Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John Bedell
JOHN BEDELL
ARCHAEOLOGY AND PROBATE INVENTORIES
224 | J OHN BE DE LL
| 225
date
16901735
17261760
17261760
17351756
17501810
Charles Robinson
McKean/Cochran I
Benjamin Wynn
17621783
17501790
17651822
Whitten Road
William Hawthorne
Bloomsbury
17601830
17601900
17611814
Darrach Store
17751860
McKean/Cochran II
17901830
type
Farm
Farm
Farm
Farm
Tenant Farm or
Dwelling
Farm
Tenant Farm
Tenant Farm and
Blacksmiths Shop
Tenant Farm
Farm
Tenant Farm
Occupied by
Native Americans
Store, then Tenant
House
Farm
date of
inventory
1754
1754
1776
1789
226 | J OHN BE DE LL
| 227
less than 50
50 to 225
more than
225
49
48
24
39
71
31
96
2
35
78
39
55
85
53
96
6
49
94
74
78
83
87
100
30
73
96
70
100
63
61
78
4
10
6
100
78
72
98
11
19
4
100
96
96
91
61
39
22
65
10
20
35
8
10
4
91
23
23
57
53
28
4
6
100
39
17
87
87
8
43
22
30
17
228 | J OHN BE DE LL
| 229
from New England listed houses and land, but southern inventories did not. Those in Delaware tended to omit houses and land,
but we have no idea why and according to whose decision.5
That a few Delaware inventories listed land suggests that some
assessors did not fully grasp the local procedure. A few of the rules
in Delaware are inferable from the inventories. The inventories
almost always include the value of crops standing in the eld but
never the contents of gardens or apples on the tree. Small sums
of money hardly ever appear, although the inventories of rich
men often list larger sums. The inventory takers, by common
consent, may have refrained from listing items that were considered the personal property of widows, such as clothing, sewing
kits, and purses. What were the rules that caused people to omit
other items that may not appear?6
Another possible difculty with inventories is fraud perpetrated by heirs, executors, and other interested parties. One study
of a group of Maryland inventories dating to the 1670s produced
evidence of systematic under-valuation, probably to conceal assets
from creditors and competing heirs.7
Historians frequently employ inventories to estimate the standard of living in the past, primarily by counting how many
inventories include selected objectsfrom essentials like cooking
pots to luxuries like silver plate. In the manner of Table 2 herein,
such studies may try to nd out how the number of people who
owned these things changed over time. Carr and Walsh have
created what they call an amenities index to study the level of
comfort in colonial Virginia and Maryland, and Main has applied
the same technique to New England.8
The amenities list contains twelve items that are intended to
represent the range of goods, from necessity to luxury. Among
the items chosen are bed or table linen, table forks, books, and
silver plate. The number of times that these items appear in
5 Carr and Walsh, Inventories and the Analysis of Wealth and Consumption Patterns in
St. Marys County, Maryland, 16581777, Historical Methods, XIII (1980), 81104; Jones,
Estimating the Wealth, 277282.
6 Micheline Baulant, Typologie des Inventaires Apres Dcs, in van der Woude and
Schuurman (eds.), Probate Inventories, 3342.
7 Karma Paape, Providence: A Case Study in Probate Manipulation, 16701679, Maryland
Historical Magazine, 94 (1999), 6587.
8 Carr and Walsh, Standard of Living Chesapeake, 136138; Main, Standard of Living
Southern New England, 126127.
230 | J OHN BE DE LL
| 231
heirloom. Eighteenth-century blacksmiths accounts refer to repairs made on simple metal tools, such as pitchforks and sickles.
Because of these difculties, no denitive statement about the
quantitative relationship between goods listed in inventories and
archaeological nds is now possible. Most likely, a few breakable
but durable items, especially ceramics, may be better represented
archaeologically, but most categories are more likely to appear in
inventories.10
ceramics
Two of the twelve items tracked by the Carr and
Walsh amenities index are coarse earthenware and rened
earthenware. Their gures show a steadily increasing percentage
of households owning ceramics, indicating a rising level of comfort, but there are reasons to be skeptical about these numbers. In
the New Castle County, Delaware, sample for the 1760s, ceramics
were listed in only 67 percent of the inventories for the middling
households worth between 50 and 225, but they were found
on every site in the Delaware sample (Table 4). In fact, they are
ubiquitous in the archaeological record of colonial America, appearing on every domestic site that archaeologists have investigated.
The archaeological record for the colonial period, on which
most inventory studies have been focused, contains an enormous
amount of coarse earthenware. (In some parts of the country, it
became rare after 1780.) Moreover, every colonial plantation,
tenant farm, urban tenement, and slave quarter that has ever been
tested has yielded sherds of it, in most cases by the thousands.
Rened earthenware is a more difcult category; it is not clear
that we divide coarse from rened wares in the way that
eighteenth-century potters or inventory takers did. Carr, Walsh,
and Main say nothing about stoneware, some of which was
treated like rened earthenware and some like coarse earthenware, further complicating the picture. Because Delawares inventories rarely specify ceramic types before the 1770s, it is difcult
to make any comparisons. However, what contemporary archaeologists consider rened ware has been recovered from most
10 Wade P. Catts et al., The Archaeology of Rural Artisans: Final Investigations at the Mermaid
Blacksmith and Wheelwright Shop Sites, State Route 7Limestone Road, New Castle County,
Delaware (Dover, Del., 1994), 916.
| 233
11 Bedell et al., Farm Life on the Appoquinimink: Excavation of the McKean/Cochran Farm Site,
New Castle County, Delaware (Dover, Del., 1999).
12 Piponnier, Inventaires, 136; Main, Standard of Living Southern New England;
Yentsch, A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves (New York, 1994).
234 | J OHN BE DE LL
2:0
5:0
3:0
4:0
12:0
237
19
10
3
8
26
4
41
2
24
15
dishes
serving plates
jars
pots
milk pans
butter pots
ointment pots
chamber pots
childs toy cup
unidentied
8
3
4
2
23
11
4
9
1
20
| 235
time frame
of deposit
17101720
William Strickland
well
17251750
Augustine Creek
South cellar
17451755
Thomas Dawson
cellar
17451755
Augustine Creek
North root cellar
17501760
McKean/Cochran
cellar
17501770
McKean/Cochran
well
17501770
Benjamin Wynn
well
17651785
contents of deposit
10 mugs, 2 cups, 4 plates, 1
small bowl, 1 jug, 1 milk pan, 5
jars, 1 bottle, 1 ointment pot
3 teacups, 2 saucers, 3 teapots, 8
plates, 4 porringers, 3 small
bowls, 11 mugs, 7 cups, 10 large
bowls, 3 pitchers, 10 jugs, 5 jars,
7 pots, 9 milk pans, 4 chamber
pots
29 teacups, 36 saucers, 8 teapots,
6 plates, 17 small bowls, 17
porringers, 27 mugs, 3 cups, 15
jars, 8 milk pans, 1 pipkin, 18
dishes, 4 jugs, 3 chamber pots
29 tea cups, 17 saucers, 7
teapots, 1 creamer, 3 plates, 16
small bowls, 7 porringers, 11
mugs, 7 jars, 4 jugs, 16 milk
pans, 11 dishes, 8 pans, 2 large
bowls, 2 chamber pots, 17
unidentied/other
1 small bowl, 1 porringer, 8
mugs, 1 jar, 1 milk pan, 4 dishes,
1 pan, 1 ointment pot
5 teacups, 7 saucers, 9 bowls, 8
porringers, 2 mugs, 10 cups, 5
jars, 6 milk pans, 1 colander, 5
dishes, 5 pans, 4 jugs, 2 chamber
pots, 1 ointment pot, 6
unidentied/other
8 teacups, 12 saucers, 1 teapot, 1
plate, 2 platters, 3 small bowls, 2
porringers, 5 mugs, 5 jars, 9 milk
pans, 1 pipkin, 5 dishes, 7 pans,
1 jug, 2 large bowls, 1 chamber
pot, 11 unidentied/other
8 teacups, 5 saucers, 5 teapots, 1
cup, 10 plates, 3 platters, 4 small
bowls, 1 mug, 4 jugs, 6 large
bowls, 3 jars, 1 milk pan, 1
pitcher, 1 pan
| 237
238 | J OHN BE DE LL
| 239
over time and across social classes, in the ownership of dishes and
pots.19
Factors internal to inventories also help to explain the increased reporting. The Delaware inventories for rich households
seem to have been more detailed than those for the poor, and
inventories in general became more detailed throughout the
course of the eighteenth century. These statements are difcult to
test quantitatively, but numerous signs point toward this conclusion. Clothes are frequently itemized for the wealthy, sometimes
in page-long lists of jackets, belts, handkerchiefs, and so on, but
inventories of the poor usually say only clothing of the deceased.
A detailed list is a natural response to the greater challenge presented by a closet full of clothes, but it leads to problems in
comparing the inventories of the rich with those of the poor:
Since those for the poor itemize nothing, a simple count would
show that many more rich people had shirts, shoes, belts, and
pants. Likewise, the inventories of the wealthy are more likely to
specify different types of ceramics, chairs, bed linens, and kitchen
utensils, probably because these much larger collections of objects
would have been more difcult to compile during the valuation,
as well as more difcult to divide among heirs.
The evidence for increasing rigor over time is less conclusive,
but it is nevertheless suggestive. In Delaware, the oldest preserved
inventories, dating from the 1690s, are extremely sketchy and
sparse. General terms like lumber and household trumpery
grow less common after the early 1700s. The rst inventories that
describe different types of ceramics, as opposed to just crockery
or earthenware, date from the 1770s, as does the rst inventory
to list books by title. Several historians have elsewhere noted
long-term trends in inventories level of detail. Schuurman, for
one, observed that Dutch inventories gradually became less detailed over the course of the nineteenth century. Any study of
long-term social trends must take into consideration the possibility
that the sources change with society.20
19 Deetz, Ceramics from Plymouth, 16201835: The Archaeological Evidence, in Ian
M. G. Quimby (ed.), Ceramics in America: Winterthur Conference Report 1972 (Charlottesville,
1972), 1539.
20 Schuurman, Some Reections on the Use of Probate Inventories as a Source for the
Study of the Material Culture of the Zaanstreek in the Nineteenth Century, in van der
Woude and Schuurrnan (eds.), Probate Inventories, 177189.
240 | J OHN BE DE LL
Probate inventories are complex documents, each one different from the next. Some are detailed; some are not. Some describe
a particular group of possessions in great detail, such as clothing
or livestock, and lump other groups into general categories. Much
of the richness of the inventories is lost when they are reduced
to simple statistical summaries. As noted, some inventories provide
lists of ceramics that tally well with the archaeological data, and
more could be learned about ceramic use in Delaware from these
detailed inventories than from a statistical summary of the many
sketchy lists. The argument is not that inventories are all wrong,
only that most of them were never intended to be complete. They
reect, in a general way, broad changes in the ownership of many
items, as well as broad economic trends. But inventory reports
testify to not just the presence of the item but also to its value,
as well as to the number of items and the level of detail in the
inventory. A graph showing that the percentage of households
owning earthenware rose during the period from 1650 to 1750
means more than meets the eye when we know that the actual
value in all periods was close to 100 percent. Presence/absence
tables may be informative about the ownership of expensive
things, like silver plate or looms, but they are not as trustworthy
about cheap items like earthenware.
other household goods
Archaeology suggests that other
kinds of household goods are also underreported in the probate
inventories. Sewing items, such as thimbles and scissors, have
already been mentioned. Childrens toys are also rarely listed; a
study of inventories might lead one to think that eighteenth-century children had none. Most toys were made of perishable
materials, such as wood, but a few kinds, such as ceramic marbles
and toy-sized cups, regularly turn up at archaeological sites. Childrens clothes receive little attention in the inventories. Assessors
may have viewed childrens clothes and toys as the childrens and
not part of the householders estate. Three underreported items
that were denitely part of the adult world were chamber pots,
spoons, and tobacco pipes (Table 4). No tobacco pipes are mentioned in the 400 inventories of the Delaware sample, though they
have been found on every eighteenth-century site that has been
excavated in the state. Because they were cheap, their presence
or absence has few economic implications; it may, however, have
| 241
242 | J OHN BE DE LL
| 243
244 | J OHN BE DE LL
| 245
households. Archaeology shows that few people in eighteenthcentury America were so poverty-stricken that they had no desire,
or capacity, to keep up with fashions like tea drinking and to own
beautiful things.29
A comparison of probate inventories and archaeological ndings
shows that neither, by itself, gives a complete picture of material
life in the eighteenth century. Some kinds of information are
available only from one of the two sources. The hunting of small
animals, such as rabbits and turtles, is reected only in the bones
found by archaeologists, whereas bed linens, books, and pewter
dishes can be studied only through the inventories. On some
questions, the two data sets can be used to check each other.
Archaeology can show that the probate lists of ceramics are incomplete, and the probate inventories can testify that the occasional hammer or saw found by archaeologists represents many
more objects that never made it into the ground.
Even where they agree, archaeology and written records
provide a more detailed and nuanced picture together than apart.
For example, both archaeology and the written records suggest
that most people lived in small, poorly built, wooden houses. But
the written records indicate only the height of houses, the construction materials, and the number of rooms; archaeology gives
the dimensions of houses and reveals cellars, chimneys, glass windows, and other ne details. Combining archaeological data with
probate inventory studies is a better way to achieve a complete
understanding of material life in colonial households.
The structure of contemporary scholarship, however, makes
such an interdisciplinary approach to the eighteenth century
difcult. Archaeological data is rarely published in a form that
historians can nd and employ; even historians studying ceramics
usually rely solely on documentary sources. When more archaeological data is made available to historians, and more dialogue
takes place between practitioners of the two disciplines, a fuller
and more sophisticated appreciation of eighteenth-century material life may begin to emerge. The data presented here are intended as a small step in that direction.
29 Sidney Mintz, Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History (New York,
1986), 180183.