and shipped to the surrounding communities. Rich in natural resources, manufacturing of an assortment of goods contributed to the Commonwealth’s status. Philadelphia potters established their ability to produce earthenware vessels known as redware in the first half of the 18^th century and were beginning to experiment with production of other vessel forms.

In 1765, the Triphena carried an appeal from Philadelphia merchants to merchants in Liverpool requesting their help in lobbying the British Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act of 1765. Archaeologists found this tin-glazed punch bowl in 2014 on the site of what is now the Museum of the American Revolution. Ceramic vessels embellished with political rhetoric provided an opportunity to express political views for both the potter and the consumer.  On display, the collection of the Museum of the American Revolution, Philadelphia.

The period surrounding the Revolutionary War was ripe with colonial protests over taxation by the British Parliament. The Townshend Acts (1767) were a series of laws and taxes on the American colonies to raise revenue for England following the end of the Seven Years War, known to us as the French & Indian War (1756-1763). Resistance to these taxes and control of the colonies by Parliament incited political writings and increased the resistance to England’s control. Philadelphia newspapers were widely read and expressed the political views of many patriots who inspired colonists to support domestic industries, further reducing dependence on Great Britain.

 COME join hand in hand brave AMERICANS all,

And rouse your bold hearts at fair LIBERTY'S call;

No tyrannous acts shall suppress your just claim,

Or stain with dishonour AMERICA'S name

 
In FREEDOM we're born and in FREEDOM we'll live,

Our purses are ready,

Steady, Friends, steady,

Not as SLAVES, but as FREEMEN our Money we'll give.

Philadelphian John Dickinson wrote The Liberty Song, July 1768

In March of 1770, the Acts were repealed but the decline in demand for British exports had created irreversible change.  To boycott the imported goods and their associated taxes, local industries which could produce wares in forms similar to the British imports had begun.  Seen as symbols of patriotism, interest continued in these local wares even after the termination of England’s taxation.

Philadelphia potters Gousse Bonnin and George Anthony Morris began planning in 1769 for the American China Manufactory, the first American porcelain factory dating from 1770/71-1773 in an area known as Southwark. Their porcelain was described by Joseph Shippen, Jr. to his father in 1771 as “preferable to that made in England, as to its fineness or quality; but as yet it has rather too yellowish a cast, owing to the want of a particular ingredient used in the composition for glazing; which could not hitherto be imported from England on account of the Non-Importation agreement.”

Bonnin and Morris saucer recovered during excavations for the I-95 corridor in 1976, in the area identified as 121-123 Market Street. Collection of The State Museum of Pennsylvania.

Based on historic records, wealthy patriots, such as John Cadwalader, John Dickinson, and John Penn purchased cups, saucers, tea pots, plates, pickle dishes and sauceboats from this factory. Despite the support of these influential patriots, the factory began to faulter and looked to the Pennsylvania General Assembly for financial support in 1771. The cost of starting the factory and the difficulty in finding skilled potters, however, were insurmountable. In November of 1772, a rebellion by their workers against poor working conditions and unfulfilled promises led Bonnin to close the factory and advertise his intention to sell to the highest bidder.

Despite advertisements in newspapers, the factory failed to sell and Bonnin was bankrupt, leading to the property being sold at a sheriff’s sale in July 1774. Bonnin and Morris’s efforts to establish a porcelain factory were sufficiently successful to lead to other porcelain manufacturing in the colonies, so credit for the first porcelain factory lies with them. Indeed, the patriotic movement had taken hold and a desire to break free from British control was greater than ever. The political campaign throughout the colonies to break free culminated in 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia.

The Revolutionary War and the role of Pennsylvania in manufacturing goods was significant. Philadelphia’s patriots would help to lead the way in supplying goods and people necessary to win the war. The American China Factory had ended but, in its place, grew a new industry.

John Adams, who served as a member of the Continental Congress, visited the site in late March 1777, as recounted in a letter to his young son, Charles:

I then went to the Foundery of Brass Cannon. It is in Front Street in Southwark, nearly opposite to the Sweedes Church. This Building was formerly a China Manufactory, but is now converted into a Foundery, under the Direction of Mr. Biers [Byers], late of New York... (Brown, 2007)

A plan of the city of Philadelphia, the capital of Pennsylvania, from an actual survey ,Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, published 1776.  

The 1774 sheriff’s sale described the lot as; “on Front-street aforesaid, 232 feet, and in rear or depth on Wicacoa Lane, 319 feet, containing by computation one acre and an half.”

Excavations conducted by students from the University of Pennsylvania in 1967 and 1968 on the lot described above produced multiple vessel fragments, and discards from the manufacturing process. Comparative research of the fragments with known vessels marked by Bonnin & Morris with either an “S”, sometimes reversed, or a “P” provided a better understanding of the vessel forms produced. Advertisements in a 1771 newspaper had listed only S as a manufacturing mark, but analysis of the clays through x-ray diffraction enabled the identification of additional manufacture marks. The researchers identified manufacture of vessel forms to include fruit baskets with latticework edges, bowls, cups, punch bowls, and sauceboats.

The colonial ceramics recovered at various sites across the Commonwealth are an important tool for studying our past. They reflect consumer behavior, ethnic choices and in the case of those wares produced later in Philadelphia, the beginning of manufacturing in our state. Those industrious individuals that produced wares from local clays in a similar manner as they had in England, created an industry that would see Pennsylvania become a leader in manufacturing of durable goods for decades to come. We invite you to view additional examples of colonial ceramics on the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission’s on-line collections. 

References

Brown, Michael K.

2007      Piecing Together the Past: Recent Research on the American China Manufactory, 1769-1772. Ceramics in America, Chipstone Foundation.

 

John L. Cotter, Daniel G. Roberts, and Michael Parrington

1992      The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.    

Hume, I. N.

2001      A Guide to the Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Pennsylvania Press

 https://history.delaware.gov/john-dickinson-plantation/dickinsonletters/john-dickinson/. Accessed 6/1/21.

  

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

By George - It’s a Coin! The Impact of King George on Archaeology

Archaeologists use many tools in determining the age or date for an archaeological feature (ground disturbance such as wells, privies, storage pits etc.) during the investigation of an archaeological site.  Dating methods include C-14 dates, manufacturing marks on artifacts, soil stratigraphy and typologies developed by archaeologists from assembled data and artifact analysis.  For American Colonial sites, what better resource for determining the date of a feature than a coin; unless of course they are one of the many counterfeit coins either imported or produced in the colonies.  

The early colonists arriving in North America continued to use the British currency rates of pound, shilling and pence. A shortage of small coinage in England in the 17^th century saw the beginning of the use of copper coins with tinplating to replace the more costly silver coins.  Copper coins without the tin- plating were soon being produced by English tradesmen without license from Parliament. They produced coinage with their own names and markings, prompting the adoption of official copper coinage in halfpennies and farthings. King Charles II established monetary increments for coinage and the practice of portraying the monarchy on the coins, the first copper coin was issued in 1672.  The reverse side was reserved for Britannia, the symbol of British strength dating to the Roman conquest in 43 AD and the Latin name for Britain.  

King George I coin, Fort Hunter (36Da159) - (From the collections of the State Museum of Pennsylvania)

The 18^th century saw the reign of George -I, II and III. King George I ruled England from 1714-1727 following the death of his mother Princess Anne. His son, George II reigned from 1727-1760; he died before the end of the Seven Years’ War or the French and Indian War as it was known in the Americas. Following the death of his grandfather, George III ruled from 1760 to 1820, a period which included the end of the Seven Years’ War, the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Official British coinage issued during this period all bore portraits of each of these men.

George II, 1729-1739 (Young face), Fort Hunter (36Da159) - (From the collections of the State Museum of Pennsylvania)

Small copper currency was in high demand in the colonies and a severe shortage of coins had led to the issuing of paper notes by individual colonies in the 18^th century. This paper money was printed to finance loans and enabled commerce without a reliance on British coins but was eventually banned by Parliament. The overvaluation of British coins and the supply shortage led to a surge in the production of counterfeit coins in England.  Counterfeiters would melt the coppers and mix in other metals such as lead, tin and zinc to produce the same size coin but at a lower cost, thus making a profit. Cast counterfeit coins were so prolific in England that by 1753 it was estimated that about half the circulating copper was counterfeit. The large numbers of regal English coppers, sent legally to the colonies, were quickly followed by the counterfeit ones. Commerce was flooded with these counterfeit issues which were accepted by a generally uncritical public whose only concern was that they receive full value for their copper coinage. (Coinage of the American Confederation Period, Mossman, Philip L. Coinage of the Americas Conference at the American Numismatic Society, New York, 1995). 

Philadelphia, August 23d, 1757, Minutes of the Provincial Council

The Pennsylvania Gazette of November 1753 issued a warning regarding the influx of counterfeit English Halfpence “great quantities of which we understand are lately imported”. The copper coins of King George II were last issued in 1754, no copper coins were issued by the Royal Mint until 1770 and were George III coins at that time. This long period without new coinage meant that this earlier coinage, if discovered at an archaeological site should be well worn from heavy use. Cleaning and conservation of coins recovered at Fort Hunter during our investigations is necessary to conduct further research as to their date of issue and potential identification as counterfeit currency.  Counterfeiters were producing coins with the portraits of George facing the opposite direction, missing dates, wrong dates and of varying weights. Anti-counterfeiting laws were enacted but the abundance of counterfeit monies in circulation and being imported made it difficult to control. This continued until the American Revolution when the shortage of copper led to the melting of counterfeit coins and a devaluation of British currency. 

Counterfeit George II, 1757 Fort Morris (36Cu202) - (From the collections of the State Museum of Pennsylvania)

As indicated above, identifying these counterfeit coins could be difficult due to the “crafty” workmanship. Despite efforts to control these counterfeits, they remained in circulation for extended periods and if dates were included, they often were worn and difficult to read.   Archaeologists are dealing with coins that have been exposed to acids in the soil and other factors that impact preservation, often defying identification. In the case of the George coins research of issue dates, weight and size is crucial to identifying the real coins vs. the counterfeits.  The British Museum has assembled much of this data and, with the aid of digitization of collections, we are able to conduct comparative research. The following compiled dates reflects the range of years that the Royal Mint issued coinage for the three George’s.

                                            Halfpenny Coins

George I; issue dates

1717-1718 type 1                1719-1724 type 2

George II

1729-1739 (young face)    1740-1754 (old face)

George III

1770-1775           

Coinage from Camp Security (36Yo46) - (From the collections of the State Museum of Pennsylvania)

The recovery of King George coins on our archeological sites include Native American village sites such as Conestoga Town (36La52) 1690-1763 , French & Indian War sites to include Fort Morris (36Cu202) and Fort Hunter (36Da159), Ephrata Cloister (36La981) a celibate community begun in 1732 and Camp Security (36Yo46) a Revolutionary War Prison Camp. These coins have all contributed to our understanding of the sites on which they were recovered and yes, even those counterfeit coins contribute to the archaeological record and reveal another facet of our past.

We hope you’ve enjoyed learning about these coins and invite you to visit some of our previous blogs which share images and information of these and other coins.

 

References

Minutes of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania (Colony) Provincial council. Minutes. United States: J. Severns, 1851.

Noel Hume, Ivor. A guide to artifacts of colonial America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001.

https://coins.nd.edu/; British Coinage Circulating in the Colonies

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection

 

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Identifying Patriotism through Archaeology

Many of our blogs since quarantining have been related to the pandemic; how the staff of the Section of Archaeology works from home, updates on lab projects, a virtual tour of publicly accessible archaeological sites around Pennsylvania, and the effects of epidemics on Native American populations in the past. The pandemic has changed much of our daily routines and forced us to examine our priorities in an effort to avoid crowds and exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Unfortunately, not all of us have chosen to follow the guidance of scientists and doctors who universally advise social distancing and above all - wearing a mask. Protesters have argued that this guidance is an infringement on personal rights - a violation of the Constitution. Some have identified masks as a political tool or a sign of weakness. The upcoming July 4th holiday- Independence Day in the United States is an opportunity for us to examine the archaeological record for evidence of the social unrest and patriotism that gave birth to our nation. The following are several examples from the City of Brotherly Love.

Philadelphia was the largest city in North America in the 18th century and home to a diverse community of European skilled laborers and professionals. The city’s location on the Delaware River and the Chesapeake Bay provided an important port for commerce in the developing Commonwealth and contributed to its role in early Colonial government. Penn’s vision for religious freedom and his Quaker beliefs placed these pacifists in the middle, as protests erupted prior to the French & Indian War. The Quaker government, known as the Provincial Council, chose to avoid conflict, despite pleas from settlers to control the Indian tribes living in the region. Virginia wanted to control lands in the Ohio River Valley for future expansion and wanted Pennsylvania to assist in removing the French from the north west corner of the Commonwealth.

An important political figure of the time was Ben Franklin. Archaeology conducted at his home and printing press yielded artifacts that supported his role as a scientist. He had many interests, including paleontology based on a mastodon tooth recovered in these excavations. This discovery links Franklin’s interest in science to the social and economic events of his time and the general dissatisfaction with the British government ruled by a king located 3000 miles away. The colonies were not dominated by the old traditions of Europe, but rather new concepts of government were emerging including democracy and self-rule. Franklin’s role as the first Postmaster and his printing of the Pennsylvania Gazette were an opportunity to spread ideas of independence and publish his experiments with electricity.

Mastadon tooth.
Credit: Philadelphia Archaeology Forum

Franklin’s role within the Provincial government increased as the tensions between colonists and Native Americans escalated. He saw a need to unite the colonies in their effort to control territories. His political cartoon Join or Die and accompanying editorial “The Disunited State” published in 1754 called for the colonies to join with the British to defeat the French and the Indians. He essentially implored us to come together to defeat our enemies or we will fail.

Join or Die.
Credit: Library of Congress

(The Benjamin Franklin History website was created by the Benjamin Franklin Historical Society as part of of the University of Massachusetts History Club )

Franklin needed to inspire the Quaker pacifists to take action and for the other colonies to take up arms in a united effort. His political cartoon was the first one published and led the way for others to push for funding and support of a militia.

Franklin had limited military experience but, with the assistance of Conrad Weiser, was instrumental in organizing the Pennsylvania Militia and was significant in his multiple roles during the French & Indian War (1756-1763). The costs of fighting a war in the Americas and around the globe during the Seven Years War took a toll on Britain’s economy. This led to multiple taxes imposed on the colonies to raise revenue. The 1765 Stamp Act was initiated to raise monies for British troops and required the purchase of stamps for all official documents. Opposition to the Act was illustrated in newspapers, political cartoons and even teapots. Fragments of teapots have been recovered at several archaeological sites in the Philadelphia area.

Stamp Act Tea Pot
Credit:  Wikimedia

This remarkable punch bowl was recovered during excavations for the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia. Produced in England and based on research of digitized American and British newspapers by the archaeologists, the story of this bowl was revealed. The bowl was likely produced to commemorate the launch of a new ship or to mark a voyage. The December 1, 1763 edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette carried an advertisement for merchants Robert Lewis and Son, located on Front Street in Philadelphia, where they offered an assortment of goods just imported on the “Triphena, Captain Smith, from Liverpool.” It is certainly no coincidence that Captain Smith’s travels on the Triphena over the next few years regularly carried him to Liverpool, the place where the punch bowl was made, as well as Philadelphia, Charleston, and the West Indies.

Punch Bowl
Credit:  Philadelphia Archaeology Forum

The slogan Success to the Triphena on the interior of the bowl demonstrated support of the merchant trade and the dependency on trade. The Triphena also played a role in the protests of the Stamp Act by colonists. In late 1765, Captain Smith carried a notice from the merchants and traders of Philadelphia addressed to the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain, asking assistance in pressuring Parliament to repeal the offensive act. The Act was repealed in March of 1766 but tensions between England and the colonies continued to grow, eventually leading up to the Revolutionary War.

Franklin’s appointment during the Revolutionary War to the Committee of Safety led to the installation of a series of chevaux-de- frise in the Delaware River to defend Philadelphia. The assistance of France in our efforts to defeat the British was significant in developing and engineering this line of defense to protect Fort Mifflin and Fort Mercer which were positioned south of Philadelphia. The sharp pointed tip of the chevaux-de-frise was not visible at high tide but at low tide was intended to puncture the hull or at minimum, slow the approaching British ships. Unfortunately, British forces were able to navigate through the defense and attack and defeat both forts before occupying Philadelphia in the winter of 1777.

Map of Chevaux-de-frise
Credit:  Library of Congress

Hurricane Sandy in November 2012 stirred up debris from the bottom of the Delaware River and wreaked havoc on communities. The clean-up effort by the Anchor Yacht Club of the river at Bristol, PA yielded a single cheval de fries. Their discovery of a 28’8” long oak post with the iron tip intact is the longest example recovered to date. It’s diameter tapers from 13.6” at the base to 6.2” at the tip.

Cheval-de-Frise installed at Brandywine Battlefield
Credit: PHMC

Franklin’s Committee of Safety had recognized this form of land defense as a potential method for defending Philadelphia from British forces, but they didn’t factor in loyalists who might provide the British with locational information which would allow for navigation around the obstacles. The placement of these massive logs required large wooden cribs (some 40 x 45 foot) and tons of stone to secure the posts. There were attempts to keep their installation secretive, but they couldn’t be installed without observation by loyalists. The wealthy merchants of Philadelphia stood to lose if trade between England and Philadelphia ceased. Historians suggest that between twenty and thirty percent of the citizens were loyalists (Tories) and about the same number were Quaker pacifists who were unwilling to fight. Raids by Loyalist troops on households confiscated goods intended for Washington’s troops. In 1778 the state legislature in Lancaster passed the Act of Attainder to confiscate the properties of all who joined or supported the British. When British troops fled Philadelphia at the end of June 1778, an estimated 60,000 loyalists had fled the country. British supporters still here lost their properties, many fled to Nova Scotia and African Americans who sided with the British were returned to slavery in the Caribbean.

Political divide continued to define Pennsylvania well into the 19th century and artifacts that illustrate that support or divide from England continued to be produced. This glass tumbler was recovered by archaeologists prior to the construction of Independence National Historical Park. The simple political message- LIBERTY, expresses the support of the struggles for independence. It also provides a personal connection to the German baker who lived in the house where this tumbler was recovered. His privy yielded household goods reflective of a simple lifestyle with a few upscale goods, commonly found in colonial house lots.

Tumbler
Credit: Philadelphia Archaeology Forum

These are just a few artifacts that illustrate Pennsylvania’s role in the development of our democracy as we know it. There are still divides amongst us ranging from rural and urban, conservative and liberal, wealthy and poor, white and non-white. Our passion for political causes and issues are at the root of who we are as a Commonwealth. Note that we are not a State, we are a Commonwealth, defined as a community formed for the common good and welfare of all. Wow- the Common Good and Welfare of All. Those are strong, meaningful words- they were in the 18th century and they still are today. As I write this blog and think about the artifacts illustrated here and the passionate causes they represented, I have to wonder what future generations will think of our artifacts that illustrate current viewpoints. Can we come together as a community and be mindful of our need to social distance and wear masks? I think we can if we can think about the determination and conviction of our forefathers in leading us to be an Independent Nation, it seems like a small sacrifice to wear a mask.

We thank you for continuing to follow our blog and hope that you’ve found this post of interest as we continue to telework at home. Keep checking our collections on the PHMC Collections page and following our blog. We thank all of you who support preservation of our past so we can share this material with you and generations to come. Enjoy our freedoms and celebrate July 4th, 2020 wisely – stay safe and healthy!

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Early Ceramics of Philadelphia: Examples from the Market Street Project

Many of the collections in the Section of Archaeology were recovered from the city of Philadelphia. These collections are full of beautiful ceramic vessels that document the European settlement and early occupation of this area. Today we will look at a collection from Market Street that contains a wide variety of ceramics.

The city of Philadelphia was founded in 1682 by William Penn and his Quaker followers and by the end of the eighteenth century was the largest urban center in the United States. The earliest settlement of the city began along the waterfront of the Delaware River along Front Street and spread north and south. Market Street runs west from Front Street toward the Schuylkill River and is part of the “old City”. As well as being one of the earliest sections of the city, the east end of Market Street housed the first printing office of Benjamin Franklin, in which he printed The Pennsylvania Gazette.

Map of the city of Philadelphia in 1802 Showing Market Street and the waterfront (Public Domain)

Archaeological excavations were undertaken in the 1970s by PennDOT prior to the construction of an access ramp over I-95 between the Penn’s Landing Development and Market Street.

Preliminary work on this project would involve the demolition of 19 structures from Market Street to Church Street and between Front and Second Streets. The firm of Abraham Levy Architect, under the direction of Herbert Levy and Charles Hunter, was hired to conduct archaeological salvage prior to the demolition activities.

Surprisingly, beneath the buildings located within the demolition area a number of historic features were found, including wells, privies, garbage pits, and foundations of earlier buildings. These features represented the daily life of this part of the city during the early-eighteenth through mid-nineteenth centuries. Thousands of artifacts were recovered from the excavations and a total of eight sites were recorded (36Ph1 thru 36Ph8).

During the earliest years of settlement of Philadelphia, a large proportion of its ceramics would have been imported from England. Types such as Nottingham and Fulham stonewares, Staffordshire earthenware, and North Devon Sgraffito are all named for the areas of England in which they were produced.  Examples of these types were recovered from the Market Street sites.

Early English ceramics, including: (l. to r.) Fulham stoneware, Nottingham stoneware, combed Staffordshire, North Devon Sgraffito earthenware, combed Staffordshire (photo by PHMC)

Porcelain from China was a very popular type of ceramic that was introduced to Europe in the sixteenth century and was later produced specifically for the export market. Attempts to reproduce Chinese porcelain in the early to mid-1700s were unsuccessful but resulted in a new type of ceramic called tin-glazed earthenware, which was manufactured in England, France, Italy, and Spain.

Examples of tin-glazed earthenware (top) and Chinese porcelain (bottom) from Market Street (photo by PHMC)

Another common type of ceramic was red earthenware or redware, so-called due to its red color. Redware has been made for centuries and continues to be made to this day. Although the first redware would have been brought from England and Europe, local potteries were soon established. Local clay sources from within the city itself were used for manufacture of bricks and likely were also used for making redware.

Brightly colored examples of redware from Market Street sites (photo by PHMC)

Two such local redware potters were Daniel Topham, who operated a pottery along 8^th and Filbert Streets from 1766 to 1783, and Andrew Miller, Sr., who purchased the same property and operated his pottery from 1785 until his sons took over in the early 1800s. It is not known if any of the redware pieces in the collection were made by either Topham or Miller, but it is certainly possible that some of the redware comes from one or both of these sites.

Throughout the 1700s, potters continued to attempt to produce “porcelain-like” pottery and more refined ceramic types. These ranged from more delicate redwares, white (and scratch-blue) salt-glazed stoneware, and creamware.

Three teapots: (l. to r.) Refined red ware, white salt-glazed stoneware, and creamware

Thin-bodied, white earthenwares with beautiful and creative decoration, called pearlware, developed near the end of the eighteenth century. Pearlwares were very popular and came in a wide range of decorative techniques including mocha, banded or annular, marbled, engine-turned, rouletted, dipped, and many others.

Pearlware and creamware vessels with a variety of decoration were recovered from Market Street sites: mocha and banded mocha, dipped, engine-turned and rouletted, and marbled (photo by PHMC)

Even more delicate pearlwares can be found in the form of teacups and bowls. A great assortment of teacups, bowls, and saucers were recovered from the Market Street sites. Many of these are decorated with flowers, geometric designs, and Chinese scenes that have been hand painted or transfer-printed.

Pearlware teacups and saucers in varying designs and patterns (photo by PHMC)

These are just some of the many types of ceramics that were found during the excavations at Market Street. While the majority of the pieces discussed here were imported from Europe there were also a great number of potteries in and around the Philadelphia area throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that may be examined in future blogs. Additionally, ceramics were not the only artifacts recovered from these sites as they were rich with domestic goods and personal items that tell a story about the lives of the people of Philadelphia.

Due to the numbers of archaeological projects and recorded sites in Philadelphia, there are also many other site collections that contain these types of historic ceramics. As always, the Market Street assemblage and other collections held by the Section of Archaeology are available for use by anyone with scholarly research objectives.

Archaeological research of early ceramics has yielded fascinating information about consumerism in colonial America. The wealthy Quaker households of Philadelphia contained fine imported ceramics and glass stemware as opposed to the working-class neighborhoods with their locally made redware plates, bowls and tankards. The key role Philadelphia’s location along the Delaware and Schuylkill river played an important part in distributing these ceramics into the surrounding communities and researchers have traced Philadelphia potters across Pennsylvania.

We hope you’ve enjoyed learning more about these beautiful ceramics but will also understand the important information they hold for archaeologists in understanding the activities of our early settlers. Preservation of the archaeological record from these historic neighborhoods have produced numerous publications. Below is a list of just a few that help to tell the story of Philadelphia’s past. We hope you will be inspired to examine the archaeological record of your community and help us to preserve the past.

For Additional Reading:

Carpentier, Donald and Jonathan Rickard

2001            Slip Decoration in the Age of Industrialization. Ceramics in America 2001. Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI.

Cotter, John L., Daniel G. Roberts, Michael Parrington

1992            The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Articles on Bonnin and Morris, Philadelphia porcelain makers:

Hunter, Robert

2007            Ceramics in America. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH.

Myers, Susan H.

1980            Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Ceramics in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, No. 43. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Orr, David G.

2003            Samuel Malkin in Philadelphia: A Remarkable Slipware Assemblage. Ceramics in America 2003, pp. 252-255 (http://www.chipstone.org/article.php/97/Ceramics-in-America-2003/Samuel-Malkin-in-Philadelphia:-A-remarkable-Slipware-Assemblage).

Yamin, Rebecca

-->

2008            Digging in the City of Brotherly Love: Stories from Philadelphia Archaeology. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .
--> --> --> --> --> -->