Notes on John Bartlam

            “You will expect, Madam, I should say something of the part of the world I am now fixt in. ‘Tis South Carolina, a large and plentiful province.  Charles Town, its metropolis is a gentile, agreeable place, and its inhabitants are a polite set of people.” 

Eliza Lucas, June 30^th, 1742[1]

            In the heart of the South Carolina low country stood Charleston - the economic epicenter of the southern colonies during the 1760s.  Established a century earlier, Charleston was the core of southern commerce, hosting ships from Europe, the West Indies and the northern colonies as they brought their cargoes to be dispersed to colonial agents (or “factors”) or sent onward to other trade centers.  By the 1760s, Charleston was one of the most affluent cities in the American colonies, capturing seven times the per capita wealth of Boston, and eight times the income of New York.[2]  Many residents could well afford the broad range of goods imported for resale in the Charleston shops.  Colonial merchants like Henry Laurens and John Guerard held economic ties that allowed wholesale purchase of finished products, minimizing the cost to the consumer and facilitating their own commercial ventures.[3]  As a result, a wide range of material goods, including ceramic wares, was distributed in eighteenth-century Charleston, as evidenced by the documentary and archaeological evidence. 

------------------

Charleston, 1760.  In the decades prior to the American Revolution, imported ceramics, especially British pottery, enjoyed a brisk market in the American colonies. Ceramics manufacturing in Europe was undergoing tremendous change as production methods shifted from cottage industry to “manufactories.” The development of refined earthenwares introduced a sophistication to locally-made British pottery which promoted its acceptance by the upper classes. British tablewares and tea sets became more complex as part of the social ritual and fine dining which became the hallmark of those in “respectable” society. England’s potters began producing a new line of refined earthenwares and stonewares. They created botanically shaped teapots with brilliant glazes in green and yellow. Cream-colored tablewares arrived by the crate. Sophisticated tea sets could be purchased in white stoneware or refined earthenwares glazed in black and gold. Customers eagerly watched as new glazes and styles emerged, and as colonial purchasing power increased, consumer demand helped to influence what was sold at auction, what was displayed in shops, and what sat untouched in darkened warehouses and on colonial wharves.

In the midst of this market, potter John Bartlam envisioned a profitable venture in ceramics manufacturing in the South Carolina Low Country. Encouraged by reports of good clay and a ready client base, Bartlam went to Charleston sometime around 1763. In September 1765, an advertisement in the South Carolina Gazette announced the establishment of his potworks near Charleston:

We are informed, that a gentlemen, lately from England, who has lately set up a pottery about 9 miles from this, has met with so good Clay for his purpose, that he scarce doubts of his ware’s exceeding that of Delft: He proposes to make every kind of earthenware that is usually imported from England, and as it will be sold cheaper, he cannot fail to meet with encouragement. [1]

John Bartlam had been working in the potteries for roughly twelve years before immigrating to Charleston (Rauschenberg 1991: 2-11). His pottery manufactory was located in St. Thomas Parish at a settlement known in the eighteenth century as "Cain Hoy," on the north bank of the Wando River, north of Charleston. The Cainhoy district had a reputation for good clay sources, and had a well-established the brick-making industry. At least 5 brick yards were in existence by the 1760s. The availability of local resources, as well as the supply of bricks needed for the pottery ovens made Cainhoy and its surroundings an excellent choice for the potworks.  Samples taken during the excavations at Cainhoy produced a clay which was adequate for potting. 

Bartlam began production by 1765, as evidenced by advertisements in the SC Gazette.  In May 1768 he mortgaged his factory to further finance the undertaking, and within a year advertised for young African Americans to work as apprentices in the new business.  

Bartlam eventually left Cainhoy to work in Charleston. By 1771 he had established a china manufactory, said to be located in Old Church Street in Charleston (S.C. Gazetteer, September 21-28, 1765; S.C. Archives, Mortgages, 3A, p.343; S.C. Gazette and Country Journal, June 6, 1769; S. C. Gazetteer, January 31, 1771 Supplement; Rauschenberg 1991:13).  The Charleston factory had a short tenure. Based on advertisements in the South Carolina Gazette, we know that by 1774 Bartlam had moved his pottery manufactory to Camden. His new Queen's Ware was said to be "equal in quality and appearance, and can be afforded as cheap, as any imported from England" (S.C. Gazette, April 11, 1774). John Bartlam died in 1781 and his property in Camden was seized and sold for debts in 1788 (S.C. Archives, Wills and Inventories; Kershaw County Deeds, B-132).

The full impact of Bartlam’s potworks on the colonial ceramics trade is still unknown, as Bartlam’s kiln has not been found. But archaeological excavations by Stanley South at Cainhoy, South Carolina (38BK1349) revealed ceramic artifacts which were consistent with pottery manufacturing sites of that period.

In his analysis of the 1992 Cainhoy excavations, Dr. South discussed over 80 distinct pottery types found on the site, including several types possibly made by Bartlam. Several of the wares thought to be made by Bartlam so closely mirror the imported wares that a distinction can scarcely be made. Excavations conducted in 1993 on the same location (38BK1349A) provided clearer evidence of Bartlam’s success as a potter, but the number of wares attributable to the potter was still unclear. That second archaeological season revealed nearly 17,000 ceramic sherds, including a number of types not previously found on eighteenth century sites near Charleston. The later excavation challenged the conclusions reached in Dr. South’s 1993 analysis by more clearly defining the parameters which could be used to identify Bartlam’s production on the site. Subsequent research, including analysis of ceramics imported into Charleston, and the accompanying production dates, has added historical and art historical information which can be used to separate the wares being made locally by Bartlam from those which were being imported from England and continental Europe.

Finding John Bartlam

The initial analysis of ceramic assemblages from John Bartlam’s site at Cainhoy, SC resulted in the attribution of nearly 40 ceramic types to the potter. South based his discussion on the existence of three major types of evidence: the existence of bisque sherds, the presence of kiln waster materials, and his discovery of unique pottery types possibly made from local materials.

            It was presumed that the existence of bisque sherds on the site was an indicator of local pottery manufacture, rather than the result of a deliberate attempt to bring fragile bisque wares into the colonies for their unlikely resale. Bisque ware comes from the intermediate stage of pottery manufacture: it consists of a porous, semi-hard clay body which is stable enough for decoration and glazing, but probably too fragile for shipping (and essentially useless on the retail market). Bisque wares found at Cainhoy fell into two major categories: incised or plain bisque sherds with underglaze, and molded or plain unglazed sherds. Those with colored underglazes could be found either incised or plain, with colored underglazes of copper, lead, or manganese.

The second criteria for Bartlam wares was the presence of kiln wasters at the Cainhoy site.  Archaeological excavations at Cainhoy presented a fair number of kiln waster sherds, which were originally assumed to be a result of Bartlam’s potting activities at Cainhoy. Kiln wasters, the results of the manufacturing process gone awry, appear as fired bisque pieces which have collapsed or fused in the kiln, glazed pieces which were underfired or underglazed, or glazed wares which were damaged in some way – fusing in the kiln, dirt or clay intrusions, overfiring or bubbling of the glaze, etc.  Until very recently, the presence of kiln wasters would have indicated a local pottery manufactory.  But archaeological and historical research has revealed that kiln wasters, as well as manufacturing “seconds,” and even thirds have been found in excavated sites in England and along the Atlantic seaboard.

 Examples of poor quality stonewares, slipwares and redwares exist in archaeological samplings from eastern coast of the United States and Canada. Seconds of yellow wares and blue salt-glazed stoneware ("Littler's Blue") have been identified in excavations at Cainhoy (South 1993: 74-75), while stoneware seconds are seen in the archaeological collections at the Charleston Museum. According to historian John Thomas, English merchants were requesting firsts and seconds of creamware for sale as the demand for the wares exceed market production capabilities (Thomas 1971: 108). Published fixed price schedules from the last half of the eighteenth century show wares separated into four categories: Best or firsts, seconds, “worser” or thirds, and “a degree worser” (Thomas 1971: 108).  While some of the wasters found at Cainhoy may have been Bartlam’s throw-offs, it is also possible that like the inferior wares excavated at other sites, they may have been sent to the colonial market as a means of broadening the purchasing power of the “middling” classes (Thomas 1971:107). There is some evidence that English potters and merchants may have sent seconds to the colonies deliberately, in light of comments about the indiscriminate character of the American buyers (Thomas 1971:107).

            The third criteria for attribution to the local potter was the existence of unique pottery types possibly made from local materials: (A) blue and white high fired teacups and saucers, similar to the hardness and whiteness of porcelain vessels being made in England (b) red-to-pink bodied barley-design molded earthenware with green underglaze and clear or green-colored lead overglaze (c) pineapple or cauliflower shaped wares unlike those found at other Staffordshire pottery sites (with accompanying bisque or kiln waster data), (d) a unique type of cream-colored ware with a pale yellow glaze and buff-colored body, and (e) tortoiseshell bowls with friable, thick kaolin bodies which craze easily and shed glaze after chipping or cracking (similar to tin-glazed wares).

 The original excavations at Cainhoy pointed to the possibility of local pottery manufacture: bisque sherds, kiln furniture, and kiln wasters were strong indicators of the existence of a local potter.  However, when the archaeological samples from the 1993 season were examined, it became apparent that the old ways of evaluating ceramic types would be inappropriate for a site of this magnitude.

 A problem of typology exists for any site where the sensitive articulation of ware types is critical to the identification of a new type, or where subtle changes in technique may substantiate the case for a new craftsman.  At most North American archaeological sites of the pre-revolutionary period, ceramic artifacts are broadly (and sometimes creatively) lumped into categories which serve to roughly calculate the date and/or status of a site.  Unfortunately, the end result is that ceramic types are not comparable across sites, and unique wares are lost in the "unidentified" category.  While this system is not ideal, it is expedient, and serves the general needs of the profession. 

In the case of Cainhoy, another typology was necessary - one which teased out the subtle differences in ceramic types.  What follows is a description of the method used to identify those wares which John Bartlam may have made, from those wares which were more than likely imported to Charleston.  The differences are subtle, but the results are quite useful.

Methodology

The analysis of ceramic artifacts from CainHoy was completed in three stages.  In the field, ceramics were collected by provenience and separated into two types:  Colono/ Native American wares and European-type wares.  Once in the lab, the European-type wares were identified by broad categories, as defined in the first season’s analysis.  Additional ware types were identified in the second season. 

Reanalysis began in Fall of 2001 and consisted of re-examination of the assumed types, and a scrutiny of those ware types which had large components of both imported ceramics and those which could have been made locally.  Of the various ceramics groups, a discreet analysis was made of cream-colored earthenwares, including green glazed, tortoiseshell, and “creamware” types.  As a result, the number of types thought to be made locally changed, with some types shifting to the “non-Bartlam” category, and others being split out into subgroups, specifically, tortoiseshell wares and creamwares (Table 2).  Once this third step was completed, a technological change could be identified, and other locally-made wares could be grouped accordingly (Table 3).  Thus a combination of standard typology and discreet articulation of types within groups made it possible to see a completely new dynamic within the ceramic collections from Cain Hoy, and brought us closer to identification of the Cainhoy wares.

After careful analysis, several things became evident.  First, the Cainhoy potter, presumably John Bartlam, had a distinctive potting style - a certain “signature” which he left on every piece of pottery.  While the glaze or body composition might vary from piece to piece, the form and technique used were consistent.  Teabowls and cups were delicately turned and had a unique footring.  Both eathenware and porcelain cups were thin walled but strong.  Saucers were deep with steeply-rising edges.  The base of each turned piece showed unique wheel-turning grooves which were unlike those of English imports.  And without exception, the Cainhoy wares were turned, not slip-cast.  Designs were those which could be lifted from other pieces or which could be carved easily by hand - rouletting, barley design, pineapple design.  Plates were molded into flat plate molds, and the tea caddy appeared to be slab-molded then pieces together.  While slip casting had been imported from Paris in the 1740s, it is evident that the Cainhoy potter did not gain the knowledge of deflocculants or Plaster of Paris molds before he left for his colonial enterprise.

Clay technology

            Analysis of the locally-made ceramic types from Cainhoy reveals another surprise.  The potter appears to have been experimenting heavily with local clays.  It is not clear whether this experimentation reveals a lack of expertise about clay mixtures, but it is evident that it took several tries before the final product was reached.  The pottery appears in three distinct phases: one body type is almost pure kaolin.  The second type is heavy with grog and very tough to work.  The third and final phase is a delicate balance of kaolin, feldspar, silica, and other elements which make for a light but patent bisque body.

The quality of earthenwares found at Cainhoy would require more than just the coarse clays used in brickmaking.  While soil surveys reveal clayey soils around the Cainhoy area, Bartlam would have been looking for clays with about 25% feldspar content and 25% silica to ensure the consistency he needed.  Too much kaolin, and the clay would be too fragile to work as greenware, and too brittle in biscuit form.  Too little kaolin, or too much grog, and the body would be tough - clumpy and hard to work with. 

---

[1] Elise Pinckney, The Letterbook of Eliza Lucas Pinckney (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), 44.

[2] Walter Edgar, The History of South Carolina  (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 161.

[3] Martha Zierden, “A Trans-Atlantic Merchant's House in Charleston: Archaeological Exploration of Refinement and Subsistence in an Urban Setting,” Historical Archaeology 33 (Fall 1999):77.

[4] South Carolina Gazette