February 2nd 2008 Privy Dig
An
18th
century privy in Wilmington
This dig started off for me about 8:00 on a Friday
evening.
I received a call from George and Ryan. They said they had got
permission on a
construction site in the center of Wilmington and were digging a very
deep
brickliner in the basement of a building that was being renovated. Ryan told me they were down about 19 feet
and hade been finding some 18th century slipware pieces in
the heavy
sandy clay fill. They asked me if I would come help them dig and to
bring my
tripod because they said the hole took the entire 5-foot probe so they
had no
idea how deep this thing was going to be. I had already spent most of
the day
digging in Baltimore when I got their call. So I was already fairly
tired but
told them I would drive up and help. I arrived just before 10:00 that
night and
found George and Ryan taking a break, warming up in George’s van. Did I mention it was in the mid 20s that
night? Well after asking them what was going on I said let me take a
look at
this thing. We proceeded in to the basement of the building and they
showed me
the huge pile of dirt they had and a very deep bricklined hole. I took
one look
at the placement of the pit and said why are you guys digging a well. I
said
its double course brick and its up very close to the street. Not where
the
privy lines should be in this block. They said but it has early shards
in the
fill I said well if it was abandoned early it could be good. But could
easily
be 30+ feet deep. Then I noticed a small 1880s ink bottle sitting next
to the
small pile of very early slipware shard and said where did you find the
ink
they said at about 15 feet in the well. I said well that tells you when
it was
abandoned about 1885 when Wilmington got city water and that they must
have got
old fill with some early artifacts in it to fill in the well. I
suggested that
they give up on this well and fill it in. I said are there any other
pits on
this site to dig. George said yes and showed me a couple very large
pits that
already had footers pored in them I said lets not disturb these and
then he
showed me one that was collapsing into another part of the basement
floor. This
one looked ok to dig so I grabbed Ryan to help open this one up while
George
filled in the well. I was about 11:00 by time we started this pit. It
was a
typical 4-foot diameter brickliner it was also partly under a building
footer.
But had a large stone support for the building foundation to rest on.
This was
typically done in the late 19th century when larger
buildings such
as this one were built to the property lines covering up the earlier
privies.
We popped up the concrete floor over it and revealed about a 3-foot air
void
where this pit had been sinking. The first couple feet of soil were
mostly 100
years of dust and rat nest and some circa 1880-1900 era brick rubble.
After
getting through this the fill changed to heavy sandy clay. However
mixed with
the clay was a few early black glass bases and a few shards of
creamware and
early slipware. I told Ryan that this was going to be a very early pit
and most
likely if there was a trash layer it would be 18th centaury. I also expressed that if this pit had a very
large trash layer I wanted to do it properly and save everything. Not
just stir
up the context and look for bottles because that’s a very stupid thing
to do on
these early pits as you don’t get the chance to dig a lot of them. And
most
contain very few intact finds. After continuing down through the sandy
clay
fill for about 8 feet we hit a layer change. This was a small layer of
a gray
loamy clay that was mixed with some artifacts these were all pre 1790
and most
were of the types of wares found typically during the revolutionary war
era of
the mid 1770s to the mid 1780s. I did a test hole down about another
foot into
this layer and reviled the start of the black layer and that the pit
was going
to be wet and we would have to bail it the rest of the way. I asked George who was now pulling buckets
for me, what time is it? He expressed its late then said it almost 3:00
am. I said
I’m pretty beat and George and Ryan expressed the same. So I suggested
we Fill
the pit back in and return the following weekend and redig the pit back
out and
do a proper job of excavating the trash layer.
It was agreed and I climbed out of the now 13 foot deep pit and
helped
fill all the dirt back in. I had one bucket of artifacts mostly
ceramics and a
few bottle pieces from my test hole into the trash layer.
These artifacts included pieces of highly
decorated slipware some plain black glazed redware and of some
Creamware. I was
very excited about this privy because I’ve only had the chance to dig a
dozen
or so true 18th century context privies and this one had a
big trash
layer as I probed the layer from my test hole revealing about 4 feet of
black layer. After all was said and done
we leaded up all
our tools and headed home I finally made it home about 5:30am and after
a
shower went straight to bed. Over the
next week excitement continued to build over our upcoming dig. It was
agreed
that we could used a 4th
person on this dig so we invited Doug to
help with the sifting and sorting of the artifacts as they layer was
coming out
of the pit. Finally the day arrived we planned to dig the following
Sunday
Doug, Ryan, and myself all arrived about the same time and loaded our
equipment
into the site and quickly started opening up the pit. George was
running about
an hour late It was pretty easy digging sense the fill in the pit was
already
soft from us previously digging it out. So we quickly got back to the
trash
layer in about 3 hours. This time Ryan totally uncovered the small
loamy gray
clay layer. This small layer was only about 12 inches thick and was
slightly
thinner on the south west side of the privy. Just under this layer we
hit water
and a drastic color change. This is where the thick black organic muck
started.
Once down to the water Ryan let me get into the pit and deal with the
Black
layer. This layer was very laden with artifacts for the first foot and
a half,
very few pieces of bottles but there were quite a few broken engraved
clear
flint flip glasses and several Georgian style wine goblets. Most of the
artifacts in this layer were of locally produced slipware, coarse
redware,
English Creamware, English Mocha Ware, some Chinese export porcelain, a
few
shards of English white saltglaze, and a few shard of English Brown
saltglaze.
The age of most artifacts in this layer was 1770s-1780s with the very
early
agate mocha ware tankard being the latest piece in this layer probably
dating
mid 1780s. This layer soon gave way to a fairly sterile layer that
contained
very few artifacts only a few pieces of mostly corse earthen ware were
recovered in this layer and a small amount of English white saltglaze.
This
layer was a thick black organic material with a high concentration of
lime
mixed in with it. Strong evidence of a clean out having been done just
before
the revolution broke out in the early to mid 1770s. After proceeding
through
this sterile layer I encountered another layer again very heavily laden
with
artifacts. The artifacts had dropped slightly in age as I was finding
much less
Creamware and far more English white saltglaze. Some more Chinese
Export
Porcelain, Tin glazed earthenware (Delft), a few
shards
of Westerwald saltglaze stoneware, and a single shard of English Agate
Ware
showed up. This layer also contained many bottles that were almost
completely
intact. These bottles were of both English and continental manufacture
and of
the style commonly associated with the 1745-1765 era. Of the ceramics
recovered
from this layer only a small amount was of the locally produced
Slipwares most
of the pieces we from 3 combed slipware plates. Much of the rest of the
locally
produced wares were of the corse redware that is typically unglazed
except on
the inside of the vessel to make it water tight. These vessels included
many
small ovoid jars and a few vessels that were overall black glazed
including
several chamber pots a small cup and a large tankard. This final layer
was
about 1.5 feet thick and the very bottom of the hole was almost
completely
covered with bottles of the Black Glass Mallet type. The bottom of the
pit was
hard natural gray clay with round river stones mixed in it. This privy
was
approximately 18 feet deep. And had a context of 1750s-1780s being
filled in
between 1785-1790.
The artifacts
Approximately 14
five gallon buckets of artifacts were
recovered from this privy. 10 of those were ceramics and the other 4
were of
glass and bottles. Of the glass recovered most was English with some
being
continental and a very small amount possibly being American. Of the
English
produced glass most was the typical Sand pontiled black glass mallet of
about a
quart size. With parts to one large storage carboy of approximately 3-5
gallons, one small octagonal wide mouth utility possibly a snuff jar.
And
several each pattern and dip molded and engraved Flip glasses and
Georgian wine
goblets. The continental produced glass was mostly Case bottles of
about 10
inches in height with one very large example with a height probably
more then
15 inches. And several open pontiled mallet type forms that tapered
slightly to
the bottom. And one small greenish aqua serving bottle with a conical
kick up
and open pontil. The bottles that were most likely American were of the
typical
chestnut form flask and one small bluish aqua case bottle.
Ceramics
Of the multitude of
ceramic types and vessels found in this
privy. The most common was locally produced coarse redware Much of this
was
only glazed on its interior to make it water proof. Other was glazed
with an
overall black glaze and some was decorated with colorful slips. The
forms
represented in this group were Jars, cups, tankards, chamber pots,
jugs, pans,
bowls, and plates. The second most common group of ceramics was English
Creamware Represented in this group were plates, cups, bowls, saucers,
and
teapots. The third most abundant type of ceramic was Chinese Export
porcelain.
This group contained large bowls, small handless tea bowls, and plates.
Of the
less common ceramic types that made up the balance of artifacts were
English
white saltglaze stoneware, tin glazed earthenware (delft), scratch
blue,
English Agate Ware, and some Westerwald blue decorated stoneware. All
of these
ceramic types and the reconstructed vessel forms will be discussed
further
below.
Interior glazed
Coarse Redware
Of the plain
interior glazed ware small ovoid jars of about
1 gallon made up most of the group with a few milk pans also. I have
yet to
reconstruct any of the interior glazed redware.
Overall black or brown glazed Coarse Redware
Of the 5 vessels included in this picture are from
left to
right a quart sized tankard, a small cup, an ovoid jar, an ovoid jug,
and a
chamber pot. Making an attribution to a particular potter with these
plain
utilitarian wares is very difficult. Most redware potters of this time
would
most likely have been making all of these forms as a staple of their
business.
However these wares tend not to travel too far from where they were
made.
Simply because any town with its own local potter would not have a need
to
import such simple everyday pieces. Its of my opinion that the Chamber
pot,
jug, cup, and jar are very likely locally made as they were found in
the upper
part of the trash layer dating them to between 1770-1785 where as the
Tankard
was found in the lower part of the trash layer Dating it to between
1750s-1760s
It exhibits a far different glaze and foot then the other pieces so I
believe
this piece was most likely made in Philadelphia or perhaps New Jersey. The pieces that
were locally made are posably made by Mathew Crips. In 1760 he bought
the land east of King Street,
between Seventh and Eighth Streets, and on it started the first pottery
in
Wilmington. He sold the products of his manufacture in Delaware and New
Jersey,
until he grew wealthy. In 1797 he built a large mansion on this square,
in
which he lived for several years before his death.
Slip Decorated Coarse Redware (Slipware)
Of the 8 vessels pictured all are heavily slip
decorated in
the English tradition that was very popular in most colonial east cost
cities.
These vessels include from left to right. A combed plate, a bowl,
another
combed plate, a small pan, another combed plate, a chamber pot, a bowl,
and a
large pan. Most of the Slipware was
recovered from the upper part of the trash layer with the exception
being the
three combed slipware plates these were fund just under the sterile in
the top
of the lower artifact layer. The pans bowls and chamber pot can be
dated to
circa 1770-1785. The two pans are very typical of this time and are
very
similar to those produced in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Alexandria.
This
style is commonly called Philadelphia style because Philadelphia was
one of the
earliest centers of urban potting in the country and it borrowed traits
from
English produced slipware dating to the late 17th and early
18th
century. Many other urban potters either trained in Philadelphia or
tried to
copy the wares that were being produced there. As this style was very
in vogue
at the time. The two small-footed bowls
are also very Philadelphia influenced. These bowls are often decorated
with
large petals of slip splotched with brown and green. Similarly
decorated bowls
have also been found in Baltimore and Alexandria (there is a very good
article
on the Alexandria produced slipware in the 2003 Ceramics in America
journal).
The chamber pot is highly unusual for the time its decoration is more
similar
to English produced slipware dating to around 1720 However the English
wares
are potted with s buff firing clay and this chamber pot is made of a
typical
American reddish brown firing clay. The three plates can be dated to
circa
1755-1765. These combed slipware plates are decorated with very liberal
amounts
of cream-colored slip and splotched with green copper oxide. The slip
trailing
was also combed to create a more unique pattern. Having been lucky
enough to
have dug privies of this age in Baltimore I have many examples of
likely
Baltimore produced slipware. Upon comparison to the Wilmington found
pieces. I
found similarities in decoration and potting style along with
differences. I
expected this because John Brown,
Baltimore’s first potter trained under Mathew Crips in Wilmington circa
1760-1762 and then after his short apprenticeship came to Baltimore in
1763
where he set up his first pottery on Bond street in fells point. Most
of my
Baltimore slipware was recovered a few blocks from Browns first pottery
site.
Similarities I found were the decoration on the bowls, pans, and
plates. It
looks as though both Crips and Brown preferred the use of slip cups
with a
single quill for decoration where as Philadelphia and Alexandria
potters
preferred the use of multiple quill slip cups. The feet of the bowls
are much
simpler on the Baltimore made Bowls where as the Wilmington ones are
more
elaborate and finely tooled. Though I have yet to find an instance of a
Baltimore plate that exhibits combing. Also the plates made in both
Wilmington
and Baltimore are very thinly potted where as the Philadelphia examples
tend to
be fairly thick and heavy. On a recent trip to Philadelphia I brought
some of
my Wilmington recovered Slipware to Philadelphia’s archeology museum.
There the
head archeologist and myself compared the Wilmington Slipware to
similar
context pieces found in Philadelphia. Though the Wilmington and
Philadelphia
bowls were much more similar then The Baltimore ones you could still
see a much
more creamy appearance to the slip on the Wilmington examples. The
Philly plates
had much heaver coggling to the rims and combed decoration was quite
rare but
not completely absent. The pans were also very similar to those made in
Philly
though the decoration tended to be thicker bands of slip on the Philly
examples. The chamber pot was very different and the archeologist said
he had
never seen anything quite like it in Philadelphia slipware and had
nothing he
could compare it to. I have however seen some slip decorated chamber
pots that
were made in Baltimore. However the decoration was much simpler and
these
pieces were quite a bit later dating to circa 1800-1830. Due to the
early age
of this pot and that it was found in Wilmington and the differences
between it
and the Baltimore and Philadelphia pieces. I believe its very likely
also
locally produced so a possible Mathew Crips attribution is very
reasonable at
this time.
English Creamware
Potters in Staffordshire England first invented
Creamware
around 1750. It was to help replace the expensive to produce English
White
Saltglaze Stoneware. And to emulate the fine Chinese porcelain that was
popular
at the time. However this ware had one fault the glaze gave it a
decided yellow
or cream colored cast rather then the much-desired pure white of good
porcelain
and English White Saltglaze. All manner of forms were produced in
creamware but
it was mostly used to produce fine tablewares. Examples of the forms
from this
privy include plates, bowls, cups, saucers, and teapots. The examples
pictured
below are of two press molded plates exhibiting fancy borders popular
at the
time. And of a very plain waste bowl. Most of the creamware from this
privy was
found in the upper part of the trash layer dating it to circa
1770s-1780s
Chinese Export Porcelain
This type of porcelain was first being imported into Europe by the late 16th century (late Ming dynasty). The popularity of these wares steadily increased by the early 18th century these types of porcelain were being imported into the American colonies. Most of these early wares were blue and white decorated or painted in the Famille Verte color pallet which includes very vibrant greens and reds. By the second quarter of the 18th century the Famille Rose color pallet had been adopted this pallet consists of more subtle colors of pinks and purples along with other over glaze colors. This pallet and the simple blue and white remained popular through out the rest of the 18th century. This type of porcelain was found throughout both main trash layers. Of the two pieces pictured below. The plate was found in the lower of the two layers and probably dates to between 1750s-1760s. It was under glaze painted in the ever popular blue and white pallet with a small ocher accent band around the edge. Where as the bowl was recovered from the upper of the two layers dating it to the 1770s-1780s. It is over glazed enameled in the Famille Rose pallet exhibiting pink, orange and purple flowers.
English White Saltglaze Stoneware
Was first made in by John Dwight in Fulham England during the 1680s, By about 1710 its manufacture was began by Staffordshire potters. Soon production was began they found that mixing calcined flint in roughly equal measure with white-firing clay produced a strong yet very workable clay body. This new body was very suited for block press molding of plates and saucers and for the newly invented slip casting technique used to make ornately shaped tea pots and other forms. Helping to liberate the potter from the simple potters wheel. By about 1740 molded plate rims in standardized patterns were introduced with motifs known as "dot, diaper and basket", "bead and reel", and "barley". While most commonly left plain white some of these plates were sometimes painted with metal oxides in similar clouded patterns as seen on the Whieldon creamwares. The large platter pictured below is of the type that would have been made using the block press molding technique. The platters rim is in the popular “Barley” pattern. This platter was found in the lower of the two main trash layers and would date between 1750s-1760s.
Tin Glazed Earthenware (Delft)
This type of ware was produced in both continental
Europe
and England from the later 16th century until the early 19th
century. It is characterized by coarse earthenware paste that is thick
but
still light with a soft texture, and untempered with an opaque white
glaze made
up of a simple lead glaze with tin oxide added in a ratio of 1:3.
Colors vary
from buff to pale-yellow to pink on English, Dutch and Portuguese
wares, while
French and Italian tin-glazed ceramics may have reddish pastes. Many of
the
pieces produced during the mid 18th century were decorated
with
designs that are very similar to the popular Chinese export porcelain
of the
time. Though other decorations such as family crests and maritime scene
be
found. The
two pieces pictured below
were both found in the lower of the two main trash layers. This dates
the two
pieces to the 1750s-1760s both pieces are painted with Chinese Export
Porcelain
inspired motifs. The small plate exhibits a blue on white floral scene.
Where
as the bowl has a much more elaborate polychrome painted scene in
green, blue,
purple, yellow, and orange also mimicking Chinese wares of the period.
Because
this type of ware was made throughout Europe making an attribution to a
particular potting center is impossible at this time.
Slip Decorated Pearlware (Mochaware)
The first pearlware was credited to Josiah
Wedgwood he
devolved the ware over a period of several years and first marketed it
in 1779.
Though recent evidence points to Staffordshire potters producing a ware
which
they called “china glaze” several years before Wedgwood introduced his
ware. It
was found that simply replacing the iron oxide in the glaze used on
creamware
with cobalt oxide you created a glaze that fired to a pale bluish white
and was
much more aesthetically pleasing when painted in under glaze colors. The first Mocha
was produced in the late
1770s in a creamware body however this was not very popular and was
quickly
replaced with the blue white firing pearlware glaze by the early 1780s.
Many
early examples exhibit engine or lathe turning this form of decoration
is done
by coating the entire piece in colored slips and turning on a lathe
with gear
controlled cutting knives used to scrape away the surface slip coating
on the
green piece. Other techniques were decorating with a slipcup to produce
popular
patterns such a cable (earthworm) and cats eye. Numerous other patters
were
also produced including Agate, Seaweed, Rings, Twigs, and Dots. The
tankard
pictured below is decorated in the Agate pattern and is glazed with the
pearlware blue white firing glaze. This piece was found in the
uppermost trash
layer dating it to the 1780s.
English Brown Saltglaze Stoneware
The first successful English brown saltglaze made
in imitation
of Rhenish Brown saltglaze was in 1675 by John Dwight of Fulham
England. Soon
after potters of other regions began to copy his work. Similar wares
were made
in England well into the late 19th
century. English Fulham type
stonewares were salt glazed. Pieces were typically dipped in a brown
slip which
covered all or part of the vessel. Variations in the application of the
slip
and glaze resulted in overall glaze colors that could range even on a
single
vessel from greenish yellow to yellowish brown to reddish brown to dark
brown.
The small tankard pictured below was found in the upper of the two main
trash
layers and dates to the 1770s-1780s
English Blue
Decorated Saltglazed Stoneware (Scratch Blue)
Sometime between 1720-1740 white saltglazed
stoneware was
sometimes incised with line decorations that were filled with an iron
oxide
which fired brown. Referred to as Scratch Brown this ware is
relatively. In the
mid 1730s incised designs were filled with cobalt blue oxide. This ware
Scratch
Blue was very popular on teawares. This
type of ware was an English attempt at making Rhenish saltglazed
stoneware. Of
the shards pictured below. There are three pieces to small saucers, two
pieces
of small tea bowls and the larger piece which is considered Debased
Scratch
Blue due to the more sloppily applied cobalt decoration is most likely
of a
small chamber pot. All of these fragments were found in the upper trash
layer
and date to 1770s-1780s
Agate Ware
Commercial
production of Agate Ware doesn’t begin until 1729
when Samuel Bell at the lower street pot works, Newcastle Under Lyme
was
granted a patent to produce Red marbled stoneware. Bells products were
thrown
on a wheel then turned on a lathe to thin the body and create a clean
variegated surface capable of receiving a clear led glaze. Even though
Bell’s
patent states he is producing stoneware its mostlikely he was producing
a type
of twice fired earthenware. After lathe turning the ware was fired to a
biscuit
state then a liquid lead glaze was applied and fired again. Thrown
Agate Wares
reached their popularity in the 1750s but continued to be produced into
the
1770s. This single fragment of Agate Ware was found in the lower trash
layer
and dates to the 1750s-1760s.
Westerwald Blue Decorated Stoneware (Rhenish Stoneware)
The first true stoneware was devolved in Germany
in the 13th
century. Blue and gray stoneware developed in Raeren in the mid 16th century but primary production had shifted
to the Westerwald region by the end of the 16th century.
However
blue and gray stoneware continued to be made in Raeren and the 17th and 18th
century products of the
Westerwald and Raeren are often hard to distinguish from one another. These types of stoneware were very popular
in both England and the American colonies. Shards of this type of ware
can be
found at most colonial American sites. These wares are made of a very
hard
fired body that is saltglazed. It is noted for its very elaborate
incised and
applied decoration usually accented with bright cobalt oxide and
sometimes
manganese purple decoration. The three shards pictured are from a
tankard and
were found in the upper trash layer and date to the 1770s-1780s
