Ditto for Kentucky in big cities and in rural contexts. I have documented
neighbors and relatives buying household items at estate auctions in
Bourbon County, Ky. as well as many examples of "kitchen furniture" (read
crockery, old dishes, etc.--not the cupboard they were stored in), tools,
and lots of other stuff being sold the same way in Lexington (a major
city). As in NC, 19th century Ky records also list who bought the item
which makes for some interest tracking of secondhand consumer patterns if
you have the time. The practice does, however, complicate use of mean
ceramic dating and economic scaling formulas--but then, aren't we supposed
to be using those formulas carefully and on appropriately controlled
samples anyway?
At 10:25 AM 2/28/01 -0600, you wrote:
>>It is pretty well-documented that 2nd hand markets for ceramics existed in
>>at least larger eastern cities in the US.
>
>
>2nd hand markets for ceramics can also be found in smaller cities (much
>smaller cities) along the east coast as well:
>
>In my MA thesis (a single-site study,investigating the relationship between
>social status and consumer choice in antebellum New Bern, NC) I found ample
>documentation for estate auctions with a wide array of material items for
>purchase, including ceramics. I was lucky enough to find the subject of my
>research project (Robert Hay, a member of the middle class) listed as
>buying chickens and turkeys at one such event. More recent research (by
>Patricia Samford) has located additional documentation of Robert Hay
>purchasing assorted teawares. How good can it possibly get?
>
>Also of interest was documentation that detailed the sale of second-quality
>stoneware vessels. It seems that one could decorate the table and stock
>the kichen without blowing the bank.
>
>Dane Magoon
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>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
Nancy O'Malley
Assistant Director
W.S. Webb Museum of Anthropology
and Office of State Archaeology
211 Lafferty Hall
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506
Tele.: 859-257-8208
FAX: 859-323-3686
|
