BROMLEY'S COVINGTON POTTERY: A STUDY IN MID-19TH CENTURY ...

BROMLEY'S COVINGTON POTTERY: A STUDY
IN MID-19TH CENTURY UTILITARIAN WARE PRODUCTION

Robert A. Genheimer

William Bromley, an experienced potter who left Stoke-upon-Trent, England, in the early 1840s, operated a yellow
ware pottery in Cincinnati, Ohio from 1842 to 1863 and a similar pottery along the riverfront in Covington,
Kentucky from ca. 1859 to 1864. Excavations by the author at Covington' s Riverfront Redevelopment Site in
1986 uncovered the remains of Bromley's Covington operation, including a pair of side-by-side, brick, updraft
bottle kilns. Materials recovered in the vicinity of the kilns, nearby waster deposits, and the company privy
revealed that a variety of utilitarian wares, including both kitchen and sanitary wares, were produced. Annular
banded mocha wares and Rockingham glazed wares were represented. Considerable evidence indicated that while
Bromley was manufacturing meagerly decorated wares at Covington, more decorative and embossed wares were
being produced at his Cincinnati pottery. It is hypothesized that Bromley' s establishment of the Covington kilns
was based in part at least upon economic factors: the sharing of resources with the Hemingray Glass Company; the
proximity of the Ohio River; and the access to northern Kentucky markets.

From April to October 1986, R. G. Archaeological earnest with the establishment of the cotton factory in 1828
Services conducted archaeological testing and final and dominated the riverfront until the mid- l 890s. A period
mitigation excavations at Covington's 19th Century of industrial decline followed; Ohio river flooding, several
Riverfront District in Covington, Kentucky. Situated on devastating fires, and a lessening of the importance of the
the left bank of the Ohio River opposite the city of river as a commercial corridor were all contributing
Cincinnati and immediately downstream from the factors. Throughout much of this century only light
Roehling Suspension Bridge, the District contained a industries and commercial enterprises remained viable. At
variety of industrial and commercial/residential the initiation of archaeological investigations, the majority
components. The three block project area was slated for a of properties either lay dormant or had been cleared.
hotel/office complex development.
During the testing phase, a series of backhoe trenches
Historically, the area developed as an industrial and hand-excavated test units were placed to document the
corridor during the second quarter of the l91h century, but existence of any subgrade resources associated with the
by the end of the Civil War commercial/residential industrial and commercial/residential utilization of the
properties had been added. Industry included a cotton riverfront. Trenching revealed that substantial portions of
factory (1828-ca. 1860), a rolling mill (1831-ca. 1880), a the Hemingray Glass Company factory and minor portions
yellow ware pottery (1859-ca. 1864), a glass factory (1853- of the Covington Rolling Mill were present beneath an
ca. 1893), an ice factory (1884-ca. 1960), and a distillery asphalt and concrete cover. Of particular interest, the
(ca. 1868-ca. 1893). By 1830, Covington was a fledgling western two-thirds of the project area exhibited
community poised to take full advantage of its position considerable historic fill deposition. It was hypothesized
along the Ohio River and its immediate proximity to the that these fill deposits, which often exceeded 4.0 m (13.1
much larger town of Cincinnati. The "Queen City of the ft) in depth at the site of the glass factory, were the result
West", as Cincinnati was called, was one of the largest and of a protracted "raise-to-grade" policy. During final
fastest growing cities in the nation in the mid-19th century. mitigation operations, a total of 26 archaeological features
Indeed, in 1850 Cincinnati was the fifth largest city in the were either partially or completely excavated. Excavated
United States and ranked third in manufacturing (Gordon features included eight privy vaults, four cisterns, a storm
and Tuttle 1981:4), a significant feat for an inland city. drain/cistern complex, glass factory ovens, and a pair of
Covington, and in particular its riverfront, provided readily brick pottery kilns (cf Figure 1). The latter were
available land for industrial, commercial, and residential constructed by William Bromley as early as 1859 and form
development - much of which would provide needed goods, the focus of this report.
services, and housing to the greater metropolis across the
Ohio River. Industrial development began in HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Beginning in the mid-1830s, a flood of British
Robert A. Genheimer R G. Archaeological Services, immigrants, including many highly skilled potters from the
Covington, Kentucky.

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology 6(1988):55-64 55

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

D

'WJ/P2...c.,. ,ec:n:t·::::: ·~
..~.-:!
-...........:
= .. ; .,.__

?:z: = ·::::mE:c:a c .·.

.. ...·...c •·•

ru:::. ••••

..,.: .

.n n -....-.
. ;;;
-(!!:

!-
l!J
lll

1r'

OJ

az

0u

lll
r.a

I"'

!ll
lll
3

FIGURE 1. HEMINGRAY GLASS FACTORY (BLOCK C): PLAN YJEW.
LETTERS DESIGNATE WALL SEGMENTS.

56

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

Stafordshire district of west-central England, entered the Census 1850). He later became the superintendent of the
United States. Their numbers can be at least partly Rookwood Pottery, the world famous art pottery in
attributed to labor unrest within the district during the Cincinnati. By 1860, the Brighton Pottery was advertised
1830s and early 1840s (Gates 1984:34). Eager to find with William Bromley & Son as proprietors (Williams
employment in potteries or set up shops of their own, they 1860).
settled in the eastern United States, but principally in areas
with established ceramic industries and abundant clay William Bromley, in a warranty deed, received title to
sources. Jn the Ohio Valley, the potters settled along the much of his Covington property in November 1859 (Deed
Ohio River, most notably at East Liverpool near the Book 23, page 571). Eventually he acquired a rectangular
Pennsylvania border. Others opened potteries in Cincinnati parcel measuring 109 ft (33.2 m) by 125 ft (38.l m), or
and adjacent areas, and between l 840 and 1850 the roughly 0.3 acre (1266 sq. m). It is not unreasonable to
number of potteries in Ohio increased by 30% (Gates suggest that Bromley constructed the Covington Pottery
1984:33, 37; Stout 1923:14; Ramsay 1939:73). shortly after acquiring the property in 1859. The 1861
Cincinnati directory, which contained a Covington section,
Although Cincinnati and surrounding areas never listed William Bromley, Covington Pottery, at the
approached the boom experienced in East Liverpool, the northwest comer of Second and Madison; Bromley's
growth was noticeable. Directory data indicate that while residence was listed as Cincinnati (Williams 1861 ).
only four potteries were operating in 1853 (Williams Bromley was also listed in the Cincinnati section of the
1853), as many as 12 were present by 1871 (Williams same directory as the operator of the Brighton Pottery.
1871). This upswing in pottery production is closely tied to Unfortunately, the next Covington directory was not
the peak period of yellow ware production in Ohio and the published until 1866; neither Bromley nor the Covington
eastern United States. Cincinnati played a critical role in Pottery appeared in that volume (Williams 1866). In fact,
that manufacture, and indeed, Stout (1923:19) reported William Bromley did not appear in any Cincinnati
that "... for many years, Cincinnati was widely known as directory after 1866 (ibid. 1867-1871).
one of the centers in this state for Rockingham and yellow
ware". Only a relatively few potteries were based in Bromley's Covington operation was well described in
Covington, Kentucky; prior to the late 19th century only the 1860 Manufacturing Schedule of the U. S. Census.
two potteries were listed. Cornwall Kirkpatrick operated a The schedule reported that Bromley was manufacturing
yellow ware pottery as early as 1842, and William Bromley domestic queensware (yellow ware), some items in large
established his Covington Pottery as early as 1859. quantities. Listed were 2,500 dozen pitchers, 3,000 dozen
bowls, and 1,000 dozen fruit jars. Bromley had invested
Barber (1893:273) indicated that William Bromley $5,000 capital in the pottery, and had receipts of$7,800 for
came to Cincinnati about 1842, although his absence from 1860. Three hundred tons of clay valued at $750, and
both the Cist (1843) and Robinson and Jones (1846) 10,000 bushels of stove coal worth $1,000 were consumed.
Cincinnati directories suggested he may have worked Surprisingly, all I 0 employees were males; $300 average
elsewhere, perhaps at East Liverpool, before arriving in monthly wages were paid. Although William Bromley did
Cincinnati. William and Thomas Bromley first appeared not appear in the 1860 census (U. S. Census, Population
in the Williams 1849 Cincinnati directory. Both were Schedule) for either Hamilton County, Ohio, or Kenton
listed as potters; William was designated as the operator of County, Kentucky, many of his workers appeared in the
the Brighton Pottery at the southwest comer of Hamilton latter. Five potters, all born in England, were listed,
Road and Freeman Avenue in Cincinnati. Additional including Joseph Bailey, his partner of 1857. Barber
evidence from Stout (1923:20), however, indicated that the (1893:292) indicated that Bailey was the uncle of Taylor
firms of Hamlet Greatbatch, and Skinner Greatbatch and Booth of Ward and Booth, England. Abraham Booth, one
Company ran the pottery as late as 1856. Stout's of Bromley's potters listed in the 1860 census of Kenton
contention is substantiated by the fact that William County, was almost certainly a relative of Joseph Bailey.
continued to be listed as a simple potter until 1858, when
he was again listed as operating the Brighton Pottery Although a precise explanation for the demise of
(Williams 1858). The 1850 U. S. Census for Hamilton Bromley's potteries has not been determined, poor health is
County, Ohio, indicated that 40 year old William Bromley a distinct possibility. City directory data suggested that
lived with his wife Susannah and his four children at the William Bromley had ceased operation of at least his
site of the Brighton Pottery, suggesting that he was one of Brighton Pottery subsequent to the 1863 listing. His
the skilled workers. In 1857, Bromley and Joseph Bailey absence from further directories also strongly suggested
appear to have jointly operated the Brighton Works that he was no longer residing in Cincinnati. Courthouse
(Williams 1857). Bailey, a 30 year old potter from
Tunstall, Staffordshire, England, emigrated to the United data indicated that William Bromley, or his wife, began to
States in 1848 (Barber 1893:292-293; Stout 1923:91; U.S. sell their Covington property to the Hemingray Glass

Company as early as 1864. Earlier that year Susannah

57

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

Bromley had legally acquired the remaining parcel of their had been removed. The brick structure was approximately
Covington holdings, but in so doing she relinquished her 5.65 min diameter; a wood-bottomed, brick-covered trench
dower rights to"... certain property situated on Freeman which circumscribed the kiln would have approximated
Street, Cincinnati. . .",the location of the Brighton Pottery 7.75 m in diameter. The partial arc of brick encountered
(Deed Book 8, Page 187). With their Covington property in Test Unit A was a segment of this outer ch11nnel. A
unified, the Bromleys sold all parcels to the glass works in maximum of 11 courses (vertical) of brick were noted
March 1865 for approximately $10,000. Perhaps the most within the remains of the kiln base. Unfortunately, the
interesting aspect of the final 1865 deed was a brief kiln had been substantially disturbed by both utility
description of the property, which stated ".. .is erected a placement and construction of the walls of the glass
small brick house and the same in which my husband, factory. A Hemingray limestone foundation wall and
William Bromley, myself now reside" (Deed Book 9, Page associated builder's trench had effectively destroyed the
231 ). Although William Bromley was certainly still living eastern half of the kiln.
in 1865, his absence as executor on property deeds
suggested that he may have been ill or incapacitated. In In cross-section, it could be seen that the kiln (Feature
any event, it is clear that by 1864 the Bromleys were 87) had been constructed on a floor of iron slag and sagger
actively liquidating their real estate interests in both fragments (Figure 3). The iron slag undoubtedly
Cincinnati and Covington. By 1868, the Cincinnati originated from the rolling mill complex immediately to
directory again included the Bromley family in Cincinnati the east. A prepared floor of sand had been placed above
(Williams 1868). Susannah was listed as a widow. the slag, and the fire-brick floor was then laid. As a
consequence of the intense heat of the kiln chamber and
EXCAVATIONS disturbances associated with its demolition, the kiln floor
was reduced to a dense mass of compact brick powder.
Evidence of the Covington Pottery was first obtained Portions of four fireboxes (eyes) remained. Each was pie
during test excavations at the sites of the Hemingray Glass shaped; their floors sloped towards the center of the kiln.
Company and the Covington Rolling Mill. Although no Each of the boxes was lined with fire brick and a vitreous
structural remains of either the kilns or associated coating of spent fuel covered their interiors. Although ash
buildings were encountered, both product and deposits were noted along the exterior of the kiln, no ash
manufacturing elements were noted and recovered. Three deposits were identified at the distal end of the fireboxes
test trenches within the documented site of the pottery (cf. Barka 1973:294-296; Fryman 1983:97). Two brick
produced ceramic debris, although all trench profiles walls circled the kiln-the exterior wall likely formed the
clearly indicated impact by subsequent construction of the chamber of the kiln. The interior, or bag wall (cf Fryman
Hemingray facilities (Genheimer 1987:134-147). 1983 :97; Home 1952: 171), was against the rear of the
Quantities of unglazed and undecorated, annular and fireboxes. Where the firebox entered the bag wall, the
dendrite decorated, and Rockingham glazed yellow ware opening was arched. Single springers, or skewback bricks,
sherds were identified. In addition, fragments of sagger were present on each side of the fireboxes. With the
crocks, and stilt and spur kiln props were recovered. In exception of the fireboxes and several isolated sections of
two test trenches, lenses of fine, white potters clay were wall, all brick was of common, porous red clay.
located.
Feature 88, also a brick-lined updraft bottle kiln, was
During final mitigation, the concrete cover above the recorded only 3.4 m to the east. The two kilns had been
glass factory was removed and a 2.0 m x 2.0 m test unit, truncated by the broad Hemingray foundation wall, so their
Test Unit A, was opened within a documented area of association was at best poorly defined. An extrapolation of
ceramic waster deposits. Sagger fragments, sagger wads, their margins, however, indicated that the two kilns would
kiln props, yellow ware sherds, industrial glass, and fire have been adjacent to each other, if not abutting. The
brick were identified. Of particular note was a partial exterior walls of Feature 88 averaged l.50 m in width, and
brick feature recorded at the base of the unit. Feature 87 an approximately 6.0 m arc of the exterior walls extended
consisted of a shallow trench and partial arc of 10 laid fire in a NE-SW direction (Figure 4). It was calculated that the
bricks. A large area to the north was painstakingly highly disturbed kiln would have been between 5.6-6.6 m
removed by hand and backhoe to expose the remainder of in diameter. Feature 88 was constructed in the same basic
the feature. At 0.48-1.15 m below the lot surface, a manner as Feature 87, although the former was destroyed
complex series of arched brick walls and chambers were to a slightly lower depth. The kiln had been levelled to the
exposed. Eventually, it became clear that nearly 190 surface of the kiln floor; again, the interior of the floor had
degrees of the base of a brick-lined kiln had been disintegrated to a dense, compact powder. Both porous red
uncovered (Figure 2). The kiln was an updraft bottle type, brick and yellow refractory brick were noted; refractory
typical of the mid- l 91h century. Only the base of the kiln brick was restricted to the lining of the fireboxes. Portions
remained; the chamber, the stack, and accessory structures of four fireboxes were noted; however, only one was

58

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

JI11

tf.87
N
0 8.s

X N 10.5
! 13.5

FIGURE 2. FEATURE 87: POTTERY KILN PLAN VIEW

59

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

fire box II

- _J

0 0.SM

bag wall

• Cinders .:rid Clav

FIGURE 3. FEATURE 87. PROFILES A'-B' and C'-D' (see also plan view).

reasonably intact. A maximum of eight courses (vertical) PRODUCTS AND MANUFACTURING ELEMENTS
of brick was r~corded. Unfortunately, only about 140
degrees of the kiln base remained (Figure 3). Utility Very little historic documentation was available
trenches and a builder's trench for the Hemingray glass detailing the types of products which Bromley
factory had removed the rest. manufactured at his Cincinnati and Covington potteries.
The 1860 U.S. Census, Manufacturing Schedule, listed
Additional Bromley products and manufacturing fruit jars, bowls, and pitchers being manufactured at his
elements were recovered from a wood-lined privy vault Covington site. An advertisement for his Cincinnati
located near the western margin of the industrial block (Brighton) pottery in the same year was even less specific.
immediately to the east of the Covington Pottery. The It listed fruit cans ". . .and ware of every variety, and
presence of industrial glass from Hemingray Glass patterns made to order. . ." (Williams 1860:34).
Company and large quantities of yellow ware products and Fortunately, a much broader range of products was
manufacturing elements suggested that the privy served as identified during both testing and final mitigation
a toilet facility for one or both of the industrial concerns. procedures. And, although ceramic recovery was very low
Temporal data indicates that the privy was in use from
1863 to 1864. at the kiln sites, additional areas were quite productive.

At the Covington Pottery, Bromley manufactured a
variety of utilitarian vessels, including both kitchen and

60

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988 t

0 05 N

H\:ttm@H fire brick

I'
I

~. I

utility trench I
i/lff..J.{.@·m.·t.·;·:··:·"!·:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~.:.~.:.j.j..fJ"}.·f.· ...............j!•'j7..J•}'J.•7' .f!.fTf/f:J·§.'J.;.;;•'t.;.y.~.:..{.:..'..~.'..'..".'..'..~.~

\ N 10.5 " \ I
E 13.697
\ disturbed \ I

I

\
I
I

J

I
I
I

FIGURE 4. FEATURE 88 POTTERY KILN PLAN VIEW.

61

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

sanitary wares. Kitchen wares were represented by canning yellow ware stilts, a form of broad, tri-pointed platforms.
jars, small bowls, mixing bowls, pie plates, pitchers, Small sub-pyramidal, tripodal props or spurs also occurred
crocks, tea/coffee pots, mugs, and bottles. Sanitary wares in quantity, and a number of molded, tubular props, or
included chamber pots, spittoons, and urinals. Clear glazed saddles, were also identified. The latter were star-shaped
yellow ware was either apparently undecorated or (five-pointed) in cross-section (cf. Billington 1962:166;
decorated with annular rings or dendrites, or both of the Ruscoe 1963:82). Sagger crock fragments occurred in large
latter. The banding occasionally occurred with a cream- numbers and most evidenced signs of decomposition.
colored slip; dendrites always occurred over the slip. A Approximately 3,500 sagger fragments exhibited a
brown slip was utilized for banding, and blue, brown, and combined weight of greater than 205 kg. Sagger wads -
green pigments were mixed with the dendrite infusion. hand-formed twists utilized in separating saggers and
Some Rockingham glazed vessels were also produced, and perhaps in sealing the kilns - represented the most
it is possible that a number of the unglazed, undecorated frequently identified debris type. Over 29,000 sagger wads,
sherds were intended to be covered with a manganese weighing more than 182 kg, were recovered.
glaze. Annular decorated ware was likely wheel thrown (at Approximately two dozen smoothing tools (''potter's ribs")
least during the application of the slip bands); the bands of recovered at Test Unit A could have been used with the
slip were applied with quills. Shafer (1976:125) reported jigger mold or at the wheel, although the latter seems most
that two or more parallel lines could be trailed at once with reasonable.
a slip cup fitted with multiple quills. The English version
of this cup included a blow-through mechanism; the ANALYSIS
operator released the slip by blowing into a mouthpiece
(Clement 1947:45). All chamber pots, large mixing bowls, Artifactual evidence indicated Bromley focused
small bowls, and yellow ware pitchers were annular production at his Covington kilns upon a range of
decorated; the majority also exhibited a dendritic or mocha meagerly decorated, low cost, utilitarian wares. Bromley
motif. Rockingham glazed pitchers were likely slip-cast, fired approximately 78,000 fruit jars, bowls, and pitchers
while canning jars, pie plates, small waist-shouldered in 1860; the bowls could be obtained for as little as 20 per
bowls, straight-sided mugs, tea or coffee pots, and dollar. Clear glazed yellow ware, a decidedly low cost
spittoons were either jigger-molded or slip-cast. Only finish, outnumbered Rockingham glaze by nearly two to
Rockingham glaze was observed on tea/coffee pots and one, and indeed, Rockingham glazed sherds were nearly
spittoons. At the company privy (Feature 45) the majority absent from some assemblages. A small number of sherds
of sherds were apparently undecorated; however, the exhibiting embossed scenes were identified, although no
remainder were nearly evenly represented by annular reasonably complete vessels were noted. Both grape vine
decorated, embossed/molded, and dendritic examples. and hunting motifs were identified, each fairly common
Very few Rockingham sherds were encountered in the treatments on mid-19th century earthenware and stoneware
privy vault. vessels. Their presence indicates that Bromley was
producing them at Covington, but their frequency suggests
Test Unit A provided the largest and most varied they were not fired in any significant quantities.
assemblage of products and manufacturing elements. Of
3,136 sherds, 459 (14.6%) were clear glazed, 287 (9.2%) On the other hand, there is evidence to indicate that
were Rockingham glazed, and 2,390 (76.2%) were in the more decorative and ornamental wares were being
"biscuit" state. These figures indicate that greater than produced at his Brighton Pottery in Cincinnati. McClinton
three-fourths of the recovered assemblage had been (1967:119) described a molded, six-paneled pitcher with
discarded by Bromley after the bisque firing. The an embossed floral design that was marked "W.
remainder (23.8%) represented vessels which had been BROMLEY & CO, BRIGHTON POTTERY, CIN. OHIO".
rejected subsequent to the glost firing. A total of 660 Other Cincinnati Bromley pieces were even more
(21.0%) sherds exhibited annular banding and 198 (6.3%) elaborately marked. Five vessels of Bromley yellow ware
contained dendritic motifs. Dendrites occurred in green, from the collection of Samuel and Dr. Gail Englender of
blue, and brown; blue dendrites were the most frequent and Cincinnati were viewed by the author. A pair of hound-
accounted for 79.3%. The dendrites, characteristic of true handled pitchers, a pair of small crocks or jars, and a
"mocha", always occurred in conjunction with annular spittoon were examined. Both pitchers were Rockingham
banding, when sizeable vessel fragments were present. A glazed, and each exhibited the identical molded hunting
total of276 sherds was embossed or molded, and both clear scene. Hound-handled pitchers were manufactured by
and Rockingham glazes were well represented. numerous American yellow ware potters, and unfortunately
they were rarely marked. Bromley was a noted exception.
Kiln props, sagger fragments, sagger wads, and All five of the Englender vessels shared the identical raised
smoothing tools comprised the vast majority of and impressed mark on their bases. Depicted was a large
manufacturing elements. The majority of kiln props were drop-wing eagle with shield above an elongated oval pad.

62

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

The pads were impressed "W BROMLEY CINCINNATI transportation and fuel costs could have made his
OHIO NORTH AMERICA". Covington operation more cost effective than his
Cincinnati factory. Fourth, Bromley almost certainly
Several observations can be made concerning this benefited from his expansion into the Covington and
mark. First, Bromley was obviously pleased with his northern Kentucky markets. No other northern Kentucky
Cincinnati wares to have included such an unusual and potteries have been documented during the Civil War
impressive mark. Second, it is very likely that Bromley period, and Bromley would have had a distinct advantage
reserved such marks for certain vessel types and the finest over his Cincinnati and Ohio competitors. Finally,
examples of his wares. One would certainly not although there is no documentary evidence to indicate a
incorporate an elaborate mark with minimally decorated or business relationship between Bromley and Hemingray,
undecorated utilitarian vessels. Third, Bromley, although both manufactured wax sealer canning jars. Toulouse
an Englishman by birth, wanted no one to doubt that he (1977: 112-113) indicates that several early patents were
was an American potter. produced in both glass and pottery.

Although thousands of sherds were recovered from the REFERENCES CITED
Covington kilns, not one mark or mark fragment was
identified. The absence of hallmarks at Covington is most Barber, Edwin Atlee
likely related not to sampling deficiencies, but to the type 1893 The Pottery and Porcelain ofthe United States:
and quality of vessels produced. Rockingham glazed An Historical Review ofAmerican Ceramic Art
wares, typically the better quality yellow wares, were from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. G. P.
apparently not fired in the same quantities as the annular Putnam's Sons, New York and London.
banded or mocha wares at Covington. While the types and
frequencies of yellow ware produced at the Brighton Barka, Norman F.
Pottery are unknown, surviving examples are suggestive of 1973 The Kiln and Ceramics of the "Poor Potter" of
a high quality output. Yorktown. In: Ceramics in America (George
Quimby, editor), pp. 291-318. University Press of
The Covington factory was not only the locus for the Virginia, Charlottesville.
production of low cost wares, but it is hypothesized that the
selection of the site was based at least in part upon critical Billington, Dora M.
economic factors. It is suspected that Bromley intentionally 1962 The Technique ofPottery. Hearthside Press Inc.,
located his pottery immediately adjacent to the glass New York, New York.
factory. There are four reasons for this supposition. First,
each had a need for coal, lead, clay, and refractory bricks. Cist, Charles
Hemingray Glass Company purchased large quantities of 1843 The Cincinnati Directory for the Year 1843.
these supplies, and certainly any agreement between the R. P. Brooks (printer), Cincinnati.
two manufacturers would have been beneficial to Bromley.
Second, powdered glass could have been utilized in Clement, Arthur W.
Bromley's glaze mixtures. Clement (1947:45-46) reported 1947 Our Pioneer Potters. New York.
that in a 1914 letter from Henry Brunt (Edwin Bennett
Pottery Company) of Baltimore that James Bennett (East Fryman, Robert Joseph
Liverpool's first yellow ware manufacturer) utilized 1983 The Excavation of the Sprucevale Pottery: A
feldspar, and often powdered glass in his vessel glazes. Study in Nineteenth Century Industrial
Brunt stated that"... from his [James Bennett] knowledge Archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
of the Glass business he could undoubtedly use flint glass Pittsburgh. University Microfilms International,
which would make a very hard glaze". Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Obviously, Bromley's location immediately adjacent to Gates, William C., Jr.
the Hemingray plant would have provided him an endless 1984 The City of Hills and Kilns: Life and Work in
supply of flint glass from which to manufacture his glaze East Liverpool, Ohio. East Liverpool Historical
mixture. Certainly they relied on the same raw materials, Society, East Liverpool, Ohio.
and although the potter's objective is vitrification, and the
glass makers goal is fusion, the processes are unmistakably Genheimer, Robert A.
similar. Third, although Bromley had no Ohio River 1987 Archaeological Testing, Evaluation, and Final
frontage, the proximity of the river would have provided Mitigation at Covington's Riverfront
him instant access to fuels and supplies, and a vital Dedevelopment Phase 2 Site, Kenton County,
corridor for the shipment of products. The reduction in Kentucky. Report prepared by R. G. Archaeological
Services, Cincinnati, and Cultural Resource
Analysts, Inc., Lexington. Submitted to the City
of Covington, Kentucky.

Gordon, Stephen C., and Elisabeth H. Tuttle

1981 Queensgate II: A Preliminary Historical Site

Report. Ms. on file, Ohio Historic Preservation
Office, Columbus.

63

Ohio Valley Historical Archaeology Volume 6 1988

Home, Ruth M. Formation Clays of Ohio, by Wilber Stout, R. T.
1952 Ceramics for the Potter. Charles A. Bennet Stull, William J. McCaughey, and D. J. Demorest,
Company, Inc., Peoria, Illinois. pp. 28-43. Ohio Geological Survey, 4th Series,
Bulletin 26, Columbus, Ohio.
Kenton County, Kentucky Deed Book Toulouse, Julian H.
n.d. Volumes 8:187; 9:231 23:571. Records on file, 1977 Fruit Jars, A Collector's Manual with Prices.
Kenton County Courthouse, Covington, Kentucky. Everybodys Press Inc., Hanover, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Census
McClinton, Katherine Morrison 1850 Population Schedule, Hamilton County, Ohio.
1967 The Complete Book ofAmerican Country Cincinnati Historical Society.
Antiques. Coward McCann, Inc., New York. 1860 Manufacturing Schedule, Kenton County,
Kentucky. Kentucky Department ofArchives.
Ramsay, John 1860 Population Schedule, Kenton County, Kentucky.
1939 American Potters and Pottery. Hale, Cushman & Kenton County Public Library.
Flint, Boston. 1860 Population Schedule, Hamilton County, Ohio.
Cincinnati Historical Society.
Robinson and Jones (compilers) Williams, C. S. (compiler)
1846 Cincinnati Directory for 1846. Robinson and 1849-1861 The Williams Cincinnati Directory. C. S.
Jones, Cincinnati. Williams Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1866-1871 The Williams Cincinnati Directory. C. S.
Ruscoe, William Williams Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1963 A Manual for the Potter. Alec Tiranti, London.

Shafer, Thomas
1976 Pottery Decoration. Watson-Guptill
Publications, New York.

Stout, Wilber
1923 History of the Clay Industry in Ohio. In: Coal

64