There’s plenty to be frightened about in the colonial period. But teapots? Not exactly. However, aesthetics change as time passes. We see things through different lenses. As I type this, my substantial black cat with big yellow eyes stares at me, demanding attention.
Poe, the big black cat with yellow eyes.
Black animals are currently the least likely to be adopted in the United States, so black can be seen as a negative in pets…but what about black teapots?
Black Basalt Teapot, Turner, circa 1805
Turns out, they were very much the rage during the middle of the 18th century and even into the early 20th century.
“Black is sterling and will last forever.”
In 1767, Josiah Wedgwood started working with black basalts – a richly hued, glossy black stoneware medium – for his famous Etruscan vases. Wedgewood’s basalt is made from reddish-brown clay that burns black in the firing process; black basalt owes its color to the addition of manganese. [1] [2]
A Wedgwood Black ‘Basaltes’ Encaustic-Decorated ‘FIRST DAY’S VASE’, 1769Wedgwood Black Basalt “Etruscan” Vase, circa 1800.
After Wedgwood perfected the fine-grained stoneware, it was soon being produced by other Staffordshire potters in England. It was called ‘Black Basalt’ or ‘Egyptian Black.’ [3] [4] A matte black teaware that was striking and, by our modern estimations, quite possibly macabre.
Black Basalt teapots were decorated utilizing a new technology called ‘engine turning’ lathes. Simple turning lathes have been used for pottery production since the early 1700s. By the 1730s, virtually all hollow wares (mugs, jugs, cups, bowls, etc.) were being lathe-turned to shape and thin bodies. The engine-turning lathe further provided the ability to cut regular patterns in the clay bodies to create decorative elements. [5] The decorative elements at the time were heavily influenced by classical art from Ancient Greece and Rome. [6]
A striking finial accented the lovely neoclassical etches on the body of the matte black pot.
Teapot, Circa 1800, Black Basalt, Mayer Manufacture, Staffordshire, England
What is a finial? The little knob on the top of the lid. This is where it gets weird for our modern-day eyes. Some looked like women hunched over, draped in mourning clothes or grieving widows. Add this to the black body, and the oddly shaped pots start to take on a dark tone.
Woman Finial
Mary Washington owned an early iteration of these black basalt pots, but was it for mourning purposes? Not likely.
Base and body of black basalt pot found at Ferry Farm.Base and body of black basalt pot found at Ferry Farm.Black basalt pot base found at Ferry Farm.Lid of black basalt pot found at Ferry Farm.Lid of black basalt pot found at Ferry Farm.Shoulder of black basalt pot found at Ferry Farm.
Her husband Augustine died in 1743, early into the family’s occupation at Ferry Farm. This would have been before the invention of this style of pottery and well before strict (and quite frankly tedious) Victorian mourning rituals. A black teapot may seem to symbolize some outward decorative display of bereavement or grief (particularly with a sad woman finial). Yet, to Mary, it would have just been a neoclassical design in the latest black basalt trend. She was just being her fashionable self. Her teaware collection was pretty admirable, and the fact that she owned a black basalt teapot is not surprising.
But that shouldn’t stop us from enjoying beautiful and somewhat spooky teapots.
It’s that time again! As we welcome Fall and the beautiful cool weather it brings, let’s take a look back at our Summer 2023 dig season here at Ferry Farm, George Washington’s Boyhood Home. This year’s dig actually involved excavating two separate areas, designated FF-38 and FF-40, within the historic area.
Location of the archaeological projects FF-38 and FF-40 at Ferry Farm.
Project FF-38
The FF-38 area contained a large, dark, soil stain that was discovered by accident during the monitoring of a utility trench in 2016. Only a portion of this feature was visible at that time as it continued beneath the south wall of the trench. We had clues as to the approximate date of this partially-exposed feature, but we still needed to fully uncover the entire feature to establish its total dimensions and determine its age, function, and how it relates to the surrounding landscape.
F.321 as seen in 2016 within the utility trench. Only the northern portion of the feature was exposed at this time. F.321 is outlined in red, and is intruded by a square, lighter-colored 19th-century feature (F. 324).
Our excavation began by the machine removal of two modern layers of gravel that overlay a thick 19th-century layer of plowed soil. The excavation area measured approximately 16 ft. by 20 ft. Our crew of archaeologists then slowly excavated down through the plowed layer until we could identify the boundaries of Feature 321. Fully uncovered, the exciting discoveries began.
First and foremost, we discovered the feature was much bigger than originally thought! What initially appeared in 2016 to be a 5’x7’ roundish feature turned out to be the northern tip of a large rectangle measuring 10’ by 16’. The size and shape alone of the feature shifted our interpretation from a small pit to something larger.
F.321 fully exposed before excavation (outlined in red). The intrusive feature, F. 324, has been partially dug out at the north end of the site.
Feature 321 was divided into four sections and our crew excavated both southwest and northeast quadrants. This excavation approach allowed us to determine that the feature was roughly 1’ deep at the center, with gently sloping sides, and filled with successive layers of soil and ash-filled deposits. These soil layers provided us with an awesome mix of artifacts which were used to nail down the feature’s end date to the middle of the 18th century. But establishing a date is only part of the process: artifacts can further help us identify the function of the feature as well.
F.321 after the southwest and northeast quadrants were excavated. Intrusive Feature 324 is outlined in green.
That being said, we are still unsure of what this feature actually is. Here is what we know so far. There is no hearth of chimney remains. Lack of a fireplace suggests it wasn’t a domestic dwelling, but it could be another type of plantation outbuilding, such as a storage building, shed, or barn. The edges are almost vertical, and the floor is relatively flat. There is no silt so the pit was covered while it was open. It is too regular to be a quarry pit used to harvest clay as a building material.
Even though we are still in the early days of analyzing the artifacts, that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about a few great things we found. This feature had a little bit of everything: personal items, food-related items, architectural debris, domestic items, etc. The crowning glory of the excavation (in our humble opinion) would have to be the complete pipe bowl that was stamped with a maker’s mark that featured the letters “TD.” Other exciting finds include a clipped Spanish coin, sherds to a Westerwald ink well, shark teeth, and prehistoric pottery, just to name a few. This feature also contained a layer of ash that preserved delicate artifacts such as bone, fish scales, and straight pins – items that often don’t survive in the archaeological record.
So what does this all mean? Well, this means that we will definitely be returning to the FF-38 site next season. While we have gathered a lot of information during this dig, there is still much left to find. Expanding our excavation beyond the limits of the feature and excavating one of the remaining two quadrants will help us interpret the feature’s function and how it relates to the 18th-century farm landscape of the Washington family.
FF-40
Wait, that’s not all for this year’s dig. Don’t forget that we had two excavation areas this year. Our second area was FF-40, which was the remains of an 18th century kitchen had experienced an intense fire. This kitchen was partially excavated in the 1990s, so this year’s excavation had more of an exploratory excavation designed to help us establish a game plan for future excavation. We knew the kitchen remains were below the foundations of two later farmhouses, and that the foundation walls of these farmhouses were still extant. Additionally, the interior of the foundations was filled with sand to protect the kitchen site. Our excavations confirmed the location of the farmhouse foundations and the existence of a protective layer of sand! Once our crew were able to get through this sandy fill, a quick clean of the kitchen fill uncovered artifacts that were absolutely toasty. Okay, toasty isn’t a technical term, but the artifacts showed evidence of a fire that burned at extremely high temperatures. This included a high number of architectural artifacts as well as charred ceramics and melted glass. Findings from this year will help guide the excavation in the future.
The burned kitchen site is located beneath these concrete house foundations dating to 1914. This picture was taken after protective sand fill was removed within the excavation unit.
Phew, that was a lot! That sums up our 12-week dig season. We answered a lot of our initial questions and found many more questions to investigate. Archaeologists will be in the lab the rest of the year processing artifacts, researching our findings, planning next season’s dig, and enjoying the A/C. Stop by the lab in the Visitor’s Center and take a peek at what’s happening. See you all in the field next May!
A pest is a broad term for any organism that spreads disease, causes destruction, or is generally a nuisance. In the 21st century, we still constantly battle pests from squirrels who chew through your internet cables or spiders who set up house in the high corner of the ceiling, watching and judging you to evil mosquitoes that ruin outdoor activities and leave you with itchy red welts that no amount of calamine lotion will help. It is a fight as old as time.
I wanted to investigate one pest in particular: rodents. Why were mice and rats present in colonial homes? Why this was an issue? What were some of the methods the Washington’s would have used to combat these furry creatures? And how we know without a doubt that Kenmore and Mount Vernon had rodent tenants.
The Suspects
House MouseBlack Rat aka Roof RatsBrown Rat aka Sewer Rat
The house mouse, or Mus Musculus, originating on the Asian and Indian subcontinent, has become the most successful invasive species in recent history. [1] They arrived in this country with the trading ships and settlers that came to the New World in the 16th century. [2][3]
Similarly, the black rat, aka roof rat, boarded ships for their westward journey around the same time as the seafaring mouse. [4] Their presence is noted by the residents of Jamestown in November of 1608, stating, “When the shippes departed al the provision of the store but that the President had gotten was so rotten with the last somers rain, and eaten with rats and wormes” [5] The notorious brown rat or sewer rat, who seems to currently enjoy the cities of Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, arrived a little later than their brethren setting foot in the new country around the 1750s.[6]
America, the land of plenty…of garbage
There is no nice way to say it, but living in colonial America was usually gross. Housing wasn’t always the greatest, sometimes being very rudimentary. Food storage was typically simple and easily accessible. But one of the biggest problems (or benefits if you are a rodent) was the lack of systematic waste disposal. [7][8] Garbage (including human waste) was a personal problem often solved by opening the window and chucking out.
We have abundant archeological information from Ferry Farm and Kenmore that supports these habits. A large part of Ferry Farm has been excavated over the decades, leaving clear evidence that the Washington family and their enslaved workers disposed of waste right in the backyard…off the porch. Large amounts of artifacts were discovered and mapped, showing the proximity to the house, meaning the garbage was close, and rodents love trash.
Map showing the concentration of animal bones excavated from the midden at the rear of the Washington house at Ferry Farm.
At Kenmore, the garbage situation seemed to be a little more regulated because the grounds and buildings were planned. The main house was made of brick, surrounded by two wood-built structures containing the kitchen and laundry. During excavations of the kitchen yard (between the house and kitchen), there were minimal artifacts, but a dump site was found west of the kitchen. The location could be accessed by the window or by walking around the side of the building and contained a pig jaw, animal bones, bone-handled knife, and other objects. The kitchen is about 30 feet from the house, with the slave passage doors opening right onto the kitchen yard…plenty close enough for an enterprising rat or mouse.
Bad House-guests
So, why are rodents bad to have in your house? Disease, contamination, destruction, smells, and lots of poop. [9] Rats can squeeze through an opening the size of a quarter. Mice only need the size of a dime…so they will be everywhere in your house and will bring friends. [10] Rats and mice are spreaders of disease from rat-bite fever that spreads through bacteria in the rodent’s saliva, urine, or droppings to the bubonic plague transmitted by the lice hitching a ride on their fluffy friend.[11][12] While today, rodents are relatively low on the list of dangerous disease spreaders in an era of limited medical knowledge and treatments, it could be a matter of life or death.
Contamination and destruction are these creatures’ modus operandi. They get into everything, period. They will eat almost any human food, chewing through any storage system, leaving behind chaos; they have even been known to eat soap and glue. [13] While venturing through the house, they are constantly urinating and pooping, which is smelly, can create mold growth, and should never be consumed. [14] In their quest for food, they often destroy household items, eating books, chewing clothes, gnawing on mattresses, and even nesting in furniture. All of which is not only annoying but expensive to fix or replace. [15][16]
But one of the most offensive things a mouse or rat can do is die in your walls. Take it from Colonel Landon Carter, who had to deal with a rat dying behind his wainscoting, informing everyone, “Wainscoted rooms have their conveniences [inconveniences?] as a dead rat has been stinking behind mine in the hall at least six days and is now intolerable in spite of burning tar…this dead rat stunk prodigiously.” [17]
Surprisingly, colonists used many of the same techniques we do today to eliminate these pests. Pesticides or chemical warfare was widespread, with many recommendations and recipes dating back to the 15th century. I found recipes containing helliberry leaves, bitter almonds, “seade of wild cowcumbers,” colluentida, hemlock seed, aconite or wolfsbane, and arsenic.[18] I don’t know many of those ingredients, but apparently, they kill rodents nicely.
Hemlock seed, the notorious plant which was used to execute Socrates for impiety and corruption of the youth.Wolfsbane an extremely poisonous plant that should be handled with care.
Another method was traps, which are common today. They were pretty popular, and there were many advertisements in the Virginia Gazette from sellers touting that their mouse traps just arrived from England. [19] There are also many instructions for building easy mouse traps like the “deadfall” or “noose” traps, which are as horrible as you imagine. [20][21]
Deadfall mouse trap, c. 1800-1850 Source: V&A Collection
Lastly, one method that is making a comeback is animals, both cats and dogs.[22][23] Cats have been used for ages as rodent killers and are good at their job. [24] A 14th-century manual suggests that if you have problems with vermin, “have as a good supply of cats.”[25] The famous diarist Samuel Pepys wrote in December 1660, “my boy taking a catt home with him from my Lord’s, which Sarah hath given him for my wife, we being much troubled with mice.”[26] There are even modern programs like Barn Buddies that save feral and skittish cats and adopt them out as “rodent control technicians.”[27]
And dogs, mainly terriers, have been used to clear mice and rat infestations for centuries, just like cats. Ever the dog lover, George Washington had terriers at Mount Vernon, which probably helped immensely around the plantation.[28] Today, cities like Chicago and New York use these canines in modern rat hunts.[29] It seems the skills of the terrier will always be in demand.
Little Historians
Lastly, how do we, without a doubt, know that there were rodents at Kenmore and Mount Vernon? Rat nests. Rat nests are usually found in walls or under floorboards, and they not only prove these guys resided in the houses as long as the families themselves, but also provide a fascinating historical glimpse into the material lives of the occupants.
Mount Vernon documented the finding of a rat nest in 1949 behind the wall in Washington’s bedchamber. When dissected, it included buttons, paper, rope, yarn, a whole woman’s shoe, and fabric matching Washington’s bed curtains.[30]
Similarly, in 1989, a rat nest was found in Kenmore while investigating the walls and floorboards. We recently picked apart the bundle to find fabrics, fibers, thread, yarn, newspapers, bones, nutshells, and wood splinters. The remnants in the nest were dated no later than the early 20th century due to dates on newspaper fragments and the absence of plastics.
In conclusion, rats and mice have been a constant annoyance since they first set foot in this country; unfortunately, that is still somewhat true. These enterprising rodents have adopted America as their own and we as fellow citizens must learn to live together despite our often distaste for each other.
Fun Fact – We don’t want to malign rats more than they have been throughout history so we would like to add that rats make good pets. They are quick learners, highly trainable, very clever, and have excellent memories. They are now being trained to detect land mines, diseases like tuberculosis, and even rescue earthquake survivors.
Heather Baldus
Collections Manager
[1] Agwamba, K. D., & Nachman, M. W. (2023). The demographic history of house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) in eastern North America. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics, 13(2). https://doi.org/February 2023
[4] Newman, M. H. (2001). The vermin -killers: Pest control in the early Chesapeake [Doctoral Dissertation, Willam & Mary University]. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd/1539623387/, pg 111.
[30] Mount Vernon [mount_vernon]. “In 1949, preservation staff removed a rat’s nest from behind a wall in the Washingtons’ bedchamber..”* Instagram, May 19, https://www.instagram.com/p/CsbIc9sOO_2/.
Whilst I costume actors, living historians, and myself from time to time in 18th century clothing, I find myself puzzled about the stark difference between the closures and attachments of ladies’ and men’s garb. I have to lace myself into my stays, tie on layers of padding and petticoats around my waist, and finally pin my gown closed. Men have the enjoyment of a few buttons on their breeches and waistcoat, but that is it. It frequently makes me grumpy how long it takes me to dress in comparison to my male counterpart. I did not understand this phenomenon, until recently.
To put 18th century clothing closures into perspective, you had hooks and eyes, buttons, and ties/laces. Thomas Hancock created elastic for gloves, suspenders, and stockings in the 1820s, but it struggled to withstand heat and last through time. The elastic we know and love in our garments today did not come around until the early 1900s.[1] The modern zipper was patented in 1917 and was used mainly on boots and tobacco pouches. It took another 20 years before the technology even made it to mass produced clothing.[2] By comparison, the button first becomes functional over decorative around 1,000 BCE in Asia. Buttons would eventually travel the Mediterranean during the crusades into European territories around the late 11th century CE.[3] So George Washington did not have a zipper on his pants or elastic on his socks, but he definitely had buttons on his coat.
A eye from a hook and eye set. Source: Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections
Hooks and eyes were sometimes used for gown closures for women in the 18th century. They were not used as much as pins were because of the rigidity in size it created for the garment.
We have buttons from men’s garments in the archaeological collections here at Ferry Farm. We also see buttons all around male portraiture in our curatorial collection. The ladies, however, are stuck with laces, ribbons, and pins. And boy, do we have the pins to prove it in the archaeology collections.
Two metal buttons most likely from men’s garments. Source: Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections Bone buttons Source: Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections Pins were used for pinning jackets closed and keeping caps pinned to your hair. They were a necessary part of dressing. Source:Ferry Farm Archaeological Collections
A small sample of the large collection of brass dress pins found at Ferry Farm. Pins were not used for sewing, as basting before sewing was the regular practice. Pins were used for pinning jackets closed and keeping caps pinned to your hair. They were a necessary part of dressing.
The answer to why this phenomenon is how it is hit me one day after rewatching a lecture given by a former staff member entitled “Betty Washington Lewis and Women’s Health.” Dr. Kelly Brennen Arehart spoke about maternity wardrobes and how women wore their everyday clothing throughout pregnancy. For my contemporary mind, this was shocking, but the more I thought about it the more it made sense.
Women go through a lot of fluctuations in body shape, weight, and proportions in their lifetime. Between hitting puberty and development of curves, to many pregnancies, to the changes of menopause, women’s bodies go through so much. Of course in between all of the big changes, there are also changes to the female body based on time in her menstrual cycle, metabolism fluctuations, or periods of eating more or less or different types of food that all change the body’s shape and size. Unlike today, women of the past could not just go to the shop and buy a pair of pants in the size up. Clothing was incredibly expensive and time consuming to make before sewing machines and mass production come into play. In the 18th century, even the highest classes of women did not have the money or the time to go buy or have new clothing made when they gained a few pounds or got pregnant. It was a matter of adjusting the clothing they already had. And that is exactly what ties, pins, and laces allowed women to do.
The lacing, pinning, and tying made clothing far more adjustable compared to the rigidity of buttons. Women tied their petticoats looser and simply covered the wider gap in the side with their jacket or gown. Stays were either loosened significantly by the laces or they were left unlaced at the bottom entirely, especially in cases of late term pregnancies. On top of the stays, jackets could be pinned further out to allow for more room in the bust and waist, or a stomacher could be added in the center opening of the jacket to expand the top even further.
Whether these closures were intentionally created to be adjustable or if it was just a byproduct of lacking clothing technology, I am not entirely sure. But the idea that buttons were only used on men’s not so fluctuating bodies (for the most part) says something. A button is sewn down and cannot be easily moved or adjusted on a regular basis. Once a button is sewn into place, there is no room for variation in body shape, unless one wanted to move the buttons every time he ate a large meal the previous day.
Even though Betty Washington Lewis had Charlotte, who we believe to be an enslaved woman acting as the seamstress of the Lewis household, Betty was pregnant on and off for twenty years. If Charlotte or another enslaved seamstress had to make a maternity wardrobe for Betty every time she was with child, the seamstress would have no time to do any other tasks whatsoever. It was not economical with precious time or expensive cloth for women to need new clothes every few weeks.
So to tie all this together, I am still not happy that it is so inconvenient for me to dress myself in 18th century clothing, but I understand why getting dressed was this way. The adjustability of women’s clothing was so intentionally created to conform to their bodies in any season it was in. It also opens my eyes to why pins were so important. Without them, a woman could not dress.
…I have a request to make you. Something like the Barrel of Sand suppose you will think it, but really of much more importance to me. It is that you would send out Mr. Bass and purchase me a bundle of pins and put in your trunk for me. The cry for pins is so great that what we used to Buy for 7.6 are now 20 Shillings and not to be had for that. A bundle contains 6 thousand for which I used to give a Dollor, but if you can procure them for 50 [shillings] or 3 pound, pray let me have them. Mr. Welch who carries this to head Quarters waits which prevents my adding more than that I am with the tenderest Regard
If you have followed the news of our excavations, you will have kept up to date with our building finds. The past two summers helped uncover evidence of one such structure, which we now believe represents a corncrib. While the name may seem self-explanatory, we have frequently heard the question, “What is a corncrib?” To answer this, we thought we would dedicate our newest blog to it.
Long cultivated by Native Americans, early colonists quickly adopted corn into their agricultural repertoire. As a crop, corn proved easy to cultivate due to its hardy and adaptable nature, and its high yield to seed ratio made it a prosperous choice. The corn season lasted from planting in early May to the September-October harvest. After this, collected corn, counted as barrels, lay in corncribs. Husking and shelling occurred as needed since home consumption only required a small amount at a given time. This process continued throughout the winter months.
As a food staple, corn became an important part of free and enslaved diets in Colonial Virginia. Corn grew in such abundance that it reportedly fed everything. This led to Virginia husbandry relying on the crop and any decline in quantity led to a state of distress. As for the enslaved, records of food rations allotted to enslaved communities often refer to “pecks” or “bushels” of corn. Corn served as a useful ration since small amounts went far and multiple uses for it existed. It also provided better nutrition, which did not go unnoticed by enslavers. Instances of enslaved rations excluding corn resulted in a decline in health, energy, and production. This made the inclusion of the staple essential.
Despite their forced labor, enslaved communities integrated corn harvesting into their culture. Annual so-called corn shucking festivities proved frequent sights on plantations, especially as corn production expanded. During this time, the harvested corn lay in heaps next to the crib. As the size of the harvest required many people for husking, this event provided time for socializing. A moment filled with music and dance, even neighboring enslaved individuals and relatives not attached to the property could attend under the guise of providing extra labor. This latter detail explains why such gatherings went ahead. Enslavers often encouraged corn-shucking festivities to speed up the process and at times offered rewards to the person who could shuck the most corn.
The expansion of corn production lies in the decline of tobacco. While tobacco served as the original cash crop of Virginia, its cultivation damaged soils, resulting in increasingly poor crop cycles. Some planters, including George Washington at Mount Vernon, opted to plant grains to avoid this trend and thus have more return each year. As tobacco prices fell in the late 1700s, due in part to the Revolution, more Virginia planters turned their focus to grains. This led to an expansion in corn cultivation, as it became a central part of the economy.
No longer used for just animal feed or local consumption, corn became a cash crop. In doing so, more structures related to grains appeared or underwent expansion. Gristmills became more common as did grain stores near wharfs. On plantations, the land devoted to grains increased to sustain production with additional or larger storage buildings, such as corncribs, appearing to accommodate the harvest. Corncribs would soon rank amongst the most common structures to appear on farmlands. Apart from buildings, husking and shelling additionally underwent a change as this now occurred over the course of a few weeks, thus allowing for enslaved gatherings, rather than throughout the winter.
Corncrib
With corn holding such an important position in society, it required proper storage. Native Americans constructed the first corncribs with Europeans taking note of them shortly after arriving on the continent. The structure evidently held significance for indigenous tribes as many place and group names derive from the various words for a corncrib. Interestingly, our modern term “barbecue” comes from “barbacoa,” an indigenous term from present-day Georgia, which has several meanings including corncrib. Apart from ranging in size, the design of corncribs dating from pre-contact to present appear very similar, as several key elements remain consistent.
The main roles of a corncrib constitute storing harvested corn, protecting it, and keeping it dry. To that end, the most recognizable characteristic involves the floor of the structure resting at least a foot off the ground via posts or piles/piers. Raising the structure deterred vermin from accessing the crop and helped keep it dry. The design of the sides additionally helped with this latter desire as vertical slats or offset horizontal siding provided gaps for airflow. Vertical slats for “cribbing” proved the most common during the colonial period.
Overall, the structure required robust timbers and construction techniques that would allow it to carry dead loads and resist interior pressure. Once constructed, the building generally took on a rectangular shape with a gabled roof of shingles, boards, or thatch. This roof could extend over one or more sheds attached to the long sides of the building while a door, typically on a shorter side, provided interior access. The interior varied from an open plan to one with removable dividers to form cribs, hence the name of the structure. Post-colonial era designs could include an additional crib to form a double or “drive-thru” corncrib.
Corn Crib Designs Source: Sloane 1990: 26
Since its adoption by colonists, the building’s name has experienced some variation. While we have gone with “corncrib” at Ferry Farm, several other accurate terms exist. The most simple, and unhelpful for interpreting records, consists of “barn.” During colonial times, “barn” could refer to nearly any outbuilding, and corncribs fall under a barn style called “crib-barns.” This, in turn, may refer to the building. While no standard for outbuildings included on properties existed during this time, corncribs counted amongst the most common. Other name options include the similar “corn-house” and the term “stacks.” This latter term may or may not have “corn” attached to it, but referenced ability to relocate the structure. In the end, unless corn appears in the name, identifying the building requires context clues such as location, crop knowledge, structure design, and recorded narratives.
Our Findings
So what did we find to suggest we had a corncrib? To start, we know from documents dating to Washington occupation that corn constituted one of the crops grown at Ferry Farm. We knew little beyond this until archaeology provided an insight. Across our 2020 and 2021 field seasons, we uncovered four aligning postholes that each measured 10ft apart. At the same time, a decline in artifact count occurred, suggesting our dig lay on the outskirts of the work yard. In 2022, we expanded this dig area to determine if the postholes belonged to a fence or, as we hoped, a building. The low artifact count continued to support the theory of entering the agricultural world and we soon discounted a fence line, as our excavation revealed no further postholes on that line. Moving 20ft south from the postholes, we uncovered a line of three features, also 10ft apart, which aligned with the first three postholes. The issue? They came from piles/piers rather than posts, and one of the stones for that line remains in place (Fig. 5).
Image depicting the lines of 4 postholes and 3 pile/pier sites as of 2022
The two parallel lines evidently went together, but we now needed to identify a structure that used both building techniques. After perusing historic images and sources on 18th century agricultural buildings, we identified the corncrib as the only structure that fit this construction. While corncribs most often stand alone on piles/piers or posts, some examples include an open shed area for carts and temporary storage as discussed earlier. Neither part of the structure would have led to large artifact deposits as the crib merely stored corn while the shed area supported the act of storage.
So what did our corncrib look like? Well, apart from identifying the crib and shed portions, we can say the crib must have rested at least a foot off the ground. Furthermore, in keeping with standard construction, the siding, likely vertical slats, would have breaks in between to allow airflow. As for the basic dimensions of the corncrib, our emergency access road unfortunately runs through the unexcavated portion.
Since we cannot inhibit this access, we only have the complete outline of the shed and one side of the crib (Fig. 6). Still, we can make a few estimates for the structure’s dimensions. While we cannot determine height at this stage, the outline of the shed indicates this portion measured 20x30ft. This, in turn, tells us that the corncrib itself measures 30ft in length. As for the crib’s width, several details allow us to determine a range. One source stated that the length of a corncrib should be 2-3 times the width. Of the examples we identified, they generally had a length about twice the size of the width, with the widest one measuring 20ft. On top of this, shed portions do not appear much wider than the accompanying crib. With this in mind, our crib likely measures 15-20ft in width.
Overview of excavation site showing the 20x30ft shed outline and start of the crib
Future
By now, you must wonder when you will see a corncrib at Ferry Farm. One of our goals involves reconstructing the Washington landscape and this will include the corncrib. Currently, we have started construction on a root cellar and slave quarter. Once completed, these structures will be part of your visit and we will turn our attention to reconstructing more areas. This may include the corncrib, but will likely take a few years. In the meantime, continue to visit our ongoing construction projects and make sure to talk with the archaeologists and interpreters.
Our future corncrib may look similar to this small one at the Museum of Appalachia Source: Wikipedia
Historical Fact: Those familiar with the life of Harriet Tubman may recognize the term “corncrib” as she, her brothers, and several others briefly hid in one while she led them to freedom.
Emma Schlauder
Research Archaeologist
Belanger, Fergus & T. H. Warner 1934 Notes about Williamsburg and William and Mary College. The William and Mary Quarterly 14(3): 239-240.
Carson, Cary & Carl Lounsbury (editors) 2013 The Chesapeake House: Architectural Investigation by Colonial Williamsburg. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Carter, Landon 1908 Diary of Col. Landon Carter. The William and Mary Quarterly 16(3): 149-156.
Chandler, Dana 2000 The Prehistory of Randolph County, Alabama. Central States Archaeological Journal 47(1): 28-29.
Copeland, Pamela C. & Richard K MacMaster 1989 The Five George Masons. University of Virginia Press, Richmond, VA.
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway 2023 25. Choptank Landing: Site of Harriet Tubman’s Most Daring Rescues. Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad Byway < https://harriettubmanbyway.org/choptank-landing/>. Accessed 19 June 2023.
Herman, Bernard L. 1992 The Stolen House. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Hollingsworth Jr., G. Dixon 1979 The Story of Barbecue. The Georgia Historical Quarterly 63(3): 391-395.
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.
Kimball, Fiske 1954 Gunston Hall. Journal of the Society of American History 13(2): 3-8.
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.
Linebaugh, Donald W. 1994 “All the Annoyances and Inconveniences of the Country”: Environmental Factors in the Development of Outbuildings in the Colonial Chesapeake. Winterthur Portfolio 29(1): 1-18.
Lounsbury, Carl R. (editor) 1994 An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and Landscape. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Morgan, Philip D. 1998 Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake & Lowcountry. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
NPS 2021 Barnyard Trail: Corn Crib. Fire Island National Seashore, NPS <https://www.nps.gov/ places/barnyard-trail-corn-crib.htm>. Accessed 24 May 2023.
Siener, William H. 1985 Charles Yates, the Grain Trade, and Economic Development in Fredericksburg, Virginia, 1750-1810. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 93(4): 409-425.
Sloane, Eric 1990 An Age of Barns, reprint of earlier edition. Henry Holt & Co., New York City, NY.
Speck, Frank G. 1907 Notes on the Chickasaw Ethnology and Folk-Lore. The Journal of American Folklore 20(76): 50-58.
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.
Upton, Dell & John M. Vlach (editors) 1986 Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
Vlach, John M. 1993 Back of the Big House: the Architecture of Plantation Slavery. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Washington, Augustine Jr. 1750 Record of Sale and Payment to Mary Ball Washington.
Washington, George 1749 Letter to Lawrence Washington dated 5 May 1749. Washington Papers, National Archives, Washington, DC.
Washington, George 1771 Survey of Ferry Farm.
Washington, Mary Ball Undated Letter to John Augustine Washington, undated no. 154. Box: 87, Folder: undated no. 154, Identifier: RM-904; MS-5404, The George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon, VA.
Editor’s Note: As the two-hundred-sixty-ninth anniversary of the skirmish of Jumonville Glen approaches this Sunday, May 28th, some recent and exciting discoveries have occurred at the battlefield. The National Park Service (NPS) released an announcement this week stating that after a four-week archeological investigation, objects have been found to verify the location of the first skirmish, Jumonville Glen, of the French and Indian War. Archeologists found a multitude of artifacts, including several eighteenth-century musket balls.
Figure 1. Detail of a highly stylized depiction of Fredericksburg, VA by Fench soldier Georg Daniel Flohr, who visited in 1782. Despite the use of artistic license, the illustration conveys Flohr’s perception of the 18th Century town as a “rather large” port with “intense boat traffic.” Source: Account of the Land and Sea Expedition in America of the Acclaimed DeuxPonts Regiment from 1780 to 1784
Crowding out the fresh spring air of a wooded countryside, the acidic scent of aerosolized gunpowder began to sting the interior of a nervous 22-year-old’s nostrils. His ears rang from the shock of dozens of nearby explosions. Smoke clouded his vision, and sensory overload likely clouded his judgment. Soon-to-be-familiar sounds followed rapidly: scurried movement, intense chatter, and groans of agony. Yet, the inexperienced youth had to make decisions on behalf of the crowd around him. He found himself at the center of a new form of chaos: the opening volleys of a world war.
Lieutenant Colonel George Washington’s Virginia soldiers had just fired into a French military camp near the Monongahela River in western Pennsylvania at a moment (May 28th, 1754) when peace among European empires and Native American nations sat at a precarious equilibrium. Over the past several months, French forces had been busy erecting Fort Duquesne at the Forks of the Ohio River (the site of modern-day Pittsburgh, PA). Royal Governor Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia considered this commercially and strategically significant location part of the British Empire and sent Washington to the area to help re-establish British control. This was the context in which Washington’s Virginians and a party of Mingo warriors came upon the ill-fated French camp in a ravine soon to be known by the infamous moniker of “Jumonville’s Glen.”[1]
After the first shots rang out around the glen, things only got worse. Washington’s cocommander, Tannagrison (a Seneca politician leading the party of Mingos), summarily executed the French officer in command, Ensign Joseph Coulon de Villiers, Sieur de Jumonville, and events escalated from there. In fact, this frontier skirmish grew into a world war that would not only give rise to the North America of the Revolutionary Era, but would forever alter the power dynamics of entire globe. Consider the growth of the British Empire, two centuries of exploitation and resistance in India, the birth of the United States, the creation of independent republics in Latin America, the French Revolution, English colonization of Australia, the American Civil War, the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the rise of the Axis Powers, the Vietnamese independence movements of the 20th Century, and even the War on Terror. The conflict that Washington and Tannagrison started at Jumonville’s Glen, known as the“Seven Years’ War” or the “French and Indian War” (1754-1763), shaped all these events, along with countless others. And as residents of the Fredericksburg region, the Washingtons and Lewises sat at a crossroads of this worldwide upheaval.
As the 250th anniversary of American nationhood approaches, understanding the Seven Years’ War’s social, martial, and political context is perhaps more important than ever. In anticipation of future posts related to this subject, I hope what is below will introduce you to how the stories of those associated with Kenmore and Ferry Farm intertwined with the larger story of the war.
We’ll start with George. As an officer commissioned in the provincial (colonial) Virginia Regiment, George Washington not only helped initiate the Seven Years’ War but saw his first real military service at places like Fort Necessity or as a volunteer aid-de-camp in the ill-fated Braddock Expedition of 1755, where he nearly died during the famous British defeat at Battle of the Monongahela. Of course, historians have worn countless pens, pencils, and keyboards recording Washington’s involvement in the early stages of the war and documenting the future Commander-in-Chief’s first brushes with combat. However, George’s duties increasingly involved more independent responsibility after 1755. These events came on the heels of George’s formal relocation from his mother, Mary Washington’s, residence at Ferry Farm to his late half-brother’s estate at Mount Vernon.
The two years that followed George Washington’s more well-known deeds at the Monongahela produced circumstances similar to those he would contend with during the American War for Independence (1775-1783). Throughout 1756 and 1757, the Virginia Regiment had to defend a string of small, isolated forts along Virginia’s vulnerable frontier to the west of the Blue Ridge Mountains.[3] The task of managing poorly-supplied posts that stretched from Winchester, VA, to the vicinity of modern-day Martinsville, VA, presented George with the opportunity to develop three aspects of leadership that would define his work in future years: military administration over vast geographical territory, long-term strategic planning, and the sustaining of volunteer troops despite strained logistical resources.
Figure 2: a 1772 portrait Charles Wilson Peal depicting Washington in a uniform similar to those worn by officers of the Virginia Regiment Source:Washington and Lee University
During a tour of Virginia’s frontier forts, the “bad regulation of the militia; the disorderly proceedings of the Garrisons; and the unhappy circumstances of the Inhabitants” shocked the young officer.[4] Washington filled his correspondence of this era with phrases such as “inconceivable trouble” and “unhappy Juncture” as he recorded innumerable instances of paucity, civilian death, and desertion.[5]
Washington’s struggles continued into 1758 when the Virginia Regiment became involved in the Forbes Expedition, a laborious campaign that eventually resulted in the British capture of Fort Duquesne. Around that time, the needs of sick veterans of the past three years of fighting, marching, and garrison duty presented further challenges. None other than Fielding Lewis, a young Fredericksburg merchant and husband of George’s sister Betty, agreed to contract with his brother-in-law to provide for Virginia’s ill. That June, for instance, Lewis sent the material for 60 blankets to “Colo. Washington for the Country Dr.”[6]
Figure 3: View of reconstructed fortifications at Fort Ligonier, the centerpiece of the 1758 Battle of Loyalhanna, an important part of the Forbes Expedition. Source: Jeff Kubina via flickr
As a businessman with a growing family, Fielding Lewis must have had more reason than most to fear the potential adverse effects of world war upon his trans-Atlantic commercial ventures. However, as British fortunes began to change for the better, Lewis reaped the benefits of citizenship in a growing empire. Before the war’s end, he was conducting a lucrative speculation business at a fair in Fredericksburg.[7] Lewis’s success eventually provided the means to commission the construction of Historic Kenmore.
Figure 4: Detail of an 1845 illustration of Fredericksburg as seen from Ferry Farm, showing tall ships by the town’s wharves.. Fielding and his father John invested in several merchant vessels, the towering masts of which were once common parts of Fredericksbrug’s cityscape. Source: Internet Archive
Of course, learning about wealthy and influential men like Washington and Lewis is easy. However, countless individuals of all social standings played a part in the drama of the Seven Years’ War. Part II of this post will explore how those on the Homefront coped with world war and how the conflict transformed the community of Fredericksburg in ways still visible today.
Stay tuned.
Ethan Knick,
School and Youth Programs Manager
[1]David Lee Preston, Braddock’s Defeat: The Battle of the Monongahela and the Road to Revolution (Oxford University Press, 2015), 26-28.
Fred Anderson, Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2007), 18-23.
Spring is here, which means another season of exciting archaeological work at Ferry Farm is about to begin! Ferry Farm, the boyhood home of George Washington, has been conducting archaeological investigations for over 30 years with the aim of recreating and analyzing the 18th-century farm landscape that shaped George Washington during his formative years as a young man. Every season brings new discoveries, and this year will be no different.
This season we will be investigating two separate areas within the historic site. The first (FF-38) is a feature discovered in 2018 when we monitored the excavation of a utilities trench for the reproduction Washington house. This large feature, approximately 5’ x 7’ and over 2.5’ deep, is filled with dark brown organic soil and contains 18th-century artifacts, including a wig curler, a signature find for our site. Our excavations will expose the entire plan view of the feature and how it relates to other possible features in the surrounding area.
Figure 1. The location of our two summer projects in the historic area.
The second area of investigation (FF-40) is the site of a colonial-era kitchen that burned early in the Washington family tenure of the farm. Though the building’s remains were the subject of previous archaeological studies in the 1990s, we are going to open the site up again to have a second look. Since we have been unable, so far, to locate the kitchen that would have replaced this one after it was destroyed in a very hot fire, we want to continue examining the one we do know about!
The dig begins the week of May 8th and ends July 21st. The crew will be on-site Monday through Friday, 8 am to 4 pm. We are more than happy to answer questions about our work and show our visitors the artifacts that we find. Assistance is always welcome at our sifting screens, so come by and get your hands just a little bit dirty as we search for answers in the ground!
At the beginning of our 2022 dig, we were working with the assumption that a colonial-era building was located at the edge of our excavation site at Ferry Farm, the Boyhood Home of George Washington. At the southeastern edge of the work yard, four post-holes had been found and excavated during previous projects. All were similar in size, shape, and depth, and each one was 10 feet apart from another, forming a single line.
Figure 1. Location of the 2022 excavations at Ferry Farm.
We presumed these features represented one side of a building and not a fence, mainly because of their size and distance from one another. Our objective was to find the rest of this structure and figure out what kind of building it was.
Figure 2. Four post holes at the beginning of 2022 excavations, prompting us to look towards the south for the other side of the building.
Our first goal was to ascertain if our -hole line extended further towards the east or west. Re-examination of previously excavated units to the west and the excavation of new units to the east revealed no additional posts, which meant our building was confirmed at 30 feet long on one side.
The second objective was to find a parallel wall to our post-hole line, as would be expected if this line represented the remains of a structure. Because previous excavations in this area (2019, 2020, and 2021) showed no relatable line of posts to the north of our four post holes, we opened up new units and reopened previously excavated units to the south.
What we found was not another line of post holes but a large stone pier and what appears to be two robbed stone pier features to the south of our four post-holes. This line of stone pier/robbed piers was located approximately 20 feet south of the post hole line. They were also spaced approximately 10 feet apart, and each corresponded with the placement of three of the four post-holes.
Figure 3. Alignment of four post-holes and three stone pier features on the site.
We believe we have uncovered the partial remains of an agricultural building that employed a unique combination of wooden posts in the ground and stone piers for the foundation. A corn crib – a building found on every farm or plantation in every century – is such a structure that uses a combination of post in ground beams and stone piers in their construction. Stone piers would be used for the storage portion of the structure, and post in ground supports for the overhanging shed roof that affords protection to wagons offloading corn into the building. The corn crib examples below illustrate the use of two different foundation styles.
Figure 4. An example of an old Corn Crib (North Carolina) using the same foundation system uncovered at Ferry Farm. The foundation features stone piers for the storage portion of the structure, with wooden post in ground beams that make up the protective shed roof that covered wagons being unloaded. (Wikimedia Commons)Figure 5. Corn Crib in Tennessee that uses post in ground supports for the shed portion of the building as well as stone piers for the storage portion of the structure. (Wikimedia Commons)
The excavation of the entire structure, particularly the southernmost wall of the storage shed, was hindered by the existence of the emergency access road that was installed at Ferry Farm in 2018. So while we have the entire open shed portion of the corn crib, only half of the storage portion has been uncovered – the rest remains below the current entrance road.
Figure 6. Interpreted location of the corn crib on the site.
Artifacts from this area have not yet been processed in our lab, but their preliminary analysis support the interpretation of this structure dating to the Washington period.
From historical documents, we know the Washington family was growing corn on their property, thus necessitating at least one, if not more, corn cribs on the farm. For example, in 1750, Mary Washington is paid £10 for selling corn to the Accokeek Furnace, a business originally started by her husband but then overseen by her stepson, Augustine Jr. Also, Washington’s survey of Ferry Farm in 1771 specifically mentions a cornfield on the property.
Efforts of the last two dig seasons have centered around uncovering this building and determining its function. Having gone as far as we can in the field, our outside work on this structure is done. Work continues inside, processing the artifacts in the lab and refining our interpretation of this exciting new addition to the Washington landscape.
There will be another dig season this year at Ferry Farm, starting mid-May. Our focus will switch to different areas of the site, so be sure to visit this summer and allow us to tell you about our new projects.
This year at our annual Twelfth-Night celebrations, visitors could enter the kitchen for a short lecture and demonstration. The archaeology and curatorial teams gave the talks to explain two important food items that play a part in Kenmore’s history and the holiday, gingerbread and flip.
Our first demonstration was done by Emma Schlauder, Research Archaeologist at the Foundation. She used a traditional recipe based on Mary Washington’s gingerbread. This is the recipe that the Kenmore Association and the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) would use in partnering with Hills Brothers Company to create the Dromedary Gingerbread Mix. The mix was sold in the gift shop and shipped around the country, raising money for the restoration of Kenmore.[1]
Emma Schlauder giving a presentation on gingerbread.
Mary Washington’s Gingerbread Recipe
3 cups all-purpose flour
2 tablespoons ground ginger
1 teaspoon cream of tartar
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
¼ teaspoon ground nutmeg
⅛ teaspoon ground mace
1 large orange
½ cup (1 stick) lightly salted butter, at room temperature
½ cup light brown sugar, firmly packed
1 cup molasses
½ cup warm milk
1 wineglass (2 ounces) brandy or coffee
3 large eggs, beaten
Gingerbread is a term applied to a wide-ranging selection of baked goods with combinations of spices such as ginger, cinnamon, cloves, and nutmeg and sweetened with honey, sugar, or molasses.[2]
Ingredients and spices for gingerbread
Emma’s gingerbread used the traditional American sweetener, molasses.[3] Molasses was a commonly used sweetener in early American cooking until the increase of domestic sugar production. Molasses was cheap and a by-product of the refined white sugar produced for the wealthy.[4]
After including all ingredients, it was mixed to create a runny batter. The batter was put into a cast-iron Dutch oven and hung over the fire to cook. Cooking and baking over the hearth was time-consuming and potentially dangerous. It was done with heavy cast-iron pots and pans, often hung over the fire by an iron bar in the back of the oven.[5] Luckily for us, Emma had taken precautions for cooking over the open hearth and was able to bake the runny batter into a dense gingery cake. The cake was enjoyed by many and was determined to be a must-have for the season.
Gingerbread cooking over the fire
Flip
Our next presentation was done by Mara Kaktins, our Archaeologist & Lab Manager, and explored the history and ingredients of a unique drink called flip that would have fit in quite well with the festive celebrations.
The first known mention of flip is from a 17th-century play called “Love for Love” by William Congreve when a character mentions sailors, stating, “We’re merry folks, we sailors: we han’t much to care for. Thus, we live at sea; eat biscuit, and drink flip.”[6] The play does not provide us with a recipe or ingredients for the drink.
Flip –Universal Etymological English Dictionary
Flip is mentioned in the Universal Etymological English Dictionary, first published in 1721. This definition offers more information about what the drink contains by stating, “Flip, a sort of Sailors Drink, made of Ale, Brandy and Sugar.”[7] Full recipes can be found in The Cook’s Oracle, published in 1822; How to Mix Drinks: Or The Bon-vivant’s Companion, published in 1862; and The Curiosity of Ale and Beer: An Entertaining History, published in 1889. These recipes contain spices and ingredients like eggs, rum, sugar, and orange juice.[8][9][10]
Ingredients to make flip: Rum, Whiskey, Sugar, Nutmeg, Orange Juice, Eggs
However, two things make flip different from other holiday drinks like eggnog. First, there is no cream used in the mixture[11] , and second, flip is traditionally mixed by pouring the drink between two different vessels to make sure all the eggs are combined with the alcohol and then plunging a hot iron into the drink to create froth.[12][13]
Instructions state, “To make a quart of Flip: Put the Ale on the fire to warm, – and beat up three or four Eggs with four ounces of moist Sugar, a teaspoonful of grated Nutmeg or Ginger, and a quarters of good old Rum or Brandy. When the Ale is near boil, put it into one pitcher, and the Rum and Eggs, &c. into another; – turn it from one pitcher to another till it is as smooth as cream.”[14] After the mixture is properly combined, it is poured into a cup or tankard and finished off by plunging a hot iron which further mulled and froths the drink and gives it a slightly burnt taste.[15]
Mara Kaktins finishing off a glass of flip with the hot poker
This drink was mixed many times throughout the Twelfth night and was sampled by the staff. Unlike the gingerbread, the reviews for this frothy drink weren’t all that positive. Our modern palates might not be used to the amount of alcohol colonists use to consume. Sadly, while this drink was a hit during George’s festive season, traditional eggnog would be the best bet for the holidays.
These two demonstrations were quite a hit, with a sold-out crowd attending the show. With such a positive response, the archaeology and curatorial departments are looking for more ways to introduce living history to visitors. After gingerbread and flip, the possibilities are endless.
Heather Baldus, Collections Manager
[1] Bryn, Ann. American Cake. Rodale Books, 2016, pg 26.
[2] Goldstein, Darra. The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets. Oxford University Press, 2015. pg 632
[3] Bryn, Ann. American Cake. Rodale Books, 2016, pg 24.
If you visited Ferry Farm on October 21, 2022, you may have heard a loud crash coming from the archaeology lab – don’t worry, it was on purpose! During my fall semester internship at the Ferry Farm Archaeology Department, I had the pleasure of learning how to mend ceramic vessels, and like any skill, practice makes perfect. I purchased a cheap ceramic bowl from Goodwill and purposefully shattered it so I could practice putting it back together again. Follow along as I take you through the process!
Bowl in one piece before being broken
Here is what the bowl looked like when I first bought it – in one piece! I chose this bowl because it was a good size: not too big where it would be too long of a project, but not too small where it would only take a few days to complete.
Breaking the bowl
Next came the fun part: breaking it! I placed the bowl inside a plastic bag so that all the pieces would stay together. Then, against my natural instinct, I threw the bag onto the ground and broke it into pieces! Notice how some are larger than others- this means that I had to be very careful as to not accidentally exclude a small piece from the entire bowl.
Taping sherds
After collecting all the sherds, my next step was to figure out where everything goes by taping the sherds together. This process allowed me to plan out the order in which the sherds would be glued together. I used blue painter’s tape to do this because it doesn’t leave residual adhesive on the surface of the sherds. This same tape is used when mending the ceramics found archaeologically at Ferry Farm.
More taping
More taping… it’s coming together!
Here is the completed bowl after taping! Once all the sherds were back in their rightful places, it was time to carefully plan out how I wanted to glue them. When mending, you don’t want to just start gluing together the first pieces you know fit together. It is important to take into account the shape of the vessel so that you leave as few gaps between the sherds as possible. I developed a plan to start from the base and work my way up to the rim of the bowl. With this done, it was time to start gluing!
It is protocol in the Archaeology Department to mend ceramics using a reversible method. The glue I used was a solution of 35% B72 in acetone, which is removable with acetone. I started by coating the broken edges of the sherds with a less concentrated solution of the glue, 5% B72 in acetone. This prepped the sherds to have glue applied to it. After this, I applied 35% B72 to only one sherd to be mended and then held it together with its neighbor. After 10 seconds of holding the sherds together, they were sticking quite nicely. I then placed a few pieces of painter’s tape to ensure the glue would hold, and placed the freshly glued sections into a bucket filled with glass beads.
Glass beads…yes, everyone who goes to the lab runs their fingers through them.
The glass beads hold the glued sherds together and prevent them from shifting as the glue dries. I repeated this process for all the sherds over the course of a few days until…
Finished glued bowl
…the gluing was complete!
Here is the final product! Now, no mend is ever going to be perfect. Once a vessel is broken, there will always be misaligned sherds in the vessel due to the tension of the entire piece being broken.
So, why do we mend ceramics in the first place? It can help archaeologists understand what types of objects a site’s occupants would have used and what activities were taking place. It is also an important process in public interpretation: mended ceramics can help the public see what certain vessels would have looked like during a site’s target period of significance.
Finally, keep in mind that what I did with this bowl was only practice: actual mending with sherds excavated from an archaeological site does not go as smoothly as this. Only a small percentage of a vessel is typically found and thus able to be mended. The reason why so few sherds of one vessel are found is because decades and centuries of being in the ground allows for sherds to get mixed up and moved due to bioturbation (movement of soil by animals such as rodents and insects), erosion, and in some cases, agricultural plowing.
Lives & Legacies 
