College of Humanities and Social Science Graduate School of History, Classics and Archaeology Masters Programme Dissertation

Dissertation Title: Tricks of the Trade: Tracking the

Development of Cultural Identity through Clay Tobacco Pipes in Colonial America

Exam Number:__B046418________________________________________ Date of Submission:__Friday, 15 August 2014________________ Programme:__MSc Archaeology___________________________ Supervisor:__Dr. Robert Leighton____________________________

Coursework Submission Form

This is your personal cover sheet with YOUR barcode on it.Please do not share it with anyone else. You must complete it and

append it to everything you hand in to your School.

Please remember to ensure your coursework title is also on yoursubmitted work.

Exam Number: B 0 4 6 4 1 8

Course Name: MSc Archaeology

Tutor Name: Dr. Robert Leighton

Coursework Title: Tricks of the Trade: Tracking the Development ofCultural Identity through Clay Tobacco Pipes in Colonial America

Word Count: 14,526

Matric Number:

Exam%No.%B046418%

% i%

Table%of%Contents%

%

Table&of&Contents………………………………………………………………...………………………………...i&

List&of&Figures………………………………………………………………………...……………………………iii&

List&of&Tables……………………………………………………………………….………………………..........iii&

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………...…………………………………...iv&&

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………v&

&

Chapter&1:&Introduction……………………………………..…………………………………….................1&

1.1 Research%Overview……………………………………………………………………………………1%

1.2 Paper%Structure……………………………………………………………………………………........5%

1.3 Literature%Overview…………………………………………………………………………………..6%

&

Chapter&2:&Historical&Context……………………………..……………………………………….............9&

2.1%Understanding%the%World%Economy……………………………………………………………9%

2.1.1%The%TransOAtlantic%Trade……………………………………………………………...9%

2.2%A%Revolutionary%Trade%Relationship…………………………………………………………10%

2.3%Tobacco%and%its%Accouterments%as%Key%Trade%Commodities………………………11%

2.4%The%Necessity%of%Context……………………………………………………………………….....14%

&

Chapter&3:&The&Clay&Tobacco&Pipe………………………………………………………………..……..15&

3.1%Production……………………………………………………………………………………………....15%

3.2%Style%Attributes…………………………………………………………………………………….....17%

3.2.1%Pipe%Bore%Diameter…………………………………………………………………….18%

3.2.2%Pipe%Bowl%Shape…………………………………………………………………….......19%

3.2.3%Maker’s%Mark……………………………………………………………………………..19%

3.2.4%Decoration…………………………………………………………………………………22%

3.3%Exporting%Pipes%to%the%Colonies………………………………………………………………..22%

3.4%Use…………………………………………………………………………………………………...……..23%

3.5%Becoming%Part%of%the%Archaeological%Record…………………………………..………...24%

&

Chapter&4:&Stylistic&Analysis………………………………………………………………...……….........26&

% 4.1%Data%Collection%and%Methodology………………………………………………………..……26%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% ii%

% 4.2%Data………………………………………………………………………………………………...………27%

% % King’s%Reach,%Calvert%County,%MD………………………………………………………..27%

Patuxent%Point,%Calvert%County.%MD……………………………………………………..27%

William%Stevens’%Land,%Calvert%County,%MD……………………………………….....28%

Pope’s%Fort,%St.%Mary’s%City,%MD…………………………………………………………...28%

Smith’s%Townland,%St.%Mary’s%City,%MD…………………………………………………29%

St.%John’s,%St.%Mary’s%City,%MD………………………………………………………………29%

Eltonhead,%St.%Mary’s%County,%MD………………………………………………………..30%

Mattapany,%St.%Mary’s%County,%MD……………………………………………………….30%

Green%Spring%Plantation,%James%City%County,%VA…………………………………...30%

Martin’s%Hundred,%James%City%County,%VA…………………………………...………..31%

% 4.3%Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………….33%

% % 4.3.1%Bristol%Pipes………………………………………………………………………………33%

% % 4.3.2%Chesapeake%Pipes……………………………………………………………………….33%

&

Chapter&5:&Discussion………………………………………………………………………........................35&

% 5.1%Who%were%the%Pipe%Makers?……………………………………………………………………..35%

% 5.2%Cultural%Influences…………………………………………………………………………………..37%

% 5.3%Creating%a%Colonial%Cultural%Identity…………………………………………………………39%

&

Chapter&6:&Conclusions&and&Further&Research……………………………………………….…...42&

% 6.1%Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………..42%

% 6.2%Further%Research%………………………………………………………………………………….....43%

%

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………...........45&

APPENDIX&A:&Individual&Site&Data&Tables……………………………………………………………50&

%

%

%

&

&

&

&

&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% iii%

List&of&Figures&

Figure%1:%Site%locations%overview%map………………………………………………………………………...3%

Figure%2:%Detail%map%of%Calvert%County,%MD%sites………………………………………………………....4%

Figure%3:%Detail%map%of%St.%Mary’s%City%and%St.%Mary’s%County,%MD%sites………………………...4%

Figure%4:%Detail%map%off%James%City%County,%VA%sites…………………………………………………....5%

Figure%5:%The%transOAtlantic%trade%network……………………………………………………………….10%

Figure%6:%Pipe%terminology%and%anatomy…………………………………………………………………..17%

Figure%7:%Atkinson%and%Oswald%English%pipe%typology…………………………………………….....20%

Figure%8:%Main%categories%of%maker’s%marks………………………………………………………………21%

Figure%9:%Terra%cotta%bowl%typology%for%St.%John’s%pipes……………………………………………..29%

Figure%10:%Terra%cotta%bowl%typology%for%Green%Spring%Plantation%pipes………………….....32%

Figure%11:%Terra%cotta%bowl%typology%for%Green%Spring%Plantation%aberrant%pipes…..…..32%

Figure%12:%Focus%area%map%with%Fall%Line%and%settlement%areas……….…………..…………….36%

Figure%13:%Drue%pipe%types………………………………………………………………………...……………..37%

%

List&of&Tables&

Table%1:%Harrington%and%Binford%bore%diameter%chronology….…………………………..……….18%

Table%2:%Chronology%of%Bristol%maker’s%mark%styles………………………………………...…………22%

Table%3:%King’s%Reach%data…………………………………...…………………………………………………...51%

Table%4:%Patuxent%Point%data…………………………………………………………………………………….52%

Table%5:%William%Stevens’%Land%data………………………………………………………………………….53%

Table%6:%Pope’s%Fort%data………………………………………………………………………………………….54%

Table%7:%Smith’s%Townland%data………………………………………………………………………………..56%

Table%8:%Smith’s%Townland%data%continued………………………………………………………………..56%

Table%9:%St.%John’s%data……………………………………………………………………………………………..57%

Table%10:%Eltonhead%data………………………………………………………………………………………….58%

Table%11:%Mattapany%data………………………………………………………………………………………...59%

Table%12:%Green%Spring%Plantation%data…………………………………………………………………….60%

Table%13:%Green%Spring%Plantation%data%continued…………………………………………………….61%

Table%14:%Martin’s%Hundred%data………………………………………………………………………………62%

Table%15:%Martin’s%Hundred%data%continued………………………………………………………………63%

%

%

%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% iv%

Acknowledgements%

%

I%would%like%to%express%my%most%sincere%gratitude%for%the%encouragement,%supervision,%

and%support%that%I%have%received,%particularly%from%Drs.%Robert%Leighton%and%Rob%

Dennis.%From%the%initial%stages%of%choosing%a%topic%to%the%details%of%formatting%this%for%

submission,%they%were%the%incredible%support%system%that%made%this%project%possible.%I%

would%also%like%to%acknowledge%my%family%and%friends%in%both%Scotland%and%the%United%

States%for%their%unwavering%moral%support%during%this%writing%process.%%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% v%

Abstract%

%

By%analyzing%clay%tobacco%pipes%recovered%from%ten%sites%in%the%Chesapeake%region%of%

Virginia%and%Maryland,%general%trends%and%stylistic%changes%were%identified.%These%

changes%suggest%a%move%away%from%the%decorative%techniques%of%English%clay%pipes%and%

appear%to%adopt%motifs%characteristic%of%Native%American%and%West%African%smoking%

pipes.%While%vaguely%retaining%the%basic%shapes%of%Bristol%pipes,%colonists%were%evolving%

in%their%pipe%making%practices.%It%is%likely%that%this%adoption%of%stylistic%motifs%and%

combination%of%pipe%production%styles%is%reflective%of%a%creolization%of%culture%in%the%

American%colonies.%The%transOAtlantic%trade%relationship%with%England%impacted%the%

creation%of%a%new%creole%cultural%identity%in%America%by%forcing%colonists%to%produce%

local%crafts%and%trade%with%nonOEuropeans%such%as%the%Indians%and%Africans.%Severe%

economic%depressions%and%limited%contact%with%English%culture%during%these%times%

resulted%in%new%generations%of%colonists%losing%touch%with%their%English%heritage.%The%

study%of%craftsmanship,%especially%that%of%tobacco%pipes,%in%the%colonies%provides%a%

timeline%following%the%development%and%evolution%of%the%cultural%identity%in%colonial%

America.%

%

%

%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 1%

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Research Overview

Dating from the 16th to the 19th century, the trans-Atlantic sea trade was a major part of the

global economy. It consisted of a network of shipping lanes connecting the American

colonies with the Caribbean, Britain, and the west coast of Africa. Other countries in Europe

participated in trade with the American colonies as well, but Britain was the colonies’ biggest

European trading partner. These trade routes, collectively identified as the “Triangular

Trade,” connected major port cities in Britain to important trade hubs such as Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania; Jamestown, Virginia; and Charleston, South Carolina. As a general rule, raw

materials and foods were shipped from the colonies to Britain in exchange for manufactured

goods (Fox 2002). Trade goods between Europe and the American colonies consisted of a

large range of goods including rum, salt, sugar, slaves, textiles, and cotton.

However, the focus of this dissertation will be clay tobacco pipes, a commodity that

became popular with the increased cultivation and trade of Virginia tobacco crops. The

overarching question this dissertation will aim to answer is what impact did the trans-Atlantic

trade relationship with England have on the development of cultural identity in the American

colonies And furthermore, how was this reflected in local craftsmanship? The first step in

answering this question is an analysis of production methods and stylistic differences of clay

tobacco pipes recovered from historic sites in America. While similarities are apparent in

British- and American-made pipes, there are also a number of differences. To what extent did

the colonial pipe makers copy the styles of imported British pipes? Were English pipes seen

to be of a higher quality? What features of the imported pipes did they adopt and which ones

did they abandon? Clay pipes produced in the Chesapeake regions of Maryland and Virginia

and those pipes imported from Bristol, England will be the main sources of evidence for this

dissertation with their decorative styles and production methods being the main focus of the

stylistic analysis.

This dissertation stretches beyond a superficial comparison exercise, though. The

patterning behind pipe production techniques and decorative motifs can assist in the

understanding of the cultural impacts of a trade economy. The hypothesis of this dissertation

is that clay pipe design variation can help illustrate the effects of a close trade relationship on

cultural growth. While the stylistic analysis plays a large role in the overall research,

understanding the cultural impacts of the trans-Atlantic trade is the ultimate goal. Extensive

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 2%

research by other archaeologists has been done on the production, use, and trade of imported

goods, as well as the possible ethnic identities of the colonists who produced pipes. Previous

research has devoted less attention to the impact of imported tobacco pipes on local culture,

creativity, and craftsmanship. Tobacco pipes are typically used as a dating tool, but they can

serve further purpose in understanding cultural identity.

There are a number of different types of artifacts that could be used for this type of

research. Several imported manufactured goods would do—ceramics, glassware, or textiles.

However, specific aspects of clay pipes make them ideal for this initial foray into early

American cultural identity. Clay pipes are a solid line of evidence because they are easily

datable and are ubiquitous in the historical archaeological record in America. Given their

short lifespan, popularity, and measureable stylistic changes, tobacco pipes serve as an

excellent means of physically tracking cultural influences. Features such as bowl shapes,

bowl sizes, decorations, pipe bores, clay types, and makers’ marks serve as very useful

markers of production and stylistic shifts.

As there are thousands of pipe fragments scattered throughout colonial America sites,

the most manageable method of comparing imported Bristol pipes against locally crafted

Chesapeake pipes is to put explicit parameters on which pipes to study. The first parameter

for this analysis is the origin of the pipes, focusing on two major production spheres: Bristol,

England and the Chesapeake Bay area. Given its prominence in the pipe-making industry and

its role as a major port for ships bound for America, Bristol was a sensible choice for the

British production sphere (Fox 2002). This dissertation uses mid-17th and mid-18th century

pipes imported from Bristol that have been recovered in the Chesapeake area and compares

them to locally crafted pipes that appear in nearby contexts. Evidence for the study comes

from site reports and databases of sites in the Chesapeake. These include: King’s Reach,

Patuxent Point, and William Stevens’ Land in Calvert County, Maryland; Pope’s Fort,

Smith’s Townland, and St. John’s in St. Mary’s City, Maryland; Eltonhead and Mattapany in

St. Mary’s County, Maryland; and Green Spring Plantation and Martin’s Hundred in James

City County, Virginia. Sites were chosen based on three factors. Firstly, given the time and

geographical constraints of this thesis it was necessary to utilize tobacco pipes that have

already undergone preliminary analysis. Pipes that had already been analyzed for time period,

design, origin, and maker were ideal so that a further stylistic analysis regarding cultural

similarities could be performed in the time allotted for a Master’s dissertation. Being able to

analyze the artifacts in person would have been preferable, but given time constraints and

unavailability of the artifacts in the United Kingdom, analysis from illustrations and

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 3%

descriptions was ultimately the only possible means of carrying out this research. However,

this dissertation is not just a stylistic analysis, but also a discussion of how changes in pipe

styles reflect the social, cultural, and economic environment of colonial America. Secondly,

it was required that the sites produced either or both 17th to 18th century locally crafted and

Bristol pipes. Lastly, sites were chosen based on their proximity to each other. The sites

chosen are located either on the Patuxent River or the James River, both tributaries of the

Chesapeake Bay (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4). Figure 1 below shows the main clusters of sites. Here, it

is important to mention that the three distinct ‘clusters’ of sites are most likely due to the

extensive research that has been done in both of these historically significant areas and not

the result of discrete production or usage spheres.

Figure 1 - Site locations overview map. 1. James City County, VA 2. St. Mary's City and St. Mary's County, MD 3.

Calvert County, MD (adapted from Catapano 2010)

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 4%

Figure 2 - Detail map of Calvert County, MD sites 1. King's Reach 2. Patuxent Point 3. William Stevens' Land

Figure 3 - Detail map of St. Mary's City and St. Mary's County, MD sites 4. Pope's Fort 5. Smith's Townland 6. St. John's 7. Eltonhead 8. Mattapany

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 5%

Figure 4 - Detail map of James City County, VA sites 9. Green Spring Plantation 10. Martin’s Hundred

It is also important to acknowledge that the nature of stylistic comparisons will

primarily focus on qualitative data collected from site reports and archives. Decorative

designs and motifs will be analyzed and will only focus on a sampling of 243 pipes out of the

thousands of pipe fragments excavated from colonial America sites. This dissertation aims to

open a door into this area of study, providing preliminary evidence that pipe study with

regard to its cultural implications is a valuable and worthwhile task.

It is terribly important that the ‘small things forgotten’ be remembered. For in the seemingly little and insignificant things that accumulate to create a lifetime, the essence of our existence is captured (Deetz 1996: 259).

Further suggestions for expansions of the study will be discussed in Chapter 6. Tobacco

pipes can serve as more than just dating tools. They can provide a window into lives of the

American colonists, and provide evidence for the social and economic history of American

colonial life.

1.2 Paper Structure

Following this introduction and literature overview (section 1.3 below), there are two

separate background chapters. The first of these, Chapter 2, focuses specifically on the role

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 6%

of tobacco in the trans-Atlantic trade between the beginning of the 17th century and the

middle of the 18th century. This chapter is meant to give context to the study and assist the

reader in establishing a basic knowledge of the trade relationship between England and the

colonies so the impact of cultural influences and changes may be fully understood in the data

analysis in Chapter 5.

The second background chapter, Chapter 3, targets clay pipes specifically, covering

the various designs and life cycles of the English ‘parent’ pipe. Having a basic knowledge of

the English pipe will aid in the understanding of how colonial Virginia pipes differed from

the ‘norm’ and evolved into the Chesapeake pipe. This section also addresses the importance

of clay pipes in the archaeological record and expands on the benefits of using them as a

dating method.

Chapter 4 serves to provide the methodology and results of the stylistic analysis. The

subsequent chapter, Chapter 5, provides an in-depth analysis of the data and a discussion of

the implications of the results. This chapter will focus on the broader questions of cultural

change and impacts of the close trade relationship between England and the Chesapeake area

throughout the colonial period. Finally, Chapter 6 serves as the conclusion to this

dissertation, summarizing findings, addressing benefits of this research, and the possibilities

for future work in this area.

Each chapter is divided into sections, such as this one, and in some instances further

divided to address specific aspects of a topic. Sections are bold and delineated by a two-part

system: the chapter number and then the section number (ex. 1.2). Subheadings under

sections are italicized and follow a three-part system: chapter, section, section subheading

(ex. 1.2.1).

1.3 Literature Overview

Pipe study is a multi-faceted area of archaeology that has garnered significant attention over

the years. There are museums, archives, online databases, quarterlies, manuals, indexes, and

style guides that approach the subject from various perspectives and disciplines. These

resources were majorly useful in completing my analysis since, as mentioned previously,

access to colonial American pipes while in the United Kingdom was not feasible. Quite a bit

of research has been done on various archaeological sites using assemblages of tobacco pipes

for dating purposes. However, there has not been much study of the impact of imported pipes

on locally produced products. This dissertation aims to highlight the influences of imported

pipes to Virginia and Maryland and how their influences might reflect other cultural, social,

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 7%

and economic trends of the time. By observing the influences of English culture and power in

the locally crafted tobacco pipes in Virginia and Maryland—how and why they pulled away

from English designs—historical archaeologists can gain a better perspective on the cultural

identity of pre-Revolutionary America.

The first study chosen is Henry’s (1979) preliminary study of terra cotta tobacco

pipes in Maryland and Virginia. Not only does Henry pose similar questions to those herein

regarding adoption of European motifs by colonists, but she also provides descriptions,

images, and her own interpretations of pipes primarily recovered from the St. John’s in St.

Mary’s City (along with a few other nearby sites).

The second study chosen for this analysis is the site report from Green Spring

Plantation, Virginia. The 1988 article by Crass focuses specifically on the pipes recovered

during the 1954-55 excavations at Green Spring. It provides an analysis of the pipes and a

discussion on the implications of the results. The assemblage studied consists of pipes of

various origins: local, English (Bristol), and Dutch. Even though a majority of the pipes

studied here are of Dutch origin, the information and details Crass provides are thorough and

addresses not only style, but production methods of English pipes as well.

The third study is Noel Hume’s (1979) report for Martin’s Hundred, Virginia. Her

report provides typologies, descriptions, and dates for both Bristol and Chesapeake pipes

found at the site. She also addresses relative dating methods for pipes using similar designs at

nearby colonial sites.

The fourth study is a tobacco pipe analysis, examining types, quantities, and

distributions of marked and decorated clay pipes from four 17th century sites in southern

Maryland: William Stevens’ Land, Patuxent Point, Mattapany, and Eltonhead. Cavallo

(2004) provides an analysis with an inventory of pipes with pipe dates, makers, and origins.

The remaining three analyses and studies come from Davey and Pogue’s (1991) The

Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay, part of the British

Archaeological Reports series. These reports provide typologies and chronologies of

Chesapeake-made and Bristol tobacco pipes from the following Maryland sites: Smith’s

Townland, King’s Reach, and Pope’s Fort. The reports provide results from various sites in

the region and address changes in style over time.

To carry out a stylistic analysis concerning the pipes from the aforementioned reports,

the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) has proven to be

majorly useful. DAACS is an online public resource hosted by the Archaeology department

at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello in Virginia. Its main objective is to provide information

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 8%

about slaves living in the Chesapeake, Carolinas, and Caribbean during the colonial and

antebellum periods. However, it holds data regarding archaeological assemblages and

architectural plans for sites throughout the eastern Atlantic world as well. Specifically, I will

be utilizing its clay tobacco pipe cataloging manual. Their cataloguing manual addresses the

various types, shapes, colors, and styles of clay pipes found in the region as well as the

generally accepted typologies by Atkinson and Oswald. In addition to identifying these

features, the DAACS pipe manual also gives approximate dates for different diagnostic

features—information that will prove to be extremely useful when creating a pipe chronology

(Grillo et al. 2003). Furthermore, Oswald’s (1975) Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist serves as

an excellent source for not only pipe styles, but it also provides background information on

dating techniques and the history of the English clay pipe industry.

Articles addressing pipes recovered from Iroquoian sites and from Port Royal,

Jamaica have been used as models for methodological frameworks for analysis as well as

theories for discussion in Chapter 5. These include Bradley and DeAngelo’s (1981) study on

European clay pipes at 17th century Onondaga Iroquois sites and Fox’s (2002) Port Royal,

Jamaica case study that discusses tobacco pipes as a means of interpreting social and

economic change. These studies all address the research potential of clay pipes, their

strengths and weaknesses, and how they can be interpreted. Their research methodology and

frameworks have been used as models for this dissertation, as key aspects can be adapted for

looking through a colonial American cultural lens. Cultural anthropological theories are also

discussed in Chapter 5 and draw from the works of Edward Burnett Tylor (1920), Baron and

Cara (2011) and Katherine Fierlbeck (1996). Their works provide a foundation on which to

discuss the meaning and evolution of culture through transmission and creolization.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 9%

Chapter 2: Historical Context

2.1 Understanding the World Economy

Before clay tobacco pipes and their reflection of the British influence on colonial culture can

be studied, it is important to explore briefly the trans-Atlantic trade. A brief overview of the

trade including its purpose, participants, and how it altered the exchange of goods is

necessary. It opened new doors for the countries in Western Europe by creating exciting new

economic opportunities and played an important role in Britain’s influence on the colonial

economy, trade, and local craftsmanship in America. The world was becoming smaller and

European power, especially that of Britain’s, was growing ever larger.

2.1.1 The Trans-Atlantic Trade. The year 1488 marked both Bartolomeu Dias’ discovery of

the passage around the Cape of Good Hope and also innovations in ship technologies by the

Portuguese that allowed the possibility for long distance sea-trade (Sadr 1998; Acemoglu et

al. 2005). After the discovery of the New World and the establishment of the Jamestown

colony in Virginia, the Atlantic trade boomed and became a large part of the world economy.

The exponential growth of Western European countries from the 16th century through the 19th

can mostly be attributed to their access to the Atlantic Ocean and the trade network. New

opportunities, commodities, and profits from these trade interactions had an enormous impact

on the rise of Europe, the most rapid economic growth occurring in Britain and the

Netherlands (Acemoglu et al. 2005). As economic trade relationships became increasingly

popular and important, trading companies were established to keep the network in check. The

East India Trading Company, founded in 1600 for merchants in London, is one of the most

well known examples. From the beginning of the 17th century onward, there was a significant

increase in investments by British merchants, gentry, and aristocracy in overseas markets

(Acemoglu et al. 2005: 565). The market was obviously becoming the central investment for

economic wealth and power and a globalized market economy was taking the Atlantic world

by storm.

The trans-Atlantic trade, or the ‘Triangular Trade’, formed a tri-point shipping route

from Western Europe to Africa to the New World; this included the Caribbean and the

American colonies (Figure 5). It consisted of all manner of cargoes and markets: slaves from

Africa; manufactured materials from Western Europe; tobacco from Virginia starting in the

1620s; and sugar and salt from the Caribbean in the 1640s (Acemoglu et al. 2005: 565).

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 10%

Some nations put trade embargoes in place, resulting in an entire sub-network of illicit trade

and smuggling partnerships. Such was the nature of the trans-Atlantic trade: a large-scale

trading venture for merchants and an unparalleled business opportunity for trading

companies.

Figure 5 - The trans-Atlantic trade network (Johnston 2002)

2.2 A Revolutionary Trade Relationship

In 1607, settlers arrived and established the first colony at Jamestown in Virginia.

This expansion of the British Empire, increased Britain’s presence and influence in the trans-

Atlantic trade as not only did England export manufactured goods to the colonies, but it also

benefitted from the colonial export of raw materials (Fox 2002). In order to make life in the

colonies comfortable and similar to life in England, the American colonists imported

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 11%

manufactured goods from England, consisting mostly of food goods and adornments for their

homes and persons. A small sampling of goods includes: glass bottles, earthenware potteries,

copper whisky stills, nails, paving stones, salt, cheese, linens, and clay tobacco pipes. These

domestic goods came largely form London, Bristol, Liverpool, Whitehaven, and Glasgow

(Coulter 1945: 296-9). In these port locations, merchandise was collected in warehouses and

shipped overseas to America.

By the 1620s, tobacco cultivation in Virginia had skyrocketed and became the

colonies’ primary export. In 1634 the Maryland colony was founded and joined the tobacco

trade. England's connection with the colonies with regard to the colonial tobacco trade was a

standard paradigm of a core-peripheral relationship; England relied on its colonies for raw

materials and major export goods (Fox 2002: 67). By exploiting the resources in the colonies

throughout their Empire, England’s economy flourished. Raw materials and goods were

exported back to England where they were used to manufacture home and luxury goods.

These products were then distributed throughout the British Empire via the trans-Atlantic

network. Despite this however, it was not until the mid-17th century that Britain began to

actively control trade and the economic state of the American colonies though taxes and

embargoes.

2.3 Tobacco and its Accouterments as Key Trade Commodities

Prior to the 16th century, Europeans had no contact with tobacco, but through voyages to the

New World, they became exposed to the plant. While it was originally used for medicinal

purposes in Western Europe, by the second half of the 16th century Europeans had discovered

the use of tobacco as a recreational drug (Best 1979). As tobacco was an expensive luxury

good at the turn of the century, smoking was primarily limited to the upper echelons of

society in cosmopolitan centers such as London and Liverpool.

Despite the moral opposition some felt towards pipe smoking due to the health risks,

at the beginning of the 17th century tobacco was vindicated and was no longer considered to

be deviant behavior. This was largely due to government officials realizing its trade as a great

economic venture (Best 1979: 171). This resulted in an upswing in tobacco exports from the

colonies and the increased production of smoking pipes. Tobacco’s lightweight nature meant

that large amounts could be shipped at minimal cost. Unlike other crafts for export that were

heavy or unnecessary to ship back to England, tobacco was the one colonial commodity that

could be exported reliably and had a constant market demand (Best 1979). From Virginia’s

first shipment of tobacco to England in 1616 to just twenty years later, the amount of

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 12%

exported tobacco increased from 2,500 pounds to an estimated million and a half (Best

1979:175). It became the colonies’ most valuable export and proved to be a major asset to the

British trade economy and gave rise to the increasing popularity of smoking.

After King James I of England realized the potential revenue from the tobacco trade,

he introduced a tobacco tax that he repeatedly increased. Soon, the Crown held a monopoly

on the tobacco smoking industry; it controlled importation and sale of tobacco, clay pipes,

and other trappings of the pipe-smoking hobby. In 1622, the king extended his power and

monopolized the Virginia Company as well by demanding a third of the profits generated by

the trade of tobacco (Butler 2009: 103).

To ensure the continued economic success of the tobacco trade, Parliament restricted

the import of tobacco in 1624. As a means of controlling prices and the colonies’ economy,

tobacco could only be imported through London shipping ports, as London was the center of

British power and economic wealth. In 1638, however, this embargo was lifted and other

ports such as Plymouth, Dartmouth, Southampton, and Bristol were permitted to import

tobacco as well (Jackson & Price 1974: 10). The rampant desire for tobacco and smoking

products contributed massively to England’s economic wealth and more were required to

accommodate the increasing trade.

As the tobacco trade grew, the pipe production industry became ever more popular in

England. Not only were the pipes used domestically, they were also exported to the American

colonies as well. London monopolized this pipe making industry until the second half of the

17th century and the period following reflected a significant decrease in pipe exports however

(Oswald 1975: 113). Starting in the 1650s, the London pipe makers’ primary competition for

the American colonial markets was the Bristol pipe industry. Consumer demand for tobacco

and tobacco-related products encouraged this growth, trade, and production in other parts of

Britain (Fox 2002). The sheer number of clay smoking pipes recovered from the Chesapeake

as well as other New World sites such as Jamaica and Barbados are testaments to the English

pipe’s rapid spread and integration into daily life.

However, the tobacco trade during the 17th century operated in a cyclical pattern of

“booms and busts” (Henry 1979: 15). Boom periods were characterized by readily available

shipping, low freight charges, plentiful and cheap English goods, and increased numbers of

immigrants and farming. Over-cultivation of tobacco during these years resulted in falling

crop prices and the colonies fell into depression periods. Inadequate shipping, higher freight

charges to make up for cheap tobacco prices, fewer and more expensive English goods, and

fewer immigrants to an economically unstable New World were characteristics of depression

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 13%

eras (Henry 1979: 15). The four major depression periods occurred in 1629-1630, 1638-1644,

1665-1667, and 1680-1713. The years 1665-1667, following the introduction of the

Navigation Acts, is considered to have been the worst of the four depression periods due to

the increased taxes enacted by the Crown.

With the flux of the tobacco trade during the 17th century and the severity of the

economic depressions, it is possible that colonists began to produce their own pipes with

local terra cotta clays. While many Virginians and Marylanders were dedicated to the

cultivation of their tobacco fields, there were a few entrepreneurs who began to look for other

sources of revenue and sought their own roles in the trans-Atlantic trade. Between the 1630s

and the 1660s, various local crafts and industries were established in an initial attempt to gain

economic independence from England (Deetz 1996: 55). These included leather and leather

products, smelted iron, ceramics, sailing vessels, and smoking pipes. There were also those

colonists who might have been unable to purchase the expensive English pipes and decided

to manufacture their own. The production of their own tobacco pipes put the industry and the

culture of pipe smoking almost entirely in their hands. They no longer had to be reliant on

imported pipes to continue their smoking habits.

If the colonies could have dominated the pipe making industry along with being the

largest source of tobacco, they could have possibly controlled the culture of pipe smoking

across the Atlantic Ocean. It is likely that this dissertation could have been written from the

perspective of the influence of Chesapeake pipe on the rest of the world. However, the

passage of the Navigation Acts in 1651, 1660, and 1663 by Parliament restricted colonial

trade to “English goods, transported on English ships” and further forbade the local

production of needed commodities (Deetz 1996: 55). These acts ensured that profits made

from colonial trade only benefited English merchants, as the colonists were banned from

trading with countries other than England (‘Parliament: Living Heritage’). It was also a

fruitless attempt to limit smuggling and illicit trades in American waters. England became

even further involved after the Glorious Revolution with the establishment of the Board of

Trade in 1696. The Board of Trade, or the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations,

worked to further establish colonial trade policies. The Board examined colonial legislation

with regard to trade policies, along with other tasks relating to appointing high officials. It

became the primary policy-making body of the British government in its economic endeavors

to increase the profitability of the colonies for England (Encylopædia Britannica 2014).

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 14%

2.4 The Necessity of Context

As previously mentioned, in order to understand the relationship between the England and its

American colonies, one must first have a basic knowledge of their economic ties and trade

relationship. England’s control of the Virginia and Maryland colonies and the relentless

taxation and monopolization of colonial companies strained these connections. While not the

direct cause of the American Revolution, England’s relentless exploitation of the colonists

and refusal to allow economically self-sufficiency would have certainly bred Anti-Anglican

sentiments—sentiments that may have contributed to the growth of American colonial

culture. On this basis, the production and import of pipes is studied herein. Tobacco and,

eventually, its accouterments were major parts of the colonial market and culture. It stands to

reason that the colonists’ withdrawal from Britain would be present in the chronologies of

various English crafts practiced by the colonists.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 15%

Chapter 3: The Clay Tobacco Pipe

3.1 Production

Pipe production began in Britain in the late 16th century, but smoking was an

expensive hobby that few could afford. However, the increased availability of tobacco from

America by the mid-17th century significantly dropped prices, resulting in a larger population

of smokers and a higher demand for tobacco pipes in both America and England (Higgins

1995). Until 1640, the majority of clay pipes were of London design. The London Company,

an organization established in 1619 to control the production of tobacco pipes in and around

London, held a monopoly on the industry. Not only did it control the market, but the creative

styles of the makers, as well (Oswald 1975). Despite the Company’s numerous attempts to

control production in other areas of England, regional styles and individuality had evolved in

areas such as York, Broseley, and Bristol. By the middle of the century, guilds of pipe

makers had been established around the country—Bristol’s having formed in 1652 (Oswald

1975: 9). Not only does this date mark the loss of central power by the Company in Bristol,

but it also symbolizes the renewed beginning of expression and creativity in tobacco pipe

design. Thus, the year 1652 serves as a convenient start date for the time period observed in

this dissertation.

If loss of central control in 1652 marks the beginning of the period studied herein, it is

fitting that loss of power should also mark its end. While some English clay pipes dating

through the 19th century have been recovered from colonial America sites, port records

suggest that Bristol trade decreased during the mid-18th century with the beginning of the

Revolutionary War. However, artifact evidence suggests that London products were

continuously imported to Virginia during the War (Oswald 1975: 113). The conflict between

Britain and its colonies would have likely resulted in a desire for the colonists to separate

themselves from England, skewing stylistic similarity data after 1776. Such attacks as the

raid on Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775 indicate that these

separatist feelings were present leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence

in 1776. However, the year of the signing provides a solid beginning to the colonists’ desire

to separate from England and thus works perfectly as an end date for the study period.

From the start of the pipe industry in the 1500s, British pipe makers used local clay

resources. British white clays had been in use long before the 16th century, the first evidence

of the utilization of these clays coming from Roman Britain mortaria (Deetz 1975: 11). The

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 16%

tobacco trade during the 16th century is what sparked the ball clay trade throughout England.

Highly plastic white clays were ideal for pipe manufacture, as they could be easily shaped

into the necessary shapes. By the 1630s, Dorset pipe clays were shipped from Poole,

becoming the port’s most important export. This trend continued through the 17th and 18th

centuries. It is likely that Bristol pipes were manufactured from ball clays from the

Petrockstowe Basin in North Devon. (Pike & Vincent 2000).

The use of local and regional clays in English pipe production is attributed to the

cottage industry nature of the craft. The small, local business aspect of pipe production led to

the numerous pipe makers and guilds throughout the country. Clay pipe manufacture in

Britain was a small craft industry that people usually carried out from their homes and is

described as having been “more dirty than laborious, but more moderately profitable” (Fox

2002: 68). Walker (1977) and Peacey’s (1996) excavations of pipe kilns in Bristol attest to

the presence of numerous family-operated pipe production areas.

Oswald (1975) outlines the pipe making process as recorded by English craftsman

Randle Home in 1688. In his document, Home also provides a list of tools used throughout

the process. The first step was the import of clay from the ball clay deposits in Devon. It was

then prepared by hand (or by machine in the late 17th century). Second, the clay blanks were

shaped into rough pipe figures, also by hand. Third, a series of different wires were used to

thread pipe stem bores (Oswald 1975: 16). These included shanking wires (wire that creates

the bore), molding wires (smoothing wire), and a hook toole (Home 1688). Fourth, the pipe-

shaped blanks were placed in a mould to refine the exterior shape. A mushroom-shaped

button tool was then used to hollow out the pipe bowl (Home 1688). The fifth step was the

trimming and burnishing of the pipes into their final designs (Oswald 1975: 16). Home

(1688) lists the three tools required for this task: the trimming smoother which was used to

polish and smooth the pipe; the head scraper, a knife-like tool that smoothed out mold marks;

and the shanking tool used to smooth and polish the bore of the pipe stem. And finally, the

pipes were fired in kilns, most often using charcoal as fuel (Oswald 1975: 16). On the whole,

clay pipes were one of the first mass-produced commodities prior to the Industrial Revolution

(Fox 2002). This is mostly due to their short lifespan and their disposable nature. This rapid

usage cycle is reflected in the quick turnover of stylistic trends. Together, these factors

ensured that there was an ever-present demand for tobacco pipes.

From archaeological excavations in the Chesapeake area it is obvious that pipe

production had made its way across the Atlantic during the 17th century. Locally crafted pipes

begin to make an appearance on sites dating after the 1630s with their production continuing

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 17%

through the 18th century (Deetz 1996: 245). Among various other industries, pipe production

was one of the means by which the American colonists attempted to gain economic

independence from Britain during the 17th century (Deetz 1996). To determine how

production and decoration compared to English styles is one of the major goals of this

dissertation and will be addressed in Chapter 4.

Some scholars suggest that there would have been little incentive for colonists to

manufacture their own pipe making utensils, as these trade tools were relatively inexpensive

to import from England (Monroe & Mallios 2004: 78). This would have resulted in pipes

similarly fashioned and decorated to the English styles. Theoretically, the pipe makers in the

colonies would have updated their trade tools less often than the makers in England, resulting

in local pipes that may have been slightly ‘behind the times.’ However, the lack of evidence

for English- or American-made molds renders this hypothesis unconfirmed.

3.2 Style Attributes

Given that production methods and styles changed rapidly throughout the 17th and 18th

centuries, there are certain aspects of clay tobacco pipes that can be used to date a site. Figure

6 provides an overview of pipe anatomy and can serve as a reference tool for the following

sections.

Figure 6 – Pipe terminology and anatomy (Bradley & DeAngelo 1981: 110)

Archaeologists have devised pipe chronologies that essentially track the evolution of English

pipes and provide probably production dates. These timelines, with the assistance of style

guides, are immensely helpful with establishing site chronologies and in some cases, even

social class and economic status. The following sections detail specific pipe characteristics,

how they are dated, and general change over time. It should be noted that these descriptions

focus solely on English pipe typologies, as they serve as the ‘parent type’ for colonial terra

cotta productions.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 18%

3.2.1 Pipe Bore Diameter. Given that there is a direct relationship between bore diameter and

the age a pipe, bore studies have become a key method in dating and analyzing clay tobacco

pipes. The general rule is: the older the pipe, the larger the bore diameter of the pipe stem.

Starting around 1600, English pipe stem bores measured about 9/64-inch in diameter,

decreasing to 4/64-inch by 1800 (Deetz 1996: 27). Deetz reasons that this decrease in size is

likely due to the increased length of pipe stems, a change that might be related to the greater

availability of tobacco. Greater availability would have led to larger pipe bowls (for larger

quantities) and thus longer, hotter smokes (Deetz 1996: 27). Additionally, the removal of the

stem further away from the mouth would have cut down on the amount of matter inhaled into

the smoker’s mouth (Deetz 1996: 28). Therefore, archaeologists must rely on dating pipe

bores as opposed to the length of pipe stems. Due to their fragile and disposable nature, pipe

stems generally broke off in segments as they were used, resulting in countless stem

fragments scattered throughout historical assemblages. The method of dating pipe bores

remains one of the most widely used and reliable dating techniques for archaeologists

working on 17th and 18th century Colonial America and British sites, as changing tools

resulted in changing bore diameters (Deetz 1996). Deetz’s table of average bore diameters

and corresponding time periods can be found below:

Diameter Dates

9/64 inch 1590 - 1620

8/64 inch 1620 – 1650

7/64 inch 1650 – 1680

6/64 inch 1680 – 1720

5/64 inch 1720 – 1750

4/64 inch 1750 – 1800

Table 1 – Harrington and Binford bore diameter chronology (Deetz 1996: 28)

The dating method for pipe bores, in its simplest form, merely requires measuring the

diameter of the pipes in question and comparing it to this table. The major pitfall and

criticism of this technique, however, is that it requires large sample sizes and cannot

accurately predict mean dates from a single fragment.

In 1962, Lewis Binford refined the original bore-dating method put forth by J.C.

Harrington in 1954. He expressed the relationship between the date and pipe stem bore as:

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 19%

y = 1931.85 – 38.26x

where y is the date of the deposit and x is the average bore diameter in sixty-fourths of an

inch (Binford 1962). While this method is convenient and generally very precise, a study by

Geiger Omwake (1965) suggests that the dates become less accurate as one nears the end of

the 18th century. Audrey Noel Hume (1963) further demonstrated that a sample should

contain a minimum of 900 – 1000 fragments to produce reliable dates. As an additional

means of combatting inaccuracies, Binford and Harrington stressed that the technique’s

accuracy depends heavily on the sample having been deposited prior to 1780 (Oswald 1975:

92-3).

3.2.2 Pipe Bowl Shape. Identification of English pipe bowls has been relatively standardized

with the introduction of Atkinson and Oswald’s (1969) typology chart (Figure 7). Certain

features regarding bowl shape, size, and the presence of heels or spurs are addressed and

given relative dates. While it was first published in their article for London clay tobacco

pipes, it is applicable to all English-made pipes. Most Chesapeake pipe researchers tend to

use this typology as a guideline for identifying terra cotta pipes as well. However, many have

developed site-specific typologies given the amount of variation from English-made pipes.

While typologies are site-specific, most of the designations have been made with reference to

the Atkinson and Oswald bowl typology. These Chesapeake types will be addressed in

Chapter 4.

3.2.3 Maker’s Mark. One of the most easily datable and traceable characteristics of clay

tobacco pipes is the presence of a maker’s mark. By the 17th century, pipes began to receive

makers’ marks, a type of seal, which identified the craftsman or guild. They can be found

most anywhere on the exterior of the pipe: on the base, the back and sides of the bowl, on the

sides of the spur, or on the stem. During the earliest period of pipe production about only 1%

of pipes were stamped; by the 19th century, that number had only risen to about 60% (Oswald

1975: 62). Therefore, stamped pipes are more infrequent, but not impossible to find. In the

instance that a stamped pipe is recovered, the seal can usually be traced using a pipe maker

index. In these indexes, information regarding production dates, origin, and even the

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 20%

Figure 7 – Atkinson and Oswald English pipe typology 1. c. 1580-1610, handmade; 2. c. 1580-1610; 3. c. 1580-1610,

heart-shaped base; 4-8. c. 1610-1640, in this period the two main types of the 17th century develop: flat bases and spurs,

milling usual; 9-10. c. 1640-1660, increase in size; 11-12. c. 1640-1670, heart-shaped bases; 13-15. c. 1660-1680. (No. 14

with degenerate spur occurs in large and small bowl sizes); 16-17. c. 1660-1680, West Country style with overhanging

bowl and the line of the mouth parallel or nearly so with the line of the stem. Copied by some London makers; 18 c. 1660-

1680, a new type with straight sides, developing into types 20 and 22; 19. c. 1690-1710, late spur type; 20-22. c. 1680-

1710, long bowls some molded initials on sides of base; 23. c. 1690-1720, West Country style, thin brittle bowls; 24. c.

1700-1740, American export style occasionally found in London; 25. c. 1700-1770, common standard southeastern type

for the 18th century. The lip of the bowl parallel to the stem, a change that occurred about 1700. Bowl sizes vary, the

earlier are longer and narrower, the thickness of stem and bowl decreases as the century wears on, no milling; 26. c.

1740-1800, new type with forward spur, thin bowls, sometimes decorated; 27. c. 1780-1820, thin brittle bowl, flat based

spur; 28. c. 1820-1840, pointed spur, small initials; 29. c. 1840-1880, forward drooping bowl, small spur. 30. c. 1850-

1910, copy of the briar; 31. c. 1850-1910, copy of Dutch type; 32. c. 1840, occasionally found in London, miniature; 33.

Post-1840, Irish type, although often stamped Dublin these were made at several centers in Britain form a type of mold

supplied to several makers (Grillo et al. 2003: 12-13)

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 21%

craftsman’s name can be found. These seals provide helpful terminus post quem dates and are

by far the most useful characteristic in determining precise pipe origin.

There are three important factors that must be taken into consideration when dating

makers’ marks, as outlined by Oswald (1975). First, an approximate date of the pipe should

be assessed by bowl typology. By narrowing down the time range, it is more feasible to

determine the maker. The second factor pertains mostly to the locally produced pipes in the

Chesapeake. Since most makers only had a range of 20-30 miles (thus barring the pipes that

were imported from Bristol to Chesapeake), the maker most likely lived and worked within

this range of the pipe’s location. And third, as with the other attributes, mark styles changed

over time and can provide rough date estimates (Oswald 1975: 62).

The two main categories of makers’ marks are incuse and relief (Figure 8). The term

incuse refers to ‘negative’ marks, or designs that have been sunken into the clay. Meanwhile,

relief refers to raised marks on the clay.

Figure 8 - Main categories of maker's marks 1. Incuse mark by Thomas Monkes 2. Relief by Robert Tippet

(adapted from Crass 1988; Bradley & DeAngelo 1981)

These broad categories are further broken down into types: initials, full name, and symbols.

These seals could then be placed anywhere on the exterior of the pipe, usually away from

prominent areas (i.e. front of the bowl, top of the stem) (Oswald 1975). A timeline of Bristol

types, styles, and locations of Bristol pipe marks is illustrated in Table 2. Bristol pipe makers

had an apparent tendency to mark their pipes with their names and initials, which has

therefore become one of the key methods for dating and identifying Bristol pipes (Jackson &

Price 1974).

1% 2%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 22%

Date Range Type Location Other

17th c. Incuse initial Base of bowl

1650-1700 Relief initial Base of bowl

1670-1750 Incuse initial Back of bowl

1690-1780 Relief initial/full name Side of bowl Mold-imparted; circular cartouche

Late 17th c. Incuse initial Stem

18th c. Relief name Side of base Molded-imparted

Mid 18th c. Relief full name Stem

Table 2 - Chronology of Bristol makers’ marks styles (Oswald 1975: 62-91)

3.2.4 Decoration. While bowl and stem decorations are a distinguishing aspect of pipe

design, this is a rare trait for British pipes prior to the 19th century. Decorations begin to

appear on London pipe stems in the second half of the 17th century, including designs such as

incised diamond patterns, crosses, fleur-de-lis, and occasionally floral and geometric designs.

Design popularity increased gradually throughout the 18th century and bowl decoration

eventually became commonplace by the turn of the 19th century (Oswald 1975). For the

1652-1776 dates set forth as parameters for this stylistic analysis, it should be noted that

decoration on English pipe stems was not yet a popular trend, but was on the rise. In this

period, it is primarily Dutch pipes that are seen with elaborate bowl and stem decorations.

3.3 Exporting Pipes to the Colonies

The first physical evidence of clay pipes in the New World dates from 1619 to 1622. These

English-made pipes were excavated from two sites in the Chesapeake area: Martin’s

Hundred, a 17th century plantation site, and the colonial Jamestown settlement (Fox 2002:

70). While the first documented export of clay pipes does not occur until 1627 in a London

Port Book entry, the entry mentions a shipment of clay pipes bound for the Virginia colony

onboard the goodship James out of London (Fox 2002: 70). As previously mentioned in

Chapter 2, London was the center for the tobacco trade for the first half of the 17th century

due to trade bans. Yet, as the economic importance of the trans-Atlantic trade grew and the

tobacco trade embargo was lifted in 1638, Bristol’s role as a main shipping hub became more

prominent (Jackson & Price 1974). It was in the mid-1600s that Bristol became a major

center for ships sailing for the New World. Aboard many of the vessels were sizeable

shipments of clay tobacco pipes bound for the colonies (Fox 2002). The earliest evidence for

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 23%

Bristol-made pipes dates between 1630-1650 and was found on the James River (Oswald

1975: 113). While it is possible that these pipes were imported on a ship from London, the

more likely scenario is that these pipes came to America onboard a Bristol ship (given

London’s own major pipe industry) and therefore document the earliest known export pipes

out of Bristol to America. By the second half of the century, “the trickle had become a flood”

and pipes from Bristol-makers such as Flower Hunt, William Evans, and Philip Edwards

were scattered throughout the New World (Oswald 1975: 113). Excavations and analyses of

pipes recovered from mid-18th century Colonial Williamsburg suggest that pipes from

London and Bristol made up about 95% of the colonial market, with the remaining 5%

consisting of Dutch imports (Oswald 1975: 113).

After pipes successfully reached their destination, they were distributed and sold by

various merchants (Cessford 2001). Breakage and fragmenting likely occurred during the

transportation process, resulting in unsold and unused pipes that would have been discarded.

These pipes would have entered the archaeological record prematurely and before the end of

their predicted life expectancy, creating anomalies in the dating chronologies at certain sites.

Sites where these types of anomaly-pipes are present might indicate market areas and other

hubs for merchants.

The price of clay pipes in the colonial market varied depending on the shipping

requirements of different export carriers. For example, an entry from the Book of Tobacco

Pipe Makers for 1710 states that Bristol pipe makers had to adhere to varying size

requirements for export trade (Fox 2002: 73). If they did not conform to the specifications,

they could be fined for the extra weight and size. This would then be reflected in the price of

pipes at market. Prices also varied according to quality of the pipe; finishing techniques such

as decoration, milling, burnishing, and smaller and longer bores would have fetched higher

prices than simpler, plain pipes (Fox 2002: 73).

3.4 Use

The act of smoking during the historical period was likely very different from pipe smoking

as it is thought of today (Deetz 1996). In today’s society, the phrase ‘pipe smoking’ elicits

ideas of slow, contemplative puffs, likely in a leather armchair, possibly with something

strong to drink. However, during the early colonial period, pipe smoking was not in

competition with cigarettes or cigars and it was a popular recreational activity enjoyed

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 24%

primarily among the upper and, once tobacco prices decreased, the lower class as well.1 The

17th century term for smoking was “drinking”, indicates a much more rapid inhalation of the

smoke from the small bowls characteristic of the period (Deetz 1996: 28). According to

Deetz (1996), the “long contemplative smoking pipes” that we associate with the practice

now are of recent origin and are likely the products of evolutionary change in pipe smoking

habits (Deetz 1996: 28). Historical pipes were a means to an end; where as longer modern

pipes require more effort and time to pull the smoke.

3.5 Becoming Part of the Archaeological Record

Clay tobacco pipes had a fairly brief life cycle because of their fragility. They were

manufactured, traded, used, and discarded within a very short time span, making them one of

the first disposable commodities (Fox 2002). Not only did this encourage constantly

changing styles, but the need for continual replacement also ensured a “steady livelihood” for

pipe makers (Fox 2002: 69). The mass production of clay pipes to keep up with their

consumption is evident when excavating most colonial domestic sites in Virginia and

Maryland. Because clay pipes preserve extremely well in the archaeological record, their

numbers are remarkable. According to Fox (2002: 62), more than 50,000 pipe fragments

dating between 1620-1690 have been recovered from sites in Virginia.

However, like every other artifact, clay pipes can enter the archaeological record at

any point (Cessford 2001). Some are broken on the production site (and are typically found

near or in kilns); some are broken in transit, thus never arriving at market; some are

possessions of lower class colonists and are seldom replaced; and others are broken or lost at

various stages in their use and become part of the record at differing times.

Cessford (2001) addresses the fact that most clay pipe studies focus mainly on pipes

as an artifact instead of on the broader context of a site or the trans-Atlantic Trade. There has

also been little study of the cultural implications of its presence on local crafts, aside from the

cultural influence of Native Americans and West Africans. Matthew Johnson (1996: 183-

186) eloquently states,

…as artefacts of tobacco consumption, they are linked in to a very wide matrix of changes connecting production and consumption, authority and resistance, Old and New Worlds.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%1 Bite marks, stem lengths, and decorative accents such as milling and burnishing, can likely be used as indicators of socio-economic classes. However, studies in this area become complicated by the reclassification of pipes as “cheap luxury goods” or “populuxe goods” during the second half of the 17th century (Cessford 2001: 2).

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 25%

Tobacco pipes have more to offer than just to serve as dating mechanisms. They can be

useful in discerning the cultural relationships between peoples, governments, and ways of

life.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 26%

Chapter 4: Stylistic Analysis

4.1 Data Collection and Methodology

The initial step in this analysis was to locate and evaluate site reports from the Chesapeake

region. As mentioned in Chapter 1, 17th and 18th century Chesapeake sites were chosen based

on the availability of extensive research and pipe analyses. The sites used in this analysis

include: King’s Reach, Patuxent Point, and William Stevens’ Land in Calvert County,

Maryland; Pope’s Fort, Smith’s Townland, and St. John’s in St. Mary’s City, Maryland;

Eltonhead and Mattapany in St. Mary’s County, Maryland; and Green Spring Plantation and

Martin’s Hundred in James City County, Virginia. These sites tend to be clustered in three

distinct locations in the Chesapeake, providing multiple lines of evidence for each area.

Evidence for this analysis was extracted from the artifact assemblages and discussions these

articles provided and was interpreted further. For both the Bristol and the terra cotta

Chesapeake pipes, only bowls were used for this study since there are more drastic changes

and stylistic differences in bowl shape and design than in pipe stems. English clay pipe

specimens from these reports were only used if they were stamped with a maker’s mark and

if the stamp were on the pipe bowl, as this served to positively identify Bristol-made pipes.

As makers’ marks are a stylistic attribute that may or may not have been adopted by the

colonists, it was not a criterion for the terra cotta samples, but was documented when it

occurred. After assessing artifact inventories and site typologies, a sample size of 243 pipes

bowls was achieved for this analysis. Per Henry (1979), Noel Hume (1979), Miller (1991),

and Crass (1988), the general sample size for pipe typology seems to be between roughly 150

and 300. As this is a Master’s thesis and a preliminary study in pipes as artifacts of cultural

identity, a sample size within this range was selected.

After establishing the pipes to analyze, they were catalogued in an Excel spreadsheet

in order to uniformly display all the various characteristics and relevant details. The

categories included: artifact count, site, artifact date, bore diameter (for those bowls with

attached stem fragments), bowl shape, maker’s mark location, maker’s mark description,

maker, clay type, motif, production method, and a column for additional notes. Arranged in

chronological order and separated by clay type, these categories provided an efficient means

of tracing broad changes in decoration and shape over time. Where previous researchers did

not provide dates, estimated periods based on site occupation and similarly styled pipes from

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 27%

other sites were used for references. These details have been included and italicized in the

data tables. The main goal of this analysis is to understand colonial cultural identity and

influence as it is represented in clay pipe manufacture. By observing the relative dates for

decorations and designs in imported English pipes and comparing them to terra cotta pipes of

the same relative age, similarities and differences can be observed.

4.2 Data

This section details each site individually with histories, occupation dates, and detailed pipe

inventories with the aforementioned categories. Individual site data tables can be found in

Appendix A.

King’s Reach, Calvert County, MD

King’s Reach is part of the St. Leonard tobacco plantation and was occupied from 1690-1715

by the wealthy colonist Richard Smith, Jr. Occupied during one of the major colonial

economic depressions and the healthy beginnings of slave labor, the site provides insight to

life during tobacco depressions for whites and slaves alike. Excavated between 1984-1985,

thousands of white clay tobacco pipe fragments were recovered with eighteen different

makers’ marks. Of these eighteen, six are distinctly Bristol makers with pipe bowl stamps.

There was one bowl from Edward Reed, one from Robert Tippet, eight from Isaac Evans,

three from Thomas Owen, three from another Robert Tippet2, and one from Ann Smith.

Additionally, eight fragments of terra cotta pipes were recovered, with five being bowl

fragments (Table 3) (Pogue 1991: 3-4, 17).

The amount of rouletting present on the white clay pipes appears to decrease over

time. Pogue (1991) indicates that this likely reflects a change in pipe decorative fashions in

the Bristol industry. Two of the terra cotta fragments also show a rouletted design, but given

the small sample size, it is impossible to determine from this site alone whether they reflect a

similar pattern.

Patuxent Point, Calvert County, MD

Excavated in 1989 and 1990, site 18CV271 on Patuxent Point was occupied in the mid- to

late 17th century, from 1658 until ca. 1690. Originally inhabited by John Obder, tenancy

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%2 Robert Tippet is listed twice because there were two distinct designs found. As there were multiple Robert Tippets in the Bristol industry, it is possible these pipes are from different maker with the same name.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 28%

passed to an unidentified family from 1663 onwards. Excavations recovered a 1,979 white

clay tobacco pipes and fragments, with 124 showing some sort of mark or decoration. There

were four identifiable types of pipe bowl marks from the assemblage, all of Bristol origin.

Two of the styles belonged belonged to either William Evans I or II. The third was

Llewellian Evans’s mark, present on two bowl fragments. The fourth mark belonged to John

Sinderling. While other marks were recovered, these were the only positively identified

makers (Table 4) (Cavallo 2004: 6, 15). As it is unclear in the site report the location of the

William Evans or John Sinderling marks on the pipes, they have been excluded from the data

set.

William Stevens’ Land, Calvert County, MD

Occupied from 1651 until 1685, William Stevens’ Land was originally owned and used by

William and Magdalen Stevens until the 1670s. From then until the end of the occupation

period, an unidentified family held tenancy. Originally excavated in 1988, 1,528 English clay

pipes were recovered. A total of 219 were marked or decorated. Of those, two can be

positively traced back to two Bristol pipe makers. These include a Philip Edwards I or II seal

on a bowl fragment and a Flower Hunt seal on a heel (Table 5) (Cavallo 2004: 6, 13-15).

Pope’s Fort, St. Mary’s City, MD

Constructed in 1645 around Governor Leonard Calvert’s home, Pope’s Fort was built by

order of Captain Richard Ingle during the English Civil War. Ingle, armed with a letter of

marque from Parliament, captured St. Mary’s City in an attempt to squash royalist

preferences and Catholic tendencies. When Ingle left for England, he appointed traitorous

Maryland colonist Nathaniel Pope in charge of the fort. In 1646, Governor Calvert recaptured

the colony and took Pope’s Fort with a hired army, banishing Pope from Maryland.

Originally measuring 120 feet wide and 190 feet long, the fort was expanded further in the

early-1650s to a length of 220 feet (Miller 2013: 3-5). A number of terra cotta pipe fragments

were recovered from the site, 51 of which had some sort of decoration, or were complete

enough to be categorized into six discrete types (Table 6). The origin of these pipes is

unconfirmed, but it is possible they were produced on-site. According to Miller (1991: 87),

some of these pipe types seem to have been distributed throughout the Chesapeake while

others only occur in St. Mary’s City.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 29%

Smith’s Townland, St. Mary’s City, MD

A three-acre tract of land leased by William Smith in 1666 and occupied until 1690, Smith’s

Townland provided evidence for both terra cotta and white clay pipes. Three examples of

Chesapeake pipes were recovered along with eight Llewellian Evans pipes (Tables 7 and 8)

(Riordan 1991: 89-90).

St. John’s, St. Mary’s City, MD

Originally the residence of John Lewger, Secretary of Maryland, St. John’s also served as the

primary meeting place for the assembly, council, and provincial court for Maryland. In 1650,

Lewger’s son sold the property and it was purchased again in 1653 by a Dutch merchant from

Virginia. He died in 1660 and by 1661 St. John’s was once again the governmental meeting

place. Governor Charles Calvert purchased the property and lived there until the winter of

1666-1667. From then on, the house served as an inn, and hosted occasional assembly

meetings until the 1680s. From 1688 until 1693 it served as the colonies’ probate office, but

was ultimately abandoned in the early 18th century (Stone 1974: 149, 155, 159-160, 166-67).

St. John’s varied history and multiple occupational phases create an intriguing, if not

complex, archaeological record. Henry’s (1979) site report discusses the many types of

domestic and imported pipes found at St. John’s. Over 1,800 terra cotta clay pipes were

recovered, with 111 of them identifiable and able to be categorized. Henry created a typology

for the pipes at St. John’s and found twelve distinct terra cotta types (Figure 9). Types A-F

are thought to be of aboriginal creation while Types G-I reflect a more colonial production

technique (Henry 1979: 20).

Figure 9 – Terra cotta bowl typology for St. John’s pipes a. Shape A, bird effigy pipe, decoration consists of dentate lines

and impressed circles; b. Shape B, tubular bowl where stem curves to form bowl, lacking a heel; c. Shape C, tall and

narrow conical bowl where the widest part is near base and slopes sharply to rim; d. Shape D, tall and narrow funnel-like

bowl with straight sides; e. Shape E, rounded and bulbous bowl sides (reminiscent of some English forms); f. Shape F,

straight-sided bowl with angular joint midway down; g. Shape G, straight-sided bowl with thin walls and beveled lip; h.

Shape H, large bulbous bowl with heart-shaped base; i. Shape I, rim flare and small rounded heels (Henry 1979: 20-23)

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 30%

The distributions of Shapes H and I around servants’ quarters and service activity areas at the

site suggest that the lower social class was using different pipe styles than the upper class.

Additionally, the date ranges for these types correlate with depression periods, supporting

Henry’s economic depression production theory. With little access or means to purchase

expensive imported English goods, the lower-class colonists were almost certainly

manufacturing their own smoking accouterments during depression periods (Henry 1979: 14,

33).

Additionally, 11,000 white clay pipes were recovered from the site, with 51

identifiable as being of Bristol origin. Six pipe makers were identified: one pipe from Francis

Russell II; one from Edward Reed; one from John Tucker; three from Robert Tippet; six of

various designs from William Evans I or II; and 39 pipes of various designs by Llewellian

Evans (Table 9) (Hurry & Keeler 1991: 37).

Eltonhead, St. Mary’s County, MD

William Eltonhead acquired the property in 1648 upon his arrival to Maryland. In 1668

ownership passed to the Sewall family who owned the land until the 19th century. Excavated

in 1999, three distinct phases of occupation were determined: 1650-1695, 1695-1814, and

1814-1943. A total of 549 pipe fragments were recovered from the site, 88 bearing

decoration. From the Eltonhead site, three Bristol makers were identified: Robert Sheppard,

William Evans I or II, and Llewellian Evans. However, only the Llewellian Evans marks

were found on pipe bowls; the others were located on pipe stems and thus were not included

in this analysis (Table 10) (Cavallo 2004: 6-9, 18).

Mattapany, St. Mary’s County, MD

Occupied from 1663 until 1740, Mattapany was home to Governor Charles Calvert.

Excavations near the powder magazine and Calvert’s house uncovered 1,916 white clay

tobacco pipes, 101 of which were decorated or otherwise marked. However, despite this large

assemblage, only two pipe makers were determined from three stamped pipe bowls: two

Llewellian Evans examples and one example from William Evans I or II (Table 11) (Cavallo

2004: 6, 15).

Green Spring Plantation, James City County, VA

Green Spring Plantation was a 984-acre tract of land that was patented by William Berkeley,

governor of Virginia, in 1643. The occupation period at the site began in 1652 when

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 31%

Berkeley moved into his newly constructed home. After a series of exchanges and purchases,

the residence was razed and rebuilt in 1797. Due to the loss of the James City County records

during the American Civil War, the number of individuals on site is unknown. However, it is

estimated that the number would have been substantial with personnel and visitors. The

1954-1955 excavations at Green Spring Plantation recovered a total of 130 white clay pipe

bowls with 114 identifiable. However, most of these pipes are of Dutch origin with only 25

examples of Bristol pipes present. These specimens can be traced to four makers: 22 from

Llewellian Evans and one each from Thomas Monkes, Richard Nunney, and Thomas Smith

(Tables 12 and 13). Thirty-six terra cotta pipe bowls were recovered as well (Crass 1988: 83-

84).

The terra cotta pipes from Green Spring are significant in that they exhibit

sophistication that most 17th and 18th century terra cotta clay pipes lack. They are smoother,

more polished, and well-fired. They also exhibit designs and motifs such as stars, circles, and

triangles that are drastically different from the English pipes found on the site (Crass 1988:

89). Given the nature of these pipes, Crass (1988) created a terra cotta pipe bowl typology,

which can be seen in Figure 10.

In addition to the terra cotta pipe typologies set forward by Crass, there are six

aberrant pipes that do not fit into the aforementioned types. As there are six distinct designs

represented by only one pipe each, additional types were not created based on one artifact

each (Crass 1988: 93). The sixth aberrant pipe that Crass mentions appears to be a 19th

century intrusion into a 17th century deposit and has been disregarded, as it does not fit the

time frame studied in this dissertation. The five aberrant pipes used in this analysis are shown

in Figure 11.

Martin’s Hundred, James City County, VA

In 1618, 20,000 acres were awarded by the Virginia Company of London to the Society of

Martin’s Hundred to use in way necessary to turn a profit. The following year 220 men and

women arrived at Martin’s Hundred to work and live on the plantation. The Indian Massacre

of 1622 forced colonists to flee the plantation, but they slowly returned in the following

years. By the beginning of the 18th century, Martin’s Hundred ceased to exist (Edwards 2004:

3-10). Robert ‘King’ Carter bought a portion of the land in 1709 and dubbed the land Carter’s

Grove where grandson Carter Burwell built the Carter’s Grove mansion in 1751 (Grizzard

2007: 128). Of the pipe fragments recovered from the site, there are two pipes that can almost

definitely be attributed to Bristol pipe makers. Twenty-one others bear the mark “WC” on

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 32%

Figure 10 – Terra cotta bowl typology for Green Spring Plantation English pipes a. Type A, bellied front and back; b.

Type B, slightly elongated with a rotund bowl with out-curved walls, round base; c. Type C, elongated with nearly straight walls for the top 2/3 of the bowl and tapers sharply at the bottom; d. Type D, slightly out-curved walls with an

angled tip; e. Type E, slight waist above the base, straight bowl back with a round base; f. Type F, sharply angled walls and a definite elbow at the bottom of the bowl where stem connects; g. Type G, vey rotund bowl with slightly angled rim;

h. Type H, facets extending from the rim to halfway down the bowl and a definite elbow where the stem connects (Crass 1988: 90)

Figure 11 – Terra cotta bowl typology for Green Spring Plantation aberrant pipes a. possible maker’s mark and beveled lip; b. conical; c. conical and the bottom portion angles inward; d. nearly straight sides and beveled lip; e. thin walls and

a small elongated spur running lengthwise along the bottom of the bowl (Crass 1988: 93)

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 33%

their heels, but while that mark has been traced to Bristol, the maker has not yet been

identified. The second type of white clay pipe, while it has the shape of a Bristol pipe, has no

marks or decoration to indicate a maker (Tables 14 and 15). Therefore, it has been excluded

from the analysis. In addition to the English pipes, fifteen mold-made terra cotta pipes with

various designs and decorations were recovered as well (Noel Hume 1979: 3).

These terra cotta pipes closely resemble pipes produced by Emmanuel Drue, a

Chesapeake pipe maker, at the site of Flowerdew Hundred in Virginia. The pipes are a

European-style design, but made with terra cotta clay in the colonies. Drue’s work will be

discussed further in Chapter 5. Authors Luckenbach and Kiser (2006:62-63) refer to this

style as ‘Drue-Type B’.

4.3 Results

It is obvious that there is a general trend of colonial pipes moving away from their English

predecessors and toward more Native American and West African styles. Several suggested

reasons for this will be discussed in Chapter 5. However, this section serves to further

delineate the general trend of stylistic changes between the two pipe types.

4.3.1 Bristol Pipes. Starting in the mid-17th century Bristol pipes, with the growth of the

Bristol pipe industry, there was more variation in pipe design and shape in order to keep up

with local fashions. Atkinson describes the mid-17th century pipe as having the following

characteristics: the lip of the bowl is parallel to the stem; the heel is rounded; bore stems

vary, but generally decrease in size; and there is usually milling around the rim (Atkinson &

Oswald 1969: 208). Bristol pipes collected from Chesapeake sites reflect these characteristics

as well, but change during the late 17th century is evident. English makers’ marks, while

more prevalent later in the century, appear to lose some of their intricacy and there also

appears to be the loss of heels and spurs. This resulted in more makers’ marks being applied

to bowls and stems as opposed to heels. Jackson & Price (1974: 83) suggest that this loss of

pipe anatomy is likely a product of export trade; spurs were delicate and would have

probably broken off during transport. Instead of trying to market broken pipes, makers began

to forgo spurs.

4.3.2 Chesapeake Pipes. The general trend for these terra cotta pipes is that as the 17th

century progressed, colonial pipe designs moved away from simple milling and rouletting

around the bowl rim. Instead, geometric designs, animals, bands, dots, and even the

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 34%

occasional maker’s mark begin to appear. While there are some motifs that hail from Native

American or West African heritages, many geometric designs and motifs are so generic as to

be untraceable (i.e. lines and bands) (Deetz 1996: 246). Despite many motifs being

indiscernible, there is still a general trend in design that can be observed. From the middle of

the 17th century through the 18th, the use of motifs became increasingly more popular and

elaborate.

In relation to their production methods, Chesapeake pipes seem to follow the same

patterning of decreasing bore size as English pipes. As far as shape, the terra cotta pipes

retain some aspects of their British design. However, they tend to vary enough that

archaeologists develop site-specific typologies for terra cotta pipes. Overall, shapes change

slightly, but the addition of elaborate designs is the most noticeable change. From the mid-

17th century onward, the designs go from simple to complex and are reminiscent of the

various cultures the colonists would have been in contact with. Designs such as the Tudor

Rose are seen primarily on Dutch pipes while geometric patterns are largely of Native

American origin. Animal motifs such as the ‘running deer’ from Pope’s Fort tend to hail an

African heritage.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 35%

Chapter 5: Discussion

5.1 Who were the Pipe Makers?

Much previous research on Chesapeake pipes has revolved around determining the

ethnicities of their makers and their manufacturing processes. This has resulted in three

generally accepted categories of terra cotta Chesapeake pipes: handmade pipes made by

Native Americans; handmade pipes made with European styles in mind; and pipes made with

European pipe making tools (Monroe & Mallios 2004: 69). These assessments have been

made using both statistical data regarding distribution patterns and quantitative methods

based on stylistic similarities. Given stylistic similarities such as bore diameters and bowl

shapes of some Chesapeake pipes to their English predecessors, it is likely that British molds

and tools were used. It has been suggested that some pipe makers, newly released from their

apprenticeships in England, headed for the New World with their modern fashion trade tools

(Henry 1979: 33). This would have resulted in pipes designs that roughly align with Atkinson

and Oswald’s established English pipe typology, but allows for variation by non-apprentice

colonists. This resemblance to English design can be seen in pipes from St. John’s (H and I

shapes), Pope’s Fort (Type 2), and Green Spring Plantation (Types A, B, and D) where the

pipes correspond to Atkinson and Oswald English typologies of the same period. But how to

account for the variants? Many of the specimens, while different in shape and production

technique, retain some aspects of English pipe design such as decreasing in bore size over

time. Stylistic and spatial archaeological data suggest that not only colonists, but also Native

Americans and African slaves, were participating in the pipe making industry and may have

been using English trade tools and producing for exchange within the Chesapeake region

(Monroe & Mallios 2004).

The assortment of pipe shapes and types found within geographical constraints of this

dissertation can be attributed to the simultaneous manufacture of the three ethnically distinct

clay pipe styles. The limited distribution area east of the fall line supports the idea that these

groups were living in close proximity to each other, hosting Africans and Europeans in

overlapping living and working environments (Figure 12) (Deetz 1996). Deetz suggests that

this arrangement would have resulted in ideal conditions for producing culturally ambiguous

pipes.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 36%

Figure 12 – Focus area map with the Fall Line and settlement areas

(adapted from Catapano 2010)

Historical documentation for planter and pipe maker Emmanuel Drue supports this

claim of coexisting and ambiguous ethnic pipe styles. Actively making pipes from the 1650s

until his death in 1669, Drue used a combination of styles and methods in his pipe

production, producing two vastly different forms (Luckenbach & Kiser 2006: 162-163). The

first style is reminiscent of the Native American elbow bowl, a pipe bowl with an angular

elbow and various stamps and designs decorating the exterior. His second type is more

distinctly European with a bulbous bowl and rouletting around the rim (Figure 13). Drue’s

work serves as a prime example of cultural melding in pipe production methods—a reflection

of what could be identified as the beginnings of cultural creolization.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 37%

Figure 13 – Drue pipe types a. Type A. Native American angular elbow bowl b. Type B. European style belly bowl (Luckenbach & Kiser 2006: 163)

5.2 Cultural Influences

Baron and Cara (2011: 3) define creolization as “cultural creativity in process” saying

that when different cultures intermingle, they are “fluid in their adaptation to changing

circumstances”. Creole forms allow for cultural diffusion and the exchange of ideas, as they

are “expressions of culture in transition and transformation”. The multifaceted nature of

creole forms allows for new identities and means of creative self-expression to take root.

Creoles foster the development of new ideas, traditions, and social norms and they serve as

an intermediary and transitional stage between diverse ethnic groups. However, this is not to

say that each group lost their pre-Contact identities in the process; those were very much kept

alive. By the end of the 17th century, there was a social stigma attached to non-Europeans,

marginalizing the Native American and West African groups (Monroe & Mallios 2004: 71).

However, the continuous development and exchange of decorative pipe techniques cannot be

ignored and is thus it is best classified as a creolization process. While English culture was

considered to be the dominant culture, non-Europeans were still producing goods and

influencing the market with their cultural traditions and motifs.

The cultural diffusion, a main component of the creolization process, would have

begun as soon as the colonists arrived in the New World and began to make contact with the

indigenous population. Through the exchange of goods and knowledge and coexistence with

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 38%

each other, the colonists and the Native Americans set this cultural creolization process into

motion. The production of post-Contact Indian pipes resulted in mold-made pipes with

similar geometric designs to pre-Contact handmade pipes (Monroe & Mallios 2004: 70). It

has been suggested that this change in to mold-made pipes was to suit the tastes of the

colonists who decided to buy local goods as opposed to British imports.

The cultural creativity in the colonies was further expanded with the inclusion of

West African decorative motifs on crafted goods. Some pipe researchers have suggested that

the large majority of pipe makers were actually African American, as indicated by

distribution patterns and various West African motifs and designs in pipe specimens. These

specimens include examples such as the ‘running deer’ design pipes from Smith’s Townland.

The term ‘running deer’ has been assigned to the motif, as it features an animal with horns.

The deer would have been the only horned animals colonists and Native Americans would

have been familiar with, while Africans would recognize animals such as goats and

antelopes, thus this design is almost certainly of African heritage (Deetz 1996). In addition to

the ‘running deer’ motif, Kwardata, a Nigerian design that symbolizes the transition into

manhood design, makes identical appearances in Chesapeake and African examples. The

motif consists of a band of diamonds and triangles with parallel punctate (Deetz 1996: 248).

Not only were the Native Americans and African Americans producing tobacco pipes,

but there were English colonists who were working in the trade as well. Given prior

experience and knowledge of the standardized English pipe making techniques, it is likely the

colonists tried to reproduce their pipes along the same lines (Monroe & Mallios 2004: 68).

Thus, three main pipe types and traditions were simultaneously present in colonial America

and yet, they all survived. They were modified to fit the tastes and desires of the consumers,

but parts from all three were adapted and used.

This now begs the question of whether a symbiotic cultural relationship where

everyone adapts and is mutually influenced by each other is reflective of a shift in cultural

identity. Is benefitting from the proximity of and coexistence with other cultures a form of

cultural identity? The 17th century saw the formation of “not one new civilization…but many

distinct colonies that differed as dramatically from one another as any of them from England”

(Murrin 1987: 334). Perhaps the mosaic of cultural traditions and melding of ethnicities is

what defined the culture of early American life.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 39%

5.3 Creating a Colonial Cultural Identity

But how does one begin to define culture? Is it a group’s traditions? Beliefs? Daily

life? And at what point is something considered to be a ‘new’ cultural tradition? One widely

accepted definition of culture is from Edward Burnett Tylor’s Primitive Culture (1920: 1):

“culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom,

and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”. However, the

acquisition of culture, where it comes from, and what differentiates cultures from each other

is highly debated.

There was a distinct drift away from English culture just before 1660, a trend that can

might be attributed to new generations of colonists born and living in the American colonies

without ever having seen England. As far as they were concerned, colonial America was their

home and they had no connection to England (Deetz 1996). But if they were losing touch

with their English heritage, what exactly were they replacing it with? Immigration from

England to the New World had slowed due to the English Civil War. And without the

constant reminder and renewed cultural influence from England, they were bound to stray

from their roots. Closer contact and trade with these groups with the decrease in English

presence would have likely influenced colonial lifeways and “habits acquired by man as a

member of society” (Fierlbeck 1996: 12). However, the social patterns of colonial America

were certainly not defined by camaraderie with Native Americans and Africans; there were

far too many prejudices and social stigmata attached to non-Europeans for that to happen.

Fierlbeck describes culture as being in a state of constant fluctuation, forever changing,

forever metamorphosing. Cultures touch and interact; they continually shift, merge, and

influence each other. The lives of the American colonists would have been affected by the

non-Europeans merely by being in close proximity and also by not having a pervasive stream

of modern English culture.

While pipe production is not the ultimate indicator of culture identity, there are

certainly characteristics that reflect parts of Tylor’s cultural paradigm. For instance,

knowledge, belief, art, and customs are all reflected in the designs, shapes, and motifs of

Chesapeake tobacco pipes. The English bowl shapes combined with African animal motifs

and geometric Indian designs mirror this multi-cultural society. By observing the patterns of

creolization in Chesapeake tobacco pipe production, archaeologists can gain a better

understanding of how much colonists interacted with the Natives and the Africans and the

results of those relationships. They can gather what parts of the cultures were deemed to be

the most important or aesthetically pleasing. Tastes and preferences in pipe fashions would

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 40%

have likely changed depending on practicality, manufacturers, and simple interaction

between groups.

By the mid-18th century, King Charles II was on the throne and there was a renewed

interest in the American colonies. With this renewed interest came a reassertion of English

culture, coined the “re-Anglicization’ (Deetz 1996: 62). In many ways, the colonies were

more English by the start of the Revolutionary War than they had been just after the

settlement of Jamestown. Among other things, this cultural shift is marked by a distinctive

shift in the production of pipes back towards more English styles, abandoning the

creolization of the 17th and early 18th centuries. The Crown’s intervention and

reestablishment of a dominant English culture in the colonies effectively smothered the

fragile beginnings of a colonial-African-Native American creole culture. The mere fact that

Britain felt a reassertion of English culture was necessary supports the idea that colonists had

lost touch with their heritage and replaced it with a cultural identity with which they

interacted and felt connected.

When the colonists arrived in 1607, they brought their English traditions and practices

with them. The import of English goods served as a reminder to the colonists’ of their

English roots and it also helped them live life as they had been accustomed to in Britain.

However, trade with the Native Americans, the growth of the African population, and the

decreased availability of English goods during economic depressions led to a deviation from

English ways. The trans-Atlantic trade influenced the initial culture of the colonies by

supplying English goods and preserving the English traditions, supplying a foundation on

which to create and develop their English-influenced ways of life. These changes can be

traced throughout the 17th and 18th centuries as colonists began pipe production. They used

English molds and tools and mimicked English designs. However, as the Native Americans

and Africans began to trade with and live in close proximity to the colonists, the pipes begin

to change, reflecting a mingling of cultural traditions and practices. The reign of Charles II

came with increased attention paid to the American colonies and English culture was

reestablished. The trans-Atlantic trade did not control or limit the development of cultural

identity in the American colonies. What it did do, however, was give it a foundation from

which to develop.

America’s trade and colonial relationships with Britain are what gave rise to the

creation of a colonial cultural identity and can be reflected in the craftsmanship of clay

tobacco pipes. England’s exploitation and restriction of colonial trade resulted in the

necessity for colonists attempting to become self-sufficient. The depression periods onset by

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 41%

the fluctuating trans-Atlantic trade markets provided the perfect environment for the

development of local crafts and cultural identity. With limited influence from England at

these times, colonial pipe makers began to produce their own pipes with English tools and the

influence of their surroundings. English styles were copied initially, but only because they

were what the colonists were familiar with. Over time, pipes became more elaborate and

reflected a melding of cultural motifs.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 42%

Chapter!6:!Conclusions!!

Don’t&read&what&we&have&written;&look&at&what&we&have&done.%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&4%James%Deetz,%In&Small&Things&Forgotten,%1996%

!!6.1!Conclusions!

The%purpose%of%this%thesis%has%been%to%serve%as%exploratory%research%in%the%area%of%

tobacco%pipes%as%a%means%of%understanding%the%development%of%colonial%cultural%

identity.%Excavations%from%sites%in%Chesapeake%Virginia%and%Maryland%have%produced%

thousands%of%clay%tobacco%pipe%fragments.%Of%these%thousands,%243%were%analyzed%for%

the%purposes%of%this%dissertation,%and%come%from%ten%sites%grouped%in%James%City%County,%

Virginia;%St.%Mary’s%City%and%County,%Maryland;%and%Calvert%County,%Maryland.%%Analysis%

of%the%pipe%shapes%and%motifs%revealed%a%general%trend%of%terra%cotta%Chesapeake%pipes%

vaguely%retaining%English%shapes%and%tool%marks%throughout%the%17th%and%18th%centuries.%

It%has%been%postulated%that%this%is%likely%due%to%some%newly%freed%apprentices%bringing%

modern%fashion%trade%tools%and%molds%with%them%on%their%voyages%to%the%New%World.%

However,%as%the%17th%century%progressed,%there%was%an%increase%in%the%amount%of%

elaborate%designs%and%motifs%applied%to%the%pipe%bowls.%Stylistic%comparisons%of%these%

decorations%suggest%they%are%combinations%of%Native%American%and%West%African%

designs.%%

% It%appears%as%though%interactions%between%the%colonists,%Indians,%and%Africans%

resulted%in%exchanges%of%pipe%production%knowledge%and%altered%changes%in%aesthetic%

tastes%and%preferences.%The%incorporation%of%these%designs%suggests%the%beginnings%of%a%

creole%culture%in%the%American%colonies%and%the%formation%of%a%cultural%identity.%

However,%during%his%reign%King%Charles%II%reasserted%the%dominance%of%English%culture%

in%the%American%colonies%and%the%newborn%creole%was%overtaken.%The%reestablishment%

of%a%dominant%English%culture%is%reflected%in%a%stronger%resemblance%of%Chesapeake%

pipes%to%English%pipes%during%this%period.%%

% It%is%clear%that%the%trans4Atlantic%trade%relationship%between%England%and%the%

American%colonies%had%an%impact%on%the%development%of%cultural%identity,%but%it%was%

more%as%an%indirect%side%effect.%During%times%of%depression%and%decreased%trade%with%

England,%American%colonists%were%buying%fewer%manufactured%English%goods%and%there%

were%fewer%people%immigrating%to%the%colonies.%This%resulted%in%the%colonists%producing%

their%own%goods,%such%as%tobacco%pipes,%and%trading%with%non4Europeans.%As%new%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 43%

generations%of%colonists%were%born,%there%became%increasingly%more%people%in%America%

who%had%no%reason%to%identify%with%the%culture%of%a%country%they%had%never%even%seen.%

This%gave%rise%to%a%new%colonial%cultural%identity%for%colonists%living%in%the%Chesapeake%

region%and%it%can%be%reflected%in%the%material%culture,%particularly%that%of%clay%tobacco%

pipes.%%

%

6.2!Further!Research!

! As%this%research%has%been%fairly%preliminary,%delineating%some%of%the%major%

themes%and%components%of%studying%colonial%America%cultural%identity,%there%are%many%

more%avenues%still%to%be%explored.%One%of%the%main%areas%of%this%research%that%could%be%

altered%in%the%future%is%an%increase%in%sample%sizes%and%the%assessment%of%materials%in%

person.%While%the%sample%size%used%for%this%stylistic%analysis%is%similar%to%other%pipe%

analyses,%expanding%the%data%to%include%pipes%from%other%Chesapeake%sites%and%

assemblages%from%multiple%excavation%periods%would%aide%in%providing%a%more%thorough%

pipe%chronology.%%

% Additionally,%future%research%could%benefit%from%the%inclusion%of%more%

quantitative%data.%Spatial%configurations%of%assemblages%along%with%statistical%data%

reflecting%overall%changes%in%shapes%and%motifs%found%on%Chesapeake%pipes%would%

provide%another%perspective%from%which%to%identify%patterns%in%pipe%typologies.%Where%

this%dissertation%took%a%more%qualitative%approach%by%comparing%shapes%and%motifs,%the%

inclusion%of%a%statistical%analysis%would%provide%a%better4rounded%stylistic%comparison.%

This%would%be%most%effective%with%a%more%extensive%artifact%record%and%a%larger%

sampling%of%pipes%and%sites.%

! One%of%the%unexpected%discoveries%of%this%research%was%the%prominence%of%Dutch%

pipes%on%Colonial%America%sites.%Numbers%of%Dutch%pipes%and%Dutch%pipe%production%

methods%were%not%included%in%this%dissertation,%as%they%stray%from%the%focus%of%the%

England4America%trade%relationship.%However,%in%the%broader%scheme%of%the%trans4

Atlantic%trade%network,%the%Netherlands%appear%to%have%had%a%heavy%presence%in%the%

American%colonies.%Further%research%could%address%the%impacts%of%the%Dutch%pipe%

industry%on%American%craftsmanship,%despite%England’s%attempts%to%monopolize%the%

colonial%trade.%

% While%this%dissertation%covered%the%basics%for%a%preliminary%study%of%the%cultural%

implications%of%clay%tobacco%designs,%there%are%many%more%areas%and%perspectives%that%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 44%

warrant%exploration.%Further%research%on%other%sites%in%the%Chesapeake%along%with%a%

study%of%trading%partners%other%than%England%would%be%beneficial%to%understanding%and%

better%defining%colonial%cultural%identity%in%America.%The%changing%trends%of%Chesapeake%

tobacco%pipes%provides%a%timeline%against%which%influences%on%local%craftsmanship%in%the%

American%colonies%can%be%measured.%The%methods%used%in%this%analysis%and%discussion%

are%only%the%tip%of%the%iceberg%for%a%topic%that%has%so%many%avenues%to%explore.%The%study%

of%tobacco%pipes%as%more%than%just%dating%tools%can%potentially%reveal%details%about%

colonial%life%and%cultural%interactions.%By%understanding%how%trans4Atlantic%trade%

relationships%impacted%the%American%colonist’s%cultural%ties%with%England%will%provide%

better%insight%into%colonial%daily%life%and%the%development%of%an%independent%cultural%

identity.%%

%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 45%

Bibliography

Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, & J. Robinson. 2005. The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade,

Institutional Change, and Economic Growth. The American Economic Review 95(3):

546-579.

Atkinson, D. & A. Oswald. 1969. London Clay Tobacco Pipes. Journal of the

Archaeological Association, Third Series 33.

Baron, R. & A.C. Cara. 2011. Creolization as Cultural Creativity. University Press of

Mississippi.

Best, J. 1979. Economic Interests and the Vindication of Deviance: Tobacco in Seventeenth

Century Europe. The Sociological Quarterly 20(2): 171-182.

Binford, L. 1962. A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Fragments.

Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 9(1): 19-21.

Bradley, J.W. & G. DeAngelo. 1981. European Clay Pipe Marks from 17th Century

Onondaga Iroquois Sites. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9: 109-133.

Butler, T. 2009. Power in Smoke: The Language of Tobacco and Authority in Caroline

England. Studies in Philology 106(1): 100-118.

Catapano, P. 2010. European Immigration to the Colonies. History of Immigration, Ethnicity,

& Nativism.

<http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/faculty/pcatapano/IMM/europeancolonialimm

igration2010.html>

Cavallo, K.D. 2004. An Analysis of Marked and Decorated White Clay Tobacco Pipes from

the Lower Patuxent Drainage. St. Mary’s College of Maryland: Department of

Anthropology and Sociology.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 46%

Cessford, C. 2001. The Archaeology of the Clay Pipe and the Study of Smoking.

Assemblage: the Sheffield graduate journal of archaeology 6.

Coulter, C.B., Jr. 1945. The Import Trade of Colonial Virginia. William and Mary Quarterly,

Third Series 2(3): 296 – 314.

Crass, D.C. 1988. The Clay Pipes from Green Spring Plantation (44JC9), Virginia.

Historical Archaeology 22(1): 83-97.

Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. New

York: Anchor Books.

Encylopædia Britannica. 2014. “Board of Trade,” in Encylopædia Britannica.

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/601629/Board-of-Trade>

Edwards, A. 2004. Archaeology of a Seventeenth-Century Houselot at Martin’s Hundred,

Virginia. Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

Fierlbeck, K. 1996. The Ambivalent Potential of Cultural Identity. Canadian Journal of

Political Science 29(1): 3-22.

Fox, G.L. 2002. Interpreting Socioeconomic Changes in 17th-Century England and Port

Royal, Jamaica, Through Analysis of the Port Royal Kaolin Clay Pipes. International

Journal for Historical Archaeology 6(1): 61-78.

Grillo, K., J. Aultman, & N. Bon-Harper. 2003. DAACS Cataloguing Manual: Tobacco

Pipes.

Grizzard, F. E. 2007. Martin’s Hundred, in Jamestown Colony: A Political, Social, and

Cultural History. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Henry, S. L. 1979. Terra-Cotta Tobacco Pipes in 17th Century Maryland and Virginia: A

Preliminary Study. Historical Archaeology 13: 14-37.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 47%

Higgins, D. A. 1995. Clay Tobacco Pipes: A Valuable Commodity. The International

Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24(1): 47-52.

Home, R. 1688. Chapter 22(iv). The Academy of the Armory 3. Chester.

Hurry, S.D. & R.W. Keeler. 1991. A Descriptive Analysis of the White Clay Tobacco Pipes

from the St. John’s Site in St. Mary’s City, Maryland, in Davey, P. & D.J. Pogue (ed.)

The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay. 37-71. Oxford:

British Archaeological Reports 566.

Jackson, R.G. & R.H. Price. 1974. Bristol Clay Pipes: A Study of Makers and their Marks.

Bristol City Museum: Research Monograph No 1.

Johnson, M. 1996. An Archaeology of Capitalism. London: Blackwell.

Johnston, R.D. 2002. The Making of America. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.

Luckenbach, A. & T. Kiser. 2006. Seventeenth Century Tobacco Pipe Manufacturing in the

Chesapeake Region: A Preliminary Delineation of Makers and Their Styles, in R.

Hunter (ed.) Ceramics in America 2006. Hanover and London: Chipstone Foundation.

160-177.

Miller, H. M. 2013. “Forts of St. Mary’s”. Historic St. Mary’s City.

<https://www.hsmcdigshistory.org/pdf/Forts.pdf>

Miller, H.M. 1991. Tobacco Pipes form Pope’s Fort, St. Mary’s City, Maryland: An English

Civil War Site on the American Frontier, in Davey, P. & D.J. Pogue (ed.) The

Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay. 73-88. Oxford: British

Archaeological Reports 566.

Monroe, J.C. & S. Mallios. 2004. A Seventeenth-Century Colonial Cottage Industry: New

Evidence and a Dating Formula for Colono Tobacco Pipes in the Chesapeake.

Historical Archaeology 38(2): 68-82.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 48%

Murrin, J.M. 1987. A Roof without Walls: The Dilemma of American National Identity, in .

Beeman, R., S. Botein, & E.C. Carter, II (ed.) Beyond Confederation: Origins of the

Constitution and American Identity. The University of California Press. 333-348.

Noel Hume, A. 1979. Clay Tobacco Pipes Excavated at Martin’s Hundred, Virginia, 1976-

1978, in Davey, P. (ed.) The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe II: The United

States of America. 3-36. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 60.

Noel Hume, A. 1963. Clay Tobacco Pipe Dating in the Light of Recent Excavation.

Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 18(2): 22-25.

Omwake, H. G. 1965. Analysis of 19th Century White Kaolin Pipe Fragments from the Mero

Site, Door County, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Archeologist 46(2): 125-137.

Oswald, A. 1975. Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

14.

“Parliament and the American Colonies before 1765”. Living Heritage.

<http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-

heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-empire/parliament-

and-the-american-colonies-before-1765/parliament-and-the-american-colonies-

before-1765/>

Peacey A.A. 1996. The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe, Vol. XIV: The Development

of the Clay Tobacco Pipe Kiln in the British Isles. Oxford: British Archaeological

Reports 246.

Pike, J. & T. Vincent. 2000. “Introduction to Ball Clays”. The Ball Clay Heritage Society.

<http://www.clayheritage.org/pages/Contact%20Us.htm>.

Pogue, D.J. 1991. Clay Tobacco pipes from four 17th century domestic sites in the Lower

Patuxent Valley of Maryland, in Davey, P. & D.J. Pogue (ed.) The Archaeology of the

Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay. 3-26. Oxford: British Archaeological

Reports 566.

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 49%

Riordan, T. 1991. Seventeenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes from Smith’s Townland, St.

Mary City, Maryland, in Davey, P.J & D.J. Pogue (ed.) Archaeology of the Clay

Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay. 89-98. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

566.!

Sadr, K. 1998. The First Herders at the Cape of Good Hope. The African Archaeological

Review 15(2): 101-132.

Stone, G.W. 1974. St. John’s: Archaeological Questions and Answers. Maryland Historical

Magazine 69(2): 146-168.

Tylor, E.B. 1920. Primitive Culture: research into the development of mythology, philosophy,

religion, language, art, and custom (6th ed.), vol. 1. London: John Murray, Albemarle

Street West.

Walker, I. C. 1977. Clay Tobacco Pipes, with Particular Reference to the Bristol Industry 11.

Parks Canada History and Archaeology: Ottawa.

% %

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 50%

%%%%%%%%%%

Appendix A: Individual Site Data Tables % %

These%tables%have%been%arranged%in%the%order%of%which%they%were%discussed.%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 51%

%%%% %

Table&3&–&King’s&Reach&data&(Pogue&1991)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 52%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Table&4&–&Patuxent&Point&data&(Cavallo&2004)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 53%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Ta

ble&5&–&William&Stevens’&Land&data&(Cavallo&2004)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 54%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 55%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Ta

ble&6&–&Pope’s&Fort&data&(Miller&1991)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 56%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Ta

bles&7&and&8–&Sm

ith’s&Tow

nland&data&(Riordan&1991)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 57%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Table&9&–&St.&Johns&data&(Henry&1979;&Hurry&&&Keeler&1991)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 58%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Table&10–&Eltonhead&data&(Cavallo&2004)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 59%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Table&11–&Mattapany&data&(Cavallo&2004)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 60%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 61%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%% Ta

bles&12&and&13&–&Green&Spring&Plantation&data&(Crass&1988)&

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 62%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Exam%No.%B046418%

% 63%

%

Tables&14&and&15&–&Martin’s&H

undred&data&(Noel&Hum

e&1979)&