P. 1
King 1988 Comparative Midden Analysis

King 1988 Comparative Midden Analysis

|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by jayg76
historical archaeology
historical archaeology

More info:

Published by: jayg76 on Sep 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/11/2013

pdf

text

original

JULIA A.

KING

A Comparative Midden Analysis of a Household and Inn in St. Mary’s City, Maryland
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the nature of functional variation as reflected on an intra-site level. Although a site generally has one “function,” most sites contain material evidence of numerous activities occurring at different times and places among different groups of people. Distributions and associations of archaeological materials are analyzed using data derived from the St. John’s site, an early 17th century tobacco plantation which later served as an inn, adjacent to St. Mary’sCity. Variation between the Household and the Inn phases of occupation is described, and variation in the locations of activities at the site is demonstrated. However, differences between the Household and Inn occupations appear more subtle and may be due to a number of factors as well as functional variation. The analysis demonstrates the need for more studies of a similar type in order to address differences in function and differences among site occupants.

Introduction An important research issue in historical archaeology concerns functional variation among sites and how it is reflected materially at the site level. Archaeologists have assumed-and, in many cases, demonstrated-that material assemblages and their patterning reflect a site’s function (cf., Binford and Binford 1966). Using information derived from documentary sources, many historical archaeologists have attempted to define the relationships between material patterning and a site’s known function. Distinct material patterns have been identified and linked to site function for households, taverns, fort sites and so on (cf., South 1977). The material assemblages and the patterns they form identify these sites and, ultimately, others not so well documented.

Although a site may have had only one “functional identification,” most sites contain material evidence of numerous activities, occumng at different times and places among different groups of people. These activities are sometimes inferred from the types of artifacts recovered, generally using implicit assumptions about the form of an artifact and its function. Minimal attention is paid to context except on a chronological level. The result is frequently a mere laundry list of the types of activities for which archaeological evidence is present. Little research has been done to investigate specifically how these activities were organized spatially, although this information is a valuable source of information on the relationships among site occupants. Prehistorians have long been concerned with intrasite spatial analysis for elucidating prehistoric behavior; historical archaeologists have not been as quick to follow suit, probably because of the detailed kinds of information already available on the site level and the existence of an often rich documentary record (Noble 1983: 1). This is not to deny the existence of an awareness of intrasite spatial analyses; many creative and insightful studies have emerged in historical archaeology (cf., Keeler 1978; Neiman 1980; Noble 1983; Miller 1986). Clearly, more studies are needed if historical archaeologists intend to build a comparative data base. Such information is present in the archaeological record and its recovery should become a major research goal. This paper will present the results of a comparative study of the spatial organization of the St. John’s site, a tobacco plantation household which later became an ordinary, or public inn, in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Constructed in 1638, shortly after the founding of Maryland, St. John’s functioned as a tobacco plantation until the late 1660s. From about 1668 until the 1690s, it was leased to a series of innkeepers. The architecture at the site remained essentially the same throughout this period, while the site function changed. This situation provides a good opportunity to compare the spatial arrangement and use of a household and an ordinary in the 17th century Chesapeake.

18

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 22

Household and Inn Spatial Organization: Previous Research
Historians and archaeologists alike have been actively interested in the layout and organization of the 17th century Tidewater household. Historians have used probate inventories to infer the structure and organization of these households. They have found that Chesapeake dwellings contained an average of only three rooms, less space than even the poorest homes of English farm laborers (Main 1982). Although each room had a “primary function”, mainly dairying, cooking, sleeping or eating, rooms did not serve specialized functions and often many activities took place in the same areas (Main 1982; Walsh 1983). A preliminary archaeological study of the Chesapeake homelot used the St. John’s site as its focus (Keeler 1978). Changes in the organization of the 17th century homelot were correlated with the evolution of Tidewater frontier society. As Chesapeake society stabilized and matured, homelots grew from simple and impermanent dwellings surrounded by wattle fences and a few outbuildings, through stages of greater elaboration and increasingly formalized spatial division. A more detailed analysis of the nearby van Sweringen homelot indicated that, during the late 17th century, midden deposits were consistently associated with the hall and the kitchen, and yet there were no significant differences in these middens’ compositions, suggesting that the same domestic activities took place in both locations. The yard associated with the parlor showed no evidence of daily domestic activities (King and Miller 1987). No similar study of the spatial organization of a colonial Chesapeake inn has yet been conducted. Those studies that have been produced are at the site level, and usually involve the comparison of sites from various regions. These studies have attempted, however, to describe the material patterning associated with a colonial inn. Bragdon (198 1) undertook a comparative analysis of colonial tavern and domestic sites in New England. She found that the tavern site assemblages contained larger proportions of ceramic fragments, and that higher numbers of these ceramics derived

from drinking vessel forms. Tavern site artifact collections also contained larger percentages of wine glasses and pipe stem fragments than contemporary domestic sites. In a comparative study of four colonial tavern sites in urban and rural contexts, Rockman and Rothschild (1984) found that the artifact assemblages of urban taverns were more specialized than those from rural areas. Urban taverns were the setting for drinking and other “socializing” activities, while a rural tavern assemblage suggested food preparation and consumption as well. They link this to the accommodation functions served by rural taverns. Rockman and Rothschild (1984: 113) note that historical and archaeological research indicate that a “number of different activities” occurred in colonial taverns, both urban and rural. This statement is not only true of taverns, but colonial households as well. In this analysis, the actual locations and spatial relationships of middens from a domestic household and an inn of the 17th century will be presented and compared. In order to analyze and compare the intrasite spatial patterning of archaeological materials between a household and an inn, artifact assemblages and spatial data from documented sites of known function were required. Further, it was essential that these samples be excavated using comparable methods of data recovery to facilitate analysis. The St. John’s site, located in St. Mary’s City, met both of these requirements. In addition, St. John’s retained the same basic structure throughout its occupation with the same buildings and rooms being used. This control over the architecture at the site provides an excellent opportunity to compare the spatial arrangement and use between a 17th century household and ordinary.

The St. John’s Site
The St. John’s site is situated on the northern edge of St. Mary’s City (Figure l), the first settlement and capital of Maryland. St. John’s was first occupied in 1638, four years after the colony’s founding. John Lewger, Secretary of the colony,

Location of the St. St. John's site. Maryland .A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. MARY'S CITY. MARYLAND 1 9 Figure 1. Mary's City.

The house’s second story loft was divided into chambers and the garret was used for grain and corn storage (Stone 1982: 90-9 1. At the time of its construction. and where most domestic activity took place. VOLUME 22 Figure 2 The St John’s dwelling foundation after excavation (Photograph courtesy Historic St Mary s City) received 200 acres of the St. Lewger also built a 20-by. Mary’s Townlands and immediately began development of his tobacco plantation. Jr. and the colonial Legislature met there repeatedly in the 1640s.20 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. a small post-supported dairy. John. This building likely served as a separate store room (Stone 1982: 309). John’s as a base for his planting and mercantile enterprises but. He constructed a substantial one and one-half story framed house on a stone foundation (Figures 2 and 3). The hall functioned as the main “living room. sold the property to Henry Fox in 1650.. The parlor was probably used for more formal activil. Lewger returned permanently to England in 1648. the parlor was one of the largest rooms in ea-rly Maryland.” a place where meals were prepared and taken. having little success. IO-by-IOfeet.1 S-foot unheated frame outbuilding at the northeast corner of the dwelling. John’s. Soon after Lewger completed construction on St. The dwelling measured 52-by-20-feet with a central chimney dividing the structure into two large rooms: a hall and a parlor. Fox attempted to establish St. 94). a wealthy merchant from Virginia (Stone 1982: .ies and sleeping. was added to the dwelling’s north side. and his son. sold the house and plantation in 1654 to Simon Overzee.

From 1638 until c. Mary’s City became more urbanized. St. the main building was extensively renovated. MARYLAND 21 King 1976). John’s for three more years. and the Governor only remained at St.. ... accommodations and stabling to average half this number (Main 1982: 252). John’s served as the domestic household for a series of elite occupants. 1660. John’s in 1666. his family and his built the 20-by-30-foot post-in-the-ground servants’ quarter located in the eastern front yard servants. . these families possessed striking social and cultural similarities. All three men were Figure 3. More visitors to the colony’s capital (Stone 1982: 311. Plan view of the St. and differences in material are evident from a cursory moved to her home on the Patuxent River (Stone review of the probate inventories of eight tavern keepers in St. the site functioned primarily as an inn and as the new governor of the colony.. John’s proi vided services to visitors at least until 1690. i KITCHEN. i . The inn at St. .. I I C. St. . he was of an intellectual and social standing that kept him quite intimate with Lord Baltimore and the Calvert family. Shortly after Overzee’s death in the center of farm operations. all three men used St. Visitors dined. . and though Lewger lost more financially than he gained. . John’s site. . the typical planter during this period had an provided food.. tier dominated by young. John’s was acquired by Charles Calvert. 1678 Flreplace and much more the focus of political and economic Pen j i 0 20 affairs in the colony. A new porch was added to the front door giving the dwelling a Renaissance look (Stone 1982: 315-17). he married and stabled their horses in inn facilities. During the second half of the 17th century. .. a Dutch roofing tile. .. which now functioned as a kitchen dwelling and its various service buildings formed and/or quarter... a noticeably unusual situation on a fronpage.... . unmarried adult males. 1666 until ca. drank and in 1663. he leased 1700.. 1666. - . apiece.. Mary’s City... St. In 1666. MARY’S CITY. by law. and the outbuilding. slept at the inn during their stay in St. Calvert probably a residence for the innkeeper. The fireplace and chimney were relocated against the north wall of the house to create i Nur se r Y a more formal entranceway and a more modern staircase. . And. North is at top of married. These inns provided a service to visitors (Figure 3) (Stone 1982: 305). detailed study of these inventories will need to be I Flreplace w I . Although three different families occupied the dwelling during this time. Fox or Overzee added a chimney to the John’s primarily as a tobacco plantation.. i probably 1695. All three men had married women born in England and together oversaw large households made up of relatives and servants. Some the widow of a wealthy Maryland planter. 1695.. From ca. Innkeepers had an average of nine beds the dwelling to a series of innkeepers who. Calvert’s wife died to the colony’s capital. . 301).A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. 1690 and possibly c. After Calvert left St. and the clapboard roof was replaced with pantile. . Overzee and Calvert were among the richest men in the colony. their families and their servants. In the 167Os. .. and .. Mary’s City between 1668 and 1982: 300).

large numbers of people were at St. However. Miller 1983. Markham 1614) and has been found to be the case at most sites in Maryland and Virginia.g. plow zone materials from squares located within the middens were combined and quantified using standard statistical methods (SPSS. and most of these deposits are located adjacent to doorways and fence gates. This disturbance affected all of the surface middens at the site. including Dutch coarse earthenwares. Inc. 1666. 1983). Once midden areas were identified for each occupation. and this plow zone covers the site evenly to an average depth of about eight inches. Nonetheless. Methods The St. and presumably the earliest. Artifact densities were calculated by square foot of excavated plow zone. Certain classes of artifacts. John’s site was excavated between 1972 and 1976 and again in 1982 by the St. catalogued and are presently curated at Historic St. This practice was referred to by contemporary writers (e. By isolating the two types of occupations and analyzing the distributions and compositions of archaeological materials from each. the nature of habitations were different in their function and relationships between occupants are expected to vary. All artifactual and faunal materials were washed. it should be possible to identify how material culture. Areas of midden deposition were identified from the resulting maps using overlapping clusters of temporally diagnostic artifacts. any “noise” should be secondary to strength of function. Household phase deposits were identified using those materials dating prior to c. early tin-glazed earthenwares. space use and activities varied between a tobacco plantation and a public inn in the same physical space. most household refuse was tossed directly into surface middens which formed outside doors and along or in pathways. VOLUME 22 undertaken in order to illuminate other differences in material goods not always apparent in the archaeological record. John’s. Mary’s City Commission under the direction of Garry Wheeler Stone. Numerous studies have demonstrated the value of these plowed midden contexts for analysis (cf. Soil samples for chemical analysis were also taken. Because of the unfortunate problem of overlapping Household and Inn occupation middens. Merida Micaceous pottery. bore diameters (Figures 5-10). and plow zone studies have contributed significantly to our understanding of early St. could not be satisfactorily dated to either occupation and were therefore not included in the analysis. Although the assemblages discussed here have been created by a variety of occupations. John’s was sampled (Figure 4). The site had been subjected to postoccupational plowing.22 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. Mary’s City (Keeler 1978. During both phases of occupation (Household and Inn). the plow zone is extremely important for studying the spatial organization of these colonial sites. Mary’s City. including bone and most bottle and table glass from the plow zone. Spatial Distribution of Midden Deposits Phase By Numerous midden deposits were identified for both the Household and Inn occupations at the St. information on the locations and organization of activities is still available from the remaining artifacts in these plow-disturbed contexts. Approximately 29 percent of the plow zone within the study area at St. 1986. and white clay pipe bowls and stems with the largest. Despite its disturbed nature. During the 17th and 18th centuries in both England and the Chesapeake. terra cotta pipe fragments.. Riordan this volume). John’s site. This admittedly limits the scope of the study. Surrey-like wares. For the first phase of analysis. only materials dating securely to each of the two occupations were used in this analysis. computergenerated artifact density maps were made using the SYMAP graphics program (Dougenik and Sheehan 1979). Lewarch and O’Brien 1981. King and Miller 1987). It was removed in 5-by-5.and 10-by10-foot units and screened through 3I8-inch mesh. A sum- ..

The western half of the back yard. terra cotta clay pipes and . 0 (81 1 0 ( 0 u FEET 20 KEY 0 0 Excavation Unit Post Hole/Mold Brick/ Stone Figure 4.A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. MARY'S CITY. contains concentrations of early white clay and terra cotta clay tobacco pipe fragments. Early period ceramics are also present in this area in small amounts. and contains overlapping clusters of early white clay pipes. behind the hall and within the fenced area. A second Household period midden occurs west of the dwelling. MARYLAND 23 L i m i t of Study A r e a 3 ~ /!-!-lJ-L 0 'P N l l I. Study area and location of excavation units used in the analysis. mary map of these concentrations is presented in Figure 11.

and contains early pipes. Variability in domestic behavior-types of activities.8 and 2.. The SYMAP projection capability and the disturbed nature of the plow zone must also be considered as factors affecting the final density projection map. North Devon Graveltempered pottery and Staffordshire slipwares (Figures 15-17). and another widespread midden was identified behind the ca. As these maps of early artifacts indicate. At the main house.0. since the quarter was not constructed until c. 1660.16 .05 0 .03 m. rtti 0 . However. . Only this last concentration appears unassociated with any structure. and another in the far end of the front yard.21 - rill . A one-to-one correlation cannot and should not be expected among artifact types. locations of activities and participants-affects the distributions and associations of archaeological materials. Little trash was tossed out the front door. There is also a large midden behind the kitchen. Inn phase middens overlap the Household middens in the west back yard behind the hall and along the west side of the dwelling. detailed visual inspection of these maps reveals areas in which trash is consistently concentrated. 1660 quarter.I3 Figure 5. 2. The distribution of pre-1665 ceramics at the St John's site. early ceramics. terra cotta pipes and early tin-glazed pottery. The midden to the rear of the kitchen continued to receive materials. including locally made Morgan Jones wares. about 50 feet south of the dwelling.6 mm (Figures 12-14) and ceramics.24 ST JOHN'S HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY.20 . The distribution of pre-1665 tin-glazed earthenwares. Except for the midden deposit immediately outside the front door. .26 . A third midden associated with the dwelling is found in the yard adjacent to the front door. These distributions are summarized in Figures 18 and 19.25 0 0 ..47 - . 0 4 m. VOLUME 22 S T JOHN'S ".06 - . the front yard remained fairly clean during the Household period. including pipe stems with bore diameters of 3. Figure 6. Inn phase midden deposits were identified by the distributions of later materials. not all artifact types neatly overlap in each case..15 0.

Neither North Devon nor Staffordshire slipped wares occur in this area. midden deposition continued in many of the areas used during the Household phase. 1680. Figure 8. the kitchen.6 mm pipes and Morgan Jones ceramics. dumping was restricted primarily to areas behind and adjacent to the various structures: the front yard was essentially clean (Figure 19).6 mm pipes. 2 mm. Although the feature is shallow. 2.. and there are few 2. These Inn phase density maps suggest that from about 1666. refuse from domestic activity during the Household occupation was recovered in association with the dwelling hall. After ca.8 and 2.O. evidenced by overlapping concentrations of 3. Such trees. its depth is similar to holes created today when large trees are blown over during the short but intense Chesapeake summer storms. and at the southwest end of the front yard. One occurs in the eastern back yard and the other was created off the east gable end of the parlor. John's dwelling was first leased as an inn. Two midden deposits appear about 1680 in association with the parlor.65 . The distribution of white clay tobacco pipes with bore diameters of 3 .w Figure 7. which suggests this room was not used on a daily basis for food preparation and . occurs in the front yard about 25 feet south of the dwelling. suggesting this area was probably not used as a dump area in the last decades of the 17th century.. The midden at the far southern end of the site continued in use until ca. when the St. MARYLAND ST JOHN'S ST JOHN'S 25 0.A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. Figure 3).4 and 2. The distribution of terra cotta clay pipe fragments. A small midden. 1680. MARY' S CITY. Several new locations of refuse disposal appeared during the Inn occupation. circular feature with an irregular bottom in this area suggests the archaeological remains of a large shade tree (cf. In summary.24 - 0. with the additions of the midden behind the quarter and in the mid-front yard (Figure 18). would have been the locations for many activities moved outdoors during this season. providing shade in the hot Tidewater summers. The yards around the parlor show comparatively little domestic activity. U . A large.03 .

During the late 17th century. Comparative evidence from other households and inns in both urban and rural settings occupied during this period is necessary. The distribution of white clay tobacco pipes with bore diameters of 3. What types and in what frequencies are materials associated within each midden? In order to study .6 mm. Glassie 1975). The two major differences occur only after the site had been functioning as an inn for at least 15 years. providing an air of sophistication to this former farmhouse (Stone 1982). The front yard of St. Mary's City became more urbanized (Miller 1986) and a likely location for the introduction of Georgian ideas. About this time. the St. and these changes may be more related to changing concepts of formal front yards and service back yards related to Georgian ideas (cf. The location of midden deposits during the Inn phase followed the pattern of Household deposition fairly closely.05 - . although the available data suggest the front yard/back yard division is a major change occurring elsewhere in the colonial English landscape (Keeler 1978. St. and a pantile roof was added.Deetz 1977. consumption activities..26 ST J O H N ' S HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. John's became increasingly cleaner and deposits became completely restricted to areas behind and adjacent to the various structures. Glassie 1975).4 mm. preparation and consumption-seem not to have been regularly conducted here. A Renaissance-style porch was also added to the front of the dwelling. Figure 10.c6 . The distribution of white clay tobacco pipes with bore diameters of 3. Only a small cluster of early pipe stem fragments outside the door on the east end of the dwelling provides any archaeological evidence for activities in this room. The fiiplace was moved to accommodate a formal entranceway. John's dwelling underwent extensive reno- vations. The similar locations of middens in the Household and Inn occupations suggest that rooms and buildings at the site were used in similar manners.08 ..09 Figure 9. VOLUME 22 ST JOHN'S 0. Domestic activities involving ceramics-all phases of food processing.

The next section of this paper presents the results of a detailed midden analysis from the two occupations.52 . with the remaining 85 percent consisting of tobacco pipe fragments (Table 1). and the diagnostic materials combined and quantified for compar. the use of space in more detail. squares within each midden ported to the colonies.phase assemblage (Table l). c.bacco pipes still comprise more than two-thirds of dens. only measurable clay tobacco pipe stems and the collection.51 - . MARYLAND ST JOHN'S S T JOHN'S 27 0 20 00 0. . it is necessary to turn to an analysis of the composition of the various middens associated with each type of occupation. Approximately 17 percent of this artifact assemblage consists of pipes made from local terra cotta clay. The cupation will first be compared. 1635 to 1665.JO m. Sixty-eight percent of Household and Inn Midden Composition the collection consists of white clay pipes. Midden areas during the Household phase. Figure 12.40 .. but white clay toison. MARY'S CITY. The distribution of white clay tobacco pipes with bore diameters of 3. 1638 to c. 1666. Ceramics account for 30 percent of the Inn were selected for further analysis. Miller 1983). although colonial-made examples also occur (Henry 1979. manuOnce midden areas for each type of occupation factured in England and the Netherlands and imhad been identified. Because of the problem of overlapping mid. Both assemblages contain to either the Household or Inn phase of occupation.31 . very high percentages of tobacco pipe fragments.but the Inn sample contains twice the proportion of ceramics found in the Household assemblage..0 mm. few terra cotta pipes were manufacdiagnostic ceramics were used that definitely dated tured during this period. The Household assemblage contains only 15 percent ceramics. These pipes were manufactured primarily by Indians during the period from c.A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST.. These overall artifact assemblages from each oc.41 .60 Figure 11.

35 . Ceramics were also used for food and beverage consumption in the Household phase.28 E4 . Pipes fulfilled an obvious single function.28 ST JOHN'S HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. ceramics were further categorized by vessel shape based on a formal analysis previously conducted by Henry M. was not uncommon in the 17th century English colonies (Deetz 1977: 53). increase in ceramics is expected for an inn. mostly earthenware pots and jars. but it is also likely that this difference reflects the relative availability of ceramics and their use in the first and second halves of the 17th century. Figure 14. Miller.57 Figure 13. particularly of dairy products. Ceramics performed a more limited role in domestic service in colonial America during the first half of the century than in the second half. The distribution of white clay tobacco pipes with bore diameters of 2. Ceramic storage vessels. were produced in a variety of forms and served a number of roles in daily domestic activities.35 - . Fragments of identifiable forms from each occupation are presented in Table 2. 1983: 33) comprise almost 14 percent of the Household ceramic assemblage. Therefore. based on Bragdon's (1981) observations. Such an assemblage.8 mm. Again. suggesting that food was also stored in other types .6 mm. 7 2 . This trend has also been documented for New England sites (Deetz 1977: 52). Drinking and dining vessel fragments account for slightly more than one-fifth of the assemblage (Table 2).89 0 . Pewter plates and hollowwares were probably also used. account for only 2. VOLUME 22 ST JOHN'S /\I 3 u . although pewter items rarely made it into an archaeological context (Smart 1984).62 . The distribution of white clay tobacco pipes with bore diameters of 2. Ceramics. with ceramics occupying a prominent role in food processing. more than half (56 percent) of the collection consists of milk pan fragments-large earthenware pans primarily used in the dairy and kitchen.77 - .5 percent of the assemblage. Of the total Household ceramic assemblage. which were also used in food processing and preparation (Beaudry et al. Bowls.. however. comparative data would be of value.

although ceramics show a significant increase. ceramic drinking vessels increase nearly 10 times in proportion. including plate. Dairying. but with significant differences in the proportions (Table 2). also decrease significantly in proportion by 12 percent and comprise only a small part of the Inn period ceramic assemblage. MARY'S CITY. but the use of ceramics occurred in different frequencies. The distribution of North Devon Graveltempered ceramics. 1983: 37) are present in small quantities. In fact. Not surprisingly. On the other hand. The comparison of the Household and Inn artifact samples reveals both similarities and differences in the functional compositionof these two collections. The same kinds of activities clearly took place during each occupation. Ceramic cooking vessels. of containers. probably barrels. MARYLAND S T JOHN'S ST JOHN'S 29 00 0 .09 . Dining vessels. Tobacco was the main product of most 17th century plantations. household subsistence and supplies were a less visible but certainly no less important product.I3 . Galley pots. household production and maintenance is probably the most visible activity in the archaeological record.a7 - . food processing and food storage were undeniably important for the operation of 17th century households.IO 1 . Figure 16.26 Figure 15. The distribution of Morgan Jones ceramics. The Inn ceramic assemblage contains the same types of vessels as the Household collection. 0 8 . primarily pipkins and patty pans.I2 .A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. this decrease in milk pan fragments is paralleled by a similar reduction in bowl fragments. although iron and copper vessels probably made up the bulk of cooking equipment. . as do food and beverage storage vessels. The 17th century Tidewater plantation was foremost a productive unit. Milk pan fragments decrease both in sheer numbers and proportionately more than 40 percent. small tin-glazed earthenware jars used as medicinal and condiment containers (Beaudry et al. are also present in the assemblage. dish and porringer fragments. Ceramic cooking vessel ratios are similar in both assemblages. Clay tobacco pipes form the overwhelming majority of the assemblages from both occupations.

Still.ll - . 1667 to Figure 17. personal communication 1987). and ceramics were. c. Beverage consumption was a very traditional activity associated with inns. Rockman and Rothschild 1984). The distribution of Staffordshire slipwares. Miller 1983). although isolating the causes accurately will require data from other sites. studies of probate inventories and other archaeological sites both in the Chesapeake and in New England indicate that drinking vessels increase through time. However. Several tinglazed earthenware plate fragments were identified in features formed during the Inn occupation.14 . but could not be used in this analysis of surface midden composition. While the near absence of dining equipment during the Inn period may be a result of using wooden ware or pewter dishes. VOLUME 22 ST JOHN'S 00 0 . Storage vessels increase from 2.15 - . Unlike the plantation. a larger number of storage containers would be expected and this is the case. suggesting that temporal factors in the availability of ceramic forms are also involved (Brown 1972. household maintenance for the innkeeper. his family and servants was an important consideration. Consequently. a considerable . less expensive than pewter. at least in the short run. part of the low frequency could also be related to the methodological problem of identifying tin-glazed earthenwares from the ca.07 . The overwhelmingly large proportion of ceramic drinking vessel fragments is predicted for an inn assemblage (Bragdon 1981. Midden areas during the Inn phase. However. Evidence for domestic activities similar to those of a tobacco plantation are expected.5 during the Household phase to 25 percent during the Inn occupation. C. 1680. most of the inn food supply was secured from the innkeeper's plantation or as surplus from other plantations (Henry Miller. Most studies would stop at this point. Information on the rate of increase through time of drinking vessel frequencies at households and inns will be necessary. Deetz 1977: 5 8 .30 ST J O H N ' S HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. 1660 to 1690 period. Significant patterning is evident in a comparison of the ceramic assemblages.12 . 0 8 . the 17th century inn performed a service function.36 Figure 18.

lntrasite Variation: The St. St.7 263 48 1 0 rill 20 Dairying: milk pans. John’s. The midden adjacent to the front door also contains a mixture of utilitarian and tableware forms. These include the middens in the backyard behind and west of the dwelling. dishes. storage vessels.A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. John’s Household Five Household phase middens from St. The ceramic assemblages of the Household middens associated with the dwelling exhibit significant differences in their composition. miscellaneous tablewares Medicinal: galley pots I Figure 19.5 w 12. suggesting this area received refuse derived from a variety of activities.5 amount of information has been generated.6 1. c. MARYLAND ST JOHN’S 31 TABLE 2. Household Phase Ceramics White Clay Pipes Terra Cotta Clay pipes Total n 265 1059 262 1586 Inn Phase n 462 1117 1579 46 29. Tobacco pipes account for the majority of artifacts in all of these samples. MARY’S CITY. In the assemblage from the west yard midden. jars. however. Midden areas during the Inn phase. bowls Storage: pots. bottles Cooking: patty pans.3 2. pipkins Drinking: all beverage containers Dining: plates.8 2.2 4. contain the largest proportions of pottery.5 8 1.3 4.7 w 16. porringers. 1680 to c.7 66. accounting for a quarter of each assemblage. St.8 16.6 51. another dimension of material patterning is the spatial locations of these activities within the site. The counts and frequencies of early ceramics and white and terra cotta clay tobacco pipes are presented in Table 3. cooking pots and food and beverage consumption forms. John’s were identified and used in this analysis (Figure 11).7 15. although with a significantly higher percentage of dining vessel sherds. Functional classification of ceramics by phase. more than three quarters of the ceramics are dining and drinking forms. adjacent to the kitchen and at the end of the front yard. The back yard midden represents a mixture of materials: dairy equipment. strongly suggesting this area was a . This paper will now turn to a comparison of the types and locations of activities as indicated by the artifacts during the Household and Inn phases. John’s.3 70. 1695. TABLE 1.3 27. The middens located west of the dwelling and at the far south end of the front yard. Household Phase Dairying Storage Cooking Drinking Dining Medicinal Unidentified Food bessing Total Inn Phase n 59 131 22 249 12 n 185 6 12 15 41 4 w 70. Yet. however.6 5. Total diagnostic artifact assemblages by phase.

5 locus for refuse disposal from a food consumption context. Front Door Back Yard 96 8. particularly considering the utilitarian nature of the midden’s composition. No crossmends occur with other middens. but was not detected as a result of the limits of excavation. John’s (Table 4). When this evidence is combined with midden location and the architectural and fence line information. another from dairying and food processing. A small stockpen with a flimsy wooden animal shelter stood in this back yard. and an associated dairy with a subterranean cobble floor had been added to the back side of the St. but the yard remained fairly clean for at least fifty feet from the main house. Milkhouses are frequently mentioned in the documentary record. The evidence suggests a milkhouse was located here. and that some products were stored in the stonelined cellar under St. The storage building. This two-part spatial division at St. and a third type representing a general mix of utilitarian and food consumption activities. domestic refuse from these activities was tossed into the back yard and in the yard west of the building. In contrast.9 52. St. Another early service building may have been located in this vicinity. John’s. John’s-a service back yard and a more formal front yard-was a part of English cultural tradition that carried over into the Chesapeake and has been identified at other sites (Keeler 1978: 135). Some midden build-up occurred beside the front door. only 16 ceramic fragments from the kitchen yard midden could be securely dated to the Household phase of occupation at St. Food storage vessel fragments are present along with milk pan sherds and pipkin and patty pan fragments.32 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. The midden at the far end of the front yard poses a problem. John’s dwelling very early.3 52. the identified vessel forms are those expected in a utilitarian context. VOLUME 22 TABLE 3.9 67. kitchen and rear yard of the St. Unfortunately.3 71. The hall also functioned as a kitchen.5 16.9 19. Household Occupation. a picture of the layout and organization of an elite 17th century household begins to emerge (Figure 20). approximately 40 feet behind the dwelling (Figure 3). John’s Household: one predominantly deriving from a food and beverage consumption context. Processing of milk and other dairy products clearly took place in the area of this dump.6 21.8 % 96 16. Most service activities were restricted to the hall. Total Diagnostic Artifact Assemblages by Midden. Despite the small sample size. John’s homelot.8 West Yard south Front Yard ~ ~~~~ Kitchen n 16 31 52 99 Ceramics White Clay Pipes Terra Cotta Clay Pipes Total n 16 138 38 192 n 73 491 113 677 10.7 96 n 30 61 25 1 I6 25. This is partially due both to the building’s earliest use as a storage facility and to the large amounts of unidentified coarse earthenwares associated with this building. The large midden in the far south front yard contained the largest number of pottery sherds. Further complicating the origin of this midden are several crossmends of milk pan fragments with sherds recovered from the cellar under the main house. and almost 90 percent of these fragments are from dairying equipment: milk pans and bowls. the front yard was cleaner. and probate inventories generally list dairy equip- . John’s.8 72. Finally. the latter two types used for cooking. later converted to a kitchen was also located in the back yard.2 31.3 6.6 I n 130 338 34 502 25. Three types of midden deposition were identified for the St.

since kitchen buildings are often noted as having lofts or beds. artifacts indicate a food preparatiodcooking function with some evidence for food consumption and leisure time activities. Stone 1982). bottles Cooking: patty pans. porringers.7 n 115 1 % - 9 11 1 1 12 88.1 4. are not common and suggest food was stored in other sorts of containers.0 6. except possibly sleeping. Sleeping probably occurred here as well (Main 1982: 293.7 n 9 1 30.A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. the archaeological evidence suggests this room was used little for domestic activities. St. bowls Storage: pots.3 31. cooking or warming of meals. St.5 0. The lack of almost any refuse associated with the parlor indicates little or none of the activities of general food preparation and consumption occurred in this room.5 12.3 12. Only a small number of early period pipe stem fragments are associated with the parlor.5 16 30 130 16 Dairying: milk pans. Ceramic storage vessels.8 0. after the fireplace and chimney had been added. Household Occupation. or both (Main 1982: 162). The combination of documentary. Analysis of the Household middens provides additional insight into the use of buildings and rooms within buildings. dishes. parlors were formal rooms used primarily for entertaining guests and for sleeping (Main 1982: 293). It is possible that servants also lived in the kitchen. this assumption is supported by both historical and archaeological data. In most 17th century Chesapeake dwellings.1 5. How does the distribution of activities from this wealthy household compare to that of a 17th century inn? What functional similarities and differences exist? Analysis of the artifact assem- . Architectural evidence suggests that food and dairy product storage occurred in the dairy: a fact supported by the milk pan fragments recovered in the back yard. John’s.0 Y a r d % - South Front Yard % - Kitchen n 4 1 % - n 49 3 4 3 12 2 73 6.4 2.8 9. including large numbers of earthen pans (Main 1982: 83. Clearly. pipkins Drinking: all beverage containers Dining: plates. These inferences are based on the assumption that trash generated from domestic activities was tossed into surface middens in close proximity to the original point of use. MARY’S CITY. The historical and archaeological data indicate the kitchen building initially served as a storage facility (Stone 1982). Functional classification of ceramics by Midden.3 6. however.0 36. archaeological and architectural information has produced a portrait of the layout and use of a 17th century elite household. jars. MARYLAND 33 TABLE 4. Front Door Dairying Storage Cooking Drinking Dining Medicinal Total n 8 1 1 % - Back West Y a r d 50.5 4.8 0. 227). particularly during John Lewger’s and Charles Calvert’s tenures.3 37. The hall formed the focus for most daily domestic activities: food preparation.3 30.2 5 2 2 25.1 16.5 6 67. John’s also served as a meeting place on a number of occasions for the Assembly and other governmental activities.0 3. eating and drinking. miscellaneous tablewares Medicinal: galley pots ment in these structures. The evidence suggests an important service building in the front yard. but at least 50 feet away from the main dwelling.

and trash was being deposited on both its back and front sides. By ca. During the first part of the Inn phase. These middens were not. Artist's conception of St. Only the area around the front door appears to have received less trash. and compare those findings with the St. John's. Several other midden deposits appear during this first half of the Inn occupation. In . 1660. Mary's City). trash continued to be deposited in the midden areas established during the Household phase. from ca. Figure 20. however. 1666 until about 1680. John's Household. c. the quarter had been constructed. all in use at once. however. John's Inn During the occupation of the St.34 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. eight midden deposits were identified (Figures 17 and 18). provide insight into functional variability. Refuse accumulated west of the dwelling and in the back yard behind the hall. John's site as an inn. The large middens behind the kitchen and in the far front yard also continued t receive materials.. The next section of this paper will investigate the composition and organization of the Inn phase middens. VOLUME 22 . blages has already demonstrated that the same types of artifacts occur during both occupations. Part of this is undoubtedly due to temporal variability. . but they occur in different frequencies. . 1640 (Courtesy Historic St. lntrasite Variation: The St. Spatial variability among middens may.

John’s homelot.8 40 75.. Again.A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST.1 51 32.5 72.9 99 61. These vessels may have contained foodstuffs not produced on the St.1 162 Front Yard . MARYLAND 35 TABLE 5.% 27. MARY’S CITY. Clearly. Many of the associated ceramics not used in the analysis undoubtedly occur during the late period. a trend evident across the site. The remaining identifiable sherds derive from mugs and jugs.. more than half of those sherds occur in the back yard midden. This evidence indicates the hall continued to serve as a multipurpose room during the Inn occupation. The two midden assemblages associated with the quarter have been combined since they are the products of the same space. storage and cooking vessels are also included in this assemblage. This midden apparently formed under a large tree standing in this spot. John’s.% 94 26. The midden west of the dwelling also contains a mixture of vessel forms. Small percentages of dairy. Since it is known from the documentary record that this building served as . the hall and back yard continued to serve utilitarian functions during the use of the building as an inn. Thirty percent of the ceramic fragments are from food storage vessels. It is quite likely at this time that the nursery addition.6 356 ceramics WhiteClay Pipes Shade Tree n % 18 18.5 70..4 262 73.8 78 81. now served the function of a buttery or pantry. small sample size was a problem with the kitchen midden assemblage. This frame addition to the dwelling was located on the northwest corner of the dwelling and would have served as a good storage facility. although few plate and dish fragments were identified from this period. The large back yard midden associated with the dwelling hall again represents a mix of domestic refuse (Tables 5 and 6).5 85 62. constructed by Charles Calvert during the last part of the Household occupation (cf. Inn Occupation... Further.. more than half derived from milk pans and storage pots. Middens from this early phase of Inn occupation were also found associated with the kitchen and with the servants’ quarter in the front yard. Figure 3). Nearly half of the assemblage consists of drinking vessel fragments. The back yard contains one of the largest proportions of dairying vessel sherds and a number of ceramic cooking pan fragments were also recovered in this yard.2 96 Total . the small kitchen yard samples from both periods are similar. but these coarse earthenwares are poorly known at this time. of those that could be identified. Unexpectedly.5 115 158 53 Quarter n -% 63 38. this comparison has revealed little functional variation in artifact distribution and content at the main dwelling for both phases.. Socializing and dining also took place in the hall. overall distributions strongly support a similar use for the hall and back yard space as in the Household phase. addition. utilitarian items expected in a service structure such as the kitchen. a small cluster of materials was created in the front yard about 25 feet south of the dwelling. Back West Yard Yard n % n .2 13 43 24. Only 13 vessel fragments could be positively assigned to the Inn period. Total Diagnostic Artifact Assemblages by Midden.9 438 618 I38 south Parlor Kitchen n % n . However.n. but more than threequarters of the identified forms derive from drinking containers.% 180 29. St. These two Inn phase middens suggest a strong continuity in function of the hall and back yard space from the Household occupation. Although more storage and drinking vessels and less dining equipment occur in the Inn period. Except for the increase in sherds from drinking vessels and storage pots. but acquired to serve in the inn.

8 23. bowls Storage: pots.2 - Quarter 12 38 2 25 3 2 % 14.n4 36 I 1 % 11. John’s. bottles Cooking: patty pans. __ a larger variety of vessel forms.65 . These include the persistence of the midden in the southwest end of the front yard and the small midden in the mid-front yard..36 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY.0 29. VOLUME 22 TABLE 6..%.4 South Front Yard n 11 27 2 47 2 5 % 11.-% . jars. and both contain large proportions of storage and dining vessel fragments. The midden at the far end of the yard was also present during the Household phase and contained mostly refuse from dairying activities.4 7. pomngers. Back Yard Dairying Storage Cooking Drinking Dining Unidentified Food Processing Total 27 53 13 81 6 15.4 30.1 46.0 3.7 2.6 83.. dishes.2 80.25 Figure 21 The distribution of table glass. The distribution of vessel types . The distribution of ceramic vessel forms is similar to that found for the hall. this midden contains ST JOHN’S 20 Ktl 0 - .4 2.2 45. During the Household phase the midden was the repose for tobacco pipes and a large number of milk pan and bowl fragments.1 2. Both middens contain similar frequencies of dairying and dining vessel sherds. Cooking pan fragments are also present in both assemblages._ _n.2 9. The overall similarity of these distributions indicates a variety of domestic activities also occurring in the quarter. Further.0 Shade Tree n 2 1 n % % n _ . including storage. The quarter middens contain a mix of ceramic vessel sherd types. John’s dwelling. the assemblage should reflect domestic activities for servants.20 . pipkins Drinking: all beverage containers Dining: plates.15 .6 2. Functional Classification of Ceramics by Midden.3 94 18 180 51 43 13 82 Dairying: milk pans. indicating a dwelling for persons with less access to certain goods than in the St. Two additional Inn phase middens were identified that are not directly associated with any dwelling.26 .9 7.3 2.7 28.2 2..5 Parlor 1 Kitchen 4 3 6 30.1 50..3 4 4 4 39 West Yard 7. St. By the Inn period. miscellaneous tablewares a quarter. artifacts such as personal items and table glass (Figure 21) were virtually absent from the yards around the quarter.6 46.1 5.9 76.1 2.n . Inn Occupation. cooking and beverage containers as well as dairy pans and bowls.0 15 5. and this is the case.9 7.4 3.

Evidence for the processing of raw materials produced directly on the farm are reflected in the differential uses of the yard. As noted earlier. eating and socializing. with similar proportions of dairy. Patrons at other establishments in St. Conclusion The organization of the Household phase homelot includes at least three specialized areas integral to farm and plantation maintenance. Changes between the two phases at the site are reflected not in the use of the main dwelling. The middens in the far front yard disappear. A single large structural post hole and mold were found in this area during the excavation of the front yard (cf. These middens contain 80 percent drinking vessels and a comparatively large proportion of dining vessels. those few datable pieces generally appear to be from the second half of the 17th century. but the midden materials strongly suggest yet another building serving as a living space for some St. unfortunately. cooking and drinking vessel fragments. The possibility also exists that another building was constructed here. Mary’s City are documented as having socialized out-of-doors (King and Miller 1987). A small frequency of storage vessels are present in this sample. The Inn period assemblages contain evidence for the continuation of similar kinds of activities. This midden was located under a large shade tree. storage. several changes occur in midden location. and the spot would have provided inn patrons a pleasant setting in which to drink and socialize on warm days. appear in the archaeological record. However. but that could be due to the limited excavation in this area (cf. MARYLAND 37 also strongly resembles the distribution of vessel forms in the back yard. No other post holes and molds were found in association. John’s dwelling served fairly similar functions throughout both the Household and Inn phases of occupation. midden evidence suggests the presence of a milkhouse or similar service structure at this location during the Household occupation. jugs.A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. The small midden in the mid-front yard contains a high proportion of pipes and nearly all the recovered ceramic fragments are from mugs. Overall. personal communication 1987). the daily domestic activities associated with the processing of food and the preparation of meals apparently still did not occur in this room. Two new midden deposits. However. across the courtyard from the quarter. and other categories are represented. but with less emphasis on the processing of food as a raw material and more on the curation of foodstuffs. but in the increasing development of the yards through the construction of additional buildings and the increasing division of the yard using fences. Figure 4). this area also contained concentrations of table glass (Figure 21) and the very few porcelain fragments recovered at St. as does the small midden in the mid-front yard. Although most of the table glass fragments are not dated. the parlor during this last phase of the Inn period appears to have been used more frequently for drinking. or cups. The kitchen building. indicating the solitary hole has a likely date of construction of ca. Around 1680. and midden deposits are now restricted to the sides and rear of structures. The front yard becomes entirely clean. suggesting the majority of table glass dates to this period (Henry Miller. and the two assemblages have been combined for analysis (Tables 5 and 6). Because of the short life span of the two parlor middens (c. MARY’S CITY. both adjacent to the parlor. like . Figure 3). but only in trace amounts. The evidence warrants further excavation before the presence or absence of a structure can be determined. no excavation occurred at a distance of 10 feet or in 10 foot intervals from this post. This midden may simply represent trash carried from the dwelling across the front yard to the fence line. Artifacts recovered from the post hole fill were similar in both number and types to those found in the post holes of the nearby quarter. At least three and possibly four structures were standing on the lot during this period. Rooms within the St. or it may also be refuse derived from the quarter. 1660. John’s residents. Post molds are usually found spaced 10 feet apart. 1680 to 1690-1695). and. the artifact sample is small. John’s were found here.

all groups comprising 17th century Tidewater society through historical archaeology would be of KEELER. ”he quarter proMaryland Historical Society. Comparative evidence is. Baltimore. record. vided yet another living space for.JULIA A. Wilmington. J. for example. A N D M. MILLER 1987 The View from the Midden: An Analysis of Midden Distribution and Variability at the van Sweringen Site. MILLER. the various inhabitants (e. F. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians. In Ceramics in America. HENRY. Northeast Historical Archaeology 10:27-39. both in St. E. Winterthur Conference Report. VOLUME 22 the dwelling. Department of Anthropology. ical evidence from a single site adjacent to St. University of Oregon. Spatial patterns evident at other Chesature. St. . the change in site function from a plantation BROWN. St. These changes were undoubtedly stimulated by LEWISR. AND HENRY M . J. but on the nature of social relations among nessee Press. Mary’s City. St. J.D. served a similar function during the REFERENCES Household and Inn periods. NEIMAN yard from the quarter may also have served as FRASER 1983 A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: living space. Knoxville.DORIS 1976 The Colonial Tavern as Cradle of the American Revolution. Natural History Press. middling and other elite tobacco plantations. the introduction of Georgian ideas. SUSANL . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the other contributors to this volume for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This analysis has presented the archaeologWinterthur Museum. the increasing urbanization of St. American AnthroCity. BRAGWN. 4 1-74. not just on the University. Maryland. children. servants. distributions and associations of architecture and GLASSIE. planters.KATHLEEN 1981 Occupational Differences Reflected in Material Culnecessary.MARLEY R . Historical Archaeology 2 I (2):37-59. Unpublished Ph. servants.38 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY. JAMES A. AND SALLY R. Louis. etc. Delaware. LEWARCH. BINFORD a number of factors. ology 17(1): 18-43. inns 1977 In Small Things Forgotten. I am particularly grateful to Henry Miller for the generous assistance he has provided throughout this research. Tidewater Frontier. University of Tentions.. edited by Ian patterns ultimately discerned in the archaeological Quimby . both as a utilitarian ARCHIVES OF MARYLAND 1883 Archives of Maryland.) of these single 1979 Terra Cotta Pipes in 17th Century Maryland and sites.HENRY M . men.. AND CARRY WHEELER STONE D . ROBERT W. Mary’s City. At this level. 1978 The Homelot on the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake tremendous value. Mary’s City and in the rural environGarden City. dissertation. MARY C.g. pp. 1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in society. D . Historical Archaether excavation. Harvard should provide a rich data base. KING. in this case. women. HENRY archaeological materials and their inferred func1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. Laboratory for The compilation of this sort of information Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis. slaves. Mary’s College of Maryland provided access to their VAXNMS computer facility and assistance with the generation of the maps. SHEEHAN detailed study. The maturation of a frontier BINFORD. edited by William Hand. Cambridge. the contribution to the study of Virginia: A Preliminary Study. A possible third structure across the front BEAUDRY. contributed to the 1972 Ceramics from Plymouth. as well as pologist 68:238-95. O’BRIEN 1981 Effect of Short-Term Tillage on Aggregate Prove- . can only be elucidated through DOUGENIK. although this suggestion awaits furThe Potomac Typological System. obviously. ~ D E E T Z JAMES . KING. 1621-1800: The Documentary Record. 1979 SYMAP User’s Reference Manual. peake sites throughout the colonial period: poor. structure and as a living space. 111 household to a colonial inn. Mary’s the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. Historical Archaeology 13: 14-37. JANET LONG. ment. AND DAVID E.

New York. edited by David S.D. MARYLAND nience Surface Pattern. 1983 A Search for the “Citty of Saint Maries”: A Report on the 1981 Excavations in St. John’s. Historical Archaeology (this volume). Academic Press.. MARYLAND 20685 . LEONARD. 1983 Functional Classification and Intra-Site Analysis in Historical Archaeology: A Case Study From Fort Ouiatenon. ROTHSCHILD 1984 City Tavern.D I A N A DIZ. MARY’S CITY. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology 27.STANLEY 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 18(2):112-21. New York. 1984 The Role of Pewter as Missing Artifact. 1986 Discovering Maryland’s First City. KING JEFFERSON PATTERSON PARK AND MUSEUM ST. MARKHAM. STONE. 109-117. Housing and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger’s St. ROCKMAN. O’Brien. Department of American Civilization. St.GLORIA 1982 Tobacco Colony. HENRY M. De C a p Press. Maryland. The English Experience. NOBLE. 139. Princeton. LORENA S. MAIN. TIMOTHY B. 1983 SPSSx User’s Guide. New York. 1643-1777. Mary’s SMART. 1. NEIMAN FRASER . pp 750. Maries City Archaeology Series No.D. No. Nashville. JR. Maryland. Lee Memorial Association. JULIA A .A COMPARATIVE MIDDEN ANALYSIS OF A HOUSEHOLD AND INN IN ST. SPSS. Mary’s City. dissertation. 39 City. Mary’s City Archaeology Series No. RIORDAN. GERVASE 1614 Cheape and Good Husbandry. Unpublished Ph. ANN M. Department of Anthropology.) MILLER. Unpublished Ph. University of Pennsylvania. Lewarch and Michael J. Williamsburg. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology. VERGIL E. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Journal of Economic History 43(1). Robert E. St. dissertation. Michigan State University. SOUTH. Princeton University Press. (Reprinted 1969. INC. AND NAN A . WALSH. 1988 The Interpretation of 17th Century Sites through Plow Zone Surface Collections: Examples from St. Country Tavern: An Analysis of Four Colonial Sites. D. 1982 Society. 2. 1983 Urban Amenities and Rural Sufficiency: Living Standards and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake. 1980 The “Manner House’’ Before Strarford. In Plowzone Archaeology: Contributions to Theory and Technique.C A R R Y W. Stratford.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->