It is pretty well-documented that 2nd hand markets for ceramics existed in
at least larger eastern cities in the US.
One archaeological reflection of this was seen in excavation of an
African-American "courtyard" community in Philadelphia built in the 1840s,
the ceramics from which largely dated from the 1820s and eariler.
One interesting aspect of the ceramic market in Phildelphia was fueled by
the city's regulation of the depths of privies starting in the 1760s.
Privies were apparently brought into complance by filling with ceramic and
glass wares to the appropriate depth. This seems to have lead to a practice
of placing what are termed "perculation" fill deposits that continued into
the middle of the 19th C. These deposits include many hundreds of broken,
new and used, older materials.
When I first read about these deposits in the Franklin Court archaeology
reports, long ago when I was just a young archaeologist, I joked about the
"privy fill store." But having recovered over 800 vessels from a single
feature, I recognized that just such a market must have existed in some
form.
John
John P. McCarthy, RPA
Annapolis, MD 21401
------Original Message------
From: Denis Gojak <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: February 27, 2001 11:13:29 PM GMT
Subject: Re: Privies
Colleagues
This is all very interesting and leads to a few questions that I think we
would do well to think about.
What were the opportunities for getting rid of unwanted ceramics? If there
was a change in a household such as a marriage that brought in a dowry or
existing household set of ceramics, and the old lot was to be gotten rid of,
where did this go?
The plantation archaeology stuff I've read indicates that material moved
from the big house down to attached domestic users / slaves and in Australia
I think this went on in pastoral stations with material going down the line
within the property, but not generally outside the property.
In urban areas recycling through transfer to charities and rag and bone
dealers may have been possible. Where did it go in other contexts and what
are the range of options that were available? Maybe in rural areas the
easiest thing was to tip it all down the toilet.
I would like to know what demonstrable processes account for the movement of
second hand ceramics from one property or ownership to another. Did
households routinely keep older pieces as spares or strive to maintain sets
of similar designs and chuck the oddments, or was this a class thing? When
I find 1820s pottery in an 1920s context am I looking at heirlooms or odd
survivors or a well structured pattern of reuse that operated commercially?
In my own kitchen there are sad and lonely remnants of earlier dinner sets
which form the pile of extra plates that get pulled out when we have many
mouths to feed or kids want to play. Its very tempting to extrapolate
patterns of ceramic usage from my kitchen back in time and I think there may
be merits in the ethnoarchaeology of garage sales but it would be useful to
know what others have come across.
Denis
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Denis Gojak
Heritage Asset Manager
NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
2-10 Wentworth Street
Parramatta NSW 2150
PO Box 404 Parramatta 2124
Ph: +61 2 9895 7940
Fax: +61 2 9895 7946
Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask] 02/28 12:20 am >>>
To all with a privy interest,
Following up on Megan's comments, from 1989 through '91 I excavated
a c. 1760 to 1989 farmstead in Topsham, Maine, for a DOT project. Three
privies were found, and one was full of complete (but broken) ceramics. In
that privy we found 5 redware vessels, 12 creamware, and 17 pearlware
pieces, all complete. We found only one glass bottle and a few other datable
pieces, but not much. The family was fairly well-to-do. In 1860 the eldest
son brought his new bride home to live and three years later his mother
died. It would seem the bride either cleaned out the kitchen when she moved
in or when the mother died, and dumped what she didn't want in the privy.
The undecorated creamware could represent four sets, while the transfer
printed pearlware represented ten different sets. So the wife appears to
have been throwing out odd pieces as opposed to complete sets.
A detailed listing/analysis of the ceramics was included in the
report. It was published in "The Maine Archaeological Society Bulletin",
Vol. 33:1 Spring 1993.
Regards, Lee Cranmer
Maine Historic Preservation Commission
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron May [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:47 AM
To: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
Cc: Cranmer, Leon
Subject: Re: Privies
In a message dated 2/26/01 4:52:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< I agree... isn't there a hypothesis that whole sets of dishes, etc. found
their way down privies when the female head of household changed? (i.e.
from first wife to second, or from mother to bride)? Is this in Diane
diZerega Wall's "The Archaeology of Gender", or am I thinking of another
source? >>
Megan,
Now that one escaped me, but I also heard that masses of shirt buttons meant
the men never salvaged buttons because they did not make new shirts. Hence,
the hypothesis that masses of buttons in privies and dumps means male gender
occupation. This concept has been kicking around for at least 20 years, but
I
do not know a source to cite or data to support it. On the other had, I did
inherit my grandma's button jar and think there is merit to the idea.
Wow, talk about spite! But, my folks probably would never had dumped sets
of
tableware because until the 1920s they could not afford them. A woman would
have really had to be making a statement for that kind of behavior. Then
again, people of the upper gentry would have had the money for that kind of
fashion turnover. Maybe class distinctions are the key to the tableware
changes?
Ron May
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
|
