I know I was a bit unclear on my original post--that is because I am a
chicken and afraid to report my tentative findings on 17th c. chamber pots
in inventories. Ok, so I'm going to open myself up here for a lot of flak....
 
I am looking at 405 inventories from Plymouth Colony, Maryland and Bermuda
dating from 1670-1679. In these inventories, there are a total of 77 chamber
pots. Multivariate analysis shows that the chamber pots show up with the
tablewares and in the same kinds of contexts as tablewares in all three
colonies.  Now, even though the (Anglo) 17th c. is not known for its
cleanliness, I would have thought such a juxtaposition violated even their
aesthetic standards!  The first thought, of course, is to think that the
relationship is due to the material the chamber pots are made from (pewter,
fancy earthenware, course earthenware, etc.).  Further exploration of that
angle suggests that expensive material is *not* the reason--the *very*
strong association is found no matter what the material or value of the
chamber pots on this (admittedly) small sample. Obviously, the number of
chamber pots is too small to make any final judgement or definitive
statement... In any case, the questions raised by this are valid and we
should be challenged to reconsider our assumptions about categories (one of
the main issues my research deals with).
 
As for looking glasses, I have been exploring that area as well and the
looking glasses do not have the same kinds of associations as chamber pots.
Instead, initial exploration suggests they 'act' more like pictures and
furniture (in the modern sense of tables, chairs, cupboards, etc.), but I
haven't completed the in-depth analysis of them yet.... The ref. to looking
glasses as chamber pots is in Deetz' "In Small Things Forgotten" and can be
found in the Oxford English Dictionary, but it is a regionalism and may or
may not apply to individual colonial communities.  And if looking glass is a
slang term for chamber pot, why do looking glasses show such different
patterns of association and why do they co-occur in the same inventories?
 
 
BDA     MYD     PLY
1       0       0       chamber pot AND mirror (only one inventory used
                                                the term mirror)
3       16      14      chamber pot AND looking glass
16      45      27      looking glass only
5       7       13      chamber pot only
---     ---     ---
25      68      54      looking glass, chamber pot, or mirror
 
40      173     178     inventories in sample
 
 
34      79      90      inventories with tablewares
194     395     418     occurrences of tableware items
5.7     4.0     4.6     average number of tableware items/inventory
                        for those inventories with tablewares
 
Mary Ellin D'Agostino
[log in to unmask]