ABSTRACT Title of Document: THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF BALTIMORE?S 19TH-CENTURY WORKING CLASS STONEWARE POTTERS John Elliot Kille, Ph.D. 2009 Directed By: Professor Mary Corbin Sies, Department of American Studies In the world of ceramics, too often there is a focus on the ?greatness? or ?uniqueness? of potters. Traditional approaches involving decorative arts tend to favor rarity or aesthetic qualities of the wares they produced, while archaeological studies often rely on systematic categorizations or classifications of recovered ceramics, with little in the way of interpretation from a humanistic point of view. With regard to Baltimore?s 19th-century stoneware potters, portions of their history or narrow related aspects have been studied, but there has been no attempt made to examine the birth, life, and death of an industry that lasted for a century. In order to better understand the vernacular or ordinary existence of these skilled potters a comprehensive study was undertaken to document the dynamic and changing cultural landscape to which they belonged. In addition, the experiences and contributions of these artisans are also placed within the perspective of working class labor history. This research project is concerned with the following three central questions. How did Baltimore?s 19th-century stoneware industry shape the city?s social, physical, and natural environment? How did the social, physical, and natural environment shape Baltimore?s stoneware industry? What key historical circumstances such as industrialization, new technologies, and modern manufacturing methods influenced these dynamic relationships? The framing of research and interrogation of evidence involved a systematic, interdisciplinary cultural landscapes model that creates a three-way relationship between humans, artifacts (the built environment), and the natural environment. A systematic social history methodology was also used to recover accessible types of data involving the social/economic and cultural dimensions of urban places, including artifactual evidence. This study reveals a cultural landscape shaped by enduring cultural traditions, a superior transportation system for marketing wares, a shared and restricted urban environment involving pollution and the threat of fire, and industrialization leading to technological advancements in food preservation and storage. THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF BALTIMORE?S 19TH-CENTURY WORKING CLASS STONEWARE POTTERS By John Elliot Kille Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2009 Advisory Committee: Professor Mary Corbin Sies, Chair Professor Nancy L. Struna Professor Christina B. Hanhardt Professor Paul Shackel Dr. Al Luckenbach ? Copyright by John Elliot Kille 2009 ii Dedication The support of my family enabled me to achieve a Ph.D. degree, and this dissertation is dedicated to my wife Joanna, my sons Alexander Wistar and Andrew Paschall, my mother Donna Kille, and my sister and brother-in-law, Pam and Paul Kaplan. iii Acknowledgements I am very grateful to my advisor, Dr. Mary Corbin Sies, who more than any other person inspired and influenced my doctoral work. I have benefited enormously from her scholarly expertise, approaches, and outlooks involving the cultural landscape, social history, and working class labor studies. She made it possible for me to undertake this comprehensive research project, and the benefit of her wise counsel, encouragement, and editing enabled me to complete it. This dissertation is also due in large part to Dr. Al Luckenbach, Anne Arundel County Archaeologist and Director of the Lost Towns Project. Another true mentor, his insightful opinions and perspectives kept me on track, and, in many cases, resulted in new research finds and interpretations. Dr. Nancy Struna helped guide me through the comprehensive exam process, and broadened my perspectives as I crafted and finalized my dissertation. Dr. Paul Shackel played an important role with my proposal, in particular, reinforcing my desire to learn more about the experiences and contributions of working class craftsmen. Finally, I greatly appreciate the involvement of Dr. Christina Hanhardt who also made it possible for me to defend this dissertation. Several museums and institutions facilitated my research, and I would like to thank the staff at the Maryland Historical Society, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, Maryland State Archives, Enoch Pratt Free Library Maryland Room, Baltimore City Archives, University of Maryland at College Park Maryland Room, and the Special Collections Department of the University of Delaware Library. A number of individuals also provided invaluable assistance, notably Robert Hunter, editor of the Chipstone Foundation?s Ceramics in America journal. He gave me opportunities to salvage 19th-century stoneware sites in Virginia as well as publish articles in various editions of his journal. The most outstanding photographs accompanying this dissertation were taken by professional photographer Gavin Ashworth and were originally used to illustrate two articles I authored in the 2005 edition of Ceramics in America. Dr. Edward Papenfuse, Chief Archivist of the Maryland State Archives, shared his considerable knowledge and insights on various aspects of my chapters and gave me access to his excellent web site on the history of Baltimore. Archivist David Angerhofer with the Maryland Historical Society lent his extensive knowledge regarding the Baltimore Equitable Society Collection. Rebecca Gunby, City Archivist and Records Manager of the Baltimore City Archives, directed me to important 19th-century Baltimore city records. Becky Morehouse, Curator of State Collections with the MAC Lab, enabled me to explore the archaeological collection associated with the Maulden Perine-William Linton site. Professor Ed Kee with the University of Delaware helped to facilitate my research on the canning industry. Archivists Connie Potter with the National Archives and Beth Rowe with the University of North Carolina Library clarified aspects of census records. Bob Ogle of Annapolis provided several examples from his outstanding collection which are featured in this dissertation. Also, Valerie Brown with the University of Maryland American Studies Department helped with many administrative aspects involving my coursework and dissertation. iv Table of Contents Dedication .................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................iii Table of Contents .....................................................................................................iv List of Tables............................................................................................................vi List of Figures ........................................................................................................ viii Chapter 1: Introduction..............................................................................................1 Examining Baltimore?s 19th-Century Stoneware Industry......................................7 Methodology .......................................................................................................11 Sources................................................................................................................15 Chapter 2: A Stoneware Craft Emerges and Endures ...............................................17 Introduction .........................................................................................................17 Maryland?s Earliest Earthenware Production .......................................................21 England Launches a Queensware Revolution.......................................................32 The Emergence of Stoneware Potters...................................................................35 Cultural Traditions and Craft-Centricity...............................................................40 Serving the Needs of Communities ......................................................................59 Contemporary Treatments....................................................................................62 Conclusions .........................................................................................................67 Chapter 3: Urbanized Stoneware Manufacture.........................................................70 Introduction .........................................................................................................70 Distinctive Urban Environment............................................................................71 Rural Potters........................................................................................................82 Growing Population and Retail Base....................................................................95 Expanding Transportation Network ...................................................................106 Conclusions .......................................................................................................113 Chapter 4: Turning Craft into Profit.......................................................................115 Introduction .......................................................................................................115 Spreading the Word ...........................................................................................117 China Merchants................................................................................................127 Potters Serving Potters.......................................................................................140 Marketing Beyond the City................................................................................142 Conclusions .......................................................................................................151 Chapter 5: Using the Natural Environment ...........................................................153 Introduction .......................................................................................................153 Mining Natural Resources .................................................................................156 Pollution, Profit, and Problems ..........................................................................165 Occupational Health Hazards.............................................................................185 Conclusions .......................................................................................................187 Chapter 6: A Cultural Landscape Under Fire ........................................................190 Introduction .......................................................................................................190 Operating Stoneware Kilns ................................................................................193 Assessing the Risk of Fire-The Baltimore Equitable Society..............................200 v Neighborhood Opposition to Kilns.....................................................................205 Local Governmental Oversight of Kilns.............................................................212 Conclusions .......................................................................................................222 Chapter 7: Recognizing Ethnic Heritage ...............................................................225 Introduction .......................................................................................................225 Material Culture and Cultural Reflectivity .........................................................227 The Short Paper Trail of Immigrant Potters........................................................243 Comparing Vessel Forms...................................................................................251 Comparing Decorative Motifs............................................................................258 Conclusions .......................................................................................................265 Chapter 8: Adapting to Industrialization ...............................................................267 Introduction .......................................................................................................267 Changing Roles and Expectations of Workers....................................................270 Standardization of Baltimore Utilitarian Stoneware ...........................................280 Specialized Diversification ................................................................................284 Baltimore?s Fineware Industry...........................................................................298 Conclusions .......................................................................................................323 Chapter 9: Mechanization Overtakes Craft.............................................................326 Introduction .......................................................................................................326 Reperiodization of Baltimore?s Hand Craft Stoneware Tradition........................329 Baltimore Leads the Way in Metal Canning.......................................................334 Self-Sealing Canning Jars ..................................................................................342 Regional Stoneware Competitors Mechanize .....................................................356 Conclusions .......................................................................................................364 Chapter 10: Conclusions.......................................................................................367 Appendices............................................................................................................386 Bibliography..........................................................................................................399 vi List of Tables Chapter 2 Table 1-Baltimore potters and their apprentices, 1772-1848. Table 2-Orphan boys who apprenticed with Baltimore potters from 1806-1827. Chapter 3 Table 3-Potteries in Baltimore and Maryland counties as compiled from the Seventh Census of the U.S., 1850, Schedule-Products of Industry, Maryland. Table 4-Potteries in Baltimore and Maryland counties as compiled from the Eighth Census of the U.S., 1860, Schedule 5-Products of Industry, Maryland. Table 5-Potteries in Baltimore and Maryland counties as compiled from the Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Schedule 3-Manufactures, Products of Industry, Maryland. Table 6-Maryland farmer-potters John Morrison of Cecil County and Thomas Grice of Harford County as compiled from the Eighth Census of the U.S., 1860, Products of Industry and Agricultural Production Schedules, Maryland. Table 7-Population change in Baltimore from 1790-1890. Table 8-Top five most populous U.S. cities, 1800-1840. Chapter 7 Table 9-List of foreign-born potters compiled from the Seventh Census of the U.S., 1850, Schedule 1-Population, Baltimore, Maryland. Table 10-Immigrant potters recorded entering the port of Baltimore, compiled from Baltimore Passenger and Immigration Lists, 1820-1872. Table 11-Immigrant potters listed in Baltimore Passenger and Immigration Lists, 1820-1872, who are later identified as potters in U.S. Census records. Chapter 8 Table 12-Stoneware in the inventory of M. Perine and Sons at the beginning of 1885. vii Chapter 9 Table 13-U.S. population-people per square mile, percent living in rural areas, percent living in urban areas, and percent living on farms, 1790-1890. Table 14- Select canners of vegetables and fruits in Baltimore in 1880 as compiled from the Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Schedule 3-Manufactures, Products of Industry, Maryland. viii List of Figures Chapter 2 Figure 1-Earthenware pitchers attributed to Morgan Jones, St. Mary?s City, Maryland, ca. 1660s. Figure 2-Oil painting depicting the ferry keeper?s house at Ferry Point on the north shore of the South River, ca. 1840. Figure 3-Earthenware jar, possibly by John Wamsley, ca. 1725. Excavated at the site of London Town?s Rumney-West Ordinary in present-day Edgewater, Maryland. Figure 4-Light-colored creamware serving vessels, Staffordshire, England, ca. 1775- 1820. Figure 5-Rococo shell-edged pearlware plate decorated with flowers and insects, England, ca. 1780-1815. Figure 6-Three stoneware vessels made in Mid-Atlantic region. Figure 7-Oil painting of Baltimore potter Thomas Morgan, ca. 1830. Figure 8-Photo of unidentified stoneware potter crafting jug by hand on wheel, probably Baltimore, ca. late-19th century. Figure 9-Two stoneware jars inscribed by Solomon Bell at pottery of John Bell, Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, 1874. Chapter 3 Figure 10-Photo of Baltimore Street, looking west toward North Avenue, now called Guilford, ca. 1870. Figure 11-1800 pottery sites superimposed on map by Charles Varle, Warner & Hanna?s Plan of the City and Environs of Baltimore, 1801. Figure 12-1820 pottery sites superimposed on map by Fielding Lucas Jr., Plan of the City of Baltimore, 1822. Figure 13-1840 pottery sites superimposed on map by Fielding Lucas Jr., Plan of the City of Baltimore, 1841. ix Figure 14-1860 pottery sites superimposed on map by S. Augustus Mitchell Jr., Plan of Baltimore, 1860. Figure 15-1880 pottery sites superimposed on map by William P. Twamley [for the Baltimore Sun], Map of the City of Baltimore, 1882. Figure 16-Photo of potter Henry Schofield and mule grinding clay, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. Figure 17-Photo of potter Henry Schofield turning vessel on potter?s wheel, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. Figure 18-Photo of potter Henry Schofield stacking vessels in pottery kiln, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. Figure 19-Photo of potter Henry Schofield stoking kiln, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. Figure 20-Photo of finished wares made by potter Henry Schofield, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. Figure 21-Late 19th-century view from a stereoscope card of the Baltimore Basin (present-day Inner Harbor) looking north from historic Federal Hill toward the city?s commercial center. Figure 22-Two stoneware jugs impressed ?CHARLES W. SIEBERT WINES & LIQUORS N.E. COR. PRATT & MARKET SPACE BALTIMORE MD? and ?HAMMEL & BONEAU IMP?S? OF WINES & LIQUORS 16 CENTRE MARKET SPACE,? Baltimore, ca. mid-1870s to early-1880s. Figure 23-Two stoneware coolers impressed ?Dr. B. BATES, WINE CIDER? and ?MEETER & BRO,? Baltimore, ca. 1870s. Figure 24-Stoneware butter crock impressed ?S. CLAYTON & SONS BUTTER PACKERS BALTIMORE,? Baltimore, ca. 1845-1850. Figure 25-Stoneware jug impressed ?NUMSEN?S YACHT CLUB VINEGAR,? Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. Figure 26-Stoneware jar impressed ?GEO. H. EDGAR SHIP CHANDLERS & GROCERS NO. 73 SMITH?S WHARF BALTIMORE? and stoneware jug impressed ?H. STEFFENS SHIP-CHANDLER 987 & 989 FELL ST BALTIMORE MD,? Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. x Figure 27-Stoneware jug impressed ?HUGH BOLTON & CO. DEALERS IN GLASS, OILS & PAINTS, 81 & 83 MCELDRY?S WHF BALTIMORE,? Baltimore, ca. 1870s- 1880s. Figure 28-Sales receipt, Hugh Bolton & Co., July 1, 1872. Figure 29-Stoneware jug impressed ?STUMPFS, IRON & CHERRY TONIC THE GREAT FAMILY MEDICINE, OFFICE N.E. COR BALT, & WOLF STS FACTORY 605 LUZERNE ST BALT MD,? Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. Figure 30-1872 newspaper advertisements placed in the Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser by the Powhatan Steamboat Co. and the Baltimore and Southern Steam Transportation Company. Figure 31-Photo of steamships docked at piers around the Baltimore Basin, ca. 1872. Figure 32-Engraved map showing railroad lines connected to Baltimore, including the B. & O. Railroad running westward from Baltimore to St. Louis, 1856. Figure 33-Map showing development of rail lines and stations in Baltimore during the 19th century. Chapter 4 Figure 34-Newspaper ad placed by Thomas Morgan, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1804. Figure 35-Newspaper ad placed by Thomas Morgan, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1809. Figure 36-Ad for Maryland Potteries, Baltimore Directory for 1845. Figure 37-Newspaper ad placed by M. Perine and Sons, Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, 1872. Figure 38-Newspaper ad placed by three Baltimore stoneware manufacturers announcing a uniform price structure, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1812. Figure 39-Newspaper ad placed by four Baltimore stoneware manufacturers announcing a uniform price structure, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1815. Figure 40-Newspaper ad placed by Henry Myers, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1823. xi Figure 41-Newspaper ad placed by china merchant James Pawley, Jr., Baltimore Directory for 1845. Figure 42-Newspaper ad placed by china merchant William Myers, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1815. Figure 43-Stoneware jar impressed ?H. Myers,? Baltimore, ca. 1821-1829. Figure 44-Stoneware jar impressed ?Myers and Bokee,? Baltimore, ca. late 1830s. Figure 45-Ad placed by china merchant William F. Bokee, Baltimore Directory for 1845. Figure 46-Stoneware jar impressed ?Ernest & Cowles,? Baltimore, ca. 1829-1852. Figure 47-Glass bottle embossed ?Shirley & Cook,? Baltimore, ca. 1855-1860. Figure 48-Fragments of earthenware teapot, Baltimore, 1826. This teapot was excavated at City Point, Virginia. Figure 49-Stoneware milk pan inscribed by Morgan & Amoss, Baltimore, 1822. Figure 50-Stoneware jar inscribed ?Pitt St. Baltimore,?ca. 1819-1825. Figure 51-Stoneware jar inscribed by Hugh R. Marshall, Baltimore, 1822. Figure 52-Stoneware jar with Hugh R. Marshall maker?s mark, Baltimore, probably 1820s. Figure 53-Stoneware jars inscribed ?Baltimore,? ca. 1830s-1840s. Figure 54-Stoneware jar impressed ?BS HOOPER DEALER IN GROCERIES & LIQUORS FARMVILLE VA,? probably Baltimore, ca. 1860s-1880s. Chapter 5 Figure 55-Map identifying Potomac Group of Raritan, Patapsco, Arundel, and Patuxent clay formations. Figure 56-Stoneware clay beds along shore of Bodkins Point, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Figure 57-Political campaign button for William McKinley, 1900. xii Figure 58-Map overlay showing location of cosigners of 1817 petition to raise the height of kiln stacks and known pottery sites for same year. Figure 59-Engraving of Edwin Bennett Pottery Company, Baltimore, Maryland, ca. late-1890s. Figure 60-Engraving of J. E. Jeffords & Company, Philadelphia City Pottery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1875. Figure 61-Engraving of C. C. Thompson & Company, East Liverpool, Ohio, 1875. Figure 62-Engraving of Glasgow Pottery Works, Trenton, New Jersey, 1875. Chapter 6 Figure 63-Excavated base of ca. 1835-1845 round or ?bottle? kiln owned by Baltimore china merchant James Pawley Sr. at Russell and Hamburg Streets. Figure 64-Partially excavated base of rectangular kiln owned by Baltimore potter David Brown Jr. at Salisbury and Exeter Streets. Figure 65-Reconstruction of a rectangular stoneware kiln, ca. 1685. Figure 66-Newspaper ad placed by Clarkson Crolius & Son, The National Advocate, September 16, 1825. Figure 67-Site of Thomas Morgan?s stoneware pottery at Pitt and Green Streets superimposed on enlarged map by Charles Varle, Warner & Hanna?s Plan of the City and Environs of Baltimore, 1801. Figure 68-Engraved illustration of steam fire engine used by Engine Company No. 7, Baltimore, ca. 1869. Figure 69-Engraved illustration of horse drawn wagon used by Hook and Ladder No. 1, Baltimore, ca. 1869. Chapter 7 Figure 70-Jars, Thomas Morgan Pottery, Baltimore, ca. 1819-1825. Figure 71-Stoneware milk pan inscribed by Morgan and Amoss, Baltimore, 1822. Figure 72-Stoneware pitcher with Henry Remmey maker?s mark, Baltimore, ca. 1812-1821. xiii Figure 73-Locust Point immigration facility and train station, ca. post-1868. Figure 74-Stoneware inkwell inscribed by Phillip Miller, Baltimore, 1838. Figure 75a-Stoneware jar with Peter Herrmann maker?s mark, Baltimore, ca. 1860s- 1880s Figure 75b-Stoneware jar with Peter Herrmann maker?s mark, Baltimore, ca. 1860s- 1880s. Figure 76-Stoneware container with William Linton maker?s mark, Baltimore, ca. 1849-1877. Figure 77-Stoneware churn inscribed by Maulden Perine, Baltimore, 1851. Figure 78-Newspaper ad for M. Perine and Sons, Der Deutsche Correspondent newspaper, 1872. Figure 79a-Stoneware Krug, Germany, 1607. Figure 79b-Stoneware jar inscribed by William H. Morgan, Baltimore, ca. 1823- 1825. Figure 80a-Stoneware jug, Fulham, London, England, 1784-1805. Figure 80b-Stoneware jug impressed ?H. Myers,? Baltimore, ca. 1821-1829. Figure 81a-Rhenish stoneware jug with medallion of William and Mary, Dutch inscription, and 1691 date. Figure 81b-Stoneware pitcher with metal lid, Baltimore, ca. third-quarter 19th century. Figure 82a-Stoneware jar, London, 1752. Figure 82b-Stoneware jar with Baltimore Union Stoneware Manufactory maker?s mark, Baltimore, ca. 19th century. Figure 83a-Stoneware jar, Derbyshire (possibly Belper), England, 1799. Figure 83b-Stoneware jar attributed to Thomas Morgan pottery, Baltimore, ca. 1819- 1825. Figure 84a-Detail of molded tulip decoration on Rhenish stoneware jug with William and Mary medallion illustrated in 81a. xiv Figure 84b-Closeup of tulip decoration on a two gallon stoneware jar made by Baltimore potter Peter Herrmann illustrated in 75a. Figure 85a-Closeup of petaled floral decoration on 18th-century Rhenish stoneware mug with GR medallion commemorating either George I or II. Figure 85b-Closeup of petaled floral decoration on stoneware milk pan made by the Baltimore firm of Morgan and Amoss illustrated in 71. Figure 86a-Rhenish stoneware medallion shard depicting two-headed eagle and imperial crown and orb design, which probably belonged to a chamber pot dated 1632. Figure 86b-Closeup of decoration on a stoneware jar made by Morgan and Amoss, Baltimore, 1820. Figure 87a-Stoneware chamber pot, Germany, ca. 1725, excavated at the site of London Town?s Rumney-West Ordinary. Figure 87b-Three decorated stoneware chamber pots, probably Baltimore, ca. 1820s- 1860s. Figure 88a-Stoneware mug, Fulham, England, ca. 1725, excavated at the site of London Town?s Rumney-West Ordinary. Figure 88b-Excavated stoneware mug, William Rogers, Yorktown, Virginia, 1720- 1745. Figure 88c-Two stoneware bottles with brown slip, Baltimore, ca. 1830s-1880s. Chapter 8 Figure 89-Hand-cranked wheel system used to power potter?s wheels in the 19th century. From Figure 1 of The Cabinet Cyclopaedia by Dionysius Lardner, 1832. Figure 90-?New Improved Jolley,? a jiggering machine illustrated in sales catalog for the American Clay-Working Machinery Company, Bucyrus, Ohio, ca. 1900. Figure 91a-Stoneware pitcher made by August Parr, Baltimore, 1880. Figure 91b-Stoneware jug made by Charles Hartung, Baltimore, 1885. Figure 92a-Stoneware jug inscribed by William H. Morgan, Baltimore, ca. 1823- 1825. xv Figure 92b-Stoneware jug impressed ?STUMPFS, IRON, & CHERRY TONIC THE GREAT FAMILY MEDICINE, OFFICE N.E. COR BALT, & WOLF STS FACTORY 605 LUZERNE ST BALT MD,? Baltimore, ca. 1860s-1880s. Figure 93-Stoneware milk pan and jar attributed to Thomas Morgan pottery, ca. 1819-1825. Milk pan is incised on bottom: ?Pitt Street Baltimore 1824.? Figure 94-Figural clay pipes fragments recovered from the Maulden Perine-William Linton Pottery Site at Lexington and Pine Streets. Figure 95-Graph of M. Perine and Sons-Stoneware Sales, 1863-1881. Figure 96-Graph of M. Perine and Sons-Earthenware Sales, 1863-1881. Figure 97-Receipt for Maryland Pottery Co., Manufacturers of Machine & Hand- Made Flower Pots, December 3, 1878. Figure 98-Mended fragments of flower pot recovered from the Maulden Perine- William Linton Pottery Site at Lexington and Pine Streets. Figure 99-Illustration from 1937 Baltimore Sun newspaper article showing Louis and William Kalb making flower pots in Catonsville, Maryland. Figure 100-Price list, M. Perine and Sons, 1895. ?White Glazed Stoneware.? Figure 101-Price list, M. Perine and Sons, 1895. ?Red Earthenwares.? Figure 102-Sanborn Map of M. Perine and Sons, 1890. Figure 103-Sanborn Map of M. Perine and Sons, 1900. Figure 104-Sanborn Map of M. Perine and Sons, 1915. Figure 105-Photo of Edwin Bennett, ca. late-1890s. Figure 106-Photo of Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory, ca. third-quarter 19th century. Figure 107-Earthenware shaving mug with Edwin Bennett maker?s mark, Baltimore, ca. 1850-58. Figure 108-Earthenware bottle with Edwin Bennett maker?s mark, Baltimore, ca. early 1850s. Figure 109-Inscribed earthenware shaving dish with Rockingham glaze attributed to Edwin Bennett, Baltimore, 1850. xvi Figure 110-Ad depicting a steam engine, placed by George Page & Co, Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1875. Figure 111-Receipt for Edwin Bennett, Manufacturer of White Stone-China, White Earthen and Decorated Ware, 1885. Figure 112-Group photo of employees of the Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory, ca. third-quarter 19th century. Figure 113-Workers at the Edwin Bennett Pottery Company forming cups on a jiggering machine, ca. late-1890s. Figure 114-Workers, probably the Edwin Bennett Pottery Factory, dipping pottery into glaze mixture, ca. late-1890s. Figure 115-Photo of D. F. Haynes, ca. late-1890s. Figure 116-Photo of D. F. Haynes & Sons Chesapeake Pottery at Nicholson and Decatur Streets, ca. late-1890s. Figure 117a-Earthenware plate with ?Clifton? mark of Chesapeake Pottery, ca. early-1880s. Figure 117b-Earthenware punch bowl with ?Avalon? mark of Chesapeake Pottery, ca. early-1880s. Figure 118-Ad for Baltimore Calvertine Faience, D. F. Haynes & Co., Baltimore, Maryland, 1885. Figure 119-A sampling of molded fineware with transfer printed designs, all produced at the Chesapeake Pottery, ca. late-1890s. Figure 120-Decorating Shop, Chesapeake Pottery, ca. late-1890s. Figure 121-1890 Sanborn Map showing Charles Hartung Pottery. Figure 122-1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing Bennett?s Queensware Factory. Figure 123-1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing Bennett?s Tile Factory. Figure 124-1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing Chesapeake Pottery. xvii Chapter 9 Figure 125-Ad for Thomas Kensett and Co., placed in the Wood?s Baltimore Directory for 1858-59. Figure 126-Billhead receipt for J. B. Brinkley & Sons, Hermetically Sealed Oysters, Fruits, Vegetables &c. and Wholesale Dealers in Domestic Dried Fruits, dated October 9, 1886. Figure 127-Billhead receipt for A. H. Schulz, wholesale grocer & ship chandler, September 1889. Figure 128-Earthenware canning jar, Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory, Baltimore, ca. 1858. Figure 129-Ad for earthenware canning jar made by the New Brighton Pottery Works, New Brighton, Pennsylvania, 1885. Figure 130-Glass condiment bottle embossed ?T. A. Bryan & Co., Perfection, Tomato Sauce, Baltimore, MD,? ca. 1877-1889. Figure 131-Photo of workers manufacturing glass canning jars with semi-automatic machinery at the Atlas Glass Works, Washington, Pennsylvania, ca. 1896-1900. Figure 132-Ad for Abram French & Co., Boston, Massachusetts, a retailer of canning jars manufactured by the Mason Company, 1875. Figure 133-Ad for canning jars manufactured by Cohansey Glass Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1875. Figure 134-Ad for the Whitney Glass Works, Glassboro, N.J, manufacturer of the Leader Fruit Jar, 1885. Figure 135-Ad for A.V. Whiteman, Cumberland, Maryland, manufacturer of the Whiteman Fruit Jar, 1885. Figure 136-Design for a fruit jar with bail patented by Nathaniel W. Krause, Haysville, Pennsylvania, 1885. Figure 137-Design for a glass can cap patented by Thomas G. Otterson and Cornelius C. Vorhies of Woodbury, New Jersey, 1885. Figure 138-Design for making crock rims by H. E. Merrill of Akron, Ohio, 1885. xviii Figure 139-Stoneware pitcher with Bristol white glaze and cobalt stenciling reading ?SNOW, KNOX & CO. WHOLESALE GROCERS & FLOUR MERCHANTS 103 & 105 CHEAPSIDE BALTIMORE, MD.? Figure 140-Jiggered stoneware jug, ca. 1890s to early-20th century. Figure 141-Billhead receipt for merchant Charles A. Spangler, Hagerstown, Maryland, December 7, 1892. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction The following dissertation is a comprehensive cultural landscape study of Baltimore?s 19th-century stoneware industry that examines how and why the city became a major center for stoneware production, the people associated with its production and use, the natural environment, and physical aspects such as work space and kilns. This approach is supported by various perspectives involving working class labor history, which provide a better understanding of the experiences and contributions of potters during this period. Specifically, this study is concerned with the following three central questions. How did the industry shape Baltimore?s social, physical, and natural environment? How did the social, physical, and natural environment shape Baltimore?s stoneware industry? What key historical circumstances such as industrialization, new technologies, and modern manufacturing methods influenced these dynamic relationships? In the world of ceramics, too often there is a focus on the ?greatness? or ?uniqueness? of potters. In particular, studies by decorative arts scholars tend to favor connoisseurship involving rarity or the aesthetic qualities of wares they produced. Another approach, involving archaeology, often focuses on systematic categorizations or classifications of recovered ceramics, with little in the way of interpretation from a humanistic point of view. In regards to Baltimore?s 19th- century stoneware potters, ceramic historians have studied portions of their history or 2 narrow related aspects, but there has been no attempt made to examine the birth, life, and death of an industry that lasted for a century. This dissertation was born out of a desire to better understand the vernacular or ordinary existence of these working class artisans through the dynamic and constantly changing cultural landscape to which they belonged. It seeks to focus more attention on the traditional potter at ?ground level? as Sean Wilentz, author of Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class 1789-1850, and other working class culture historians have urged, in order to better appreciate their life experiences, contributions, and complex interactions.1 This study has also drawn inspiration from the writings of E. P. Thompson, notably his attempt to ?rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the ?obsolete? hand-loom weaver, the ?utopian? artisan...from the enormous condescension of posterity.?2 After its emergence in the 1960s, the new labor history began the trend of writing the history of artisans from the ?ground up.? Thompson, Wilentz, Bruce Laurie, and many other scholars have explored questions of class-consciousness and also recovered various aspects of artisan culture.3 1 Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1789-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984). 2 E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage Books, 1996). 3 See Sean Wilentz, Chants Democratic; Bruce Laurie, Working People of Philadelphia, 1800-1850 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980; and Bruce Laurie, Artisans into Workers: Labor in 19th Century America (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989). 3 Fortunately, the door to exploring working class culture is wide, as shown by innovative scholarship by William Sutton, who has examined early artisans in the context of religion; Bruce Levine, Kathleen Neils Conzen, and Donna R. Gabaccia, who have studied aspects of the working class culture of immigrant laborers; and Paul Shackel, who has studied the built environment of workers in Harpers Ferry using concepts of power and resistance as well as humanistic perspectives of workers involved in loss of craft, division of labor, and deskilling.4 Specifically, my dissertation fits within the recent historiography on working class history by following the trend away from the traditional history of labor unions toward new ways of exploring, analyzing, and understanding working class culture. Recognizing that decades of significant and relevant working class scholarship has preceded this study, I attempt to establish a new dialogue by offering a layered and multi-disciplinary approach to this subject. My study focuses on key aspects of 19th- century working class culture involving cultural traditions, the natural environment, the urban landscape, and a shared community in order to better understand the experiences of Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware potters. 4 William Sutton, Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), Kathleen Neils Conzen, Immigrant Milwaukee 1836-1860: Accommodation and Community in a Frontier City (Cambridge, Ma. and London: Harvard University Press, 1976), Bruce Levine, The Spirit of 1848: German Immigrants, Labor Conflict, and the Coming of the Civil War (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), Donna R. Gabbacia, Immigration and American Diversity: A Social and Cultural History (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), and Paul Shackel, Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era (New York: Plenum Press, 1996). 4 I argue that a multi-disciplinary approach to working class history makes it possible to bring together multiple perspectives and strengths found within several different disciplines and sub-disciplines, including urban history, social history, and consumer history; folklore, historical archaeology, and decorative arts; and cultural, gender, ethnic, material culture, and cultural landscape studies. Especially relevant to this dissertation is urban history scholarship concerned with the origins, development, and changes in American cities throughout the 19th century.5 The lines of inquiry used by urban historians are useful in looking at the city?s stoneware industry from the standpoint of the natural environment, spatial dimensions, transitions of shops and factories, governmental oversight of potteries, and increasingly restrictive laws. The broad approach used in my study provides a framework for better understanding the experiences of utilitarian potters in Baltimore who carried out their skilled profession within a growing urban area. This research project is built around the following theoretical framework. 5 Several works provided guidance as I constructed an interpretive framework for identifying, examining, and discussing changing relationships between Baltimore?s 19th-century potters and the expanding urban environment in which they worked. They include Robert Lewis, ?The Changing Fortunes of American Central-City Manufacturing, 1870-1950,? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 28, No. 5, July 2002, pp. 573-598; Gary B. Nash, ?The Social Evolution of Preindustrial American Cities, 1700-1820? in The Making of Urban America, edited by Raymond A. Mohl (Wilmington, De.: Scholarly Resources Books, 1992); Joel A. Tarr, ?The Metabolism of the Industrial City: The Case of Pittsburgh,? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 28, No. 5, July 2000, pp. 511-545; Sherry H. Olson, Baltimore: The Building of an American City (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Press, 1997); and Sam Bass Warner, The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968). 5 Enduring Cultural Traditions-Surviving vessels made by 19th-century utilitarian potters often reflect distinct cultural traditions associated with hand craft methods of production. The design characteristics found on stoneware vessels made in Baltimore represent a ?hybridization? of cultural traditions transplanted from England and Germany centuries ago. These locally-made, hand-crafted vessels suggest that small producers of utilitarian stoneware did not experience deskilling in the same manner as workers in large-scale industrialized factories in the city that produced refined ceramic wares. Exclusive Nature of Cultural Traditions-Cultural traditions sustained working class artisans throughout the 19th century, yet this highly specialized knowledge was typically restricted on the basis of gender and race. In Baltimore and elsewhere, utilitarian potters passed along skills and training through male family members and young white males accepted into apprenticeships. In particular, females and African Americans did not have the same opportunities as white males to participate in this craft making profession. Transforming Cultural Tradition from the Outside-While the transformational nature of industrial capitalism was an eventuality for manufacturers, stoneware potters in Baltimore relied on hand craft up until the final decade of the 19th century. The demise of traditional stoneware production in the city can be tied to technological advancements made in the manufacture of metal and glass containers as well as stoneware produced in other regions of the country. 6 Despoiling Nature-Like many other manufacturers in Baltimore, potters carried out their craft in a manner that was often detrimental to nature during the 19th century. The response of communities to these actions often can be defined largely in terms of self interest rather than a concern or desire for environmental protection as it is currently understood. The work of potters required native sources of clay, large amounts of firewood and coal, and unrestricted airways. Residents of neighborhoods adjacent to stoneware kilns organized to oppose their operation on the grounds that emissions caused irritation and distress. Duality of Urban Landscapes-Urban areas such as Baltimore typically attracted and sustained working class artisans at the beginning of the 19th century, yet later industrialization and technological advancements often negated the inherent advantages this type of landscape afforded small producers. In terms of traditional utilitarian potters, the city?s proximity to local native clays, a large consumer base, and directly accessible rail lines and steamboats became less relevant. By the late- 19th century, industrialized factories in other regions of the country had more direct access to coal used to fire kilns and also tied into advanced and expanding transportation networks that facilitated the distribution of goods. Complexities of Shared Communities-Working class artisans in growing urban areas with shared communities were apt to encounter increasingly complex and restricted working conditions throughout the 19th century. In Baltimore, residential neighborhoods also opposed kilns on the grounds that they represented a significant 7 fire risk, and the regulatory oversight of local government made it increasingly difficult for potters to carry out their trade. This contested urban terrain stands in marked contrast to sparsely populated rural areas where potters worked relatively unfettered. However, it is important to recognize that some rural potters were also involved in agricultural production, and thus faced complexities associated with two seasonal occupations. Examining Baltimore?s 19th-Century Stoneware Industry This study examines potters and contested areas inside and outside of the workplace, how they affected and were affected by a largely unguarded natural environment, and the built environment that they created and shaped to their advantage. A narrow focus that favors the potter or the wares they made does not provide the type of context that is needed to assess the meaning or significance of their ultimate contributions and how they interacted with the world around them. I argue that Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware potters themselves were less concerned with artistry, and more concerned with carrying out a skilled profession guided by craft traditions and later influenced by industrialization. This dissertation is not designed to be an exhaustive history that details every potter who ever worked in the city, but, rather, intends to view selected potters through many different lenses in an effort to illustrate a larger story. In human terms, this story involves not only the perspective of potters; it values perspectives from outside the stoneware industry, notably involving individuals affected by potters and people who affected potters. 8 This study attempts to develop a holistic view of the cultural landscape of Baltimore?s stoneware industry that takes into account the city?s growth, transitions, and unique characteristics. A holistic approach affords scholars a broader context for understanding and appreciating the big picture of this story, as well as how each of the smaller pieces that help to tell it?the people, the built environment, and nature? relate to one another. Despite a much different methodology, the inclusive perspective of my study of urban Baltimore and its potters is similar in many respects to the approach used by Peirce Lewis in New Orleans: The Making of an Urban Landscape.6 Like Lewis, my analysis of the cultural landscape involves the natural environment, geography, and topography of the city. Further, maps and other visual materials are used in this dissertation in a manner Thomas Schlereth advocates to supplement traditional documentary resources.7 Looking at the city from many different perspectives is extremely useful, particularly from the standpoint of gaining new insights on physical and spatial relationships that usually cannot be reconstructed from primary sources. Another holistic aspect of my dissertation is its broad time frame of 1795- 1899. The starting date of 1795 was chosen on the basis of when Thomas Morgan began to manufacture stoneware in Baltimore. At the same time, this project references in a general manner the global and regional dimensions of earthenware and 6 See Peirce Lewis, New Orleans: The Making of an Urban Landscape (Cambridge: Ballinger Publications Company, 1976). 7 See Thomas J. Schlereth, ?Past Cityscapes: Uses of Cartography in Urban History? in Artifacts and the American Past (Walnut Creek, Ca.: AltaMira Press, 1996), pp. 66-86. 9 stoneware manufacture outside the city in earlier periods to better understand forces and events that preceded this localized craft. By the 20th century utilitarian stoneware manufacture in Baltimore had for all practical purposes disappeared. Baltimore?s 19th-century stoneware industry is a largely unexplored cultural landscape that warrants the type of comprehensive examination provided here. I chart a path that recognizes prior scholarship, while intentionally taking new turns with regard to how urban areas can be viewed from environmental and human perspectives. In attempting to expand the boundaries of environmental studies on urban areas, I recognize major contributions made by William Cronon as one important benchmark.8 However, I seek to build my story in a much different way, notably by documenting dynamic interactions, rather than commodity flows and natural systems that supplied an urban market. The relatively large, populous city of Baltimore was home to an active and flourishing stoneware industry that benefited from native clay resources, a solid manufacturing base, and proximity to important overland and coastal trade routes. Baltimore?s traditional potters were highly skilled artisans who were often trained by family members. These craftsmen produced a wide range of practical vessels used largely for food preparation and storage. For example, they made jugs for holding syrups, whiskey, and water; churns for making butter and buttermilk; crocks and 8 See William Cronon, Nature?s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: W.W. Norton), 1991. 10 pitchers for cooling milk; and jars for keeping vegetables, fruit, meat, lard, butter, and homemade soap, as well as fermenting wine and liquor. An immigrant population and an apprenticeship system facilitated the manufacture of these important wares. Before the mid-19th century potters trained in Europe, notably Germany, as well as England, began arriving in Baltimore, which became one of the nation?s largest ports of entry for immigrants. The city?s potters made their wares out of ordinary clay that was dug from rich deposits found nearby. They sometimes enhanced their work by adding distinctive, ?cobalt? or blue decoration to vessels prior to placing them in a large brick kiln where they would be exposed to temperatures reaching 1,200-1,300 degrees Celsius for a day or days at a time. These kilns were fueled with enormous supplies of firewood fed into kilns over extended periods. The threat of fire was a constant concern of potters and adjacent neighborhoods, and the location of stoneware kilns in a relatively concentrated urban area such as Baltimore resulted in the release of significant air pollution within residential neighborhoods. Even as early as the first half of the 19th century, Baltimore?s city council and mayor closely regulated the construction and operation of stoneware kilns within city limits. In particular, requirements governing the height of kiln smokestacks grew more stringent over time, an effort to reduce the impact of emissions and fire risk to adjacent residential areas. In Baltimore, by the 1820s, technological innovation was 11 taking place in many trades, ?especially the consumer finishing work carried out by tailors, cordwainers, cabinetmakers, chairmakers, and seamstresses.?9 While industrial development accelerated throughout the 19th century, in Baltimore it took place at an uneven pace in the sense that certain industries responded differently to modern technological and organizational innovations. For instance, there is no evidence that the city?s traditional potters used mechanization to produce utilitarian stoneware, yet by the second half of the 19th century they were involved in standardizing wares and creating new product lines, attempts to adapt to an increasingly competitive marketplace. Further, the demand for local stoneware decreased as airtight, durable, and cheaply-made glass and metal containers became a more popular alternative for preserving and storing food and drink. Methodology Two specific cultural landscape and social history methodologies helped frame my research and interrogate my evidence. The first is Jeremy Korr?s ?A Proposed Model for Cultural Landscape Study? which provides a systematic model for the interdisciplinary study of cultural landscapes that creates a three way relationship between humans, artifacts (the built environment), and the natural environment. The previously mentioned three main questions of this dissertation represent the crux of the Korr model. This model was particularly useful for my project as it provided a means for systematically identifying dynamic and reciprocal 9 William R. Sutton, Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore, p. 1. 12 relationships, as well as various types of boundaries, whether they be experiential, abstract, social, or political boundaries. Identifying boundaries is particularly relevant to the Baltimore stoneware industry, given the many different changes that took place in this urban area, particularly in a geographic and political sense. The Korr model also recognizes the importance of examining a natural component of the landscape, an area that other approaches overlook, and one that is crucial to this study. I also used a systematic methodology found in ?North American Suburbs, 1880-1950: Cultural and Social Reconsiderations? by Mary Corbin Sies. This methodology is specifically geared toward conducting research in cities and suburbs with commonly accessible types of data involving the social/economic and cultural dimensions of urban places, including artifactual evidence. It is particularly relevant to the types of data used in my research here, notably censuses, business directories, maps, and social surveys that provide information about residents, their ages, sexes, occupations, educational levels, and nativity. Local history information such as newspapers, and records of organizations, churches, and businesses supplemented this demographic data. This methodology enabled me to grapple with social, political, economic, technological, cultural, and regulatory environments that influenced and constrained the history of Baltimore?s stoneware industry. Several subquestions are related to the three main questions previously set and center on the dynamic relationships and historical circumstances associated with the 13 social, physical, and natural environment of Baltimore?s stoneware industry. These issues assisted in defining the direction of my research. Stoneware Industry Issues To what extent was the Baltimore stoneware industry similar to or influenced by other craft making traditions found in neighboring regions, such as Pennsylvania and Virginia? What advantages and challenges did potters encounter in establishing stoneware operations in the relatively urban environment of early 19th-century Baltimore? How did the introduction of new technologies within the stoneware industry and the advent of competition from industries manufacturing glass canning jars and tin cans change stoneware production? In what ways did the industrial revolution and mass production affect the city?s stoneware artisans? How did competition between local stoneware manufacturers manifest itself in the advertising and marketing of products? How did the political entities and decision making, specifically local government regulation, affect the operation of stoneware kilns and to what degree did this oversight change over time? Social Issues What changes can be seen in the level of skill, as well as training, of stoneware workers? What specific contributions did immigrant workers, notably German and English potters, make within the stoneware industry and how did the industry in turn affect these workers? What was the relationship of volunteer fire companies and fire insurance companies to these stoneware enterprises? How did a 14 sense of community manifest itself within the stoneware industry? What role did gender play in stoneware potteries, and how did women influence both the manufacture and use of vessels? Did religion affect how potters interacted personally, professionally, and within their own communities? What was the role and contributions of African American potters in the potteries? Can evidence be found within available archaeological data that would suggest forms of worker resistance in Baltimore stoneware shops? Environmental Issues How did the stoneware industry and the natural environment, including air, water, trees, and clay soils, affect one another? How did pollution and the threat of fire affect the quality of life in neighborhoods in proximity to where stoneware kilns were located? Physical Issues How did the geographic boundaries of stoneware potteries change over time, and what forces influenced their movement? How mobile were potters in Baltimore in a geographic sense, within regional stoneware trades, and other unrelated professions? To what extent did home and the workplace intersect for early Baltimore potters, and how did this relationship change with industrialization? How did changing consumer needs and tastes over the course of the 19th century affect the output of utilitarian stoneware? 15 Sources This dissertation is supported by a wide range of primary and secondary sources, archaeological data, and surviving examples of material culture available to carry out this research. Documentary evidence includes Baltimore city directories, census records, land records, orphan?s court records, newspaper advertisements, archaeological reports, and city council records and petitions. While this study is not solely concerned with the production of stoneware vessels, it uses artifacts as a reference point for analyzing the cultural landscape of the stoneware industry. Artifacts are considered an important source material, especially in instances when the documentary record is incomplete or when technological processes cannot be adequately described with words.10 Also, the relationship between behavior and the material world is far from passive and when used in the proper context artifacts are tangible evidence of social relationships, even embodying the attitudes and behaviors of the past.11 Material culture evidence is an especially important part of this project for many reasons. Changes seen in vessel forms, types, and functions throughout the 19th century are in many ways a consequence of historical circumstances, most notably the industrial revolution. Variations in craft making techniques and 10 See Robert B. Gordan, ?The Interpretation of Artifacts in the History of Technology,? in History from Things: Essays on Material, edited by Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1993), pp. 74-92. 11 See Mary Beaudry, et al., ?Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse,? in Archaeology of Inequality, edited by Robert Paynter and Randall McGuire (Oxford, U.K. and Cambridge, Ma: B. Blackwell, 1991). 16 decoration on vessels definitively made in Baltimore and by specific potters provide information about the influence of German and English cultural traditions. Further, certain marked vessels also tie potters to relationships established with different retail and business interests, both inside and outside the city. Some of these vessels reside in several public museums, including the Henry Ford Museum, Maryland Historical Society, Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, Winterthur Museum, as well as private collections. In terms of material culture, this study intentionally distances itself from approaches favoring collectors of stoneware. Collectors are to be commended for putting forth the time, effort, and financial resources to preserve vessels made by stoneware potters. In many, if not most, cases, existing examples of stoneware would have been lost if not for collectors. However, the collecting preferences and motivations of both individuals and institutions are dictated by a highly-charged contemporary marketplace which in turn influences the representation of traditional potters. Further, rather than simply identifying and itemizing vessels, this dissertation relies on material culture to document and illustrate the experiences of potters. 17 Chapter 2: A Stoneware Craft Emerges and Endures Introduction By all accounts, Baltimore?s future looked especially bright at the beginning of the 19th century. Having made important contributions during the Revolutionary War, the city was also widely recognized as the leading central distribution point for the export of American wheat and raw materials. In less than three-quarters of a century after its founding in 1729, Baltimore had far surpassed nearby Annapolis in terms of trade and manufacturing capabilities. At this point the ?Golden Age? of Maryland?s capital had literally drawn to a close, while Baltimore?s involvement in commerce continued to expand both domestically and internationally. In 1763 a master potter named John Brown began producing earthenware, a coarse type of pottery usually covered with a clear lead glaze. Brown produced hand- crafted vessels to serve the needs of a growing city, which included crocks, jugs, jars, and milk pans for food preservation and storage, as well as tableware such as plates, bowls, and dishes for food preparation and service. There were earlier efforts to produce domestic pottery in Maryland, as far back as the 17th century when the colony was driven principally by a tobacco economy, yet these were small, sporadic ventures. Brown and other members of his family dominated pottery production in the city for a little more than three decades. During this period potters in Staffordshire, England had created new lines of fashionable and extremely popular 18 refined tableware called Queensware. Earthenware potters in the city who attempted to compete with these imported wares faced a distinct disadvantage. In 1795 another master potter, Thomas Morgan, began specializing in stoneware vessels intended primarily for food preservation and storage. Morgan and other stoneware potters in the city who followed recognized the inherent advantages of stoneware containers, which were superior in many ways to earthenware and did not directly compete with Queensware. Fired at a higher temperature, stoneware was more durable, held liquids better, and since it was coated with salt glaze it had none of the health hazards associated with lead-glazed earthenware.12 An abundance of native stoneware clays proved advantageous for local potters. Stoneware production expanded in Baltimore in the early 1800s, around the same time that similar enterprises emerged in regional cities across the mid-Atlantic seaboard. The city?s later stoneware potters adhered to the same cultural traditions they used to manufacture earthenware. These working class artisans provided a valuable service to their community by producing vessels essential to basic food preservation and storage needs. In the early-19th century, small producers carried out mutual decision making and shared relationships between master potters, journeymen, and apprentices. In particular, extended kinship networks and apprenticeships facilitated the transference of specialized skills associated with this type of pottery making. 12 Storing and preserving acidic foods in lead-glazed earthenware resulted in the leaching of lead which slowly poisoned users over time. Ingesting lead is now known to damage functions involving the brain, as well as central nervous and cardiovascular systems. 19 While the sons of potters followed in the footsteps of fathers and grandfathers, the daughters and sisters of these artisans, in many instances, married into the families of other potters. The city?s immigrant potters also helped to facilitate the transference of cultural traditions that originated in their homeland. Skilled potters trained principally in Germany and England arrived in the port of Baltimore in large numbers throughout the 19th century. The presence of immigrant potters in the city is documented in historical records, and also reflected in the appearance of the stoneware vessels that they made. While women were not directly involved in the production of stoneware in Baltimore, they successfully ran the operations of potteries upon the death of their husbands. Also, the close proximity and interconnected nature of pottery shops and homes in the city in the 19th century suggests that domestic and work spaces were not entirely segregated in terms of gender. It is also important to point out that women ultimately influenced pottery production in indirect, yet important, ways. They not only produced and prepared food, but as consumers also largely determined the types of wares that potters would make. This study explores the participation of African Americans in stoneware production in Baltimore in terms of slaveholding and the degree to which free Blacks may have been at a disadvantage in terms of competing for jobs against skilled 20 immigrant potters. Blacks, like women, did not have access to the type of formal training that was necessary to carry out this highly skilled and specialized hand craft. They were even excluded from opportunities to work in the city?s industrialized fineware factories in the second half of the 19th century, which instead employed large numbers of child laborers to perform unskilled, labor intensive tasks. Later in the 20th century, stoneware vessels lost their functional context as a consequence of advancements in other forms of food preservation and packaging. Today, highly decorated examples of utilitarian stoneware, particularly those made in Baltimore, are evaluated largely on the basis of artistic merit and command large sums of money accordingly. In many instances, this contemporary aesthetic approach values working-class potters as ?inspired artists.? However, I argue that a more realistic portrayal of potters involves how their craft enabled them to serve the needs of communities and consumers while those that owned their own shops struggled to make a profit as businessmen. Chapter 2 establishes cultural traditions as the underlying framework that supported stoneware production in urban Baltimore during the 19th century, providing a conceptual blueprint that determined the manner in which traditional potters carried out this highly specialized craft making. This perspective will be used to examine the emergence of stoneware craft making; the relevance of generational kinship networks, apprenticeships, and immigrants; the involvement of women and 21 gender and race; and a modern marketplace that assigns monetary value to utilitarian objects. Maryland?s Earliest Earthenware Production After the founding of Maryland in 1634, it took more than a century before the colony?s potters reached the point at which they were able to sustain production of basic earthenware pottery. Through the remainder of the 17th century and into the first half of the 18th century, most manufactured goods, including pottery vessels, were imported to the colonies from England and Europe. In the Maryland Colony, there were extraordinary exceptions, notably a ca. 1660s clay tobacco pipe maker named Emanuel Drue, who worked at a site called Swan Cove near present-day St. Margarets, Maryland, and Morgan Jones, a potter who made earthenware in St. Mary?s County from 1661-1690.13 Since Maryland was established as a business enterprise to supply raw materials and provide markets for manufactured goods made in England, settlers were most concerned with making their fortune growing tobacco or some type of related commercial enterprise. While the cultivation of tobacco required a suitable parcel of land, hard labor, and perseverance, establishing a viable pottery operation involved these components, 13 Over the last decade Anne Arundel County?s Lost Towns Project has conducted extensive archaeological excavations at Swan Cove, a production site of clay tobacco-pipe maker Emanuel Drue. See Al Luckenbach, ?The Swan Cove Kiln: Chesapeake Tobacco Pipe Production, Circa 1650-1669? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004), pp. 1-14. 22 as well as other specialized talents. There are several reasons it took so long for domestic pottery production to take hold in Maryland. First, English settlers and indentured servants who came to Maryland in the pursuit of increased economic opportunity and the chance to own land had neither the skills, knowledge of native clays, nor financial means necessary to carry out the production of earthenware vessels. Second, restrictions on trade and colonial manufacturing were put in place to keep the colonies dependent on England.14 In the 18th century, English and Scottish import merchants in Maryland actively traded a wide array of commercial goods, including ceramics, for the tobacco crops of Maryland planters. Local planters purchased merchandise at stores with ?tobacco notes? which were issued to them by government officials following the inspection, weighing, and grading of tobacco crops.15 Smaller farmers acquired goods on credit with the promise of later providing tobacco notes after the end of the growing season. In turn, merchants shipped the bartered tobacco back to London or Glasgow. These merchants opened up access to imported ceramics made in England, Germany, and Holland by not only providing Maryland consumers with more choices, but also making it easier for them to pay for commodities. 14 Harold F. Guilland, Early American Folk Pottery (Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1971), p. 5. 15 Regina Lee Blaszczyk, ?Ceramics and the Sot-weed Factor: The China Market in a Tobacco Economy,? Winterthur Portfolio, Volume 19, Number 1, Spring 1984, pp. 7-9. 23 The estate inventory taken after the death of merchant Samuel Peele in 1733 provides a sense of how pottery was exchanged in the Maryland Colony during this early period, as well as the types of wares carried by a prominent retailer. Peele offered a surprisingly wide selection of utilitarian and fine wares at two storehouses of goods he owned in London Town.16 1 dozen Stone Butter pots sorted 2/6 1.10.0 17 punch bowls sorted 9d 0.12.9 22 Dutch mugs 1.0.0 16 dozen 8 [?] Bro[wn] Mugs 7/6 6.5.7 2 dozen pint mugs 3/9 0.10.4 2 qt. [?] & 1 pint ditto ? pint ditto 0.2.0 5 dozen [?] Porringers 0.15.0 20 [?] Chamber pots 7? 0.12.6 15 Red Milk pans 6/dozen 0.7.6 10 mustard potts 9d 0.1.8 1 gallon stone bottle ? 0.1.4 19 dozen [?] wine glasses 3/6 3.4.9 6 pint glasses d6 0.3.0 1 dozen, 10 porringers, 8 dozen, 4 pints, 5 dozen saucers 1.2.6 1 sallabub pot, 1 sugar dish, 1 milk pot, 5 cupping glasses, 2 [?] ditto 0.7.6 Peele?s inventory documents the wide range of imported pottery and glass wares accessible to Maryland consumers. Stone butter pots, brown mugs, and a one gallon stone bottle likely refer to stoneware vessels made in advanced manufactories 16 MSA Anne Arundel County, Probate Inventory Liber 18, folio 17; 1733, Samuel Peele. 24 in either England or Germany. On the other hand, vessels such as red milk pans, porringers, a mustard pot, and a sugar dish are likely earthenware forms. In Maryland, and elsewhere in the New World, domestic pottery manufacture was a risky venture at best. In order to compete with more established factories back home, a potter who relocated to the open frontier needed a significant outlay of capital to procure a source of clay and the proper equipment, not to mention the ability to construct, operate, and maintain a kiln. A 1729 advertisement in the Pennsylvania Gazette offers an insight into the type of specialized equipment a domestic potter needed in this period. This notice offered for sale ?An Iron Mill for grinding Clay, and Cedar-Tub, with Iron Hoops, and other Utensils, fit for a Potter.? Potters used different mills or grinding mechanisms to break up and refine clay prior to forming it into vessels, as well as to grind glaze. Another piece of specialized equipment would have been a potter?s wheel, an indispensable tool potters used to turn vessels into many sizes and shapes. By kicking a treadle bar with his feet, a potter could control the force of the rotating wheel enabling him to use both hands to form the clay. Other essential tools of the trade in this ad included ??shelves for drying?and an assortment of kettles, sieves, crocks, and tubs used in preparing ingredients.?17 Several German and English potters in New York and Virginia established influential, long-lived stoneware manufactories as early as the second quarter of the 17 Lura Woodside Watkins, Early New England Potters and Their Wares (Boston: Archon Books, 1969), p. 128. 25 18th century, which will be discussed later in Chapter 8. However, Maryland?s initial attempts at domestic manufacture involved small-scale earthenware operations that catered to the needs of local consumers. The wares they produced were primarily plain and undecorated, yet practical and functional. In many instances, it was necessary to import skilled potters from elsewhere, such as England and Philadelphia. These efforts represented fleeting, yet important, attempts to emulate the type of English and European utilitarian vessels found listed in the aforementioned estate inventory. Limited documentary evidence and archaeological testing affords only a glimpse of the earliest potters and shops that produced earthenware. Morgan Jones An indentured servant named Morgan Jones from St. Mary?s County is thought to be the first potter in Maryland capable of manufacturing pottery, as early as 1661. His production was limited to basic earthenware forms intended for local use, including pitchers, cups, pans, and small bowls.18 Archaeologists with Historic St. Mary?s City have found examples of Jones? localized production on sites dating to 1661-1690 (fig. 1). There is scant evidence for early pottery manufacture in Maryland after Jones, only occasional historical references to a few later 18th-century potters that include a ferry master and potter named John Wamsley (ca. 1730s); Edward Rumney, a shipwright who initiated a short-lived Annapolis pottery (1746); and Thomas Baker, who owned a pot-house in St. Mary?s County (1756). 18 Silas D. Hurry, Once the Metropolis of Maryland: The History and Archaeology of Maryland?s First Capital (St. Mary?s City, Md: Historic St. Mary?s City Commission, 2001), p. 47 26 Figure 1-Earthenware pitchers, Morgan Jones, ca. 1660s. H. (from left to right) 9.6?, 9.6?, and 9.9?. (Courtesy, Historic St. Mary?s City.) John Wamsley John Wamsley is found in historical records working as a potter, planter, and also a ferry keeper at Ferry Point on the South River. Ferry Point is directly across from London Town, a ca. 1683 tobacco port situated in present-day Edgewater. Wamsley is identified in land records as a potter as early as 1731, and his multiple occupations suggest economic diversification typical of the period. In June of 1723 Wamsley was issued a Landing Certificate after his arrival in Annapolis, having departed Kent onboard the Schooner Forward.19 He was also among 6,815 convicted felons banished to Virginia and Maryland colonies by the English courts between 1718 and 1744.20 19 Peter Wilson Coldham, The Complete Book of Emigrants in Bondage, 1614-1775 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc., 1988), p. 835. 20 Anne Arundel County Land Records, CR 39511-2:255; Roger A. Ekirch, Bound for America (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 115. 27 Ferry Point was one stop along a major overland transportation route between Philadelphia and Williamsburg during the colonial period, and a ca. 1840 painting depicts this important ferry operation (fig. 2). A view of the keeper?s house, rowboat, and London Town?s ca. 1760 William Brown House, now a National Historic Landmark, are all documented in the painting. Given the building?s steeply pitched roof, it is quite possible that this is the same house Wamsley used more than a century before this painting was rendered. Figure 2-Ca. 1840 oil painting depicting the ferry keeper?s house at Ferry Point on the north shore of the South River. (Private collection.) London Town?s William Brown House appears in the upper right of the painting. In 1999, archaeologists with the Lost Towns Project tested private property at Ferry Point in an effort to determine the location of Wamsley?s pottery operation. Unfortunately, this work revealed that the site had been extensively graded during the construction of a house at some point in the early 20th century. Given that Wamsley had arrived in Annapolis in 1723, it is possible that he made a lead-glazed 28 earthenware jar excavated from a ca. 1725 cellar deposit at London Town?s Rumney- West Ordinary (fig. 3). Figure 3-Earthenware jar, possibly John Wamsley, London Town, ca. 1725. (Courtesy, Anne Arundel County?s Lost Towns Project.) Edward Rumney Jr. In 1746, an entrepreneur named Edward Rumney Jr. initiated a short-lived earthenware operation in Annapolis. Like Wamsley, Rumney is known to have been involved in other professions, notably ship building. His father Edward Sr. was also a shipwright, ordinary keeper, and ferry keeper in London Town.21 A newspaper ad suggests that Rumney Jr. was not a potter himself, but instead recruited potters for a short-lived operation that disbanded after only a few months. 21 Rod Cofield, Director of Interpretive and Museum Programs at Historic London Town and Gardens, has carried out extensive research on Edward Rumney Sr. His findings are unpublished and contained in ?Edward Rumney, Sr. Biographical Notes.? 29 In July of 1746, Rumney placed the following announcement in the Maryland Gazette newspaper: ?The Subscriber having furnish?d himself with Persons exceeding well skill?d in the Business of making Earthen Ware, hereby gives Notice, that he has set up a Pottery in the City of Annapolis; where all Persons may be supplied with all Sorts of Pots, Pans, Juggs, Muggs, & by Wholesale or Retale, at reasonable Rates.? 22 However, several subsequent ads placed in the Maryland Gazette beginning in November of 1746 detail Rumney?s financial collapse. In this month, Samuel Howard and John Howard advertised the sale of ?household goods, servants, Smiths tools and other goods at the late house of Edward Rumney in Annapolis.?23 By December, William Roberts advertised for sale ?slaves, furniture and other goods lately belonging to Edward Rumney. The goods include a Billiard Table made in England.?24 Finally, in March of 1747, Richard Hill Jr. offered for sale ?the house and lot where Edward Rumney lately lived in Annapolis. Apply to Hill at James Dick?s at London-Town.?25 Thomas Baker 22 Maryland Gazette, July 8, 1746. 23 Maryland Gazette, November 25, 1746. 24 Maryland Gazette, December 9, 1746. 25 Maryland Gazette, March 17, 1747. 30 Thomas Baker also produced earthenware in St. Mary?s County. Like Rumney, Baker referenced recruiting potter workers in a Maryland Gazette newspaper advertisement. However, it is unclear if Baker himself was a potter. On September 2, 1756, Baker advertised: To be sold by the subscriber at his Dwelling Plantation, and at his pot-House in St. Mary?s County, and on the Head of the St. Mary?s River by Wholesale or retail. EARTHEN-WARE, of the same kind as imported from Liverpool, or made in Philadelphia, such as Milk-Pans Butter-Potts, painted Dishes, Plates etc. with sundry other sorts of small Ware too tedious to mention. He is provided with good Workmen from Liverpool and Philadelphia and Proper utensils for carrying on the Business so that all persons who may have occasion of any sort of the said Ware may depend on being supplied with such as is good and very cheap. He will take in Pay, Pork, Tar, Wheat, corn, or Tobacco, at reasonable rate, for any of the above commodities. Thomas Baker.26 John Brown In 1763, John Brown, a Quaker potter from Haddonfield, New Jersey, moved with his family to Baltimore, establishing a successful earthenware business on Bond Street in the Old Town section of Baltimore. Released from an apprenticeship with Wilmington, Delaware potter Matthew Crips a year earlier, Brown is the earliest documented potter known to have worked in Baltimore.27 Brown would later set up 26 Maryland Gazette, September 2, 1756. 27 John Brown is referenced in two works; John N. Pearce, Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850 (Master?s thesis, University of Delaware, 1959) and James R. Koterski, 31 shop on Bridge Street in the city, while his brother David?s son David Jr. later manufactured pottery at Salisbury and Exeter Streets. The success of the Brown family is directly related to the substantial growth of Baltimore as a port town, and their monopoly over earthenware production would last several decades. John Brown?s probate inventory taken after his death in 1802 provides an opportunity to examine and compare the types of lead-glazed earthenware vessels that he produced at this point in time, and probably earlier. As expected, his inventory contained wares that served preservation and storage functions such as jugs, flat pots, small jars and jugs, and butter pots. What is more informative about Brown?s inventory is that he carried a large stock of vessels for food preparation and service, notably pipkins, stove pots, basins, ?round bottom?d and ?flat bottom?d? dishes, bowls, mugs, pitchers, and ?pudden? pans.? As will be discussed, a trade embargo on foreign manufactures that began in 1807 and lasted through the War of 1812 boosted the demand for local earthenware and many other types of domestically-made products. However, this opportunity was short-lived, as American consumers again had access to more fashionable imported wares following the conclusion of this conflict. Early Potters and Potteries of Delaware: Historical and Commercial Perspectives 1760- 1890 (Wilmington, De.: Cedar Tree Books, 2005). 32 England Launches a Queensware Revolution Just after the arrival of John Brown in Baltimore, another prolific potter, Josiah Wedgwood of England, began to produce refined ceramics that fueled intense consumer demand that continued through the 19th century. Neil McKendrick et al. point out that Wedgwood orchestrated ?one of the most brilliant and sustained campaigns in the history of consumer exploitation.?28 First, in 1765 Wedgwood launched his cream-coloured ?Queens Ware? a fashionable and popular line of tableware made of refined lead-glazed earthenware.29 English potters made a wide range of light-colored creamware vessels from 1775-1820 (fig. 4).30 In 1779 Wedgwood introduced a new line called ?Pearl White,? after potters in Staffordshire, England had already been making ?China-Glaze? for several years. The chief selling point of both of these types of pearlware was a whiter coloration achieved by adding china clay and chine stone to a creamware body, and then covering it with a cobalt- tinged lead glaze.31 Shell-edged pearlware plates were a popular and fashionable design, and those with rococo rims date from 1780-1815 (fig. 5).32 28 Neil McKendrick, John Brewer, and J.H. Plumb, The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England (Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 103. 29 Excellent overviews of creamware are provided in ?Creamware in Context? by David Barker and ?Understanding Creamware? by Roger Massey in Creamware and Pearlware Re- Examined, edited by Tom Walford and Roger Massey (Kent: English Ceramic Circle, 2007). 30 George L. Miller, et al., ?Telling Time for Archaeologists? in Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol. 29, 2000, p. 12. 31 Terry Lockett, ?Pearlware: Origins and Early Types? in Creamware and Pearlware Re- Examined, p. 169. Lockett provides an up-to-date overview of pearlware research. 32 George L. Miller, et al., ?Telling Time for Archaeologists,? p. 12. 33 Figure 4-Light-colored creamware serving vessels, England, ca. 1775-1820. Upper left to right: Dessert plates and plate. Lower left to right: Fruit-basket and stand, tureen and lid, and pitcher. (Courtesy, Historic London Town and Gardens.) Figure 5-Rococo shell-edged pearlware plate with underglaze decoration of flowers and insects, England, ca. 1780-1815. (Courtesy, Historic London Town and Gardens.) 34 Archaeologist and ceramics historian George L. Miller aptly notes that ?The Staffordshire potteries developed from a craft into an industry during the eighteenth century (and) specialization broke down what had been a single skilled occupation into many semiskilled jobs.?33 In fact, English potters were far ahead of their American counterparts at this point, having already introduced ?calcinated flint, Cornish clays, liquid glaze, plaster-of-paris molds, steam-powered flint mills, and clay-mixing equipment, transfer printing, and the construction of canals connecting Staffordshire to Liverpool.?34 Innovation remained the hallmark of the Staffordshire potteries; Wedgewood began production of whiteware in 1805, and after 1820 this refined ware had become common on American sites.35 Consumer demand for these types of imported English wares was strong in Baltimore and other American cities as they conveyed both fashion and status. As ceramics historians Diana and J. Garrison Stradling point out, later in the 19th century ?For American manufacturers, the term ?Queen?s ware? represented what they hoped to make but eventually came to mean whatever they actually made, regardless of appearance, so long as it might possibly pass for English.?36 33 George L. Miller, ?Marketing Ceramics in North America: In Introduction,? in Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 19, Number 1, Spring 1984, p. 2. 34 Ibid. 35 George L. Miller, et al., ?Telling Time for Archaeologists,? p. 13. 36 Diana and J. Garrison Stradling, ?American Queensware?The Louisville Experience, 1829-1837? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2001), p. 165. 35 The Emergence of Stoneware Potters During the Revolutionary War, Maryland?s utilitarian potters experienced a period of prosperity that was directly related to an increased demand for domestically made products. A ready supply of imported English wares was no longer available to area merchants who had no choice but to supplement their inventories with earthenware made locally. However, in general, the popularity of the local earthenware tradition trailed off in the years following the Revolution mainly due to a flood of imported wares from English potteries. These imports resulted in the lowering of prices, overstocking by merchants, and overbuying by the public. An important study by George L. Miller and Amy C. Earls documents the oversupply and falling prices of English refined wares between 1806 and 1886.37 Using a collection of invoices that list various types of ceramics sold by importers and wholesalers to the ?country trade,? Miller and Earls find cause to reevaluate the assumption that the industrial revolution was driven by a consumer revolution. In the decades following the war, certain craft potters attempted to regain a market foothold by turning to stoneware production which also provided consumers with a safer alternative to lead-glazed earthenware. Baltimore was part of a second wave of stoneware production in the Mid-Atlantic that was widespread geographically and resulted in varying degrees of regional competition in the first quarter of the 19th century (fig. 6). Notably, in 1809, Branch Green began making 37 See George L. Miller and Amy C. Earls, ?War and Pots: The Impact of Economics and Politics on Ceramic Consumption Patterns? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Milwaukee, Wi.: Chipstone Foundation, 2008). 36 stoneware in Philadelphia; Green was the first potter to revive local stoneware production first started by Anthony Duche in the early 18th century. In Richmond, Benjamin DuVal began producing stoneware in 1811, leading the way for more than a half-dozen stoneware potters by the close of the first quarter of the 19th century.38 In 1813, potter John Swann began producing stoneware at his shop on Wilkes Street in Alexandria, Virginia, setting in place a tradition that continued into the last quarter of the century. Stoneware was also being produced by potters in the Shenandoah Valley by at least the 1820s.39 38 Robert Hunter and Marshall Goodman, ?The Destruction of the Benjamin DuVal Stoneware Manufactory, Richmond, Virginia? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005), p. 37. Also, see Kurt C. Russ and W. Sterling Schermerhorn, ?Rocketts? Red Glare: John P. Schermerhorn and the Early Richmond Area Stoneware Industry? in same publication. 39 H.E. Comstock, Pottery of the Shenandoah Valley Region (Winston-Salem, N.C.: The Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, 1994), p. 64. 37 Figure 6-Stoneware vessels made in Mid-Atlantic region. Left to right: Jug associated with Philadelphia potter Branch Green, 1809-1827 (Courtesy, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, State Museum of Pennsylvania); crock with maker?s mark of Richmond, Virginia potter Benjamin DuVal, 1811-1820 (Courtesy, Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts); and jug attributed to Alexandria, Virginia potter John Swann, 1813-1820 (Courtesy, Alexandria Archaeology.) In Baltimore, the establishment of the city?s first stoneware pottery by Thomas Morgan in 1795 marked a major turning point in the town?s production, which for three decades had been dominated by the Brown family of potters (fig. 7). Morgan?s arrival signaled the beginning of a gradual shift from utilitarian vessels made of earthenware to those made of stoneware, a trend that continued throughout the 19th century. He established his new shop and kiln operation at Pitt and Green Streets, situated in the northern section of the city.40 As will be discussed in Chapters 40 Records show that in November 1794 and 1795 Morgan bought two parcels of land in 38 5 and 6, the close proximity of urban potters to residential neighborhoods and other type of businesses often resulted in disagreements and conflict. Figure 7-Portrait of Thomas Morgan, ca. 1830. (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) The continued expansion of Baltimore in the early-19th century along with a restrictive trade policy tied to a growing international conflict culminating in the War of 1812 fostered a healthy climate for locally-made pottery. Specifically, the 1807 trade embargo, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, and the war itself increased the demand for American-made goods, including Baltimore pottery, as the availability of proximity to Pitt and Green Streets; Baltimore County Deeds, 1794, Liber W.G. #R.R., folios 81-82, and 1795, Liber W.G. #S.S., folios 403-404. It is possible that his factory was operational at some point in 1795; he appears in city directories as a potter in 1796. See Baltimore Town and Fell?s Point Directory for 1796 (Baltimore: William Thompson and James L. Walker; Printed by Pechin and Co.), p. 56. 39 foreign imports fell dramatically. However, the end of the war reopened the American market and potters in Baltimore were significantly affected as another flood of English imports came into the city. Even the post-war Tariff Act of 1816, which raised the duty on foreign-made ?china ware,? earthenware, stoneware, and porcelain to 20 percent did not level the playing field when it came to the production of finer wares.41 The Staffordshire potteries had reinstated their dominance in America for the effects of these imports are described within a section of the 1820 Census reserved for general remarks: Our Manufactures at present, are in a languishing condition, and the Earthenware in a peculiar manner, (as it is substituted by Queensware (of which there has been immense quantities forced into our county) more than Stoneware) as in the Stoneware they neither make Dishes or any Flat shaped Ware, Bowls, or Porrengers?and in addition to the injury we the Manufacturers of Earthenware sustain owning to the vast influx of Queensware.42 These remarks make it clear that domestic earthenware production in Baltimore in 1820 was at a severe disadvantage as a result of the importation of more refined and fashionable tableware from established potteries in England. An advertisement placed by Baltimore merchants George Grundy & Sons details the 41 Susan H. Myers, Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Ceramics in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980), pp. 16-17. 42 Fourth Census of the U.S., 1820, Schedule of Manufactures, Maryland, Baltimore City. 40 fashionable refined ceramics imported to the city at this time. In 1820, the firm received ?160 crates of earthenwares?edged dishes, plates, twifflers, muffins, salads, bakers; enameled London teas, etc.; cream colored bowls, ewers, basins, chambers; blue printed dishes, plates, twifflers, muffins, etc.?43 However, despite the availability of refined wares exported from England, certain potters in the city continued to compete for a portion of the market for refined table wares. By at least 1824, local production of earthenware tea pots and coffee pots was being carried out, notably by Nicholas Jones. The ledger of potter Maulden Perine records sales of redware tea pots and coffee pots in 1839-1840.44 Also, a later advertisement in 1842 lists Benjamin Greble selling black and brown tea pots, while James E. Jones offered red and black tea and coffee pots.45 Cultural Traditions and Craft-Centricity In the 18th century and early decades of the 19th century local potters in Baltimore were defined by an artisan community comprised of master potters, journeymen potters, and apprentices. The argument can be made that early on, under the guild system of craft which can be traced back to Medieval Germany, potteries 43 Gloria Seaman Allen references this ad in ?Ceramics in Maryland,? American Ceramic Circle Journal, The American Issue, Volume VI, p. 98. 44 Susan H. Myers, ?Marketing American Pottery: Maulden Perine in Baltimore,? Winterthur Portfolio 19, no. 1 (spring 1984), p. 56. 45 Craig?s Business Directory and Baltimore Almanac, 1842 (Baltimore: Daniel R. Craig, 1842), p. 121. 41 were more egalitarian and class differences were less pronounced. As will be seen in later chapters, economic forces such as infusions of capital from outside entrepreneurs, including china merchants, and increased competition from industrialization had a pronounced affect on class. In fact, by 1833 journeyman potters in the city selected David Parr, a Methodist Protestant class leader, to represent them as their delegate to the organizational meeting of the Working Men?s Trades? Union.46 Parr?s name also appears as a member of the ward committees for relief of the poor in 1844, which was comprised of trade unionists, artisan activists, and populist evangelicals.47 A growing division of labor within potteries eventually transformed the independent status of master craftsmen. For instance, many pottery workers, such as those employed by Maulden Perine in the second half of the 19th century, performed single tasks whether it be grinding clay, throwing on the wheel, finishing pots, or firing, loading, and unloading kilns.48 Apprentices eventually lost the promise of climbing the ladder of opportunity and one day becoming a master potter themselves. Further, industrialized fineware plants in the city, particularly toward the end of the 46 William R. Sutton, Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), p. 228. 47 Ibid., p. 303. 48 See Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Box #3. This collection of records highlights how labor was divided among Perine?s workforce from 1842 onward, and lists the compensation they received for different responsibilities involving production. 42 century, increasingly relied on semi-skilled laborers, including children, for menial tasks. However, while conceptions of class changed over the 19th century, hand craft traditions remained relevant and were carried out in a manner developed over the course of many centuries, principally in Germany and England (fig. 8). Highly skilled potters were among the large influx of European immigrants who settled in Baltimore. Trained in methods of hand craft that originated in their homeland, immigrant potters who chose to settle in the city also facilitated the transference of cultural traditions. Chapter 7 analyzes visual characteristics of ethnicity on surviving examples of stoneware vessels, as well as two sets of important historical documents, passenger ship lists and census records. Figure 8-Unidentified stoneware potter hand crafts jug on wheel in the same manner as potters centuries before, probably Baltimore, ca. late-19th century. From Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), Plate XXXVI. These early working-class artisans took a great deal of pride in their craft, and earned the respect of their community due to their considerable talents. They 43 practiced their trade with specialized skills passed down through extended family networks and rigorous and lengthy hands-on training. Some of Baltimore?s earliest potters were supported by close-knit family relationships and among the prominent and long-lasting families of potters there are many examples of intermarrying. Women are also known to have owned potteries in Baltimore, supporting and influencing these operations in many ways. The city?s potters also benefited from the indentured labor of young apprentices, many of whom were orphans. Identifying Cultural Tradition through Generations It is important to recognize that skills associated with pottery making could not be learned from universal books or instruction manuals. Instead, distinct cultural traditions developed over time and were exchanged and kept alive primarily through family members and formal apprenticeships.49 In effect, a mutually-dependent relationship existed in which descendents of families benefited from the specialized skills they were taught, which ensured that they then passed these traditions on to the next generation. Highly successful multi-generational families of potters can be found producing stoneware in several regions of the eastern seaboard throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Notably, in the second and third decades of the 18th century, the Crolius and Remmey families respectively established family dynasties in New York City. Archaeologist and ceramics scholar Meta Janowitz notes that these potters of 49 John N. Pearce identifies several extended families of potters [see Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850, Plate. XXIII (facing p. 93)]. 44 German ancestry were ?trained in the Pot Bakers Land in a centuries-old tradition that placed the production of stonewares in a family and guild setting.? 50 Further, Peter Bell Jr. began making earthenware in Hagerstown, Maryland as early as 1804, while his sons John, Solomon, and Samuel and several of their children went on to manufacture both earthenware and stoneware throughout the Shenandoah Valley into the last quarter of the 19th century, including Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, and Winchester and Strasburg, Virginia. In Baltimore, the family-run pottery operation continued to be a paradigm that helped to ensure the success of businesses, while also strengthening the ties between multi-generational and extended relations throughout the 19th century. Family members working in concert with one another helped retain skilled traditions that in many cases endured and remained relevant over long periods of time. Potters were inter-connected with one another in many different ways, including fathers, sons, grandsons, brothers, brothers-in-law, nephews, as well as daughters who married other potters. In Baltimore, in addition to the Brown family of earthenware potters, successful stoneware businesses were also carried out by members of many different families in the 19th century. Specifically, family-run operations involving the Amoss, Herrmann, Linton, Morgan, Parr, Perine, and Remmey lines are highlighted in Chapter 7. 50 Meta F. Janowitz, ?New York City Stonewares from the African Burial Ground? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Milwaukee, Wi.: Chipstone Foundation, 2008), p. 45. 45 Stepping Over Gender Thresholds In Baltimore during the 19th century, women were not afforded the same opportunities as men to be directly involved in the production of utilitarian pottery. Unlike young boys, young girls did not have access to apprenticeships in which they received formal training from potters. Further, during this period there are no examples of women actually working in the city as stoneware potters. Yet, while the identities of male potters are preserved within the documentary record, and, therefore, aspects of their involvement are more visible, it should not be assumed that women did not have the ability to influence the production of stoneware. For instance, in Baltimore, and, elsewhere, women ably assumed ownership of potteries upon the death of their husbands. Catharine Brown ran the pottery of C. Brown and Co. at Queen and Granby Streets (later known as Pratt and High Streets) into the 1830s following the death of her husband James in 1811. Margaret Parr operated a pottery business in her own right for several decades after the death of her husband David, a potter, in 1832. The records of the Baltimore Equitable Society fire insurance company reveal that in 1836 Margaret Parr insured her dwelling house and pottery on the west side of Eden Street near the north side of Baltimore Street.51 By 1857, she had taken out insurance policies on her dwelling house and pottery, and also a Queensware store ?fronting the East side of South Street, near the north side of 51 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, 1836, pp. 319-320. 46 Pratt Street.?52 Further, William Linton?s wife Elizabeth and son William G. were both involved with the operation of the family business after 1877. It was also not uncommon for wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters to live in homes that were connected to or adjacent to production areas of Baltimore potters, particularly in the first half of the 19th century. This close proximity blurred the edges of work space and domestic space, and probably specific gender roles associated with each. As such, domestic work women carried out in the home probably intersected with or supported aspects of the family businesses in undocumented ways. It is possible to document specific potters and their families coexisting on the same property; the 1831 city directory lists potter Thomas Morgan working and residing at Pitt and Exeter Streets, while potter Maulden Perine did the same at Pine and Lexington Streets.53 The interconnected spatial dimensions of work and home can be reconstructed for a number of potters that were policy holders with the Baltimore Equitable Society. For instance, the company?s survey records reveal that in 1817, potter David Brown, Jr. insured his ?two story brick Pothouse situated near the north west intersection of 52 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Policies, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, 1857, pp. 239-240. John N. Pearce notes that Margaret Parr operated the pottery until 1842, when her son David Jr. took control (see Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763- 1850, pp. 111-113). However, the records of the Baltimore Equitable Society fire insurance company indicate a longer period of ownership by Margaret Parr. 53 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1831 (Baltimore: Printed by Richard J. Matchett, 1831). 47 Exeter and Salisbury Streets being 36 feet long x 24 feet wide.?54 In 1829, he also insured his ?two story brick dwelling house fronting on the north side of Salisbury Street, 23 feet on the west side of Exeter Street.?55 In 1825, potter William Greble insured his ?two story brick building fronting on the north west side of Ensor Street,? which measured 36 feet by 18 feet deep. Attached to the back of the house was a 32- foot x 21-foot two-story brick building with a 24-foot-square ?two story brick kiln house at the north west end of said back building.?56 In 1828, another potter, Elisha Parr, insured a 14.6-foot x 27.6-foot ?two story brick dwelling house fronting on the north side of Pitt Street between Canal and Eden streets.? Attached to the east side of the dwelling house were two other two-story brick buildings measuring 23.6 feet x 27 feet and 23.6 feet. x 27 feet, respectively, which were occupied for the pottery and storage of ware.57 In 1830, potter Thomas W. Brotherton took out an insurance policy of his own for the same property.58 Conversely, the production of finer ceramic wares in Baltimore in the second half of the 19th century provided more formalized opportunities for women to be directly involved in factory production. The specialization of tasks within an industrialized environment increased opportunities for females, especially in areas 54 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys, Book E, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, 1817, p. 225. 55 Ibid., Book I, 1829, p. 345. 56 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys, Book H, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, 1825, pp. 178-179. 57 Ibid., Book I, 1828, p. 114. 58 Ibid., 1830, p. 442. 48 involving decoration. In particular, women are found in large numbers skillfully decorating artistic wares that were not intended for food preservation and storage, at the Chesapeake Pottery operated by David F. Haynes, which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8. It should also be quite obvious that women also played indirect roles in influencing the production output of potters, based on the types of vessels they preferred to use in their households. Throughout the 19th century females typically processed most of the food families consumed. Jeanne Boydston points out women ?kept chickens for eggs, meat, and feathers, tended small barnyard animals, foraged for berries, fished, clammed, and kept kitchen gardens. They helped slaughter animals and preserve meat, milked cows, made cheese, butter, cider, wine, and beer.?59 As such, it was women, not men, who relied on these functional vessels for food preservation and storage needs within the kitchen, and, consequently, as consumers they ultimately determined the types of wares potters would make in order to satisfy their needs and demands. This was especially true before processed foods packaged in innovative metal and glass containers became widely accessible through retail establishments, a topic addressed later in Chapter 9. 59 Jeanne Boydston, Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p.12. 49 Teaching Cultural Tradition Like other urban stoneware centers, Baltimore relied on apprentices to carry out basic tasks associated with menial or labor intensive aspects of stoneware production. However, in a larger sense, this type of formal arrangement represented an important means of passing along cultural traditions. An indentured apprentice, usually a boy about the age of 14, would be bonded to a potter until he was twenty- one years old. In exchange for his work, the apprentice was afforded clothing and lodging and usually was taught to read and write. In addition to providing necessities and an education, the ?master potter? also shared ?the knowledge he had acquired about clay, throwing, mixing, and applying glazes, stacking and firing kilns and how to make all the necessary hand tools and shop equipment used in the trade.?60 This long course of training ?insured that young men would eventually attain a high degree of skill?turning out ware in the exact proportions required and with the utmost speed.?61 After fulfilling the terms of his apprenticeship, an individual would be qualified to work for journeyman wages with the goal of saving up enough money to open up his own shop. By 1815, half of Baltimore?s teenaged boys were indentured servants.62 Until the 1830s, indentures averaged between six and seven years in length, and no more than a handful promised wages. Apprenticeships included relatively few girls in 60 Harold F. Guilland, Early American Folk Pottery, p. 18. 61 Lura Woodside Watkins, Early New England Potters and Their Wares, p. 2. 62 T. Stephen Whitman, ?Manumission and Apprenticeship in Maryland, 1770-1870,? Maryland Historical Magazine (spring 2006), p. 58. 50 Baltimore, and the developmental history of apprenticeships applied chiefly to white boys.63 A 1788 apprenticeship contract between potter David Brown and Peter Perine Jr. provides an opportunity to examine the terms and conditions of this type of formalized agreement. The two used an apprenticeship form printed by M.K. Goddard, a Baltimore printer, and its generic nature implies that it could have been used for any type of occupation. The printed portion of the contract stated the following: During which Term, the said Apprentice his Master faithfully shall serve, his Secrets keep, his lawful Commands every-where readily obey. He shall do no Damage to his said Master, nor see it to be done by other, without letting or giving Notice thereof to his said Master. He shall not waste his said Master?s Goods, nor lend them unlawfully to any. He shall not commit Fornication, nor contract Matrimony within the said Term. He shall not play at Cards, Dice, or any other unlawful Game, whereby his aid Master may have Damage, with his own Goods, nor the Goods of others. Without License from his said Master, he shall neither buy nor sell. He shall not absent himself Day nor Night from his said Master?s Service without his Leave: Nor haunt Alehouses, Taverns, or Playhouses, but in all Things behave himself as a faithful Apprentice ought to do during the said Term. 63 Ibid. 51 Perine agreed to enter into his agreement upon the ?advise and consent of his mother? for a term of ?six years.? While the printed terms of the contract stipulated that he would be provided ?sufficient Meat, Drink?, Lodging, and Washing?? Brown also agreed to provide apparel and some schooling. Specifically, Perine was to be ??perfectly taught in arithmetic as far as the Rule of Three, and at the expiration of said Term give unto him such Clothing as is Customary for apprentices to have at the Expiration of their apprenticeships.?64 Table 1 provides a list of 49 apprentices who entered into formal agreements with 17 different Baltimore potters. Their apprenticeships which ranged anywhere from 4-12 years are referenced in Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763- 1850 by John N. Pearce.65 Potter Apprentice Date Entered William H. Amos James Deloughery 1812-? William H. Amos James Sinclair 1819-? William H. Amos Aquilla Schonn 1820-1824 William H. Amos Henry A. A. Benner 1826-1830 Vachel Black John Peter Doyhair 1821-1825 David Brown John Kelly 1772-? David Brown William Chambers 1785-? 64 John N. Pearce, Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850, p. 22, Plate V. 65 Ibid., pp. 87-119. Pearce compiled these apprenticeships from records at the Maryland State Archives, including the Baltimore County Court Minutes (read for the period 1765- 1791), Baltimore County Orphans Court Proceedings (read for the period 1777-1794), and Baltimore County Indentures (partially cross referenced for 1794-1850) which he discusses on p. 120. 52 David Brown Robert Bartlett 1796-1802 David Brown Joseph Hibberd 1795-1800 David Brown Isaac Swan 1795-1802 David Brown Jr. William McAnnelly 1811-1821 James Brown James Collins 1800-1807 James Brown Frederick Devon 1803-1810 James Brown Ireneus Miller 1798-1802 John Brown Joseph Rinehart 1799-1807 James Burland John Brown 1816-18?? James Burland William Sketch 1821-1828 Alexander Greble William L. Wisebaugh 1835-1839 Benjamin Greble Henry Deal 1822-1828 Benjamin Greble John Foss 1825-1837 James Johnson Henry Bradford 1803-1806 Nicholas Slubbey Jones John D. Hurlt 1814-1819 Nicholas Slubbey Jones John Byrum 1816-1824 Nicholas Slubbey Jones Thomas Dixon 1819-1825 Nicholas Slubbey Jones James C. Blanch 1826-1827 Nicholas Slubbey Jones William Burton 1826-1829 Nicholas Slubbey Jones Charles B. Canby 1828-1833 John Kelly William Lofferty 1799-1806 John Kelly Thomas Pocock 1807-1817 John Kelly Jesse Downs 1807-1812 Joel Morgan David Metcalf 1798-1804 James Morgan James Jones 1801-1807 David Parr James Brown 1813-1818 David Parr Samuel Taylor 1814-1819 David Parr William Chambers Jr. 1815-1819 David Parr John Divers Thinnick 1824-1830 David Parr Robert Davis Shinnick 1831-1835 David Parr William C. Rollins 1825-1829 David Parr James Madison Shinnick 1831-1835 David Parr Wheeler Watkins 1831-1835 53 David Parr James L. Norris 1831-1834 David Parr George Henry Davidson 1832-1838 David Parr Jr. James Rhodes 1836-1840 David Parr Jr. James Hamilton 1836-1841 David Parr Jr. Frederick Marquand Jr. 1839-1845 David Parr Jr. William Stroh 1844-1848 Maulden Perine Joseph Christner 1828-1832 Maulden Perine John Graham 1836-1841 Peter Perine Henry Bradford 1798-1806 Table 1-Baltimore potters and their apprentices, 1772-1848. Many apprentices were also destitute orphans who entered into formalized arrangements with potters at a very young age. These parentless children had limited opportunities, and potters, like other employers, provided them with food, shelter, and medical attention. A review of the Baltimore County Orphan?s Court Proceedings in the first three decades of the 19th century reveals eleven young orphans ranging in age from 11-19 years old entering into apprenticeships with Baltimore potters (table 2).66 The transference of specialized skills and training through these formal contracts is illustrated by orphan James Burland. After fulfilling an apprenticeship with potter James Brown, Burland went on to become a potter and take on an orphan apprentice of his own, Michael Nippert. 66 Baltimore County Orphan?s Court Proceedings WK 1086-87, Maryland State Archives: Aaron Gavis, 1806, #145; William Hessington, 1807, #200; Thomas McCormick, 1808, #281; James Burland, 1808, #323; John Benson, 1808, #326; Ebenezer Pennington, 1808, #327; Michael Ragan, 1808, #27; William Brazier, 1810, #209; William Brazier, 1810, #209; Michael Ragan, 1811, #98; Michael Nippert, 1823, #109. 54 Potter providing apprenticeship Name of orphan Age of orphan Year of apprenticeship Nicholas Euler Aaron Gavis 12 1806 William Stewart William Hessington 11 1807 William Stewart Thomas McCormick 15 1808 James Brown (Formerly bound to William Moody, dec.) James Burland 15 1808 James Brown (Formerly bound to William Moody, dec.) John Benson 19 1808 James Brown (Formerly bound to William Moody, dec.) Ebenezer Pennington 13 1808 James Brown Michael Ragan 11 1808 David Parr William Brazier 13 1810 David Parr (Formerly bound to James Brown, dec.) Michael Ragan 15 1811 James Burland Michael Nippert 19 1823 Benjamin Grible Jackson Richards 12 1827 Table 2-Orphan boys who apprenticed with Baltimore potters from 1806-1827. The Selective Nature of Cultural Traditions Since cultural traditions were passed down through formal apprenticeships or family ties, not everyone had the same degree of access or opportunity to participate. In terms of utilitarian pottery making, this was especially true for women and African Americans. With regard to the latter, Daniel Mathews, a ?Free black orphan child? bound to potter Isaac Swan from 1807 to 1813 is the only African American 55 apprentice recorded in Baltimore.67 Several other free Blacks were found identified as potters in Baltimore city directories, including James Jones (1819-1824),68 Stephen Brown (1817-1837),69 John Platter (1822),70 Joseph Dorsey (1871-1875),71 and Isaac Sample (1873-82).72 It is possible that James Jones is the same person who apprenticed with potter James Morgan in 1801-1807. Also, Jones? address on Harford Street in city directories may indicate that he worked at the Pitt and Harford Street pottery associated with Vachel Black and later Black and Elisha Parr.73 There are several other reasons that might help to explain why more African Americans were not involved in pottery production in Baltimore. First, only one-fifth of Baltimore families owned enslaved people, which is low in comparison to other cities that bordered the South.74 Between 1790 and 1820, the number of enslaved 67 John N. Pearce, Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850, p. 106. 68 Ibid., p. 101. 69 Ibid., p. 93. 70 Ibid., p. 115. 71 Dorsey is identified as a potter with an address of 236 S. Eutaw in 1871 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1871, p. 691) and 40 Hill in 1872 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1872, p. 702.) and 1875 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1875, p. 683). 72 Sample is identified as both a potter and a laborer in city directories from 1873-1882 in the following manner: potter with an address of 288 S. Eutaw in 1873 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1873, p. 735); potter at 40 Hill in 1875 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1875, p. 721) and 1877 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1877, p. 799); potter at 40 Hill in 1879 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1879, p. 912); and laborer at 40 Hill in 1881 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1881, p. 1033) and 1882 (Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1882, p. 1072). 73 Pearce, p. 101. 74 Richard M. Bernard, ?A Portrait of Baltimore in 1800: Economic and Occupational 56 people in the city declined from 9 percent to 7 percent, while free Blacks increased from 2 percent to 17 percent.75 However, Ralph Clayton alleges that both enslaved people and free Blacks in the city were later displaced by immigrants who came to the city by the thousands and effectively took away job opportunities.76 Notably, census data shows that the Black population in proximity to Wards 1 and 2 circling the Baltimore Basin area decreased from 32,021 in 1850 to 27,898 in 1860, while the population of German immigrants in just the first ward of the city increased by over 100 percent during the same time period.77 In 1820, a male slave under the age of 14 and a free Black male between the ages of 14 and 25 lived in the household of potter Henry Remmey, leaving open the possibility that they were involved in pottery production.78 Yet, many other early potters who worked in Baltimore were Quakers, including the Brown, Morgan, and Amoss families. By the latter part of the 19th century this faith precluded the ownership of enslaved people79 In 1777 the Maryland Society of Friends outlawed Patterns in an Early American City? in Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 69, No. 4, Winter 1974, p. 351. 75 Charles G. Steffen, ?Changes in the Organization of Artisan Production in Baltimore, 1790-1820,? The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, January 1979, p. 106. 76 Ralph Clayton, The Effect of Immigration on the Negro in Baltimore 1850-1860 (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, Inc., 1987), pp. 2-3. 77 Ibid. 78 John E. Kille, ?Distinguishing Marks and Flowering Designs: Baltimore?s Utilitarian Stoneware Industry? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005), p. 110. 79 U.S. Census Records confirm that David Brown, Thomas Morgan, Thomas Amoss, and 57 the controversial practice completely, and by 1788 the Baltimore Yearly Meeting of Friends stated that ?Friends seem to be clear of holding slaves.?80 The involvement of African Americans was more pronounced in regions of the south where slavery was more widespread. Notably, enslaved people in Edgefield, South Carolina are documented making grotesque jugs with facial features in an African cultural tradition which have been studied by numerous scholars.81 Although highly unusual, a literate and prolific enslaved potter known as ?Dave? produced utilitarian stoneware in the shop of Lewis Miles of Edgefield. Dave often inscribed massive vessels that he made, particularly jars, with witty and poignant verses and poems that sometimes reflected the experience of enslavement.82 William Amoss did not own enslaved people while in Baltimore. 80 J. Reaney Kelly, Quakers in the Founding of Anne Arundel County, Maryland (Baltimore: The Maryland Historical Society, 1963), pp. 87-88. 81 See John Michael Vlach, The Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts (Athens, Ga.: The University of Georgia Press, 1990), p. 88 and John Michael Vlach, ?International Encounters at the Crossroads of Clay: European, Asian, and African Influences on Edgefield Pottery,? in Crossroads of Clay: The Southern Alkaline-Glazed Stoneware Tradition, edited by Catherine Wilson Horne (Columbia, S.C.: McKissick Museum, University of South Carolina, 1990), p. 36. 82 See Arthur F. Goldberg and James P. Witkowski, ?Beneath His Magic Touch: The Dated Vessels of the African?American Slave Potter Dave? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2006), pp. 59-92. 58 The following reference published in the Crockery and Glass Journal in 1885 tells of the disparate involvement of African Americans potters in the South and North: There is a pottery in Haddonfield, N.J., which is owned and operated by a colored man named Nicken. He has sent two hundred specimens of his wares to the New Orleans Exposition. The production is mainly in the stoneware order of pottery, and is remarkable only as the handiwork of the only known colored potter in the Northern States. Down in ?Dixie? there are lots of them at work making stone jugs, and display considerable skill in turning out that class of work rapidly and well.83 Curiously, a single African American male, who appears young, is among a large group of employees photographed at the Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory (see figure 112 and caption). Also unusual is a Black crockery dealer, Thomas Landy, who the 1853 city directory places at 83 Jefferson.84 Evidence of Blacks involved in the making and selling of pottery in Baltimore raises important questions that cannot be answered without additional information. Is it possible Black artisans in some way served a Black clientele without their existence in business being recorded in the same places as for White potters? Would Black potters have worked mostly in a segregated setting in which they would not have competed directly with immigrants? 83 The Crockery and Glass Journal, March 5, 1885, p. 18. 84 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1853-54, p. 347 59 Serving the Needs of Communities It is important to recognize that Baltimore?s utilitarian potters provided a valuable service within their own communities through the various types of preservation and storage containers they crafted. Celebrated contemporary Georgia folk potter Lanier Meaders aptly points out that potters were ?number one? in the community because ?just about everything else at one time or another?depended on it. Those things (utilitarian pottery vessels) were as important back in the old days as mobile homes are now; poor folks couldn?t live without them.?85 Meaders? comments reflect the important role of potters and the functionality of the wares they produced. While preserving food in stoneware containers may seem primitive by modern standards, up until the second half of the 19th century there was really no other alternative. In one important respect, the use of utilitarian stoneware cut across class lines. Everyone had a need for it, and stoneware provided perhaps the best and safest means to preserve many types of food, especially those that were acidic or involved pickling. Utilitarian potters were important to people?s lives because the preservation of fresh fruits, vegetable, meats, or seafood posed a significant challenge up until the first half of the 19th century. Without modern forms of refrigeration, foods could be cooled in an iced environment, but this was a costly, impractical, and temporary way 85 John Burrison, Brothers in Clay: The Story of Georgia Folk Pottery (Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1982, 1995), p. 15. 60 to prevent spoilage. As early as 1833, D.E. Thomas of Baltimore advertised a refrigerator and butter box that was undoubtedly dependent on access to ice. The Highly approved Refrigerator and Butter-Box Selling 20 per cent cheaper than ever sold in this City. This article no Family should be without, on account of its value for keeping Beef, Butter, Milk, Poultry, and all other articles of Provision, cold and clean in warm weather. Apply to D.E. Thomas, No. 4 North Sharp-street, Directly in the rear of Messrs. Jacob and Charless Baltzell?s Dry Goods Store.86 However, ice deliveries and iced refrigeration did not become more widely available until the mid-19th century. By the 1870s and 1880s ?Technical innovation continued both in harvesting and storing natural ice and in artificial ice production, which became an important manufacturing business in the South?and in the North after two mild winters in 1888-1890.?87 This trend continued as ?Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Chicago used over five times as much (ice) in 1914 as 1880.?88 For centuries basic stoneware containers were the best way to preserve meats, vegetables, and fruits which were salted, smoked, pickled in vinegar, sugared, or immersed in alcohol. Salt served as a universal preservative by drying out various 86 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1833 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1833). 87 Susan Strasser, Never Done: A History of American Housework (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982), p. 21. 88 Ibid. 61 foods and ensuring their longevity. For instance, salted pork maintained in brine could remain edible for up to a year, while salting and air drying whitefish removed moisture and kept them preserved for at least six months. Salt also preserved vegetables, and the following instructions from the mid-18th century provided guidance on the matter: ?To keep French Beans all the Year. Take fine young Beans, gather them of a very fine Day, have large Stone-jar ready to clean and dry, lay a Layer of Salt at the Bottom, and then a Layer of Beans, then Salt, and then Beans, and so on till the Jarr is full, cover them with Salt, tye a coarse Cloth over them, and a board on that, and then a Weight to keep it close from all Air; set them in a dry Cellar.?89 Another important method of preserving meats in stoneware jars involved ?potting? or cooking meat in lard of butter which is also used to cover or seal the contents. Sir Hugh Plat describes the process dating to the sixteenth century: ?Some do use to parboil their Fowl, after they have taken out the garbage, and then do dip them in Barrowsgreace [lard], or clarified butter, till they have gotten a new garment over them, and then they lay them one by one in stone pots, filling the stone pots up to the brim with Barrowsgreace or clarified butter.?90 Mashing meats, fish, and cheese with butter prior to potting was one of the best ways to ensure longevity. 89 Sue Shepard, Pickled, Potted, and Canned: How the Art and Science of Food Preserving Changed the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 93. 90 Shepard, p. 190. 62 Further, salt-glazed stoneware crocks, including locally-made examples, provided the only safe means of pickling or preserving food in vinegar. Pickling proved to be one of the most popular and effective methods of preserving a wide variety of vegetable and fish during the 19th century. Vinegar is an acetic fermentation of alcohol produced from grapes, potatoes, fruits, or grains, which as a preservative, prevents the formation of bacteria. At the same time, this acidic reaction made lead-glazed vessels such as utilitarian earthenware or fine tableware highly unsuitable for vinegar pickling, as these vessels became literally poisonous health hazards. Contemporary Treatments Decorated examples of Baltimore stoneware are now commonly referred to as a distinct form of ?folk art,? a term that has taken on different meanings for art historians, anthropologists, and folklorists. The scope of what can be construed to be folk art is vast, including artistic works carried out within the realm of ethnicity or by individuals with unschooled talents, visionary abilities, or insanity. Those critical of the traditional aesthetic canon, such as historian Ken Ames, allege that folk art objects evoke a ?false ?golden age? when life was more authentic, honest, individualistic, spontaneous, unself-conscious, democratic, and indeed more American.?91 Definitions of artistry vary and are by nature subjective. I argue that while art is in the eye of the beholder, it is important to recognize the cultural and economic contexts that helped to define how traditional pottery was made in the 19th 91 Kenneth L. Ames, Antiques, January 1989, p. 277. 63 century. Several constraints, such as economy, production pressures, and cultural traditions framed how stoneware potters approached decoration of their vessels. Utilitarian potters in Baltimore and elsewhere lacked formal artistic training or background, and were motivated more by making a profit. In fact, the life of potters often involved hardship and a constant battle for economic survival. There was great incentive for potters to work hard and long hours, as a successful family pottery could sometimes reap windfall profits.92 Southern pottery historian Charles Zug points out that ?The folk potter was a production potter. He had to turn out the gallonage quickly and economically, and he could not spend excessive time in pulling up his forms, trimming the walls, or adding embellishments.?93 Simple decoration was sometimes applied to these utilitarian objects to enhance their appearance and make them more attractive within a competitive marketplace. These embellishments were usually carried out in a manner that reflected cultural traditions and within a paradigm that consumers came to expect and understood. Most shops in the city that applied decoration to standard production pieces used repeating design motifs, typically floral patterns, a tradition developed over many centuries. Folklorist Henry Glassie notes that decorated stoneware falls in line with western folk ornamentation which is ??characterized by repetition, by forms that are composed of repeated motifs, by forms that exhibit over-all symmetry, 92 John Burrison, Brothers in Clay: The Story of Georgia Folk Pottery, p. 34. 93 Charles G. Zug III, Turners and Burners: The Folk Potters of North Carolina (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986), p. 251. 64 and by forms that are memorized and repeated.? This type of object ??almost never reaches the sophistication of the nonsymmetrical balance of elite art or the rhythmic complexity of much of primitive art.?94 Potters even resorted to using motifs borrowed from other cultures and applied them to their own work. For instance, the tulip design that appears in German designs actually originated in Persia and was used extensively in England.95 Highly decorated examples of utilitarian stoneware are rarely seen, and, as a result, command the highest prices in the modern marketplace. Most are special in the sense that they were not made very often; typically, they were efforts to commemorate, entertain, lampoon, preoccupy children, or perhaps just because a worker was simply bored on that day. Further, it was not always the hand of the master potter that decorated stoneware; this task may have been performed by others, such as journeymen, apprentices, and even female workers.96 Collectors, dealers, and occasionally scholars frequently attribute vessels and the decoration placed on them to a single master potter, usually the person whose name appears on a maker?s mark. Usually this attribution is associated with an effort to call attention to or promote the presumed artistic abilities of this individual. This assumption does not take into 94 Henry Glassie, ?Folk Art? in Material Culture Studies in America by Thomas J. Schlereth (Nashville, Tn.: American Association for State and Local History, 1982), p. 136. 95 Arlene Palmer Schwind, ?Pennsylvania German Earthenware,? in Arts of the Pennsylvania Germans, edited by Scott T. Swank (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1983), p. 69. 96 Lura Woodside Watkins, Early New England Potters and Their Wares, p. 32. 65 account that potteries often had a number of different workers who also had a hand in making and decorating wares. A stamped maker?s mark can only be used to show an association with a pottery shop where a vessel was made, and cannot be used as evidence to show that a marked vessel was made by a specific person. The only definitive evidence to show that a potter made a vessel would be if it bore the incised name of the potter, preferably ?Made by?? However, even with this evidence, it can not be assumed that the same person also decorated it. In fact, two jars made at the Waynesboro, Pennsylvania pottery owned by master potter John Bell provide a rare opportunity to document how the hands of a specific potter sometimes made vessels, while the hands of another person actually applied decoration (fig 9). We know from the inscription on the base of both jars that they were made by another master potter, Solomon Bell, a brother of John Bell, who, with another brother, Samuel, operated a prolific factory in Strasburg, Virginia, for more than four decades. However, Solomon made these particular pieces for his niece Matilda Catharine Bell (known as Tillie) and Annie Bell on New Year?s Day, 1874, while visiting the pottery owned by his brother John. Both jars are impressed with the maker?s mark ?John Bell, Waynesboro.? Another person in the pottery actually decorated these jars, Tillie?s brother Victor Conrad Bell, who became a decorator in his father?s shop rather than a potter 66 because as a child he reputedly severed an artery in his wrist, making it difficult for him to turn pottery on a wheel. The first initial of each niece is part of the design pattern on each jar. The presence of ?V.C. Bel[l]? brushed on one side and the initial A on the other provides definitive proof that it was decorated by Victor. On these special pieces, he used the same repeating motifs used on similar production pieces, but made them more elaborate. Figure 9-Storage jars, Solomon and John Bell, Waynesboro, Pennsylvania, 1874. Salt-glazed stoneware. Left: H. 17?. The underside of this jar is inscribed ?Made by Solomon Bell for Tillie Bell January 1, 1874.? (Private collection.) Right: H. 11 ??. The underside of this example is inscribed ?Made by Solomon Bell for Annie Bell January 1, 1874.? (Courtesy, Dr. Robert Steiner.) 67 Conclusions In conclusion, this section and subsequent chapters examined the significance of Baltimore?s working class potters in the context of cultural traditions in order to better understand their experiences. The emergence of stoneware production in Baltimore toward the end of the 18th century followed a century or more of sporadic earthenware production in Maryland. Local potters shifted from lead-glazed earthenware to safer, more durable containers made of salt-glaze stoneware, yet they continued to rely on craft rather than mechanization throughout the 19th century. Further, potters in the city that attempted to compete directly with more advanced Staffordshire potteries specializing in fashionable creamware, pearlware, and whiteware tableware, collectively referred to as Queensware, were at a distinct disadvantage. Thomas Morgan was the first potter in the city to produce utilitarian stoneware as early as 1795, and his prolific operation spanned five decades. Morgan and other producers of stoneware had the good sense to specialize in containers intended for food preservation and storage rather than attempting to compete directly with Staffordshire for the tableware market. This chapter argues that it is important to view Baltimore stoneware potters from the perspective of cultural tradition. Centuries-old methods of production that originated in Germany and England supported and guided Maryland?s stoneware manufacturers. The skills necessary to manufacture stoneware required extensive training which transferred primarily through generations of family members and 68 formal apprenticeships. The latter provided opportunities for upward mobility; however, not all segments of society had equal access to cultural tradition, notably women and African Americans. This study did not uncover evidence of women working as utilitarian potters, yet they affected production in other important ways. For instance, women assumed ownership of businesses after the death of their husbands, exercised a certain degree of power as consumers of stoneware, and carried out domestic work that supported craft making activities, and in some cases, took place when shops and homes were interconnected. Further, the relatively few African Americans connected to pottery production in 19th-century Baltimore suggest that they, too, were denied the means to acquire the extensive training this skilled hand craft required. There are several plausible explanations for their absence. Notably, Blacks along with women were not apprenticed to potters in Baltimore in the same manner white males were; slave holding was less common in the city than other regions of the South; the Quaker faith precluded potters from owning enslaved people by 1777; the African American population declined in the city due to increased competition from a large and growing immigrant population; and in a final ironic twist, later in the 19th century industrialized factories specializing in fineware employed large numbers of children rather than Blacks for unskilled tasks. 69 Finally, while contemporary trends tend to value 19th-century stoneware primarily on a subjective, aesthetic basis, this approach should not overshadow an appreciation of the inherent functional qualities of these vessels. The intent of highly skilled utilitarian potters was to produce wares that served the basic food preservation and storage needs of local consumers in Baltimore, and surrounding regions accessible by both land and water. 70 Chapter 3: Urbanized Stoneware Manufacture Introduction Chapter 3 will place Baltimore?s stoneware potters within the context of the complex urban environment in which they carried out their traditional craft making. It was no coincidence that a burgeoning stoneware industry emerged as the city experienced extraordinary growth during the first half of the 19th century. The following discussion explores concepts involving change, notably how Baltimore developed into a major city, while at the same time, its local stoneware industry prospered and then declined in the second half of the 19th century. In spatial terms, the city?s potters worked in the midst of expanding transportation infrastructure, alongside homes, commercial businesses, as well as other manufacturing enterprises. Their pottery making shops and kiln operations were situated in many different areas of the city. The experiences of these potters, including both their professional and personal lives, were also much different than potters who worked outside the city, whether in small towns or in the relative isolation of the open countryside. By the early-19th century Baltimore had transformed itself into one of the fastest growing cities in the nation, providing potters with an ample workforce and substantial market for a wide range of functional stoneware used to preserve and store 71 foodstuffs. Potters produced utilitarian vessels that served the needs of individual consumers, manufacturers, commercial enterprises, and retail establishments that operated within the city. Well-positioned in a geographic sense, Baltimore literally stood at the doorstep of Southern markets while also providing an important gateway to the western frontier. This inland port easily transported commercial goods and raw materials to any distant destination desired. Like other manufacturers in the city, potters took advantage of an active port where goods could be shipped to Southern destinations on regular steamboat packets carrying both passengers and freight. Later, the city?s direct access to major railroads provided another convenient and efficient method of transporting stoneware to outlying regions. This chapter argues that Baltimore stoneware potters were active participants in a complex and changing urban environment. The city?s growing and diverse population, thriving manufacturing, and advanced transportation network afforded these potters distinct advantages. At the same time, the integrated nature of these kiln operations within a relatively large urban area presented the city?s stoneware potters with certain challenges, particularly those involving a shared cultural landscape. Distinctive Urban Environment Scholarly studies involving utilitarian pottery usually fail to differentiate between the types of environments in which potters worked and lived. For instance, 72 approaches involving traditional history, historical archaeology, or decorative arts often focus on a single pottery, attempt to classify or discuss the aesthetics of material culture produced by a pottery or potteries, or create a broad survey of biographical information about different potters, with little in the way of interpretive context. However, this study argues that the cultural landscape of an urban potter situated in the heart of 19th-century Baltimore was undoubtedly much different in comparison to potters residing in rural areas or small towns. The geography of urban areas like Baltimore differed from small communities in terms of density and compactness of neighborhoods, streets, and buildings. On the other hand, small towns or rural areas generally lacked this type of intensive infrastructure. In Maryland, as elsewhere, the experience of potters varied greatly and was by no means universal. As a city, Baltimore grew relatively slowly during the first three decades after its founding in 1729. However, halfway through the 18th century an influx of wheat from western Maryland, coupled with an improved system of roads, helped to accelerate the city?s rise to commercial prominence. Baltimore?s growing importance at the close of the century was directly linked to its ability to distribute flour through its seaport on outgoing transatlantic vessels. By 1805 there were ?fifty capital merchant mills? within eighteen miles of Baltimore that ground wheat brought by wagon from outlying rural areas.97 Enterprising millers put in place innovative, large- scale enterprises that put wheat through one continuous process. As a result, at the 97 James Weston Livingood, The Philadelphia-Baltimore Trade Rivalry 1780-1860 (New York: Arno Press and New York Times, 1970), p. 15. 73 start of the 19th century no other city in the nation could rival Baltimore in terms of flour production and distribution. If wheat initiated the transformation of Baltimore, the Revolutionary War ensured that the city would become one of the nation?s predominant mercantile centers. While other cities were blockaded by the British during the war, Baltimore ships sailed unimpeded, supported by extensive wharves and warehouses that stretched from the Basin area just below the center of the city toward Fells Point, which was home to mariners and the working class. The city?s financial district, comprised of banks, insurance companies, broker?s offices and counting houses, was situated above the warehouse area and below Baltimore Street, a major east-west commercial thoroughfare spanning three-quarters of a mile.98 Baltimore Street was ?the center of the city?s mercantile activity? and the ?most important of the city?s 130 streets and roads? (fig. 10). 99 The most established and successful retail merchants, including china and glassware dealers, conducted business along this thoroughfare, which by the third-quarter of the 19th century was served by small rail. 98 Richard M. Bernard, ?A Portrait of Baltimore in 1800: Economic and Occupational Patterns in an Early American City, p. 345. 99 Ibid., p. 343. 74 Figure 10-Baltimore Street, looking west toward North Avenue, now called Guilford, ca. 1870. (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) The spatial orientation of kilns operated by Baltimore?s stoneware potters mirrors the distribution patterns of artisans and mechanics in the city in 1800. In analyzing 1798 property tax assessments for the city, Richard M. Bernard found that artisans and mechanics tended to be more widely dispersed throughout Baltimore than wealthier classes.100 The wealthiest groups, including merchants, were concentrated in the city?s downtown area, while poorer groups were found farther away from its center. Bernard points out that in 1800, ??the city was too young and too small to necessitate the division of craftsmen into separate homogenous residential areas. In a seventy-year old city of only 26,000, artisans and mechanics may have had neither the time nor the need to cluster together.?101 100 Ibid., p. 354. 101 Ibid., p. 357. 75 Figures 11-15 provide a spatial orientation for where all types of potteries existed in Baltimore City in 20-year increments.102 These potteries are not meant to be a complete record of where manufacturers were situated over an entire century, but are intended to show changing spatial patterns at given points over time. As can be seen, the city?s earliest potters, John Brown and Thomas Morgan, operated in the Old Town area of the city in 1800. By 1820, seven potters are found in the vicinity of Old Town. By 1840, potters are becoming more spatially disbursed as Vachel Black and Maulden Perine are both working west of the city, while the pottery of china merchants George Earnest and James Pawley Sr. are situated to the south. By 1860 and 1880, pottery operations move farther away from the central area of the city, appearing to form a ring in a spatially disbursed pattern.103 This disbursement is most likely due to restrictive city ordinances and oversight that prevented the concentration of kilns in certain areas, issues discussed in the next two chapters. 102 The potteries placed on these maps are based on data found in city directories, census records, and information contained in John Pearce?s Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850. 103 J. Sandwall of 71 Hanover Street and George Honenon are not included on this map. Sandwall is listed in the Potteries Section of the 1860 edition of Wood?s Baltimore City Directory (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1860) (see appendix), but cannot be found in any other subsequent directories, is not listed in the U.S. Census Products of Industry schedule for that year, and no other potters are found at this address as well. Honenon is listed in the 1860 Products of Industry schedule (see table 4), but is not listed in city directories and his address is unknown. 76 Figure 11-1800 pottery sites superimposed on map by Charles Varle, Warner & Hanna?s Plan of the City and Environs of Baltimore, 1801. (Courtesy, Peabody Library Collection of the Johns Hopkins University.) Figure 12-1820 pottery sites superimposed on map by Fielding Lucas Jr., Plan of the City of Baltimore, 1822. (Courtesy, Library of Congress.) 77 Figure 13-1840 pottery sites superimposed on map by Fielding Lucas Jr., Plan of the City of Baltimore, 1841. (Courtesy, Baltimore City Archives.) Figure 14-1860 pottery sites superimposed on map by S. Augustus Mitchell Jr., Plan of Baltimore, 1860. (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) 78 Figure 15-1880 pottery sites superimposed on map by William P. Twamley [for the Baltimore Sun], Map of the City of Baltimore, 1882. (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) In a larger sense, it is also important to recognize that Baltimore?s advantageous geographic position and access to advanced forms of transportation meant that local manufacturers, including potters, were affected by major military events. Chapter 2 pointed out that embargos put in place during the War of 1812 provided a short-lived boost for domestic pottery production. However, the Civil War period proved disruptive in terms of manufacturing, as well as everyday life in Baltimore. Notably, Union troops under the command of General Benjamin Butler occupied Federal Hill and trained cannons on the city, while an angry mob attacked Massachusetts troops at the President Street train station within the heart of the city. Given this unrest and uncertainty, Edwin Bennett, a local potter who manufactured 79 Queensware, reportedly went as far as partially suspending his production and moving his family to Philadelphia for the duration of the conflict.104 In many ways, the Civil War established new political boundaries for local potters. For instance, the sales records of M. Perine and Sons indicate that during the conflict the firm?s customer base was limited primarily to merchants in the city or customers in other areas of Maryland and Pennsylvania. Trading with the South was risky, as the military kept close watch over the records and movement of manufactured goods. Local merchant Hamilton Easter and manufacturer Moses Wiesenfeld were arrested for selling to the Confederacy.105 Given these restrictions, the discovery of a letter dated January 4, 1865 from Payne and Kidd of Charlottesville, Virginia, to M. Perine and Sons referencing a previous order raises important questions. The letter in question appears on microfilm copied in between pages of a bound ledger book that belonged to the Perines. It reads as follows: Charlottesville, Va. Jany. 4th 1865 W. Perine & Sons Gents Yours of the 23rd last is just to hand we find short in your bill the following articles: ? doz. jars at $7.00 .58 2/12 ? ? at $9.00 1.59 1/12 ? ? at $13.00 1.08 4/12 ? Chambers $4.00 1.33 104 Eugenia Calvert Holland, Edwin Bennett and the Products of his Baltimore Pottery (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1973), pp.12-13. 105 Sherry H. Olson, Baltimore: The Building of an American City, p. 145. 80 1/12 ? do. $1.50 .12 4.70 1/5 off .94 $3.76 Error in extention of 1 ? dz. Jar @ $4.00 Extended $6.00 instead of $5.00 $1.00 $4.76 Which leaves a balance due you of Forty eight 05/100 Dollars, in full, for which you can draw on us for- Much Obliged Yours Very Respectfully Payne & Kidd106 At the time when this letter was written, presumably by a merchant, Charlottesville was still under the control of Confederate forces. This coupled with the fact that there is no specific entry in the ledger book for this order during the previous years 1863 or 1864 suggests that it was intentionally not recorded. More firm evidence would be needed to be able to say with certainty that the Perines sold goods to South during the war. However, it would have been possible, and not surprising given Maryland?s status as a border state, if the Perines were able to send goods to the South through Union lines by clandestinely diverting a portion of a larger order as it was being shipped by water to the north.107 At the same time, the Perine ledger book records shipments of utilitarian stoneware to a Freedmen?s Store established at Fort Monroe, a Union outpost in Hampton, Virginia. This store was established by Philadelphia Quakers and run by 106 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, 1865, Roll #4. 107 Personal communication with Dr. Edward Papenfuse, State Archivist, Maryland State Archives, May 5, 2009. 81 Enoch Harlan who placed regular orders with the Perine pottery.108 Other entries made by the firm include supplying 16 earthenware coolers to the U.S. Sanitary Commission in Washington, D.C., an organization charged with providing support to Union Troops during the war.109 It should be noted that while production and marketing in Baltimore shifted during the Civil War, manufacturing in neighboring Alexandria, Virginia ground to a halt. This included the venerable stoneware pottery of Benedict C. Milburn on Wilkes Street, which was forced to curtail its operations after Northern troops invaded the city in response to Virginia seceding from the Union in 1861.110 The next chapter looks a closer look at how in the two decades following the conclusion of the war, M. Perine and Sons took full advantage of opportunities to reestablish commercial relationships in markets throughout the South. 108 Report of the Executive Committee of New England Yearly Meeting of Friends: Upon the Condition and Needs of Freed People of Color in Washington and Virginia (New Bedford: E. Anthony & Sons, 1864) p. 6. Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, 1864, Roll #4. Orders for Harlan were entered on November 28, 1864 and March 18, 1865. 109 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, 1864, Roll #4. An order to Wm. H. Hovey with the Central Office of the Sanitary Commission was entered on June 21, 1864. 110 See Eddie L. Wilder, Alexandria, Virginia Pottery, 1792-1876 (Marceline, Mo.: Walsworth Publishing Company, 2007), pp. 184-185. 82 Rural Potters While some potters chose to work within a relatively complex and sometimes uncertain urban area such as Baltimore, other potters in Maryland set up shop in more rural areas. Situated west of the city was Frederick County, where wheat was the predominant agricultural crop. German potters such as Lawrence Sproutsman and John George Weis established themselves in this area of Maryland in the 1750s, shortly before the earthenware tradition took hold in Baltimore. These potters followed on the heels of settlers who cultivated wheat rather than tobacco, primarily because it was a less labor intensive type of cash crop. Other potters such as Anthony Wayne Lewis, Martin King, and Peter Bell produced wares farther west, in Hagerstown, another wheat producing area where utilitarian containers were needed. The Hagerstown tradition influenced pottery production throughout the Shenandoah Valley into the 19th century.111 Products of Industry Schedules from the U.S. Census taken in 1850, 1860, and 1880 provide an opportunity to compare and contrast the operations of urban potters working in Baltimore with potters situated in rural areas of Maryland, including Anne Arundel, Cecil, Carroll, Frederick, Harford, and Washington Counties (tables 3-5).112 111 H.E. Comstock, Pottery of the Shenandoah Valley Region, pp. 83-84. 112 Products of industry census schedules contain extremely useful information that does not exist elsewhere. However, the system of data collection was not always perfect and some businesses, including potteries, were overlooked by enumerators. The Products of Industry Schedule for 1850 is the first to provide detailed statistics on potteries in Baltimore. Although a Products of Industry Schedule was compiled for the city in 1870, it apparently did not survive. This has been confirmed through personal communications with Connie Potter, 83 According to these census schedules, both urban and rural potteries used hand power through 1880, with the exception of fineware firms owned by Edwin Bennett and Hamill, Brown and Co., which used steam power. Urban and rural operations that produced utilitarian wares also used the same raw materials, notably clay, wood for fuel, and lead and salt for glazes. Further, all of the potteries represented in the schedules relied on male labor, with the exception of Hamill, Brown and Co., which in 1880 employed women. These tables also highlight several important differences between Baltimore firms and their rural counterparts. First, in the second half of the 19th century the scale of potteries in Baltimore compared to rural areas was much larger, particularly in terms of capital investment, workforce size, materials used, and production output. Fineware firms in the city owned by Edwin Bennett and Hamill, Brown and Co. were the largest producers, followed by firms that diversified their product lines beyond utilitarian wares, notably shops owned by the Perine family and William Linton. These types of operations required a division of labor and larger numbers of unskilled workers to carry out this work. At the same time, smaller potteries employing less than five workers continued to operate in Baltimore up until 1880. At the point when these product schedules were compiled several small shops also made hand-crafted utilitarian stoneware, including Earnest and Cowles, William Cowles, and Peter a research specialist with the National Archives in Washington, D.C., April 2009. Further, nearly all of the census records compiled for 1890 were destroyed in a fire at the Commerce Department on January 20, 1921. 84 Herrmann. Rural potteries in Maryland were almost always small operations with significantly less capital invested and on average they employed only two workers. Pottery Man. Location Business, Man. or Product Capital Invested Quantities Kinds Values Power M F Average Monthly Cost of Males Quantity Kinds Values E.W. Bennett Baltimore Yellow Rockingham Iron Stone Queensware $8,000 400 Tons 5 Tons 25 Cords 350 Tons 25 Tons Clay Lead Wood B Coal A Coal $600 $625 $87 $1,563 $175 Hand 30 $950 Queensware $4,000 James Parr Baltimore Potter $20,000 400 Tons Clay $800 Hand & Potter?s Wheel 14 $350 Stone and Earthenware $20,000 Maulden Perine Baltimore Man. of Pottery $2,500 Wood Clay Other $1,500 $500 $500 Hand 11 $330 Unknown Stoneware Clay Ware $9,000 $2,000 David Parr Baltimore $5,000 250 Tons 400 Cords Clay Wood $500 $1,300 Horse 10 $300 90,000 Stoneware $10,000 William Linton Baltimore Potter $2,000 100 Cords Wood $500 Hand & Horse 12 $200 Sundry $6,000 Earnest & Cowles Baltimore Pottery $3,000 100 Tons Clay $137 Horse 3 ? $120 Stoneware $5,000 150 Cords Wood $450 Other $200 Benjamin Grebel Baltimore Potter $2,000 Clay $200 One Horse 6 $210 Earthenware $4,000 William Atkinson Baltimore Potter $100 12 Tons 22 Cords Clay Wood $100 Hand - Sundry $800 John Ashbaugh Frederick- Frederick County Potter $7,000 Sundry Clay Wood $144 Hand 2 $48 Sundry $1,000 Eli Haines Port Deposit- Cecil County Potter $1,000 100 Cords ? Ton Clay Wood Lead Other $100 $200 $60 $50 Hand & Horse 6 $75 Earthenware Stoneware $1,200 $1,300 Thomas Gnar Harforrd County Potter $500 Clay Horse & Hand 2 $60 1,500 Pots, Pans, and Jugs $1,200 George Ofaire Middletwn- Frederick County Potter $30 72 Tons Clay $12 Hand 2 $30 Earthenware $500 Henry Weiz Washington County Pottery $500 40 Tons 1,200 Ton Clay Lead $20 $84 Hand 2 $40 18,000 Pots and Dishes $11,.000 C. Maanuel Warner Carroll County Potter $100 50 Cord Clay Wood $10 $112 Horse 1 Kiln 1 $18 Earthenware $700 Archibald Wickey Carroll County Potter $100 124 Cords Clay Wood $25 Horse 1 Kiln 2 $48 Earthenware $1,600 William Crites Cecil County Potter $200 Clay ? $50 $300 Hand & Fire 2 $60 $800 Table 3-Potteries in Baltimore and Maryland counties as compiled from the Seventh Census of the U.S., 1850, Schedule-Products of Industry, Maryland. 85 Pottery Man. Location Business, Man. or Product Capital Invested Quantities Kinds Value Power M F Average Monthly Cost of Males Quantity Kinds Values William Cowles Baltimore Stoneware Man. $2,000 ? Blue $225 3 $36 Stoneware Edwin Bennett Baltimore Queensware $25,000 1,200 Tons 600 Tons 20 Cords Misc. B Coal H Coal Pine Wood $4,956 $1,425 $80 $406 Steam Hands 50 $1,500 40,000 Dozen Bowl and Dishes $30,000 Benjamin Grebles Baltimore Potter $4,000 60 Loads Potter?s Clay $120 3 $80 Earthenware $800 M. Perine & Son Baltimore Pottery $3,000 200 Tons 250 Cords Clay Wood Other Articles $500 $2,250 $1,000 12 $250 Earthenware $8,938 William Linton Baltimore Pottery $8,000 300 Tons 10 Kegs 150 Cords Clay Lead Wood $600 $100 $600 10 $300 25,000 Pieces Earthenware $7,000 George Honenon Baltimore Pottery $200 52 Tons 360 Kegs 50 Cords Clay Lead Pine Wood $76 $468 $200 2 9,000 Pieces Earthenware $1,400 Charles Crawford Uniontown Carroll County Potter $500 30 Tons Clay $60 Hand 2 $30 15,000 Pots and Pans, etc. $750 John K. Morrison Elkton- Cecil County Potter $500 40 Tons 40 Cords Clay Wood $125 $100 Horse Hand Labour 3 $75 Stone and Earth $3,000 George Harmon Frederick- Frederick County Potter $500 300 Tons Clay $400 Hands 2 $30 12,000 Crocks Jugs $1,200 John Ashbaugh Operates 6 Months in Year Frederick- Frederick County Potter $500 30 Cords Clay Red Lead Wood $120 $60 Hand 1 $20 10,000 ? Crocks $700 John Ott Operates 8 Months in Year Frederick- Frederick County Potter $1,000 10 Cord Clay Red Lead Wood $100 $50 Hand 2 $40 1,000 Crocks and Other Articles $550 John Notnagle At most 4 mos. Frederick- Frederick County Potter $700 40 Tons 5 Kegs 45 Cords Clay Red Lead Wood $250 $50 $75 Hand 1 $30 12,000 Crocks Jugs Other Articles $760 J.K. Rinland & J. Lynn Mechanics- town Frederick County Pottery $1,500 20 Loads Clay $10 2 $40 15,000 Potts, etc. $750 (Table continued on page 87.) 86 S. Wetmight Petersville Frederick County Pottery $300 Clay $50 1 $20 3,500 Potts, etc. $800 Thomas L Grice Bel Air Harford Co.unty Pottery $500 30 Tons Clay Other Articles $60 $60 Hand Horse 2 $64 20,000 Pieces Ware $1,000 Table 4-Potteries in Baltimore and Maryland counties as compiled from the Eighth Census of the U.S., 1860, Schedule 5-Products of Industry, Maryland. 87 Pottery Man. Location Capital Invested Total Workers M 16+ F 15+ Child. Youth Wages Per Day Skilled Wages Per Day Unskilled Months in Full-Time Operation Value Materials Value Products Steam Boilers # Steam Engines HP Hamill, Brown, Co. Baltimore $35,000 130 75 10 45 2.25 1.25 12 $30,000 $125,000 1 1 50 Edwin Bennett Baltimore $60,000 100 84 16 2.25 1.33 12 $32,000 $90,000 1 1 30 M. Perine and Sons Baltimore $8,700 14 13 1 2.00 1.00 12 $844 $8,500 Maryland Pottery Baltimore $4,000 12 9 2.00 1.25 12 $9,000 $20,000 Hugh Gifford Baltimore $13,000 11 9 1.75 1.25 9 2 Half-Time 1 Idle $1,879 $6,094 Peter Herrmann Baltimore $5,000 4 4 1.66 1.00 12 $1,200 $5,000 Adam Wipfield Baltimore $3,000 5 5 2.00 .75 3 9 Half-Time $3,000 $5,000 George Kalb Baltimore $1,000 2 2 1.50 1.00 12 $100 $1,000 John Herrman Brooklyn- Ann Arundel County $350 2 1 1.75 1.00 10 2 ?-TIme $200 $1,000 Theodore Crawford Uniontown- Carroll County $500 2 12 $200 $500 J.B. Rammey Cecil County $2,000 4 3 1 2.00 1.00 12 $300 $2,700 William A. Lynne Frederick- Frederick County $900 2 2 ? ? 12 $100 $1,000 Martin Hapnel Hagerstown Washington County $5,000 3 3 1.00 .75 10 2 Half-Time $500 $2,500 Table 5-Potteries in Baltimore and Maryland counties as compiled from the Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Schedule 3-Manufactures, Products of Industry, Maryland. 88 89 Products of Industry and Productions of Agriculture Schedules from the 1880 U.S. Census reveal that some rural potters also carried out agricultural enterprises. For instance, John K. Morrison of Cecil County and Thomas L. Grice of Harford County are listed in both census schedules for that year.113 Morrison and Grice individually owned farm land, implements, and livestock; grew the same types of crops; and employed two and three potters respectively (table 6). Further, the value of their farms far exceeded the $500 in capital each invested in pottery making. In pursuing economic diversification that involved changing seasonal work, these farmer-potters faced complexities that were much different than those confronted by urban craft makers. For instance, crops would typically be planted in May; wood would be cut in March and April and allowed to dry before carting in January and March; and ware would be turned and fired in the summer or early fall prior to harvesting.114 113 Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Schedule 5-Products of Industry, Maryland, 6th District, Cecil County and 3rd Bel Air District, Harford County; Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Schedule 4-Productions of Agriculture, Maryland, the 4th District, Cecil County and the 3rd Bel Air District, Harford County. 114 See Susan H. Myers, ?The Business of Potting, 1780-1840? in The Craftsman in Early America, edited by Ian M.G. Quimby (New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1984), p. 194. 90 Farmer- Potter County Acres of Farmland Bushels Produced Value of Farm Value of Livestock Capital in Pottery Value of Pottery Produced John Morrison Cecil 65-Improved 35-Unimproved 195-Wheat 500-Indian Corn 200-Oats $5,000 $500 $500 $3,000 Thomas Grice Harford 20-Improved 22?-Unimproved 20-Wheat 40-Indian Corn 50-Oats $1,800 $225 $500 $1,000 Table 6-Maryland farmer-potters John Morrison of Cecil County and Thomas Grice of Harford County as compiled from Eighth Census of the U.S., 1860, Products of Industry and Agricultural Production Schedules, Maryland. Three other rural potters, John Ashbaugh, John Ott, and John Notnagle of Frederick County, also operated small seasonal operations that suggest that they, too, were involved in farming.115 According to the 1860 U.S. Census Products of Industry Schedule, Ashbaugh made pottery for six months a year, Ott for eight months, and Notnagle for just four months. These were small shops with Ashbaugh and Notnagle working alone, and Ott employing one other hand. The capital investment of Ott, Notnagle, and Ashbaugh was $1,000, $700, and $500 respectively. Given that Notnagle made ?12,000 crocks, jugs and other articles? worth $760 and Ashbaugh ?10,000 crocks? worth just $700, Ott more likely produced 10,000 crocks and other articles worth $550, rather than just 1,000 of these vessels as reported. Maryland Gazetteers from the late-19th century also provide evidence of rural potters involved in agriculture. For instance, R.G. Smith of Castleton, Harford 115 Eighth Census of the U.S., 1860, Schedule 5-Products of Industry, Maryland. 91 County is listed under both ?Potteries? and ?Farmer? sections of directories from 1891-1902.116 Other individuals referenced as both farmers and potters in these publications include Leonard Kopp of Lineboro, Carroll County (1894, 1896, 1899)117 and Henry Schoffield (Schofield) of Rock Springs, Cecil County (1899 and 1902).118 The Schofield family of Cecil County, Maryland ran a shop that was fairly typical of small operations that dotted the rural countryside in the 19th century. Incredibly, as late as 1939, potter Henry Schofield, age 78, was still making pottery the same way his father had during the 19th century. Several photos of him at work were included in a feature story published in the Baltimore Sun (figs. 16-20).119 116 Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1891-92, Vol. II (Baltimore: R.L. Polk and Co., 1891), pp. 1004 and 1125; Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1894-95, Vol. III (Baltimore: R.L. Polk and Co., 1894), pp. 882 and 929; Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1896-97, Vol. IV (Baltimore: R.L. Polk and Co., 1896), pp. 398 and 884; Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1899, 1900, and 1901, Vol. V (Baltimore: R.L. Polk and Co., 1899), pp. 759 and 837; Maryland State Gazetteer and Baltimore City Business Directory for 1902 and 1905, Vol. VI (Baltimore: R.L. Polk and Co., 1902), pp. 350-351 and 795. 117 Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1894-95, Vol. III, pp. 882 and 959; Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1896-97, Vol. IV, pp. 802 and 859; Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1899, 1900, and 1901, Vol. V, pp. 759 and 811. 118 Maryland and District of Columbia Gazetteer and Business Directory for 1899, 1900, and 1901, Vol. V , pp. 759 and 818; Maryland State Gazetteer and Baltimore City Business Directory for 1902 and 1905, Vol. VI, pp. 795 and 859. 119 Baltimore Sun, July 9, 1939. 92 These images underscore how the experience of making pottery in an open, unpopulated rural area was very different in comparison to the compact, densely populated urban area of 19th-century Baltimore. While urban potters shared neighborhoods with other residents and businesses, rural potters, especially those involved in agriculture pursuits, owned large tracts of land where they worked relatively undisturbed and uncontrolled. At the same time, it is important to point out that while urban and rural utilitarian potters were literally worlds apart in many respects, they both relied on the hand craft production guided by cultural traditions. For instance, the skilled tasks Henry Schofield carried out were no different than those practiced by Baltimore potters throughout the 19th century. Like Schofield, urban potters used mules or horses to grind clay in a pug mill (fig. 16), turned or formed vessels by hand on a potter?s wheel (fig. 17), carefully stacked wares in a kiln (fig. 18), stoked kiln fires for extended periods (fig. 19), and ensured that a ready stock of wares was available for the needs of consumers (fig. 20). 93 Figure 16-Potter Henry Schofield and mule grind clay, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. (Figures 16-20 are courtesy of the Enoch Pratt Free Library.) Figure 17-Potter Henry Schofield turning vessel on potter?s wheel, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. 94 Figure 18-Potter Henry Schofield stacking vessels in pottery kiln, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. Figure 19-Potter Henry Schofield stoking kiln, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. 95 Figure 20-Finished wares made by potter Henry Schofield, Cecil County, Maryland, 1939. Growing Population and Retail Base A large and expanding population in the first half of the 19th century provided Baltimore?s traditional potters with a substantial local consumer base for marketing their wares. The city experienced a significant growth in population for each decade of the 19th century, as seen in table 7.120 120 Maryland: Its Resources, Industries, and Institutions (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1893), p. 434. 96 Year Aggregate Population 1790 13,503 1800 26,614 1810 46,555 1820 62,738 1830 80,625 1840 102,313 1850 169,054 1860 212,418 1870 267,354 1880 332,313 1890 434,439 Table 7-Population Change in Baltimore from 1790-1890. This sustained growth provides another context for assessing the emergence and demise of utilitarian stoneware production in a temporal framework. In the decade between 1840 and 1850 alone, the population of the city increased most dramatically by 60.5%, from 102,313 to 169,054 residents. In fact, by 1840, Baltimore had become the second most populous city in the country, ahead of Philadelphia, Boston, and New Orleans, although it was far behind New York, which had more than three times as many residents as the other four cities (table 8).121 A steady influx of immigrants into Baltimore, particularly in the second half of the 121 1960 Census of Population, Vol. I, Part A, Bureau of the Census. These figures do not include unincorporated areas surrounding the five cities. 97 century, created an increasingly diverse ethnic population. Interdependent relationships that existed between stoneware production, the city?s immigrant population, and the ethnic identity of potters are explored later in Chapter 7. 1840 1800 New York (Manhattan) 312,710 60,515 Baltimore 102,313 26,514 Philadelphia 93,665 41,220 Boston 93,383 24,937 New Orleans 102,193 24,937 Table 8-Top five most populous U.S. cities 1800-1840. In the early-19th century, Baltimore?s traditional stoneware potters worked in an area that was also home to many other craftsmen and manufacturers (fig. 21). In one sense, the functional stoneware vessels made by potters were integral and interrelated to larger systems of production both inside and outside the city. For instance, stoneware had great versatility and was used to store cider, vinegar, wine, and whiskey made by local distilleries. These ancillary goods made it possible to preserve and store various animal products, vegetables, and fruits produced by farmers in rural areas and rendered and processed in factories within the city. 98 Figure 21-Late 19th-century view from a stereoscope card of the Baltimore Basin (present-day Inner Harbor) looking north from historic Federal Hill toward the city?s commercial center. (Private collection.) Stoneware vessels themselves provide ample evidence of how potters served a flourishing commercial trade that existed in this port city. Often the names and addresses of retail establishments are permanently affixed to vessels with impressed typeset lettering. Stamping stoneware in this manner is an early form of advertising that can be traced back to 18th-century England.122 This practice was especially prevalent in Baltimore during the second half of the nineteenth century, and a wide range of products contained in locally-made stoneware vessels were sold regularly in 122 See Browne Muggs: English Stoneware by Robin Hildyard (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1985) for several illustrated examples of 18th-century stoneware vessels with impressed typeset lettering. 99 market areas, liquor stores, butter depots, wharves, grocery stores and many other outlets.123 A small sample of these wares illustrates these marketing outlets and also reflects the degree to which the city?s potters served the needs of local businesses. Using vessels to advertise was particularly well-suited to local merchants dealing in spirits, tonics, and cider. For example, Baltimore potters made a convenient quart-size jug for wine and liquor dealers such as Charles Siebert and Hammel & Boneau Importers, who set up shop in Centre Market, one of the city?s largest market areas, north of the Baltimore Basin (fig. 22). 123 The maker?s mark of Peter Herrmann is sometimes found on vessels with stamped advertising. Also, in 1862 Maulden Perine?s pottery made stamped jugs for local merchant J. C. Wheeler (Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, 1862, p. 340). 100 Figure 22-Jugs, Baltimore, ca. mid-1870s-early 1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. Left: H. 7 ??. Impressed ?CHARLES W. SIEBERT WINES & LIQUORS N.E. COR. PRATT & MARKET SPACE BALTIMORE MD.? Right: H. 7 ??. Impressed ?HAMMEL & BONEAU IMP?S? OF WINES & LIQUORS 16 CENTRE MARKET SPACE.? (Private collection.) On the other hand, Dr. Benjamin Bates, a confectioner who specialized in tonic beers, required a much larger cooler to hold the wine cider he also marketed at Centre Market (fig. 23). An identical cooler made for George and William Meeter, brothers who operated a liquor store in the city, suggests that they dealt with the same local stoneware factory as did Bates (fig. 23). 101 Figure 23-Coolers, Baltimore, ca. 1870s. Salt-glazed stoneware. Left: H. 16?. Impressed ?Dr. B. BATES, WINE CIDER.? Right: H. 13 5/8?. Impressed ?MEETER & BRO.? (Private collection.) Not surprisingly, the city?s potters made storage vessels for merchants dealing in various foodstuffs. A highly decorated storage crock with cobalt flowers provided an attractive advertisement for Samuel, Edward, and Alfred Clayton, family members who operated butter depots at various locations within the city (fig. 24). Small stoneware jugs were also made to hold name brand items made in Baltimore, such as Numsen?s Yacht Club Vinegar (fig. 25). 102 Figure 24-Butter crock, Baltimore, ca. 1845-1850. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 9?. Impressed ?S. CLAYTON & SONS BUTTER PACKERS BALTIMORE.? The stick of butter highlights the unusually large size of the crock. (Private collection.) Figure 25-Jug, Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 4 ??. Impressed ?NUMSEN?S YACHT. CLUB VINEGAR.? (Private collection.) 103 This type of advertising also suited merchants situated along waterways, and provides a tangible reminder of Baltimore when it was still an active seaport. Ship chandlers and merchants such as George H. Edgar and Hugh Bolton (figs. 26 and 27) sold stoneware to the many ships that docked along wharves in the Baltimore Basin, while a jug from H. Steffens (fig. 26) was available in Fells Point, to the east, along the North West Branch of the Patapsco River. Figure 26-Jar and jug, Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. Left: H. 7?. This jar once had a lid and is impressed ?GEO. H. EDGAR SHIP CHANDLERS & GROCERS NO. 73 SMITH?S WHARF BALTIMORE.? Right: 7 ??. Impressed ?H. STEFFENS SHIP-CHANDLER 987 & 989. FELL ST BALTIMORE MD.? (Private collection.) 104 Hugh Bolton, a merchant who specialized in glass, oil, and paints, is known to have placed orders with potter Maulden Perine for dozens of stoneware jugs.124 Whether the stoneware jugs Bolton sold contained liquor or other commodities for consumption is not known. Figure 27-Jug, Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 10 1/2?. Impressed ?HUGH BOLTON & CO. DEALERS IN GLASS, OILS & PAINTS, 81 & 83 MCELDRY?S. WHF BALTIMORE.? (Private collection.) However, a sales receipt from Hugh Bolton & Co. (fig. 28) records the sale of one gallon of machine oil. It should be noted that the impressed advertising on Bolton?s jug (fig. 27) mirrors the information included on the masthead of the pre- printed receipts that he used, which suggests early branding. 124 Perine Records Papers, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #3, 1857, p. 190, and 1859, p. 416. 105 Figure 28-Sales receipt from Hugh Bolton & Co., July 1, 1872. (Private collection.) Grocery stores were another ready outlet for the sale of items requiring stoneware containers. For instance, Richard Stumpf sold his ?Iron & Wild Cherry Tonic, The Great Family Medicine? at his grocery store on Baltimore Street, north of Fells Point (fig. 29). This excellent example of nineteenth-century advertising necessitated five lines of impressed typeset writing. 106 Figure 29-Jug, Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 11 3/4 ?. Impressed ?STUMPFS, IRON & CHERRY TONIC THE GREAT FAMILY MEDICINE, OFFICE N.E. COR BALT, & WOLF STS FACTORY 605 LUZERNE ST BALT MD.? (Private collection.) Expanding Transportation Network In the years following the Revolutionary War Baltimore experienced an extraordinary expansion of international commercial trade, assisted by clipper ships that exported grains to West India and European ports and returned carrying sugar. As an inland port, Baltimore benefited from direct access to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, which made it possible to export locally-made commercial goods to distant destinations. 107 Direct access to rail lines, notably the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which was chartered in 1827, along with steamship routes, opened up Southern markets and gave manufacturers in the city a leg up on regional competitors to the north. For instance, Baltimore was 96 miles closer to the South by rail than Philadelphia, 183 nearer than New York, and 413 closer than Boston.125 As a result, customers incurred much lower freight costs when manufactured goods such as stoneware vessels were shipped from Baltimore. In fact, the city?s development of advanced forms of transportation meant that ?By 1835 Baltimore was only 2 hours from Washington and 9 ? hours from Philadelphia. Letters came back answered from Norfolk in 41 hours and Jamaica in 37 days.?126 Instances in which Baltimore?s utilitarian potters exported stoneware to distant areas by water or rail are documented in newspaper advertisements, the archaeological record, and the records of M. Perine and Sons, a Baltimore firm that produced utilitarian stoneware and earthenware. Specific activities involving the export of locally-made stoneware are discussed in detail later in Chapter 4. Water Transport One of the greatest advantages for potters working in an urban area like Baltimore was the ability to transport wares by ship, first on sailing vessels such as schooners and later on steamboats, a form of transportation that began to emerge in 125 Maryland: Its Resources, Industries, and Institutions, p. 318. 126 Sherry H. Olson, Baltimore: The Building of an American City, p. 77. 108 the city by the early 1820s.127 Stoneware packed in wooden barrels or crates, usually with straw filler that acted as a cushion to prevent breakage, could be transported by cart or wagon to any number of wharves that lined the Baltimore Basin. These vessels conveniently handled all manner of freight, and departed for distant destinations on a regular basis or as scheduled. The number of steamboat packets or regular routes that carried passengers and freight increased significantly in the 19th century following the Civil War. At the same time, with expanded direct routes these vessels could reach more and more distant destinations. During this period, steamboat companies announced intended destinations and departures in advertisements prominently placed in local newspapers (fig. 30). By 1872, local manufacturers, including potters, had the choice of shipping goods by steamboat to several southern destinations, including Fredericksburg via the Rappahannock River, Petersburg and Richmond via the James River, Wilmington, North Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, and even as far away as Savannah, Georgia.128 Further, by mid-century, steamboat routes also connected with different railroad lines, providing even greater mobility for travelers and the movement of commercial goods. 127 Chris Dickon, Chesapeake Bay Steamers, (Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2006), p. 11. 128 Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, January 17, 1872, p. 2. 109 Figure 30-1872 newspaper advertisements placed in the Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser by the Powhatan Steamboat Co. and the Baltimore and Southern Steam Transportation Company. Potters and other manufacturers delivered goods for export to a specific system of wharves along the Baltimore Basin where steamboats were docked, where they would be loaded into freight compartments on these vessels (fig. 31). Piers and wharves along Light and Pratt Streets were major areas that facilitated commercial trade. However, there was a cost involved in using this public infrastructure. As early as 1813 the City charged ?rates of wharfage? for ?all goods, wares, merchandise, or any articles which may be landed from, or put on board any ship or other vessel, boats, or scows, on any of the public wharves??129 ?Every hogshead of sugar, molasses, rum, coffee, copperas, codfish, pipe of wine, brandy or oil? cost 129 Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore Passed at the February Session, 1813 (Baltimore: William Warner, 1813), pp. 19-22. Approved March 24, 1813. 110 five cents, while ?crates of ware? also cost five cents. ?Every package of glass or earthenware of less size than a crate? cost three cents.?130 Figure 31-Steamboats docked at piers around the Baltimore Basin, 1872. (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) Railroad Lines With the opening of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1830, Baltimore took the lead in a major transportation revolution that provided direct access to increasingly distant population centers and markets to the west. In 1853 the line extended to the Ohio River, and by 1857 Baltimore was directly connected as far west as St. Louis, with stops at important cities such as Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Cincinnati, and Chicago (fig. 32). In addition, the Baltimore and Susquehanna rail line (later called the Northern Central Railway) linked manufacturers in the city to regions north 130 Ibid., p. 20. 111 of the city and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad ran northeast. With this expansive transportation network, potters could eventually ship their wares easily and efficiently in many different directions. Figure 32-1856 engraved map showing railroad lines connected to Baltimore, including the B. & O. Railroad running westward from Baltimore to St. Louis. From Statistical Gazetteer of the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia (Baltimore and Washington, D.C.: J.S. Waters and William M. Morrison & Company, 1856). . Many different rail lines fed directly into train stations situated in the heart of downtown Baltimore during the 19th century (fig. 33). Potters transporting goods to appropriate depots relied on the same mode of transport used to deliver wares to port facilities, the horse cart. Some potters benefited from being only blocks away from downtown train stations and did not have to pass along the added expense of delivering goods across the city. For instance, Maulden Perine was just north of the 112 Mt. Clare station connected to the B. & O. Railroad, while Edwin Bennett advertised that his Queensware factory and salesroom were ?Near the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Depot.?131 By the 1880s fineware potter D. F. Haynes even had rail tracks that ran directly to his Chesapeake Pottery factory situated at Locust Point, on the southern side of the Baltimore Basin. Figure 33-Map showing development of rail lines and stations in Baltimore during the 19th century. From Impossible Challenge: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in Maryland by Herbert H. Harwood Jr. (Baltimore: Barnard, Roberts, and Co., 1979). 131 The Crockery Journal, February 27, 1875. 113 Conclusions In conclusion, Baltimore?s urban setting provided potters with a number of important advantages, notably an expanding and increasingly diverse population, a manufacturing base with which utilitarian potters were interrelated and interdependent, and an advanced transportation network that included expanding railroad and steamship lines. Direct access to transportation networks gave local potters an increasing array of options for exporting wares, particularly in the second half of the 19th century. It is important to recognize that the cultural landscape and experiences of urban stoneware potters differed in many respects from those of rural potters in Maryland and surrounding areas such as the Shenandoah Valley. While the city?s urban potters and rural potters shared the same methods of hand craft production throughout the 19th century, Baltimore?s changing urban environment presented local potters with complexities and challenges that did not affect potters like Henry Schofield who worked in small towns or the relative isolation of the open countryside. The geographic position of this populous city was not always advantageous. For instance, during the Civil War restrictions were placed on goods previously exported to Southern markets and the personal liberties of residents who lived under Union occupation throughout the Civil War. Determining the location of potteries in Baltimore at twenty-year intervals and overlaying them on five different maps of the city provides a greater appreciation for 114 the manner in which potters practiced their craft in the heart of a growing city, alongside residential homes, commercial businesses, as well as other manufacturing enterprises. The disbursed pattern of pottery kilns around the central portion of the city in the second half of the 19th century also illustrates the increasingly restrictive ordinances and resolutions that city leaders enacted in order to control where and how they operated. At the same time, these craftsmen were well-positioned to actively serve the needs of their community, as many different types of locally-made stoneware vessels bearing the advertising of local businesses attest. Suffice to say, the operation of kilns situated throughout the city would have consequences for how potters and others around them interacted. The next chapter will look more closely at potters from the standpoint of an increasingly competitive marketplace in which they sought to distribute their wares. Baltimore?s geographic proximity and advanced forms of transportation undoubtedly helped to facilitate the export of stoneware outside of the city. However, Chapters 5 and 6 explore in more detail the complexities associated with producing stoneware in a shared urban setting, notably how potters in Baltimore were directly involved in contentious situations with neighbors and city leaders stemming from kiln emissions and the threat of fire associated with their continuous operation. 115 Chapter 4: Turning Craft into Profit Introduction Chapter 4 examines several marketing venues that Baltimore potters used to sell stoneware during the 19th century, notably local manufacturers and retailers, china merchants, other potters, and regional outlets beyond the city. This approach is important for several reasons. First, it helps to provide a better understanding of the aggregate functions required to distribute vessels made for food preservation and storage within a relatively complex urban community. Second, it reveals that local potteries marketed wares wholesale, even to each other when necessary. Third, knowing the extent to which potters exported wares beyond the city reinforces the importance of Baltimore?s advantageous geographic position and accessibility as an inland port. Documentary evidence suggests that marketing stoneware within a wholesale price structure was a common practice among the city?s stoneware potters throughout the 19th century. Potters benefited from selling their product lines in a wholesale manner that enabled them to better plan production schedules, deal primarily in high volume orders, and keep overhead at a minimum. These artisans supplied the large contingent of china merchants in the city that specialized in the growing demand for refined, imported ceramics while also carrying utilitarian stoneware in their inventory. Taking advantage of capitalistic market development associated with industrialization, china merchants also owned and operated their own stoneware 116 potteries which ensured that they would have a ready supply of utilitarian wares on hand. In addition, potters supplied each other with stoneware to ensure that they in turn were able to fill orders placed by retail establishments. A number of potters also exported stoneware beyond the city to outlying rural areas, especially those in the South, and even regions in proximity to rival cities with established stoneware industries, notably Philadelphia, Alexandria, and Richmond. The ability of Baltimore potters to serve such an expansive geographic area reflects their manufacturing capabilities and the manner in which they shipped goods through an active port and by an expanding railroad system. This information is also useful in further defining the boundaries of this craft-oriented cultural landscape. The discussion here expands on the argument established in Chapter 2 that the city?s working class potters were motivated and influenced by basic forces relevant to the period in which they worked and lived. While this earlier chapter addressed how local potters were guided by cultural traditions, Chapter 4 explores how potteries were also driven by turning a profit. Several types of evidence are drawn upon, including printed advertising, the records of the Perine family of potters, surviving examples of material culture, and archaeological research. Together, this information provides a better understanding of key distribution points that local potters used to facilitate the movement of stoneware from producer to consumer. 117 Spreading the Word Printed advertisements were an important form of marketing for potters throughout the 19th century. The placement of ads in local or regional newspapers helps to better define the boundaries where Baltimore potters marketed wares. These ads also document the product lines of potters at a given point in time, as well as efforts to promote certain vessels that were either popular or which potters specialized in making, all of which is informative with regard to how the basic needs of consumers were met. It is also important to note that the ads of traditional potters do not mention the aesthetic qualities of utilitarian vessels, including the manner in which they were decorated, which suggests these wares were intended to serve primarily functional purposes. In regards to functionality, stoneware potter Thomas Morgan placed the following local newspaper ad in 1804 to promote the availability of two popular items, stoneware milk pans and jugs (fig. 34).132 132 American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, May 16, 1804. 118 . Figure 34-Newspaper ad placed by Thomas Morgan, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1804. This ad reveals that Morgan carried jugs made in Liverpool, England, in order to provide consumers with a choice between foreign and local manufacture. As noted in the ad, English jugs were exported to Baltimore on board a vessel named the Eleanor, and Morgan charged the same amount for both types of jugs. By 1809 Morgan had apparently developed a niche for his own stoneware jugs, announcing that he had on hand a supply of these vessels that were suitable for bottling cider (fig. 35).133 133 American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, February 22, 1809. 119 Figure 35-Newspaper ad placed by Thomas Morgan, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1809. In 1839, another potter, Thomas W. Brotherton of Pitt Street, extolled the healthful qualities of his perculating filterers or water coolers in the following ad that he placed in the Baltimore Clipper newspaper: The subscriber has on hand and intends on keeping a large and general assortment of very superior quality stoneware which he offers for sale at the most reduced prices for cash or approved paper. Country merchants and others would do well to call and see his stock as they could not fail being pleased. He has also an assortment of his PATENT PERCULATING FILTERERS, an article all families using the Hydrant should have, as it cleanses the water from all extraneous matter, and renders that which was before turbid, clean and petucid as spring water. Orders delivered in all parts of the city, free of expense.134 134 Baltimore Clipper, Vol. 1, No. 20, October 1, 1839. 120 An 1845 advertisement for Maryland Potteries, a firm owned by James L. Parr, promoted both stoneware and earthenware of every description, and, like Brotherton, also specialized in water filterers (fig. 36).135 As stated in the ad, this venerable firm had been in existence for over 30 years starting with potter David Parr and later his wife Margaret, who successfully ran the business following his death.136 Their involvement reinforces points made in Chapter 2, notably the importance of family networks, including the involvement of female members. Figure 36-Advertisement for Maryland Potteries, Baltimore Directory for 1845. Later in the century, another local firm, M. Perine and Sons, invested heavily in advertising in trade journals and various newspapers. In 1872, they placed ads in 135 Baltimore Directory for 1845 (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1845), p. 76. 136 Even though this 1845 advertisement lists James L. Parr as the successor to Margaret Parr, as late as 1857 she is listed as owning several properties tied to the family pottery operation that were insured by the Baltimore Equitable Society. 121 three different local newspapers, including the Baltimore Sun, Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, and Der Deutsche Correspondent (fig. 37).137 The latter newspaper catered exclusively to the city?s large and growing German population. The importance of this type of advertising is born out by the financial costs involved. For instance, running these small daily ads over a one month period in the three previously mentioned newspapers amounted to $6.00, $5.82, and $6.25, respectively.138 In this same year, the Perines also took out a $4.00 advertisement in the Wood?s City Directory, as well as a month of ads in publications referred to as the Fair Journal and Methodist Advocate, which cost $6.00 and $7.50 respectively. Figure 37-Newspaper ad placed by M. Perine and Sons, Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, 1872. The placement of this small ad for flower pots is seasonal, in preparation for spring plantings, and geared toward specific types of consumers, farmers and gardeners. 137 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #3, 1872, pp. 114-116. The ad illustrated in figure 4 appeared in the Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, March 6, 1872, p. 2. 138 The Perines spent $18.07 to place this small ad in three newspapers over the course of one month in 1872, which is estimated to be the equivalent of $320 (rounded) in 2008 dollars. This is based on an Inflation Conversion Factors formula developed by Professor Robert C. Sahr, Political Science Department, Oregon State University (http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/sahr.htm). 122 Wholesale Marketing Baltimore?s stoneware potters were eager to provide wholesale rates to customers who placed large orders, such as china merchants, country stores, and even other local potters. In general, wholesaling was an often-used and important way to conduct business in the city. Many different types of merchants promoted themselves as wholesale dealers, some offering ?rich and fancy? dry goods, ?foreign and domestic? dry goods, or a litany of specialty items from ?hosiery, gloves, and yarns? to ?patent threads, tapes, bindings, galloons, boot web, pearl and bone buttons, and ribbon wire.?139 At the relatively early date of 1812 several local manufacturers of stoneware, including Morgan and Amoss, Thomas Amoss Co., and William Myers announced in a newspaper ad a uniform price structure for the vessels they sold.140 Comparing itemized wholesale and retail costs for vessels of all types and sizes shows significant across-the-board savings (fig. 38). The highest wholesale savings was 39.7% for ? gallon vessels, while the lowest end was 16.7% for 4 gallon vessels. 139 See Baltimore Directory for 1845 (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1845). This publication contains many examples of wholesale advertisements by local retailers. 140 American and Commercial Daily Advertiser, Baltimore, December 1812, pp. 3-4. 123 Figure 38-Newspaper ad placed by three Baltimore stoneware manufacturers announcing a uniform price structure, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1812. A breakdown of itemized wholesale cost savings is provided at right. By 1815, another group of potters, including Thomas Morgan on behalf of Thomas Amoss and Co., Myers and Parr, and Parr and Burland issued another 124 uniform price structure for vessels.141 This group?s wholesale rates by the dozen also represented a significant cost savings over individual retail prices (fig. 39). Ordering vessels smaller than a pint in quantities of a dozen or more provided a 34% savings over retail, the highest saving of any category. Conversely, ordering 1-8 gallon vessels in quantities of a dozen or more provided a savings of 17%, the low-end of the scale. Figure 39-Newspaper ad placed by four Baltimore stoneware manufacturers announcing a uniform price structure, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1815. A breakdown of itemized wholesale cost savings is provided at right. 141 American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, October 21, 1815, p. 3. 125 By 1823, china merchant and stoneware manufacturer Henry Myers advertised just his wholesale rates for vessels purchased by the dozen (fig. 40), and his price scale at this point was much different than the 1815 uniform price agreement.142 Figure 40-Newspaper ad placed by Henry Myers, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1823. 142 American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, July 3, 1823, p. 1. This ad also appears in Luke Zipp, ?Henry Remmey & Son, Late of New York: A Rediscovery of a Master Potter?s Lost Years? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004), p 146. 126 In 1839, local potter Maulden Perine relied on wholesaling almost exclusively, selling 90 percent of his wares in this way within the city.143 Further, another well-known potter and competitor, Peter Herrmann, also referred to himself as a manufacturer and wholesale dealer in all kinds of stoneware in an 1865 advertisement.144 Maulden Perine and the firm of M. Perine and Sons later run by his two sons, continued to sell wares wholesale, often using complicated formulas for determining the costs of vessels by the dozen and half dozen. The following transaction in 1866 involving Cooper and Kingsbury, merchants from Oxford, N.C., helps to illustrate how Perine assessed wholesale charges: 1 1 1 ? ? 3 ? Doz. jugs @ 1.25 2.50 4.00 7.00 9.50 13.62 1 1 1 3 Doz. jars @ 4.00 7.00 9.50 20.50 ? ? ? 1 ? Doz. churns@ 7.00 10.00 13.50 15.25 1 Doz. pitchers@ ? ? 4.00 5.00 4.75 54.12 ? off 13.53 40.59 Two Crates 3.00 $43.59145 This breakdown shows that wholesale rates in the pricing structure of M. Perine and Sons were not static. Rather, as the overall quantity of a specific item 143 Susan H. Myers, ?Marketing American Pottery: Maulden Perine in Baltimore,? p. 53. 144 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory for 1865-66 (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1865), p. 193. 145 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, 1866, Roll #4, p. 404. Purchase by Cooper and Kingsbury made September 7, 1866. 127 purchased went up, the cost per item went down proportionally. Further, Cooper and Kingsbury received ? off in addition to the wholesale cost savings they were given, yet the discounts the Perines provided certain customers varied. Taken together, this information tells us that distributing and selling stoneware later in the century involved relatively complex wholesale formulas devised to maximize profits. In addition, during the 19th century jobbers specialized in wholesaling cheaper wares to the country trade, and they frequented auctions in order to supply their inventory.146 These middlemen also bought wholesale from local potters when necessary. It should be pointed out that the relatively large number of unmarked stoneware vessels attributed to Baltimore manufacture may be tied to the practice of wholesaling. The intermittent nature of applying maker?s marks to utilitarian vessels made in Baltimore has always been somewhat of a mystery. Yet, one plausible explanation may be the widespread practice of local potters selling wares wholesale to other potters, china merchants, and other middlemen. Using this line of reasoning wholesale buyers might have preferred a generic product without distinguishing characteristics such as maker?s marks or decoration. China Merchants Throughout the 19th century local potters regularly supplied china merchants with utilitarian stoneware at wholesale rates. Evidence of relationships that existed 146 See George L. Miller, ?George M. Coates, Pottery Merchant of Philadelphia, 1817-1831.? Winterthur Portfolio, 19 (1) (1984), p. 41. 128 between potters and china merchants is found in written records, archaeological research, and surviving material culture. In the first half of the 19th century, a number of china merchants also ran their own stoneware potteries in the city, employing potters to carry out production. This arrangement is important in terms of its relationship to capitalist market development, in which merchants with access to capital began to exert control over industries previously carried out by small producer potteries comprised of master potters, journeymen, and apprentices. Local china merchants that manufactured wares sold them wholesale or within their own retail establishments. It is not too surprising that these merchants had the financial means to own and operate their own stoneware kilns. In fact, soaring property values in the city during the early-19th century made ownership more elusive for artisans, and instead rested in the hands of merchants, professionals, shopkeepers, and speculative builders.147 The influence of urban merchants was profound, particularly with regard to fashion innovation and the rise of consumerism.148 Baltimore?s china merchants took full advantage of marketplace innovations tied to industrialization by ensuring that consumers had access to the latest lines of imported ceramics as well as ordinary stoneware that they themselves manufactured in their own factories or which local 147 See Gary B. Nash, ?The Social Evolution of Preindustial American Cities, 1700-1820.? 148 Lorna Wetherill, Consumer Behavior and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760 (London: Routledge and Paul, 1988). 129 potters supplied. The involvement of china merchants also underscores the popular demand for utilitarian wares. The best documented utilitarian stoneware operation owned by a local china merchant was that of James Pawley Sr. As mentioned in Chapter 2, archaeological testing at his circa 1835?1845 kiln site in May 1996 uncovered the remnants of a round or ?bottle? kiln, as well as a sizeable collection of broken stoneware sherds, misfired vessels, and kiln furniture.149 Pawley apparently employed unidentified potters who made stoneware to supply his retail shop located on South Calvert Street. An 1845 city directory ad for the Oak Hall China Store operated by James Pawley, Jr. promotes the availability of both wholesale and retail china and glass (fig. 41).150 Figure 41-Ad placed by James Pawley, Jr., Baltimore Directory for 1845. 149 Suzanne L. Sanders and Martha R. Williams, ?Archeological Mitigation of the J. S. Berry Brick Mill (18BC89) and Pawley Stoneware Kiln (18BC88), at the Proposed Ravens Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland,? p. 50. 150 Baltimore Directory for 1845 (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1845), p. 110. 130 One of the earliest and long-lived collaborations between a china merchant and potter involved the Myers family of china merchants. Starting in 1812 William Myers supplied his Baltimore Street retail establishment with stoneware produced at the Bond Street pottery he owned. An 1815 newspaper ad promotes the many types of fashionable imported wares Myers carried, including ?Pearl & Fancy Ware,? and states that ?He has constantly at his pottery, a good assortment of STONE WARE, which will be delivered in any part of the city to order? (fig. 42).151 Figure 42-Newspaper ad placed by William Myers, American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, 1815. 151 American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, September 16, 1815, Supplement. 131 Myers? utilitarian stoneware operation was managed by master potter Henry Remmey and also employed the latter?s son Henry Remmey Jr.152 Potter Elisha Parr partnered in this successful manufacturing enterprise for short period, before being taken over by Jacob Myers, and later Henry Myers. A stoneware jar impressed ?H. Myers? (fig. 43) provides tangible evidence of this firm?s involvement in producing stoneware. Figure 43-Jar, Baltimore, ca. 1821-1829. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 9 ??. (Private collection.) ?H. MYERS? is impressed underneath the jar?s handle. 152 For a detailed discussion of the Remmey family of potters and Myers family of china merchants see Luke Zipp, ?Henry Remmey & Son, Late of New York: A Rediscovery of a Master Potter?s Lost Years,? pp. 143?56. 132 Another stoneware vessel with an impressed mark for ?Myers and Bokee? (fig. 44) refers to a partnership between Henry Myers and another Baltimore china merchant John C. Bokee, which was established as early as 1835.153 Figure 44-Jar, Baltimore, ca. late 1830s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 10?. (Private collection.) ?MYERS & BOKEE? is impressed with precision on the outer rim of this one-gallon jar, an unusual location. In 1839 the firm of Myers and Bokee took out the following newspaper advertisement: China, glass, and queensware, as cheap as the cheapest. The subscribers ask the attention of wholesale and retail purchasers to their well assorted stock of 153 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1835 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1835), p. 25. 133 CHINA, GLASS, AND QUEENSWARE, as they are determined to sell for cash, as new as any house in the city. Purchasers will consult their interest by giving them a call before purchasing elsewhere. . . .154 Myers and Bokee continued to market imported wares and glass at 53 Baltimore Street through at least 1840.155 By 1843 J. C. Bokee ran his own shop at 61 West Pratt Street, suggesting that the partnership had ended.156 It should be noted that another china merchant, William F. Bokee, presumably a relative of J. C. Bokee, is found promoting ?Stoneware of the best quality always on hand at factory prices? in an impressive advertisement placed in an 1845 Baltimore city directory (fig. 45).157 During this period it was not unusual for retailers to be interrelated, as were different branches of the Myers and Bokee families of china merchants. 154 Baltimore Clipper, October 16, 1839. 155 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1840 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1840), p. 68. 156 Craig?s Business Directory and Baltimore Almanac for 1843 (Baltimore: Daniel H. Craig, 1843), p. 59. 157 Baltimore Directory for 1845 (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1845), p. 11. 134 Figure 45-Ad placed by William F. Bokee, Baltimore Directory for 1845. A third jar marked ?EARNEST & COWLES? illustrates the involvement of china merchants George Earnest and Wesley Cowles, who produced utilitarian stoneware to supply their china shop which was located at 25 and 29 S. Calvert Street as early as 1829 and through at least 1852 (fig. 46). 158 158 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1829 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1829), p. 96; Baltimore Wholesale Business Directory and Business Circular for the Year 1852 (Baltimore: Daniel H. Craig, 1852), p. 93. 135 Figure 46-Jar, Baltimore, ca. 1829-1852. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 13 ? ?. (Private collection.) The shoulder of this three-gallon jar is impressed ?EARNEST & COWLES.? Census records for 1850 provide an insight into the production capacity of the stoneware pottery operated by Earnest and Cowles (see table 3). The firm invested $3,000 in capital, employed three and a half men, paid $120 in monthly wages, and produced $5,000 in stoneware annually. Additional annual costs included $450 for 150 cords of wood, $137 for 100 tons of clay, and $200 for other materials.159 159 Original Schedules for Maryland, Seventh Census of the U.S., Schedule 5, Products of Industry, Baltimore City, Ward 1. ?Three and a half men? refers to the average number of workers employed by the pottery in one year; Carroll D. Wright, The History and Growth of the United State Census (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1900), p. 313. 136 The records of the Perine family of potters reveal that the firm produced utilitarian stoneware for a number of china merchants on a regular basis into the latter part of the 19th century. As early as 1839, potter Maulden Perine counted the china and glass company of David Parr as one of his best customers.160 By the 1860s, firms such as William Wonderly and Co., Sharkey and Co., Cook and Herring, Robert T. Banks, Marston and Bros., William Shirley, Finley Pawley and Bros., and William F. Bokee relied on the Perines for many different types of utilitarian stoneware, including jugs, jars, pans, pitchers, high pots, and bird fountains.161 China merchants in the city continued to order stoneware from M. Perine and Sons into the 1880s, including Shirley and Son, Howard Bokee, and Finley Pawley.162 Local glass houses also supplied china merchants in the city, and a bottle advertising the crockery and glass warehouse of Shirley and Cook on 5 S. Calvert Street (fig. 47) provides tangible evidence of this type of relationship. City directories list William Shirley and Robert Cook as partners in a ?wholesale queensware house? from at least 1855 until 1860.163 Their warehouse was positioned 160 Susan H. Myers, ?Marketing American Pottery: Maulden Perine in Baltimore,? p. 61. 161 See Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #4. 162 Ibid. 163 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1855-56 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1855), p. 304; Wood?s Baltimore City Directory (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1860), p. 349. The following merchants were represented: Newbold & Sons; Chandlee, Quarles & Co., D. E. Haynes & Co., Leopold & Co., John A. Dobson & Co., J. Wilson Brown, R. P. Bayley & Co., Finley Pawley, Meanley & Gray, L. Kaufmann, Joseph Scherer, John Bowers, Peter J. Burkhard, John Hoos, Louis Reese, John F. Baltzler, Joseph P. Martin, C. Shapperle, and Schlutter & Bro. 137 at the North West end of the Baltimore Basin, one of the most highly visible and heavily trafficked areas of the city. It is likely that locally-made utilitarian stoneware was available at their warehouse, too. Figure 47-Glass bottle, Baltimore, ca. 1855-1860. Embossed SHIRLEY & COOK, 5 S. CALVERT STREET, BALTIMORE? on one side and ?CROCKERY & GLASS WAREHOUSE? on the other. (Private collection.) Baltimore china merchants organized to protect their own self interests from outside competitors. In 1847 a group of them submitted a petition to the Second Branch of the City Council in opposition to the unregulated selling of wares in the city?s streets: 138 We the undersigned, dealers in china, glass, and queensware, would respectfully call your attention, to the fact, that large quantities of goods in our line of business, are sold daily, in the streets, in the immediate vicinity of the several markets, on the respective market days of each, to the manifest injury of the undersigned, who transact a regular business, and pay liscence [sic], taxes and c., for the privilege. We therefore; respectfully request, your honourable body, to take such measures as shall clear the streets, of all persons engaged in selling goods in the said line of business; if such, in your judgment, should appear just and expedient, and your petitioners will ever pray and c.164 By at least 1881, and perhaps earlier, the Baltimore Crockery and Glassware Association had organized in an attempt to influence manufacturers to sell wares exclusively to queensware and glassware merchants. The formation of this organization represented another effort to prevent competition, specifically from ??tea, grocery, tin, wood, and willow-ware stores and country merchants and auctions houses.?165 164 City Council Records, RG 16, S1, Box 79, #493, 1847, Baltimore City Archives. This petition contains the following signatures: H. J. and C. J. Baker; Hammond and Porter; J. R. and F. W. Marston; J. C. Bokee and Co.; David Ball; D. Preston Parr; W. Cowles; James Pawley Jr.; Henry Bayley; H. P. Black; C. Levering and J. Clark; Thomas H. Stephens; Smith and Sharkey; John Wonderly; and Jacob Myers. Although William F. Bokee did not sign the petition?due to a ?private objection??he wrote at the bottom of the document that he was ?opposed to persons having the privilege of selling goods in the streets.? 165 J. Thomas Scharf, History of Baltimore City and County, With a New Introduction by Edward G. Howard, Vol. I. (Baltimore: Regional Publishing Company, 1971), p. 446. 139 In fact, a first-hand account of an impressive new retail store built by Baltimore china merchant Chandlee, Quarles & Co. in 1885 describes an upscale establishment designed to appeal to status-conscious consumers. This description shows the extent to which merchants in the city made major capital investments, marketing fashionable refined ceramics in a calculated manner. It also documents the open stock of stoneware among other types of ?heavy? wares relegated to the store?s basement area. However, by this point, two shops in the city, M. Perine and Sons and Charles Hartung, still made hand-crafted stoneware. Messrs. Chandlee, Quarles & Co. have moved into their splendid new building on the corner of Hanover and Lombard streets. This structure is an imposing one, and for beauty, capacity, and convenience cannot be surpassed by any house of the mind in the country. The warehouse is four stories high, underneath which is a light and roomy basement. It is built of fine Baltimore pressed brick, with stone and terracotta trimmings. The building has a tower at the corner thirty feet high...On Lombard street are two entrances, and three immense plate glass windows. There is also another large plate glass show window on Hanover street, making four in all. Around the windows and doors is handsome stained glass, in small panes, and in artistic style and color. Altogether the building will strike the sightseer as one of the most attractive mercantile establishments in the city. The basement is as light and airy as any of the upper floors. It extends the full floor, and its capacity for storing goods is simply immense. In the basement is the packing room; and here also is 140 stored the entire open stock of heavy queensware, such as white granite, C.C., rockingham, yellow and stoneware, all arranged in spacious shelves. The firm has introduced some novel and convenient arrangements for the rapid handling of their goods. The first floor, which is reached from the basement by elevator or stairway, is the showroom. In this room, with the exception of the oiled ash stairway, all of the woodwork, including the sample tables, is finished in cherry. This color makes most effective the background of the walls, which are painted a light brown, for the display of their goods. On the shelves and tables are shown glassware, china fancy goods and pottery from all countries, making one of the most beautiful and attractive displays that the eye can desire to witness or the mind to contemplate.166 Potters Serving Potters Baltimore potters are known to have established relationships in which they supplied each other with different types of vessels on a regular basis. These types of interactions are usually difficult to document. However, the records of the Perine family of potters reveal that it was a common practice for potters to sell wholesale wares to one another throughout the 19th century, which reinforces the argument that potters did not practice their craft in isolation. For instance, as early as 1839, potter Maulden Perine sold large quantities of his wares to potter Benjamin Greble and one of his stoneware furnaces to another potter Vachel Black.167 Over two decades later, 166 The Crockery and Glass Journal, January 15, 1885, p. 15. 167 Susan H. Myers, ?Marketing American Pottery: Maulden Perine in Baltimore,? p. 61. 141 William Linton was a steady customer of the Perines, purchasing utilitarian stoneware such as jars, jugs, and covered pans on an ongoing basis.168 The Perines even supplied the Richmond stoneware pottery of David Parr and Sons with flower pots.169 Conversely, local potters also supplied the firm of M. Perine and Sons with specific items, when necessary, as well as specialized equipment used to operate kilns. In 1869, the Perines purchased earthenware vessels from Linton, as well as George Kilmer.170 In 1872, the Perines bought stoneware from Hugh Gifford, as well as bricks from George H. Rittenhouse, a manufacturer fire brick, stove lining, and terra cotta pipe at the foot of Cross Street.171 In this same year, another local potter, Edwin Bennett, supplied M. Perine and Sons with 75 saggars, a type of protective container placed in kilns to ensure that vessels fired evenly.172 Perhaps the Perines ordered wares they themselves did not produce or simply needed to replenish the firm?s inventory. 168 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #4, pp. 385 and 393. On April 20, 1863, William Linton and Co. purchased 5 doz. Pans, 1 ? doz. covered pans, and 6 doz. Jugs totaling $24.47; On May 14, 1863, the same firm purchased 1 1/3 doz. pans, 3 doz. jugs, 1 ? doz. jars, ? doz. covered pans totaling $16.40. A discount of ? off was provided. 169 Ibid., p. 326. On March 23, 1866, David Parr and Sons purchased 2 2/3 doz. Flower pots with a 1/10th discount. The order, which included a gross of corks, as well as crate and drayage charges, totaled $20.09. It was shipped from the Light Street Wharf by the Steamboat Company. 170 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #3, 1869. 171 Ibid., 1872. Purchases made in June 1872. Rittenhouse is listed in Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1872 (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1872), p. 505. 172 Ibid., 1872. Purchase made in February 1872. 142 Marketing Beyond the City As pointed out in Chapter 3, Baltimore?s geographic position as an inland port and expansive rail lines provided a significant advantage with regard to the exportation of commercial goods. Local potters were among the many manufacturers that took advantage of opportunities to ship freight by steamboat and rail cars throughout the 19th century. These advanced modes of transportation made it possible for potters to easily supply a growing number of merchants. As early as 1820 William H. Morgan and Thomas Amoss, partners in the firm Morgan and Amoss advertised in Baltimore, Richmond, and Fredricksburg. They ran the following newspaper ad that documents the marketing of wares beyond Baltimore, and the manner in which they appealed to country merchants outside the city: COME & SEE. To Dealers in Stone Ware Those who wish to purchase the above article of a very superior quality, will call on MORGAN & AMOSS, at their factory, corner of Pitt and Green Streets, Old Town, who will (as usual) deliver it safe to any part of the city on terms to suit the times? ?It would always be a satisfaction to us, if country merchants could at all times make it convenient to call at the factory and examine the quality of the ware, whether they intend to purchase at present or not, they will then be able 143 to judge between ours and any other that they have ever seen. Those who cannot call or have not friends in town to do it for them can leave their orders at the following places:-Geo. C. Smith, No. 60 Market street-Keyser & Schaeffer, on the square above Barnum?s (late Gadsby?s)-D. Keyser, Howard st.-James Armstrong, jr. Cheapside-either of whom will pay necessary attention to the same. NB.-M.&A. do not authorize any stone or earthenware potters to sell ware for them, the public will take due notice thereof. ?173 M. Perine and Sons served customers within the city, and also supplied merchants in surrounding areas of Maryland such as Davidsonville in Anne Arundel County.174 In addition, the firm shipped wares by steamboat and rail to destinations much farther away including Leesburg, Virginia,175 Columbia, South Carolina;176 Oxford, North Carolina;177 Shrewsbury, Pennsylvania; 178 Wilmington, Delaware;179 173 American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, August 25, 1820, p. 3; Richmond Enquirer, October 10, 1820, p. 3; Virginia Herald, September 6, 1820, p. 3. 174 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, 1864, Roll #4, p. 2. On March 7, 1864, Snyder and Claggett of Davidsonville, Maryland ordered 2 ? dozen jugs, 6 dozen pans, and 1 10/12 dozen pitchers, and 1 dozen chambers, amounting to $32.94 after a discount of 15% off. 175 Ibid., 1865, p. 195. On August 1, 1865, W. Shafer of Leesburg, Virginia ordered 4 11/12 dozen jars, 7 dozen tomato jars, 1 1/6 dozen pitchers, 2 ? dozen jugs, and 1 ? dozen pans. His order received a discount of ? off. 176 Ibid., 1866, p. 292. On January 5, 1866, Wm. B. Stanley of Columbia, South Carolina ordered 1 2/3 dozen churns, 1 dozen pans, and 20 dozen churn dashers. 177 See Cooper and Kingsbury transaction discussed earlier in chapter. 178 Ibid., 1866, p. 373. On July 3, 1866, George P. Everhart of Shrewsbury, Pennsylvania 144 and even San Francisco, California.180 Outgoing shipments of commercial goods packaged in crates would be delivered by horse cart to appropriate train stations or wharves where they would be loaded as freight on railcars or steamboats. M. Perine and Sons had the ability to ship their products in virtually any direction regardless of the distance involved. Additional evidence for potters exporting wares beyond the city is found in both the archaeological record and surviving material culture. Archaeologists with the National Park Service recently excavated a redware teapot (fig. 48) with ?Baltimore 1826? inscribed on its bottom at City Point, Virginia. This evidence suggests that local potters applied maker?s marks to certain stoneware vessels intended for export to indicate where they were made. ordered 1 ? dozen jugs, 1 ? dozen jars, 5 dozen tomato jars, 1/3 dozen pans, ? dozen spittoons, and ? dozen covered pans amounting to $21.90, after a 15% discount, as well as charges of $1.50 for crates and $1.00 for drayage to the North Cumberland Railroad station. 179 Ibid., 1884, 165. On August 30, 1884 William Lawton of Wilmington, Delaware ordered 8 11/12 dozen jars of various sizes and 2 ? dozen jugs of ?, 1, and 1 ? capacities. A discount of ? off was also provided. 180 Ibid., 1863, p. 449. On September 9, 1863 Reid and Brooks of San Francisco, California purchased 14 2/3 doz. Jars, 14 2/3 doz. lids, 14 ? doz. covered pans, and 1 ? doz. water jars totaling $113.79 after a 1/5 discount. An agent facilitated the shipment to Wm. T. Coleman and Co., 70 Wall Street, New York. 145 Figure 48-Teapot, Baltimore, 1826. Earthenware. Right: Fragment of inscribed teapot base. (Courtesy, National Park Service.) In fact, the firm of Morgan and Amoss, which advertised Baltimore-made stoneware for sale in Virginia newspapers, is known to have inscribed some, but not all, vessels with information that included place of manufacture and date. For example, incised freehand writing on the underside of a milk pan made by this firm (fig. 49) identifies the maker (Morgan & Amoss), street (Pitt), city (Baltimore), and date (1822). 146 Figure 49-Milk pan, Baltimore, 1882. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 6?. Right: Incised in freehand on bottom: ?Made by Morgan & Amoss Pitt Street Baltimore 1822.? (Private collection.) The underside of another jar (fig. 50) is incised with only a street (Pitt) and city (Baltimore). However, the vessel?s distinctive slipped floral decoration is characteristic of jars inscribed ?Morgan & Amoss? and ?Morgan Maker,? suggests hat it was also made at the pottery of Thomas Morgan located at Pitt and Green Streets. 147 Figure 50-Jar, Baltimore, ca. 1819-1825. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 9 12?. Right: Incised in freehand ?Pitt St. Baltimore.? (Private collection.) The potter Hugh R. Marshall is known to have signed his wares with freehand incising (fig. 51) and impressed typeset (fig. 52).181 Figure 51-Jar, Hugh R. Marshall, Baltimore, 1822. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 15 ??. Right: Bottom of jar is incised ?H.R. Marshall Maker, Baltimore, 1822.? (Private collection.) 181 Fifteen-year-old Hugh Robbins Marshall signed an apprenticeship to potter Thomas Morgan in 1810. 148 Figure 52-Jar, H.R. Marshall, Baltimore, probably 1820s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 10 ?.? (Private collection.) The unidentified potter(s) who incised two other stoneware jars felt it necessary to specify only the city of origin (Baltimore) (fig. 53). Figure 53-Jars, Baltimore, ca. 1830s-1840s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 8 ?? and 10?. (Private collection.) The potter or potters who inscribed ?Baltimore? on these two jars marked them in a random manner. 149 Another potter who is known to have exported wares outside the city is Peter Herrmann, who produced wares in the 1860s-1880s. Herrmann marked his wares with impressed stamps bearing his name and the item?s capacity. Several jugs with Herrmann?s mark and impressed advertising for Alexandria, Virginia merchants are known to exist.182 These Baltimore-made vessels date to the 1870s and speak to the competition that existed within regional markets outside the city. By 1876, the Wilkes Street pottery in Alexandria, Virginia, operated by the Milburn family of potters for 65 years, had closed its doors. Another unmarked jar that may be associated with Herrmann?s Baltimore factory was made for a Virginia merchant Benjamin S. Hooper, a dealer in groceries and liquors in Farmville, Virginia (fig. 54).183 182 See Eddie L. Wilder, Alexandria, Virginia Pottery, 1792-1876, pp. 349-350. Three marked jugs are illustrated. 183 Hooper also served as a Confederate soldier in the Civil War and a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. 150 Figure 54-Jar, probably Baltimore, ca. 1860s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 10?. Impressed ?BS HOOPER DEALER IN GROCERIES & LIQUORS FARMVILLE VA.? (Private collection.) Some local potters even found it advantageous to relocate to other regions in order to pursue opportunities outside the city. Notably, potter Thomas Amoss operated a stoneware pottery in Henrico County about the same time he was a partner in Morgan and Amoss, a Baltimore stoneware firm situated at Pitt and Green streets.184 Amoss died in 1822, and his Virginia factory was included in his will. Another family of potters from Baltimore, David Parr and Sons, relocated to Richmond to manufacture stoneware during the 1860s and 1870s.185 Further, by the 184 Fourth U.S. Census, 1820, Virginia, Schedule of Manufactures, Henrico County. According to the 1820 census records he owned one kiln and three wheels, employed four men, and used fifty tons of clay, eighty cords of wood, and fifteen sacks of salt. 185 Henrico County, Virginia, Will Book No. 6, 1822-1827, August 7, 1822, p. 137. 151 1830s Baltimore potters Henry Remmey Sr. and Jr. eventually relocated to Philadelphia, where the family made stoneware through the late-19th century. Conclusions This chapter?s focus on marketing stoneware in urban Baltimore adds another layer of description to traditional potters. Working class potters were more than one dimensional craftsmen; they also ran or contributed to businesses intent on making a profit. These craft-making enterprises relied on several key venues for distributing stoneware to consumers, including local businesses and retail establishments, china merchants, other potters, and regional outlets. The many different types of sources used in this investigation have broadened our understanding of how and why potters marketed stoneware as they did. They are also particularly informative with regard to how potters were influenced by, interacted with, and took advantage of Baltimore?s urban environment. As a whole, this body of evidence indicates that local shops involved in the manufacture of traditional stoneware were also business enterprises with vested interests. This chapter argues that the city?s china merchants were tied to industrial capitalistic development, both in the production and marketing of utilitarian stoneware. Several china merchants such as the Myers family, George Earnest and Wesley Cowles, and James Pawley Sr. found it advantageous to own their own kilns 152 and employ potters to supply their retail businesses. Other china merchants in the city relied on stoneware potters to supply their retail needs. Efforts to market stoneware reflect an intense competition among potters within the city and a desire to increase profits by expanding marketing to outlying areas. Baltimore?s geographic proximity and superior transportation system enabled potters to compete with potters in Philadelphia, Richmond, and Alexandria by exporting stoneware to distant regions of the East coast on a regular basis by steamboat and rail. Finally, the various interactions, transactions, and venues involved in selling stoneware in urban Baltimore during the 19th century suggest that this was a relatively complex and challenging undertaking. The most enterprising of the city?s working class potters pursued strategies such as wholesaling, selling stoneware with merchant advertising, and exporting, which enabled them to actively compete in a dynamic and fluid marketplace. 153 Chapter 5: Using the Natural Environment Introduction While previous chapters examined hand craft traditions involving working class potters, the urban area in which they worked, and the competitive nature of marketing stoneware in the 19th century, Chapter 5 focuses on issues related to nature. The natural environment of Baltimore is important because it is directly tied to how and why a local stoneware industry emerged in the city, as well as the experience of its urban potters. Abundant natural resources sustained the production of stoneware, while, in turn, the by-products from manufacturing stoneware at times adversely affected individuals, their surrounding communities, and nature itself. Pottery making required potters to constantly procure significant amounts of clay used to form vessels as well as wood used to fuel kilns over extended periods of time. As they processed raw materials, potters confronted a number of occupational hazards, including lung problems from inhaling clay dust, toxic vapors released during salt glazing, and poisoning from exposure to lead glazes. Further, the release of smoke during regular and prolonged kiln firings also affected the health of not only potters, but also the quality of life of residents living in proximity to stoneware factories. 154 I maintain that the natural environmental should be an integral part of any dynamic and changing cultural landscape analysis, particularly those that involve studies of the past. This chapter will use scholar Jeremy Korr?s cultural landscape model as a systematic approach for analyzing the natural environment of Baltimore potters.186 His interdisciplinary methodology creates a three-way relationship between humans, artifact (the built environment) and nature. An environmental perspective adds another dimension to our understanding of potters, and just as importantly, how they affected other human beings within their own community. It acknowledges that these craftsmen were tied to a larger world of cause and effect, beyond their own self interests. Documenting how potters, the city?s inhabitants, and government officials responded to this type of pollution at different points during the 19th century helps us understand not only the scope of this problem but how attitudes toward the environment formed over time. Further, this approach provides an opportunity to examine the metabolism or inputs and outputs of 19th-century stoneware potteries, notably raw materials used as fuel and pollution emitted into airways.187 186 See Jeremy Korr, ?A Proposed Model for Cultural Landscape Study,? Material Culture, Fall 1997. 187 See Joel A. Tarr, ?The Metabolism of the Industrial City: The Case of Pittsburgh,? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 28, No. 5, July, 2000, pp. 511-545. Tarr documents the degree to which Pittsburgh utilized inputs such as clean air, water, food, fuel, and construction goods in order to subsist. 155 Most cultural landscape studies involving pollution are limited to the period of the industrial revolution or what scholar Andrew Hurley refers to as the ?second industrial revolution? in his study of oil pollution in New York City.188 However, citizen complaints in the form of petitions and ordinances indicate that pollution connected to urban manufacturing and processing was a growing and serious problem in Baltimore at the start of the 1800s. Stoneware kilns were among many manufacturing operations that elicited the concern and ire of residents. Baltimore city government struggled to regulate manufacturers and their by-products. In this context, utilitarian stoneware vessels produced by Baltimore potters are much more than passive, man-made objects tied to economic behavior. Instead, analyzing the natural environment as a dynamic component of the cultural landscape lends a broader view of human interactions associated with stoneware production. The following discussion takes a closer look at the manner in which Baltimore potters sought to control valuable natural resources for their own economic gain, the extent to which the city government dealt with pollution from the manufacturing operations, and how the production process adversely affected the welfare of potters and the residents of the city. 188 Andrew Hurley, ?Creating Ecological Wastelands: Oil Pollution in New York City, 1870- 1900,? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 20, No. 3, May 1994, pp. 340-364. 156 Mining Natural Resources Access to high-quality clay was a prerequisite to undertaking any successful domestic pottery manufacturing enterprise. Baltimore?s utilitarian potters benefited from the city?s proximity to rich native clay deposits. Clays from Cretaceous (144 to 65 million years ago) and Pleistocene (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago) formations in Maryland were especially suitable for the production of stoneware by potters. It should be noted that there are a wide variety of clays of different colors and consistencies found in Maryland. However, the suitability of each depends on the product to be manufactured such as bricks, fire bricks, terra cotta pipe, earthenware, and stoneware (fig. 55). Figure 55-Map identifying Potomoc Group of Raritan, Patapsco, Arundel, and Patuxent clay formations. From Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), Plate XXXIXa. 157 According to the Maryland Geological Survey of 1902, one of the two best sources of clay in Maryland for manufacturing stoneware is located on the western shoreline Anne Arundel County at Bodkins Point, approximately 15 miles south of Baltimore (fig. 56). Figure 56-Stoneware clay beds along shore of Bodkins Point, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. From Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), Plate XLI. While it is not known exactly where 19th-century Baltimore potters procured stoneware clay, Bodkins Point would have been a convenient location given the relatively close proximity of this exposed bed to the city and its accessibility by boat. According to the survey, this deposit from the Columbia formation of the Pleistocene period begins ??about ? south of the lighthouse on the point. The stoneware clay is 158 a bluish plastic clay and represents the layers of potter?s clay which are interbedded with the beds of sandy plastic clay at that locality.?189 The following analysis provides the exact composition of this high quality clay: Silica??????????????.. 69.40 Alumina????????????..... 19.70 Ferric Oxide???????????... 2.00 Lime?????????????....... .20 Magnesia????????????? .60 Alkalies?????????????.. .60 Ignition?????????????.. 7.85 Total????????.. 100.37 Total Fluxes?????.. 3.42 Several other sources of stoneware clay dating to the Cretaceous period are located in Harford County on the South Shore of Otter Point and in several locations in Cecil County, Maryland, north of Baltimore. In 1902, it was reported that Arundel formation clay from Harford County was shipped to New Jersey, while Patapsco formation clay from different areas in Cecil County had been sent to stoneware factories in Philadelphia, including Richard Remmey and Sons.190 The Maryland Geological Survey of 1902 locates stoneware clay beds in Cecil County along Bacon 189 Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), p. 386. This edition of the survey provides an in-depth study of Maryland clays, related industries, and products. 190 Ibid., pp. 414-420. 159 Hill Road about 3 ? miles east of the town of Northeast; ? mile south of Eder, south of Hance Point; and 3 ? miles south of Elkton Station191 A proximity to sources of native clay also proved advantageous to potters in other Mid-Atlantic regions including Manhattan and Long Island, as well as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, western Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.192 For instance, the Morgan family of New Jersey (not believed to be related to Baltimore potter Thomas Morgan) owned three stoneware potteries at different times, as well as a large source of stoneware clay on property near South Amboy Village in proximity to Raritan Bay and Cheesequake Creek. Apparently, the mining of stoneware clay, which James Morgan Sr. and James Morgan Jr. initiated in the mid-18th century, represented the most lucrative end of this family business. The Morgans are documented selling and shipping their clays by water to other potters along the east coast into the 19th century.193 Locating deposits of suitable clay was also a top priority for potters in Baltimore. For instance, a period newspaper advertisement for the firm of Morgan and Amoss promotes two pits of stoneware clay of exceptional quality that they procured. 191 Ibid. 192 Georgeanna Greer, American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters (Exton, Pa.: Schiffer Publishing Limited), 1981, pp. 27-28. 193 Laurel Racine, Re-Examination after Excavation: The Problems of Attributing Wares to Three New Jersey Potteries, (Master?s thesis, University of Delaware, 1997), pp. 15-16. 160 M. & A. (Morgan and Amoss) have the satisfaction to inform their old customers, as well as all others who purchase STONEWARE, that they have lately purchased the exclusive privilege of two pits of fine clay, which upon trial has been found to make ware, which excels in beauty any thing of the kind now made, or perhaps ever was made in this country, out of which they intend to manufacture the most of their ware, as long as the pits will hold out?194 The exceptionally good clays from the Baltimore area even supplied potter Benedict C. Milburn of Alexandria, Virginia. In 1855, the Alexandria Gazette published a remarkable article describing Milburn?s shop and the clays he used: Alexandria Pottery Those who have never witnessed the operations of shaping and finishing Earthenware will be gratified by a visit to the manufactory of Mr. Milburn, on Wilkes Street, of this city. The material employed is a species of bluish white clay, found in various parts of the country, and composed of such proportions of alumina and other ingredients as to make it very tenacious and plastic when moistened. The clay used at Mr. Milburn?s factory is brought from the vicinity of Baltimore City. After the clay is thoroughly kneaded and prepared, a certain portion, according to the size of the vessel to be made, is placed upon 194 American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, August 25, 1820, p. 3; Richmond Enquirer, October 10, 1820, p. 3; and Virginia Herald, September 6, 1820, p. 3. 161 a circular board fixed horizontally and connected with a treadle by which a rotary motion is given to it.195 Documentary evidence indicates that Federal Hill, on the south side of the Baltimore Basin or present-day Inner Harbor area, was another rich source of clay for local earthenware potters. This historic hill is described by Captain John Smith in 1608 during his first voyage of exploration on the Chesapeake Bay. Upon reaching the end of the Patapsco River, Smith wrote that he had seen "a great red bank of clay flanking a natural harbour basin."196 Areas of Federal Hill have been extensively mined by potters and glassmakers for its superior clays and sand, which has left behind an extensive network of tunnels. A day book kept by fineware potter Edwin Bennett records at least five types of clay that he used from the Federal Hill deposit, including ?yellow, tough, slate, colored gray, soft and white sugar (sandy) clay.? He also dug clay in four other places: ?1. ?City Walk? in Patterson Park; 2. Harford Road running northeast beyond the City line; 3. Curtis Creek and Curtis Bay, south of Patapsco River; and 4. ?Eleven Mile Switch? the Baltimore, Washington, and Philadelphia Railroad, north of Bay View Asylum in the eastern section of the City.?197 195 Barbara H. Magid, ?An Archaeological Perspective on Alexandria?s Pottery Tradition,? Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts 21, no. 2 (1995), p. 72. 196 Norman G. Rukert, Federal Hill: A Baltimore National Historic District (Baltimore: Bodine and Associates), 1980, p.13. 197 Eugenia Calvert Holland, Edwin Bennett and the Products of his Baltimore Pottery, p. 13. 162 A 1907 Baltimore Sun newspaper article entitled ?Making Plates and Jars in Baltimore Potteries? discusses the manner in which the Perine family of potters also obtained local clays from Federal Hill which they used in the production of earthenware flowerpots: Much of the clay once distributed to the world in flower pots by the Perine potteries was secured by digging away and tunneling Federal Hill. This hill used to extend to the water?s edge and back to streets now built up with houses. Little by little the hill was honeycombed by mines for the removal of clay and iron ore until such excavation was prohibited by local authorities.198 Further, the Maryland Geological Survey of 1902 reported that the Perines obtained clays from two other sources, the Columbia formation from near Locust Point south of the city and Spring Gardens in Baltimore County, Maryland.199 By this point M. Perine and Sons had ceased production of utilitarian stoneware and produced various types of earthenware, including Rockingham-glazed, while also specializing in flower pots and flue tops.200 Baltimore potters used significant amounts of clay throughout the 19th century, as the U.S. Census Product of Industry Schedules for 1850 and 1860 indicate (tables 3, 4). For instance, in 1850, the operations of James Parr, David Parr, and 198 Baltimore Sun, February 10, 1907, p. 12. 199 Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4, p. 488. 200 Ibid. 163 Earnest and Cowles, which involved stoneware production, used 400, 250, and 100 tons of clay, respectively. In 1860, Maulden Perine?s firm used 200 tons of clay, while William Linton used 300 tons. To put this amount of clay into perspective, a four pound ball of clay was needed to produce a one-gallon size stoneware vessel.201 Since one ton of clay contains 2000 pounds, this amount would produce approximately 500 one-gallon vessels. Using this formula, the 250 tons of clay David Parr reported using in 1850, could make 125,000 one-gallon vessels. This number equates to the 90,000 vessels Parr actually reported making since their gallon capacities would have varied in size. The manufacture of stoneware also required large quantities of wood which was necessary to fire kilns at high temperatures for an extended period of time. Potters vied for a primary source of fuel that was always in demand. As early as the American Revolution, residents cleared vast wooded areas around the city, particularly during the cold winters of 1779 and 1783.202 The amount of wood potters needed depended on the size of the kiln, as well as other factors. It reportedly took at least two and half cords of four-foot pine to maintain a groundhog style kiln, a type used primarily in the south, rather than Baltimore, for 10 hours.203 Using information reported by Baltimore potters in the U.S. Census Product of Industry Schedules for 1850 and 1860, it is possible to approximate in a very general way the number of 201 Georgeanna Greer, American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters, pp. 49- 50. 202 Sherry H. Olson, Baltimore: The Building of an American City, p. 18. 203 Charles G. Zug III, Turners and Burners: The Folk Potters of North Carolina, xiii. 164 times kilns were fired by firms in one year. For instance, David Parr used 400 cords of wood in 1850, which would equate to firing his kiln 160 different times. The actual length of a kiln firing depended on how long it took to gradually elevate the temperature to 1,200-1,300 degrees Celsius, which was necessary in order to produce stoneware. Potters were even willing to trade wares for ample supplies of wood, notably pine or oak, in order to heat their kilns over extended periods. In fact, in the third decade of the 19th century china merchant and pottery owner Henry Myers, as well as the firm of Parr and Burland, both noted in newspaper ads that they would exchange stoneware for firewood.204 By the second half of the 19th century M. Perine and Sons incurred regular expenses to pay for hauling wood to their pottery at Baltimore and Schroeder streets.205 As will be discussed in the next chapter, the advanced kilns of Queensware manufacturer Edwin Bennett burned coal as early as 1847, while other potters such as M. Perine and Sons and David F. Haynes were also using this type of fuel later in the century. In fact, each of these pottery operations had coal sheds on their properties, 204 Myers stated that ?pinewood of a good quality would be taken in exchange for wares? in an ad placed in the American, July 3, 1823, p. 1; Parr and Burland announced they would exchange wares for pine or oak in the American & Commercial Daily Advertiser, April 24, 1828, p. 1. 205 See Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #3. These records detail by month and year the costs involved in acquiring different types of clay, salt, and lead. 165 which are depicted on 1890 Sanborn fire insurance maps discussed and illustrated in Chapter 8. Pollution, Profit, and Problems Approaching the 19th century, Baltimore had already begun to transform itself into an important center of commerce, manufacturing, and distribution. Ensuing industrialization set in place intense capitalist production that became a central, driving force for the expansion of major cities along the eastern seaboard, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Yet, surprisingly, relatively little is currently known about how urban neighborhoods coexisted in direct proximity to this commercial growth; in particular the various factories that dotted the landscape of this important port city. The physical dimensions of many different factory buildings associated with manufacturing, particularly those with smokestacks, became highly visible and recognizable features of 19th-century cities. While smokestacks are now equated with environmental degradation, in earlier times, they were closely associated with economic vitality and jobs. In his reelection campaign, President William McKinley even appropriated the image of a factory with smoke churning through several stacks, along with a lunch pail, as proof to voters that his policies during the late-19th century had resulted in job creation (fig. 57). 166 Figure 57-Political campaign button for William McKinley, 1900. From Ted Hake, Encyclopedia of Political Buttons: United States 1896-1972 (New York: Dafran Publishers, 1974). However, Baltimore?s historical record documents that there was a detrimental side to early manufacturing and later industrial development, as inhabitants and local government attempted to reign in businesses that threatened the city?s well being and safety. Pottery kilns, chemical, glue, and soap factories, turpentine distilleries, tanneries, and slaughter houses are just a few of many enterprises in the city that elicited formal citizen complaints. Providing basic infrastructure, proper planning, and regulatory oversight undoubtedly challenged Baltimore during this early period, yet the city?s concern for protecting the health and welfare of its residents is evident in the nuisance ordinances it enacted. 167 In fact, by 1797 a new charter gave the city ?full power and authorization to pass all laws and ordinances necessary to preserve the health of the city, (and) prevent and remove nuisances??206 In that year, the city enacted a fairly broad ordinance to prevent and remove several nuisances: And be it enacted and ordained, that if any tanner, currier, distiller, brewer, soap boiler, tallow chandler, hatter dyer, glue boiler, or any other person within the said city, shall discharge any foul or nauseous liquor, or offal, from any still-house, workshop, or yard, so that such liquor or offal shall pass into or along any of the streets, lanes or alleys of the said city; or if any soap boiler or tallow chandler shall keep, collect or use, or cause to be kept, collected or used in any part of the said city, any stale, putrid or stinking fat, grease or other offensive matter: or if any butcher shall keep at or near his slaughter house, any garbage or filth whatsoever, so as to annoy any neighbor, or any person whomsoever, he, she or they shall forfeit and pay, for every such offence, the sum of five dollars, and shall also forfeit and pay the like sum for every day the same shall be suffered so to remain, for the use of the city.207 The incorporation of the city also afforded neighborhood residents a formal system for submitting signed petitions that targeted violations of nuisance ordinances. 206 The Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore Passed at their First and Second Sessions, held February, 1797, and February, 1798. With the Act of Incorporation Prefixed (Baltimore: Reprinted by John Cox, City Printer, 1875), p. 8. 207 Ibid., p. 61. 168 These petitions not only stated problems but also requested that city officials take specific action against an individual or commercial activity deemed to be a nuisance. Appropriate committees with proper jurisdiction investigated allegations and filed reports; panels that handled matters involving kilns included the Joint Committees on Fire Companies, as well as Police and Jail. The approval of both branches of the city council and the mayor was needed to enact a new law. However, the city council often tabled controversial or unworkable measures, which precluded further consideration. In order to represent the city?s eight wards, First Branch members were required to own $1,000 in property, while Second Branch members needed to own twice that amount and were appointed by electors from wards. Also chosen by electors from the wards, the mayor himself was required to own a minimum of $500 in property. This system empowered residents and business owners to lodge complaints, seek redress for injuries, and express support for reforms. It was also the last resort for resolving conflict within shared communities. Neighborhood groups urged government officials to take action against manufacturers that posed varying degrees of danger to the health of their communities. For instance, an 1836 petition filed by 10 residents of a neighborhood situated south-east of the Baltimore Basin adamantly opposed a sulphuric acid operation: They would represent that there is about to be erected on a lot fronting south on Hughes Street, east from Covington Street and next to the lot on which 169 formerly stood a turpentine distillery which was destroyed by fire?a lead chamber for the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid that the process necessary to the manufacture of this article is frought with the most destructive consequences to health and life, the adjacent atmosphere being for a considerable distance constantly impregnated with a highly offensive and deleterious odour?that if said chamber be erected the comfort as well as the solubrity of this whole neighborhood will be thereby most materially and grievously affected.208 City leaders had the unenviable task of balancing the health and welfare of citizens against the interests of local manufacturers and businesses. These officials often made an effort to address grievances, even in they did not side with plaintiffs alleging nuisance violations. For instance, a panel assigned to investigate an 1822 petition filed by Henry Buckley in opposition to a slaughter house on Bayard Street, made the following report: The Committee appointed on the Petition of Henry Buckley and others, beg leave to report, that your Committee have examined the premises and find that the great number of Animals slaughtered yearly in this place must of course produce offensive smells and annoy the residents at times. But for as much as that part of the City has been first improved and is now almost exclusively held and owned on Pitt street from Eden to Market streets Fells 208 City Council Records #501, 1836, Baltimore City Archives. 170 Point, by the respectable Butchers of our City and some of your petitioners long since the erection of those slaughter house have leased Lots and improved on them in the immediate vicinity of the aforementioned Slaughter Houses?They therefore would expect nothing less but to be occasionally annoyed by them. Your Committee are of opinion that there is sufficient ordinances passed already to meet the subjects complained of?all which is respectfully submitted.209 At the heart of nuisance laws were real concerns over controlling pollution and waste to prevent outbreaks of disease that were prevalent during this period. During the 1790s yellow fever epidemics ravaged populations in seaports across the east coast. In 1798, yellow fever killed 2,086 people in New York City, and from 1795-1802, a number of craftsmen, merchants, and the wealthy fled the city.210 Two recent studies about disease in early urban areas should be noted. The first is a dissertation by scholar Gilda Anroman which provides an insightful interdisciplinary approach to disease and its lingering effects on early Philadelphia.211 Further, researcher George H. Lukacs has made important connections between yellow fever 209 City Council Records #230, 1822, Baltimore City Archives. 210 George H. Lukacs, ?A Pot of Butter for the Victims? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005), pp. 4 and 6. 211 See Gilda Anroman, Infectious Disease in Philadelphia, 1690-1807: An Ecological Perspective (Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Maryland, 2006). 171 epidemics during this time period and efforts of stoneware potters in Poughkeepsie, New York, to provide coordinated assistance to victims in New York City.212 In Baltimore, the Federal Gazette newspaper reported that yellow fever caused 1,197 deaths in 1800, equating to 4.5 percent of the city?s total population of 26,514 residents for that year.213 Yellow fever was a persistent problem, and in 1819, another 350 residents died of this mysterious disease believed to be caused by ?putrefaction of vegetable matter,? gasses carried by wind, and stagnate water.214 Compounding the yellow fever problem were outbreaks of deadly measles and small pox. Local authorities responded by enacting increasingly restrictive nuisance laws. Health concerns are the underlying premise of an 1810 petition signed by eight residents opposed to allowing brick maker John Krebs to dig clay on Lee Street. The group objected to Krebs removing clay near their homes due to stagnate water collecting in excavated pits. Their petition lodged the following complaint: In names of gentlemen, living remote from the ill consequences, and evils that may arise there from stagnate water and c. and c. and c.?nay it is within the recollection of most of us and known particularly well to some of the subscribers, whose names are hereto annex?d that more than one life, was lost 212 See George Lukacs ?A Pot of Butter for the Victims? and George H. Lukacs, Poughkeepsie Potters and the Plague (Columbia, S.C.: Arcadia, 2001). 213 Douglas F. Stickle, ?Death and Class in Baltimore: The Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1800? Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 74, No. 3, September 1979, p. 284. 214 Sherry H. Olson, Baltimore: The Building of an American City, pp. 35 and 52. 172 some time ago by and from similar indulgence granted to John Hignet in a near adjacent st. For which reasons, as well as perfectly assured that if Mr. Kreb?s petition is granted that it will be most prejudicial and pernicious to the Health of our families, and domestic comforts do therefore earnestly request that the said petition of Mr. Krebs not be granted.215 A little more than a decade later, the city enacted an ordinance that required owners of vacant lots or lots of ground to keep them clear of nuisances, which included ??filling up their grounds so as to prevent any water remaining on the same.?216 This law also specified that ??all cellars and other confined surfaces on low and made ground, and where the yellow fever is liable to prevail, be filled so as to preserve them as dry as possible, and that they be kept clean and well aired, and sprinkled from time to time with fresh earth and lime, as may appear necessary to the Board of Health.? The earliest ordinance specifically referencing stoneware manufacture dates to 1812. It prohibited persons from erecting ?any distillery of spirits, of turpentine or varnish, or manufactories either of earthen or stone wares, or slaughter house or 215 City Commissioners Correspondence #203, 1810, RG3, Series 1, Baltimore City Archives. The following individuals signed this petition: Theodore Dorsey, Richard Bevan, Daniel Hughes, William Cochman, J. Rowe, David Graham, Peter Potee, and Elijah Bailey. 216 The Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore from 1813 to 1822, Inclusive (Baltimore: Re-Printed by John Cox, City Printer, 1876), pp. 356-357. Ordinance No. 64; This ordinance became law in 1821 without the signature of the Mayor, because he did not return it to the City Council within five days after it was presented to him. 173 houses? in the portion of the city lying west of Jones Falls and north of Barre Street.217 These boundaries were established in an earlier ordinance approved in 1807 that prohibited the erection of wooden buildings within this more developed and populated area, presumably because this type of architecture was more susceptible to fire than brick or stone.218 The construction and placement of kilns was not the only concern of city officials and residents. For example, the following petition submitted by John Hillen and 10 other residents in 1817 supported raising the height of pottery kiln stacks to more effectively carry emissions away from residential neighborhoods: That an ordinance was passed in March 1812 among other things prohibiting the erection of potteries within certain limits; since which time others have been built contiguous therto and in thickly settled neighborhoods and with several others previously erected great numbers of inhabitants who reside in the adjoining squares are frequently much annoyed by the vast quantities of disagreeable smoke issuing from them and carried by winds through their several dwellings. The heighth of said kilns seldom if ever exceed one story and are generally without any covering to prevent the aforesaid nuisance. 217 The Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore from 1803 to 1812, Inclusive, (Baltimore: Reprinted by John Cox, City Printer, 1876), pp. 325-327. Ordinance No. 24; Approved March 11, 1812. 218 Ibid., pp. 165-174. Ordinance No. 29; Approved March 26, 1807. 174 Your Memorialists therefore solicit that an ordinance may pass requiring that potteries of every description shall have such enclosures as will effectively convey all the smoke arising there from a sufficient height in the air to prevent the serious evil complained of.219 Knowing where these petitioners resided in proximity to nearby pottery operations provides a better understanding of their complaints. Many of these individuals are listed in an 1817 city directory, including their names, occupations, and addresses. This information along with the location of seven potteries known to have been in operation at this time is plotted on a period map (fig. 58). 219 City Council Records #344, 1817, Baltimore City Archives. This petition contains the following signatures: James Dew, Mary (?), John Isil, John (?), Jas. Butler, John Hillen, John Stricker, William Cole, Peter Diffendorffer, Lott Ridgely, and John Healey. 175 Figure 58-Map overlay showing location of cosigners of 1817 petition to raise the height of kiln stacks and known pottery sites for same year. Map is by Fielding Lucas Jr., Plan of the City of Baltimore, 1822. (Courtesy, Library of Congress.) Names, occupations, and addresses of petitioners are from the Baltimore Directory for 1817- 18 (Baltimore: James Kennedy, 1817). Four of the petitioners were merchants, joined by a pile driver, either a miller or rope maker (both share the same name), and a reverend. As a whole, this group is relatively diverse with regard to occupations. It should be noted that individuals are not concentrated in one neighborhood or even around one particular kiln. Rather, they are disbursed around several potteries, mostly in the Old Town section of the city, which is identified on this map by a large numerical 3 and 4, representing wards. Further, kiln emissions apparently affected three petitioners situated to the west on the other side of Jones Falls in Ward 5. The location of petitioners in different areas 176 of the city suggests that pottery kiln emissions in Baltimore during this period were not only offensive but relatively widespread spatially. Another petition submitted by J. H. Stimpson provides a first-hand account of how wood burning kilns adversely affected air quality in populated areas of urban Baltimore in 1843. Although his petition references charcoal rather than pottery kiln emissions, both types of manufacturing involved burning wood for long periods on a regular basis.220 The immediate effect on humans would have been similar, and perhaps worse with stoneware production which also released the odor of chlorine gas when salt was added to the firing. In fact, in the 19th century, pottery kilns were sometimes used to manufacture charcoal as well as lime.221 Stimpson?s petition is relevant in the sense that it provides a context for how large amounts of smoke from burning wood adversely affected residents of the city. His petition stated: I would beg leave, to call the attention of the City Council to a subject of great importance to the health of the citizens generally, as well as to their comfort. 220 In the 19th century charcoal was made from slowly burning soft and hard wood in kilns over extended periods. During this period, charcoal was an important fuel used in iron production. 221 See Edward Beglinger and Edward G. Locke, ?Charcoal: Its Manufacture and Use,? Economic Botany, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr.-Jun., 1957), pp. 162-163. This article discusses the advantages of charcoal production in wood burning beehive or ?old ceramic kilns,? and provides a photo of one such early kiln converted for this purpose. 177 When the wind blows from the South west, persons of delicate health living on the Point, complain of an oppression on the lungs and an irritation in the throat, causing them great inconvenience. Likewise, when the wind is south, those in Old town and the middle section of the City are subject to the same feeling and when it is South East those up town experience a like inconvenience. The sensation, is like inhaling a bitter, half suffocating vapour in the atmosphere, which the strong and healthy--by ejaculating a curse on ?the smoke?--endeavour to get rid of; whilst those of weaker lungs experiencing more irritation, endeavour to find out the cause and the remedy. Complaints are constantly being made in my hearing, when the wind is southerly, in relation to it, and in consequence of those complaints as well as my own feelings. I have taken the trouble of bringing it to the notice of the City Councils for their action. It is well known that there are several charcoal kilns--or houses in which wood is char?d--on opposite side of the Basin, some of which are constantly in operation and when the wind is southerly, the volatile parts of the wood, consisting of an oily matter, resembling tar; acetic and carbonic acid, together with several gasses are blown across the water and the hundred thousand inhabitants of the City must inhale and exhale this half choking atmosphere. 178 That it proceeds from that source, any one may be an eye to witness to, by going down to the basin during a southerly wind. As it is important, that in a City--where the air is naturally more impure than in the country--all extraneous operations affecting its purity should be prohibited; I would therefore suggest to the councils, to require of the party?s carrying on such operations to construct their buildings in such a way as to consume the volatile parts of the wood, that escape from the kilns, or to convey it through lofty chimneys into the upper regions of the atmosphere. It might indeed, be made to assist in raising steam (should steam be used) by conveying it into the fire under the boilers and thereby become a source of profit. In London, common manufactorys are by law, obliged to consume their smoke and it surely cannot be unreasonable to ask that a hundred or more thousands of persons may be allowed to breath as pure an atmosphere as possible. The land on which the operations are conducted, is within the City limits and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Councils. -J. H. Stimpson222 222 City Council Records #289, 1843, Baltimore City Archives. 179 It should be pointed out that at this point in time, china merchants James Pawley and George Earnest operated stoneware kilns situated in the southern areas of the city, which may have contributed to the overall problem of smoke being blown northward (see figure 13). Processing lime in kilns that burned oyster shells was another source of pollution that affected Baltimore?s air quality. In 1840 a local potter Benjamin Greble was involved in a contentious disagreement with Hugh Dowling who had purchased a kiln owned by Greble for $500 for the purpose of manufacturing lime. A letter Dowling sent to the Mayor and City Council February 2, 1843 describes an ongoing contentious relationship with ?persons interested in the sale of lime and whose interest it was to injure his business.?223 He also claims that a disagreement between he and Greble is related to the potter failing to pay taxes prior to selling the property. On February 24, 1843 C. H. Claiborne and a group of 19 property owners, including Greble himself, signed a petition opposing Dowling?s kiln operation on Britton Street. Their petition made the following complaint: The undersigned petitioners and owners of property the neighborhood of certain lime kilns recently erected or caused to be erected by a certain Hugh Dowling, on a lott or parcel of ground of his fronting on Britton Street for the 223 City Council Records #309, 1843, Baltimore City Archives. 180 purpose of manufacturing or burning a sort of lime out of oyster shells and bones & c (said oyster shells being collected on said lott and there remaining in heaps for some months at a time before they are used) which your petitioners presume to be against an ordinance of the City of Baltimore. For the said Dowling very recently commenced firing said kilns with a very nauseous substance called gasstarr. Now we your petitioners being a large majority of the holders of property in the immediate neighborhood of said kilns, and we considering the burning of said matter as above stated as being very injurious and as we consider a nuisance to the inhabitants of the said neighborhood, we therefore respectfully suggest the propriety of the City Council taking action on the case.224 By 1848 city leaders further restricted the operation of potteries with a new measure that stated ?no person or persons shall erect, establish or rebuild any distillery of spirits of turpentine or varnish, or any manufactory of earthenware, or stoneware, or any slaughter house, or any soap manufactory, or any candle manufactory?which shall not have been already legally used for such distillation or business?within the limits of direct taxation, in the City of Baltimore, under the penalty of two hundred dollars, and the further sum of five dollars for each and every 224 City Council Records #308, 1843, Baltimore City Archives. The following individuals signed this petition: C. H. Claiborne, Matthew McColm, Chs. R. Diffenderffer, Elizabeth Kimberly, Catherine Rush, Geo. E. Webb, Danl. Crook, Towsend Scott, E. A. Crummer, Aug. D. Cherners, H. V. Hewkisk, Fred R. Dobler, Fred R. Dobler for Maria Dobler, (?) Glos, Thomas Mooney, Elizabeth Kraft, J. B. Seidenstricks, Benjm. Greble, John N. Fitzsimmons, and John B. Frey. 181 day of the continuation of such distillery, slaughterhouse, or manufactory??225 However, this law is tempered by a proviso within the City?s health ordinances that states ??in those cases in which the consent, in writing of all the holders of property within six hundred feet is first had and obtained, it shall be lawful for the board of health, at their discretion, with the approbation of the mayor, to grant special leave for the erection or carrying on of the establishments mentioned in this section, without the limits of direct taxation.?226 While petitions provide graphic descriptions of how air pollution adversely affected adjacent neighborhoods, period engravings of kilns in operation visualize smoke emitted by potteries. For instance, a ca. late-1890s illustration depicts several of Edwin Bennett?s kilns being fired at the same time (fig. 59). In this rendering, clouds of smoke from the burning of coal are being released into the atmosphere from Bennett?s enormous Queensware Factory plant as well as his smaller Tile Works operation across the street. This scene also shows how this large-scale industrial complex had direct access to passenger and freight lines, as well as shipping.227 225 The Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the January Session, 1848 (Baltimore: James Lucas, 1848), pp. 8-9. Ordinance No. 4; Approved February 26, 1848. 226 The Baltimore City Code: Comprising the Statutes and Ordinances Relating to the City of Baltimore (Baltimore: E. F. Armiger, City Printer, 1869), pp. 297-298. 227 Similar depictions of Harpers Ferry are discussed in Paul Shackel, In Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era, p. 98. Shackel points out that ??the factory and the industrial infrastructure became the focus of the many images created of the town. Smoke billowing from factories, and trains transporting goods, materials, and people became an important focus of America?s perception of urban 182 According to U.S. Census Products of Industry Schedules for 1850 and 1860 (tables 3, 4), Bennett was using significant supplies of coal to fire his kilns. The height of its kiln stacks were intended to disburse these emissions more widely and in a less concentrated manner than one-story tall stacks potters used earlier in the 19th century. Figure 59-Engraving of Edwin Bennett Pottery Company, Baltimore, Maryland. From A History of the City of Baltimore: Its Men and Institutions (Baltimore: Baltimore American, 1902), p. 208. Period engravings of several other regional potteries situated in Philadelphia, Trenton, and East Liverpool, Ohio, also depict large-scale kiln operations with vast industrialization.? 183 quantities of smoke pouring out of stacks (figs. 60-62).228 This iconography reinforces how functioning smokestacks once symbolized economic might and superiority. These illustrations also document the degree to which potters operating in populated areas, especially in Baltimore, had elevated the height of their stacks by the third quarter of the 19th century. The next chapter will discuss how the city council exerted oversight over pottery operations with rulings that involved preconditions, notably the height of stacks. Figure 60-Engraving, J. E. Jeffords & Company, Philadelphia City Pottery. From The Crockery Journal, 1875. 228 Depictions of these potteries shown in figures 60-62 appeared in the following editions of The Crockery Journal: J. E. Jeffords & Co, Philadelphia Pottery, May 13, 1875, p. 1; C. C. Thompson & Co., February 20, 1875, p. 1; and Glasgow Pottery Works, January 21, 1875, p. 1. 184 Figure 61-Engraving of C. C. Thompson & Company, East Liverpool, Ohio. From The Crockery Journal, 1875. Figure 62-Engraving of Glasgow Pottery Works, Trenton, New Jersey. From The Crockery Journal, 1875. 185 Occupational Health Hazards Nineteenth-century potters worked in an environment that undoubtedly endangered their health. The process of salt-glazing stoneware posed a potential health hazard to potters. Applying salt to a heated kiln resulted in ?intense white smoke, then black smoke, then the odor of chlorine gas?from every orifice of the kiln.?229 Because of the toxicity of this process, contemporary stoneware potters no longer use salt glaze, but instead substitute non-hazardous clear glazes. Another occupational hazard associated with manufacturing pottery includes silicosis, a condition in which long-term exposure to the inhalation of silica dust from clay results in irreversible lung damage. Given these conditions it is not surprising that respiratory disease caused the deaths of 60 percent of the Shenandoah Valley's potters, compared to only 27 percent of the general population.230 Further, by the 1890s the mean age at death for these potters over twenty years old was forty-six and a half years.231 However, the average life expectancy for males of the time was fifty- four. Not too surprisingly, the death certificate of Baltimore potter Peter Herrmann stated that the primary cause of his death in 1901 was lung-related, chronic bronchitis.232 229 Georgeanna Greer, American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters, p. 224. 230 H.E. Comstock, Pottery of the Shenandoah Valley Region, p. 17. 231 Ibid., p. 17. 232 Baltimore City Health Department, Bureau of Vital Statistics (Death Record Index), 1901. Death Certificate #B43647, Vol. # 202, p. 77. 186 Many 19th-century stoneware potters were also involved in the production of lead-glazed earthenware, which left them susceptible to this toxic ingredient. Even though a comprehensive study conducted as early as 1700 confirmed the debilitating ailments which afflicted potters who used lead and the dangers were published in various publications in the 19th century, potters took few precautions to protect themselves.233 Further, an article published in the Pennsylvania Mercury in 1785 described the consequences of eating and drinking from lead-glazed vessels: The mischievous effects of it (lead) fall chiefly on the county people, and the poor everywhere. Even when it is firm enough, so as not to scale off, it is yet imperceptibly eaten away by every acid matter: and mixing it with the drinks and meats of the people, becomes a slow but sure poison, chiefly affecting the nerves, that enfeeble the constitution, and produce paleness, tremors, gripes, palsies, &c, sometimes to whole families.?234 Potters handled raw lead on a regular basis, even grinding and mixing it with other ingredients. Exact methods of preparing lead glaze varied, and in many cases, potters kept formulas a closely guarded secret. According to Charles Zug, a typical glazing formula might combine ?...two parts flint to one part of lead and kaolin combined.?235 The business records of M. Perine and Company, which made both stoneware and earthenware during the second half of the 19th century, list regular 233 Ibid., p. 54. 234 Lura Woodside Watkins, Early New England Potters and Their Wares, p. 80. 235 Charles G. Zug III, Turners and Burners: The Folk Potters of North Carolina, p. 168. 187 purchases of lead from several different Baltimore merchants, presumably as a necessary ingredient for glazing earthenware. One of these suppliers was the firm of Hugh Bolton and Co., situated on McElderry?s Wharf along the Basin, for whom Perine?s company made advertising jugs shown in Chapter 3. Conclusions In conclusion, Chapter 5 has shed light on how the activities of potters engaged in the processing of natural resources had important consequences for Baltimore?s cultural landscape. Specifically, it has documented dynamic interrelationships between potters and local residents, the natural environment, and material culture within the built environment, notably the vessels potters made and the kilns in which they fired them. While Baltimore?s potters used raw materials from the surrounding natural environment for their own commercial advantage, residents as well as the city government attempted to reign in smoke released from stoneware kilns in direct proximity to adjacent residential neighborhoods. These emissions were but one of many forms of pollution that took place within an increasingly populated urban area in which residents coexisted alongside businesses involved in commercial processing and manufacturing. Petitions filed by citizens that opposed the operation of kilns within inhabited areas highlight the real concerns and increasing frustration of residents. Nineteenth- 188 century iconography and graphic first-hand accounts convey how kilns polluted airways and affected the quality of life within shared communities. While local potters enjoyed certain benefits from operating kilns in an urban area, there was a detrimental side to working within populated areas, notably contentiousness and adherence to increasingly restrictive ordinances. City officials in Baltimore attempted to deal with various forms of pollution by enacting various nuisance laws. Not too surprisingly, the complaints of residents and the response of city officials reveal a lack of understanding concerning the fragile nature of the natural resources such as air, water, and land. In fact, the term nuisance best describes how the growing problem of pollution was viewed by local government in the 19th century. Some of the most restrictive nuisance laws enacted were those intended to control rampant and deadly diseases. City officials considered putrefied waste and stagnant standing water to be serious health hazards tied to yellow fever outbreaks that were prevalent during the late-18th century and first half of the 19th century. Further, based on descriptions in petitions, it appears that neighbors of potters were motivated to file complaints again kilns because they were a source of irritation and inconvenience, not because they were a serious health hazard that might also have ramifications in a broader environmental sense. Ironically, the manufacture of traditional pottery in general involved a number of significant health hazards for potters, notably the ingesting of lead used to glaze earthenware, silicosis from 189 inhaling clay dust, and inhaling chlorine gas when salt was added to kilns as part of the glazing process. Interacting with these natural resources on a regular and prolonged basis could result in disease and in some cases shortened life spans. Finally, these findings suggest that more research is needed to provide a broader context for the neighborhood complaints that resulted from operating stoneware kilns in a populous urban area like Baltimore during the 19th century. In particular, it would be important to identify and compare the extent to which many other types of manufacturing within the city released pollution and the manner in which residents and city government responded to these threats as well. 190 Chapter 6: A Cultural Landscape Under Fire Introduction Another major source of contention involving working class potters was the risk of fire associated with kilns that operated on a regular basis within urban Baltimore. Stoneware kilns were essential to the livelihood of potters who turned native clays into functional vessels. However, kilns also exposed inhabitants in adjacent dwellings to a real and constant threat of fire, in addition to the emissions of smoke and soot that rained down on their neighborhoods. Research associated with Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware industry has focused largely on documenting potters and the wares they made using traditional historical approaches.236 Discussions of kilns often relate to contemporary pottery making or take place within archaeological circles, especially when a new ruin is found and there is an opportunity to document a design element.237 Matters of 236 See John N. Pearce, ?Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850?; Susan H. Myers, ?Marketing American Pottery: Maulden Perine in Baltimore,?; Luke Zipp, ?Henry Remmey & Son, Late of New York: A Rediscovery of a Master Potter?s Lost Years,? and John E. Kille, ?Distinguishing Marks and Flowering Designs: Baltimore?s Utilitarian Stoneware Industry,? in Ceramics in America, pp. 93-132. 237 Two recent articles provide good overviews of archaeological excavations of 19th-century kilns; Barbara J. Gundy and Deborah Casselberry?s ?The Mansion Pottery? and Richard Veit and Judson M. Kratzer?s ?Rediscovering the New Brunswick Stoneware Pottery, ca. 1862- 1901? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005), pp. 133-38 and 141-159. 191 production and the architecture of pottery kilns are important, yet humanistic perspectives also warrant consideration. In particular, when possible, opportunities should be taken to examine artisans in unconventional ways, especially in the context of controversy or conflict within communities.238 Chapter 6 explores the complex interrelationships that existed between potters, neighboring residents, fire insurers, volunteer fire departments, and local government officials in urban Baltimore during the late-18th century. Its goal is to provide a better understanding of how these competing interests coexisted, examining how each reacted to and were influenced by one another as kiln firings took place in inhabited and expanding areas of the city. As anthropologist Margaret Rodman has noted, places are not ?inert containers,? but rather ?politicized, culturally relative, historically specific, local and multiple constructions.?239 Again, Jeremy Korr?s cultural landscape approach is particularly useful in providing a conceptual framework for documenting and analyzing these dynamic interactions involving people, artifacts (built environment) and nature.240 238 See William R. Sutton, Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore (University Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998), p. xii. Sutton laments romanticized views of laboring-class culture found in secondary literature. 239 Margaret Rodman, ?Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality, American Anthropologist 94, 1992, pp. 640-656. 240 See Jeremy Korr?s ?A Proposed Model for Cultural Landscape Study.? 192 Examining stoneware potters in the context of kilns is important because it underscores the serious risk that fire posed to developing and populated urban areas.241 In fact, the threat of fire from many different sources led city officials to take preventative measures such as banning wooden frame houses in certain parts of the city, as well as restricting manufacturing that involved the risk of fire, including kiln firings. The technology, resources, and manpower available to battle blazes during the 19th century were woefully inadequate by modern standards. Fully cognizant of these limitations, fire insurance companies such as the Baltimore Equitable Society also attempted to reduce the threat of fire by closely monitoring risks posed to policy holders and encouraging fire prevention. Three sets of primary records are especially important to this study. First, the risk associated with firing stoneware kilns is documented in an extensive collection of fire insurance records belonging to the Baltimore Equitable Society which are on loan to the Maryland Historical Society. Second, petitions filed by concerned neighbors of potters are found in the records of the First and Second Branches of the City Council housed at the Baltimore City Archives. Lastly, Baltimore City Ordinances and Resolutions provide the basis for determining how local officials responded to the specific risk associated with stoneware manufacture during the 19th century. 241 According to scholar Amy S. Greenberg, fire was the ?premier threat to the health of cities in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.? See Greenburg, ?Volunteer Fire Companies and Community Formation in Baltimore, 1780-1859? in From Mobtown to Charm City: New Perspectives on Baltimore?s Past, edited by Jessica Elfenbein, John R. Breihan, and Thomas L. Hollowak (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 2002), p. 15. 193 Operating Stoneware Kilns There is scant evidence available to document the physical appearance of Baltimore?s stoneware kilns, which were torn down as the industry became obsolete and gradually died off by the end of the 19th century. Intense competition from large-scale Midwest competitors, advances in food preservation and refrigeration, and a changing streetscape ensured their demise. The only scientific archaeological excavation of a Baltimore stoneware kiln took place at the site of a stoneware pottery owned by china merchant James Pawley Sr. on the corner of Russell and Hamburg Streets. Pawley manufactured stoneware circa 1835-1845 using a round or ?bottle? updraft kiln, a type commonly used during this period.242 An updraft kiln generated heat from a firebox in an upward direction through the firing chamber containing vessels, toward openings in the roof of the kiln. These excavations determined that Pawley?s kiln was roughly 10 feet in diameter and made of brick, although it is impossible to know how tall it stood or the height of its emissions stack (fig. 63). 242 Suzanne L. Sanders and Martha R. Williams, Archaeological Mitigation of the J.S. Berry Brick Mill (18BC89) and Pawley Stoneware Kiln (18BC88), at the Proposed Ravens Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland (Frederick, Md.: R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, February 1998), pp. 57-58. 194 Figure 63-Excavated base of ca. 1835-1845 round or ?bottle? kiln owned by Baltimore china merchant James Pawley Sr. at Russell and Hamburg Streets (Courtesy, Christopher Goodwin and Associates.) In late January 2004 limited salvage excavations took place in proximity to Salisbury and Exeter Streets, where another Baltimore potter, David Brown Jr., produced utilitarian wares ca. 1810-1835. Unfortunately, impending residential development precluded scientific testing, and only two days were allotted for a small crew of archaeologists and volunteers to uncover a small portion of the kiln site and recover artifacts.243 The effort exposed a small portion of the kiln?s brick foundation and the alignment of flue vents indicates that Brown operated a rectangular, rather than a round or bottle kiln, the type used by Pawley. Further, this dig found that only one half of Brown?s kiln structure survived; the other was destroyed, probably as the 243 This small crew included archaeologists Esther Doyle Read, Peter Middlethon, and John E. Kille, who were assisted by volunteers Brant, Luke, and Mark Zipp, Pat Enright, Chris Rowe, and Tom Salvatore. An extensive townhouse complex now stands on the site where the pottery of David Brown Jr. once stood. 195 site was being demolished and graded for the construction of townhouses now standing on the site (fig. 64). Figure 64-Partially excavated base of rectangular kiln owned and operated by Baltimore potter David Brown Jr. at Salisbury and Exeter Streets. The other half of the kiln, which was destroyed, would have been situated in the foreground of photo. A scaled model drawing of an English rectangular kiln associated with John Dwight?s Fulham Pottery in London during the late-17th century and 18th century is useful in illustrating a similar type of kiln that Brown and other early potters in Baltimore may have also operated (fig. 65).244 This type of updraft kiln did not have a chimney, but allowed air to escape through holes in the roof. The 1817 petition of 244 This kiln reconstruction is also used to illustrate William Rogers? 18th-century stoneware operation in Yorktown, Virginia; See Norman F. Barka, ?Archaeology of a Colonial Pottery Factory: The Kilns and Ceramics of the ?Poor Potter? of Yorktown? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004), p. 30. 196 John Hillen, discussed in the previous chapter, suggests that Brown?s kiln may not have had a chimney either. According to Hillen ?The heighth of said kilns seldom if ever exceed one story and are generally without any covering to prevent the aforesaid nuisance.?245 Figure 65-Reconstruction of a rectangular stoneware kiln, ca. 1685. From Chris Green, John Dwight?s Fulham Pottery: Excavations 1971-1979 (London: English Heritage, 1999), fig. 22. 245 City Council Records #344, 1817, Baltimore City Archives. 197 An 1825 newspaper ad placed by Clarkson Crolius & Son, a stoneware pottery firm of New York City (fig. 66), provides an illustration of a one-story rectangular kiln in operation with smoke emitting from its roof. It is likely that this engraving is generic as opposed to a depiction of the actual kiln used by Clarkson Crolius & Son. However, it represents the type of pottery kilns in use during this period, which is also very similar to the much earlier ca. 1685 design seen in figure 65. Figure 66-Newspaper ad placed by Clarkson Crolius & Son, The National Advocate, September 16, 1825. One of the most labor intensive aspects of operating a kiln involved loading its firing chamber. Potters carefully stacked unfired vessels one upon the other to maximize space and used hand-formed wads of clay called kiln furniture to stabilize 198 wares and prevent them from shifting. The actual firing process represented a grueling hands-on experience. Typically, an entire day or more was spent stoking a kiln with wood in order to gradually achieve and maintain a temperature of between 1,200-1,300 degrees Celsius.246 Potters exercised great caution when operating kilns, especially given the substantial investment in time and money that a load of wares represented. Yet, firing a kiln during this period had less to do with science and instead required proper training and experience. Accidents could and did happen, such as an explosion or internal collapse.247 Of course, the threat of fire spreading during a mishap was always a very real possibility as well.248 For instance, it is likely that a kiln firing at an unidentified pottery on Eden Street near Baltimore Street (Probably the Parr Pottery) in 1858 resulted in the adjacent stables catching fire. This incident is documented in the records of the Pioneer Hook and Ladder Company, one of several volunteer fire departments in the city in this period.249 Further, in 1864, a fire is known to have 246 See Georgeanna Greer, American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters. This work provides a good general overview of firing utilitarian stoneware in kilns. 247 Lura Woodside Watkins, Early New England Potters and Their Wares, p. 70. Watkins points out that potter William Pecker was crushed to death when one of his kilns collapsed on him in 1820. 248 Phil Schaltenbrand, Big Ware Turners (Bentleyville, Pa.: Westerwald Publishing), 2002, p. 105. Schaltenbrand notes that fire destroyed several Pennsylvania stoneware factories during the 19th century, notably the Hamilton and Jones pottery in Greensboro in 1897 and the Bell pottery in Waynesboro in 1899. 249 ?Record Book-Pioneer Hook and Ladder Co.,? MS662, Maryland Historical Society, Vol. 3, No. 86, 1858. 199 damaged Edwin Bennett?s two-story Queensware Factory on Canton Street, which was insured with the Aetna Fire Insurance Company based in Hartford, Connecticut and subsequently rebuilt.250 With a vested interest in protecting both their inventory and premises from fire, some potters became members of their own community volunteer fire departments. For instance, in 1843, three Baltimore potters, William A. Prince, David Parr, and William Kilmer were members of the Lafayette Hose Company. This company formally requested the mayor and city council to allow them to construct a ?temporary rough frame building on the lot at the corner of Caroline Street and Union Alley? within the neighborhood of their own properties.251 Apparently, this modest request followed earlier, unsuccessful attempts to secure funding from the city to assist the fire department in erecting a permanent brick engine house for storing fire apparatus. In 1849 the city appropriated $500 toward this project.252 Two other potters situated in the western section of the city, Mauldin Perine and William Linton, belonged to another volunteer fire company, the Washington Hose Company of Baltimore. Perine?s name is listed among active members of the company for the years 1846, 1849, 1851-1852, while the partnership of Perine and 250 Eugenia Calvert Holland, Edwin Bennett and the Products of his Baltimore Pottery, p. 19. 251 City Council Records #301, 1843, Baltimore City Archives. 252 City Council Records #1027, 1849, Baltimore City Archives. 200 Linton (William) appears in 1847-1848.253 It should also be noted that another potter, John Jones, of Wilmington, Delaware, served as a clerk of the Reliance Fire Company in that city in 1799.254 In 1814, he was an engineer with the same company.255 Assessing the Risk of Fire-The Baltimore Equitable Society The operation of stoneware kilns in proximity to urban neighborhoods was a particular concern of the Baltimore Equitable Society, a mutual fire insurance company that sought to protect insured properties against the threat of fire. Incorporated in 1794, the Society is now one of the city?s oldest and most venerable institutions. Through the mid-19th century this innovative company?s success revolved around seven-year insurance policies in which losses from fire were covered by funds into which policy holders paid a percentage of their required deposit. At the end of their policy, a policy holder received back their original deposit as well as a dividend based on any surplus of earnings. The Society?s relationship with Baltimore potters can be traced back to the company?s origins. A meeting held on January 21, 1794, recorded that ?A number of respectable inhabitants of this town being assembled, a motion was made that an insurance fire company be established here, upon a plan similar to one in the city of 253 Record of the Washington Hose Co., Enoch Pratt Free Library. 254 James Koterski, Early Potters and Potteries of Delaware: Historical and Commercial Perspectives 1760-1890, p. 48. 255 Ibid. 201 Philadelphia instituted by the late Dr. Franklin?Where upon resolved that when the number of twenty persons or upwards encouraging the said Institution subscribe their names that a meeting be called on the occasion of which due notice be given??256 The names of William Brown #8, David Brown #10, and John Brown (potter) #16 are also listed among the first 20 founding members. David Brown is likely John Brown?s brother, who was also a potter. William Brown is possibly a relation, too. The Brown family of potters had established the city?s earliest earthenware potteries on Bond Street in 1763 and later Bridge Street in 1769.257 John Brown actively served on the company?s board of directors258 and was one of several surveyors of houses who investigated properties that fell under the company?s purview.259 In April 1794 the Society?s Board of Directors directed that a local pottery make the company?s insignia to be displayed by its members. It resolved that ??the Device to fix on the front of houses Insured be made of clay by one of our potteries? and instructed the Treasurer to ??procure a suitable mould and have a specimen made as soon as possible and report to the next meeting.?260 256 Baltimore Equitable Society Minutes and Proceedings of the Baltimore Equitable Society, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 156, January 21, 1794. 257 John N. Pearce, ?Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850,? p. 93. 258 Baltimore Equitable Society Minutes and Proceedings of the Baltimore Equitable Society, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 156, February 17, 1794. 259 Ibid., February 28, 1794. 260 Ibid., April 7, 1794. 202 Company records also reveal that the Society insured a number of Baltimore stoneware potters throughout the 19th century.261 At first glance, it may seem surprising that an insurance company devoted to preventing fire would insure manufacturers involved in potentially hazardous activities. However, a review of the detailed surveys the company maintained show that these policies afforded the Society an opportunity to regularly inspect and monitor kiln operations, as well as assess their associated risks to other policy holders. Surveys and policies often describe the physical layout of these properties in great detail, including building dimensions, architectural and material construction, and street locations. Further, policies not only listed the valuation of properties insured, they determined risk as represented by an assigned percentage of a policy holder?s deposit which went into a collection fund that covered accidents. In effect, more hazardous enterprises, such as those operated by potters, cost more to insure. In 1852 a Baltimore Equitable Society surveyor, Hugh B. Jones, devised the following categories of buildings to serve as a guide for assessing different types of risks, with the level of risk increasing in descending order: 1. Properly constructed and not dangerously situated 2. Warehouses 261 The Baltimore Equitable Society Collection dates from 1729-1996. This vast collection of fire insurance documents and material culture was originally housed in an office building on Eutaw Street, which the company occupied for 114 years. A move necessitated the collection?s dispersal in 2003, and most records are now on loan to the Maryland Historical Society. 203 3. County seats or houses 4. Manufactory establishments where no shavings are made or fire heat used 5. Frame buildings 6. Manufacturing establishments and stables 7. Most hazardous, i.e., chair making establishments. Also carpenters.262 The risk associated with kiln operations placed manufacturers of stoneware pottery toward the bottom of Jones? list. This higher risk meant that potters typically paid a higher percentage of their insurance policy deposit, about 2-2? percent, toward the accident fund. Since the risk associated with insuring a non-hazardous property was typically 1? percent, potters were paying approximately twice as much to insure their premises. The exceptions are founding members John and David Brown, who both paid only 1? percent and Maulden Perine, who is listed as ?first rate.? However, insurance policies were important to potters in order to adequately protect their significant property investments associated with pottery production. A number of Baltimore potters are documented insuring their premises with the Baltimore Equitable Society on a continuous basis in the late-18th and 19th centuries, including John Brown,263 David Brown,264 Maulden Perine,265 Nicholas Jones,266 David Brown 262 Baltimore Equitable Society Minutes of the Board of Directors, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 157, March 1, 1852. 263 Baltimore Equitable Society [Record of Policies A], MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 1, 1799, p. 237. 264 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of [Policies] B, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 1, 1805, p. 226. 265 Baltimore Equitable Society [Record of Policies A], MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 1, 1796, pp. 104-105. 204 Jr.,267 William Greble,268 Elisha Parr,269 and Thomas W. Brotherton.270 China merchants George Ernest271 and Margaret Parr272 also owned stoneware operations, and both insured their kilns along with their dwellings and retail stores. Insurance policies issued to potters usually included their dwelling houses, as well as various types of buildings associated with their stoneware production. The following 1828 record of survey for potter Elisha Parr details various properties that he owned: Elisha Parr, upon his two story brick dwelling house, fronting on the north side of Pitt Street between Canal and Eden Streets fourteen feet six inches and extending back twenty seven feet six inches. With two story brick building at the west end thereof fourteen feet and twenty seven feet six inches deep. Also 266 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys C, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 12, 1813, p. 333. 267 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys D, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 13, 1817, p. 225. 268 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Policies F, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 4, 1825, p. 10. 269 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys I, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 15, 1828, p. 114. 270 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys I, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 15, 1830, p. 442. 271 Baltimore Equitable Society Records of Surveys L, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, Box 16, 1836, p. 296. 272 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Policies J, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, OS Vol. 4, 1857, pp. 239-40. 205 two story brick building at east end of last mentioned building twenty three feet six inches front of twenty seven feet deep. The whole plain finished, the two last mentioned buildings are occupied for the Pottery business, storage of ware, etc. The whole having firewalls. $1,800 @ 2 ? pct. Valuation Dwelling 800 1st Building 400 2nd Do 600 $1,800 Deposit 45 Policy 2.67 $47.67273 In Parr?s case, all three buildings on his property, even his dwelling house, were assigned the same level of risk, evidenced by 2? percent of his deposit. The amount of risk associated with a standard dwelling house during this period was about 1? percent of a policy holder?s deposit. Neighborhood Opposition to Kilns Formal citizen complaints concerning the operation of stoneware kilns date as far back as 1798, only one year after Baltimore received its charter to incorporate a new government. In this year, a charged exchange of petitions involved residents 273 Baltimore Equitable Society Record of Surveys, Book I, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, 1828, p. 114. 206 who opposed and supported the utilitarian stoneware kiln operated by Thomas Morgan, Joel Morgan, and Peter Perine at Pitt and Green Streets. Fourteen neighbors signed a petition that expressed serious concerns related to the operation of this stoneware pottery. This document provides a first-hand account of the perils of firing kilns in close proximity to residential neighborhoods: To the Hon.ble the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The Memorial and Petition of the Subscribers, inhabitants of a part of the City of Baltimore, lying East of Jone?s Falls, HUMBLY REPRESENT, That some of your Memorialists reside opposite, adjoining and near to a Stone-Ware Pottery, owned by Thomas and Joel Morgan and Peter Perine, situate(d) at the corner of Pitt and Green streets, which they conceive to be truly dangerous and alarming, owing to the prodigiously large fires kept up during the whole of the day, and particularly throughout the following night, in burning off their Ware, close to a board fence which has often taken fire, and old wooden buildings containing straw, shavings, &c. for packing, as well as large quantities of wood piled up, and scattered over the yard, inasmuch as some of your Memorialists are kept in continual dread of fire being communicated to their dwellings, as also suffocation in their houses by emission of vast bodies of strong, black smoke. 207 Your Memorialists come forward rather reluctantly than otherwise, against any of their neighbours, with their present representation of facts; but are under the necessity of doing so for their own security, (more especially at this time, when alarming and distressing fires so frequently happen) which they hope your honourable body may take into serious consideration, and grant such relief to the concerned as may seem just and reasonable; and your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.274 Thomas and Joel Morgan responded in-kind by submitting a petition of their own that was signed by 14 neighbors, including themselves, which expressed unwavering support for their stoneware manufactory: To the Mayor and City Council of the City of Baltimore The Memorial of the Subscribers, respectfully represents to you, that your Memorialists have for several years past been engaged in carrying on a stone ware manufactory, near the intersection of Pitt and Green Streets, which have been attended with considerable expence to your Memorialists, who have almost to the utmost of their ability exerted themselves in bringing said branch of business to its present usefull state. And your Memorialists being informed that sundry citizens living in the neighborhourhood of our Memorialist?s 274 City Council Records #153, 1798, Baltimore City Archives. This petition contains the following signatures: George Dowig, John Hayes, Sam Dodge, Henry Worthington, J. Ireland, (?), Henry Simund, William Jackson, Joseph Perigo, Edward Stone, James Donnelly, Addison Booth, Wm. Booth, and John Pindell. 208 Manufactory, have presented a petition to you for the purpose of suppressing the same alleging therein that at the time the kiln is on fire it is dangerous and ought to be considered as a nuisance. Your Memorialists have further to represent to you that they have been credibly informed that in other citys and towns similar manufactorys are carried on without interruption or being considered as nuisances. Therefore your Memorialists requests your favorable consideration on this subject and that you may manifest that you are disposed rather to encourage usefull institutions than otherwise. Notwithstanding if your Honorable body should grant the prayer of the petition and pass an ordinance declaring such manufactorys a nuisance, your Memorialists request you may make provision at the same time that your Memorialists be fully secured to their satisfaction in compensation for the damage they may sustain thereby with due respect we subscribe ourselves your fellow citizens. Thomas Morgan Joel Morgan275 This petition also included the following statement: We the subscribers neighbors of the above manufactorys certify that they have no desire the manufactory should be suppressed or removed as they do not 275 City Council Records #153, 1798, Baltimore City Archives. This petition contains the following signatures: Michael Mather, Joseph Harrion, David Cunningham, Dubois, Wm Pechin, Henry Shute, John Doloughery, John Britton, Daniel Colvin, Robert Wheeler, J. Williams, and J. Dalrymple. 209 apprehend any danger from the fire of the kiln, nor do they consider the smoke as a nuisance. Interestingly enough, the only argument the potters raised in their defense was a vague second-hand reference to similar manufactories being allowed to operate in other cities and towns. No specifics are provided on whether or not the kilns they referred to were also located in close proximity to inhabited areas. Illustrating the spatial dimensions of the neighborhood in which the petitioners lived provides a better understanding of these petitions. When placed on a period map, the names, occupations, and street addresses of petition cosigners found listed in a Baltimore city directory for 1800-1801 provide graphic representation of the neighborhood surrounding Morgan?s pottery operation (fig. 67). An overwhelming number of petitioners (10) identified in the directory resided on either Pitt or Green Streets adjacent to the pottery site. Obviously, given their close proximity, these individuals were probably the most threatened and adversely affected by regular kiln firings. Other cosigners are found residing one or two streets away from the pottery on Bridge, Front, Great York, Low, and High Streets. 210 Figure 67-Site of Thomas Morgan?s stoneware pottery at Pitt and Green Streets superimposed on enlarged map by Charles Varle, Warner & Hanna?s Plan of the City and Environs of Baltimore, 1801. (Courtesy, Peabody Library Collection of the Johns Hopkins University.) Streets on map correspond to list of names, occupations, and addresses as found in the New Baltimore Directory and Annual Register for 1800 and 1801 (Baltimore: Warner and Hanna, 1800). The occupations of petitioners are informative with regard to the socio- economic makeup of the neighborhood surrounding Morgan?s pottery. Based on this information, it appears that the neighborhood was comprised of individuals tied to the working class, with a preponderance of craftsmen. Included are three draymen, two carpenters, two printers, as well as a bricklayer, sail maker, saddler, laborer, watchman, schoolmaster, and even a reverend. 211 In 1799 the Baltimore Equitable Society also inserted itself into the controversy, writing the following formal letter to the mayor and city council: The said Society having some time past insured in their office the present dwelling house of John Hayes, and they now find by examination that the said building is much exposed and in danger of fire, (as also other buildings in the neighborhood) by a Stone Pottery opposite the same, at the North Intersection of Green and Pitt Streets, belonging to Thomas and Joel Morgan. We would therefore solicit, that the powers of the Corporation may be extended towards the removal of the said Pottery, and such other Manufacturies in the City, whose, operation may endanger the Inhabitants in like manner.276 The Society even paid Hayes, who also signed the original petition opposing the Morgan pottery, for the expense of having the document typeset and professionally printed prior to submitting it to city officials.277 While the contentiousness of this issue is clear from the petitions submitted to the City Council, a review of ensuring city ordinances and resolutions does not indicate that action was ever taken or a ruling was ever issued on this matter. It should be noted that the city council had the option of whether or not to take up issues and could table measures indefinitely. The vagaries of 19th-century politics sometimes make it difficult to explain or provide specific motivations for this type of outcome. 276 City Council Records, #205, 1799, Baltimore City Archives. 277 Baltimore Equitable Society Minutes of the Board of Directors and General Meetings of the Members, MS3020, Maryland Historical Society, 1799, p.74. 212 Local Governmental Oversight of Kilns It is clear that government officials in Baltimore recognized the serious threat that fire posed to the safety and well being of neighborhoods. A number of ordinances were enacted to prevent the spread of fires. Notably, a law passed in 1816 required that ??all buildings erected in this city with brick or stone, shall be finished with parapet or fire walls on the gable end and dividing walls; or shall be so covered with slate or stone, as to break the communications from one roof to another.?278 The measure included penalties for non-compliance, and, further, in 1818, the Mayor and City Council required the City Commissioners to report ?a list of all persons? names who have erected either brick or stone buildings, and have not complied with the ordinance more effectually to prevent the spreading of fires in the City of Baltimore, approved March 21st, 1816.?279 Baltimore?s city government also regulated attempts by local potters to relocate, rebuild, or construct new kilns. As mentioned in the previous chapter, an 1812 ordinance restricted the boundaries of where earthenware and stoneware kilns could be erected in relation to the central area of the city. In 1822 the city council denied the petition of local potter David Brown Jr. to build a new kiln at his existing pottery site at Salisbury and Exeter Streets. The primary concern related his plan was 278 The Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore from 1813 to 1822, Inclusive (Baltimore: Re-printed by John Cox, 1876), pp. 78-79. Ordinance No. 17; Approved March 21, 1816. 279 Ibid., p. 205. Request for report approved March 5, 1818. 213 the risk of fire involving potteries operating in populated areas of the city that were not officially monitored. After considering Brown?s petition and those who organized to oppose him, a designated committee issued the following report: The Committee to whom was referred the Petition of David Brown as also the County memorial thereto; ask have to report. That they have attended to the duties of their appointment, and are of the opinion that, so far from granting the prayer of the petitioner (which is to build a new Pottery in his lot) it becomes the Council Seriously to consider the expediency of removing those Potteries in thickly settled parts of our City, out of the limits of the Lamp Watch districts, as public nuisances. Your committee therefore recommends that the Petitioner have leave to withdraw his Petition. All of which is respectfully submitted. Balto. 6 February 1822280 Three years later, another effort by Brown to construct a stoneware kiln on his site also met with failure. In 1825, a compromise bill crafted by a designated committee allowed Brown to build a new kiln with the precondition that he build a ?Tunnel of brick at least thirty feet high, for the purpose of carrying off the smoke from said kiln.? This measure was brought before the city council and failed to pass.281 280 City Council Records, RG 16, S1, Box 22, 1882, p. 231, Baltimore City Archives. 281 City Council Records, WPA Nos. 313-322, RG 16, S1, Box 28, 1825, Baltimore City Archives. 214 The ability to contain and prevent fire from spreading was limited throughout the 19th century, and even into the early-20th century, as demonstrated by Baltimore?s infamous Great Fire of 1904 which destroyed entire city blocks. Extinguishing blazes in populated urban areas of Baltimore was undoubtedly a daunting challenge, especially when responding with only basic communications, the passing of fire buckets, or the limited resources of volunteer fire companies.282 However, by 1858, Baltimore had made significant advances, notably establishing seven engine companies with 12 paid professional firefighters, including a foreman, engineman, assistant engineman, hostler, and eight firemen.283 In addition, two hook and ladder companies included a foreman, tillerman, hostler, and 10 firemen. Also, at this point a substantial investment had been made in providing steam fire engines for each of the engine companies and trucks for the hook and ladder companies. Detailed engravings of each of these impressive vehicles document that several were even built in Baltimore (figs. 68, 69).284 Further, by 282 An 1798 city ordinance required every dwelling house in Baltimore worth more than $200 to have ?two well made leather fire buckets, hung up near the front door of the house?? Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Baltimore Passed at their First and Second Sessions, held February, 1797, and February, 1798 (Baltimore: Re-printed by John Cox, 1875), p. 185. Ordinance No. 109; Approved December 12, 1798. 283 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Sessions of 1858 and 1859 (Baltimore: McCoull & Slater, City Printers, 1859), p. 8. Ordinance No. 5; Approved December 10, 1858. 284 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Annual Session of 1869 (Baltimore: E.G. Armiger, 1869), pp. 532-547. Five of the seven steam fire engines 215 1868, 613 fire plugs were installed at key intersections throughout the city, as well as 92 Telegraphic Fire Alarm Stations.285 Figure 68-Engraved illustration of steam fire engine used by Engine Company No. 7, Baltimore, ca. 1869. From The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Annual Session of 1869. were built by Baltimore manufacturers, including William M. Ives and Sons, Poole and Hunt, while the other two were built by Reany and Neaffie of Philadelphia. Both ladder trucks were built by William M. Ives and Sons. 285 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Annual Session of 1869 (Baltimore: E.G. Armiger, 1869), pp. 580-606. 216 Figure 69-Engraved Illustration of horse drawn wagon used by Hook and Ladder No. 1, Baltimore, ca. 1869. From The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Annual Session of 1869. The constant threat of fire and the limited ability of the City to contain blazes once set, meant that the Mayor and City Council exercised caution and restraint when considering plans to rebuild, renovate, and erect new kilns. The requests of potters were usually subject to restrictive conditions. For instance, on May 20, 1847, the Mayor and City Council enacted a resolution granting English potter Edwin Bennett permission to erect a queensware factory on the southeast corner of Canton Avenue and Canal Street. This measure required Bennett to install a chimney not less than 40 feet high and stated that ??the said factory shall be removed whenever the Mayor may be satisfied that the said queensware factory is offensive and injurious to the surrounding property.?286 It appears that Bennett?s plan met opposition from the local 286 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Extra Session, Held in August, 1846, and at the January Session, 1847 (Baltimore: Printed by James Lucas, 1847), p. 95. Resolution No. 94; Approved May 20, 1847. 217 community, as he was prompted to write a letter to the City Council in an effort to persuade the body not to rescind the approval it had already granted: To the Honorable the 2d. branch of the City Council of Baltimore, Gentlemen, As a motion has been adopted by your Honorable body to reconsider the resolution giving the undersigned permission to erect a Queensware Factory, on account of some opposition being made, and as the whole difficulty seems to arise from an erroneous impression among some that my establishment would be like an Earthenware Potery, and as they now exist in this city, and Being convinced that if correctly understood there could be no reasonable objection, I beg leave to explain and show how it differs from a Comon Pottery. First, the kiln has an additional cone resting on the outer wall of the kiln and gradually brought toward a focus at the distance of fifteen or twenty feet from the top of the kiln so as fully to prevent any sparks or least particle of fire to escape. The second difference is in the Peculiar construction of the bottom of the Furnace, which instead of one fire place in the center of the bottom of the furnace as is the case of the common potteries it has eight small fire places on the out side of the kiln and by small flues is run into the kiln after the first blaze has expended itself in passing through the flues, the reason of this is the ware to be burned will not allow the direct action of the blaze in the kiln consequently we are necessitated to have be a small amount of blaze in the kiln at any time of its progress of burning. The third difference is, that 218 instead of wood being used as is the case with Potteries, thereby causing so excessive a blaze and smoke, we are necessarily obliged to use coal, another difference is we use not salt or any other chemical substance to give the least possible offence whatever. It takes about eighteen hours to burn the kiln and the latter part of that time the heat of the kiln consumes the smoke as it passes through the different parts of the kiln, as this is the only part of the Factory against which any objection has been made, I need describe no further. I hope by stating these few facts showing the establishment which I wish to erect is entirely different in its construction and operation and during a long experience I never knew of the least objection to a Queensware Factory wherever they are located, as in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Jersey City which are located in respectable and populous portions of those cities, without the least objection or dissatisfaction ever having been heard of, and I know of nothing in the operation of such a factory that could make it the least objectionable to the neighborhood of its location, praying your favorable consideration of this subject I remain your Humble Servant. -Edwin Bennett287 Apparently, Bennett?s kiln was state-of-the-art for this time period and featured several advantages that kilns designed for firing traditional earthenware and stoneware vessels did not have. His design controlled cinders and smoke, used eight fireboxes rather than one to spread out the source of fire, and claimed to emit less 287 City Council Records, RG 16, S1, Box 79, 1847, p. 500, Baltimore City Archives. 219 smoke and intense fire since it burned coal rather than wood. Bennett also notes that his production did not involve salt or other chemical substances that might offend surrounding neighborhoods. Local china merchant C. Levering of the firm Levering and Clark even attached a letter of support to Bennett?s petition, vouching for the safety of Bennett?s new kiln design and comparing it favorably to more advanced kilns used by English competitors. In his letter, Levering points out that ?Having twice visited the Queensware Factory districts of England and spent much time in examining their works, (my business there being exclusively with those establishments) I feel no hesitation in expressing an opinion that a kiln construction on the plan necessary for Mr. Bennett?s use is free from injury to adjoining property. Trusting the Council will grant Mr. Bennett said permission to go on in his enterprise which must be very beneficial to the commerce and trade of our city.?288 These arguments were apparently persuasive, as Bennett went on to construct his advanced kiln operation and achieve great success in the manufacture of Queensware. Also, the cone design Bennett referenced in his letter was probably effective to the extent that the Mayor and City Council later required local stoneware manufacturer William Cowles to install ?cupolas? on the top of the kilns he planned to rebuild on the corner of Canton Avenue and Chester Street in 1853. The resolution 288 Ibid. 220 stipulates that the cupolas were for the purpose of ?consuming the smoke and cancelling the fire.?289 In 1849, the Mayor and City Council passed a resolution permitting another potter, William Linton, to improve his existing kiln at Lexington and Pine Streets with the same stipulation applied to Edwin Bennett, that his kiln stack be 40 feet tall. He was also permitted to erect a pipe kiln ?which shall not exceed eight feet by four and a half feet, and six feet in heighth, provided all the smoke from said pipe kiln, be carried off by the forty feet chimney hereby authorized to be erected.?290 Before granting this permission, the City Council?s Joint Committee on Fire Companies made a point of inspecting Linton?s pottery and felt that his new design plans would not adversely affect his neighbors. The panel reported: Your committee have examined the premises and believe the improvement contemplated, by the erection of a new kiln with a chimney forty feet high, will be a benefit to the neighborhood in which the pottery is situated: Had the petitioners made application for permission to build a new kiln or to rebuild one that worn out; your committee would have been opposed to granting 289 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Extra Sessions in 1852, and at the January Session, 1853 (Baltimore: Joseph Robinson, 1853), p. 162. Resolution No. 161; Approved May 28, 1853. 290 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Extra Sessions, held in May, 1848, and at the January Session, 1849 (Baltimore: James Lucas, 1849). Resolution No. 27; Approved March 7, 1849. 221 permission so to do; but the application referred to it, is for permission to rebuild on a much improved plan, a kiln that would most probably last from twenty to thirty years.?291 Linton?s ?much improved plan? may have further induced the Mayor and City Council to grant him permission, just two years later in 1851, to ?add to his pottery on the corner of Pine and Lexington streets, one kiln, of the following dimensions: ten feet in diameter and six feet high, with a chimney forty feet high??292 Also, in 1851 the Mayor and City Council granted potter Maulden Perine authorization to ?repair or rebuild his kilns on the lot of ground now occupied by him on Baltimore street near Schroeder street.?293 Later in 1856, when Perine sought permission to move the location of his pottery work shops and kilns, permission was granted with the following conditions: ?that said Perine & Sons shall be, and are hereby required to front their work shops, which shall be of brick, at least three stories in height, on Booth street, and shall build their kilns in the rear thereof, and at least thirty-five feet distant from Booth street; provided, said kilns shall be removed at any time by 291 City Council Records, #1029, 1849, Baltimore City Archives. 292 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Extra Sessions, Held in July and November, 1850, and in August, 1851, and at the January Session, 1856 (Baltimore: James Lucas, 1851), pp. 77-78. Resolution No. 55; Approved April 16, 1851. 293 Ibid., p. 86. Resolution No. 81; Approved May 3, 1851. 222 the Mayor and City Council, after three months? notice shall have been given by the Mayor.294 In this instance, it appears that local authorities wanted to ensure that these kilns would be as far away as possible from the street, and shielded or hidden behind the pottery?s three-story tall work shops. As the century progressed, additional oversight was exerted over smokestacks in general. In 1871 the City?s fire inspector was ?...authorized, whenever in his judgment, or upon the complaint of a majority of the property holders living near any smoke-stack, chimney, flue, or stove-pipe, which endangers the surrounding property by fire, or annoys the residents in the neighborhood with smoke or cinders, to have the same altered or improved as he may think most suitable for the protection of surrounding property.?295 Conclusions This chapter has examined how utilitarian potters and urban neighborhoods coexisted in urban Baltimore during the 19th century. It has shown that neither 294 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the January Session, 1856 (Baltimore: Samuel S. Mills, City Printer, 1856), p. 128. Resolution No. 212; Approved July 12, 1856. 295 Supplement to the Baltimore City Code; Comprising the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, Passed at the Sessions of 1870, 1872, and 1874 (Baltimore: John Cox, City Printer, 1874), p. 36. Ordinance No. 91; Approved June 12, 1871. 223 existed in isolation, as both belonged to a much larger cultural landscape in which people, artifacts (built environment), and nature profoundly influenced one another, if not always in positive ways. The humanistic approach taken here places potters in perhaps a more meaningful context than more traditional treatments that tend to focus more narrowly on the stoneware industry as it relates to aspects of production or the types of wares potters manufactured. Examining Baltimore?s stoneware potters against the backdrop of fire is important as it reveals the degree to which their craft and its by-products affected a wide cross section of their own urban community. This broader perspective reveals complex and dynamic interactions between potters who profited from operating kilns, adjacent homeowners threatened by fire, insurance companies with their own vested interests, and a local government given the difficult task of balancing businesses against the concerns of neighborhoods. These exchanges, recorded in petitions, insurance records, and city council rulings, provide a broader context for understanding the experiences of potters. Unexpected relationships are found to exist in the midst of conflict surrounding the operation of kilns. For example, Baltimore?s potters promoted fire prevention and fire readiness; several potters are listed as founding members of the Baltimore Equitable Society, as well as active members of a volunteer fire company. In addition, the Baltimore Equitable Society insured potters while also joining 224 neighborhood residents in petitioning local government to shut down an offensive stoneware kiln. At the same time, this study involving the risk of fire and stoneware production in 19th-century Baltimore raises new lines of inquiry worth exploring. For instance, were potters insured in the same manner as other types of hazardous activities? To what extend did personal dealings, commercial interests, and geography influence citizen complaints or petitions? Did these same factors influence the rulings of local government? How did urban neighborhoods coexist alongside other hazardous businesses, and how did the latter threaten communities? These questions underscore the enormous potential for conducting further research on this important subject. 225 Chapter 7: Recognizing Ethnic Heritage Introduction As pointed out in Chapter 2, the significance of 19th-century American stoneware in contemporary terms is often based on the artistic intentions or the talents of the potter involved in its production. Subjective monetary values assigned to stoneware are usually based on whether or not decoration applied to vessels is aesthetically pleasing. This chapter expands on the argument that perceptions of artistry and connoisseurship should not be the driving forces that determine the historical significance of utilitarian stoneware. Stoneware vessels such as those made in Baltimore are also important tangible representations of cultural traditions or distinctive skills that guided and informed potters who relied heavily on hand craft. The transference of cultural traditions occurred when one potter trained another or when potters moved from shop to shop, as was often the case during the 19th century. Large waves of immigrants continued to arrive in Baltimore throughout the century, particularly in the 1840s as conditions in Europe deteriorated, and also brought with them skills acquired in their homeland. This chapter examines passenger ship records that documented the arrival of foreign-born potters in Baltimore, as well as census records that reference them residing in the city at mid- century. However, given that immigrants are not always clearly documented in 226 historical records makes it difficult to track the movements of individual potters of German or English origin over time. Analyzing the characteristics of ethnicity found on locally-made stoneware is perhaps a more straightforward and accessible way to assess the influence and relevance of cultural traditions that originated in the Old World. This chapter examines a select group of vessels that display Baltimore maker?s marks, placing them in the context of the potters that made them. In addition, isolated characteristics of ethnicity, involving primarily vessel form and decoration, are then compared with similar design elements on foreign-made stoneware dating to the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. The latter are comprised of vessels recovered from archaeological excavations, as well as examples belonging to museums and private collections. Examining this type of material culture within the context of cultural tradition is important for several reasons. First, it helps to provide a better understanding of how design elements and the construction of hand-crafted stoneware reflect the training, skill, and intent of potters. Second, establishing a framework for identifying visual signifiers such as distinctive design motifs and vessel forms or shapes documents the transference of cultural traditions through generations of potters as well as centuries. Third, evaluating Baltimore-made stoneware within this contextual framework provides clear evidence that the hand craft method of production endured as long as it did, which is discussed in more detail in the next two chapters. 227 The goal of this chapter is to demonstrate how a select group of Baltimore- made stoneware vessels exhibit characteristics of ethnicity, which, in turn, provides evidence that potters continued to be influenced by cultural traditions throughout the 19th century. Further, this manifestation of ethnicity within material culture is also placed within the context of immigrant potters who are documented both arriving and working in Baltimore throughout the 19th century. Material Culture and Cultural Reflectivity The influence of Old World craft making styles is clearly apparent on stoneware made in Baltimore during the 19th century. I argue that these hand-crafted utilitarian wares are ?cultural reflectors.? Their distinctive cultural characteristics are resilient, yet constantly in flux; as such, they inevitably will change over time based on the degree to which producers are influenced by other traditions or other outside forces. The manufacture of most early American stoneware is firmly rooted in Germanic craft making traditions that can be traced back to the 13th century, when potters in the Rhineland began producing utilitarian vessels made of hard, non-porous stoneware clays that were impervious to liquids. Over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries the Westerwald district, including Raeren and Frechen, and Waldenburg in Saxony, dominated the production of blue and gray Rhenish stoneware.296 This ware is characterized by stylized decoration such as horizontal rilling or banding, painted 296 David Gaimster, German Stoneware 1200-1900, British Museum Press, 1997, p. 41. 228 and slipped cobalt blue flourishes, and relief-molded elements. Rhenish stoneware manufacturers also decorated their wares with a brown iron slip or wash beginning in the early 1700s.297 All of these elements appealed to a growing consumer demand for low-cost, durable, and attractive utilitarian wares. This popular German stoneware was exported in large quantities throughout Europe and early American colonies into the 18th century. The manufacture of English salt-glazed stoneware can be traced back to London as early as 1640 at Woolwich, around 1672 at Southhampton, and 1671 when English potter John Dwight patented production at his Fulham works.298 German prototypes provided the inspiration for early efforts to produce utilitarian stoneware in England. Stoneware vessels associated with these two traditions are similar in many respects. A commonality of vessel form and decoration is best illustrated by archaeological evidence recovered during excavations at the site of potter John Dwight?s London stoneware factory. Dwight?s early production output in the last quarter of the 17th-century closely resembles German Rhenish stoneware of the period. By the 1800s English factories in London, Bristol, Nottingham, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and Liverpool produced salt-glazed stoneware characterized by brownish hues. London and Bristol wares are especially known for a dark brown iron slip or wash added to the upper portion of vessels for effect. Distinctive molded, incised, 297 Ibid., p. 40. 298 Chris Green, John Dwight?s Fulham Pottery: Excavations 1971-79 (London: English Heritage, 1999), p. 3. 229 and stamped designs are commonly found on wares made by factories in the Midlands and the North. Many local potters trained in different cultural traditions undoubtedly influenced each other to varying degrees and produced wares with both German and English characteristics. These qualities which developed over time were never static; they changed or adjusted depending on different human interactions. This blending of cultural traditions will be referred to as ?cultural hybridization.? In 19th-century Baltimore a convergence of pottery traditions took place as potters of different ethnicities worked alongside one another in the same shop or down the road from one another. Notable examples include German immigrant potter Peter Herrmann who reportedly worked for an English fineware potter, Edwin Bennett, before establishing his own business.299 German potters Phillip and Lewis Miller, as well as English potter William Linton, were at different times were connected to the stoneware operation of master potter Maulden Perine. Census records indicate that Charles Hartung, a potter who owned and operated a shop on Frederick Avenue on the west side of Baltimore, was a German immigrant, having been born in Prussia.300 Further, Henry Remmey, a master potter of German ancestry, successfully managed the stoneware operation of the Myers family of china merchants over the course of two decades. 299 Baltimore Morning Sun, December 15, 1901. This relationship is referenced in Herrmann?s obituary. 300 Tenth U.S. Census, 1880, Schedule 1, Baltimore City, Ward 18, Enumeration District 175. 230 This mix of traditions in 19th-century Baltimore stoneware production stands in contrast to more distinct cultural traditions that guided much earlier and more insular pottery operations in other regions of the East Coast, notably Manhattan, New York and Yorktown, Virginia. Notably, Meta Janowitz recently analyzed a sizeable archaeological collection from the African Burial Ground site that included stoneware vessels produced by the Crolius and Remmey families of New York City ca. 1720- 1765. 301 Janowitz notes that ??the early New York City products were made in a New World setting with New World clays, but they were made by German potters working within well-established craft traditions.?302 In fact, she concludes that certain decorated examples from this archaeological collection have led archaeologists to reconsider what was previously thought to be German.303 William Rogers, an entrepreneur of English descent, carried out another successful stoneware operation in Yorktown, Virginia, from 1720-1745. Archaeological excavations at the site of his pottery revealed that he also produced vessels that closely resemble similar wares made in England (see figures 88a and 88b).304 301 See Meta F. Janowitz, ?New York City Stonewares from the African Burial Ground? in Ceramics in America. Over half of the African Burial Ground collection stored in the basement of the World Trade Towers was lost on September 11, 2001; only a portion of these archaeological artifacts had been photographed. 302 Ibid., p. 51. 303 Ibid., p. 64. 304 See Norman Barka, ?Archaeology of a Colonial Pottery Factory: The Kilns and Ceramics of the ?Poor Potter? of Yorktown in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter, (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004), pp. 231 The firm of Morgan and Amoss produced some of the earliest dated stoneware vessels made in Baltimore. The partnership of Morgan and Amoss involved William Morgan (Thomas?s son) and Thomas Amoss, and took place at Thomas Morgan?s Pitt and Green Street works, which he established in 1795. Morgan married Sara Amoss, the sister of potters Thomas and William Amoss, and while the two brothers were of German ancestry, it is not known if Morgan had a hand in training them or if they had been previously involved in pottery making.305 Cobalt decorated jars produced by this firm, one of which is dated 1821, are bulbous in shape, with wide collars and open loop handles (fig. 70), while a milk pan dated 1822, is cylindrical in shape (fig. 71). Like most of the stoneware produced in Baltimore during the 19th century, wares produced by Morgan and Amoss can be characterized as a hybridization of German and English craft making traditions. The use of cobalt blue decoration, particularly designs involving floral patterns and birds, can be traced back to Germany centuries prior, while many of the forms or shapes of vessels they made have varying degrees of German and English influences.306 15-47. 305 After the death of Thomas Amoss in 1822, William H. Morgan continued to make stoneware vessels inscribed ?Morgan Maker? until at least 1825. 306 See Chris Green, John Dwight?s Fulham Pottery: Excavations 1971-79 for examples of early London wares recovered archaeologically, as well as an illustrated James Stiff & Sons price list, 1873, which shows a range of products made at Fulham in its heyday. 232 Figure 70-Jars, Baltimore. Salt-glazed stoneware, ca. 1819-1825. Left: H. 13 ??. Attributed to either Morgan and Amoss or ?Morgan Maker? periods. Right: H. 12?. Incised on bottom: ?Morgan and Amoss Makers Pitt Street Baltimore 1821.? (Private collection.) The jars are similar in form and share repeating floral decoration and looped or coiled handles. Figure 71-Milk pan, 1822. Salt-glazed stoneware. Right: H. 6?. Incised in freehand on bottom: ?Made by Morgan & Amoss Pitt Street Baltimore 1822. (Private collection.) 233 From at least 1812 to 1829 master potter Henry Remmey supervised a pottery at Pitt and Bond streets owned by several Baltimore china merchants belonging to the Myers Family, including William Myers, Jacob Myers, and Henry Myers. Remmey and his son Henry Jr., came to Baltimore from New York City, where his German ancestor John Remmey I founded a stoneware operation around 1735. By 1827, Remmey?s son Henry Jr. went on to establish a successful stoneware pottery in Philadelphia, which his son Richard Clinton Remmey ran up until the 1880s. A well-executed pitcher bearing the impressed maker?s mark ?H. REMMEY BALTIMORE? (fig.72) was probably made while Remmey was working for Jacob Myers. It has a pattern of incised flowers and leaves along its shoulder that is enhanced with cobalt decoration and an elaborate decorative pattern that together are characteristically German. 234 Figure 72-Pitcher, Baltimore, Henry Remmey, ca. 1812-1821. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 12 ??. Incised flowers and leaves decorate this exceptional pitcher marked ?H. REMMEY BALTIMORE.? (Courtesy, Henry Ford Museum.) While the Remmey family of potters brought Germanic cultural traditions to Baltimore via New York, by 1815 dire economic and political conditions initiated large waves of thousands of European immigrants coming directly to Baltimore and other American ports throughout the century. By the 1840s immigrants were desperate to escape the fallout from conflict in Europe, a lack of goods, poor crops, and massive hunger.307 Baltimore?s strategic position as a port city was particularly attractive to immigrants who arrived at Locust Point, situated south of the Baltimore Basin or present-day Inner Harbor (fig. 73). Next to New York City, Baltimore was a 307 Dieter Cunz, The Maryland Germans: A History (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1948), p. 197. 235 leading port for immigrants throughout the 19th century, particularly those intending to relocate in the western regions of the United States. Figure 73-Locust Point immigration facility with B. & O. Railroad piers, ca. post- 1868. (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) Further evidence of immigrant potters working in Baltimore at this point is a remarkable stoneware inkwell that a German potter named Phillip Miller (Muller) made for the Sunday school of a German Lutheran church in 1838 (fig. 74). This presentation piece is decorated with a cobalt floral design and even inscribed in German, reflecting the large numbers of immigrants who lived and worked in Baltimore during this period.308 With regard to where Miller worked, on two separate occasions he shared an address with Lewis Miller, who potted for a very brief period 308 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1840 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1840), p. 257. 236 and may have been a relative. Also, both potters probably worked in Maulden Perine?s stoneware pottery in 1840, as they are both listed living near him at ?Schroeder Street south of Baltimore? in the city directory for that year. Figure 74-Inkwell, Phillip Miller, Baltimore, 1838. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 2?, D. 4?. Incised on base: ?P. Muller/Present fur die/Sontag Schule der 2/Deutchen Luterishen/Kirche?; incised on top: ?Phillip Miller/Juli 4th 1838.? (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) In 1844, another immigrant, nineteen-year-old Peter Herrmann departed Bremen, Germany, arriving in the port of Baltimore on the ship Prentiss, accompanied by his parents, Richard and Catherine, and sister Christian (Christina). According to his obituary, Herrmann was trained as a potter in Barvaria.309 We know from census records that Herrmann worked as a potter in Baltimore in the decades after his arrival, yet the fact that his name is spelled differently in five 309 Baltimore Morning Sun, December 15, 1901. 237 subsequent enumerations, speaks to the enormous challenge involved in conducting research on immigrants associated with this time period. In 1850 he was referred to as Peter Harmer, in 1860 as Peter Harman, in 1870 as Peter Herrman, in 1880 as Peter Hermann, and in 1900 as Peter Herrmann.310 Herrmann?s father Richard also appears with the last name Harman in the 1850 Census, and he is specified as a potter by profession.311 City directories place Peter Herrmann as a potter at 150 Orleans Street in 1851 and 149 North Caroline Street in 1855; he is later the proprietor of the Jackson Square Pottery fronted by Mullikin and East Fayette Streets until 1880.312 Over the years Peter Herrmann produced an extensive line of wholesale utilitarian stoneware for local and regional retailers. While collectors generally associate Herrmann stoneware with a brushed three-petaled flower design and impressed advertising jugs and crocks, he also made undecorated wares and used other simplistic floral motifs as well. With the exception of occasional decorative flourishes, these generic, thick-walled canisters represent efforts to reduce the costs of production and the waning influence or decline of Old World cultural traditions well into the second half of the 19th century (figs. 75a and 75b). 310 Seventh U.S. Census, 1850, Schedule 1, Baltimore City, Ward 7; Eighth U.S. Census, 1860, Schedule 1, Baltimore City, Ward 7; Ninth U.S. Census, 1870, Schedule 1, Baltimore City, Ward 6; Tenth U.S. Census, 1880, Schedule 1, Baltimore City, Ward 6, Enumeration District 51; and Twelfth U.S. Census, 1900, Schedule 1, Baltimore City, Ward 7, Enumeration District 92. 311 Seventh U.S. Census, 1850, Schedule 1, Baltimore City. 312 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1855-56 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1855), p. 154; Baltimore City Directory for 1859-60 (Baltimore: Sherwood and Company, 1859), p. 178; Wood?s Baltimore City Directory for 1880 (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1880), p. 106. 238 Figure 75a (left)-Jar, Peter Herrmann, Baltimore, ca. 1860s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 12 ??. This two-gallon jar, marked ?P. Herrmann,? is decorated with repeating tulips. (Private collection.) Figure 75b (right)-Jar, Peter Herrmann, Baltimore, ca. 1860s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 15?. Impressed with ?P. Herrmann? maker?s mark. (Private collection.) The pronounced, asymmetrical slump on this four-gallon crock probably occurred when a stacked load shifted during a kiln firing. After 1880 Herrmann is known to have set up shop in the Middle River area of outlying Baltimore County on property known as Pottery Farm Road. However, by 1882, he transferred ownership of the property, and became somewhat transient after that point. In 1888-1889 Herrmann is identified in city directories as a clerk in his son Albert?s short-lived pottery on 704 Ensor in Baltimore.313 His other son, John 313 R.L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1888 (Baltimore: Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1888), p. 519; R.L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1889 (Baltimore: 239 P., operated a pottery in the city at 722 Light Street as early as 1872.314 The 1880 census lists John Herrman as a manufacturer of pottery in nearby Brooklyn, under the Products of Industry Schedule for Anne Arundel County, Maryland (see table 5).315 From 1894-96, Peter Herrmann is also found working as a potter in Brooklyn.316 The remaining years of his life were spent in Baltimore, and he is listed as a potter in city directories as late as 1899, two years before his death.317 Hundreds of skilled English potters also emigrated to towns and cities across the United States during the 1840s. This exodus was driven by poor working conditions, an increasing reliance on machinery, and a lack of opportunity. Further encouragement came from first hand accounts of better opportunities in America which appeared on a regular basis in the Potters? Examiner and Workman?s Advocate, a union newspaper published in Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent.318 Following this Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1889), p. 537. 314 It should be noted that another John Herman is listed manufacturing pottery much earlier in 1859 at 765 Light Street in Baltimore (see Appendix). John P. Herman, the son of Peter, was born in 1849. 315 Brooklyn is a suburban town located on the south bank of the Patapsco River, approximately one mile from Baltimore. 316 R.L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1894 (Baltimore: Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1894), p. 636; R.L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1896 (Baltimore: Evening News Publishing Company, 1896), p. 1994. 317 R.L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1899 (Baltimore: Thomas and Evans, 1899), p. 674. 318 Miranda Goodby, ?Our Home in the West?: Staffordshire Potters and Their Emigration to American in the 1840s? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2003), pp. 1-25. 240 trend, English potter William Linton had emigrated to Baltimore from England in 1840 while in his mid-20s, and soon after began working for potter Maulden Perine, who at this point was well-established. The two eventually formed a partnership, and by 1849 Linton received the approval of the Baltimore City Council to reconstruct a kiln on the northwest corner of Lexington and Pine Streets, the location of Perine?s earlier factory. The new factory was referred to as William Linton and Co. By 1853 Linton was manufacturing ?Stone and Earthenwares of every description; also, Chemical Stoneware, such as receivers, to hold from ten to thirty gallons, with or without spigots, with connecting pipes of all shapes, and Plain and Ornamental Chimney Pots, Tobacco Pipe Heads, &c. &c.?319 In 1859-60, Linton was also in charge of the pottery previously owned by the Parr family on Eden Street.320 An outstanding example of Linton?s work is an enormous stoneware container which may have been the type he made to hold chemicals. Its oversize impressed advertising and elaborate decoration suggests it also could have been a trade sign for his pottery (fig. 76). The basic cylindrical shape and lug handles are in keeping with 319 Baltimore Wholesale Business Directory and Business Circular for 1853 (Baltimore: Sherwood and Co., 1853), p. 133. 320 Baltimore City Directory for 1859-60 (Baltimore: Compiled by W. Eugene Ferslen and printed by Sherwood and Co., 1859), p. 222; Wood?s Baltimore City Directory (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1860), p. 499 241 an English style from Linton?s homeland, while an elaborate cobalt floral decoration is reminiscent of German designs. Figure 76-Container, William Linton, Baltimore, ca. 1849-1877. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 24 ?. Impressed ?WILLIAM LINTON?s POTTERY AND SALESROOM Corner of Lexington and Pine Streets, BALTIMORE, MD. (Private collection.) In 1840, Maulden Perine built a new factory at West Baltimore (also known as Market) and Schroeder Streets while continuing to operate the factory he had established in 1827 at Lexington and Pine streets. Perine belonged to a long line of Baltimore potters including his father, Peter Jr., and uncle Maulden, and his sons Thomas P. and Maulden David. A churn bearing the date of manufacture and the address of M. Perine and Company (fig. 77) is a basic cylinder form that is 242 characteristically English and decorated with a hanging flower design applied with brushed cobalt that is stylistically German. In addition to Perine?s connection to English and German potters such as Linton and the Millers, in 1872 his sons also advertised their production line of M. Perine and Sons in a German newspaper call Der Deutsche Correspondent (fig. 78).321 Figure 77-Churn, Maulden Perine, Baltimore, 1851. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 17 ?.? Incised in freehand on bottom: ?Baltimore, Md 1851 711 Market St.? (Private collection.) 321 Der Deutsche Correspondent, Baltimore, May 17, 1872, p. 2. 243 Figure 78-Newspaper ad for M. Perine and Sons, Der Deutsche Correspondent, 1872. The Short Paper Trail of Immigrant Potters At mid-century, a sizeable number of potters residing in Baltimore identified themselves as foreign-born, according to the 1850 U.S. Census (table 9).322 For instance, in Wards 1-20, of the 74 individuals identified as potters, 42 were born in Maryland, 20 in Germany, 5 in England, 3 in Ireland, 2 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Virginia, and 1 in New York. Of the 28 individuals who immigrated to the U.S., only Edwin Bennett, William Bennett (Bennet), Charles Cauxson (Coxon), Peter Harmer (Herrmann), Richard Harman (Harmon), William Linton, and William Walter are found as potters in the city five years later.323 While Joseph Shipler was not found in the city directory, a John Shipley was listed as a potter at 43 Jew Alley. Charles Cauxson is known to have been in the employ of Edwin Bennett, the brother of William Bennett. Richard Harman was the father of Peter Harmer (Herrmann). Also, 322 Fifth Census of the U.S., 1850, Maryland, Baltimore City. Wards 1-20. 323 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1855-56 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1855). 244 it should be noted that Peter Herrmann and Henry Shelter are found residing in the same dwelling.324 Potter Place of Birth Ward Residing Mayde Volundt Germany Ward 1 John Wilkolm Germany Ward 1 Robert Hayden Ireland Ward 3 Peter Isley Germany Ward 3 Conrad Will Germany Ward 3 Edwin Bennett England Ward 3 William Bennett England Ward 3 Frances Haney Germany Ward 3 Peter Oar Germany Ward 4 Joseph Shipler Germany Ward 5 William Lattier Ireland Ward 5 Joseph Grogan Ireland Ward 6 William Walter Germany Ward 7 Peter Harmer Germany Ward 7 Henry Shelter Germany Ward 7 Henry Shonhard Germany Ward 7 William Strauss Germany Ward 7 Frederick Strauss Germany Ward 7 Joseph Ferghline Germany Ward 7 John Snelbaugh Germany Ward 7 Richard Harman Germany Ward 7 John Harman Germany Ward 7 Martin Henning Germany Ward 9 Charles Cauxson England Ward 11 John Cauxson England Ward 11 Michael Zell Germany Ward 17 324 Seventh U.S. Census, 1850, Schedule 1, Baltimore City, Ward 7. 245 Frank Bird Germany Ward 18 William Linton England Ward 19 Table 9-List of foreign-born potters compiled from the Seventh Census of the U.S., 1850, Schedule 1-Population, Baltimore, Maryland. While these numbers indicate a significant number of potters immigrated at this point in time, relatively few are found residing in the city in subsequent decades. Also, evidence was not found to show that they relocated to other areas to practice their craft. In a similar manner, Baltimore Passenger and Immigration Lists from 1820- 1872 in the National Archives help to document the arrival of immigrant potters, but, unfortunately, do not fully explain the experience of these workers after their arrival.325 However, these records contain useful information, including age, date and place of birth, occupation, ship name, place of departure, and intended destination (table 10). These ship records also reference similar information for wives, children, and relatives that accompanied immigrant potters. From these records we know that 89 immigrant potters entered the Port of Baltimore during this period. The range of ages for potters was 17 to 59 years, and the average age was 28.97 years old. Further, a large number of immigrants identified as potters made the trip with family members. 325 Baltimore Passenger and Immigration Lists, 1820-1872, National Archives, Washington, D.C. 246 Bremen, Germany was the overwhelming port of departure for 86 immigrants identified as potters in ship logs. Only two potters emigrated from Liverpool while just one potter departed from Amsterdam. There are two main reasons the overwhelming majority of immigrants to Baltimore who identified themselves as potters originated in Germany. First, political upheaval and economic problems in Germany led to large scale emigration. Second, the city of Baltimore formed a relationship with merchants in Bremen, Germany. Established trade routes between Baltimore and Bremen facilitated the emigration of workers seeking opportunities in America.326 Ships from Baltimore to Bremen carried wheat and tobacco, while ships returning to Baltimore carried immigrants. The city actively promoted this mutually beneficial relationship between the two cities. In 1868, the Mayor and City Council had gone as far as declaring a holiday for the ?grand military and civic demonstration in honor of the arrival at this port of the pioneer steamer ?Baltimore,? of the line of steamships to be established between the city and Bremen.?327 These ship passenger records also reveal that an overwhelming number of immigrant potters who landed in the port of Baltimore relocated to other cities to practice their craft or possibly fell out of the trade altogether. Many of these workers 326 Dieter Cunz, The Maryland Germans: A History, p. 202. 327 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Sessions of 1867 and 1868 (Baltimore: John Cox, 1868), pp. 169-170. Resolution No. 97; Approved March 21, 1868. 247 chose to enter the United States through the Port of Baltimore because of the city?s strategic geographic position, in particular, its accessibility to Midwest destinations. After arriving at the Locust Point terminal immigrants could then proceed directly to a nearby train station that would take them to the westward destinations to pursue employment opportunities elsewhere. The intended destination of these immigrant potters can be broken done in the following manner: No Specific Destination (26), Baltimore (21), U.S. (12), Cincinnati (5), Pennsylvania (5), Pittsburgh (4), Ohio (3), Maryland (2), Philadelphia (2), Virginia (2), Washington (2), Chicago (1), Illinois (1), Iowa (1), Louisville (1), and Savannah (1). Potter Arrival Age Gen Port Departed Place of Origin Name of Ship Destination Heinrich Berger Sep 25, 1854 17 M Bremen Hanover Beta Cincinnati August Bertram Dec. 1, 1854 26 M Bremen Lehrbach Neptune Baltimore Georg Braun Apr. 22, 1870 18 M Bremen Wurtemburg Ohio No. Dest. Lorenz Dohme Nov. 11, 1854 30 M Bremen Hofstader Julius - Adam Dorn Jul. 5, 1859 31 M Bremen Lossau Johannes Louisville Phil Euler May 24, 1852 28 M Bremen Hessia Sara Pennsylvania William Euler May 24, 1852 29 M Bremen Hessia Sara Pennsylvania Friedrich Fischer Apr. 22, 1854 27 M Bremen Meininger Goethe - Adalbert Fomel Sep. 25, 1867 18 M Bremen Bienow Capella Chicago Charles Forfler Sep. 2, 1834 19 M Bremen Amelyt Virginia No Dest. Jacob Frankel May 28, 1852 38 M Liverpool Baden A. Chese- brough Baltimore Gottfried Godde Aug. 25, 1834 32 M Bremen Anrochler Dorothea - Ed Goicke May 13, 1852 36 M N/A Ansham Helene and Henriett U.S. Phillip Gross Aug. 15, 1864 18 M Bremer- haven Geismar Helene Cincinnati Bernhard Hartner June 11, 1835 54 M Amster- dam Muhlen Netherland No Dest. Heinrich Hartung Oct. 23, 1854 17 M Bremen Hedemunden Anna Baltimore Theodor Hegemann Oct. 25, 1854 31 M Bremen Prussia Gustav Baltimore John Hiebrecht Dec. 16, 1856 29 M Bremen Bavaria Maryland Baltimore Joh. Held May 24, 1852 28 M Bremen Hessia Sara Pennsylvania Joh. Herzinger Aug. 5, 1861 32 M Bremen Hessia Auguste Baltimore Paulus Heuser Sep. 20, 1850 26 M Bremen Burghernheim Wenham Cincinnati Albert Hoffmann Oct. 14, 1869 25 M Bremen Baden Baltimore No Dest. Anton Hofman June 24, 1859 31 M Bremen Germany C. J. Borg- stede No Dest. 248 Just Holze Oct. 14, 1833 27 M Bremen Hedemeinde Ulysses No Dest. Josephf Janischy Jan. 27, 1868 17 M Bremen Bohemia Anna Maryland Frederick Kallasohm Sep. 22, 1838 21 M Bremen Hessia Heloise U.S. Adam Keller Aug. 2, 1834 M Bremen Obberraden Die Freunde No Dest. Louis Kessler Jul. 26, 1847 20 M Bremen Hessia Post Virginia Johannes Klapp Aug. 6, 1846 26 M Bremen Leinesfeldt Rebecca Pittsburgh Fredrich Kliefers Sep. 2, 1834 21 M Bremen Amelyt Virginia No Dest. William Kliefers Sep. 2, 1834 17 M Bremen Amelyt Virginia No Dest. Charles Koch Sep. 2, 1834 22 M Bremen Amelyt Virginia No Dest. Friedrich Korner Aug. 15, 1853 20 M Bremen Germany Arnold Boninger Baltimore Joh. Krafft Sep. 2, 1834 26 M Bremen Amelyt Virginia No Dest. Franz. Kriete Jun. 30, 1840 19 M Bremen Dissen Charlotte Baltimore Weigand Landvogt May 31, 1834 45 M Bremen Sculberg Sophie Baltimore Peter Domican Leffler Jul. 15, 1844 29 M Bremen Hohenzollern Favorite Virginia Johan Luber Jul. 10, 1860 37 M Bremen Gern Johanne Wilhelmine Washington Market Sep. 20, 1847 29 M Bremen Gr. Almerodte Rhone Ohio Richard Markmeyer Oct. 25, 1860 24 M Bremen Ohio Roland Ohio John Miller June 30, 1840 39 M Bremen Marbach Ernst & Gustav Baltimore August Muller Oct. 25, 1860 22 M Bremen Cassel Gustav Cincinnati Carl Muller Sep. 22, 1838 21 M Bremen Hessia Heloise No Dest. Urban Nestler Aug. 23, 1853 32 M Bremen Dunklfingen Anna Pittsburgh Henry Nolte Sep. 9, 1841 23 M Bremen Dodman Rebecca Baltimore Gottlieb Oelke June 7, 1859 58 M Bremen Prussia Auguste Ohio Wilhelm Paland Aug. 6, 1846 24 M Bremen Fredelsioh Bessel Baltimore August Pfach Apr. 30, 1853 30 M Bremen Germany Theodore U.S. Heinrich Pleuss Jul. 20, 1852 46 M Bremen Markhessen Albert No Dest. Mathias Precht Sep. 16, 1837 40 M Bremen Hottmar Sophie Baltimore August Quaas Sep. 17, 1835 31 M Bremen Porferstein Gustav No Dest. Phil Rau Sep. 20, 1847 38 M Bremen Oberschmiddl Rhone U.S. Ferdinand Rehbein June 26, 1865 26 M Bremen Prussia Leocadia No Dest. Henry Ricket Sep. 22, 1838 26 M Bremen Germany Marcia U.S. George Rieder Jul. 17, 1850 22 M Bremen Reheseiler Albert No Dest. Enoch Riley June 8, 1849 31 M Liverpool England Patrick Henry U.S. Lorenz Rockletmer Sep. 20, 1847 47 M Bremen Lichtenbach Rhone U.S. George Rothert June 26, 1847 47 M Bremen Hanover Leocadia No Dest. Fredrich Ruft Sep. 2, 1834 23 M Bremen Amelyt Virginia No Dest. Michael Schmidt Oct. 1, 1844 - M Bremen Schusfelfeld Caspar No Dest. Michael Schmidt Aug. 26, 1846 46 M Bremen Schusfelfeld Post Philadelphia Phillip Schmidt Aug. 19, 1845 23 M Bremen Darmadt Rebecca Baltimore Andr. Schmittner Sep. 20, 1847 27 M Bremen Rutting Rhone U.S. Gerhard Schnarr May 24, 1854 18 M Bremen Hessia Maryland Illinois Ludwig Schopner Oct. 16, 1857 26 M Bremen Hessia Schiller Pittsburg Josephf Schot Jan. 27, 1868 22 M Bremen Bohemia Anna Maryland Carl Schreiber Oct. 25, 1860 25 M Bremen Bavaria Gustav Philadelphia 249 Conrad Schullhelp Sep. 4, 1860 24 M Bremen Bayern Hinrich Pennsylvania Friedrich Seller Aug. 5, 1861 52 M Bremen Bavaria Auguste Baltimore Eduard Stallknecht Aug. 12, 1852 36 M Bremen Bilbringsen Wilhelmine Baltimore Clemens Staubach June 8, 1842 22 M Bremen Herbstein Elise Cincinnati CHR. L. Staudt Oct. 20, 1854 18 M Bremen Bayreuth Blucher No Dest. Andreas Striker Jul. 5, 1859 22 M Bremen New Dorssenfels Johannes Baltimore John Strover Oct. 3, 1842 27 M Bremen Bayern Clementine Pittsburgh Josef Swaboda Jul. 8, 1865 56 M Bremen Bohemia Johanne Wilhelmine Iowa Ludwig Tailer Jul. 18, 1868 17 M Bremen Baden Baltimore U.S. Carl Uhl Dec. 15, 1853 19 M Bremen Hesse Adolphine Baltimore Conrad Uhl Aug. 31, 1847 49 M Bremen Darmstadt Stephen Lurman Baltimore Hans Vehl Sep. 20, 1847 59 M Bremen Obernidda Rhone U.S V. Volgt Jan. 8, 1866 34 M Bremen Gaggenau Gutenberg Baltimore Franz Weber Aug. 25, 1834 20 M Bremen Gesecke Dorothea No Dest. John Weiss Aug. 28, 1838 22 M Bremen Niderstetten Vesta Washington Just V. Weiss Oct. 14, 1833 27 M Bremen Rollsfeld Ulysses No Dest. Michl. Wellmann Nov. 23, 1840 44 M Bremen Cassell Neptune Savannah Frederick Wendel Aug. 2, 1845 18 M Bremen Gunstedt Latrobe U.S. Herman Wick June 16, 1840 32 M Bremen Marburg Sophie Baltimore Joh. Wiedfeld Nov. 29, 1834 21 M Bremen Weenenberg Johannes No Dest. Carl B. Wiesner Jul. 31, 1854 30 M Bremen Bavaria Humbolt U.S. Thomas Wunder Jul. 6, 1853 18 M Bremen Bavaria Post Pennsylvania Table 10-Immigrant potters recorded entering the port of Baltimore, compiled from Baltimore Passenger and Immigration Lists, 1820-1872. Not one of the 21 potters who stated Baltimore as their intended destination is referenced in Baltimore city directories, even five years after they emigrated, nor was it possible to find them referenced as potters in subsequent census records. In fact, of the 89 immigrant potters who came through the Port of Baltimore, an exhaustive search for these individuals in subsequent U.S. Census population schedules turned up only three later working in this profession in other areas of the country (table 11). 250 Potter Place of Birth Date Entering Port of Baltimore Census Location Albert Hoffman Germany Oct. 14, 1869 1880 Census New York City Adam Keller Germany Aug. 2, 1834 1850 Census 1860 Census 1870 Census Phillipsburgh, PA New Albany, IN New Albany, IN Peter D. Leffler Germany July 15, 1844 1850 Census Manheim, PA Table 11-Immigrant potters listed in Baltimore Passenger and Immigration Lists, 1820-1872, who are later identified as potters in U.S. Census records. A number of German and English potters achieved visibility through the written record and the wares they made, and some even ran their own businesses. However, there are several plausible reasons why immigrant potters in general are not found in the written record at different points throughout the 19th century. The fact that the names of many immigrants changed over time makes it difficult to document their experiences within the written record. Some individuals, particularly German immigrants such as Peter Herrmann, may have had the spelling of their names changed for them, while others may have done it themselves in order to assimilate. It is possible that directories and census records overlooked immigrants because they lacked permanent addresses. Further, as one shop closed and another opened potters were forced to follow opportunities that led them to relocate to other regions of the country. This would have been especially true for itinerant immigrant potters who in the first half of the century would have competed with apprentices and established journeymen potters. 251 Many of these craftsmen operated on the fringe of their profession and society in general. Some immigrant potters may have found other more convenient or permanent ways to make a living. It is also quite possible that some immigrant potters died shortly after arriving in the United States, as sickness and disease afflicted all immigrant populations throughout the 19th century. An 1885 obituary for a Baltimore potter named William Edward Lehman highlights the low profile of immigrant workers. Lehman ??was found dead in a shanty at Taylor?s Point, in the suburbs of Baltimore on Thursday last. It is supposed that his death was from natural causes. He had lived in the shanty where his body was found several years, and also carried on his pottery there. He went to Baltimore about eight years ago, and was a native of Germany. Being a gloomy and reticent man, but little was ever learned here of his antecedents.?328 Apparently Lehman, like many immigrant potters, practiced his craft outside the conventional constructs of his profession and community. Not surprisingly, Lehman does not appear in the 1880 U.S. Census Products of Industry Schedule for Baltimore, nor is he found in Baltimore city directories from 1877-1885. Comparing Vessel Forms The next two sections of this chapter take a closer look at ethnicity from the standpoint of material culture. Systematic approaches to material culture, notably E. McClung Fleming?s ?Artifact Study: A Proposed Model? helps in establishing 328 Crockery and Glass Journal, February 12, 1885, p. 24. 252 continuity of traditions through artifact identification, evaluation, cultural analysis, and interpretation.329 Comparing the form or shape of English- and German-made stoneware vessels with examples made in Baltimore produces similarities that are not coincidental, but rather directly tied to the influence of cultural traditions that guided hand crafting. Throughout almost the entire 19th century, local potters made the same type of basic, and, most importantly, functional stoneware that had been made in Germany and England for centuries. Several examples of these wares highlight the connection between foreign and domestic production. 1. German/English Jug Form Two stoneware jugs, one made in Germany ca. 1607 (fig. 79a) and another made by Baltimore potter William H. Morgan ca. 1822-25 (fig. 79b), are similar in many respects. Although the Baltimore-made jug lacks cobalt and molded decoration, it shares several characteristics with its earlier predecessor, including a round shape, applied handle on shoulder, and an elongated, reeded neck. By the 18th century, potters in England were also making jugs that were similar to this earlier German antecedent.330 329 Fleming, E. McClung. ?Artifact Study: A Proposed Model,? Winterthur Portfolio 9, 1974, pp. 153-173. 330 Robin Hildyard, Browne Muggs: English Brown Stoneware (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1985), pp. 42-45. See examples 65-77. 253 Figure 79a (left)-Krug, Germany, 1607. Salt-glazed stoneware. (Courtesy, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.) Figure 79b (right)-Jug, William H. Morgan, Baltimore, ca. 1823-1825. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 8?. Incised on one side: ?Morgan Maker.? (Private collection.) 2. English Jug Form An English stoneware jug with the impressed name Brandram, Templeman & Jacques, a London paint supplier (fig. 80a) is almost identical to a Baltimore jug known to have been made at a pottery that Henry Remmey, a local potter of German descent, managed for china merchant ?H. Myers? (fig. 80b).331 Both jugs share the same round shape, strap handle, and wide band collar. This jug, which closely resembles an English jug, is important as it was made in affiliation with a Baltimore 331 James Glenn, ?Brown Mugs and Jugs: A Personal Foray into the Field of Collecting? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2002), p. 184. 254 potter of German descent. It should be noted that collector James Glenn has uncovered a Maryland connection for this particular English jug. He states ?Several of these historically important jugs have been recorded in Virginia including two in the Colonial Williamsburg Collection. Glenn?s research suggests that Bandram, Templeman & Jacque traded in Virginia and Maryland.?332 Figure 80a (left)-Jug, Fulham, London, England, 1784-1805. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 14 3/8?. An advertisement for ?Brandram, Templeman & Jacque? is stamped along its shoulder. This jug is illustrated in James Glenn,?Brown Mugs and Jugs: A Personal Foray into the Field of Collecting? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2002), p. 184. Figure 80b (right)-Jug, H. Myers, Baltimore, ca. 1821-1829. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 15?. Stamped on shoulder: ?H. Myers.? (Private collection.) 332 Ibid. 255 3. Lidded Germanic/English Pouring Vessels A highly decorated 17th-century Rhenish jug with a medallion commemorating William and Mary (fig. 81a) features a pewter metal lid and finial, as does an unmarked pitcher attributed to Baltimore (fig. 81b). Adding expensive pewter or silver mounts to Rhenish stoneware vessels was originally an English practice that can be traced back to the late-15th century.333 German artisans also adopted the practice of adding metal lids to Rhenish mugs, mugs, and jars made as late as the 19th century. A local tinsmith likely added the metal lid on the Baltimore pitcher. While the form of the pitcher itself is English, the style of its brushed cobalt design is German. In fact, both vessels are decorated with stemmed flowers that meet in the middle and trail upward on either side. The distinctive three-petaled floral design used on this pitcher is associated with wares made by several factories within the city.334 333 David Gaimster, German Stoneware 1200-1900, p. 133. 334 Several Baltimore makers are known to have used a brushed three-petaled flower motif including Peter Herrmann, M. Perine and Sons, William Prince, ?Myers and Bokee,? and August Parr. 256 Figure 81a-Rhenish jug (left) with medallion of William and Mary, Dutch inscription, and 1691 date. (Private Collection.) Figure 81b-Pitcher (right) with metal lid, Baltimore, ca. third-quarter 19th century. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 9?. (Private Collection.) 4. English Jar Form A The vessel form of an English jar with molded decoration attributed to London manufacture (fig. 82a) is very similar to an undecorated Baltimore-made jar with a maker?s mark for ?Baltimore Union Stoneware Manufactory? (fig. 82b). Both containers have rounded shoulders with an incised ring, similarly shaped rims, and beveled bases. The decoration and incised writing on the English example makes it a special presentation piece intended to commemorate a wedding. 257 Figure 82a (left)-Jar, London, 1752. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 10 ??. Applied molding and inscribed ?George Bennison & Sarah Nov. 28 1752.? This jar is illustrated in Robin Hildyard, Browne Muggs: English Brown Stoneware (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1985), p. 47. Figure 82b (right)-Jar, Baltimore Union Stoneware Manufactory, Baltimore, ca. 19th century. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 10 ??. Impressed maker?s mark ?Baltimore Union Stoneware Manufactory.? (Private collection.) 5. English Jar Form B The vessel form of an English jar dated 1799 that is attributed to Derbyshire manufacture (fig. 83a) is very similar to a Baltimore jar (fig. 83b) attributed to William H. Morgan, a potter associated with the firm Morgan and Amoss. Both jars are straight-sided with similar angular treatments between shoulder and rim. Each jar also has a pronounced, beaded base. However, the Baltimore-made vessel is decorated in the German tradition with trailed cobalt slip, which is lacking in its 258 English counterpart. The incised initials and date found on the English jar suggest commemoration. Figure 83a (left)-Jar, Derbyshire (possibly Belper), England, 1799. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 5 ??. This jar is inscribed ?HRE 1799,? and is illustrated in Robin Hildyard, Browne Muggs: English Brown Stoneware, p. 96. Figure 83b (right)-Jar, Baltimore, ca. 1819-1825. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 8 ??. Likely made 1819-1825 by William H. Morgan when he was associated with Morgan and Amoss, or later, during ?Morgan Maker? period. (Private collection.) Comparing Decorative Motifs Decorative motifs applied to utilitarian stoneware vessels made in Baltimore in the 19th century are expressions of cultural tradition. Local shops used a wide range of slipped, incised, and brushed designs that bear remarkable similarities to much earlier Old World prototypes. While marked examples make it possible to associate decoration with specific potteries, it is important to note, as discussed in Chapter 2, that it was not always the hand of the master potter that decorated 259 stoneware. This task may have been delegated to others, such as journeymen, apprentices, and even female workers.335 Regardless, the presence of decoration is direct evidence of the pervasive nature of cultural influences; the following isolated examples highlight similarities. 1. Germanic Floral Motif-Tulips Many different types of elaborate floral designs are commonly found on 17th- and 18th-century Rhenish stoneware made by German potters. Petaled flowers with leaves and vines were especially popular. The simplistic brushed tulip design (ca. 1860s-1880s) used by a decorator in the shop of Peter Herrmann (fig 84b) resembles a much earlier ca. 1691 German motif (fig. 84a) applied with a mold. Figure 84a (left). Detail of molded tulip decoration on Rhenish jug with William and Mary medallion illustrated in fig. 81a. Figure 84b (right). Close-up of tulip decoration on a two gallon jar made by Baltimore potter Peter Herrmann illustrated in fig. 75a. 335 Lura Woodside Watkins, Early New England Potters and Their Wares, p.32. 260 2. Germanic Floral Motif-Petaled Certain decorative designs used by European manufacturers and later Baltimore potteries are surprisingly similar. An example provided here is a distinctive petaled floral design which is stamped into the body of a Rhenish mug (fig. 85a) and chamber pot (fig. 87a) made in Germany. Remarkably, the Baltimore firm of Morgan and Amoss used a slip cup to replicate this almost identical design on a stoneware milk pan (fig. 85b). Figure 85a (left)-Close-up of petaled floral decoration on 18th-century Rhenish stoneware mug with GR medallion commemorating either George I or II. Figure 85b (right)-Close-up of petaled floral decoration on milkpan made by the Baltimore firm of Morgan and Amoss, illustrated in fig. 71. 3. Germanic Bird Motif Birds are another design motif commonly seen on German stoneware vessels, and less frequently on Baltimore-made examples. Notably, a two-headed eagle and imperial crown and orb design was used to decorate a chamber pot dating to 1632 (fig. 86a). This fragment was excavated at Homewood?s Lot, a late 17th-century 261 Providence Settlement site in present-day St. Margarets, Maryland. An elaborate design of a bird decorates an 1820 jar signed by the Baltimore firm of Morgan and Amoss (fig. 86b). Incised bird designs on stoneware vessels are typically associated with Germanic craft making traditions. Several incised, cobalt-blue bird designs were used on a pitcher, water cooler, and flower pot attributed to shops run by the Remmey family of potters of New York City, Baltimore, and later Philadelphia.336 Also, five different bird designs appear on fragments of stoneware vessels made at the ca. 1774- 1784 Morgan pottery in Cheesequake, New Jersey.337 It is thought that potters trained by the Crolius and Remmey families or perhaps German Westerwald immigrants worked in this operation.338 336 Luke Zipp, ?Henry Remmey & Son, Late of New York: A Rediscovery of a Master Potter?s Lost Years,? pp. 149, 150, and 154. 337 Arthur F. Goldberg, Peter Warwick, and Leslie Warwick, ?The Eighteenth-Century New Jersey Stoneware Potteries of Captain James Morgan and the Kemple Family? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Milwaukee, Wi.: Chipstone Foundation, 2008), p. 13. 338 Ibid., p. 9. 262 Figure 86a (left)-Rhenish medallion shard depicting two-headed eagle and imperial crown and orb design, which probably belonged to a chamber pot dated 1632. Salt- glazed stoneware. (Courtesy, Anne Arundel County?s Lost Towns Project.) Figure 86b (right)-Close-up of decoration on a jar made by Morgan and Amoss, Baltimore, 1820. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 14 1/2?. Inscribed in freehand on bottom: ?Morgan & Amoss Makers Baltimore 1820.? (Private collection.) 4. Chamber Pots with Germanic Style of Decoration Excavated from the Rumney-West Ordinary, a decorated Rhenish stoneware chamber pot (fig. 87a) is a type commonly made by German potters. Based on an earlier pewter prototype, stoneware chamber pots were exported from the Rhineland in great numbers beginning in the 16th century through the 18th century.339 Three chamber pots attributed to Baltimore manufacture (fig. 87b) share a similar vessel form and floral style of decoration also seen on their antecedent. Whereas different decorative styles and techniques indicate different periods of manufacture-left, ca. 339 Gaimster, p. 124. 263 1820s; right, ca. 1830s; top, ca. 1860s, this enduring form remained relatively unchanged over many centuries. Figure 87a (left)-Chamber pot, Germany, ca. 1725. Salt-glazed stoneware. This decorated vessel was excavated at the site of the Rumney-West Ordinary. (Courtesy, Anne Arundel County?s Lost Towns Project.) Figure 87b (right)-Chamber pots, probably Baltimore, ca. 1820s-1860s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 6 3/8?, 5 5/8?, and 6 ??. (Private collection.) 5. Germanic and English Brown Iron Slip/Wash The practice of applying brown slip or iron wash to stoneware originated in the Rhineland in the early-16th century, as a means of protecting rims from wear and damage and also to cover up lesser quality stoneware. However, by the 18th and 19th centuries applying brown slip to the upper half of many types of stoneware vessels became a recognized English decorative tradition. Three examples of slip-dipping include a stoneware mug made in London (fig. 88a), an almost identical mug made at the pottery of William Rogers of Yorktown, Virginia (fig. 88b), and a gin bottle made 264 for Baltimore merchants Erskine and Eichelberger by an unidentified Baltimore potter (fig. 88c). Figure 88a (left). Mug, Fulham, England, ca. 1725. Salt-glazed stoneware. Excavated at Rumney-West Ordinary. H. 6 ??. (Courtesy, Anne Arundel County?s Lost Towns Project.) Figure 88b (middle). Mug, William Rogers, Yorktown, Virginia, 1720-1745. Salt- glazed stoneware. H. 3 ?? and 3 1/8?. This mug is illustrated in Norman F. Barka, ?Archaeology of a Colonial Pottery Factory: The Kilns and Ceramics of the ?Poor Potter of Yorktown? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004), p. 39. Figure 88c (right). Bottles, Baltimore, ca. 1830s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 8 ?? and 6 ??. Left: Impressed ?BEST COLOGNE GIN FROM ERSKINE & EICHELBERGER BALTIMORE.? Right: Impressed ?F. SANDKUHLER.? (Private collection.) 265 Conclusions This chapter views Baltimore?s 19th-century traditional stoneware potters and the wares they made against the backdrop of cultural traditions that originated centuries before in Germany and England. One important way to discern the pervasive influence of cultural traditions is to analyze visual markers or characteristics found on material culture, in particular, distinctive stoneware forms and decorative motifs that in many respects evolved over many centuries. This study analyzed a small assemblage of vessels with specific maker?s marks of Baltimore potters in an effort to identify tangible manifestations of ethnicity. This evaluation identified characteristics that point to a blending of craft making traditions referred to here as ?cultural hybridization.? Further, comparing locally-made stoneware with earlier examples made in Germany and England produced surprising similarities. The fact that Baltimore?s urban potters used Old World designs that originated centuries prior is important as it shows that cultural traditions and hand craft methods of production remained relevant throughout the 19th century. The continued reliance on centuries-old designs suggests that stoneware vessels were not intended to be innovative in an artistic sense or even fashionable like imported tableware. Instead, the purpose of these basic containers was primarily for food preservation and storage. Local potters undoubtedly had a vested interest in continuing to emulate the types of utilitarian stoneware vessels that successfully met the demand of local and regional consumers. 266 While Baltimore became home to a growing population of immigrants, this chapter has shown that it cannot be assumed that all of the potters who arrived in the Port of Baltimore during the 19th century intended to practice their profession in the city. Instead, passenger ship records show that an overwhelming number of immigrant potters who arrived in the port of Baltimore departed from Bremen, Germany, and considered this destination as a first stop before heading westward by train, presumably to follow other opportunities. Unfortunately, little is known about the later experiences of these particular immigrant potters, as well as those who listed Baltimore as their intended destination. Finally, this section has shown that the influence of cultural traditions on the utilitarian stoneware industry in Baltimore remained relevant, yet manifested itself in different ways over time. Up until the second half of the 19th century, a melding of German and English craft making traditions defined the manufacture of stoneware in both Baltimore and the Old World. However, as we will see in the following chapters, the forces of industrialization eventually caused hand-crafted stoneware to become obsolete. Technological innovation and mass production became operative words, and consumers eventually cast aside functional stoneware vessels in favor of more advanced methods of food preservation and storage. These changes will be discussed in the next two chapters. 267 Chapter 8: Adapting to Industrialization Introduction Chapter 8 examines how industrialization adversely affected Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware industry and its potters. Evidence assembled for this discussion indicates that skilled local potters continued to make hand-crafted stoneware through the second half of the 19th century, even as the functionality of basic vessels made for food preservation and storage became increasingly outdated. Rather than implementing new forms of mechanization, the city?s potters instead scaled back labor intensive aspects of craft production in an effort to achieve a lower per unit cost. Graceful curves and attention to detail characterized local stoneware made during the first half of the 19th century. By at least the second half of the 19th century the output of the city?s stoneware potteries became more standardized with straight-sided vessels taking on a more uniform appearance. Potters also streamlined decoration, applying simplistic and repetitive designs in the most expedient manner possible. A number of traditional Baltimore potters relied increasingly on new product lines, primarily to offset decreased consumer demand for utilitarian stoneware as demand for metal and glass containers increased. Unlike more industrialized regional 268 stoneware factories, particularly those in the Midwest, local stoneware potters are not known to have used steam power for operating mechanized potter?s wheels called jiggers. Potters also used steam power to power mills that ground clay and ingredients for glazes. These types of labor saving machinery were designed to make basic wares more efficiently and cheaply. The drastic transformation of Baltimore?s stoneware industry at the end of the century is best illustrated by the experiences of M. Perine and Sons, a firm founded by master potter Maulden Perine in 1827. By at least 1895 Perine?s descendents made mass-produced earthenware forms at their factory in the city. At this point, the firm advertised that stoneware production was carried out at another factory in Ohio, which reportedly was less expensive. Further, as food preservation needs changed and the demand for utilitarian stoneware waned toward the end of the 19th century, other ceramic manufacturers in Baltimore specialized in fineware or more refined types of tableware or decorated ceramics. Two entrepreneurs in particular, English born Edwin Bennett and David F. Haynes, a businessman with a talent for artistic design, achieved national recognition in these areas. Bennett and Haynes fully embraced industrialization in order to better mass- produce fine tableware and decorative wares designed to appeal to the aesthetic sensibilities of consumers. However, the ceramic wares they made served much 269 different functions than stoneware vessels intended for food preservation or storage. While the forces of industrialization ultimately sealed the fate of traditional stoneware potters in the city, large-scale fineware factories that maximized mechanization and mass production experienced enormous success. Industrialization affected the livelihood and welfare of the city?s potters and factory workers in different ways. Skilled potters trained to make utilitarian wares using traditional methods became less and less relevant. By contrast, Baltimore?s industrialized fineware factories required skilled and unskilled workers. English modelers and decorators were hired based on their specialized artistic design talents. A significant number of women in the city were also employed to decorate fineware, although they were paid less than their male counterparts. In addition, a large labor force performed menial, repetitive jobs at these factories, notably young boys. This section seeks to better understand the manner in which traditional stoneware potters in Baltimore responded to the forces of industrialization during the second half of the 19th century. First, the roles and expectations of traditional potters are placed in the context of technological advancements. Second, locally-made stoneware vessels are examined to determine the extent to which standardization can be seen in surviving material culture. Third, the efforts of potters to devise new specialty product lines in an effort to adapt to industrialization are explored. Lastly, the experiences of traditional stoneware potters are compared to more successful 270 industrialized factories in the city that manufactured fine tableware and decorative wares. Changing Roles and Expectations of Workers Advancements in food preservation and storage in the second half of the 19th century, notably metal and glass containers, changed the dynamics of utilitarian stoneware production in Baltimore. They forced traditional potters to become more efficient and reduce the costs of production. It is unlikely that traditional potters had the knowledge base or technical expertise to effectively embrace technological advancements and mechanization that came with industrialization. Small, often family-run operations that employed only a handful of traditional potters also probably lacked the capital necessary to expand on a larger scale. This was an important factor precluding them from participating in industrialization; in fact, as pointed out in Chapter 2, capital had always been a barrier for aspiring potters, as far back as the 17th century. In the second half of the 19th century, workers increasingly performed single function tasks, which was a much different than the earlier guild system in which apprentices were trained to master all aspects of production. For instance, relatively large firms relied on a division of labor that involved specific jobs such as preparing clay, throwing wares, finishing work, or loading and firing kilns. Along these lines, a pay scale used by M. Perine and Sons illustrates how potters were paid on a daily basis according to the size of the stoneware vessels they produced. Dating to about 271 1857, it references an ascending rate of pay involved in performing hand craft production work. Price of Work 1.25 per days work, up to 6 gallons inclusive, on kick wheel. 1.50 per days work, from 6 gallons to 15 gallons inclusive. Workmen to allow me for boys time in turning fly wheel. 1.75 per days work, 15 gallons to twenty-five gallons, latter inclusive. I will furnish the hand to turn the fly wheel. All ware to be well made and well finished, or if loss is sustained on account of neglect in either, it is to be charged or made good340 This pay scale documents an increasing division of labor in which potters adhered to strict guidelines for a piece-rate system involving a daily rate of pay. It is unclear how many vessels a potter would be expected to produce in a day, but some skilled potters during this period could craft over a 100 five-gallon jars per day.341 Potters paid by Perine earned more for producing larger size vessels. However, they also had to compensate Perine for the use of his ?boys? who hand cranked a fly wheel and belt system used to power a potter?s wheel (fig. 89).342 In addition, these potters were held personally responsible for unspecified losses incurred, and disagreements may have arisen in this regard. 340 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #3, January, 1857. 341 Georgeanna Greer, American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters, p. 41. 342 The illustration used in figure 89 also appears in Susan H. Myers? Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Ceramics in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, p. 14. Myers also notes that this type of wheel system was used in the pottery of Abraham and Andrew Miller Jr. prior to 1821. 272 Figure 89-Engraving of a hand-cranked wheel system used to power potter?s wheels in the 19th century. From Figure 1 of The Cabinet Cyclopaedia by Dionysius Lardner, 1832. It should be also noted that by 1880 both skilled and unskilled laborers that still made hand-crafted utilitarian stoneware earned less than their counter parts in industrialized fineware factories. For instance, according to the 1880 U.S. Census Products of Industry (table 5) skilled potters making stoneware in Peter Herrmann?s Jackson Square Pottery were paid just $1.66 a day, while their counterparts working in fineware factories owned by Edwin Bennett and Hamill, Brown and Co. earned $2.25 a day. Unskilled laborers employed by Herrmann fared no better, making just $1.00 a day compared to similar workers paid $1.33 by Bennett and $1.25 by Hamill, Brown and Co. It should not be too surprising that utilitarian potters clung to handcraft production. As the demand for their products, as well as their own opportunities, gradually diminished, stoneware potters witnessed a growing reliance 273 on mechanization and mass production within the city?s fineware factories, and later industrialized stoneware plants in other regions of the country. In the realm of mechanization, a modified potter?s wheel called a jigger (also commonly referred to as a jolley) was an important innovation tied to industrialization. Steam powered jiggers enabled semi-skilled workers in the pottery industry to mass-produce straight-sided vessels such as cups, crocks, jugs, pitchers, and even wash basins more efficiently and inexpensively.343 The operation of a jigger machine involved placing a lump of clay within a plaster mold attached to the hollow head of a revolving wheel or jolley. A metal template was then lowered into the mold to shape the interior surface of the vessel. The outer surface of the vessel was determined by the plaster mold in which the clay was formed. Jiggermen also worked on a piece-rate system and were typically assisted by children. Batter-outs placed flattened clay on the jigger mold, while a mold-runner took molds and wares to the drying room and returned empty molds. Other workers included clay carriers and finishers who removed imperfections on wares. 343 Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), p. 365. Since operating steam engines involved the danger of fire and explosions, the Baltimore City Council and Mayor enacted ordinances and resolutions to grant manufacturers conditional permission to operate them up until 1869, when this permitting power transferred to the City Commissioner. A review of ordinances during this time period indicates that steam engines were used for a wide range applications, including box making, candle making, malting grain, and even coffee roasting. 274 A depiction of a jigger is illustrated in a sales catalog that the American Clay- Working Machinery Company, which was based in Bucyrus, Ohio, produced in 1900 (fig. 90). In its promotional material, the company described itself as ?Much the Largest Manufactory of the Kind in the World.? This large scale manufacturer also produced ?Brick-Making Machinery, Tile-Making Machinery, Sewer-Pipe Machinery, Roofing Tile Machinery, Terra Cotta Machinery, and Clay Refining Machinery, and Every Appliance Known in the Manufacture of Structural Ceramics.? Figure 90-?New Improved Jolley,? a jiggering machine illustrated in sales catalog for the American Clay-Working Machinery Company, Bucyrus, Ohio, ca. 1900. (Private collection.) 275 The catalog description of the ?New Improved Jolley? stresses the machine?s ease of use and ability to be adjusted to make vessels of many different sizes: Improved Jolley The accompanying cut represents our Improved Jolly for making all kinds of large queensware and stoneware. It will take molds for making all sizes of wares ranging from 1 ? to 8 gallons in either straight or swelled shapes. It is substantially constructed, the base being cast in one piece. The vertical shaft is secured to the frame and the rib-head is arranged to carry two ribs for making shoulder jugs, and is fitted with two sets of guides so that the head can be turned one-quarter around, enabling the operator to use the two ribs when desired. The machine is well counterbalanced by a weight allowing the operator to lower or raise it with ease. The lever movement is perfect in its operation and can be adjusted to any size of ware. Any size of head up to 18 inches will be furnished with the machine. Tight and loose or friction pulley furnished as desired. The capacity of this machine varies with the size of ware.344 The production of utilitarian stoneware in Baltimore revolved around hand craft rather than jiggers. However, more industrialized competitors, especially 344 Sales catalog, (Bucyrus, Ohio: American Clay-Working Machinery Company, 1900), p. 110. 276 stoneware factories in the Midwest, relied on this type of mechanization by the early 1890s. As will be discussed later in the chapter, jiggers are known to have been used by the Baltimore firm of M. Perine and Sons in the 1890s, but only for the manufacture of specialty earthenware products, not stoneware. Several marked stoneware vessels provide evidence of local potters continuing to use the hand craft tradition into the late-19th century. For instance, Peter Herrmann?s operation, which lasted until 1880, produced a wide range of these types of vessels, many of which bore his maker?s mark (figs. 75A, 75b). Another Baltimore potter, August Parr, made a special presentation pitcher which he inscribed to Mary A. Benner along with his own name and 1880, the year of its production (Fig. 91a). It should be noted that the floral decoration and style of this vessel is similar to vessels bearing the mark of Peter Herrmann?s Jackson Square Pottery.345 Potter Charles Hartung, operated a small pottery shop on Frederick Avenue at the western border of the city, and its spatial dimensions are depicted in an 1890 Sanborn map (fig. 121). Hartung made hand-crafted stoneware jugs and banks sold at a Confederate Relief Bazaar held in the city in 1885.346 One of the jugs Hartung 345 1880 is the last year in which Peter Herrmann is listed in city directories in connection with the Jackson Square Pottery in Baltimore; in 1881 he had moved to Baltimore County. 346 See Baltimore American, April 9, p. 4 and April 16, 1885, p. 4 for descriptions of items donated and sold at the Fifth Regiment Armory. 277 made for this massive fundraising event, which involved the donation of many other types of commercial goods, is incised ?Confederate Relief Bazaar, Baltimore April 7, 1885? (fig. 91b). Figure 91a-Pitcher, August Parr, Baltimore, 1880. Salt-glazed stoneware. Impressed stamping reads ?Mary A. Benner, Baltimore MD, A Parr Maker 1880.? This pitcher is illustrated in a Crockerfarm auction catalog for an auction held November 1, 2008. Figure 91b-Jug, Charles Hartung, Baltimore, 1885. Salt-glazed stoneware. Impressed stamping reads ?Confederate Relief Bazaar, Baltimore April 7, 1885.? This jug is illustrated in a Harmer-Rooke Galleries auction catalog for an absentee sale held January 26, 1994. 278 Further evidence of hand-crafted utilitarian wares continuing to be made in the city is found in a ledger book entry by M. Perine and Sons. At the end of 1885, the firm listed the types and amounts of stoneware still remaining in the firm?s inventory (table 12).347 Quantity (Dozen) Capacity (Gallon) Type of Vessel Price 25 ? ? Jugs $19.94 1 1/3 1 Jugs $2.67 1 1 ? Jugs $3.00 3 2 Jugs $2.00 1 10/12 3 Jugs $12.00 7/12 4 Jugs $4.67 21 1/12 ? Jars $15.31 8 ? ? Jars $13.12 7 1/6 1 Jars $14.34 3 1/6 1 Jars $9.50 6 5/12 2 Jars $25.67 4 ? 3 Jars $28.50 1 1/3 4 Jars $10.67 ? 5 Jars $5.00 5/12 6 Jars $5.00 1/12 8 Jars $2.00 1 7/12 ? Pitchers $1.19 ? ? Pitchers $1.12 4 1/12 1 Pitchers $8.17 1 2/3 11/2 Pitchers $5.00 1/12 2 Pitchers $.33 1/3 ? Spittoons $.50 4 1 Spittoons $8.00 3 2 Spittoons $12.00 4 2/3 ? Milkpans Flat $7.00 4 1/3 1 Milkpans Flat $8.64 3 ? 1 ? Milkpans Flat $10.00 1 2 Milkpans Flat $4.00 2 1/12 ? Covered Pans $2.44 3 1 Covered Pans $9.00 1 10/12 1 ? Covered Pans $8.75 347 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #4, 1885. 279 1 1/6 2 Covered Pans $7.00 1/6 3 Covered Pans $1.50 ? 4 Covered Pans $9.00 ? 6 Covered Pans $4.50 1 3/16 Snuff Jars $4.34 14 1/3 3/8 Snuff Jars $15.76 2 1/6 2 Snuff Jars $8.67 11/12 3 Snuff Jars $5.50 1/6 3 ? Snuff Jars $1.17 1 1/6 1 Drip Milk Pans $2.33 2 10/12 1 ? Drip Milk Pans $8.50 4 5/12 ? High Pots $6.62 15 1/6 ? High Pots $26.54 34 1 High Pots $68.00 6 7/12 1 ? High Pots $18.75 3/12 2 High Pots $2.34 1/12 3 High Pots $.50 1/3 4 High Pots $2.00 10/12 1 Churns $2.50 1 10/12 1 ? Churns $7.33 1 7/12 2 Churns $9.50 1 7/12 3 Churns $13.40 ? 4 Churns $7.50 ? 5 Churns $6.00 1/12 6 Churns $1.25 17 ? ? Tomato Jars $13.30 ? ? Tomato Jars $1.87 2 ? Jar Covers $1.50 2 ? 1 Jar Covers $2.50 1 ? 1 ? Jar Covers $2.25 ? 2 Jar Covers $1.00 2 4 Jar Covers $4.00 1/3 3 Water Jar Filters $2.84 1/3 4 Water Jar Filters $3.34 1/6 10 Water Jar Filters $5.00 Table 12-Stoneware in the inventory of M. Perine and Sons at the beginning of 1885. 280 Standardization of Baltimore Utilitarian Stoneware According to historian David W. Kingery, ceramic traditions involving form and manufacture tend to be conservative and resistant to change. Kingery asserts that ?pottery is a follower, not a leader, of social and cultural change,? and in terms of traditional wares made in Baltimore and other regions, his point is valid.348 Rather than implementing advanced mechanization, the city?s stoneware potters instead worked within the constructs of traditional handcraft, implementing standardization and cost savings in much the same way that potters did in other regions such as the Shenandoah Valley.349 Restrained Shapes As discussed in Chapter 2, stoneware vessels made in Baltimore in the first half of the 19th century are distinguished by superior craftsmanship and attention to detail. These early wares are similar in many ways to German Rhenish stoneware dating back to the 17th century, which tended to be bulbous in shape. By the second 348 David W. Kingery, ?Technological Systems and Some Implications with Regard to Continuity and Change,? in History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, edited by Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1993), p. 218. 349 See Paul Mullins, ?Negotiating Industrial Capitalism: Mechanisms of Change among Agrarian Potters,? in Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, edited by Lu Ann De Cunzo and Bernard Herman. Winterthur, Delaware: Henry Francis Dupont Museum, 1996. Mullins documents ways in which Emanuel Suter, a traditional potter from Rockingham County, Virginia, attempted to standardize his operations in the late 19th century. 281 half of the 19th century Baltimore?s traditional potters made more straight-sided vessels that enabled them to stack more vessels within the kiln, providing an important cost savings. A more pronounced shoulder or ledge of these cylindrical jugs better facilitated the use of collars which enabled potters to more easily and efficiently stack jugs higher within the kiln.350 Further, the straight, rather than curved surfaces of standardized forms also made it easier to transport vessels whether by wagon, train, or steamboat, which, in turn, helped to reduce instances of breakage as wares could be more tightly packaged. Several Baltimore-made stoneware jars and jugs from both the early- and late- 19th century help to illustrate the changeover to standardized vessel forms. For instance, jars and a jug made at the factory owned by Thomas Morgan in the early 1820s are finely executed (figs. 70, 92a). These round-shaped vessels have thin walls and are expertly finished. Both jars also feature impressive looped handles, a labor intensive addition. By contrast, two circa 1860s-1880s stoneware jars made at Peter Herrmann shop (figs. 75a, 75b), while handcrafted, resemble generic canisters, with thick and straight-sided walls. Extruded lug handles on one of the jars is further evidence of standardization; to form this type of handle potters pushed clay through a device similar to a cookie press. Often times, handles were simply left off larger capacity jars entirely. Impressed advertising for a ?medicinal? tonic is the only enhancement on a standardized circa 1870s-1880s jug (fig. 92b). 350 See John A. Burrison, ?Fluid Vessel: Journey of the Jug? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2006), p. 103. 282 Figure 92a-Jug, William H. Morgan, Baltimore, ca. 1823-1825. Salt-glazed stoneware. H. 16?. Area below neck of jug is incised ?Morgan Maker.? (Private collection.) Figure 92b-Jug, Baltimore, ca. 1870s-1880s. Salt-glazed stoneware. 11 ??. Jug is impressed ?STUMPFS, IRON, & CHERRY TONIC THE GREAT FAMILY MEDICINE, OFFICE N.E. COR BALT, & WOLF STS FACTORY 605 LUZERNE ST BALT MD.? (Private collection.) Expedited Decoration The manner in which utilitarian stoneware in Baltimore was decorated in the second half of the 19th century also probably reflects an effort to lower production costs. By this time, many factories used very simplistic cobalt decorative designs which were applied in the most expedient manner possible. Brushed designs were most commonly used, a method that required the least amount of skill, particularly in 283 comparison to the use of slipped and incised decoration, prevalent in Baltimore during the 1820s. Brushed decoration applied to the Peter Herrmann jars (figs. 75a, 75b) appears crudely executed and hurried, while earlier vessels made at Thomas Morgan?s factory (fig. 93) were decorated with a slip cup in a careful manner. In Western Pennsylvania during the 1860s-1890s utilitarian potters relied on an even more efficient form of applying cobalt decoration using stencils. Utilitarian stoneware made at mechanized, large-scale industrialized factories in other regions of the country, particularly after 1890, tends to be totally devoid of decoration. Figure 93-Milk pan and jar, Baltimore, ca. 1819-1825. Salt-glazed stoneware. Left: H. 3 ?? and incised on bottom: ?Pitt Street Baltimore 1824.? Right: H. 8?. (Private collection.) Both vessels are decorated with undulating and repeating slipped floral designs, motifs that are associated with examples made at the Thomas Morgan pottery marked ?Morgan & Amoss? and ?Morgan Maker.? 284 Specialized Diversification Stoneware vessels made in Baltimore and elsewhere up until the early part of the 19th century served primarily food preservation and storage needs. For instance, the 1820 census documents that the city?s stoneware potters at this time were manufacturing ?Stoneware Jars, Jugs, Pitchers, & Pickle pots, and various other articles such as Mineral Water Jugs & c.?351 Manufacturers of utilitarian pottery, especially those that specialized in earthenware, found it difficult to compete with imported wares. Also, economic downturns, notably the Panic of 1837, probably helped motivate potters to develop specialized products in order to balance out low points in consumer demand. In December of that year, Maulden Perine and Company is recorded selling ?Cillenders? or stove pipes to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and Washington Rail Road Co.352 By 1840, Perine also manufactured earthenware flower pots in addition to stoneware for food preservation and storage. By 1857 M. Perine and Sons received the permission of the Mayor and City Council to burn fire brick in their pottery kilns on West Baltimore Street.353 351 Fourth Census of the U.S., 1820, Maryland, Schedule of Manufactures, Baltimore City. 352 John N. Pearce, Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850, pp. 72-73. 353 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Annual Session, 1857, and Special Session, 1856 (Baltimore: George W. Bowen and Co., 1857), p. 155. Resolution No. 124; Approved May 16, 1857. 285 The trend of diversifying product lines is further demonstrated by Baltimore potter William Linton. In 1849, Linton received the permission of the Mayor and City Council to not only rebuild his pottery kiln on the north-west corner of Lexington and Pine streets, but also to erect a new pipe kiln.354 As mentioned in the previous chapter, in 1853 Linton advertised all types of chemical stoneware, chimney pots, and tobacco pipe heads. In fact, clay tobacco pipe fragments were recovered in salvage excavations in 1977 at the Maulden Perine-William Linton Pottery Site (18BC20) at Lexington and Pine Streets where Maulden Perine operated a pottery from 1827 through 1849, until it was taken over by William Linton and later the Maryland Pottery Company (fig. 94). These wasters, which are glazed and unglazed, depict a portion of a man?s head, possibly an American Indian, based on what appears to be a headdress. They correlate with the ?Tobacco Pipe Heads? advertised by Linton. However, since a backhoe was used to cut trenches in the course of these salvage excavations, dating and making definitive attributions to specific manufacturers is problematic. 354 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Extra Sessions, Held in May, 1848, and at the January Session, 1849 (Baltimore: James Lucas, 1849), p. 72. Resolution No. 27; Approved March 7, 1849. 286 Figure 94-Fragments of figural clay tobacco pipes recovered from salvage excavations at the Maulden Perine-William Linton Pottery site at Lexington and Pine Streets. Probably made by William Linton. (Courtesy, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum.) In 1857, Linton received the permission of the Mayor and City Council ?to erect up to four brick kilns for the purpose of burning fire bricks and tile on his lot, situated on Fifth Lane.?355 Potters in other cities diversified as well. Susan Myers notes that by the 1840s the manufacture of alternative product lines such as fire brick, tile, cylinders, portable furnaces, and chemical wares were increasingly important to 355 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Annual Session, 1857, and Special Session, 1856 (Baltimore: George W. Bowen and Co., 1857), p. 143. Resolution No. 94; Approved May 6, 1857. 287 traditional Philadelphia potters.356 An expanding chemical industry here led several potters such as Henry Remmey, James and Thomas Haig, John Brelsford, and Moro Phillips to produce stoneware storage containers that held many different types of acid.357 The charts based on the records of M. Perine and Sons from 1863-1881 (figs. 95, 96) provides an opportunity to compare and contrast this firm?s production output on a yearly basis, and over an extended period of time.358 While these sales figures are not representative of an entire industry, they are useful from the standpoint of understanding how one company in Baltimore attempted to adapt to the forces of industrialization, notably radical changes in technology and consumer demand. These records show that in 1872, for the first time, the value of earthenware produced by M. Perine and Sons was comparable to stoneware, as the firm?s net sales were approximately $9,413 in earthenware and $9,667 in stoneware. By comparison, almost a decade earlier, the firm netted $6,623 in stoneware compared to just over $2,279 in earthenware. In 1881, the last year for which complete company records are available, the production of both stoneware and earthenware dropped dramatically to almost $3,446 in net sales of stoneware compared to a little over $2,122 in earthenware. Further, during this period, M. Perine and Sons provided discounts for both stoneware and earthenware. Apparently, retail sales were only a small portion of 356 Susan H. Myers, Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Ceramics in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century, p. 37. 357 Ibid., pp. 37-39. 358 Perine Records, MS654, Maryland Historical Society, Roll #3, 1863-1881. 288 their business, an indication that wholesaling was the bulk of their business. Finally, over a five-year period, from 1876-1880, the firm sold a relatively small amount of fancy earthenware. M. Perine and Sons-Stoneware Sales 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 186 3 186 5 186 7 186 9 187 1 187 3 187 5 187 7 187 9 188 1 Net Discount Retail Figure 95-Graph of M. Perine and Sons-Stoneware Sales, 1863-1881. 289 M. Perine and Sons-Earthenware Sales 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 186 3 186 5 186 7 186 9 187 1 187 3 187 5 187 7 187 9 188 1 Net Discount Retail Fancy Figure 96-Graph of M. Perine and Sons-Earthenware Sales, 1863-1881. By 1872, earthenware flower pots were important enough that M. Perine and Sons is found to be prominently marketing them in a local newspaper advertisement discussed in Chapter 4. In this ad, flower pots receive top billing, which correlates with the firm?s relatively high net sales of earthenware during 1872-1875 (fig. 96). The Perines were not the only traditional potters to specialize in the production of flower pots. In fact, by 1878 the venerable Lexington and Pine pottery operated by William Linton since 1849, and later run by his son, was now the Maryland Pottery Co. operated by William Pope, and manufactured only ?Machine & Hand-Made Flower Pots? (fig. 97). 290 Figure 97-Receipt for Maryland Pottery Co., Manufacturers of Machine & Hand- Made Flower Pots, December 3, 1878. (Private collection.) In fact, many fragments of earthenware flower pots were also recovered at the Maulden Perine-William Linton Pottery site. An example is shown in figure 98. Unfortunately, since this flower pot is from a mixed archaeological context it could have been made by firms owned by Perine, Linton, or later the Maryland Pottery Company. 291 Figure 98-Mended fragments of earthenware flowerpot recovered during excavations at the Maulden Perine-William Linton Pottery Site at Lexington and Pine Streets. (Courtesy, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum.) Further, as late as 1950, two brothers, Louis and William Kalb, operated a mechanized flower pot factory in Catonsville, Maryland, in Baltimore County, adjacent to Baltimore City.359 Their father George S. Kalb was a potter who had established the business in nearby Woodlawn in 1870, and ?Kalb?s Corner? at Frederick Road and Eges Lane in Catonsville two years later. The Baltimore Sun reported that about 1885, Kalb installed automatic presses at his shop that could mold 359 Baltimore Sun, February 5, 1950. Also, see Baltimore Sun, May 19, 1940, for an earlier article on the Kalb brothers, entitled ?Flower Pots for Maryland Gardens.? 292 1,000 pots an hour which he burned in coal fired kilns.360 These ?automatic presses? were jiggering machines, one of which Louis Kalb is operating in figure 99. Figure 99-Illustration from 1937 Baltimore Sun newspaper article showing Louis and William Kalb making flower pots in Catonsville, Maryland. (Courtesy, Enoch Pratt Free Library.) Given the restrictions city ordinances placed on the construction of new kilns, potters, like George Kalb, had the option of settling in surrounding counties beyond the city or purchasing existing operations and renovated them to fit their needs. The Jackson Square Pottery on East Fayette Street where Peter Herrmann had 360 Ibid. 293 manufactured utilitarian stoneware illustrates how transitions were made within this industry. While the firm of H. S. Taylor and Co. took over ownership of Herrmann?s operation in the city in 1880, Herrmann himself chose to move to the Middle River area of outlying Baltimore County, where he continued to make basic stoneware for a short period of time. By at least 1895 M. Perine and Sons had ceased producing stoneware in Baltimore altogether. A catalog from that year explains that the firm made only earthenware vessels in Baltimore, while it produced white-glazed stoneware vessels for food preservation and storage at a factory in Ohio (figs. 100, 101).361 One reason for this, as reported in 1907, was that M. Perine and Sons had established a branch pottery in Zanesville, Ohio, in proximity to superior coal facilities, in order to offset the high costs of using this type of fuel to fire kilns.362 M. Perine and Sons was not the only operation at this time that found it cost prohibitive to continue manufacturing utilitarian stoneware locally, as it has been reported that these types of wares were made in Ohio for another longstanding firm, the Cowden Pottery of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania after 1909.363 Reportedly, the Cowden factory found it less expensive to make the pottery out of state and ship it back to Harrisburg than to ship clay to their local plant. 361 White-glazed refers to Bristol glaze which was first developed in England and by the late- 19th century was used extensively by industrialized potteries throughout America. 362 Baltimore Sun, February 10, 1907, pp. 12-13. 363 Matthew Miller, Decorated Stoneware of Cowden: And the Stoneware Potteries of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1852-1924 (Shermans Dale, Pa.: Matthew Miller, 2001), p. 151. 294 Toward the end of the century, M. Perine and Sons relied on many of the modern methods of production used by local industrialized factories in the city that produced fineware. The firm?s illustrated catalog for 1895 features a wide range of jiggered and molded earthenware products, notably plain and fancy flower pots and stands, stew pans with wire handles, pudding pans, bean pots and lids, stove pipe pots, Rockingham-glazed tea pots, pipkins and lids, money jugs, and money barrels. A letter of inquiry sent in 1897 shows that the firm dealt with a supplier in Canton, Ohio for its mechanized equipment. The correspondence reads ?Gentlemen, Enclosed please find Check for Bill for Rib Plates. Please send us a list of your make of Jiggers, with price including Rings and Pull-down. Yours truly, M. Perine & Sons.?364 In fact, according to the Maryland Geological Survey of 1902 the output of M. Perine and Sons involved chiefly flower-pots and flue-tops. In this regard, the survey noted that ?flower-pots are molded on a jig-wheel over 6 inches in diameter, but sizes under this are formed in a press. For very large ones turning by hand on a potter?s wheel is found preferable.?365 364 M. Perine and Sons to the Barnet Company, June 18, 1897. This correspondence resides in a private collection. 365 Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), p. 488. 295 Figure 100-Price list, M. Perine and Sons, 1895. ?White Glazed Stoneware.? (Private collection.) Figure 101-Price list, M. Perine and Sons, 1895. ?Red Earthenwares.? (Private collection.) 296 Sanborn fire insurance maps drawn in 1890, 1900, and 1915 provide architectural plan views of the factory operated by M. Perine and Sons.366 These maps show important spatial representations of various functions carried out at this factory and also document the dramatic changes in mechanization and production that took place over time. An 1890 map shows that the firm operated two three-story kilns, an upright steam boiler (large black dot symbol in lower right section), a small warehouse, and a coal shed, indicating the type of fuel used (fig. 102). Small circle symbols in the corners of sections indicate that the factory had either a slate or metal roof, while a small black dot symbols indicate a composition roof. A two-story stable is also seen on the property (section in lower left with large ?X? symbol) and may have been work related. A horse or mule could have been used to power clay grinding or haul wares by wagon. By 1900, the operation includes just one ?Furnace,? presumably a kiln, and the area where the second kiln once existed had been converted to a warehouse (fig. 103). It should be noted that the abbreviation next to the kiln indicates that the stack extended 10 feet beyond the roof. Further, at this point a gas engine is in use, which most likely provided a source of power for mechanized machinery. Further, composition roofs had been replaced by slate of metal roofs. Finally, by 1915, M. Perine and Sons is nothing more than a pottery warehouse with two pottery sheds (fig. 104). The one kiln and the gas engine are labeled ?not used,? implying that production has ceased at this point. 366 Sanborn maps issued between 1867-1970 enabled fire insurance companies and underwriters to assess the degree of fire risk for buildings in urban areas. 297 Figure 102-Sanborn Map of M. Perine and Sons, 1890. (Courtesy, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest.) Figure 103-Sanborn Map of M. Perine and Sons, 1900. (Courtesy, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest.) 298 Figure 104-Sanborn Map of M. Perine and Sons, 1915. (Courtesy, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest.) Baltimore?s Fineware Industry Another type of pottery manufacture was taking place in Baltimore in the second half of the 19th century, the production of refined ceramic vessels designed for food preparation and service. However, large-scale industrialized factories produced wares much different than utilitarian stoneware made by traditional potters in the city. The former required a larger and less skilled labor force that assisted in specialized areas of mass production, including cast and press molding, jiggering, glazing, transfer printing, and hand-painted decorating. They also relied on the skills of artists and modelers to create aesthetically pleasing and decorated wares. While several firms in Baltimore produced various types of fineware during this period, for the purposes of this study, two leading industrialized manufacturers, the Edwin 299 Bennett Pottery Company and the Chesapeake Pottery Company founded by David F. Haynes will be discussed.367 Unfavorable conditions for potters in Staffordshire, England provided an impetus for Baltimore?s industrialized fineware operations to succeed in the second half of the 19th century. As pointed out in Chapter 7, beginning in the 1840s hundreds of skilled English potters emigrated to towns and cities across the United States. A significant factor that contributed to this upheaval was the use of jiggering machines in English factories even prior to 1844. Ceramics historian Miranda Goodby points out that ?Operated by two women, they (jiggers) they were as productive as ?six middling workmen?; so that one woman could produce sixty dozen cups for two shillings, whereas a man?s wages for making the same number without machinery would range from fifteen to seventeen shillings.?368 Edwin Bennett Like William Linton, mentioned in the previous chapter, English potter Edwin Bennett was one of many skilled potters who chose to leave his homeland during this time to pursue new pottery making ventures in America (fig. 105). Bennett and two 367 Other manufacturers of fineware in the city included the Maryland Queensware Factory which specialized in artistic decorated table and toilet wares and the Monumental Pottery which made cream colored and granite ware. See Susan H. Myers, ?Aesthetic Aspirations: Baltimore Potters and the Art Craze? (New York: American Ceramics Circle, 1992), p. 37- 38. 368 Miranda Goodby, ?Our Home in the West?: Staffordshire Potters and Their Emigration to American in the 1840s,? p. 8. 300 of his brothers, Daniel and William, emigrated a year after another brother, James, established a pottery in East Liverpool, Ohio in 1840, where he produced yellow ware and Rockingham ware. The firm known as Bennett and Brothers moved to Pittsburgh in 1844, the same year Edwin arrived in Baltimore to establish his own pottery making operation. As discussed in Chapter 6, in 1847 Bennett received the approval of city leaders to install an advanced kiln design for the production of Queensware or refined tableware for mostly food preparation and service. Figure 105-Photo of Edwin Bennett, ca. late-1890s. From A History of the City of Baltimore: Its Men and Institutions (Baltimore: Baltimore American, 1902), p. 207. An 1850 newspaper advertisement describes the types of wares Bennett produced at his Queensware factory on Canton and Canal Streets (fig. 106): To whom has been awarded the highest premium for the best article of Ironstone, Cane and Fancy Rockingham Ware, either foreign or domestic. 301 Wishes to inform the trade and public generally that he is fully prepared to supply all orders with a better article, of the above named ware, than can be obtained elsewhere. The assortment of Cane Ware, comprises Pitchers, Mugs, Bowls, Chambers, Oval and Round Dishes, Snuff Jars, Jelly Cans, &c., &c. The assortment of Rockingham consists in part of plain and embossed Teapots, Coffeepots, Pitchers, Bowls, Mugs, Cake Moulds, Jars, Bedpans, Spittoons, with numerous other articles, all of which need only to be seen to be prized and claim the attention and interest of all.369 Many of these types of wares are documented in a period photograph of Bennett?s workforce and product lines (figure 112). Figure 106-Photo of Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory, ca. third-quarter 19th century (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) 369 Baltimore Advertiser and Business Circular for the Year 1850 (Baltimore: George McGregor, 1850). 302 Charles Coxon, a talented master potter who worked for Bennett from 1850- 1858, designed the finest Rockingham or brown-glazed wares ever made at the factory.370 Either Bennett or Coxon created the well-known Rebecca-at-the-Well teapot, which is based on a biblical story and copied by several east coast competitors. Coxon himself designed an amusing molded yellow ware shaving mug depicting a Toby figure holding a razor and mug (fig. 107). This mug is almost always seen with a Rockingham glaze, making this example highly unusual. Other examples of early vessels made at the Bennett factory are a molded bottle with paneled sides (fig. 108) and a Rockingham-glazed shaving dish attributed to the Bennett factory based on its inscription which includes ?Baltimore? and ?1850? (fig. 109). 370 See David J. Goldberg, ?Charles Coxon: Nineteenth-Century Potter, Modeler-Designer and Manufacturer? (New York: American Ceramic Circle, 1991.) 303 Figure 107-Shaving mug, Edwin Bennett, Baltimore, ca. 1850-58. Lead-glazed yellow ware. The underside this mug is impressed ?E. & W. BENNETT, CANTON AVENUE, BALTIMORE, Md.? (Private collection.) Figure 108-Bottle, Edwin Bennett, Baltimore, ca. early 1850s. Lead-glazed yellow ware. The underside of this molded bottle is impressed ?E. & W. BENNETT, CANTON AVENUE, BALTIMORE, Md.? (Private collection.) 304 Figure 109-Shaving dish, attributed to Edwin Bennett, Baltimore, 1850. Rockingham-glazed earthenware. This dish is inscribed in handwritten script ?1850, Baltimore, Maryland.? (Private collection.) Census records show that Bennett was the first potter in the city to use steam power as early as 1860; another competitor Hamill, Brown, and Co., implemented this type of advanced power later in 1880.371 In fact, the use of steam engines to facilitate manufacturing was widespread in Baltimore by the mid-19th century. Since steam engines represented a significant fire risk, businesses were required to obtain the permission of the Mayor and City Council City ordinances record to operate them. 371 Eighth Census of the U.S., 1860, Maryland, Schedule of Manufactures, Baltimore City; Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Maryland, Schedule 3, Products of Industry, Baltimore City. 305 A city directory advertisement for George Page & Co of No. 5 N. Schroeder Street depicts the type of steam engine manufactured in Baltimore in 1875 (fig. 110).372 This company manufactured stationary and portable steam engines and boilers for operating circular saw mills and other industrial applications. Figure 110-Advertisement depicting steam engine placed by manufacturer George Page & Co, Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1875. Increasing the 1864 tariff on imported fineware led factories to take advantage of new, advanced methods of production, including molded wares and jiggering, and consumer demand for fashionable refined tableware had reached new heights.373 Baltimore?s fineware industry was not alone in embracing mechanization, as 372 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1875), p. 26. 373 Susan H. Myers, ?Aesthetic Aspirations: Baltimore Potters and the Art Craze,? p. 26. 306 manufacturers in East Liverpool, Ohio, also used jiggers.374 In the late 1870s fineware potteries in Trenton, New Jersey also began using jiggers, but apparently most shops did not find them entirely satisfactory because they did not work well with their clay mixes.375 In 1869, Bennett significantly expanded his operations and began producing decorated whiteware for dinner, tea, and toilet sets, and in 1876, he received permission from the City to erect a building to manufacture roofing tiles on the corner of Alice Anna Street and Central Avenue.376 By 1880, his large scale factory operations were powered by a 30 horsepower steam engine, and his kilns consumed over 2,000 tons of coal per year.377 Rather than relying on local clays, Bennett imported clay from South Amboy, New Jersey, kaolin from Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, ground flint from Harford and Cecil Counties in Maryland, and ground feldspar from Connecticut and Maine.378 A receipt dated 1885 highlights the types of wares that Bennett specialized in, including ?White Stone-China, White Earthen and Decorated Ware,? 374 William C. Gates Jr., The City and Hills and Kilns: Life and Work in East Liverpool, Ohio (East Liverpool, Oh.: East Liverpool Historical Society, 1984), pp. 160-163. 375 Marc Jeffrey Stern, The Pottery Industry of Trenton: A Skilled Trade in Transition, 1850- 1929 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, 1994), p. 32. 376 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Annual Session of 1876 (Baltimore: John Cox, 1877), p. 109. Resolution No. 262; Approved June 3, 1876. 377 Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Maryland, Schedule 3, Products of Industry, Baltimore City. 378 The Brick, Pottery, and Glass Journal, September, 1880. 307 ?Rockingham Fire-Proof Ware,? and a ?Full Line of French Shape Cable Ware? (fig. 111). Figure 111-Receipt for Edwin Bennett, Manufacturer of White Stone-China, White Earthen and Decorated Ware, 1885. This illustrated billhead records the sale of covered dishes and mugs. (Private collection.) This type of industrialized operation required a large workforce. In 1860, Bennett employed a workforce of 50 males, which was about five times larger than M. Perine and Son and William Linton, which manufactured utilitarian wares and specialty wares entirely by hand. The remaining pottery shops in Baltimore and rural areas of Maryland employed only 2-3 workers. Two decades later Bennett employed 100 workers, 16 of whom were under the age of sixteen. In 1880 only Hamill, Brown, and Co., could rival Bennett in terms of fineware production in Baltimore. The latter firm, the only other pottery factory using a steam engine, employed 130 308 employees, including 45 children and 10 women.379 At this point, M. Perine and Son was the next largest employer with only 14 employees. A group portrait taken at the Edwin Bennett Pottery Company about the third quarter of the 19th century depicts Bennett?s reliance on young boys to assist with various specialized tasks associated with mass production (fig. 112). Another ca. late-1890s photo taken inside the Bennett Factory shows a young boy assisting a worker on a jiggering machine, while a third unidentified photo, probably also taken at the Bennett factory around the same time, depicts two young boys assisting with glaze dipping (figs. 113, 114). Industrialized factories in Trenton and East Liverpool also relied heavily on the use of child workers to perform labor intensive, unskilled tasks that facilitated mass production and lowered labor costs before child labor laws made such work prohibitive.380 Mechanization within the more specialized work areas of industrialized ceramics factories exerted greater control and discipline over a relatively unskilled worker force. Large numbers of children were used in these factories for repetitious tasks such as loading and unloading clay from jigger molds or passing vessels dipped in lead-based glazes. Children had always been used as a source of labor in Baltimore?s pottery shops, particularly when they assisted traditional potters earlier in the century under 379 Fourth Census of the U.S., 1820, Maryland, Schedule of Manufactures, Baltimore City. 380 William C. Gates, Jr., The City of Hills and Kiln: Life and Work in East Liverpool, Ohio, p. 90. Marc Jeffrey Stern, The Pottery Industry of Trenton: A Skilled Trade in Transition, 1850-1929, p. 23. 309 the conditions of formal apprenticeships designed to ensure that they would be provided proper training and preparation for a career as a journeyman and master potter. However, it is unlikely that young boys employed in Bennett?s industrialized factory were provided the same opportunities for advancement, given the specialized nature of the work that these helpers would have performed. Figure 112-Group photo of employees of the Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory, ca. third-quarter 19th century. This photograph documents that children were a significant form of unskilled labor within this industrialized factory. A young African American worker is seen in the second row, fifth from the right. Examples of wares that Bennett made are displayed in foreground. (Courtesy, Maryland Historical Society.) 310 Figure 113-Workers at the Edwin Bennett Pottery Company forming cups on a jiggering machine, ca. late-1890s. From Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), Plate XXXIII. Assisting are two young boys. Figure 114-Workers, probably the Edwin Bennett Pottery Company, dipping pottery into glaze mixture, ca. late-1890s. From Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), Plate XXXVI. Also assisting are a younger and older boy. 311 Bennett also served as President of the U.S. Potters? Association, and was actively involved in national issues involving competitive production costs and pricing structures, and he also had to strike a delicate balance when it came to providing adequate compensation for his own large and diverse workforce. In fact, at the organization?s convention held in Baltimore in 1885, he attempted unsuccessfully to bring up the issue of uniform pricing among factories. Bennett expanded his industrialized factories into the 20th century, purchasing the Maryland Pottery Company at President and Fawn Streets around 1900, where he began producing sanitary ware for ?chemical companies, factories, public washrooms, and hotels.?381 D. F. Haynes/Chesapeake Pottery Another prominent fineware manufacturer, David Francis Haynes prided himself on creating a positive working environment for his employees that used mass production to make artistic fineware affordable and accessible to consumers. In 1882 Haynes (fig. 115) took over the Chesapeake Pottery Company located at the corner of Nicholson and Decatur Streets in Locust Point, just south of the Baltimore Basin (fig. 116). Previously managed by Henry and Isaac Brougham and John Tunstall, Haynes expanded its operations, employing artists and modelers, and personally designing several successful lines of artistic refined earthenware. Over the next 25 years the pottery operation went through several owners: David F. Haynes, Edwin Bennett, a partnership between D. F. Haynes and Bennett?s son E. Huston, a partnership 381 Eugenia Calvert Holland, Edwin Bennett and the Products of his Baltimore Pottery, p. 19. 312 between D. F. Haynes and his son Frank, and finally sole ownership by Frank Haynes. Figure 115-Photo of D. F. Haynes, ca. late-1890s. From A History of the City of Baltimore: Its Men and Institutions (Baltimore: Baltimore American, 1902), p. 209. Figure 116-D. F. Haynes and Sons, Chesapeake Pottery at Nicholson and Decatur Streets, ca. late-1890s. From Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), Plate LXIX, Fig. 1. 313 The Chesapeake Pottery Company established itself early on as a leading producer of majolica, a type of refined earthenware popular throughout the 1880s. In 1882 Haynes introduced ?Clifton? majolica that featured colorful floral and fruit designs under a clear lead glaze (fig. 117a). His innovation was judged comparable to widely acclaimed wares produced in England by Wedgwood.382 A number of other decorated lines soon followed, including ?Avalon? (fig. 117b) and ?Calvertine? ware (fig. 118), ?Severn,? a semi-vitreous ware, ?Arundel,? a semi-porcelain dinner service, and many styles of toilet ware such as ?Alsatian,? ?Aurelian,? ?Breton,? ?Castilian,? and ?Montessan.?383 Haynes and his partners received many awards at various exhibitions, including the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the 1901 Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, the 1904 Louisiana Exposition in St. Louis, and the Pennsylvania School of Fine Art.384 Various types of molds were used to mass- produce much of this aesthetic fineware, and his employees applied decoration with great skill; they also used printed transfer designs (fig. 119). 382 Edwin A. Barber, The Pottery and Porcelain of the United States (New York: G.P. Putnam?s Sons, 1909), p. 323. 383 Nancy R. FitzPatrick, ?The Chesapeake Pottery Company? in Maryland Historical Magazine, March, 1957, p. 70. 384 Ibid. 314 Figure 117a (left)-Plate, Chesapeake Pottery Company, ca. early 1880s. Lead- glazed earthenware. Clifton mark appears on underside of plate. (Private collection.) Figure 117b (right)-Punch bowl, Chesapeake Pottery Company, ca. early 1880s. Lead-glazed earthenware. Avalon mark appears on underside of bowl. (Private collection.) Figure 118-Advertisement for Baltimore Calvertine Faience, D. F. Haynes & Co., Baltimore, Maryland. From The Crockery and Glass Journal, January 1, 1885, p. 10. 315 Figure 119-A sampling of molded fineware with transfer printed designs, all produced at the Chesapeake Pottery, ca. late-1890s. From A History of the City of Baltimore: Its Men and Institutions (Baltimore: Baltimore American, 1902), p. 210. Scholar Susan H. Myers points out ?D. F. Haynes was unusual, if not unique, among nineteenth-century American commercial potters in the extent to which he was interested in the link between art and industry.?385 Haynes prided himself on creating artistic opportunities and a positive working environment for his employees, especially women (fig. 120). For instance, he employed 150 employees at his factory in 1884, and 60 female graduates of the Maryland Institute Schools of Art and Design worked in his decorating department.386 While it should be noted that Haynes paid 385 Susan H. Myers, ?Aesthetic Aspirations: Baltimore Potters and the Art Craze? (New York: American Ceramic Circle, 1992), p. 51. 386 Ibid., p. 30. 316 them less than their male counterparts, this apparently was typical of the period. Like Bennett, Haynes was also active in the U.S. Potters? Association, also even tried unsuccessfully to create a pottery design school within the Pennsylvania Museum and School of Industrial Art in 1891.387 Figure 120-Decorating Shop, D. F. Haynes and Son, Chesapeake Pottery, ca. late- 1890s. From Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902), Plate XXXVIII. Haynes, his wife, and two daughters Frances and Alice actively participated in the Locust Point Social Settlement Association, a charitable organization founded in 1896 and located at 1240 Hull Street, just down the street from the Chesapeake 387 Ibid., p. 48. 317 Pottery.388 Located in a working class neighborhood, this progressive social organization provided food, clothing, and educational classes to local residents in need. As urban historian Gary Nash points out, ?city people became adept at creating viable subcommunities, ranging from neighborhoods to voluntary associations, and they learned to use them to defend their interests, perpetuate sociability, and cope with (and sometimes counteract) structural changes affecting urban life.?389 It is notable that a factory owner and his family actively directed this social action. Haynes was a Member of the Board Directors and Advisory Board, while his wife served as Vice President and later President. Both daughters also taught classes the Settlement Association designed for children. Another documented example of D. F. Haynes assisting with the formation of viable communities involved his participation in a charitable bazaar held at the Fifth Street Armory in April 1885 that was organized to provide relief to the families of former Confederate Soldiers living in Baltimore. This is the same event that Charles Hartung also participated in, noted earlier in this chapter. Haynes himself provided popular Confederate teacups decorated with two hand-painted flags while Hartung produced traditional stoneware jugs, vases, and banks, all of which were sold.390 388 See Locust Point Social Settlement Association Annual Reports 1898-1904. 389 Gary B. Nash, ?The Social Evolution of Preindustrial American Cities, 1700-1820,? p. 42. 390 See Baltimore American, April 9, 1885, p. 4 and April 16, 1885, p. 4 for descriptions of items donated and sold at the Fifth Regiment Armory. 318 Spatial Layout of Traditional and Industrialized Production Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps from 1890 provide an opportunity to compare the spatial layout of two industrialized factories that made fineware, the Chesapeake Pottery and the Edwin Bennett Pottery Company, with the shop operated by traditional potter Charles Hartung. These maps are also useful in that they help to supplement traditional documentary resources in order to better understand physical, social, and cultural change. Further, spatial depictions of industrialized pottery factories show many specialized areas of production that undoubtedly facilitated strategies of control and discipline of workers. Highly organized spaces such as these were designed for greater efficiency, and yet at the same time enabled management to better exert its power over workforces.391 The spatial depiction of Charles Hartung?s pottery operation on Frederick Avenue is a nondescript operation that includes several unidentified work areas surrounding two kilns situated next to each other (fig. 121). In this map, the lower half of his operation was three stories tall (sections with small ?3? symbols in corners), while the upper portion was mostly two stories (sections with small ?2? symbols in corners). It is apparent that Hartung?s operation did not rely on mechanization, as no steam engine is shown on the map. Further, a two-story stable on the property (section in upper left with large ?X? symbol) suggests that Hartung owned animals, perhaps a horse or mule for either grinding clay or hauling wares by 391 See Paul Shackel, Culture and Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era. Shackel examines the built environment of workers in Harpers Ferry, including loss of craft, division of labor, and deskilling. 319 wagon. A brick chimney is shown in the upper right section (small ?X? symbol). Also, small circles in the corners of sections indicate that the building?s roof was made of slate or metal. Figure 121-1890 Sanborn Map showing Charles Hartung Pottery. (Courtesy, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest.) By contrast, the building layouts for two industrialized factories that manufactured fine table and decorated ware are on a much larger scale and include many different, specialized areas of production. The first, the Edwin Bennett Pottery Company at Canton and Canal Streets had six large kilns and a complex with specific areas that facilitated mass production including glazing and mixing clay, turning, drying, sheds for storing clay and coal, warehouses, and packing and shipping rooms. As seen in figure 122 certain areas in the upper and left sides stood as tall as three stories. In these sections, the second and third stories were used for turning and also storing wares. The proximity of 35 hp engine powered by a horizontal steam boiler enclosed in brick (vertically-oriented, black rectangular symbol to the left of ?Clay Shed? area) to the ?Mixing and Clay Ware? rooms suggests that the mixing of clays 320 was mechanized. This steam boiler also had a 36-foot tall iron chimney (small circle connected to symbol for horizontal steam boiler). Figure 122-1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing Bennett?s Queensware Factory. (Courtesy, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest.) Bennett also owned another factory on the other side of Alice Anna Street where he manufactured roofing tiles (fig. 123). This complex included two large kilns as well as a brick chimney (small ?X? symbol). The upper right of this figure shows a three-story section which housed ?Machinery? on the first floor and a ?Work Shop? on the second floor. This mechanized factory is powered by a 20 hp engine powered by an upright steam boiler (large black dot symbol). A three-story ?Stock Room? is situated just below this area. 321 Figure 123-1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing Bennett?s Tile Factory. (Courtesy, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest.) The layout for the Chesapeake Pottery located at Decatur and Nicholson Streets in Locust Point also delineates an industrialized factory operation (fig. 124). This firm used a general kiln, biscuit kiln, and gloss or glaze kiln. Other specialized areas include rooms for lining, receiving, glaze dipping, packing wares, saggars and drying, and greenware, as well as a decorating shop, slip house, clay sheds, warehouse, and offices. Haynes? plant had two steam boilers: a horizontal boiler (vertically-oriented, rectangular black symbol) located to the left of the ?Slip Ho? and an upright boiler (black dot symbol) within the ?Saggar Drying? and ?Green Room? section. The abbreviation next to the horizontal steam boiler symbol indicates that its iron chimney reached 6 feet above the top of the main building. Like Bennett?s Tile Factory, Haynes also had a 20 hp engine. Descriptive details to the left of the map indicated that coal was the source of fuel for this industrialized factory which also had ?BBLS? or barrels of water throughout the factory. 322 Figure 124-1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map showing Chesapeake Pottery. (Courtesy, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest.) The Sanborn maps shown in figures 121-124 are important for several reasons. First, they provide a blueprint for the workspace associated with both traditional and industrialized pottery operations in urban Baltimore in the late-19th century. Not surprising, the large-scale fineware factories operated by Bennett and Haynes are housed in enormous buildings with many rooms dedicated to specific areas of production. The craft shop run by Hartung is much smaller in scale. It is also significant that each room in the industrialized factories is identified by function, while the unlabelled areas depicted in the Hartung map suggest a more open and generic work space. Specifically, the fact that these industrialized factories are carefully organized according to specialized function suggests management carried out calculated production strategies. The design of these tightly controlled work 323 spaces correspond to the regimented and repetitive tasks carried out by young workers in figures 113 and 114. Conclusions During the second half of the 19th century potters in Baltimore responded to industrialization in different ways. At this point, the utilitarian stoneware potters in the city practiced their craft alongside industrialized fineware factories that specialized in fine tableware and decorative ware. While existing simultaneously each was very different in terms of methods of production, types of wares produced, and the intended functions of vessels. Stoneware potters in the city that still manufactured utilitarian vessels for food preservation and storage continued to use the same hand thrown method that the first potters in the city used in the 18th century. Notably, M. Perine and Sons, Peter Herrmann, Charles Hartung, and August Parr are documented making handcrafted stoneware such as crocks, jugs, pitchers, and jars in the 1880s. Even though traditional Baltimore stoneware continued to be made at a relatively late point in the 19th century, its appearance is different in comparison to wares made earlier in the century. These wares are generally more straight-sided as well as decorated in a decidedly hurried manner, reflecting a concerted effort to reduce the costs of production. 324 At the same time, in order to survive industrialization, it was necessary for traditional utilitarian stoneware firms to also develop new product lines. The firms of M. Perine and Sons and William Linton adapted by introducing specialized items such as flowerpots, stove pipes for rail road cars, and containers for chemicals. Toward the end of the century, the firm was fully mechanized, making only earthenware vessels locally with the help of jiggers and molds. Industrialization adversely affected utilitarian potters in many important ways, and eventually put these craftsmen out of business. At the same time, mechanization and mass production was beneficial to manufacturers of finewares, in particular firms established by Edwin Bennett and David F. Haynes. Bennett and Haynes created extremely successful lines of refined table ware and decorative wares that were both popular with consumers and which won prestigious awards and recognition. The spatial layout of their industrialized factories helped to facilitate specialized tasks involving mass production and mechanization, yet also represented a calculated strategy of management to control skilled and unskilled workers. This dichotomy can be viewed in human terms as well. For instance, at the end of the 19th century opportunities for potters trained in the craft tradition gradually diminished until eventually there was no longer a need for their skills. Further, a large portion of the expanded work force used in industrialized fineware factories involved performing repetitious and specialized tasks with little room for advancement. Perhaps worst of all, factories such as the Bennett factory relied 325 heavily on young boys before national child labor reforms were put in place. On the other hand, both Bennett and Haynes created new opportunities for designers, modelers and artists. Haynes even opened up doors for large numbers of skilled female decorators, who were provided with a positive work environment but not surprisingly were not fully compensated as were men. 326 Chapter 9: Mechanization Overtakes Craft Introduction As Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware potters took small steps toward standardization and attempted to decrease the costs of production in the second half of the 19th century, other more innovative large-scale manufacturers made giant leaps toward implementing technological advancements. Industrialized factories that produced containers made of metal, glass, and machine-made stoneware gradually reduced the demand for locally-made, traditional stoneware vessels. These outside competitors fully embraced mechanization, and by the 1890s Baltimore?s once vital stoneware craft tradition was drawing to an end. During the second half of the 19th century, consumers increasingly relied on metal, glass, and machine-made stoneware, innovations that provided significant advantages. These superior technologies preserved food in a safer and more effective manner, and also offered enhanced choice, convenience, and affordability. Once essential to the average person?s daily existence, by the early-20th century hand- crafted, salt-glazed stoneware vessels became obsolete; much later in the century vinyl records suffered a similar fate, as tape recordings, CD disks, and music downloads became preferred formats. By the 1850s Baltimore emerged to lead the nation in metal canning, a position it maintained well into the 20th century. A plentiful supply of oysters from 327 the Chesapeake Bay was instrumental in establishing a burgeoning canning industry in Maryland. The region?s ready access to fruits and vegetables grown in surrounding regions and shipped by water enabled the city?s canners to process an expanding array of food products. Self-sealing preserve jars represented another major improvement in food preservation. During the second half of the 19th century, large-scale glass manufacturers throughout the country mass-produced self-sealing, more air-tight containers that enabled consumers to preserve fruits and vegetables for longer periods of time. The efforts of enterprising inventors to devise new and improved glass preserve jars are documented in The Crockery Journal (later The Crockery and Glass Journal), an industry trade journal for manufacturers of pottery and glass. Finally, remaining consumer demand for utilitarian stoneware toward the end of the 19th century was being met by large-scale stoneware factories in regions outside Baltimore. These industrialized manufacturers used jiggering machines to mass-produce stoneware containers covered with a white glaze, of a type first developed in Bristol, England. These mechanized stoneware factories produced ware more efficiently and cheaply. I argue that a wider, more inclusive perspective is needed to understand why the demand for traditional stoneware changed over time. A survey of secondary sources involving utilitarian stoneware, the canning industry, and self sealing glass 328 preserve jars failed to turn up even one example of these industries being discussed in the context of each other. A well-researched and seminal study of early pottery making in Baltimore by John Pearce ends in 1850, precluding the opportunity to fully discuss stoneware production and canning within the context of industrialization.392 Another scholar, Ed Kee, provides a history of the Mid-Atlantic canning industry from its origins in the mid-19th century through the 20th century, yet does not reference utilitarian stoneware vessels that preceded the advent of canned foods, nor glass containers.393 The previous chapter described how Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware potters implemented their own forms of standardization and new product lines. Chapter 9 takes a broad look at how the forces of industrialization, specifically more technologically-advanced food preservation and storage industries over which potters had virtually no control, reduced the demand for locally-made utilitarian stoneware. This examination focuses on the growing metal canning industry that emerged in Baltimore and flourished, as well as large-scale, regional factories in other parts of the country that produced glass jars and mass-produced jiggered stoneware. 392 John N. Pearce, Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850. Susan H. Myers? formative Handcraft to Industry also uses 1850 as the end point for documenting the transformation of Philadelphia?s ceramics industry. 393 Ed Kee, Saving Our Harvest: The Story of the Mid-Atlantic Region?s Canning and Freezing Industry (Baltimore: CTI Publications, Inc., 2006). Kee provides a detailed and comprehensive history of the canning industry. 329 Reperiodization of Baltimore?s Hand Craft Stoneware Tradition Evidence compiled for this dissertation indicates the need for reperiodizing or reestablishing the temporal boundaries that define when potters made hand-crafted stoneware in Baltimore. While it is understood that Thomas Morgan established a local stoneware tradition by at least 1795, some scholars have used a relatively early cutoff point of 1840 for its demise. This study calls attention to the fact that several potters in the city are documented working in a hand craft tradition into the 1880s. One aspect of Pearce?s fine study that should be clarified has to do with his suggestion that an early demise of local utilitarian wares was tied it to an increased demand for fineware. He states ?There was another, and more subtle, factor at work. That was the continued growing desire for ?art??as distinct from craftsmanship?in ceramics. The men who had been potters in Baltimore in the period 1760 to 1840 had been largely ?country? potters.?394 The term ?country? potter is apparently used to describe the traditional potter who made hand-crafted utilitarian wares on a potter?s wheel. He concludes ?Baltimoreans no longer wanted country potters, and after 1840 they were largely gone.?395 While imported and domestically manufactured refined wares were increasingly available and desirable, this line of reasoning does not take into account that they were intended largely for food preparation and service, not food 394 John N. Pearce, Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850, p. 72. 395 Ibid. 330 preservation and storage. Fashionable fineware and traditional utilitarian stoneware never competed with one another in a major way, as each was much different in terms of function and aesthetics. Also, the role of Baltimoreans as consumers may be somewhat overstated as local potters marketed and exported wares to distant regions of the country throughout the 19th century. American consumers embraced fine tableware such as Queensware first developed by Wedgwood in Staffordshire, England, and later ceramic lines made in Baltimore by firms owned by Edwin Bennett, D. F. Haynes and others. However, there was still a need and a market for functional, locally-made stoneware throughout most of the 19th century. Another discussion of the viability of traditional stoneware production in the city, in the context of diversifying certain product lines, also warrants clarification. In a 1986 article discussing stoneware production in neighboring Alexandria, Virginia, archaeologist and ceramics scholar Barbara Magid notes that ?By the 1840?s the Baltimore potteries had mostly moved away from the production of wheel thrown stoneware, in favor of industrial wares such as fire bricks, chemical stoneware, stove tiles and flower pots.?396 Potters in Baltimore, and other cities, increasingly diversified certain product lines, which is documented in Chapter 8, yet stoneware 396 Barbara Magid, ?Tradition and Innovation at a Nineteenth-Century Pottery? in Alexandria Archaeology Publications Numbers 1-7 (Alexandria, Va.: Alexandria Archaeology, 1988), p. 8. Magid is the leading authority on Alexandria pottery production and has written a number of excellent articles that have appeared in many publications, notably Ceramics in America. 331 containers continued to be a familiar means of preserving and storing food for another generation beyond the 1840s. In Baltimore, wheel throwing by hand continued to be the principal method traditional potters used for this type of production (see table 12). Another indication of the continuing demand for this type of utilitarian stoneware throughout the century was that Baltimore?s china merchants carried a wide variety of locally-made stoneware to supplement their lines of imported tableware and decorative ware. As discussed in Chapter 4, china merchants were among the most frequent and regular customers of utilitarian potters throughout the 19th century and some continued to manufacture wares in order to supply the basic needs of customers who frequented their shops. Lagging Functionality The functional limitations of traditional utilitarian stoneware help to explain why this type of vessel gradually fell out of favor with consumers as more advanced types of containers took hold toward the end of the 19th century. By no means a perfect method of preservation, nor an exact science, the storage of food in stoneware containers depended on the knowledge or thoroughness of the person carrying out the task. Handling food in a less than sanitary manner or environment could contaminate food with bacteria and lead to serious illness. Further, since stoneware containers in general were not airtight they were susceptible to spoilage. The large open surface of wide-mouthed jars, which were used to preserve meats covered in butter and lard, 332 facilitated oxidation.397 Pieces of coarse cloth or lids made of stoneware provided coverings for the wide openings of these jars, the latter being secured with string tied underneath their rims. Also, containers stored in warmer environments, as opposed to cool areas in cellars or spring houses, would also be less effective. These storage vessels if not secured properly would be vulnerable to rodent and insect infestation.398 In fact, the use of stoneware vessels best served an agrarian lifestyle for individuals in rural areas who typically grew their own fruits and vegetables, as well as raised their own animals on farms. As table 13 shows, a sustained pattern of decreasing rural and increasing urban habitation follows significant U.S. population growth throughout the 19th century. For instance, the country?s population had doubled in the span of just three decades between 1860 and 1890. Further, by 1880, less than half of Americans lived on farms. Following this shift in agrarian culture, consumers became more dependent on prepared foods in mass-produced air-tight containers.399 Year Population People Per Square Mile % Rural % Urban % on Farm 1790 3,929,414 4.5 94.4 5.1 90 1800 5,308,000 6.1 93.9 6.1 397 Georgeanna Greer, American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters, p. 83. 398 Potter Maulden Perine produced a basic insect trap made of earthenware. See Susan H. Myers, ?Marketing American Pottery: Maulden Perine in Baltimore,? p. 58. 399 Greer, p. 259. 333 1810 7,240,000 4.3 92.7 7.3 1820 9,638,000 5.6 92.8 7.2 1830 12,866,000 7.4 91.2 8.8 1840 17,069,453 9.8 89.2 10.8 69 1850 23,192,000 7.9 84.7 15.3 1860 31,443,000 10.6 80.2 19.8 58 1870 38,558,000 13.4 75.1 24.9 53 1880 50,135,783 16.9 71.8 28.2 49 1890 62,941,000 21.2 64.9 35.1 43 Table 13-U.S. population-people per square mile, percent living in rural areas, percent living in urban areas, and percent living on farms, 1790-1890. From Saving Our Harvest: The Story of the Mid-Atlantic Region?s Canning and Freezing Industry by Ed Kee, p. 32. Stoneware containers not only required access to large quantities of food typically produced on farms, but also involved labor intensive food preparation, which could be difficult and inconvenient. As mentioned earlier, fresh vegetables or fruits preserved or stored in stoneware containers usually were processed or transformed into pickled variants, while various types of meat were immersed in dry salt or lard, smoked, or covered with a layer of fat or wax. Increasing populations in large urban areas such as Baltimore probably did not have the ability nor the inclination to cultivate crops, nor preserve or store large portions of foods for extended periods of time. At this point, various types of food were mostly accessible 334 at public markets or small grocery stores. As fewer and fewer households produced their own meat, vegetables, and fruits, there was a decreasing demand for utilitarian stoneware such as preserve jars, lard jars, kraut and pickle jars, and churns, milk bowls, and butter pots. By the 1890s, metal canned goods became more widely available and affordable, while mass-produced self-sealing preserve jars and Bristol or white-glazed utilitarian stoneware of the type made predominantly in regions to the west had become popular vessels for food preservation. Baltimore Leads the Way in Metal Canning Baltimore established itself as a leader in metal canning by the first half of the 19th century. The enormous advancements in metal canning that took place in the city through the 20th century went hand-in-hand with the emergence of a new retail- based economy in which consumers bought processed food from store shelves rather than producing it themselves. Traditional methods of storing and preserving food in stoneware vessels involved hand preparation and processing, while purchasing store bought canned goods was always less time consuming and more convenient. Canned foods also ensured longer freshness and could preserve a wider variety of produce throughout the year. The gradual demise of utilitarian stoneware in Baltimore and the subsequent success of the city?s canning industry can be better understood by looking at how both are interrelated. The proximity of Baltimore and its surrounding area to abundant natural resources provided advantages for both the stoneware trade and 335 canning industries. As established in earlier chapters, potters were originally attracted to the city by rich, high quality sources of native stoneware clay deposits, along with waterways that connected its port of commerce to the Chesapeake Bay and beyond. In the case of the canning industry, a ready supply of oysters, fruits, and vegetables helped the city?s canners gain a foot hold over other regions of the country, and, like potters, canners had access to inexpensive forms of transportation. Edward Wright was the first in the city to package cooked oysters in metal cans in 1842, operating a factory in Federal Hill, situated south of the Baltimore basin.400 Other notable canners included Caleb S. Maltby and Abiathar Field who went on to establish long lasting and successful businesses in canning oysters. By 1849, Thomas Kensett II, whose father obtained the first patent to can oysters in New York, relocated to Baltimore where he became a dealer in ?hermetically sealed? or canned oysters and fruits (fig. 125).401 In the 1850s several canners in the city concentrated primarily on fruits and vegetables. Thomas Myer became the first to can peaches in 1855, while a German immigrant William Numsen developed a family business that specialized in all kinds of pickled and preserved fruits and vegetables that were marketed in metal cans. 400 See Kee for a discussion of formative figures in early Baltimore canning, pp. 9-14. 401 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory for 1858-59 (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1858), p. 35. 336 Figure 125-Advertisement for Thomas Kensett and Co., placed in the Wood?s Baltimore Directory for 1858-59. Baltimore?s success in canning oysters created an enormous demand for truck produce or fruits and vegetables grown in surrounding agricultural areas, notably nearby Anne Arundel County and Baltimore County, as well as the Eastern Shore. Will Mumford has conducted extensive research to document farmers in Anne Arundel County providing a ready supply of strawberries, peas, beans, corn, sweet potatoes, asparagus, berries, melons, cantaloupes, and other produce, some of which was appropriate for canning.402 In the second half of the 19th century Baltimore had several direct transportation routes that linked the city to truck farming. By 1872, a new Baltimore and Potomac Railroad line provided greater access to the northwest portion of Anne Arundel, while the Annapolis and Elk Ridge Railroad connected areas south of the Severn River to Annapolis Junction.403 Further, steamboats also enabled farmers to place their produce on regular routes that fed into Baltimore. 402 Willard R. Mumford, Strawberries, Peas, and Beans: Truck Farming in Anne Arundel County (Linthicum, Md.: Ann Arrundell County Historical Society, 2000), p. 6. 403 Ibid. 337 Baltimore was years ahead of other regions of the country in the manufacture of canned goods, and remained at the forefront as the Civil War provided the catalyst for the expansion of the canning industry. The mechanization of the canning industry took place in the late-1870s and early-1880s with the introduction of devices that could triple the output of a capper or a worker who affixed sealed caps on the ends of cans. However, Thomas Kensett moved toward mechanization as early as 1866, receiving permission from the City to erect and use a new steam engine at his canning operation at 122 West Falls Avenue.404 Not surprisingly, disputes arose between the cappers and the operation of new machinery, particularly one called the ?Jones Capper? that enabled just one worker to significantly increase output by simultaneously soldering caps on six filled cans.405 By 1883, canners had organized as local 1284 of the Knights of Labor under the name Can Makers Mutual Protective Association and reportedly organized ?three to four strikes a season and were usually successful in obtaining wage increases since canners were faced with a heavy loss if fruits and vegetables perished.?406 It should be noted that unlike workers in many other industries, potters in the city did not organize under the Baltimore Federation of Labor in the 19th century.407 404 The Ordinances of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Passed at the Session of 1866 (Baltimore: James Young, 1866), p. 74. Resolution No. 20; Approved February 16, 1866. 405 Edward F. Keychel, ?Master of the Art of Canning: Baltimore, 1860-1900?, Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 67, No. 4, Winter, 1972, p. 359. 406 Ibid., p. 360. 407 Illustrated History of the Baltimore Federation Labor and its Affiliated Organizations (Baltimore: Baltimore Federation of Labor, 1900). 338 Further, in the 1880s canned foods became more widely accessible to average American households, and were no longer considered luxury items. The number of canneries in the United States between 1870 and 1880 had more than quadrupled from 97 to 411 with a value that had jumped from $5,425,677 to $17,599,576.408 Baltimore?s output represented roughly one-third of this total monetary increase.409 By 1880 the city employed over 4,387 people working in 34 establishments.410 The location of canneries in the city ensured access to water, including S. Charles Street (fig. 126), as well as Canton, an industrial neighborhood on the east side of Baltimore that provided port facilities as well as railroad connections to Philadelphia, Washington, and Harrisburg. Table 14 underscores the significant amount of capital invested in canneries in Baltimore by 1880. These enormous factories also used workforces of several hundred laborers, including men, women, and children. Also dependent on machinery, these enterprises required steam boilers to sterilize and process sealed cans. In addition, these seasonal operations were in full-time operation for only a few months a year. 408 Ibid., p. 362. Compiled from the Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, Industry and Wealth, pp. 395 and 436; Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Manufactures, pp. 40, 381-445 409 Edward F. Keychel, ?Master of the Art of Canning: Baltimore, 1860-1900,? p. 362. 410 D. Randall Beirne, ?Residential Growth and Stability in the Baltimore Industrial Community of Canton During the Late Nineteenth Century,? Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 74, No. 1, March, 1979, p. 43. 87 Select Canners of Vegetables and Fruits Location Capital Invested Total Workers M 16+ F 15+ Child Youth Wages Per Day Skilled Wages Per Day Unskilled Months in Full-Time Operation Value Materials Value Products Steam Boilers Steam Engs. HP A. Fischer Co. Baltimore $40,000 550 40 200 2.00 .75 3 $80,000 $100,000 2 50 J.G. Kraft Baltimore $85,000 800 100 650 50 2.50 .65 3 2 Half- Time $142,066 $181,511 7 140 H.F. Hemmingway Baltimore $15,000 150 10 100 40 .75 2 $21,000 $30,000 1 20 E.B. Mallory Baltimore $75,000 750 50 600 100 1.50 ..60 2 $165,000 $200,000 3 80 L. McMurray Baltimore $100,000 550 50 300 50 2.50 1.00 3 $56,000 $87,000 2 1 20 William Taylor Baltimore $10,000 200 100 100 1.50 1.00 2 $10,425 $17,000 1 3 0 Jacob Wallemyeyer Baltimore $15,000 150 10 120 20 3.00 60 5 $25,000 $40,000 1 40 Table 14- Select canners of vegetables and fruits in Baltimore as compiled from the Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Schedule 3-Manufactures, Products of Industry, Baltimore, Maryland. 339 340 Figure 126-Billhead receipt for J. B. Brinkley & Sons, Hermetically Sealed Oysters, Fruits, Vegetables &c. and Wholesale Dealers in Domestic Dried Fruits, dated October 9, 1886. (Private collection.) In terms of functionality, the storage of food products in metal containers provided several advantages over stoneware containers. Notably, seasonality of fruits and vegetables was less of an issue and a wide variety of produce stored in them became available for the first time throughout the year. Nineteenth-century consumers could for the first time eat corn, tomatoes, and other vegetables out of season, even in the middle of winter if they preferred. Further, the transition from stoneware containers to canned food also allowed consumers to adjust their palate away from pickled or heavily salted foods. An 1889 billhead receipt for A. H. Schulz, ?Wholesale Grocer & Ship Chandler and Dealer in Liquors, Oils, Rope, Guano and Feed? is tangible evidence of 341 a Baltimore merchant selling canned goods (fig. 127). In September of that year, the store sold the schooner Annie Francis ?2 Cans Corn? and ?2 Cans Tomatoes,? as well as other staple goods. Figure 127-Billhead receipt for A. H. Schulz, wholesale grocer & ship chandler, dated September 1889. (Private collection.) Baltimore continued to dominate canning output in the United States through the end of the 19th century. However, by the early 1900s California surpassed Maryland as a leader of canning states, with the former?s fruit and vegetable canneries valued at $23,809,988 compared to $12,466,549 respectively. By 1910, the cannery industry in Baltimore continued to remain strong, and operated on a large scale, with 13 establishments employing 4,477 workers.411 As late of 1914, the South 411 Beirne, p. 43. 342 lagged far behind Baltimore in terms of the number of canning establishments, uniformity of processing, and overall output.412 Self-Sealing Canning Jars Mass-produced and self-sealing preserve jars, also commonly referred to as fruit jars, were another important technological advancement that contributed to the decline of Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware industry. These small jars usually had a recessed ledge that accommodated a lid, as well as a mechanism for creating an airtight seal, which, in turn, kept their contents which included fruits and vegetables fresher for longer periods of time. Technological innovations in the manufacture of self-sealed containers revolutionized the preservation and storage capabilities of American consumers. By the fourth quarter of the 19th century, large-scale industrialized factories across the country aggressively manufactured many different types of mass-produced earthenware and glass preserve jars. During this period a wide array of engineering designs were introduced and inventors competed against one another, each seeking to provide a preserve jar with the most effective air-tight seal. 412 John G. Ruge, ?The Canning Industry in The South? in A Souvenir of the 7th Annual of Canners and Allied Associations (Baltimore: The Canning Trade), p. 15. 343 Yellow Ware and Earthenware Jars Baltimore?s Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory is one of the earliest documented domestic manufacturers of canning jars made of yellow ware. A molded jar that Bennett patented in 1856 even included a yellow ware lid (fig. 128). However, yellow ware containers were probably unsuitable for canning fruits and vegetables, as this type of earthenware usually contained red lead or white lead in its clear glaze.413 Figure 128-Canning jar, Edwin Bennett Queensware Factory, ca. 1858. Lead-glazed earthenware. This jar is illustrated in Lisa S. McAllister and John L. Michel, Collecting Yellow Ware: An Identification & Value Guide (Paducah, Ky.: Collector Books, 1995), p. 80. 413 Lisa S. McAllister and John L. Michel, Collecting Yellow Ware: An Identification and Value Guide (Paducah, Ky.: Collector Books, 1995), p. 9. 344 In fact, the Rockingham glaze that Bennett used about the same time he produced yellow ware canning jars contained enormous levels of red lead. The following is the exact formula that Bennett is known to have used: 120 lbs. red lead 18 lbs. Feldspar 16 lbs. Flint glass 14 lbs. red brick clay 27 lbs. ground red brick 1 ? lbs. Borax If found to flow too freely reduce the quantity of lead to suit. Broken window glass will answer in place of Flint glass.414 Another well-known potter, William Hare of Wilmington, Delaware produced a popular type of hand-thrown salt-glazed stoneware preserve jar. Hare introduced his ?Air-Tight Preserve Jars? by at least 1855, when he is known to have first advertised ?jars with small tops to fit corks expressly for Preserving Tomatoes and other fruits which require them to be air-tight.? 415 Hare eventually made jars that like Bennett?s yellow ware jar accommodated a lid that could be affixed to a recessed edge with a ?cement? or wax.416 Hare continued to make this type of hand thrown jar until at least 1867. Yet, it should be noted that contrary to his newspaper advertising 414 Eugenia Calvert Holland, Edwin Bennett and the Products of his Baltimore Pottery, p. 7. 415 James R. Koterski, Early Potters and Potteries of Delaware: Historical and Commercial Perspectives 1760-1890, p. 173. 416 In 1858, Alexandria potter Benedict M. Milburn also advertised ?Stone Fruit Jars? fitted with corks and cement. See Eddie L. Wilder, Alexandria, Virginia Pottery, 1792-1876, p. 184. 345 the porosity of stoneware would prevent a vacuum seal necessary to preserve minimally processed food storage that involved pressure cooking and boiling water baths. Anything short of a perfect seal would result in spoilage evident from discoloration, smell, gasses, and even explosions when glass was used. Regardless, the company records of M. Perine and Sons of Baltimore indicate that the firm also produced great quantities of tomato jars in the 1860s-1880s, and they were probably hand turned on a potter?s wheel.417 Perine?s canning vessels were also sealed with corks. In fact, the production of pottery preserve jars was relatively widespread as seen in advertisements from 1875 documented in The Crockery Journal, a popular industry publication. For instance, George Scott and Coultry & Maloney, both of Cincinnati, manufactured Rockingham and yellow ware, but specialized in brown earthen air-tight fruit jars.418 In East Liverpool, Ohio, Agner, Foutts & Co. manufactured ?Rockingham, Yellow, and Terra Cotta Ware? and ?Self Sealing Fruit Jars, Etc.? ?Air Tight Jars? were promoted by two other firms in the same city, C.C. Thompson & Co., a manufacturer of ?Rockingham and Yellow Queensware? and The Eagle Pottery Works, which made ?Rockingham, Yellow & Variegated Queensware.? By 1885, the New Brighton Pottery Works, a large-scale industrialized factory in New Brighton, Pennsylvania manufactured an ?improved fine-glazed 417 According to the Tenth Census of the U.S., 1880, Maryland, Schedule 3, Products of Industry, Baltimore City, as late as 1880 M. Perine and Sons had not yet introduced steam power. 418 The Crockery Journal, April 22, 1875, p. 10. 346 earthenware fruit jar with tin cap? that was available in two sizes: one and two quarts.? In an advertisement, the factory claimed the jar to be ?Impervious to all acids, and entirely free from any poisonous substances? and that ?The demand for them increases every year? (fig. 129).419 Figure 129-Advertisement for earthenware canning jar made by the New Brighton Pottery Works, New Brighton, Pennsylvania. From The Crockery and Glass Journal, 1885. A More Perfect Glass Jar Fruit jars made of glass represented serious competition for manufacturers of similar jars made of yellow ware and earthenware. As early as 1858, John L. Mason patented an innovative glass canning jar and moulds for blowing bottles.420 New methods of glass production, particularly a process called the improved-tooled finish 419 The Crockery and Glass Journal, November 12, 1885, p. 61. 420 Alice M. Creswick, The Fruit Jar Works, Volume II (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Alice Creswick, 1987), p. 237. 347 developed in the early 1870s, contributed to new methods of sealing bottles and jars, as well as uniformity and standardization.421 Further improvements in production in the 1880s made possible ?hundreds of different patents of finishes and closures.422 A glass bottle advertising T. A. Bryan & Co.?s Perfection Tomato Sauce represented cutting edge technology at the time it was made; Thomas Bryan was a wholesale confectioner in Baltimore from at least 1877-1889 (fig. 130).423 421 Ronald William Deiss, The Development and Application of a Chronology for American Glass (Normal, Il.: Illinois State University/ Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, 1981), p. 59. 422 Ibid. 423 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory for 1877 (Baltimore: John L. Woods, 1887), p. 123; R. L Polk & Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1889, (Baltimore: Nichols, Killam and Maffitt, 1989), p. 186. 348 Figure 130-Glass condiment bottle, ca. 1877-1889. Embossed ?T.A. Bryan & Co., Perfection, Tomato Sauce, Baltimore, MD.? The lettering on this glass container is reminiscent of advertising used on stoneware vessels made in the city around this same time period. (Private collection.) Toward the end of the 19th century, glass production became semi-automated, requiring skilled glass workers to gather and feed glass shaped in molds. By 1903, glass production became completely automated with a patented process developed by 349 Michael J. Owens which eliminated labor-intensive steps previously required.424 A late 19th-century photograph of workers operating semi-automatic glass blowing machines at the Atlas Glass Works in Washington, Pennsylvania depicts a period of transition in the glass industry, between hand craft production and full automation with machinery (fig. 131). Figure 131-Photo of workers manufacturing glass canning jars with semi-automatic machinery at the Atlas Glass Works, Washington, Pennsylvania, ca. 1896-1900. From The Fruit Jar Works, Volume II, p. 163. 424 See George L. Miller and Catherine Sullivan, ?Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-blown Bottles? in Historical Archaeology 18 (2): 83-96. 350 Large-scale glass blowing also took place in Baltimore during the 19th century, and one prominent operation was owned by Baker Bros. Co and situated in Federal Hill, a working class area located on the southern side of the Baltimore Basin. This glass house manufactured canning jars from the 1860s-1880s, and like canners in the city, experienced problems involving organized labor.425 In 1884, the factory was the target of serious violence that ensued when its skilled workforce was reduced and replaced with a larger number of lesser paid apprentices than allowed by the Glassblowers? League. Striking journeymen and apprentices who were convinced to leave with them reportedly were responsible for setting major explosions at the home of Theodore Lear, the firm?s foreman and manager, as well as the boarding house of apprentices still working at the plant a year later.426 The advent of specialized fruit jar manufacturing that took place across the country is documented in advertising placed in The Crockery and Glass Journal, providing an opportunity to explore the types of jars available to consumers as well as advancements made in mass production. For instance, in 1875 prominent ads promoted several self-sealing glass fruit jars, including Mason?s new and improved glass top jar and New Cohansey jars with glass lids screw clamps, and anti-rust lined metal tops (figs. 132, 133).427 A decade later, the Whitney Glass Works in Glassboro, 425 William A. Anderson, Editor, Baltimore Bottle Book: An Annotated List of Bottles from Baltimore City & Baltimore County 1820-1990 (Baltimore: Baltimore Antique Bottle Club, 2002), p. 126. 426 The Crockery and Glass Journal, May 21, 1885, p. 22. 427 The ad for Abram French appears in The Crockery Journal in 1875, while the ad for the Cohansey Glass Works is found in the same publication in the same year. 351 New Jersey advertised a glass jar with a bail seal mechanism called the Leader, while the A.V. Whiteman, a glass manufacturer from Cumberland, Maryland advertised another type of bail seal jar made of ?clear flint glass at prices as low as common green glass? (figs. 134, 135).428 Figure 132-Advertisement for Abram French & Co., Boston, Massachusetts, a retailer of canning jars manufactured by the Mason Company. From The Crockery Journal, 1875. 428 The ad for the Whitney Glass Works appears in The Crockery and Glass Journal, March 25, 1885, p. 29, while the ad for A.V. Whiteman is found in the same publication on May 21, 1885, p. 31. 352 Figure 133-Advertisement for canning jars manufactured by Cohansey Glass Manufacturing Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. From The Crockery Journal, 1875. Figure 134-Advertisement for the Whitney Glass Works, Glassboro, N.J, manufacturer of the Leader Fruit Jar. From The Crockery and Glass Journal, 1885. 353 Figure 135-Advertisement for The Whiteman Fruit Jar, made by A.V. Whiteman, Cumberland, Maryland. From The Crockery and Glass Journal, 1885. There was no shortage of inventive ideas for improving upon self-sealing fruit jars, as demonstrated by two patented designs featured in The Crockery and Glass Journal in 1885: a fruit jar with bail and a glass can cap (figs. 136, 137)429. By this point it is apparent that very specific types of new technology and ingenuity were driving forces in furthering modern food preservation in an industrial age. 429 The fruit jar with bail design is illustrated in The Crockery and Glass Journal, January 1, 1885, p. 32, while the glass can cap design appears in the same publication May 21, 1885, p. 22. 354 Figure 136-Design for a fruit jar with bail patented by Nathaniel W. Krause, Haysville, Pennsylvania. From The Crockery and Glass Journal, 1885. Figure 137-Design for a glass can cap patented by Thomas G. Otterson and Cornelius C. Vorhies of Woodbury, New Jersey. From The Crockery and Glass Journal, 1885. 355 Fruit jar manufacturers are known to have resorted to litigation in order to protect their patented sealing mechanisms. In 1885, the Consolidated Fruit Jar Company of New York filed suit against the Baltimore firm Ramsey, Baker, and Co., owned by Neilson Ramsay, Frank M. Baker, and D. F. Haynes, for infringing on its patented-porcelain lined metal cap which screws upon the top of the jar.430 Notwithstanding the availability of many different types of sealing mechanisms, the quality of rubber rings was also apparently a determining factor in the overall effectiveness of canning jars. The following advice offered to dealers in fruit jars underscores their importance: The merits of the modern fruit jar depend very largely upon the rubber ring which causes the jar to become pneumatically sealed. The best jar that is made to-day may be converted from an innocent little jar to a small earthquake by the use of a defective rubber ring. In fact, there is nothing that fruit will sour on quicker than a bad rubber ring. Dealers in fruit jars who have any desire to live through the ensuing winter should look carefully to the quality of the jar rings they purchase, for a woman who is rendered fruitless by bad rings is apt to spend her wrath where she spent her money.431 As America entered the 20th-century, the transformation of craft to industry had been fully realized in Baltimore. In three years the manufacture of self-sealing 430 The Crockery and Glass Journal, August 20, 1885, p. 23. 431 The Crockery and Glass Journal, June 4, 1885, p. 18. 356 glass preserve jars became fully automated, while production of traditional utilitarian stoneware in the city had ceased. The preservation of food in advanced glass containers was made possible thanks to a growing reliance on new technologies, mechanization, and semi-skilled and unskilled labor. Innovations in the glass industry, as well as metal canning, had taken place at a dizzying pace, and stood in marked contrast to utilitarian stoneware vessels. The functional qualities of these containers remained relatively unchanged over many centuries, notwithstanding the recent efforts of traditional potters to standardize appearance. Regional Stoneware Competitors Mechanize As the manufacture of hand-crafted utilitarian stoneware fell by the wayside in Baltimore in the 1890s, large-scale regional factories in other parts of the country had already begun mass producing functional stoneware with the help of machinery. These industrialized plants, many of which were situated in Ohio and other parts of the Midwest, continued to meet a consumer demand for utilitarian wares that was on the decline. They also achieved significant advantages from implementing mechanization, using an unskilled workforce, and proximity to sources of clay, coal for fuel, and railroad lines. A movement toward mechanization was clearly afoot as early as 1885 when the United States Potters? Association, which represented the interests of manufacturers, took up the issue of mechanization at its convention held in Baltimore. The Association enacted a report issued by the Committee on Machinery that 357 advocated the general use of mechanized jiggers and pug mills for mixing clays, as well as also offered a large reward for machinery that further facilitated and lessened the cost of manufacturing pottery.432 A new device for making crock rims is an example of labor-saving innovations that were taking place in industrialized factories that produced utilitarian vessels (fig. 138). Patented by H.E. Merrill of Akron, Ohio, this device used ??two rim-forming wheels mounted upon axles connected with the arm or frame at an angle with each other.?433 Figure 138-Design for making crock rims designed by H. E. Merrill of Akron, Ohio. From The Crockery and Glass Journal, 1885. 432 The Crockery and Glass Journal, January 29, 1885, p. 14. 433 Ibid., March 5, 1885, p. 23. 358 In the 1890s, a number of mechanized utilitarian stoneware factories in Ohio operated in close proximity to rich clay deposits found throughout the state. Access to sources of clay, along with direct access to coal deposits for fuel, provided major advantages for firms that mass-produced jiggered wares in major production centers, including Akron, which was known as Stoneware City, Zanesville on the Muskingum River, and factories in many other areas.434 According to the Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio issued in 1893, ?The markets reached by Ohio stoneware are only limited by the confines of the country. It is shipped to the Pacific coast, and north and south. Some competition has been introduced in the western states, by potteries being located there, but Ohio still manufactures far more ware than any other state in the union.?435 By 1891, Ohio?s production of stoneware was incredibly ?...very close to 13,500,000 gallons, with a value of $540,000; of this quantity the Akron district produced a little over 7,000,000 gallons, the Zanesville district about 4,000,000 gallons, and outside shops 2,500,000.?436 Around this time, Ohio was also home to 39 factories that produced a wide variety of stoneware vessels, many of which were made with jiggers and designed for 434 William C. Ketchum Jr., American Stoneware (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1991), p. 124. 435 Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio, Volume VII, Economic Geology, Archaeology, Botany, Paleontology (Norwalk, OH: Laning PTG Co., State Printers), p. 118. 436 Ibid., p. 118. 359 food preservation and storage.437 The aforementioned report stated ?Jugs, bottles, fruit jars, cans, etc. are made this way now which were formerly altogether turned?A good man will make five hundred jugs a day by this process.?438 Many of the wares made in these factories were glazed with several different types of brown slip. However, at least four of these manufacturers had begun glazing stoneware with white Bristol glaze. An example of this type of glaze is seen on a molded stoneware pitcher attributed to Ohio manufacture with advertising for Snow, Knox & Co., a Baltimore flour merchant. This type of pitcher has been seen with the maker?s mark of the Burley and Winter Pottery, located in Crooksville, Ohio (fig. 139).439 437 Ibid., p. 117. 438 Ibid., p. 102. 439 Ibid., p. 107. 360 Figure 139-Pitcher, Ohio, late-19th century. Bristol white-glazed stoneware. H. 6 ??. Cobalt stenciling reads ?SNOW, KNOX & CO. WHOLESALE GROCERS & FLOUR MERCHANTS 103 & 105 CHEAPSIDE BALTIMORE, MD.? (Private collection.) A catalog for M. Perine and Sons, which is illustrated in figure 100 of Chapter 8, shows a wide range of jiggered white-glazed stoneware made at an unidentified factory in Zanesville in 1895. This product line is typical of mass-produced jiggered vessels made at industrialized plants in different regions of the country into the early- 20th century. A jiggered stoneware jug seen in figure 140 is identical to the type of jug illustrated in the Perine catalog. 361 Figure 140-Jiggered jug, ca. 1890s to early-20th century. Stoneware with Bristol white and brown glaze. (Private collection.) While Ohio became a major center of industrialized utilitarian stoneware production by the 1890s, manufacturers in many other regions of the country also relied on machinery. For instance, competitors in Pennsylvania were also using jiggers, including the Pioneer Pottery in New Bethlehem, the Hawthorn Pottery in Hawthorn, and E.S. & B. Company and Sherwood Brothers Pottery in New Brighton. A distinctive finishing technique of these factories was to use both white Bristol glaze and brown slip, along with light blue stenciled lettering and capacity numbers.440 Large-scale industrialized stoneware operations were also based in Monmouth, Illinois, at the Monmouth Pottery Company (1894-1905), which became one of seven 440 See Phil Schaltenbrand, Big Ware Turners: The History and Manufacture of Pennsylvania Stoneware 1720-1920 (Bentleyville, Pa.: Westerwald Publishing, 2002) for a discussion of specific potteries. 362 plants operated by the Western Stoneware Company established in 1906. Also, the Red Wing Stoneware Pottery (1877-1906), later the Red Wing Union Stoneware Pottery (1906-1936), of Red Wing, Minnesota, manufactured a wide range of mass- produced utilitarian stoneware. It should also be noted that in the Shenandoah Valley, the Strasburg Steamworks (1890-1897) in Strasburg, Virginia, also used steam power and jiggers to produce utilitarian vessels made of both stoneware and earthenware.441 Finally, a sales receipt from Hagerstown merchant Charles A. Spangler highlights the enormous changes that had taken place in manufacturing by 1892, the date when it was issued (fig. 141). In fact, this single document is useful in illustrating many of the concepts and findings discussed in this and earlier chapters. Based on what has been established in this dissertation, it is even possible to speculate about Spangler?s retail operation and inventory. 441 H.E. Comstock, Pottery of the Shenandoah Valley Region, pp., 478-480. 363 Figure 141-Billhead receipt for merchant Charles A. Spangler, Hagerstown, Maryland, December 7, 1892. (Private collection.) Obviously, the fact that Spangler prominently advertised stoneware on his masthead indicates that the demand for stoneware vessels for food preservation and storage was still relevant in 1892, particularly in rural areas where farming lifestyles prevailed. However, in the final decade of the 19th century there would have been an increasing array of choices when it came to food consumption. In addition, the number of persons who continued to rely on traditional methods of preserving the food they produced continued to decline as demographics, lifestyles, and consumer preferences changed into the 20th century. It is likely that the type of retail and wholesale stoneware that Spangler sold in his store was made either at an industrialized regional factory other than Baltimore or 364 perhaps one of the very few remaining small-scale rural potteries in the Shenandoah Valley in proximity to Hagerstown that still survived. As pointed out in the previous chapter, by 1895 and possibly earlier, the venerable Baltimore firm of M. Perine and Sons no longer made their own stoneware in the city, finding it less expensive to have it manufactured at an industrialized factory in Ohio. Further, if Spangler?s supplier was one of the many large-scale stoneware factories that used jiggering machines, then semi-skilled laborers rather than skilled craftsmen produced the vessels sold in his store, which would have been devoid of distinctive characteristics associated with culture traditions and hand craft. It can also be assumed that at this point in time, his inventory of staple and fancy groceries may have included some canned goods, as well as glass bottles, alongside utilitarian stoneware. By this time, canners and glass factories had made significant investments in mechanization in order to lower costs and increase consumers? access to packaged goods through retail establishments. Conclusions In conclusion, Chapter 9 has explored several important industries that contributed to the demise of Baltimore?s traditional stoneware industry by the 1890s. In particular, innovations in the production of metal canning and self-sealing pottery and glass jars, as well as the emergence of more advanced regional stoneware factories that mass-produced utilitarian wares using mechanization all adversely 365 affected local stoneware production. Toward the end, traditional potters had a hand craft product that did not fit the needs of most consumers. By the close of the 19th century, consumers were being effectively won over by the innovation of a wide variety of seasonal food offered in affordable and convenient metal cans and which could be stored longer and more easily and cheaply in self-sealed glass jars. Further, those who still preferred the old-fashioned method of preserving and storing food opted for more competitively priced machine-made stoneware, notably Bristol-glazed stoneware vessels that were mass-produced at industrialized factories in the Midwest. This study has attempted to demonstrate that industrialization was a long, gradual process, rather than a force that abruptly changed the city?s traditional stoneware industry at a relatively early date in the century. While it has been suggested that by 1840 traditional wheel thrown pottery had fallen by the wayside and an increased consumer demand for fineware spelled the demise of the city?s local stoneware industry, this study has found otherwise. Evidence compiled in this chapter and Chapter 8 suggests the need for ?reperiodization? of traditional stoneware manufacture in urban Baltimore. Local potters continued to work in a hand craft tradition well into the second half of the century in several shops situated in Baltimore. In fact, traditional utilitarian stoneware continued to be made in the city for another four decades or more beyond 366 1840, until more preferable forms of packaged foods and food preservation eventually won over consumers. In the end, the success achieved by industrialized metal canning, self-sealing glass jar, and regional stoneware manufacturers at the start of the 20th century undoubtedly benefited consumers, providing them with a much greater array of affordable and accessible packaged and preserved foods. However, by this point, traditional utilitarian potters had for all intensive purposes been forced out of business in Baltimore, as well as other cities and most rural areas. 367 Chapter 10: Conclusions It is clear from this dissertation that stoneware vessels made in Baltimore in the 19th century convey different meanings to different people at different points in time. Many years ago, every American household relied on these familiar utilitarian containers to handle their food storage and preservation needs, given there were no refrigerators. Today, if a piece of stoneware can be found in a typical home it is safe to assume that its owner is unfamiliar with its original functionality and probably more concerned with whether or not it provides a decorative accent or perhaps a nostalgic touch. Occasionally, unusual, decorated examples are included in museum exhibits, particularly those involving folk art. This treatment is supported by a marketplace in which obsolete objects are now highly prized by collectors and antiques dealers anxious to pay exorbitant amounts of money to own a ?rarity.? In a sense, the everyday world of 19th-century potters is overshadowed by this transformation of basic stoneware, which is now more or less an expensive commodity valued on the basis of presumed artistry. On the other hand, scholars working within academic and scientific realms tend to view stoneware and material culture in general as a means to an end. For instance, an historical archaeologist is likely to include broken pieces of this type of vessel in a systematic classification or use them to help date or interpret the occupation of a historic site. While it would not be surprising for a decorative arts 368 specialist to focus on matters of style or aesthetics, a traditional historian might take clues from objects, particularly if they illuminate documentary evidence. The folklorist is probably most concerned with how stoneware reflects the transference of cultural traditions. The insular nature of each of these disciplines is understandable, yet a more inclusive and comprehensive scholarly approach seems warranted. Like all material culture, stoneware vessels are a tangible reflection of the past. However, our perspective looking backward from the present needs to be wide enough to understand and appreciate how these utilitarian objects represent the experiences, contributions, and intent of the people connected to their manufacture and use over time. In this sense, I argue that these vessels can be used to broaden the context for working class stoneware potters and the hand craft traditions that supported them in urban Baltimore during the 19th century. Using a systematic cultural landscape methodology devised by scholar Jeremy Korr, objects are one of many types of evidence I examined. This effort also brought together disparate disciplines, some of which are mentioned above, in the course of documenting dynamic interactions involving Baltimore?s potters, their built urban environment and artifacts, and their natural surroundings. This study is also grounded in working class labor history which reinforces the argument that Baltimore?s utilitarian stoneware potters and the wares they made should not be defined in terms of greatness, perceived artistry, or monetary value. More significant are their ordinary, yet important, experiences as skilled craftsmen 369 practicing a handiwork that ably served the needs of local communities throughout the 19th century. In many respects, traditional potters who ran their own shops were like any other businessmen intent on making a profit using knowledge, talent, and hard work. Existing within a relatively complex urban environment, potters in Baltimore were connected to an expanding and highly competitive world of affairs facilitated by various modes of transportation, a growing immigrant population, and commercial activity. As such, aspects of this dissertation tie into urban history and scholarship concerned with the origins, development, and changes in American cities throughout the 19th century. The research end of this project is directly tied to another systematic methodology found in ?North American Suburbs, 1880-1950: Cultural and Social Reconsiderations? by Mary Corbin Sies. This approach provided guidance and a suitable framework for documenting and analyzing a wide array of primary sources associated with the social/economic and cultural dimensions of Baltimore?s urban environment. A wealth of material was analyzed, including numerous marked examples of local stoneware, archaeological research involving potters? kilns, period photographs, and a wide array of important documentary records. A century?s worth of population censuses, business directories, city ordinances and records, newspaper advertisements, and maps document aspects of production, geography, and spatial orientation. Important special collections also brought forth new insights, particularly the papers of the Perine family of potters, Baltimore Equitable Society fire insurance records, Sanborn fire insurance maps, and passenger ship lists of immigrants. In its 370 entirety, this evidence provides a better understanding of social, political, economic, technological, cultural, and regulatory forces affecting potters and the stoneware industry. My dissertation provides a holistic approach for studying 19th century industries over a broad period of time, using a variety of perspectives grounded in different disciplines. Comprised of eight interrelated chapters, the direction of my research has addressed the following three main questions: How did the industry shape Baltimore?s social, physical, and natural environment? How did the social, physical, and natural environment shape Baltimore?s stoneware industry? What key historical circumstances such as industrialization, new technologies, and modern manufacturing methods influenced these dynamic relationships? Along with these new lines of inquiry I have explored several subquestions also laid out in my introduction which deal with stoneware industry issues, social issues, environmental issues, and physical issues. In a number of instances, this investigation?s interdisciplinary approach produced findings that overturn narrow, conventional assumptions, some of which are misguided. Further, new evidence that emerged from this study enabled me to put forth several new theories and terminologies that may prove useful to other scholars. This investigation underscores ?enduring cultural traditions? which were central to just about every aspect of Baltimore?s 19th-century working class potters. Methods of production that originated principally in Germany and England were the 371 driving force behind the skilled handcraft that local stoneware potters relied upon throughout the 19th century. Facilitated by formal training and family ties, these traditions were akin to a blueprint for how to design and execute the manufacture of specific stoneware types that served specific functions. Given that local potters continued to make hand-crafted stoneware into the final decade of the 19th century, I put forth the term ?craft-centricity? to describe their continued reliance on craft traditions over a long period of time. The functional, hand-crafted wares that Baltimore?s traditional stoneware potters produced for food preservation and storage represent a significant contribution to serving the needs of local communities. The safe, durable stoneware vessels they made did not convey status and were removed from stylistic trends. Unlike fashionable tableware imported from industrialized Staffordshire potteries in England, the need for basic utilitarian containers was universal and cut across class lines. The products made by local stoneware potters did not directly compete with fashionable tableware. These distinctions are important because they tell us that the growing popularity of imported Queensware was not a significant factor that can be tied to the ultimate decline of traditional stoneware manufacture in Baltimore. It is important to point out that in order for stoneware craft making to survive in Baltimore, the transference of skills guided by craft traditions had to take place. This occurred is several ways, notably when one family member or members trained another, when a formal apprenticeship was entered into with a young male, or when 372 an immigrant potter was hired. Conversely, I argue that the ?exclusive nature of cultural traditions? precluded the full participation of women in the production process and diminished opportunities for African Americans. It is important to recognize that women made contributions in other ways, when they took over businesses upon the death of their husbands, through their use of vessels, and as consumers involved in purchasing stoneware. Further, wives, sisters, or daughters may have had opportunities to be more involved in potteries if these operations were connected to a potter?s home. In addition, women were provided opportunities to participate in the city?s industrialized fineware factories later in the 19th century, yet their rate of pay was not comparable to men. African Americans in urban Baltimore were also at a disadvantage in the 19th century, based on the fact that there are relatively few examples of Blacks involved in both traditional and industrialized pottery operations. Blacks had neither the advantage of formal apprenticeships, nor family connections to acquire training and skills necessary to carry out pottery making. Not only was slave holding less common in the city than other regions of the South, but many Quakers who were potters disavowed slavery. In the second half of the 19th century the actual number of African Americans in Baltimore declined as the immigrant population increased, and later industrialized fineware factories in the city chose to employ white youths rather than Blacks to carry out unskilled tasks. 373 Defining potters in terms of cultural traditions rather than contemporary views tied to aesthetics provides a better understanding of the everyday experiences of working class urban potters. Private collectors, dealers, and museums that have invested in decorated stoneware help to ensure that certain examples will be preserved for future study, which is very positive. However, beyond matters of aesthetics and artistry, these vessels are important for their intended functional qualities and as representations of the people who made and used them into the late- 19th century. Baltimore?s working class potters were sustained not only by cultural traditions, but also by a shared urban environment that provided them with a number of advantages, including a growing population base, commercial opportunities, and advanced transportation networks that included expanding railroad and steamship lines. The city?s geographic proximity to Southern markets enabled Baltimore manufacturers to export their goods faster and more inexpensively than cities such as Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. At the same time, there were ample opportunities for potters to supply local businesses with stoneware, and vessels with impressed advertising document these relationships and transactions. Potters supplied many different merchants and businesses spread throughout the city with jugs and coolers that held tonic, vinegar, cider, wine, and whiskey, as well as crocks and jars that preserved butter and many other types of foodstuffs. 374 However, Baltimore?s potters encountered ?complexities of shared urban communities? that rural potters in Maryland and surrounding areas such as the Shenandoah Valley did not confront. Both urban and rural potters actively served the needs of communities, yet the operation of kilns within Baltimore?s urban landscape had consequences for how its potters and others around them interacted. Notably, rural potters worked in the relative isolation of the open countryside, while potters working in urban Baltimore fired their kilns in the heart of an increasingly populated city, next to residential homes, commercial businesses, as well as other manufacturing enterprises. It is important to keep in mind that traditional potters who ran their own shops had to ensure that their products made a profit in order to support themselves. Potters in urban Baltimore had the advantage of several key venues for distributing stoneware to consumers, including local businesses and retail establishments, china merchants, other potters, and regional outlets. These relationships and their interactions and transactions indicated that selling stoneware in urban Baltimore in the 19th century was a relatively complex and challenging undertaking. The most enterprising of the city?s working class potters pursued typical strategies such as taking out newspaper advertisements to promote specialty items or details concerning their product lines. However, in the early part of the 19th century, several stoneware potters found it advantageous to participate in uniform price agreements, and even advertised the retail and wholesale rates they charged. In fact, wholesaling appears to have been an extremely common and important way that various manufacturers and merchants 375 distributed goods during the 19th century. Many local stoneware manufacturers are found advertising wholesale rates, notably Thomas Morgan, Henry Myers, Maulden Perine, and Peter Herrmann. Another way that local potters actively competed in a dynamic and fluid marketplace was by exporting wares beyond the city. A superior transportation system enabled potters to reach outlying areas. For instance, as early as 1820 potter Thomas Morgan placed advertisements in Richmond and Fredericksburg, Virginia newspapers, and later in the century other potters such as Maulden Perine sent shipments in all directions, including southward. The exportation of locally-made stoneware also shows up in the archaeological record, notably a marked Baltimore teapot excavated at City Point, Virginia. Several examples of extant stoneware with Baltimore markings suggest that these vessels were exported as well. The records of the Perine family also document selling stoneware to other potters, as well as china merchants, and also buying from other potters. China merchants were an important force, both in the production and marketing of utilitarian stoneware in Baltimore. Several local merchants, including the Myers family, George Earnest and Wesley Cowles, and James Pawley Sr. had the necessary capital to be able to own their own kilns and employ potters to supply their retail businesses. Other china merchants without the resources or inclination to start their own pottery making operations relied on local stoneware potters to supply their retail needs. 376 The manner in which Baltimore?s urban potters interacted with their natural surroundings not only adds another dimension to our understanding of these craftsmen, but reveals how they affected others within their own community. An environmental perspective ties potters to a larger world of cause and effect, beyond their own self interests. In effect, local potters processed and controlled natural resources for their own commercial advantage, which had important consequences for Baltimore?s cultural landscape. Potters left a relatively large environmental footprint, given their constant need to mine clay, as well as feed their kilns with firewood which necessitated clearing trees. Further, the emission of smoke from kilns was a constant source of ire in this increasingly populated urban area that was also adversely affected by many other types of manufacturing and processing. Dramatic first hand accounts of smoke are documented in petitions that neighborhood residents filed with the City Council and Mayor demanding that action be taken to reign in this type of pollution. As previously pointed out, local potters enjoyed certain benefits from operating kilns in an urban area, yet there was a detrimental side to working within populated areas, notably contentiousness and adherence to increasingly restrictive ordinances. City leaders enacted restrictive ordinances and resolutions that governed how potters were able to operate kilns in populated areas. Nuisance laws controlling many types of manufacturing had been in place since the late 18th century, and by 1812 an ordinance prohibited persons from erecting ?any distillery of spirits, of turpentine or varnish, or manufactories either of earthen or stone wares, or slaughter house or houses? in the portion of the city lying west of Jones Falls and north of 377 Barre Street. However, petitions such as the one filed by John Hillen and 10 other residents in 1817 highlight the real concerns and frustration of residents living in proximity to existing pottery kilns that burned on a regular basis for up to a day and a half at a time, affecting their quality of life. Hillen and his neighbors resided in proximity to the Old Town section of the city east of Jones Falls where seven potteries operated at this point in time. Complaints lodged by another resident, J. H. Stimpson, in 1843, indicate that emissions from wood burning kilns remained a problem much later in the century. Examining the nature of the complaints of residents, and well as the language used in laws enacted to control nuisances reveals a lack of understanding concerning the fragile nature of the natural resources such as air, water, and land. It should not be too surprising then that petitions describe kiln emissions as an irritation and an inconvenience rather than a serious threat to one?s health or the environment. In fact, the most restrictive nuisance laws enacted were those intended to control rampant and deadly diseases such as yellow fever outbreaks that were prevalent during the late- 18th century and first half of the 19th century. In particular, city leaders targeted sources of stagnate water and waste which they believed were the root causes of these problems. Actually, it was the potters themselves that faced serious health hazards related to the production process involved in making stoneware. Traditional potters were susceptible to lead poisoning from earthenware glazes, silicosis from inhaling clay dust, and inhaling chlorine gas when salt was added to kilns as part of the glazing process for stoneware. 378 The risk of fire was one of the most important aspects of the cultural landscape of 19th-century Baltimore potters. This threat was a major concern in populated urban areas at this time, and stoneware kilns were one of several types of manufacturing that presented a serious danger to adjacent homes and businesses. Recognizing the serious consequences involving fire, particularly the challenge of containing blazes once they started, led city leaders to enact a number of preventative measures. In this sense, the shared cultural landscape of urban Baltimore was a contested terrain involving potters who profited from operating kilns, adjacent homeowners threatened by fire, insurance companies with their own vested interests, and a local government given the difficult task of balancing business against the concerns of neighborhoods. A broader context for understanding the experiences of potters is recorded in petitions, insurance records, and city council rulings. It is also clear that potters through their involvement in volunteer fire departments, and even the Baltimore Equitable Society, were integrated within their own community. Matters of ethnicity tied to cultural traditions and immigration were also an integral part of the shared urban community of Baltimore?s utilitarian potters. My dissertation has identified characteristics that point to a blending of diverse craft making traditions referred to here as ?cultural hybridization.? This melding reflects the craft making styles and designs rooted in German and English cultural traditions that reach back several centuries. In this sense, cultural traditions are resilient, but 379 also adaptable, as they enabled local potters to continue making the types of utilitarian stoneware vessels that successfully met the demand of local and regional consumers. This type of material culture analysis is important given the limited utility of historical documents for tracking the experiences of immigrants tied to the city by passenger ship logs and census records. While Baltimore became home to a growing population of immigrants, this chapter has shown that it cannot be assumed that all of the potters who arrived in the Port of Baltimore during the 19th century intended to practice their profession in the city. Instead, passenger ship records show that an overwhelming number of immigrant potters who arrived in the port of Baltimore departed from Bremen, Germany, and considered this destination as a first stop before heading westward by train, presumably to follow other opportunities. Unfortunately, little is known about the later experiences of these particular immigrant potters and many foreign-born potters who appear in the 1850 census. These findings suggest that more in-depth research is warranted. Cultural traditions continued to be relevant within Baltimore?s stoneware industry, even as the forces of industrialization were in full force in the last quarter of the 19th century. In documenting the ?transformational nature of cultural tradition from the outside? my dissertation demonstrates how it proceeded at an uneven pace, particularly in instances where cultural traditions continued to be relevant. Even as mechanized competitors such as canners and glass house pursued new forms of food 380 preservation and storage, utilitarian stoneware potters carried out traditional methods of production up until the final decade of the 19th century. While these potters did not mechanize, they did standardize wares and develop new product lines in order to better compete for a market share. This dissertation makes the case for reperiodizing when hand-crafted traditions were transformed by industrialization. This study has also made another important distinction between firms that manufactured traditional utilitarian wares and more industrialized firms that produced fine tableware and decorative ware, such as the operations of Edwin Bennett, D. F. Haynes, and others. It is important to recognize that while these two industries existed simultaneously during the second half of the 19th century, they were very different in terms of methods of production, the types of wares they produced, and the intended functions of these vessels. In human terms, industrialization took a toll on skilled craftsmen, notably diminishing their opportunities, as well as putting an end to their ability to continue serving the basic needs of their community. In the latter half of the 19th century, industrialization led to the success of mechanized plants that specialized in the production of refined table ware and decorative wares. Evidence of worker resistance was not found in limited archaeological data. Yet, Sanborn maps illustrate the specialized nature of factory floor plans and the tasks that skilled and unskilled workers carried out in an effort to achieve mass production and cost savings. While women were provided new opportunities as decorators within these factories, African 381 Americans continued to be largely excluded from this type of manufacturing. Unfortunately, it was young boys who suffered the most from their involvement in these industrialized operations, as they were relegated to performing basic, repetitive tasks, which had no room for upward mobility. This dissertation has shown that the demise of local stoneware manufacture was tied to several outside competitors better suited to embracing industrialization and mechanization. Innovations in the production of metal canning and self-sealing glass jars, as well as the emergence of more advanced regional stoneware factories produced products that better fit the needs of most consumers. A wider variety of seasonal food could be stored longer, more easily, and cheaply in metal cans and glass containers than in old fashioned utilitarian vessels such as crocks, jars, jugs, and bottles. Further, local potters were victims of ?the duality of the urban landscape,? as they once benefited from their ability to export goods by rail and water. However, by the end of the century, advanced rail systems enabled industrialized regional plants in the Midwest to ship more competitively priced, Bristol-glazed stoneware containers to cities like Baltimore. In fact, by the 1890s manufacturers like M. Perine and Sons found it less costly to have these types of stoneware vessels made at a factory in Ohio, rather than produce them in Baltimore, as members of the family had for most of the 19th century. 382 This dissertation has provided scholars with a big picture or broad overview of Baltimore?s stoneware industry in the 19th century. Scholars in any number of fields now have enough information to move forward in conducting more in-depth research in a single area or compare several topics addressed in this study. My approach has also shown how the multi-disciplinary field of American Studies accommodates and facilitates new ways of examining and interpreting the past. My intent has been to demonstrate how working class history and cultural landscape studies can work in concert with one another, and bring out the best in these two scholarly fields. A broader framework is designed to make scholars re-think aspects of their own field of study, and connect it to perspectives they might not have understood or known existed. For instance, this study is tied to urban history in the sense that it examines forces related to the growth and decline of Baltimore?s stoneware industry alongside an emerging and prospering 19th-century American city. However, urban historians will find that changing spatial relationships and patterns can be viewed through different lenses, including environmental concerns and the risks associated with this type of manufacturing to governmental restrictions determining where factories can be situated in populated areas of an increasingly complex built environment as a consequence of industrialization. Within the realm of decorative arts, it is my hope that this dissertation has made a contribution by documenting and analyzing many different types of stoneware made in Baltimore in the 19th century. From this standpoint, museums, dealers, and 383 collectors may find this dissertation to be useful reference material, as many of the vessels bear maker?s marks or some distinguishing characteristic of Baltimore manufacture. At the same time, connoisseurs concerned primarily with matters of aesthetics should have a better understanding and appreciation of the inherent functional qualities of these wares and the cultural traditions that guided the people who made them. In my opinion, it is these qualities that are truly priceless. In this vein, folklorists and anthropologists will recognize the centrality of cultural traditions to Baltimore?s 19th-century stoneware industry. It has been my intention to document and analyze material culture as a means of understanding the potters who practiced their craft, as well as the consumers who benefited from their products. Skills associated with this handcraft passed through multi-generational families of potters, apprentices, and immigrants in Baltimore. In an age before refrigerators, these vessels for food preservation and storage were extremely important to communities. Looking at a big picture involving an entire century of stoneware production in the city has made it possible to understand how these traditions survived as long as they did, and how they were eventually eclipsed by industrialization and rendered obsolete. This dissertation provides historical archaeologists with additional information on the types of stoneware made in Baltimore, as well as an interpretive context for the potters involved in production. In fact, a 1998 archaeological report that documented excavations at the 19th-century kiln site owned by Baltimore china 384 merchant James Pawley Sr. noted the need for this type of in-depth study. In evaluating artifacts recovered from the site, the authors of the report had little choice but to compare decorative motifs and forms against similar stoneware made by regional potters, notably from Alexandria, Virginia, because, as they pointed out, ?no collections from other Baltimore potters have been analyzed systematically, and no comparative data was readily available without extensive research and analysis.442 For working class labor historians, this research project calls attention to the lives of craftsmen whose legacy deserves to be resurrected. My holistic, multi- disciplinary, multi-faceted resource approach is somewhat unusual in terms of prior scholarship in this expanding field, which has focused on somewhat narrower paths involving single issues such as class consciousness, religion, or immigration. My goal has been less about attempting to celebrate or laud the achievements of workers, than simply telling the story of their experiences in a straightforward manner. Their contributions speak for themselves, and do not need to be propped up with ideology or agendas. In fact, these findings show that potters were involved in controversy, but were not always the victim, especially when the by-products they released into the environment and communities were harmful to varying degrees. 442 Suzanne L. Sanders and Martha R. Williams, ?Archeological Mitigation of the J. S. Berry Brick Mill (18BC89) and Pawley Stoneware Kiln (18BC88), at the Proposed Ravens Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland,? p. 14. More recent research documenting Baltimore stoneware vessels also appears in Ceramics in America journal articles authored by Luke Zipp (2004) and John E. Kille (2005). 385 Further, this dissertation will hopefully encourage my colleagues in the field of cultural landscape studies to consider taking on projects that involve recovering the past, even when buildings are no longer standing. There are many different types of resources and evidence that can be brought together to reconstruct and analyze earlier landscapes, whether it be documentary evidence, visual materials such as maps and photographs, surviving material culture, or fragments recovered underground through archaeology. Innovative cultural landscape studies of the past undoubtedly stand to provide a more complete and dynamic story than traditional document-driven approaches to historical research. It is my hope that this dissertation has led to a better understanding of and appreciation for the contributions and experiences of ordinary workers and craft makers. In a similar manner, this study is just one example of how dynamic interactions involving the cultural landscape can lead to new ideas and perspectives. There are undoubtedly a myriad of possibilities for using similar approaches to recover forgotten, misunderstood, or unappreciated landscapes of the past, which are important and worth exploring. 386 Appendix List of Pottery Manufacturers by Year (Compiled from Baltimore city directories, 1842-1900)443 1842 Craig?s Business Directory and Baltimore Almanac for 1842 (Baltimore: Published by Danl. Craig; Printed by J. Robinson, 1842). Potteries, p. 121 Brotherton and Morton, manufactory, Pitt St. near Eden Greble, Benjamin, at his pottery, Ensor st. above Monument, manufactures black and brown tea pots, common earthen and stone ware, etc. Jones, James E., manufacturer of stone and earthen ware, red and black tea and coffee pots, etc., 22 N. Gay street, near the bridge Parr, Margaret, corner of Eden and E. Baltimore sts.-warerooms, 49 South street Perine, M. and Co. western stoneware pottery, corner of W. Baltimore and Schroeder sts. Perine, M. earthen ware pottery, corner of Lexington and Pine. 1843 Craig?s Business Directory and Baltimore Almanac for 1843 (Baltimore: Published by Robert Semmes; Printed by J. Robinson, 1843). Potteries, p. 59 Brotherton, Pitt, near Eden st. 443 This list of pottery manufacturers was compiled from six decades of Baltimore city directories. Starting in 1842, city directories included advertising sections for potteries and many other commercial enterprises in the city. It should be pointed out that these entries are not complete, nor entirely accurate, as certain manufacturers are known to have been in operation in given years but do not appear in directories, for different reasons. Also, these listings have temporal limitations, depending on when information was collected from potteries and when the directories were actually published. In many instances, information that appears for a given year was actually collected in the prior year. Despite these deficiencies, these records represent an important research tool for identifying ownership of potteries, where production took place in the city, and, in some cases, what types of products specific potteries were making. For a list of potteries and potters who worked in Baltimore before 1850 see John N. Pearce, Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850. 387 Greble, Benj., Ensor, near Monument Jones, Jas. E., 22 North Gay st. Parr, Margaret, co. of Eden and Balt. Perine, M. and Co., cor. of Baltimore and Schroeder sts. Perine, M. cor. Pine and Lexington sts. 1845 The Baltimore Directory for 1845 (Baltimore: John Murphy, 1845). James E. Jones, Manufacturer of Stone, Earthen, and Black Lustre Tea and Coffee Pots, no. 121 North Gay Street Between Front and High Streets, p. 13 James L. Parr, p. 76. (This advertisement is illustrated in figure 36 of dissertation.) 1847-48 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1847-48 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1847). Potteries, Stone and Earthen Ware and Firebrick Manufactories, p. 29 Perine and Linton, corner w. Baltimore and Schroeder sts. Maulden Perine and Co., corner Lexington and Pine sts. 1849-50 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1849-50 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1849). Potters and Manufacturers of Earthen and Stoneware, p. 485 Bennett, Edwin, fire proof cane and Rockingham ware, s.e. corner Canal and Canton avenue Linton, Wm., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Parr, David, 65 n. Bond Perine, Maulden, 711 W. Baltimore 1853-54 Matchett?s Baltimore Directory for 1853-54 (Baltimore: Richard J. Matchett, 1853). Miscellaneous Business Advertisements, p. 30 E. and W. Bennett, Manufacturers of Rockingham and Yellow, Iron-Stone Ware, corner of Canal street and Canton avenue, Two squares east of the Philadelphia and Wilmington R.R. Depot. 1856-57 Wood?s Baltimore Directory for 1856-57 (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1856). Earthen and Stoneware Manufacturers, p. 337 Greble, Benjamin, 76 Ensor Parr, Mrs. M., 8 n. Eden Perine M. and Son, 713 w. Baltimore 388 1858-59 Wood?s Baltimore Directory for 1858-58 (Baltimore: Printed and Published by John W. Woods, 1858). Earthenware and Stoneware Manufacturers, p. 493 Greble, Benjamin, 76 Ensor Perine, M. and Son, 713 w. Baltimore 1859-60 Baltimore City Directory for 1859-60 (Baltimore: Compiled by W. Eugene Ferslen and printed by Sherwood and Co., 1859). Potteries, p. 222 Greble, Benjamin C., 76 Ensor Herman, John, 765 Light Kieffner, George, 394 Penn. Ave. Linton, Wm., 6 and 8 n. Eden and Cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Son, 711 W. Baltimore Earthenware and Stoneware Manufacturers, p. 193 Greble, Benjamin, 76 Ensor Perine, M. and Son, 711 w. Baltimore 1860 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1860). Potteries, p. 499 Greble, Benjamin, 76 Ensor Herman, John, 767 Light Linton, Wm., 6 and 8 n. Eden and cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Sandwall, J., 71 Hanover 1863-64 E.M. Cross and Co.?s Baltimore City Business Directory, 1863-64 (Baltimore: E.M. Cross). Potteries, p. 173 Greble, B., 76 Ensor Herman, J., 765 Light, Earthenware Pottery Linton, Wm. and Co., NW c. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, Potteries and Salesroom 711 and 713 W. Baltimore, Manufacturers of Stone and Earthenware, also circular fire bricks for coal stoves 1864 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1864). Potteries, p. 529 Greble, Benj., 76 Ensor Herman, J., 765 Light Keffner, George, 394 Penn. Ave. 389 Linton, Wm., cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore Earthen and Stoneware Manufacturers, p. 508 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Canton and Central avs. Linton, William, cor. Pine and Lexingon Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore 1865-66 Wood?s Baltimore City Director, 1865-66 (Baltimore: John W. Woods, 1865). Potteries, p. 561 Greble, Benjamin, 76 Ensor Herman, Peter, 193 Mullikin Linton, Wm., n.w. Cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Sharer, Wm. Geo., 711 w. Baltimore Earthen and Stoneware Manufacturers, p. 536 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Canton and Central avs. Herman, Peter, 193 Mullikin Linton, Wm. n.w. cor. Pine and Lexington Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Sharer, Wm. Geo. 711, w. Baltimore 1867-68 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1867-68 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1867). Potteries, p. 695 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Herrman, Peter, 193 Mullikin and 306 e. Fayette Herrman, John and Bro. (earthenware) 765 Light Linton and Co., n.w. cor., Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Sharer, Wm. Geo., 711 w. Baltimore 1868-69 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1868-69 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1868). Potteries, p. 745 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Central and Canton avs. Fischer, John, Bond near Bank Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hayes, William Gibson, Locust Point Herrman, John and Bro. (earthenware) 765 Light Herrman, Peter, 193 Mullikin and 306 E. Fayette 390 Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Parr, Augustus, 460 n. Gay Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Sharer, Wm. Geo., 711 w. Baltimore 1870 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1870 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1870). Potteries, p. 835 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Central and Canton avs. Fischer, John, 196 Eastern av. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hartung, August C., Hull nr. Fort av. Herrman, Peter, 193 Mullikin and 306 e. Fayette Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Perine and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Ryan, Amos, 211 Mulberry 1871 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1871 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1871). Potteries, p. 834 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Central and Canton avs. Fischer, John, 196 Eastern av. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hartung, August C., Hull nr. Fort av. Herrmann, Peter, 193 Mullikin and 306 E. Fayette Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore 1872 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1872 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1872). Potteries, p. 868 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hartung, August C., Hull nr. Fort av. Herman, John P., 722 Light Herrmann, Peter, 193 Mullikin and 306 E. Fayette Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore Severin, John, 286 ? s. Ann 391 1873 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1873 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1873). Potteries, p. 844 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Herman, John P., 722 Light Herrman, Peter, 193 Mullikin and 306 e. Fayette Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore Ryan Amos, 211 Mulberry Severin, John 286 ? s. Ann 1874 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1874 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1874). Potteries, p. 835 Bennett, Edwin, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Herman, John P., 722 Light Herrmann, Peter, 193 Mullikin and 306 e. Fayette Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Severn, John, 286 ? s. Ann 1875 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1875 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1875). Potteries, p. 850 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Herman, John P., 722 Light Herrmann, Peter, 193 Mullikin Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Severin, John, 286 ? s. Ann 1876 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1876 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1876). Potteries, p. 880 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Linton and Co., n.w. cor. Lexington and Pine 392 Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Severin, John, 286 ? s. Ann 1877 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1877 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1877). Potteries, p. 917 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Linton and Co., n.w. corner Lexington and Pine Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore 1878 Wood?s Baltimore City Director, 1878 (Baltimore: Printed and published by(John W. Woods, 1878). Potteries, p. 944 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Jackson Square Pottery, P. Herrman, propr., 306 E. Fayette Maryland Pottery Co., W. H. Pope, manager, 287 Lexington Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore 1879 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1879 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1879). Potteries, p. 1049 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton avs. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hartung, Chas., Frederick and Wilkens avs. Jackson Square Pottery, P. Herrman, propr. 306 E. Fayette Maryland Pottery Co., W. H. Pope, manager, 287 Lexington Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore 1880 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1880 (Baltimore: Printed and published by (John W. Woods, 1880). Potteries, pp. 1106-1107 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton Avenues Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hartung, Chas., Frederick and Wilkens avs. Jackson Square Pottery, P. Herrman, propr., 306 e. Fayette 393 Maryland Pottery Co., W. H. Pope, manager, 287 Lexington Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore 1881 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1881 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1881). Potteries, p. 1183 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central Avenues Chesapeake Pottery, Brougham, Tunstall and Co., propr?s Locust Point Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hamill, Brown and Co., President and Fawn Hartung, Chas., Frederick and Wilkens avs. Jackson Square Pottery, H. S. Tayler and Co., proprs. 306 E. Fayette Maryland Pottery Co., W. H. Pope, manag?r, 287 Lexington Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore 1882 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1882 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1882). Potteries, pp. 1224-1225 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton Avenues Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hamill, Brown and Co., President and Fawn Jackson Square Pottery, H. S. Taylor and Co., proprs., 306 E. Fayette Maryland Pottery Co., W. H. Pope, manager, 287 Lexington Monumental Pottery Co., Bullock and Miller, proprs., Dillon and Patuxent Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore 1883 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1883 (Baltimore: Printed and published by John W. Woods, 1883). Potteries, p. 1231 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturer of White, Yellow, and Brown Ware, cor. Central and Canton Avenues Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hamill, Brown and Co., President and Fawn Hartung, Chas., Frederick av. and Wilkens Jackson Square Pottery, H. S. Taylor and Co., proprs., 306 E. Fayette Maryland Potttery Co., Wm. G. Linton, manager, 287 Lexington Monumental Pottery Co., Bullock and Miller, props., Dillon and Patuxent Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Baltimore Wipfield, Adam, Harford rd. nr. Homestead 394 1884 Sheriff and Taylor?s Baltimore City Directory for 1884 (Trenton, N.J.: Printed and published by John L. Murphy, 1884). Potteries, pp. 1479-1480 Bennett, Edwin, Central and Canton avs. Chesapeake, Nicholson c. Decatur Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hamill, Brown and Co., President c. Fawn Hartung, Chas., 275 Fdk. ave. Jackson Square, 193 Mullikin Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon and Patuxent Perine, M. and Sons, 713 W. Balt. Wipfield, Adam, Homestead 1885 Sheriff and Taylor?s Baltimore City Directory for 1885 (Harrisburg, Pa.: Patriot Publishing Co., 1885). Potteries, pp. 1617-1618) Bennett, Edwin, Canton av. c. Central av. Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Hamill, Brown and Co., President and Fawn Hartung, Chas., Fkd. av. c. Wilkens Haynes, D. F. and Co., props., Chesapeake Pottery, 347 W. Balto. Herman, John, Brooklyn Monumental, Dillon c. Patuxent Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Balto. Wipfield, Adam, Harford rd. nr. Homestead 1886 Wood?s Baltimore City Directory, 1886 (Baltimore: Printed and Published by John W. Woods, 1886). Potteries, p. 1644 Bennett, Edwin, Manufacturers of White and Brownware, cor. Central and Canton avs. Chesapeake Pottery, Decatur and Nicholson Gifford, Hugh, 76 Ensor Gifford, Hugh of James, York rd. nr. Carrol av. Hamill, Brown and Co., President and Fawn Hartung, Charles, Frederick av. and Wilkens Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon and Patuxent Perine, M. and Sons, 713 w. Baltimore Wipfield, Adam, Harford rd. nr. Homestead 395 1887 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1887 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1887). Potteries, p. 1460 Bennett, Edwin, Canton av. c. Central av. Chesapeake Pottery, 323 W. Baltimore 347 Gifford, Hugh, 215 n. Patterson?pk av. Hamill, Brown and Co., 236 President Hartung, Chas., 301 Fdk av. ext. 275 Haynes, D. F. and Co., 1108 Decatur Leopold, L. and Co., props., Monumental Pottery, Dillon and Patuxent Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore 713 Wipfield, Adam, 282 Harford rd. 1888 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1888 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1888). Potteries, p. 1387 Bennett, Edwin, 1301 Canton av. Chesapeake Pottery Co., 1108 Decatur Devereux Art Pottery Co., 405 n. Howard Hartung, C., 301 Frederick rd. Herrmann, Albert P., 704 Ensor Leopold, L. and Co., Dillon and Patuxent Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Balto. Wipfield, Adam, 282 Harford rd. 1889 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1889 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1889). Potteries, p. 1450 Bennett, Edwin, 1301 Canton av. Chesapeake Pottery Co., Nicholson c. Decatur Hartung, Chas., 301 Fdk. rd. Herrmann, A. P., 704 Ensor Leopold, L. and Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Maryland Pottery Co., 236 President Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Balto. Wipfield Bros., 282 Harford rd. 396 1890 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1890 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1890). Potteries, p. 1423 Bennett, Edwin, 1301 Canton av. Hartung, Charles, 303 Fdk. rd. Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Balto. 1891 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1891 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1891). Potteries, p. 1478 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Balto. 1892 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1892 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1892). Potteries, p. 1441 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Balto. 1893 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1893 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1893). Potteries, p. 1667 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Maryland Pottery Co. of Balto. City, President and Fawn 1894 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1894 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Nichols, Killam, and Moffitt, 1894). Potteries, p. 1807 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Haynes, Bennett and Co., props. Chesapeake Pottery, Nicholson c. Decatur, L.P. Herrmann, Peter, Brooklyn, A.A. Co. Maryland Pottery Co., 236 and 238 President Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Patterson, Wm. L., Frederick av. c. Wilkens Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore Wipfield, Adam, 282 Harford rd. Wipfield, Jas., F., 266 Harford rd. 397 1895 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1895 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Evening News Publishing Co., 1895). Potteries, p. 1836 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Haynes, D. F. and Son, props. Chesapeake Pottery, Nicholson c. Decatur, L.P. Herrmann, Peter, Brooklyn, A.A. Co. Kalb, Geo. S. Catonsville Maryland Pottery Co. of Balto. City, 236 and 238 President Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Patterson, Wm. L., 301 Fdk. av. ext. Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore Wipfield, Adam, 282 Harford av. ext. Wipfield, Jas., F., 266 Harford av. ext. 1896 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1896 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Evening News Publishing Co., 1896). Potteries, p. 1994 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Haynes, D. F. and Son, props. Chesapeake Pottery, Nicholson c. Decatur, L.P. Herrmann, Peter, Brooklyn, A.A. Co. Kalb, Geo. S. Catonsville Maryland Pottery Co. of Baltimore City, 236 and 238 President Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Patterson, Wm. L., 301 Fdk. av. Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore Wipfield, Adam, 282 Harford rd. Wipfield, Jas., F., 266 Harford rd. 1897 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1897 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Evening News Publishing Co., 1897). Potteries, p. 2026 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Haynes, D. F. and Son, props. Chesapeake Pottery, Nicholson c. Decatur, L.P. Herrmann, Peter, Brooklyn, A.A. Co. Kalb, Geo. S. Catonsville Maryland Pottery Co. of Balto. City, 236 and 238 President Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Patterson, Wm. L., Fdk. av. c. Wilkens Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore Wipfield, Jas, F., 266 Harford rd. 398 1898 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1898 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Evening News Publishing Co., 1898). Potteries, p. 1982 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Haynes, D. F. and Son, props. Chesapeake Pottery, Nicholson c. Decatur, L.P. Kalb, Geo. S. Catonsville Maryland Pottery Co. of Balto. City, 236 and 238 President Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Patterson, Wm. L., 301 Fdk. av. ext. Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore Wipfield, Jas., F., 266 Harford rd. 1899 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1899 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Thomas and Evans, 1899). Potteries, p. 1893 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Haynes, D. F. and Son, props. Chesapeake Pottery, Nicholson c. Decatur, L.P. Maryland Pottery Co. of Balto. City, 238 President Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Patterson, Wm. L., 301 Fdk. av. c. Wilkens Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore Vodrey Pottery Co., 100 W. Fayette Wipfield, Jas., F., 266 Harford rd. ext. Wipfield, John G., 282 Harford rd. 1900 R. L. Polk and Co.?s Baltimore City Directory for 1900 (Baltimore: Compiled and arranged by B.R. Sheriff; Printed by Thomas and Evans, 1900). Potteries, p. 1861 Bennett, Edwin Pottery Co., 1301 Canton av. Haynes, D. F. and Son, props. Chesapeake Pottery, Nicholson c. Decatur, L.P. Maryland Pottery Co. 238 President Monumental Pottery Co., Dillon c. Patuxent Patterson, Wm. L., 301 Fdk. av. ext. Perine, M. and Sons, 1009 w. Baltimore Wipfield, Jas., F., 266 Harford av. ext. Wipfield, John G., 282 Harford av. 399 Bibliography Primary Sources Manuscript and Government -Anne Arundel County Probate Inventories, Maryland State Archives. -Baltimore City Directories, 19th Century, Maryland State Archives. -Baltimore City Ordinances, 19th Century, Enoch Pratt Free Library. -Baltimore County Orphans Court Proceedings, Maryland State Archives. -Baltimore County Deeds. -Baltimore Equitable Society Collection (MS3020), Maryland Historical Society. -Baltimore Passenger Lists, 19th Century, Baltimore City Archives. -Original Schedules of Censuses, 19th Century, National Archives, Washington D.C. -Pioneer Hook and Ladder Company (MS662), Maryland Historical Society. -Proceedings of the First Branch City Council, Baltimore City Archives. -Proceedings of the Second Branch City Council, Baltimore City Archives. -Perine Records (MS654), Maryland Historical Society. -Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Environmental Data Research, Inc. and Proquest. -The Crockery Journal. -The Crockery and Glass Journal. Newspapers -American and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore). -Baltimore Patriot and Mercantile Advertiser. -Baltimore Clipper. 400 -Baltimore Daily Repository (Baltimore). -Baltimore Gazette and Daily Advertiser. -Der Deutsche Correspondent (Baltimore). -Maryland Gazette (Annapolis). -Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser (Baltimore). -Maryland Journal and Baltimore Universal Daily Advertiser (Baltimore). -Niles Weekly Register (Baltimore). -Richmond Enquirer. -Sun (Baltimore). -Telegraph (Philadelphia). -Virginia Herald. Archaeological -Alexandria Archaeology, Alexandria, Virginia. -Pawley Stoneware Kiln Site (18BC88), Baltimore City. Artifact collection housed at Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum. -Maulden Perine Pottery Site (18BC20), Baltimore City. Artifact collection housed at Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum. -David Brown Jr. Kiln Site, Baltimore City. -Lost Towns Project Archaeological Collection, Anne Arundel County Archaeology Laboratory, Historic London Town and Gardens. -City Point, Virginia, Archaeological Collection, U.S. National Park Service. 401 Museum and Archival Special Collections -Baltimore City Archives, Baltimore, Maryland. -Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia. -Henry Ford Museum, Dearborn, Michigan. -Historic London Town and Gardens, Edgewater, Maryland. -Historic St. Mary?s City, St. Mary?s City, Maryland. -Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. -Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Maryland. -Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. -Peabody Library Collection of the Johns Hopkins University. -Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, State Museum of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. -Winterthur Museum, Newark, Delaware. Secondary Sources Ames, Kenneth L. Antiques, January 1989. Anderson, William A., editor. Baltimore Bottle Book: An Annotated List of Bottles from Baltimore City & Baltimore County 1820-1990. Baltimore: Baltimore Antique Bottle Club, 2002. Barber, Edwin A. The Pottery and Porcelain of the United States. New York: G. P. Putnam?s Sons, 1909. Barka, Norman F. ?Archaeology of a Colonial Pottery Factory: The Kilns and Ceramics of the ?Poor Potter of Yorktown? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004. 402 Barker, David. ?Creamware in Context? in Creamware and Pearlware Re-Examined, edited by Tom Walford and Roger Massey. Kent: English Ceramic Circle, 2007. Beaudry, Mary, et al. ?Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse? in Archaeology or Inequality, edited by Paynter and McGuire. Oxford, U.K. and Cambridge, Ma.: B. Blackwell, 1991. Beirne, D. Randall. ?Residential Growth and Stability in the Baltimore Industrial Community of Canton During the Late Nineteenth Century.? Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 74, No. 1, March 1979. Bernard, Richard M. ?A Portrait of Baltimore in 1800: Economic and Occupational Patterns in an Early American City.? Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 69, No. 4, Winter 1974. Blaszczyk, Regina Lee. ?Ceramics and the Sot-weed Factor: The China Market in a Tobacco Economy.? Winterthur Portfolio, Volume 19, Number 1, Spring 1984. Boydston, Jeanne. Home and Work: Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic. New York: Oxford Press, 1990. Burrison, John A. Brothers in Clay: The Story of Georgia Folk Pottery. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1982, 1995. ?Fluid Vessel: Journey of the Jug? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2006. Clayton, Ralph. The Effect of Immigration on the Negro in Baltimore 1850-1860. Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, Inc., 1987. Coldham, Peter Wilson. The Complete Book of Emigrants in Bondage, 1614-1775. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, Inc., 1988. Comstock, H.E. The Pottery of the Shenandoah Valley Region. Winston-Salem, N.C.: The Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts, 1994. Conzen, Kathleen Neils. Immigrant Milwaukee 1836-1860: Accommodation and Community in a Frontier City. Cambridge, Ma. and London: Harvard University Press, 1976. Creswick, Alice M. The Fruit Jar Works, Volume II. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Alice Creswick, 1987. 403 Cronon, William. Nature?s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: W.W. Norton, 1991. Cunz, Dieter. The Maryland Germans: A History. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1948. Deiss, Ronald William. The Development and Application of a Chronology for American Glass. Normal, Il.: Illinois State University/Midwestern Archaeological Research Center, 1981. Dickon, Chris. Chesapeake Bay Steamers. Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing, 2006. Ekirch, Roger A. Bound for America. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. FitzPatrick, Nancy R. ?The Chesapeake Pottery Company.? Maryland Historical Magazine, March, 1957. Fleming, E. McClung. ?Artifact Study: A Proposed Model.? Winterthur Portfolio 9, 1974, pp. 153-173. Gabaccia, Donna R. Immigration and American Diversity: A Social and Cultural History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002 Gaimster, David. German Stoneware 1200-1900: Archaeology and Cultural History. London: British Museum Press, 1997. Gates, Jr., William C. The City of Hills and Kilns: Life and Work in East Liverpool, Ohio. East Liverpool, Oh.: East Liverpool Historical Society, 1984. Glassie, Henry. ?Folk Art? in Material Culture Studies in America by Thomas J. Schlereth. Nashville, Tn.: American Association for State and Local History, 1982. Glenn, James. ?Brown Mugs and Jugs: A Personal Foray into the Field of Collecting? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2002. Goldberg, Arthur F. and Peter Warwick and Leslie Warwick. ?The Eighteenth- Century New Jersey Stoneware Potteries of Captain James Morgan and the Kemple Family? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Milwaukee, Wi.: Chipstone Foundation, 2008. Goldberg, Arthur F. and James P. Witkowski, ?Beneath His Magic Touch: The Dated Vessels of the African ?American Slave Potter Dave,? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2006. 404 Goldberg, David J. ?Charles Coxon: Nineteenth-Century Potter, Modeler-Designer and Manufacturer? New York: American Ceramic Circle, 1991. Goodby, Miranda. ?Our Home in the West?: Staffordshire Potters and Their Emigration to American in the 1840s? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2003. Gordan, Robert B. ?The Interpretation of Artifacts in the History of Technology,? in History from Things: Essays on Material, edited by Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1993. Green, Chris. John Dwight?s Fulham Pottery: Excavations 1971-79. London: English Heritage, 1999. Greenburg, Amy S. ?Volunteer Fire Companies and Community Formation in Baltimore, 1780-1859? in From Mobtown to Charm City: New Perspectives on Baltimore?s Past, edited by Jessica Elfenbein, John R. Breihan, and Thomas L. Hollowak. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 2002. Greer, Georgeanna. American Stonewares: The Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters. Exton, Pa.: Schiffer Publishing Co., 1981. Guilland, Harold F. Early American Folk Pottery. Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1971. Gundy, Barbara J. and Deborah Casselberry?s ?The Mansion Pottery? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005. Hake, Ted. Encyclopedia of Political Buttons: United States 1896-1972. New York: Dafran Publishers, 1974. Hildyard, Robin. Browne Muggs: English Stoneware by Robin Hildyard. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1985. Holland, Eugenia Calvert. Edwin Bennett and the Products of his Baltimore Pottery. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, Summer, 1973. Hunter, Robert and Marshall Goodman, ?The Destruction of the Benjamin DuVal Stoneware Manufactory, Richmond, Virginia? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005. Hurley, Andrew. ?Creating Ecological Wastelands: Oil Pollution in New York City, 1870-1900.? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 20 No. 3, May 1994, pp. 340-364. 405 Hurry, Silas D. Once the Metropolis of Maryland: The History and Archaeology of Maryland?s First Capital. St. Mary?s City, Md.: Historic St. Mary?s City Commission, 2001. Illustrated History of the Baltimore Federation Labor and its Affiliated Organizations (Baltimore: Baltimore Federation of Labor, 1900) Janowitz, Meta F. ?New York City Stonewares from the African Burial Ground? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Milwaukee, Wi.: Chipstone Foundation, 2008. Kee, Ed. Saving Our Harvest: The Story of the Mid-Atlantic Region?s Canning and Freezing Industry. Baltimore: CTI Publications, Inc, 2006. Kelly, J. Reaney. Quakers in the Founding of Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1963. Ketchum Jr., William C., American Stoneware. New York: Holt and Company, 1991. Keychel, Edward F., ?Master of the Art of Canning: Baltimore, 1860-1900.? Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 67, No.4, Winter, 1972. Kille, John E. ?Distinguishing Marks and Flowering Designs: Baltimore?s Utilitarian Stoneware Industry in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005. Kingery, W. David. ?Technological Systems and Some Implications with Regard to Continuity and Change? in History from Things: Essays on Material Culture, edited by Steven Lubar and W. David Kingery. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1993, pp. 215-230. Korr, Jeremy. ?A Proposed Model for Cultural Landscape Study.? Material Culture (Fall 1997). Koterski, James R. Early Potters and Potteries of Delaware: Historical and Commercial Perspectives 1760-1890. Wilmington, De.: Cedar Tree Books, 2005. Laurie, Bruce. The Working People of Philadelphia, 1800-1850. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980. Artisans into Workers: Labor in 19th Century America. New York: Hill and Wang, 1989. Levine, Bruce. The Spirit of 1848: German Immigrants, Labor Conflict, and the Coming of the Civil War. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992. 406 Lewis, Peirce. New Orleans: The Making of an Urban Landscape. Cambridge, Ma.: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1976. Lewis, Robert. ?The Changing Fortunes of American Central-City Manufacturing, 1870-1950.? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 28, No. 5, July 2002, pp. 573-598. Livingood, James Weston. The Philadelphia-Baltimore Trade Rivalry 1780-1860. New York: Arno Press and New York Times, 1970. Lockett, Terry. ?Pearlware: Origins and Early Types? in Creamware and Pearlware Re-Examined, edited by Tom Walford and Roger Massey. Kent: English Ceramic Circle, 2007. Luckenbach, Al. ?The Swan Cove Kiln: Chesapeake Tobacco Pipe Production, Circa 1650-1669? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004. Lukacs, George H. ?A Pot of Butter for the Victims,? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005. Poughkeepsie Potters and the Plague. Columbia, S.C.: Arcadia, 2001. Magid, Barbara H. ?An Archaeological Perspective on Alexandria?s Pottery Tradition.? Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts 21, no. 2, 1995. Maryland Geological Survey, Vol. 4. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1902. Maryland: Its Resources, Industries, and Institutions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1893. Massey, Roger. ?Understanding Creamware? in Creamware and Pearlware Re- Examined, edited by Tom Walford and Roger Massey. Kent: English Ceramic Circle, 2007. McAllister, Lisa S. and John L. Michel, Collecting Yellow Ware: An Identification and Value Guide. Paducah, Ky.: Collector Books, 1995. McKendrick, Neil, John Brewer, and J.H. Plumb. The Birth of a Consumer Society: The Commercialization of Eighteenth-Century England. Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1985. Miller, George L. ?George M. Coates, Pottery Merchant of Philadelphia, 1817-1831.? Winterthur Portfolio, 19 (1) (1984). 407 ?Marketing Ceramics in North America: An Introduction.? Winterthur Portfolio 19 (1) (1984). Miller, George L. and Amy C. Earls. ?War and Pots: The Impact of Economics and Politics on Ceramic Consumption Patterns? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Milwaukee, Wi.: Chipstone Foundation, 2008. Miller, George L., with contributions by Patricia Samford, Ellen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen. ?Telling Time for Archaeologists.? Northeast Historical Archaeology, Vol. 29, 2000. Miller, Matthew. Decorated Stoneware of Cowden: And the Stoneware Potteries of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1852-1924. Shermans Dale, Pa: Matthew Miller, 2001. Mullins, Paul R. ?Negotiating Industrial Capitalism: Mechanisms of Change among Agrarian Potters? in Historical Archaeology and the Study of American Culture, edited by Lu Ann De Cunzo and Bernard Herman. Winterthur, Delaware: Henry Francis Dupont Museum, 1996. Mumford, Willard R., Strawberries, Peas, and Beans: Truck Farming in Anne Arundel County. Linthicum, Md.: Ann Arrundell County Historical Society, 2000. Myers, Susan H. ?Aesthetic Aspirations: Baltimore Potters and the Art Craze? New York: American Ceramic Circle, 1992. ?The Business of Potting,? in The Craftsman in Early America, edited by Ian M.G. Quimby. New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1984, pp. 190-233. Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Ceramics in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1980. ?Marketing American Pottery: Maulden Perine in Baltimore.? Winterthur Portfolio 19, no. 1 (spring 1984). Nash, Gary B. ?The Social Evolution of Preindustrial American Cities, 1700-1820,? in The Making of Urban America, edited by Raymond A. Mohl. Wilmington, De.: Scholarly Resources Books, 1992. Olson, Sherry H. Baltimore: The Building of an American City. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Press, 1997. Pearce, John N. The Early Baltimore Potters and Their Wares, 1763-1850. Master?s thesis, University of Delaware, 1959. 408 Racine, Laurel Ann. Re-Examination After Excavation: The Problems of Attributing Wares to Three New Jersey Stoneware Potteries. Master?s thesis, University of Delaware, 1997. Rodman, Margaret. ?Empowering Place: Multilocality and Multivocality.? American Anthropologist 94, 1992. Rukert, Norman G. Federal Hill: A Baltimore National Historic District. Baltimore: Bodine and Associates, 1980. Ruge, John G., ?The Canning Industry in The South? in A Souvenir of the 7th Annual of Canners and Allied Associations, edited by Arthur F. Judge. Baltimore: The Canning Trade, ca. 1914. Sanders, Suzanne L. and Martha R. Williams, Archaeological Mitigation of the J.S. Berry Brick Mill (18BC89) and Pawley Stoneware Kiln (18BC88), at the Proposed Ravens Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland. Frederick, Md.: R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, February 1998. Schaltenbrand, Phil. Big Ware Turners: The History and Manufacture of Pennsylvania Stoneware 1720-1920. Bentleyville, Pa.: Westerwald Publishing, 2002. Scharf, J. Thomas. History of Baltimore City and County, With a New Introduction by Edward G. Howard, Vol. I. Baltimore: Regional Publishing Company, 1971. Schlereth, Thomas J. ?Past Cityscapes: Uses of Cartography in Urban History? in Artifacts and the American Past. Walnut Creek, Ca.: AltaMira Press, 1996, pp. 66- 86. Schwind, Arlene Palmer. ?Pennsylvania German Earthenware? in Arts of the Pennsylvania Germans, edited by Scott T. Swank. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1983. Shackel, Paul A. Culture Change and the New Technology: An Archaeology of the Early American Industrial Era. New York: Plenum Press, 1996. Shepard, Sue. Pickled, Potted, and Canned: How the Art and Science of Food Preserving Changed the World. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Sies, Mary Corbin. ?North American Suburbs, 1880-1950: Cultural and Social Reconsiderations.? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 27 No. 3, March 2001, 313-346. Steffen, Charles G. ?Changes in the Organization of Artisan Production in Baltimore, 1790-1820.? The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, January 1979, p. 106. 409 Stern, Marc. The Pottery Industry of Trenton, a Skilled Trade in Transition, 1850- 1929. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1994. Stickle, Douglas F. ?Death and Class in Baltimore: The Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1800.? Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 74, No. 3, September 1979. Stradling, Diana and J. Garrison, ?American Queensware?The Louisville Experience, 1829-1837? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2001. Strasser, Susan. Never Done: The History of American Housework. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982. Sutton, William R., Journeymen for Jesus: Evangelical Artisans Confront Capitalism in Jacksonian Baltimore. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. Tarr, Joel A. ?The Metabolism of the Industrial City: The Case of Pittsburgh.? Journal of Urban History, Vol. 28, No. 5, July 2000, pp. 511-545. Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Vintage Books, 1966. Veit, Richard and Judson M. Kratzer?s ?Rediscovering the New Brunswick Stoneware Pottery, ca. 1862-1901? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2005. Vlach, John Michael The Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press, 1990. ?International Encounters at the Crossroads of Clay: European, Asian, and African Influences on Edgefield Pottery? in Crossroads of Clay: The Southern Alkaline- Glazed Stoneware Tradition, edited by Catherine Wilson Horne. Columbia, S.C.: McKissick Museum, University of South Carolina, 1990. Warner, Sam Bass. The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968. Watkins, Lura Woodside. Early New England Potters and Their Wares 1950. Hamden, Ct.: Archon Books, 1968. Wetherill, Lorna. Consumer Behavior and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760. London: Routledge and Paul, 1988. 410 Whitman, T. Stephen. ?Manumission and Apprenticeship in Maryland, 1770-1870.? Maryland Historical Magazine (spring 2006). Wilder, Eddie L. Alexandria, Virginia Pottery, 1792-1876. Marceline, Mo.: Walsworth Publishing Company, 2007. Wilentz, Sean. Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1789-1850. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Wright, Carroll D. The History and Growth of the United State Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1900. Zipp, Luke. ?Henry Remmey & Son, Late of New York: A Rediscovery of a Master Potter?s Lost Years? in Ceramics in America, edited by Robert Hunter. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 2004. Zug III, Charles G. Turners and Burners: The Folk Potters of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986.