Lives and Legacies

Category: Archaeology

  • Expanding Ferry Farm: The Quarter

    If you have visited Ferry Farm recently or follow us on social media, you may have noticed the construction of two buildings near the Washington House. These new structures represent ones that stood in these spots during George Washington’s time. Identified through archaeology, their reconstructions allow us to better tell the stories of the people who lived and worked at Ferry Farm. For this blog, we will look at the structure adjacent to the Washington House along the embankment overlooking the Rappahannock: The Quarter.

    What’s in a Name?

                First, we need to define what we mean when we call the structure “the Quarter.” Regarding enslaved life, the term “quarter” can refer to several different situations. Generally, it refers to a structure that housed enslaved individuals with “quarter,” equating to a living space or personal quarters. The term has nothing to do with the number and makeup of the occupants or the appearance of the building. The other use for the term refers to a group of enslaved people. Augustine Washington’s probate inventory lists seven enslaved people at Ferry Farm’s “satellite quarter” (Fig. 1). In this use, it does not refer to a single physical structure but rather a group of people and their housing unit that moved around. “The Quarter” uses the term for a single structure, identified through archaeology, that housed an enslaved family in the heart of the Ferry Farm plantation.  

    Figure 1: Section of Augustine’s probate inventory listing individuals at the satellite “quarter”

    Enslaved Housing

                Living conditions varied widely across the Mid-Atlantic and even within a single plantation. Customarily, enslaved people lived where they worked. Work yard structures included living quarters above the workspace while the fields had structures akin to dormitories that housed people divided by biological sex. In certain cases, independent structures may have served as housing for single family units (Fig. 2). Those that lived within these spaces generally held high ranking positions within the hierarchy established by enslavers. Housing generally stood outside public view and in areas convenient to the work undertaken by the inhabitants. Quarters within sight of the public served as status symbols for the gentry.

    Figure 2: 1860 engraving depicting single quarters in South Carolina (Slavery Images)

                Identifying quarters today largely comes from historic records, oral history, archaeology, and architectural features. All of this can help establish a range of appearances for such structures. When a building no longer remains standing, these observations can be compared to artifacts uncovered at the site to determine its identity. Sub-floor storage pits, often located near hearths, serve as key architectural identifiers, while artifacts that reflect African diaspora culture, outdated items, and evidence of labor help pinpoint the identities of the inhabitants. Quarters served as the only personal spaces allotted to enslaved people, so any artifacts recovered can speak to their personal identities rather than those defined by Virginia colonials.

    Archaeological Evidence

                The excavation of the Quarter occurred in 2003, and research in successive years helped to identify its role and understand the lives of its inhabitants.

    • Architecture: When excavated, little remained of the Quarter, but the architectural elements present and absent provided enough information to understand its appearance. Archaeologists recovered small quantities of Aquia sandstone around the quarter indicating it may have had a light stone foundation and hearth. The main impact it had on the ground surface occurred through the creation of a sub-floor pit. These pits frequently appeared in quarters and served as storage areas for the occupants’ personal effects. Unfortunately, a tree later intruded a portion of the pit and the surrounding area thus making it difficult to study (Fig. 3). Other architectural elements included an abundance of nails and an absence of window glass (Fig. 4). This indicates the building had clapboard siding and likely shuttered windows in place of glass ones.
    Figure 3: Quarter Excavation Site
    Figure 4: Nail distribution around Quarter
    • Tableware (Fig. 5): Within the eighteenth-century contexts, we recovered many ceramics and utensils of European origin. White-salt glazed stoneware dishes and dog-nosed spoons represent styles in decline by the 1740s. This indicates that the enslaved occupants either received hand-me-downs from the Washingtons, a common practice, or purchased used items in the local market. A colonoware bowl served as an exception. A local ceramic type attributed to free and enslaved black communities, colonoware production mixed African ceramic techniques with European vessel forms.
    Figure 5: Tableware (L-R white salt glazed stoneware, dog-nosed spoon handle, colonoware bowl, table knives)
    • Small Finds (Fig. 6): Analysis of the artifacts revealed the personal effects of the occupants, their possible identities, and the labor they carried out. Wig curlers appear frequently throughout Ferry Farm, but the recovery of several at the Quarter indicates that the individual(s) tasked with maintaining the Washington wigs may have lived within. Sewing implements, such as thimbles, reflect labor carried out by enslaved women and girls either for the Washingtons or for themselves. A common practice in colonial Virginia saw each enslaved person receive a ration of cloth from which they fashioned their own clothing. Straight pins further indicate the presence of female occupants as these pins held their garments, such as bed gowns, together. Both genders used the numerous tobacco pipes recovered. The fishhook speaks to an entirely personal activity,  as enslaved communities often supplemented their food rations by fishing. The pierced coin serves as the artifact most indicative of enslaved culture. Piercing a coin allowed the owner to keep it on their person as a form of adornment. Such coins often served as talismans, though they could re-enter the economic world as needed.
    Figure 6: Small Finds (L-R mirrored pierced coin, fishhook, wig curlers, thimble, straight pins, tobacco pipe fragments)
    • Diet (Fig. 7): Faunal remains found at the Quarter supplement the information provided by the fishhook. As expected, we identified several fish species including types of perch, catfish, and sunfish which lived in the Rappahannock at that time. Other animals included cattle, chickens, pigs, opossum, and shellfish, such as oysters. This mix of domestic and wild species indicates that the Quarter’s occupants supplemented the rations supplied by the Washingtons. The enslaved commonly achieved this by maintaining small gardens and raising chickens, hunting, fishing, and foraging. While we did not recover any plant remains, those consumed by the inhabitants likely reflected a similar mix of wild and domestic species.
    Figure 7: Faunal (L-R Oyster shells, eggshells under microscope, fish scales/bones under microscope, various mammal bones)

    Reconstruction and Interpretation

                The reconstruction of the Quarter combined our archaeological evidence with the historic knowledge of enslaved housing (Fig. 8). The finished Quarter measures 16’x14’ which aligns with standard measurements for single-family quarters. From our archaeology, it has clapboard siding, sliding shutters in place of glass windows, a subfloor pit, and sandstone hearth. Information on contemporary quarters led to the inclusion of a loft and a daub lined wood chimney. Architects used eighteenth-century techniques to reconstruct the building.

    Figure 8: The Quarter, various views

                From our findings, we concluded that the quarter housed a single family. At least one of these individuals held a high-ranking position within the labor hierarchy allotted these living arrangements (Fig. 9). The structure’s proximity to the Washington House and work yard indicates the occupants worked within these spaces. The position on the bluff overlooking the Rappahannock meant that this quarter, unlike others, lay in view of the public.  “The prominent placement of this structure on the landscape may mean that it was used to reinforce Washington’s prominent social standing in colonial Virginia.”     

    Figure 9: Portion of Augustine’s probate inventory listing individuals at Ferry Farm; some may have called the Quarter home

    The Quarter will open to visitors this fall, and visitors will be able to read about and visualize the lives of those who lived within. Like the Washington House, everything that furnishes the Quarter will be interactive and reflect archaeological finds. Planning remains ongoing for this, but when complete, visitors may find outdated tableware, evidence of meals, tools for labor, and personal effects.

    Emma Schlauder

    Research Archaeologist

    Bibliography

Augustine Washington Probate Inventory, 1743

Carson, Cary & Carl Lounsbury (editors)                                                                                                  2013     The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigation by Colonial Williamsburg. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

Katz-Hyman, Martha B. & Kym S. Rice (editors)                                                                                       2011     World of a Slave: Encyclopedia of the Material Life of Slaves in the United States. Greenwood, Santa Barbara, CA.

Lanier, Gabrielle M. & Bernard L. Vlach                                                                                                     1997     Everyday Architecture of the Mid-Atlantic: Looking at Buildings and Landscapes. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Lounsbury, Carl R. (editor)                                                                                                                  1994     An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and Landscape. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

Samford, Patricia                                                                                                                                       1996     The Archaeology of African-American Slavery and Material Culture. William & Mary Quarterly 53(1): 87-114.

2000     Power Runs in Many Channels: Subfloor Pits and West African-Based Spiritual Traditions in Colonial Virginia. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.                                                                                                                                           

Stilgoe, John R.                                                                                                                                          1982     Common Landscapes of America, 1580-1845. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Wells, Camille                                                                                                                                        1993     The Planter’s Prospect: Houses, Outbuildings, and Rural Landscapes in Eighteenth Century Virginia. Winterthur Portfolio 28(1): 1-31.

Vlach, John M.                                                                                                                                           1993     Back of the Big House: the Architecture of Plantation Slavery. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

  • Cowrie Shells: Cultural and Economic Ties in the 18th-Century Atlantic World 

    Figure 1: Ferry Farm cowries

    Many readers will undoubtedly recognize these two artifacts (Fig. 1). Known as cowrie shells, these artifacts have become synonymous with slavery and serve as identifiers for the presence of free and enslaved Black individuals in the Americas. Still, the role of cowries in the 18th century goes far beyond that of a marker.  

    Origin 

    Cowries (Cypraeidae), a taxonomic family of sea snail, live throughout the world (Fig. 2). However, the species with the most relevance to the 1700s reside in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly in the waters around the Maldives. They include Monetaria annulus (alt. Cypraea annulus, Annulus Linnaeus) and Monetaria moneta (Fig. 3). Even if your Latin proves non-existent, each species’ genus, along with M. moneta’s epithet, easily identifies the original role cowries played in human hands – money.  

    Figure 2: Monetaria monetaKwajalein Underwater
    Figure 3: M. moneta (L) and M. annulus (R) shells in their natural forms
    Barabara Heath

    Economics and Culture in West Africa 

    Centuries before the 1700s, West Africa thrived as a region of independent kingdoms and tribes. With these groups engaged in trade, they required a shared currency that served as a medium of exchange and a store of value. In choosing cowries as currency in the fourteenth century, West Africa continued a long history of groups throughout the world using shell money. Through pre-existing trade routes to the Indo-Pacific, West Africans could easily import the shells via other parts of Africa and had them transported across the Sahara. As the cowries used did not reside in West Africa and proved difficult to forge, the market had built in protections against hyperinflation and counterfeits.  

    Figure 4: Modified cowries strung togetherNational Museum of African American History & Culture

    Once in West Africa, the shells served as the basis of the region’s economies. Still, the shells took on several cultural roles. To keep cowries on hand, the shells often underwent modifications, including slicing off the rounded side of the shell or piercing them (Fig. 4). This allowed for stringing them together and weaving into hair or onto clothing. While done for practical reasons, this led cowries to enter the world of personal adornment. With this, their role expanded to symbols of status, fertility, and beauty while further appearing on ceremonial garb (Fig. 5). 

    Figure 5: Benin Bronze plaque; 16th-17th century. The warriors on either side of the central figure wear helmets decorated with cowries
    British Museum

    Atlantic Trade Routes 

    Europe and Africa had a long history of trade and exchange networks prior to the late 1400s, but the boom of global exploration led to an immediate escalation of these market connections. With European nations expanding their territories abroad and seeking to gain resources not found within their borders, they developed a need to break into the African markets while establishing permanent trade posts in the region. To achieve this, Europeans needed to supply goods that were in demand, and their minds set upon cowries.  

    Map by Adrian Kitzinger from Sahel: Art and Empires on the Shore of the Sahara
    West African Kingdoms and Trading States
    Map centered on the Atlantic Ocean with colored arrows showing movement of Enslaved Africans to the Americas, Raw Materials from Americas, and Manufactured goods from Europe Map showing the primary movement of Enslaved Africans, raw materials, and manufactured goods

    While an item of currency and self-adornment to West Africans, cowries became a commodity in the hands of European, and later American, merchants. With cowries, merchants could navigate the local economy and barter for desired goods. Inevitably, this included kidnapped Africans. In his memoir, Olaudah Equiano (c. 1745-1797), a famed writer and abolitionist, recalled how one enslaver sold him to another for 172 “little white shells” while still in Africa. An examination of eighteenth-century shipping records reveals that cowries ranked amongst the most common goods transported to West Africa and used to trade for captives (Fig 6). For Africans who then faced the Middle Passage, they forcibly traveled aboard these same ships that in turn provided West Africa with the currency driving the economy and their enslavement — cowries.   

    Figure 6: List of goods imported to the Isle of Man via Rotterdam for trade in Africa, 1761
    Manx National Heritage

    Cowries in the Americas 

    Indo-Pacific cowries arrived in the Americas through several carriers, but ultimately all traveled on slave ships. In trading cowries to West Africa, foreign merchants supplied both types even though the market preferred M. moneta. As such, they often had leftover M. annulus which remained onboard as cargo and ballast when the ships continued their trans-Atlantic journeys. Once in the Americas, some captains elected to dump or sell off the remaining cowries rather than transport them back across the Atlantic. Cowries additionally arrived in the Americas on the bodies of kidnapped Africans. While common practice involved stripping captives in Africa, primary accounts report individuals retained beads and shells in their hair and as necklaces. Enslavers further distributed beads, and likely shells, as pacifiers during the Middle Passage. 

    Once in the Americas, cowries largely remained within Black communities though they did face geographical restrictions. For Virginia, archaeological distribution of the shells, mainly M. annulus, places them within the Tidewater region. Higher counts of shells appear in urban areas (Yorktown = 252) while plantations typically only have a few. Although Virginia’s current archaeological cowrie count falls above 353, this remains too few to support the traditional role as currency. Instead, the shells continued in roles of adornment and ritual with added symbolism of cultural loss, memory, and survival. Outside random finds in areas associated with enslavement, cowries recovered in the Americas have derived from burials, spirit caches, and sub-floor pits (Fig. 7). 

    Figure 7: Necklace recovered from an enslaved burial ground at Newton Plantation, BarbadosJerome Handler

    At Ferry Farm 

    Over the course of our twenty-plus year excavation, two cowries have appeared at Ferry Farm. Found in contexts located around the Washington House, including one in a root cellar, our shells represent M. annulus and have undergone modification to allow for stringing or weaving (Fig. 8). As with findings in previous studies, we believe these shells took on cultural roles through self-adornment. Despite not knowing the identity of the shells’ owner(s), the cowries provide enough information to form an interpretation of who they belonged to and how they arrived at Ferry Farm. 

    Figure 8: Ferry Farm cowries with modifications visible

    As their contexts of origin line up with the Washington House, the enslaved individuals who left them behind likely lived and worked close to the Washington family. This places them within the working realm of the house or the nearby work yard. For accommodation, the owner(s) may have occupied the Quarter adjacent to the Washington house or lived in one of the work yard’s support buildings. 

    Regarding the arrival of cowries on the plantation, this likely happened through the movement and exchange of people and goods. To provide the labor required to meet their goals, enslavers moved those they enslaved between different plantations as needed and expanded their workforce through the enslavement of more people or hiring of persons enslaved by others. This could account for the arrival of cowries at Ferry Farm. Alternatively, Ferry Farm’s proximity to the (port) city of Fredericksburg meant the enslaved community had access to a regional economy and trans-Atlantic vessels. Either network may have transported cowries to the city, but it additionally meant that Fredericksburg served as a meeting and trade point for those enslaved in the region. 

    Legacy 

    Cowries have a long and nuanced history in the Atlantic World. Beginning as a unit of currency and cultural symbol, cowries fell prey to the demands of the market, taking on a new role in the hands of foreign merchants. What once served to strengthen economies and nations suddenly worked to strip away the very people who inhabited West Africa. For those who endured enslavement, the cowries that accompanied them became symbols of a stolen home, a continuation of culture, and a determination to survive. Today, cowries remain important items in African and African American cultures by symbolizing their history as currency, continuing in self-adornment and ritual roles, and appearing prominently in works of art (Fig. 9-11).  

    Figure 9-11: Left: The Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) tower in Cotonou, Benin, features cowrie shells on its facade Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International; ReThink Quarterly Center: 20-cedi coin from Ghana. Cedi, the Akan word for cowrie, is Ghana’s unit of currency Michael C. Carlos Museum
    Right: Beyoncé donning a cowrie headdress by Ivorian designer Lafalaise Dion Design Indaba

    Emma Schlauder

    Research Archaeologist

    Bibliography 

    Alpern, Stanley B.                                                                                                                                                  1995     What Africans Got for Their Slaves: A Master List of European Trade Goods. History in Africa 22: 5-43

    Equiano, Olaudah                                                                                                                                    1789     The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, Or Gustavus Vassa, The African. Written By Himself. London, UK

    Handler, Jerome S.                                                                                                                                                            2006     On the Transportation of Material Goods by Enslaved Africans During the Middle Passage: Preliminary findings from Documentary Sources. African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter 9 (4): 1-22 (Article 16).

    2007     From Cambay in India to Barbados in the Caribbean: Two Unique Beads from a Plantation Slave Cemetery. African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter 10(1): 1-10 (Article 1)

    Heath, Barbara J.                                                                                                                                                2016     Cowrie Shells, Global Trade, and Local Exchange: Piecing Together the Evidence for Colonial Virginia. Historical Archaeology 50 (2): 17-46.

    National Museum of African American History & Culture                                                                        n.d.     Cowrie Shells and Trade Power. National Museum of African American History & Culture, Smithsonian, Washington D.C. <https://nmaahc.si.edu/cowrie-shells-and-trade-power>. Accessed 3 June 2024.                                                                

    Ogundiran, Akinwumi                                                                                                                                                            2002     Of Small Things Remembered: Beads, Cowries, and Cultural Translations of the Atlantic Experience in Yorubaland. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 35 (2/3): 427-457.

    Pallaver, Karin                                                                                                                                                 2023     Cowries, the currency that powered West Africa. ReThink Quarterly 7 <https://rethinkq.adp.com/artifact-cowries-west-africa/>. Accessed 3 June 2024.

    Pearce, Laurie E.                                                                                                                                              1992     The Cowrie Shell in Virginia: A Critical Evaluation of Potential Archaeological Significance. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, College of William & Mary. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

    Radburn, Nicholas J.                                                                                                                                       2009     William Davenport, the Slave Trade, and Merchant Enterprise in Eighteenth-Century Liverpool. Master’s thesis, Department of History, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

    Samford, Patricia                                                                                                                                              1994     Searching for West African Cultural Meanings in the Archaeological Record. African Diaspora Newsletter 1 (3): 1-3 (Article 2).

  • Bread Talk: A Slice of History in Colonial America

    In 2020, many of us spent a great majority of our time at home.  This gave us the opportunity to get creative and explore new hobbies.   One such hobby that became a viral sensation, plastered across social media, food blogs, and television news outlets, was that of baking bread.  Bread has been around in some form for nearly as long as human civilization, although before industrialization, it was a means to survive, not just a fun challenge for the amateur baker.  So here is a crumb of history on bread and what this glutinous baked good was like in Colonial America. 

    To start with the basics, bread is made up of 3 simple ingredients: Flour, water, and a leavening agent.  Typically salt and some kind of sweetening, like sugar or honey, are also added.  Everything else is extra.

    Wheat flour was (and still is) the most common ingredient used for bread.  Wheat quickly became a desirable crop in Colonial America.  We can infer wheat was grown on Lewis family land based on documentation of family members paying for goods in wheat.  Biological remains in the ground found by archaeologists at Ferry Farm suggest wheat was planted there too.  Wheat and other crops were planted, cared for, and harvested by enslaved laborers on both plantations.  Wheat specifically was a difficult crop to care for, requiring vast knowledge and careful timing to produce a fruitful harvest.  Wheat is a form of grass, usually not well digested or particularly nutritious to humans.  When wheat is ground into flour, put through the fermentation process of breadmaking, and baked, it becomes far more digestible, nutritious, and caloric for people to eat.  For most of Europe’s history, bread was about half of calorie intake for poorer classes, and wheat still makes up about 20% of people’s diets today. 

    Records of Betty Lewis’ accounts with Andrew Parks totaling £6.13.2. Payment by cash and wheat.
    Wheat kernel recovered from Ferry Farm.  Scale = 1mm grid. Credit: Justine McKnight.

    In the early 18th century, sieves made of fine Chinese silk that allowed for separating the bran from the wheat seed made whiter flour easier to obtain.  Although the bran is the most nutritious part of wheat, it quickly became associated with the poor and lower classes in many Western European cultures.  White bread was a sign of wealth.  This led to bakers putting additives like alum, lime, and chalk into bread to make it whiter.  Despite British Parliament passing laws regulating ingredients allowed in bread, it continued to be an ongoing issue throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.[1]  Even with contemporary knowledge about the benefits of whole grains, 70% of bread baked today is white, based on this century old principle of white flour’s superiority.[2]

    By the time Colonial America comes into the picture, bread is engrained into life.  This is so much so that most 18th century cookbooks do not have bread recipes in them as it is assumed everyone already knows how to make basic table bread. That’s right, Hannah Glasse does not have a simple bread recipe in The Art of Cookery.  It is just the three simple ingredients worked into a dough with the hands that is set aside to rise, then baked until a strong crust forms, after all.  This is something foreign to us in a time when sliced bread is $1.99 in the supermarket.  There is no need for us to spend hours baking bread ourselves in this modern age, but when you made bread every week or every day, it was something as simple as getting dressed or brushing our teeth is now. 

    Kneading bread dough in a wooden dough bowl.

    In urban areas, bakers were trained in the art of breadmaking, but in rural places, it was left to the individual household to make their own bread.  Trained or not, the science behind breadmaking on a molecular level was not understood until the 19th century.  What they did know was that they needed a leavening, or rising, agent in their bread to ensure it rose properly.  Leavened bread came into existence in Egypt about 6,000 years ago.  Bread could be made without a rising agent, but it would be a completely different texture.  In the 18th century, leavening agents came from a few different places.  Barm is the frothy substance on the top of beer after production and is the perfect rising agent for bread, making connections between bakers and brewers in urban areas imperative.  Also, just leaving dough to sit for a day or two to collect the bacteria in the air, from the kneader’s hands, and from the dough bowl with leftover dough bits can also be enough to leaven a batch of dough.[3]  This method of collecting bacteria from the dough’s surroundings is reminiscent of creating a sourdough starter.

    Loaves of bread were placed into a bake oven, a large cast iron Dutch oven, or on a hot hearth.  Regulating temperature was up to the expertise of the cook or baker, there was no temperature dial like we have on our modern oven.  And despite this, when the temperature is kept controlled, the baking process takes about the same amount of time as it does in a modern oven.  The physical baking process is about the same both ways. 

    Bread cooking in dutch oven.
    Bread cooking in dutch oven on the hearth

    Whether you prefer white or whole wheat bread, I hope this entry has given you a grain of insight on the importance of bread throughout history.  Breaking the bread down in this article may make it sound simple, but I will say from experience that getting the dough smooth, the crust tender, and the crumb coat correct is no easy task.  Put that loaf over coals from the hearth and you add a whole new element of challenge.  Reflect on the enslaved cook at Kenmore or Ferry Farm who was responsible for not only making bread, but three meals a day, along with planning and prepping ingredients for future meals.  Cooking and baking in an 18th century kitchen were physically and mentally challenging, making it one of many difficult jobs for those enslaved on southern plantations.  I suggest everyone try baking a loaf for themselves.  To me, it is a task that humanizes food production and reminds us of its delicate nature now and throughout time.

    Loaves of bread made on the hearth at Kenmore for Taste Through Time program.

    Allison Ellis

    Manager of Public Programs

    [1] Federation of Baking. “Fact Sheet No. 9 – the History of Bread.” Last modified 2011. https://www.fob.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FS-9-History-of-Bread.pdf.

    [2]  Pollen, Michael.  Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation. New York: Penguin Books, 2014.

    [3] Edlin, A. A Treatise on the Art of Bread-making. London: J/ Wright, St. John’s Square for Vernor and Hood Poultry, 1805.

  • Meet the 2024 Field Crew

    The dig is in full swing, and we are a little over halfway through our 11-week dig season. Over the past few weeks, we have made lots of new exciting discoveries, and as you may have noticed, added quite a few new faces to our crew.

    Hosting a field school from the University of South Florida as well as interns from colleges and universities around the country has more than doubled our crew this season. While this is definitely awesome in itself, the fact that the entire field school and crew are women makes this year’s dig stand out even more. Now before we get into why an all women dig is so impressive, lets meet our crew.

    Front Row Left to Right: Alaina, Srin, Sarah, Sofia. Second Row: Abbie, Amelie, Rosie, Lindsay. Third Row: Kate, Rachel, Kellina. Back Row: Danielle, Judy.

    Srinidhi

    “Srinidhi is from Lithia, Florida. She just recently graduated from the University of South Florida with a bachelor’s degree in history. She plans on attending graduate school sometime in the future. Outside of school, Srinidhi enjoys reading high fantasy novels, playing video games, and hanging out with her dog, Felix.”

    Lindsay Marrion

    “Lindsay Marrion, from Niceville, Florida, attends the University of South Florida for English and Art History. She hopes to continue her education in graduate school, with dreams of working in academia one day. Outside of school, Lindsay in as avid reader and writer, and she loves an adventure of any kind.”

    Alaina Scapicchio

    “Alaina Scapicchio is a doctoral student at the University of South Florida in Tampa. She did her first field school at Ferry Farm in 2018 and now she is the graduate assistant for this year’s field school. Her dissertation is focused on public memory and the commemoration of witch trials in colonial America. She is the owner of two senior citizen fat cats named Tazz and Amira who she misses very much.”

    Sofia Almeida

    “Sofia Almeida is an incoming History PhD student at the University of South Florida. She recently completed her MA thesis on the digitization of historic Black cemeteries in Florida. Moving forward she is interested in American history, historic archaeology, and memory. Outside of school, she enjoys reading, playing guitar, and going on adventures with friends.”

    Amelie

    “Amelie is from Tucson, Arizona and is studying Biology, French, and Anthropology at the University of Arizona. She enjoys reading, hiking, and weightlifting and aspires to travel the world.”

    Rosie Muraca

    “Rosie Muraca is from Fredericksburg, VA. This is her first time working as a field student. She plans to attend Mount Holyoke College in the spring. When she is not digging, she is spending time with her two cats.”

    Kellina

    “Kellina is a rising junior at Yale University. She is an anthropology major from Spotsylvania, VA and she hopes to work in museum conservation. Spending the summer at the Ferry Farm archaeological dig has given her a better understanding of artifacts prior to their museum life and deepened her understanding of American history.”

    Kate McDonald

    “Kate McDonald Yaun is a rising freshman at Sewanee: The University of the South. She is studying Environment Arts and Humanities. Her hobbies include playing her viola, reading, and spending time outdoors.”

    Abbie Wood

    “Abbie Wood graduated from UVA in 2023 with a B.S. in Anthropology and a B.S. in Archaeology. This is her second dig season at Ferry Farm and the fourth overall, following a collections management museum internship. She has a passionate interest in caring for artifacts and history.”

    Sarah

    “Sarah came to Ferry Farm as a student of Virginia Commonwealth University in the summer of 2014. She has participated in half a dozen summer digs as an intern at Ferry Farm since then. Her favorite artifacts consist of the more personal items people had such as buttons, beads, sewing pins and Ferry Farm’s famous and abundant collection of colonial wig hair curlers.”

    So back to why an all women crew is so awesome. Well, our crew illustrates how women are gaining ground in a previously male dominated field. Historically, many professional positions in archaeology were held by men, but times are changing.

    Hopefully we will see some of these faces again somewhere down the archaeology pipeline, or wherever their futures may take them.

    Danielle Arens

    GWF Archaeologist

  • Where is Whieldon? Survey Says: Probably Not on Your Table

    Archaeologists tend to have strong feelings about ceramics. Ceramics can play a major role in interpreting a site, as their materials often reflect their function. This can be helpful when determining how a site was used. For instance, finding an abundance of redwares and stonewares could indicate a primarily utilitarian site like what would have been used in our Cellar House whereas porcelain and refined earthenwares may reflect a more domestic space.  So, it really isn’t surprising that we feel some type of way about these artifacts.

    Redware and stoneware storage vessels
    Porcelain and refined earthenware tablewares

    But don’t let that fool you. Archaeologists have feelings about ceramics based solely on their appearance as well. It has come to my attention that Whieldon Ware just might hold the title as the most polarizing ceramic type as of late. These feelings were made very apparent during our recent acquisition of some Whieldon Ware pieces. Most either love or hate it; rarely is there an in-between.  Before we get into the ceramic and its distinct look that conjures images of either vomit or a work of art (depending on whom you ask), let’s go over a little background on its creator, Thomas Whieldon.

    Thomas Whieldon was an influential English potter producing examples of early creamware beginning in the mid-18th century. He gained popularity for his innovative shapes and decoration, which can be seen on various figurines, dishes, and other vessels. Whieldon is also well known for his partnership with the MVP of the ceramics world, Josiah Wedgwood, Mr. Creamware himself. Together, they developed advances in the realm of refined earthenware, like the perfecting of the green glaze as seen on the pineappleware we have found at Ferry Farm (Wedgwood & Ormsbee, 1947).

    Whieldon agate ware coffee pot. Source: British Museum
    Whieldon figurine. Source: The British Museum.

    With that said, what we commonly think of when referring to Whieldon Ware is Whieldon’s tortoiseshell or clouded wares. These were created by sponging metal oxides on cream-colored earthenware and then adding a clear lead glaze. The mixing of the metal oxides with the liquid glaze caused the colors to blend and streak, creating splotches of green, yellow, purple, blue, and brown, depending on the types of metal oxides used (Gallagher, 2015). This resulted in a clouded or tortoiseshell decoration. Due to the nature of the technique, no two pieces look exactly the same. For Whieldon lovers like myself, the uniqueness of each piece gives it its charm.

    Examples of Whieldon’s tortoiseshell/clouded ware with similar decoration to sherds found at Ferry Farm – Teapot. Source: Earle D. Vandekar of Knightsbridge, Inc
    Examples of Whieldon’s tortoiseshell/clouded ware with similar decoration to sherds found at Ferry Farm – Platter. Source: Met Museum

    Now that we know more about Whieldon Ware and how some of us feel about it today, let’s talk about how Mary Washington may have felt about it. I firmly believe that she was not team Vomit Ware and instead found the decoration quite desirable. Our excavations have found evidence of at least four Whieldon Ware plates, a teapot, teacup, and other medium-sized holloware vessels at Ferry Farm. Considering the short-lived popularity of the type, lasting only from 1740-1775, we can be quite certain that it was Mary who was buying these items.

    Some Whieldon Ware vessel mends and sherds excavated at Ferry Farm

    Toward the end of the 1770’s, Whieldon Ware quickly went out of style and was replaced by Wedgwood’s new, improved creamware and its more subtle decoration. While it may have gone out of style, potters continued to replicate the technique for many years, which makes it difficult to attribute all examples of the type to Whieldon himself. After 1780, he retired from the business, demolished his factory, built an ornamental garden in its place, and spent the rest of his years as a sheriff (Hildyard, 2005; The London Gazette, 1785).

    So, there you have it, the very brief story of Whieldon and his wares.

     While Mary Washington and a couple of us in the lab are Team Whieldon all day, every day (or at least the days concerning Whieldon), the majority are a hard pass.  Where do you stand? Are you Team Whieldon or team Whieldout?

    Danielle Arens

    GWF Archaeologist

    References

    Gallagher, B. (2015). British Ceramics 1675-1825: The Mint Museum. Charlotte: The Mint Museum.

    Hildyard, R. (2005). English Pottery 1620-1840. London: V&A Publications.

    The London Gazette. (1785, November 12). The London Gazette(12699), p. 522.

    Wedgwood, J., & Ormsbee, T. H. (1947). Staffordshire Pottery. New York: Robert M. McBride & Company.

    Images

    https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1938-0314-47-CR – figurine

    https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1923-0122-13-CR – coffee pot

    https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/237853?who=Whieldon%2c+Thomas%2c+factory%24Thomas+Whieldon+factory%2c+Stoke-on-Trent%2c+Fenton+Vivian%2c+Staffordshire&ao=on&ft=*&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=3  – platter

    https://vandekar.com/inventory/Ceramics/British%20Pottery/Whieldon/works/26486 – tea pot

  • Horsing Around: Archeological Finds at Ferry Farm

    Think about a portrait or painting of George Washington.  What is a common element in the paintings?  His uniform, yes, he is indeed painted quite a bit in his impressive military uniform. But how about a horse?  George is often painted riding beautiful horses with a quiet dignity and noble appearance we expect from the father of our country. 

    Washington at Verplanck’s Point by John Trumbull, Source: Winterthur

    However, the horses in these paintings are not mere symbols of wealth or power. They are depicted with George because, from a tender age, his life has been intertwined with these creatures. As a surveyor, soldier, landowner, farmer, gentry, commander-in-chief, and president, he was inextricably linked with horses, not just as a mode of transportation but as a vital part of his daily life.

    And it all started at Ferry Farm…

    George moved to Ferry Farm around 1738 at the age of six. His father, Augustine Washington, was a member of the “planter class,” or Colonial American gentry. This meant he was a prominent member of society, involved in politics, and owned lots of land. Augustine purchased 150 acres across the river from Fredericksburg and later added an additional 450-acre parcel.  In total, he owned Little Hunting Creek, Pope’s Creek, and the Ferry Farm properties. 

    The point?  Augustine needed help because there were places to be, people to see, and fields to farm.  So, horses were a fundamental necessity for the Washington family, and George would have grown up around them, taking care of them and learning to ride.

    We have two great sources that give us some understanding of the horse situation at Ferry Farm. First, in 1743, the Washington patriarch died, leaving behind a widow, an 11-year-old George, and a probate inventory. On page two of the inventory, three horses and one mare are listed.

    Augustine Washington Probate Inventory, 1743

    Secondly, some pretty cool horse tack dating from the Washington occupation has been found during various archeological digs.

    The Finds

    One of the most universally known horse tack, essential for all horse maintenance – is the horseshoe.  The horseshoe was used to protect the hooves because “…being rendered subservient to the use of man…applied to severe and continued labour, and compelled to tread frequently…on the irregular and stony surface of the roads, it became necessary to secure his feet from ruin by strengthening them with the iron band which we call a shoe” (Vial de Saint Bel, 1793).  These shoes were handmade with no standardization across makers in shape, narrowness, or thickness. (Hume, 2001).  This makes it difficult to pinpoint and assign a time on shape alone.

    Farrier Shoeing a Horse by Marechal Ferrant et Operant Source: The Wellcome Collection

    Our horseshoe was found in the second cellar of the Washington Home. It is quite wide between the branches (the curving sides), and the toe seems to straighten a bit at the center. The crease (the groove that runs down the sides) gives enough depth to allow the shoe to be firmly attached to the hoof with six nails (which we found a few originals). (University of Zurich, 2024)  This find illustrates that there was active shoeing and horse maintenance going on at the farm.  Additionally, these horses were ridden or used for farm work because shoes were used to protect the hooves from the wear and tear of hard roads, distribute the horse’s weight evenly on uneven ground, and provide traction on various surfaces. 

    Horseshoe with original nails

    Another artifact found in the cellar of the Washington Home, the stirrup, further demonstrates horse riding as a family necessity. (Cofield, 2014) 

    Stirrup

    The stirrups are used as foot support for the rider, and they hang from a saddle on straps known as stirrup leathers.   Basic stirrups are made of three parts the eyes for the stirrup leathers to attach the stirrup to the saddle, a platform or base where the rider places their foot, and arms which connect the eye to the base. (Cofield, 2014)

    Examples of Stirrup Forms Source: Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland

    Horseback riding master and author VS Littauer described the Forward Seat as a stirrup-centric approach versus traditional riding’s seat-centric. He argued riding without stirrups taught people to grip with the knee, which he considered a dangerous habit and likely to stiffen the rider. With stirrups, you can ride with a looser knee, letting your weight flow PAST your knee and into the stirrup. That is a more secure approach than riding with the thigh and knee. (Littauer, 1962)

    Captain Vladimir Littauer – Forward Seat Riding,1947

    Stirrups allow the rider’s legs to absorb up/down motion by allowing them to stand in matching balance with the horse, which makes riding longer distances more comfortable. Augustine certainly had to travel a great distance to check on his properties and perform his civic duties, like serving as a justice of the peace and sheriff for the county of Westmoreland. 

    One final utilitarian bit of horse tack found again in the cellar is a mullen mouth bit or snaffle bit. This bit consists of two rings on each side of a half-moon-shaped bar with no joint.  The bit applies even pressure on the horse’s tongue and bars (gums) and allows the horse’s lips to feel the pressure from the bit and side rings.  The bit, bridle, and reins function to create communication between the rider and the horse.

    Mouth Bit

    The Washington children would have used bits to learn to control.  They would have learned how to work with the horse in a cooperative way that would create an effortless and seamless ride.  George used this skill of communication and intuition to become a great rider.  As Thomas Jefferson reminisced in a letter in 1814, “his person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish, his deportment easy, erect, and noble; the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could be seen on horseback.” (National Archives, n.d.)

    Lastly, just south of “The Quarter,” we uncovered around twenty leather ornaments.   They were used to decorate the leather straps, nosebands, harnesses, and reins of horses.  We wrote a post about them earlier explaining their purpose, which was purely aesthetic. Horse tack could be made without these pieces, but where is the fun in that?  These flashy accessories were a great way to grab the attention of the public and hint at how fashionable and elegant you were as you trotted through town.    

    Ferry Farm leather ornaments dating from the 1700s
    This copper-alloy mount dates from the mid-to-late 1700s


    These artifacts illustrate that not only were horses actively used by the family, but it also fostered an environment where young George would have taken his first steps into learning about horsemanship.  This knowledge and skill would help him in his future careers of surveying the Shenandoah Valley, as a lieutenant colonel during the French and Indian War, as a farmer and landowner at Mount Vernon, as a representative in the House of Burgesses, as commander-and-chief of the Continental Army and finally President of the United States. 

    Come see our new pop-up exhibit at Ferry Farm, where all these wonderful artifacts are displayed and put together with the help of our Fleming-Smith scholar, Sarah Moore.

    References

    Cofield, S. R. (2014, May 14). Stirrups. Retrieved from Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland: https://apps.jefpat.maryland.gov/diagnostic/SmallFinds/Stirrups/index-stirrups.html

    Hume, I. N. (2001). A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: Vintage Books.

    Littauer, V. S. (1962). The Development of Modern Riding. Washington D.C.: D.Van Nostrand Company, Inc.

    National Archives. (n.d.). Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 2 January 1814. Retrieved from Founders Online: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0052

    University of Zurich. (2024). Fullering. Retrieved from E-Hoof: https://e-hoof.com/glossary/en/fullering/

    Vial de Saint Bel, C. (1793). Lectures on the Elements of Farriery. London: Veterinary College, London.

  • 2024 Dig Preview!

    Spring is in the air. The weather is warming up, flowers are blooming, bees are buzzing, and of course the dig season is about to start here at Ferry Farm, George Washington’s Boyhood Home.

    As part of the 2023 dig season, our team revisited the site of a colonial-era kitchen that had experienced a particularly destructive fire sometime in the middle of the 18th century. The kitchen’s foundation, as well as the surrounding landscape, had been compromised by the construction, and subsequent destruction, of two farmhouses that were built directly on top of everything. This site (FF-44) is located about 50 feet from the northeast corner of the Washington House.

    Location of this year’s dig at the colonial kitchen site (FF-44)

    The 18thC kitchen site was initially explored as part of an archaeological assessment of the Ferry Farm historic property in the early 1990s. The structure and its contents were originally interpreted as a house, but a reevaluation of the excavation notes and artifacts several years later reinterpreted this site as a kitchen, not a primary domestic dwelling. But research queries still exist, such as narrowing down the dates of construction and destruction of the structure, as well as determining the possibility that meaningful artifact deposits and landscape features that might help bolster the interpretation of the building still exist outside of the foundation.

    Location of the 18thC kitchen in relation to later 19th and 20thC farmhouses

    With these questions in mind, our efforts last summer focused on working out a game plan for reexamining the site for our future excavations.  During our dig, we uncovered the southwest corner of the original kitchen as well as the foundation of the 20th-century farmhouse overlaying it. Re-locating the site and evaluating the amount and extent of fill were our primary goals. That completed, this year we will concentrate on investigating the landscape surrounding the foundation and reexamining the burnt fill within.

    Last year’s excavation. Red arrow points to area inside of the kitchen, white arrow points to area outside of the building. The stone and concrete wall is part of the 1914 farmhouse foundation, which sits atop the colonial kitchen fill.
    Lead excavator Sarah on floor of kitchen cellar

    An honest question you might ask would be why would we want to learn more about what was outside of the foundation? Isn’t all the important stuff inside? In the archaeological world, a lot of valuable information can be learned from these outlying areas. Eighteenth-century trash middens are often found outside of a building because garbage was being thrown off of the porches and out the doors and windows. Studying this everyday disposal of trash can tell us how and when a building was being used, as well as traffic patterns by those using the building.

    Another interesting feature that can be found outside of a foundation is a builder’s trench. These trenches were dug by the individuals building the foundation, and as they worked and backfilled these trenches, items they were currently using were accidentally left behind. These artifacts can be excellent dating material and can really nail down a construction date.

    Other items we will be looking for are possible supplementary building features, such as post-in-the ground foundations and fences. Additionally, taking a second look at the site will help us better understand the previous archaeology that was done over thirty years ago.

    As for the exciting second site we started excavating last year, Feature 321, we are putting that project on hold for now and concentrating our efforts on the kitchen site. But work continues in the lab on all the interesting artifacts recovered during last summer’s dig.

    This year’s dig begins April 29thand ends July 12th.  Archaeologists are working on site from 8 am until 4 pm, Monday through Friday, and we gladly welcome questions from our site visitors.  So be sure to stop by and see what exciting things we uncover!

    Danielle Arens and Judy Jobrack

    George Washington Foundation Archaeologists

  • Stop Collaborate and Listen TD is Back with a Brand New Edition

    A quick refresher from part one of the TD marked pipe saga – Clay tobacco pipes with the mark TD are a ubiquitous item at historical archaeology sites dating from the mid-18th through the 20th century. While at one point the mark represented a specific maker, it later became a mark synonymous with clay tobacco pipes themselves. So, it’s not surprising that archaeologists and historians have been looking to identify the origin of the mark for years. These efforts led to the naming of Thomas Dormer as the maker most likely to have begun the rise of the TD mark, though this identification was less than certain (Walker, 1966).

    Now that we are all caught up, let’s pick up the quest once again.

    Adrian Oswald’s (1975) index of pipe makers lists Thomas Dormer as one of the only London-based pipe makers with the initials TD trading with the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) in the years 1748-1770. HBC records also mention that Dormer went into business with his son for a brief time from 1754-1756. Oswald built on this by looking at the insurance policies of pipe makers of the time, which shows that the value of Thomas Dormer’s estate was nearly five times that of other pipe makers (Alexander, 1978). In the 18th century, pipe makers and the pipe making industry were often relegated to the lower class and the poorer parts of town (Walker, 1981). Dormer’s large estate implies he stood out at the time.

    Oswald’s (1975) pipe maker index
    Dormer insurance policy (Woollard, 2001)

    So, we know that Thomas Dormer produced and imported his pipes into North America around the time TD marked pipes started popping up at sites, and that he was doing well for himself. We can call it a day and say Thomas Dormer was the original TD, right? While that does sound pretty enticing, there still needs to be more evidence supporting Dormer’s claim to the TD mark. At the time of the previous research there was very little historical documentation of Dormer and his life available, which left some questions unanswered: Why did Dormer stop exporting pipes in 1770? What is the reason behind the brief mention of this son in the mid 1750’s? And why did these pipes continue to be produced beyond 1770 with the TD mark, if not by Dormer himself? These questions made it difficult to confirm that Thomas Dormer was the TD.

    Previous timeline of Dormer pipe production

    This opens the door for my research as I attempt to fill in the blanks surrounding Dormer and his life. Since a trip to London to begin my research was off the table, much of my investigation was done through online archival research. Yay for digitization efforts and increased access to information!

    One of the first items identified was Thomas Dormer’s will dated January 1771 (National Archives). It gives his occupation as a pipe maker and his location at Brewhouse Yard, confirming this to be the correct Thomas Dormer. Finding this document provided information that would further the investigation including a probable death date and the names of family members.

    Thomas Dormer’s will 1771 (National Archives)

    Speaking of family members, Thomas Dormer chose to leave the entirety of his vast estate to his “loving mother Judith.” On the other hand, he left his wife Margaret one single shilling. Hold up, just one shilling? This led me down a mini rabbit hole where I found that Thomas and Margaret had been married for 11 years. Indeed, long enough for her to have a fair share of the estate. Additionally, it wasn’t uncommon for wives to take over their husband’s pipe making business after their death, yet Dormer left things to his mother instead. Ouch!

    Dormer’s division of his estate (National Archives)

    Anyway, back to the investigation. Using 1771 as a probable death date I was able to find a Burial Notice dated February 1771 stating Thomas Dormer died at the age of 39 due to consumption, or tuberculosis as we know it today (London Metropolitan Archives [LMA]). An age at death gave me the ability to estimate his birthday to sometime around 1731 or 1732 and identified a Christening Record for Dormer dated 1731(LMA). It lists his mother as Judith Dormer which fits with previous records, and it also lists his father who is, wait for it, Thomas Dormer, a pipe maker. This uncovers the fact that there were two Thomas Dormers producing pipes in 18th century London, father and son.

    Dormer’s Burial Notice 1771 (London Metropolitan Archives)
    Dormer’s Christening Record 1731 (London Metropolitan Archives)

    After finding that fun fact I switched gears to see if I could find information about Thomas Dormer Sr. Given the birthdate of Thomas Jr., I figured Thomas Sr. was probably born some time in the early 1700s. Using that date, I identified his Burial Notice dated December 1756. It listed Thomas Dormer Sr. dying at the age of 56 due to asthma (LMA). Additionally, an apprenticeship indenture for Thomas Jr. was located (LMA). Dated 1746, it lists his seven-year apprenticeship under John Hawkes. Now, an apprenticeship in itself isn’t too exciting, but this was an apprenticeship for a joiner, not a pipe maker. Considering Jr. did go on to be a pipe maker, and a popular one at that, makes his previous foray into joinery an unexpected plot twist.

    Dormer Sr.’s Burial Notice 1756 (London Metropolitan Archives)
    Dormer Jr.’s Indenture Record 1746 (London Metropolitan Archives)

    Let’s put all of this information together. Cue the timeline! The newly discovered documentary evidence now allows me to create an updated chronology of the Dormer pipe production. Thomas Dormer Sr. began producing pipes in the London area some time prior to 1731. By 1748 Dormer Sr. was doing well enough in the business to begin exporting pipes into North America. Indenture records suggest that Dormer Jr. was not always intending to take over the business, but perhaps his father’s health prompted this, or the incoming wealth from overseas changed his mind. Nonetheless, sometime in the year 1754, or the years leading up to it, Thomas Dormer Jr. came into the family business. This partnership was short lived due to Thomas Dormer Sr.’s death in 1756, explaining the brief mention of their partnership in the HBC records. Following Dormer Sr.’s death, his son Thomas Dormer Jr., continued to produce and export pipes to North America until his death in 1771.  

    Updated Dormer pipe production timeline with new information

    This timeline helps put all the previous information into context and more fully supports Thomas Dormer Sr. and then Jr. as the originators of the TD mark.

    But wait there’s more! I also located Judith Dormer’s (Thomas Jr.’s mom) will dated 1782 (LMA). In her will she mentions her properties and its association with Tidy & Evans pipe makers (LMA). During my look into the HBC records I found that Tidy & Evans take over the London pipe export a few years after Dormer Jr.’s death. Now remember, Jr gave her all his estate which included his warehouse and workshop (LMA). Perhaps Tidy & Evans occupied his workshop and continued making TD marked pipes using Dormer’s molds after his death. Using the molds of other pipe makers was not unheard of at the time (Walker, 1981). But why would they want to make pipes with a mark other than their own?

    Mention of Tidy & Evans in HBC records and Judith’s will

    Well, a search on the Library of Congress’s Chronicling America located a 1771 Massachusetts Spy advertisement that specifically lists London TD pipes (LOC). Not only does this solidify that TD pipes were based out of London, it also supports that the popularization of these pipes occurred during the Dormers’ lifetimes. For these pipes to be advertised by name it can be assumed that their popularity had already been established by this point. Whether this popularity had to do with the quality or the quantity of Dormer’s pipes being imported into North America remains unknown. The resulting name recognition may have caused a continued demand for these pipes, leading Tidy & Evans and others to continue producing them.

    1771 Massachusetts Spy article (LOC)

    These new findings present a solid case for Thomas Dormer being the originator of the TD mark. We can now see that TD pipes were based out of London and popularized during the period when Dormer produced and exported pipes. After 1771 the TD mark stopped representing pipes made by Dormer, and the mark was then used by other makers, perhaps Tidy & Evans, representing tobacco clay pipes themselves rather than a specific maker.

    Research such as this illustrates the importance of revisiting past theories. Whether it be trying to answer questions about a mark representing nearly 300 years of tobacco smoking culture, or looking to find interesting insight into the life of the pipe maker that created it, there is more information out there, we just need to keep looking.

    So, what do you think? Did I solve the mystery of the man behind the mark?

    Danielle Arens

    GWF Archaeologist

    References

    Alexander, L. T. (1978) ‘Clay Tobacco Smoking Pipes from the Caleb Pusey House, The Archaeological Society of Delaware, 9, 35pp.

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P69/Gis/A/002/Ms06419/016

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/025

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/026

    London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; London Church of England Parish Registers; Reference Number: P93/JN2/026

    London Metropolitan Archive; Reference Number: COL/CHD/FR/02/0778-0-785

    Manitoba Archives. Merchandise exported to HBC posts [microfilm]. H1-16-2 ( A.25/2 )

    National Archives, Kew, Will of Thomas Dormer, Pipe Maker of Saint John Wapping , Middlesex, PROB 11/963/352

    Oswald, A. (1975) Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 14, Oxford, 207pp

    Walker, I. (1966, June). TD Pipes – A Preliminary Study. Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia, pp. 86-102.

    Walker, S. (1981). The Clay Pipe Industry of the Parish of St Olave’s Southwark, in P Davey, The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe 6, Pipes and Kilns in the London Region, B97, 173–82

    Woollard, P, (2001) Some Clay Tobacco Pipemakers with Fire Insurance Policies in the Sun Assurance Company 1710-1844, The Society for Clay Pipe Research, 62

  • You Down with Old TD? Yeah, You Know Me!  

     TD Marked Tobacco Pipes That Is! 

    Clay tobacco pipes are a hallmark of historical archaeology. Grandma smoked, the enslaved smoked, the elite smoked, children smoked, just about everyone smoked. Smoking was one of America’s favorite pastimes, and there are plenty of pipes left in the archaeological record to prove it. Tobacco pipes were not only a vessel for a leisurely activity, they could also be a way to display one’s identity or beliefs.  

    Figure 1: A Smoking Club (NYPL)

    Because of this, the motifs and marks on tobacco pipes can tell us a lot about the people who used them.  

    Tobacco pipes can also be valuable tools for dating a site by using pipe bore diameters, typologies, and maker’s marks. This last one helps set the stage for our question of the hour.  

    Some makers would mark their pipes to indicate a product as theirs.  These marks can be found on different parts of a pipe, such as the bowl, heel, or stem. Finding a pipe with a maker’s mark can be very exciting as it allows a pipe to be attributed to a specific pipe maker and, thus, a time period. But that is not always the case. One of the more common maker’s marks in many archaeological sites is the mark “TD.” Remember the two we found during last summer’s dig?  

    Figure 2: Diagram of a tobacco pipe National Pipe Archive
    Figure 3: TD pipe bowls in Ferry Farm collection
    Figure 4: TD pipe bowl from 2023 dig

     So, you’re probably thinking, what’s the question again? Just go look up a pipe maker with the initials TD, and you will have your maker. Well, unfortunately, it’s not always that easy. 

    There are multiple pipe makers with those initials, and the pipes with variations of the TD mark have been found at sites with occupation dates suggesting the mark was being produced from the mid-18th century all the way into the 20th century. At some point, the mark stopped representing a single maker and instead became a symbol used on pipes throughout the years, reflecting clay tobacco pipes themselves. Think of it as the Kleenex or Q-tip of its time. TD became synonymous with clay tobacco pipes. This can be seen in written records like a catalog from 1892 that touts their rendition of “the Celebrated “T.D.” pipe” (Zorn). An early 20th-century song referencing “the Old TD” also supports the lasting influence of the mark (Cooper, 1907, as cited by Walker, 1966).  

    Figure 5: George Zorn & Co.’s “T.D.” pipe advertisement 1892
    Figure 6: Early 20th-century smoking song, no known date or author, Cooper 1907 as cited by Walker 1966

    Since there is no solid end date to help frame who the possible maker could be, archaeologists and historians have focused on looking at beginning dates to help find the original maker of the TD pipes, settling on a date in the middle of the 18th century. Archaeologists Adrian Oswald and Iain Walker are often cited as laying the foundations of the current TD lore. The combination of their findings identifies 18th-century London-based pipemaker Thomas Dormer as the most likely originator of the TD mark (Walker, 1966). With that said, Walker (1966) states that more information will have to be found to definitively give Dormer credit for originating the mark. 

    So, that brings us to the start of my research and a revisiting of the foundation of this theory, which was laid out as early as the 1930s.  Who is Thomas Dormer, and is he the original TD? Why were TD pipes so popular that they were copied and made for centuries? And can we find new information to crack the case of the elusive TD mark? 

    The first step of the investigation is reviewing the literature and identifying current thoughts on TD pipes and their maker. One of the earliest deep dives into TD pipe origins can be found in the article “A Theory Regarding TD pipes” in the November 1937 printing of Antiques magazine. In this article, Alfred Hopkins expresses the mystery surrounding the mark and suggests its possible meaning. At the time, Hopkins (1937) and his contemporaries were unable to find potential pipe makers with the initials TD that would indicate the mark was referring to a maker. Instead, he states that it was a trademark of sorts to identify a quality product (Hopkins, 1937). He also mentions that TD may represent the beginning of the Christian hymn Te Deum Laudamus (Hopkins, 1937). Now remember, folks, this was written in the 1930s, and at the time, they didn’t have easy access to information. While more information has since been shared, we now know that there were indeed pipe makers with these initials and look more toward a maker rather than a hymn; Hopkins’ article plays an integral part in our quest by illustrating that there was an interest in the TD mark as early as the 1930s.  

    Figure 7: 1937 Alfred Hopkins article 

    Moving away from the 1930s and into the 1960s, Adrian Oswald compiled an index of pipe makers, which Iain Walker (1966) refined to find three possible English pipe makers that could be the originator of the mark: Thomas Dennis, Thomas Darkes, and Thomas Dormer. Walker (1966) continued this search and identified London-based pipemaker Thomas Dormer as the most likely of the three. Nailing down their sources became the next part of the puzzle in an attempt to confirm this information through primary source research and examination of any sources referred to in support of the theory.  

    This is where the quest to find new information about Thomas Dormer begins. Through this investigation, I was able to identify the “OG TD,” some juicy 18th-century family drama, and the possible first plagiarizers of the TD mark. There are twists, turns, and, unfortunately, too much to tell you in just one blog, so be sure to check out part two, where we get to the bottom of this mystery that began nearly 100 years ago. 

    Danielle Arens

    GWF Archaeologist

    ​​References 

    ​​(2022). Retrieved from George-M-Woodward-mavcor.yale.edu.jpg 

    ​George Zorn & Co. (1892). Pipes & Smokers Articles. Philadelphia. 

    ​Hopkins, A. (1937, November). A Theory Regarding TD Pipes. Antiques, pp. 234-235. 

    ​National Pipe Archive. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.pipearchive.co.uk/images/how%20to/pipe_figure_1.jpg&nbsp;

    ​Walker, I. (1966, June). TD Pipes – A Preliminary Study. Quarterly Bulletin Archeological Society of Virginia, pp. 86-102. 

    ​​​ 

  • Seeing The Big Picture:  How Excavated Ceramics Informed The George Washington Foundation’s Acquisition of Complete Pieces for Display

    The archaeology and curatorial departments for The George Washington Foundation have long worked together to furnish the reproduced Washington house with historically accurate items that resemble as closely as possible the ones that George and his family would have lived with daily. These pieces are not originals, which means visitors touring the house can handle them.

    Go ahead and touch everything.

    In our latest collaboration we’ve been examining sherds of ceramic vessels owned by the Washington’s to obtain actual eighteenth-century dishes. We want to display these dishes in our gallery to give visitors an idea of what the whole vessels looked like. Four such ceramics have recently been acquired at auctions by the Foundation and you can see them first here along with the excavated remnants they resemble.

    Creamware tankard with strawberry terminals and twisted reeded handles, ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware tankard with strawberry terminals and twisted reeded handles, ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware jug with strawberry terminals and twisted reed handles; face below the spout of the jug. ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware sauceboat with curved handle which terminate with strawberry flowers.
    Moulded detail finials

    Three of our acquisitions are a type of English ceramic called ‘creamware,’ which was invented in the early 1760’s and was very popular with George’s mother, Mary. Both this lovely pitcher and mug exhibit decorative elements represented by our excavated ceramics. Most prominent are the elegantly curved handles that terminate in delicate strawberry flowers. At least two vessels with these types of handles have been recovered at Ferry Farm. The first is a highly decorative creamware sauce boat and the second a petite teacup, both of which were considered quite fashionable for the time. The jug and teacup also share a common form of decoration called a ‘beaded rim.’

    Creamware jug with strawberry terminals and twisted reed handles; face below the spout of the jug, ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware jug with strawberry terminals and twisted reed handles; face below the spout of the jug. ca. 1750-1800
    Creamware sherd with “beaded rim”
    Creamware teacup sherd with “beaded rim”

    Another teacup owned by Mary was this beautiful piece hand-painted with a detailed swag motif. But from the sherds it’s difficult to really appreciate how graceful this decoration is. Luckily, our curators hunted down a similar cup and saucer with the same decoration, which is unusual. The saucer also features a beaded rim that has been filled in with gold gilding, although we believe the gold to be a later addition to the piece. The cup and saucer also have handwritten tags affixed to the bases which indicate they had the distinction of having been in the collection of a well-known (at least to ceramics geeks like yours truly) collector of creamware. This man by the name of Donald Towner had written extensively on the topic of English ceramics and over his career had amassed a large study collection, of which this was one. His book on the Leeds Pottery in England features a catalogue from the pottery that includes many of the decorative elements and shapes discussed above (Towner, 1965).

    English Creamware Cup and Saucer, ca. 1775-1780
    English Creamware Saucer, ca. 1775-1780. Formerly in Donald Tower Collection, 1968, A Belton, 1988 and Diana Edwards Murnaghan
    Teacup from Donald Towner Collection, 1968.
    Teacup sherd with swag motif

    But my favorite is this delightfully potbellied creamer with three legs featuring lion’s heads and paws for feet. The ceramic type in question is called Whieldon and started to come on the market in England around 1749. Of note is the raised molded leaf decoration which resembles one sherd from our collection. While we may never know the exact type of vessel our leaf came from, the complete creamer gives one a better idea of how the decoration was placed and looked. Mary’s choice of ceramics played a large part in emphasizing her and her children’s place among the Virginia Gentry and we’re very pleased to have some whole examples now to help illustrate to visitors just how lovely some of these dishes were!

    Whieldon ware sherd, ca. 1740-1770
    Staffordshire Mottled Creamware Milk Jug, c. 1755-1765
    Staffordshire Mottled Creamware Milk Jug, c. 1755-1765

    Mara Kaktins, Archaeologist & Lab Manager

    Bibliography

    Towner, Donald.  The Leeds Pottery, 1965.  Taplinger Publishing Co., Inc., New York.